president

Fernandez enters office with her right-wing party holding absolute majority in the country’s legislature.

Laura Fernandez has been sworn in as Costa Rica’s new president and has vowed to fight rising crime in the Central American country, as well as maintain close ties with the United States.

Fernandez defeated a crowded field in the February 1 vote to replace outgoing president Rodrigo Chaves, who has remained a close ally of US President Donald Trump.

In an unorthodox move, Chaves is set to remain in the government as dual minister of the presidency and finance, assuring outsized influence in the incoming administration.

Further underscoring plans to maintain close ties with the US, Fernandez has appointed her second vice president, Douglas Soto, as ambassador to Washington.

Kristi Noem, the US special envoy spearheading the Trump administration’s militaristic approach to Latin America, dubbed “Shield of the Americas”, was at Friday’s inauguration.

So too was Israeli President Isaac Herzog, as part of efforts to boost ties with the region during the political fallout from the genocide in Gaza.

The 39-year-old Fernandez has vowed sweeping reforms to Costa Rica’s judiciary and security laws, as well as a broad crackdown on crime.

Last week, as she introduced her new security minister, Gerald Campos, Fernandez vowed “a war without quarter, a heavy-handed war against organised crime”.

Costa Rica has long been considered one of the most stable countries in Central America, but crime has surged in recent years as it has increasingly become a transit route for smuggling drugs to the US.

Costa Rica is building a maximum security prison modelled on El Salvador’s anti-terrorism CECOT centre, where hundreds of Venezuelans were held without trial after deportation ⁠from the US early last year.

Like El Salvador, Costa Rica has also agreed to accept non-citizens deported from the US per an agreement signed in March.

Rights groups have condemned the so-called “third-country agreements” for stranding deportees in countries in which they have no ties and could be subject to inhumane conditions.

Fernandez’s right-wing Sovereign People’s Party (PPSO) won 31 of 57 seats in the single-chamber legislature.

That gives her party an absolute majority as she takes office.

Costa Rica inaugurated right-wing president Laura Fernandez on Friday as supporters gathered in the national stadium. Fernandez promised to confront ‘organised crime’ while in office.

Prosecutors charge Florida served as central hub in 2021 assassination of Moise, which sparked ongoing political crisis.

Four people have been convicted in the United States in connection with the 2021 assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moise.

Arcangel Pretel Ortiz, Antonio Intriago, Walter Veintemilla and James Solages were found guilty on Friday of conspiring to kill or kidnap Moise, whose assassination left a political vacuum in the Caribbean nation that has compounded overlapping security and humanitarian crises.

They were also convicted of providing material support for the plot in violation of US law. All four face possible life sentences.

US prosecutors have said that the south of Florida, the closest US state to Haiti, served as a central hub for planning and funding Moise’s assassination.

During the trial, which began nearly two months ago, the defence argued that the defendants were scapegoats.

They claimed they had instead been involved in a plan to serve Moise an arrest warrant, amid a dispute about whether the president had overstayed his term.

They further maintained that Colombian mercenaries involved in the assassination were meant to accompany Haitian police to execute the warrant, but that Moise was killed by his own security forces before they arrived.

“This is a Haitian plot, and it is ⁠a Haitian conspiracy,” defence lawyer Emmanuel Perez said, as reported by the Miami Herald.

US prosecutors, in turn, charged that the men initially sought to remove and replace Moise, but the plan eventually escalated to assassination.

A fifth defendant, Christian Emmanuel Sanon, a Haitian-born doctor who allegedly wanted to be named president after Moise was killed, was set to be tried at a later date due to health issues.

Eight other individuals accepted plea deals as part of the US investigation.

No national elections have been held in Haiti since Moise’s assassination, although a provisional council was appointed in September 2024 to organise new polls.

The council has since been replaced by US-backed Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aime, who has said elections will be held by the end of the year.

The UN has said a stable government is essential to restoring order in Haiti, which has been beset by a series of natural disasters and rising violence, with criminal gangs controlling large swaths of territory.

At least 8,100 gang killings were documented in 2025, with insecurity displacing about 1.5 million people, according to the UN.

NEW YORK — President Trump’s 10% global tariffs were declared unlawful by a federal trade court in a fresh blow to the administration’s economic agenda, several months after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated earlier levies he’d imposed.

A divided three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan on Thursday granted a request by a group of small businesses and two dozen mostly Democrat-led states to vacate the tariffs. Trump imposed the 10% duties in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which had never previously been invoked.

The court for now only immediately blocked the administration from enforcing the tariffs against the two companies that sued and Washington state, making clear that it was not issuing a so-called universal injunction. The panel found that the other states that sued lacked standing because they aren’t direct importers, instead arguing that they were harmed by having to pay higher prices for goods when businesses passed on tariff costs.

It wasn’t immediately clear what the ruling would mean for now for other importers that had been paying the contested levies.

The majority of the panel rejected the administration’s stance that “balance-of-payments deficits” — a key criterion for imposing the Section 122 tariffs — was “a malleable phrase.” They concluded that Trump’s proclamation imposing the levies failed to identify that such deficits existed within the meaning of the 1974 law, instead using “trade and current account deficits to stand in the place.”

The decision is the latest setback for the president’s effort to levy tariffs without input from Congress. Earlier duties — overturned by the Supreme Court on Feb. 20 — were issued under a different law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. In that case, the justices ruled Trump had exceeded his authority, kicking off a legal scramble by importers for almost $170 billion in refunds.

The U.S. Justice Department could challenge the trade court’s latest ruling by taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled against the Trump administration during the last tariff fight.

Section 122 allows presidents to impose duties in situations where the U.S. faces what the law defines as “fundamental international payments problems.” Even before Trump issued the tariffs, economists and policy experts debated whether the president would be able to build a solid legal framework using the statute.

In a proclamation declaring the use of Section 122, Trump said that tariffs were justified because the U.S. runs a “large and serious” trade deficit. He also pointed to the negative net flows of income from investments Americans have overseas and other things that showed the U.S. balance-of-payments relationship with the rest of the world was deteriorating.

Under the law, presidents have the ability to impose tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. on a short-term basis to address concerns about how money is flowing in and out of the country. Those concerns include “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” and an “imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar.”

Unlike other legal options Trump might pursue to impose tariffs, Section 122 can be invoked without waiting for a federal agency to conduct an investigation to determine whether the levies are justifiable. But they can still be challenged in court.

The small businesses and states that sued argued that Section 122 became outdated when the U.S. ditched the gold standard decades ago. They say Trump improperly conflated “balance-of-payments deficits” with U.S. trade deficits in order to justify using the law.

They also allege that Trump’s order announcing the Section 122 tariffs was “riddled with omissions and mischaracterizations” around the meaning of a balance-of-payments deficit. The trade deficit cited by Trump is just one part of calculating the country’s balance of payments position, the states say.

Under Section 122, the president can order import duties of as much as 15%. The executive action can last 150 days, at which point Congress would have to extend it. Trump has said he would aim to increase the rate to 15% from 10%.

The states argue that Trump’s new tariffs violate other requirements in Section 122, including that such duties not be discriminatory in their application. The states argue that Trump’s new tariffs improperly exempt some goods from Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

According to the complaint, the Trump administration conceded during the previous litigation over his IEEPA tariffs that trade deficits “are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.”

The clash over Section 122 emerged just as the legal fight over refunds from Trump’s IEEPA tariffs began to heat up. A different judge in the Court of International Trade, U.S. Judge Richard Eaton, is overseeing the massive refund effort and ordered Customs and Border Protection to give him regular updates on a largely automated process the government will use to issue most refunds.

Larson and Tillman write for Bloomberg.

Who won the 2020 election?

Was the Capitol attacked on Jan. 6, 2021?

Can Donald Trump be elected to a third term as president?

No brainers, right?

The answers are, of course, “Joe Biden,” “yes” and “no.” Any fact- and reality-based American would say so. But that humongous class of people pointedly doesn’t include the president of the United States. And apparently for that reason, his nominees for federal judgeships — the very jobs in which you’d most want fact-based individuals — hem, haw, stammer and ultimately decline to give direct answers when Democratic senators test them with such easy-peasy questions at confirmation hearings.

One after another, month after month, Trump nominees for district and appeals courts across the land say that the answers to the questions are matters of debate, of “significant political dispute.” Well, they’re in dispute only because Trump says they are, as does every ambitious officeholder and office-seeker desperate to remain in the retributive ruler’s good graces — including, alas, would-be judges.

To watch them squirm and then squirt out the same rehearsed reply, the same legalistic word salad, just like the dozens of nominees before them would be hilarious (see below) if it weren’t so ominous for the rule of law in the nation.

Trump nominees for other high-ranking jobs, likewise prepped for Senate Democrats’ questions by their Trump handlers, give the same rote response. But the fact that candidates for lifetime seats on the federal bench, making decisions of life-changing consequences for millions of Americans, would choose to dodge the truth is most sickening.

In their truth-trolling to keep Trump happy, lest he yank their chance at new black robes, these candidates fail the test of judicial independence. As one Democrat, Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, told four district judge nominees last week at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, their humiliating hedging “on an issue of fact” — Biden won in 2020 — “reflects not only on your honesty but really on your fitness to be a federal judge.”

Indeed. That judicial nominees would curry Trump’s favor bodes ill for future federal jurisprudence in the one branch of government that’s stood up for the rule of law against Trump, repeatedly, when Congress and the Supreme Court have not. To be fair, a number of judges confirmed in Trump’s first term have been among the many who’ve ruled against his and his administration’s second-term abuses of power. Yet just as Trump has populated his Cabinet and executive branch with sycophants, unlike in Trump 1.0, he’s obviously applying new litmus tests to potential judges. One of them, clearly, is playing along with his election lies.

His nominees’ failure to speak truth to Trump’s power should be disqualifying. But they’re not disqualified, because the Senate is run by Republicans who share their fear of him.

That fact is a big reason to hope that Democrats capture the majority in November’s midterm elections and that, under new management, the Senate will finally take seriously its constitutional “advice and consent” responsibility to act as a check on Trump nominees for the final two years of his term — including, perhaps, one for the Supreme Court.

And, yes, this is Trump’s final term, for all of his teasing about “Trump 2028.” The Constitution’s 22nd Amendment says as much in its opening line: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”

Yet the four wannabe district judges at last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing — Michael J. Hendershot of Ohio; Arthur Roberts Jones and John G.E. Marck, both of Texas; and Jeffrey T. Kuntz of Florida — struggled over that clear language.

All four hesitated when Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, asked them to describe the amendment. He even read its initial words before querying Marck, “Is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028?”

Marck paused, then sputtered: “Senator, with ah, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this to me strikes as more of a hypothetical of something that could be raised.”

“It’s not a hypothetical,” Coons countered, then asked again whether Trump is “eligible to run for a third term under our Constitution.”

“Um, I would have to, to review the, the actual wording of it,” Marck blabbered.

Coons turned to the others: “Anybody else brave enough to say that the Constitution of the United States prevents President Trump from seeking a third term?” Silence.

“Anybody willing to apply the Constitution by its plain language in the 22nd Amendment?” Coons persisted. Crickets.

His Democratic colleague, Blumenthal, inquired of the foursome, “Who won the 2020 election?” All agreed in turn that Biden “was certified” the winner. None would say he “won” because — as we and they know —Trump insists to this day that he won; he’s turned the power of his “Justice” Department to trying to prove that obvious falsehood. Far be it from these future judges to contradict the president who nominated them.

Here’s Hendershot’s gibberish to Blumenthal’s simple query: “Senator, I want to be mindful of the canons here. I know this question has come up many times in these hearings and it’s become an issue of significant political dispute and debate. So, with, with that, I would say that, that President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election.”

After the others replied similarly, Blumenthal turned justifiably scathing: “It’s pretty irrefutable that Joe Biden won the election. But you’re unwilling to use that word because you are afraid. You are afraid. Of what? President Trump? That is exactly what we do not need on the federal bench today. We need jurists who are fearless and strong, not weak and pathetic.”

Apparently unshamed, each similarly demurred when he asked if the Capitol had been attacked. “You’ve seen the videos, have you not?” Blumenthal blurted.

No matter, Senator. These would-be triers of fact apparently won’t believe their eyes. Not when their patron, the president, insists on lies.

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

As Israel faces growing international isolation over its regional wars, President Isaac Herzog is set to visit two countries in Central America – Panama and Costa Rica – to boost ties.

“President Herzog’s visit to Panama and Costa Rica reflects the importance of Israel’s ties with countries across Latin America and the renewed momentum in Israel’s relations with Central and South American nations,” a statement from the Israeli Foreign Ministry reads.

Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which has prompted an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over alleged war crimes, has made it a source of growing opprobrium around the world.

But a handful of countries, most of them led by allies of United States President Donald Trump, have continued to tout their strong ties with Israel, which has sought to maintain those relationships via diplomatic outreach.

What will Herzog’s visit consist of, what will it seek to accomplish, and what can it tell us about Israel’s diplomatic goals in Latin America?

When will the trip take place?

The Israeli Foreign Ministry has said that President Herzog will depart Israel on May 6 for a four-day official visit to Panama and Costa Rica.

Where will Herzog visit, and who will he meet?

The Israeli president will visit Panama first, meeting with President Jose Raul Mulino and government officials before continuing to Costa Rica to attend the inauguration of President-elect Laura Fernandez Delgado.

Herzog was invited to attend the ceremony by the outgoing pro-Israel President Rodrigo Chaves Robles and will also attend a dinner for heads of state. He will also meet with members of the Jewish community in both countries.

What is the significance of a visit by an Israeli president to Panama?

The Israeli Foreign Ministry has said that the Israeli president’s visit to Panama is the “first in history” and will help bolster ties with a country that it calls a “true friend of Israel and a current member of the UN Security Council”.

The meeting between Herzog and Mulino will follow up on discussions on bilateral ties held by the two leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January.

Is the trip connected to Panama’s status at the UN?

As Israel faces growing isolation on the world stage, it has sought dependable allies at international fora such as the United Nations, and the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s statement notes Panama’s current two-year term as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council.

While votes in the UN General Assembly have often gone overwhelmingly against Israel in recent years, Panama and Costa Rica have been among those who have joined with Israel and the US or abstained from voting.

Panama and Costa Rica both abstained from a 2024 United Nations resolution calling on Israel to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, and Panama was one of just 12 countries to abstain from a September vote in support of a two-state solution.

Herzog’s visit may be an effort to ensure that Panama remains an ally of Israel during its time on the UNSC.

What is Israel’s endgame for this regional tour?

While the United States is, by far, Israel’s most important ally, it has also celebrated partnerships with countries such as the United Arab Emirates in the Middle East and Argentinian President Javier Milei in South America.

Many of Israel’s allies are also close partners of the US, and some countries in Central America — many of them small states that depend on US support and trade — may see a closer partnership with Israel as a means of signalling their alignment with US interests.

Herzog’s visit will seek to strengthen those relationships, with the Foreign Ministry stating that the trip will bolster “strategic partnership between Israel and the countries and peoples of the region” and underscore the status of those countries as important allies.

Israel has celebrated previous steps deepening relations with countries in the region, including a free trade agreement it signed with Costa Rica in December, along with the opening of a trade office in Jerusalem, which Israel claims as its capital but is considered illegally occupied under international law.

The US Department of State expressed support for those agreements, stating that they would “deepen cooperation between Israel and Latin America, grounded in shared interests and real potential for prosperity”.

Is Israel trying to curtail the growing support for the Palestinian cause in Latin America?

Herzog’s trip may also seek to counter outspoken support for Palestine in Latin America, where leaders on the political left, such as Colombian President Gustavo Petro and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, have emerged as vocal critics of Israel.

President Lula recently condemned Israel’s seizure and detention of participants in a humanitarian aid flotilla bound for Gaza that included Brazilian national Thiago Avila, calling it an “unjustifiable action” that should be roundly condemned.

“The detention of the flotilla activists in international waters had already represented a serious affront to international law,” Lula said.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has shown an ability to make a lot of noise at the government agency known in recent years to be a little sleepy.

But his April 28 announcement that the Walt Disney Co.’s eight ABC TV stations will undergo an early review of their broadcast licenses is his loudest action yet taken on behalf of President Trump, who repeatedly threatened media outlets that he believes are critical of him.

Carr is calling for the review two years before any of the station licenses are up, citing the agency’s inquiry into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies and whether they violated federal anti-discrimination rules.

The timing of Carr’s move is raising eyebrows as it comes after First Lady Melania Trump’s call for the firing of ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over his April 23 comedy bit on the White House correspondents’ dinner. A tuxedo-clad Kimmel called Melania Trump “beautiful,” saying she had “the glow of an expectant widow.”

The first lady’s remarks came after a man armed with a shotgun, handgun and several knives breached security at the Washington black-tie event on April 25. The suspect, Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, was arrested and faces three criminal charges, including attempting to assassinate the president.

Kimmel’s gag became ammunition for right-wing commentators, who claim the left is stoking political violence.

The host said the joke was about the age difference between the 79-year-old president and his wife. Kimmel denied it was a call for violence and has continued to mock the president on his show.

Carr insisted at a Washington news conference last week that his demand for a review is not related to Kimmel’s remarks.

Although many are skeptical, Carr, who was at the April 25 dinner, told The Times there would be an action related to ABC coming soon. The conversation occurred hours before the shots were fired.

The investigation into Disney’s practices began in March 2025, part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reverse DEI initiatives across private companies, federal agencies, universities and other organizations.

After the 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, which spurred the Black Lives Matter movement, companies such as Disney and NBC-owned Comcast aggressively promoted their diversity efforts.

But experts believe Carr is acting on ABC at the behest of Trump, as the chairman has often expressed support on social media whenever the president criticizes one of the broadcast TV news outlets.

“It might be the case that Disney can get some early relief by saying this should be dismissed because this is really a 1st Amendment issue,” said James Speta, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law. “We all know what’s going on here — the administration doesn’t like the speech that’s coming out of the talent on the broadcasting airwaves.”

Disney is not commenting on Carr’s DEI investigation, but it earlier defended the record of its TV stations, which are ratings leaders in most markets. “We are confident that record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment and are prepared to show that through the appropriate legal channels,” the company said.

Here’s a primer on what to know and the challenges Disney may face.

Why are TV stations licensed by the government?

Government licensing regulates the spectrum allocated to broadcast channels, largely to prevent interference between TV signals. When renewals come up, the license holder must demonstrate that the station is serving the public interest by providing local news, program diversity and educational and informational shows for children. The procedure once occurred every three years, but deregulation efforts have extended that period to the current span of eight years.

When was the last time a TV station faced a significant license renewal challenge?

The most notable recent example was Fox Corp.’s Philadelphia station WTXF, which was up for a license renewal in October 2023. Activist groups filing the challenge said Fox was unfit to own the outlet after a judge ruled earlier that year that the company’s Fox News Channel had spread falsehoods about voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Fox paid $787 million to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems that alleged the cable news channel damaged the company’s reputation.

Fox News, which operates on cable and satellite and is therefore not subject to FCC control, has a different management team than the parent company’s local TV stations, which mostly cover their communities and do not typically present political commentary. The FCC rejected the renewal challenge in January 2025, noting that none of the false information on Fox News was heard on the Philadelphia station. WTXF was not cited in Dominion’s lawsuit.

Are there any other examples?

Yes. Other White House administrations have threatened to pull TV station licenses in response to negative news coverage. At the height of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, Richard Nixon’s allies unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the TV licenses of three stations then owned by the Washington Post.

Has a company ever lost its broadcast license?

RKO General, a unit of the General Tire and Rubber Co., was the last company to lose broadcast TV station licenses in 1987, including Los Angeles outlet KHJ. The case was related to corporate malfeasance and not broadcast content on the stations.

The process to revoke the RKO licenses took seven years from the moment the FCC voted in favor of the move.

But isn’t this case different?

Yes. Although the rule Carr mentioned is legitimate, the FCC has rarely if ever acted on it, according to one veteran TV executive who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. If Disney or any other company was found to violate the nondiscrimination rule, they would in previous eras probably be subjected to a just a fine, not the denial of a license, which would be viewed by many as government censorship.

What happens in the event that ABC licenses are not renewed?

Nothing immediately, as the licenses are in effect through 2028 to 2032, depending on the outlet. If Disney had to sell the stations, the price would probably be depressed due to pressure to unload the properties.

But public communications attorney Andrew Jay Schwartzman told The Times last month that the bar for denying a renewal is high and any effort would be tied up in court on constitutional grounds.

“The law intentionally sets out a very steep burden for the FCC to deny a license renewal; the process takes many years, during which time the licensee continues to operate normally under ‘continuing operating authority,’” Schwartzman said.

When a federal judge shot down a Trump administration policy of holding immigrants without bond last December, it seemed like a serious blow to the president’s mass deportation effort.

Instead, a top Justice Department official insisted the ruling wasn’t binding, and the administration continued denying detainees around the country a chance for release.

By February, the district court judge, Sunshine Sykes, was fed up. Sykes, a nominee of President Biden, accused Trump officials in a ruling that month of seeking “to erode any semblance of separation of powers,” adding that they could “only do so in a world where the Constitution does not exist.”

Hardly isolated, the case illustrates a broader pattern of defiance of lower court decisions in President Trump’s second term.

The failure of Trump officials to follow court orders has been highlighted most notably in individual immigration cases. But a review of hundreds of pages of court records by the Associated Press also shows an extraordinary record of violations in lawsuits over policy changes and other moves.

In the administration’s first 15 months in office, district court judges ruled it was violating an order in at least 31 lawsuits over a wide range of issues, including mass layoffs, deportations, spending cuts and immigration practices, the AP’s review of court records found. That’s about 1 out of every 8 lawsuits in which courts have at least temporarily blocked the administration’s actions.

The Trump administration’s power struggle with federal courts — which is testing basic tenets of U.S. democracy — reflects an expansive view of executive authority that has also challenged the independence of federal agencies, a president’s ethical obligations and the U.S. role in the international order.

Widespread noncompliance found

The Trump administration violations in the 31 lawsuits are in addition to more than 250 instances of noncompliance that judges have recently highlighted in individual immigration petitions — including failing to return property and keeping immigrants locked up past court-ordered release dates.

Legal scholars and former federal judges said they could recall at most a few violations of court rulings over the full four-year terms of other recent presidential administrations, including Trump’s first time in office. They also noted previous administrations were generally apologetic when confronted by judges; the Trump administration’s Justice Department has been combative in some cases.

“What the court system is experiencing in the last year and a half is just qualitatively completely different from anything that’s preceded it,” said Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who studies federal courts and is tracking litigation against the Trump administration.

Though Trump officials eventually backed down in about a third of the 31 lawsuits, legal experts say their treatment of court orders poses serious dangers.

“The federal government should be the institution most devoted to the rule of law in this country,” said David Super, a constitutional law scholar at Georgetown University. “When it ceases to feel itself bound, respect for the rule of law is likely to break down across the country.”

The White House’s aggressive policy moves have prompted a barrage of lawsuits — more than 700 and counting.

Higher courts boost Trump efforts

The AP’s review also found that higher courts, including the Supreme Court, overruled the district courts and sided with the White House in nearly half of the 31 cases. Critics say those decisions are emboldening the administration to ignore judges’ orders.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the higher courts had overturned “unlawful district court rulings.” The administration will “continue to comply with lawful court rulings,” she added in a written statement.

“President Trump’s entire Administration is lawfully implementing the America First agenda he was elected to enact,” the statement said.

Among other instances of noncompliance, judges found the White House defied rulings when it deported scores of accused gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador, withheld billions of dollars in foreign aid and failed to restore programming at the Voice of America. The three cases date to the first few months of the new administration, but judges have continued to find violations since then, including in two cases in April.

“The danger is that this gets normalized,” said JoAnna Suriani, counsel at the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy, which is tracking noncompliance cases. The group is also involved in litigation against the administration.

‘Ham-handed,’ ‘hallucinating’

In October, U.S. District Judge William Smith took little time to conclude Homeland Security officials were flouting one of his orders. Smith, a nominee of President George W. Bush, had blocked them from making billions of dollars in disaster relief funding to states contingent on cooperation with the president’s immigration priorities.

The Department of Homeland Security responded by keeping the immigration requirement on some grants, but making it contingent on a higher court overriding Smith’s injunction. The judge called the move “ham-handed” and said the agency was trying to “bully the states.”

In a case over the suspension of refugee admissions, U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a Biden nominee, accused the Justice Department last May of “hallucinating new text” in an appellate court order and “rewriting” it to achieve the government’s preferred outcome.

In four additional cases the AP reviewed, judges stopped short of a clear written finding of noncompliance but still criticized the administration’s response to their orders.

Of the judges who have confirmed violations, 22 were appointed by Democratic presidents and seven by Republican presidents.

Former federal judges Jeremy Fogel and Liam O’Grady said jurists are losing trust in the integrity of the Department of Justice.

That’s making them “more aggressive in accusing the government of bad faith,” said O’Grady, who along with Fogel is part of the nonpartisan democracy group Keep Our Republic.

Fogel said judges are also getting frustrated.

“They make orders and the orders don’t get complied with, and then they have to inquire why the orders are not being complied with, and that’s where it gets very mushy and very political,” he said.

Education case raises alarms

In Eureka, Calif., school administrator Lisa Claussen is worried about the impact on her students’ mental health if a judge does not find the Education Department in violation of a court order on federal grants.

Grant money allowed the school district in the poor coastal community in Northern California to hire more than a dozen psychologists and social workers to help students struggling with drug use and suicidal thoughts.

Education officials in the Trump administration told schools in California and other states last year that it was discontinuing the grants; the administration opposed diversity considerations in the grant process.

U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson blocked the move permanently in December, but California and 15 other states now say the administration is making an end run around her injunction by imposing new rules, including an initial limit of six months of funding.

Attorneys for the Education Department said they wanted to see whether schools were making progress on performance goals before releasing additional funds. The judge’s order did not block the six-month limit, they added in a court filing.

Evanson, a Biden nominee, has yet to rule.

In the absence of a one-year funding guarantee, Eureka City Schools and other districts say they have already issued layoff notices to mental health providers or eliminated positions.

“We have many kids who don’t trust adults for very good reason, and to be able to just swipe this grant like they’re doing … ,” Claussen said in a phone interview, her voice trailing off. “We didn’t do anything wrong.”

Justice Department response

In court filings, Justice Department attorneys have generally disputed accusations that the government was not complying. They have argued over the meaning of words, cited favorable appellate court rulings and said they were acting outside the scope of the court’s order, among other legal maneuvering.

Outside of court, Trump and White House officials have railed against federal judges. Vice President JD Vance has even suggested the president could ignore court orders.

Will Chamberlain, senior counsel with the conservative legal advocacy group the Article III Project, said many of the judges who have found violations are ignoring laws that clearly prohibit their rulings.

Trump officials are “generally complying, appealing and winning,” he said. “If they were defying orders left and right, they’d be losing them.”

A justice’s rebuke

In March, a federal appeals court ruled Sykes, the judge in California, had probably exceeded her authority in requiring bond hearings nationwide and blocked her February decision.

The outcome was not unusual.

In 15 of the 31 lawsuits the AP reviewed, an appellate court or the Supreme Court either allowed the administration’s underlying policy, limited the district court’s efforts to correct or punish the noncompliance, or both.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized her fellow justices after one such ruling.

“This is not the first time the Court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last,” she wrote in June in a dissent joined by the court’s two other liberal justices. “Yet each time this Court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michael Casey in Boston contributed to this report.

“All the President’s Men” was released 50 years ago this month, an anniversary that’s been greeted with equal parts rue and reverence by the journalists, political junkies and discerning cinephiles who have worshiped the film for five decades.

As a member of all three of those constituencies, I’ve done my share of genuflecting, most recently as chief film critic at the Washington Post, whose city room was as vivid and fully realized in the movie as Robert Redford’s Bob Woodward and Dustin Hoffman’s Carl Bernstein.

Like so many Posties of my generation, I’ll never forget the so-real-it’s-surreal experience of walking into the fifth-floor newsroom for the first time in 2002. By then, standard-issue electric typewriters and six-ply carbon paper had been replaced by far less visually interesting computers. But the office’s pervading atmosphere of hard work and quiet focus felt uncannily similar to its big-screen analog.

For the last two years, I have been researching a book about the making of “All the President’s Men,” whose production involved almost as many contingencies and unresolved questions as Watergate itself. Among the film’s many mysteries, one I’ve found particularly intriguing has to do with Katharine Graham, publisher of the Washington Post and CEO of its parent company during the Watergate investigations. As the movie amply demonstrates, it took guts for Woodward and Bernstein to persevere with their reporting in the face of terrified sources and their own growing paranoia. But, unbeknownst to many observers at the time, Graham was enduring even more withering pressures, with determination that was all the more impressive for being almost entirely invisible.

I’m still in the process of discovering why she remained invisible in “All the President’s Men.” For now, it’s clear that the backstory is more nuanced than mere oversight or, as many are quick to assume, simple sexism.

In fact, William Goldman’s first script of the film featured a sequence with Graham and Woodward, a scene that appeared in every subsequent draft. Based on an actual meeting between the two, it’s a cagey game of cat-and-mouse, with the publisher taking the measure of a nervous, still-inexperienced journalist, looking for reassurance that his reporting will prove out.

Earlier this year, at a January staged reading of “All the President’s Men” at Harmony Gold Theater in Hollywood — a fundraiser for the Stella Adler Academy — it was possible for fans to conjure what might have been. Mark Ruffalo played Woodward and Ethan Hawke played Bernstein in a version of the movie assembled from different Goldman drafts.

A high point of the evening was when Ruffalo and actor Susan Traylor brought the Graham-Woodward scene to tentative, tense and teasingly playful life. After grilling Woodward about his sources and coyly asking him about Deep Throat’s identity, Traylor’s Graham asked him if the truth about Watergate would ever be revealed. “It may never come out,” Ruffalo’s Woodward replied. “Don’t tell me ‘never,’” Graham laments, before bringing the meeting to a close with a gently peremptory “Do better.”

In poring over director Alan J. Pakula and Goldman’s papers, I’ve probably read that scene dozens of times. But when I heard it play out in real time, I was ambushed by the emotions it stirred — a mixture of pride in Graham’s legacy and deep sadness at how that legacy has been so inexplicably ignored in recent years.

I was also sad that Redford, who died in September, wasn’t there. He often expressed regret that Graham wasn’t a featured character in “All the President’s Men.” Keenly aware of how her spine and steadfastness made Woodward and Bernstein’s work possible, he wanted to honor that crucial support. When I interviewed him for the first time in 2005, he insisted that fearless owners were every bit as important in preserving democracy as the reporters he and Hoffman helped glamorize.

Over the next two decades, every time I saw Redford, he bemoaned the “downward slide of this thing,” by which he meant the constellation of institutions “All the President’s Men” celebrates: not just journalism and a robust First Amendment but a Washington where investigators, prosecutors, judges, the Senate and Congress did their jobs regardless of partisan loyalties, and a Hollywood where a studio as mainstream as Warner Bros. would agree to finance a tough-minded film about a contentious and still-raw period in recent history.

Granted, that film was based on a bestselling book and anchored by two huge stars. But today, with political and corporate leaders — including media companies — falling over each other to curry favor with President Trump, “All the President’s Men” feels like an artifact from a vanished age.

Nowhere is this more distressingly true than at the Post itself, where the newsroom immortalized by the movie has been slashed by more than a third, and where Jeff Bezos, who bought the paper in 2013, seems intent on erasing Katharine Graham’s legacy until it vanishes completely. During the first Trump administration, Bezos stood up to threats against the Post and the press at large that would make Nixon blush, or at least pea-green with envy.

Now, Bezos has become a one-man meme of what author Timothy Snyder calls “obedience in advance,” quashing an endorsement of Kamala Harris, ostentatiously grinning his way through Trump’s second inauguration, vastly overpaying for a promotional film about First Lady Melania Trump and staying conspicuously mum (at least publicly) when a Post reporter’s home was raided by the FBI in January.

All of this has come at an enormous moral and material cost, with thousands of readers canceling their subscriptions and an alarming number of the Post’s finest reporters and writers leaving for other publications and platforms. As my former boss Marty Baron told my former colleague Ruth Marcus in the New Yorker in February, Bezos’ turnaround has been “sickening” to witness: “a case study in near-instant, self-inflicted brand destruction.”

Of course, that brand was built, in no small part, by “All the President’s Men,” which taught a generation how to walk, talk, dress and act like real reporters. (Hint: A good corduroy jacket and a pen in your mouth can’t hurt.)

In 1976, Pakula was interviewed about his dealings with Graham, whom he admired tremendously and with whom he would become close friends. “I could do a film about the Katharine Graham story,” he enthused. “It’s a superb story.”

Thirty years later, Steven Spielberg would bring Pakula’s idea to fruition with “The Post,” about Graham’s decision to publish the Pentagon Papers, a dress rehearsal for the even higher stakes of Watergate a year later.

“The Post,” which starred Meryl Streep in a shrewdly judged performance of aristocratic assurance and creeping insecurity, premiered in Washington less than a year into Trump’s first administration. Bezos attended that screening, which many of us saw as tacit acknowledgment that he was taking her lessons in character, comportment and competence to heart.

That was clearly wishful thinking. Graham may have finally assumed her rightful place in the newspaper-movie canon, but we’re still left to ponder her absence from the most iconic journalism movie of the 20th century.

It’s no longer the shoe-leather reporters who need a big-screen tutorial in how to do their jobs. It’s their bosses. A simple place to start would be to memorize the best two-word speech to never appear in a major motion picture: Do better.

Ann Hornaday was a film critic at the Washington Post from 2002 to 2025, when she retired. “All the President’s Men” plays at TCM Classic Film Festival Saturday at 2:45 p.m.

WASHINGTON — President Clinton consulted congressional leaders Wednesday on his policy toward Bosnia but continued to avoid a firm commitment to seek congressional approval before deciding to send American forces there.

The 1973 War Powers Act requires the President to notify Congress in most cases before sending troops into areas of potential hostilities and requires that the troops be withdrawn within 60 days if Congress does not authorize their presence.

The law was enacted over President Richard Nixon’s veto. Each successive Administration has argued that it represents an unconstitutional infringement on the President’s powers as commander in chief.

During the last 12 years of Republican administrations, Democrats in Congress have made a major issue of support for the War Powers Act. That puts Clinton and his aides in a potentially difficult situation, which they have tried to avoid by evading questions about precisely where they stand.

Clinton continued that approach Wednesday. “Ask my lawyer, I don’t play lawyer,” he said when asked at a White House photo session whether he believes the law is constitutional. “I think it’s worked reasonably well.”

Later, White House Communications Director George Stephanopoulos said: “The President is reviewing the War Powers Act at this time. That is under review by the National Security Council and the counsel’s office.”

White House aides have fallen back on carefully worded pledges to consult with Congress in a manner that is “consistent with” the war powers law but not necessarily “pursuant to” it. Once Clinton decides on a course of action, he “will go to the Congress if it is required,” Stephanopoulos said.

President George Bush followed a somewhat similar path before the Persian Gulf War. Bush argued that he did not need congressional authorization before sending troops to the Gulf but urged Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq before the actual war began. Bush insisted, however, that he had the power to go ahead with the attack if Congress voted against him.

Clinton’s less clear-cut position appears to be acceptable to congressional leaders.

Although members of Congress have often touted the War Powers Act as an important safeguard against unbridled executive power, few over the last 20 years have relished the prospect of using it.

One indication of the weakness of the law came in the House on Wednesday when it finally got around to approving a resolution authorizing the sending of U.S. troops to Somalia. The authorization came five months after the troops were dispatched and the day after U.S. forces turned over control of the relief effort to the United Nations.

At a ceremony at the White House to honor troops returning from the African nation, Clinton linked their experiences with the events that may soon unfold in the former Yugoslav republics.

“Your successful return reminds us that other missions lie ahead for our nation,” he said. “You have proved again that our involvement in multilateral operations need not be open-ended or ill-defined, that we can go abroad and accomplish some distinct objectives and then come home again when the mission is accomplished.”

At a later White House ceremony, where he talked about the importance of rapid action on health care reform, Clinton defended his Administration against the charge that monitoring developments in Bosnia-Herzegovina has interfered with his other activities and that it has tried to do too many things at once.

“One of the most challenging things we have to do in this city at this time is to break a mind-set that we have one problem at a time and we’ll get on it and we’ll only think about that,” Clinton said.

WASHINGTON — More than 60 days into his war with Iran, well past public deadlines he had set for its end, President Trump sat through a briefing from U.S. Central Command outlining yet another set of options for a fresh round of strikes.

On offer Thursday were unpalatable choices for a president eager to move on from the conflict he started. Renewed U.S. attacks risk inflaming the war beyond Trump’s control, undermining a fragile ceasefire for which American allies fought hard. But the very need for such a briefing underscored how difficult a position the president has found himself in.

A legal deadline for congressional authorization arrived Friday that threatens to increase pressure on the administration — and underscore lagging support for the most unpopular U.S. war in modern times. Global oil prices remain above $100 a barrel entering the midterm election season. And a diplomatic breakthrough with Tehran appears nowhere in sight.

Signs pointed to another U.S. military buildup in the region this week that could portend a fresh round of fighting. A U.S. Defense official familiar with the matter said the U.S. military has used the weeks-long pause to replenish its munitions. So, too, have the Iranians, who have reportedly increased their efforts to dig out stockpiles of missiles and drones buried by U.S. and Israeli strikes.

“Amateurs look at strategy; pros look at logistics,” said Robert Pape, a professor of international relations at the University of Chicago. “I have seen more buildup of force — actual firepower, with the addition of a third aircraft carrier, and logistics — than we’ve seen since the beginning of the war in February. So there’s been a notable change in the past week.”

The logistical surge appears to be a stream of Boeing C-17 military transport aircraft making their way to the region, alongside the addition of a third aircraft carrier. Only two carriers were in place when Trump first launched the war Feb. 28.

“That’s a pretty good sign that they’re mobilizing,” Pape added. “These are strategic and operational indicators. I would imagine they’re looking for a sharp knock.”

More than 10,000 Marines from expeditionary units are now in theater, giving Trump the option to launch limited ground operations, such as seizing a small stretch of coastline or initiating an assault on Kharg Island, the hub of Iran’s oil industry.

Occupying Iranian territory could provide the Trump administration with leverage in negotiations with Tehran. But it would also carry significant domestic political risks. A clear majority of Americans — including many Republicans — oppose a ground war.

More troops would be necessary to hold ground for any substantial period of time, experts said.

“I do have the impression, from some of the briefings that I have received as well as other sources, that an imminent military strike is very much on the table,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, told CNN.

Departing Washington for the weekend, Trump told reporters that a “very disjointed” Iranian government, torn internally over whether to agree to a nuclear deal with the Americans, had put his administration “in a bad position,” uncertain whom to negotiate with or whether any agreement it might strike would be enforced.

“Right now we have negotiations going on. They’re not getting there,” Trump said. “They want to make a deal, but I’m not satisfied with it. So we’ll see what happens.”

And yet, the longer talks continue, the more pain Americans can expect to feel as global energy and fertilizer prices continue to skyrocket over disrupted commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, affecting the costs of pocketbook items ranging from food and fuel to airfare.

Trump hopes a brief new round of powerful strikes, potentially targeting Iranian infrastructure, will force Iran’s hard-liners to support a negotiated settlement — a gambit that could backfire, after an inaugural volley of strikes in the war killed off the government’s moderate voices, empowering the militant leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“Do we want to go and just blast the hell out of them and finish them forever, or do we want to try and make a deal?” Trump asked, speaking with reporters on the South Lawn. “I mean, those are the options.”

In a letter addressed to Congress, Trump dismissed a 60-day deadline for congressional authorization for the war set forth in the War Powers Act, claiming the ceasefire with Iran had effectively stopped the clock on the administration’s legal responsibilities. Democrats argue that an ongoing U.S. blockade of Iranian ports constitutes an act of war that, absent a formal diplomatic agreement, requires congressional approval.

Speaking with reporters, Trump offered a less nuanced explanation.

“It’s never been used, it’s never been adhered to,” Trump said of the act. “Every other president considered it totally unconstitutional, and we agree with that.”

The internal debate over resuming the war comes after Pentagon officials informed Congress this week that the conflict, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, had cost taxpayers $25 billion thus far.

Pete Hegseth, the president’s secretary of Defense, defended the effort at a congressional hearing Wednesday, telling lawmakers that the United States was “absolutely” winning the war.

“Militarily,” Hegseth said, “on the battlefield, it’s been an astounding military success.”

He declined to say whether he had advised the president to launch the war in the first place.

Most presidents battling the perception of being too chummy with Russia might think twice about picking up the phone offering congratulations to the Russian leader on his election.

Most presidents, that is, except for President Trump.

TRUMP’S CALL TO PUTIN

On Tuesday, Trump recounted for reporters his “very good call” to congratulate newly reelected President Vladimir Putin, after Russian officials had already confirmed the two leaders had chatted.

“We had a very good call,” Trump said, “and I suspect that we’ll be meeting in the not-too-distant future to discuss the arms race, which is getting out of control.”

Not a fan of the call: Arizona Sen. John McCain. “An American president does not lead the Free World by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections,” McCain said in a statement and online.

COAST-TO-COAST LAWSUITS AGAINST TRUMP

There’s new legal and political jeopardy for Trump in both California and New York. A former Playboy Playmate is suing to break a confidentiality agreement that keeps her from discussing the president, at the same time that a judge in the Empire State has rejected his request to quash a lawsuit stemming from a charge of sexual assault.

Those legal challenges are on top of the ongoing battle over an adult film actress’ insistence that her own confidentiality agreement is invalid.

Sign up for the Essential Politics newsletter »

NATIONAL POLITICS LIGHTNING ROUND

— A California law that requires pregnancy centers — even those that are faith-based — to inform clients about abortion faced sharp, skeptical questions in the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

— The nation’s election systems, targeted by Russian hacking in the 2016 presidential race, need stiffer defenses to block future cyber-assaults, a bipartisan group of senators said Tuesday.

— Trying to persuade Trump to back down from his increasingly public battle with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Republican leaders turned Tuesday to the approach that has worked for Fox network personalities: They talked to him through the television screen.

— Retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a longtime analyst for Fox News, told colleagues he is done with the network he says has become “a propaganda machine” for President Trump.

— Democrats see the tumultuous Trump presidency as the means to finally oust a five-term Republican congressman in Colorado, one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents in the November midterm election.

— Congressional negotiators laboring to write a trillion-dollar plan to fund the federal government are caught up in last-minute partisan disputes over abortion rights, healthcare costs and the fate of a Northeastern railway tunnel that Trump has sought to derail.

— Education Secretary Betsy DeVos faced blistering questioning from House Democrats on Tuesday as they confronted her on gun control, racism and LGBTQ rights.

— As the Trump administration barrels ahead with its plan to apply stiff tariffs on imported metals starting Friday, governments and businesses across the globe are in a fog as to what is happening and are bracing for at least a short-term hit.

— A study says the coalitions behind the nation’s two major political parties have grown steadily apart over the past decade. Democrats are increasingly racially diverse, younger and college educated. Republicans have remained overwhelmingly white and non-college-educated.

— A wall on which border? “We might need to build a wall between California and Arizona as well,” said Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday.

NO SANCTUARY HERE, SAYS ONE ORANGE COUNTY CITY

The small city of Los Alamitos is making big news for its rejection of California’s new “sanctuary state” law that limits the immigration assistance provided by local law enforcement officers.

Los Alamitos leaders on Monday approved an ordinance that exempts their city from Senate Bill 54, a state law that took effect Jan. 1. It marks a rare effort by a city to challenge the sanctuary movement, which has wide support among elected officials.

NO CASH FROM APPOINTEES TO STATE POSTS?

Californians appointed to state posts could soon be barred from writing checks to lawmakers who must vote on their nomination.

A Central Valley assemblyman has introduced legislation to outlaw contributions to state senators by political appointees for up to a year between the time they are chosen by the governor until their required confirmation.

“The state Legislature should safeguard the public’s confidence in our government institutions,” said Assemblyman Adam Gray (D-Merced).

TODAY’S ESSENTIALS

— Here’s how California Republicans are responding to Trump’s attacks on Mueller and to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe‘s firing.

— The Los Angeles Police Department’s practice of keeping video from body cameras and patrol cars under wraps will end after the agency’s civilian bosses approved a policy Tuesday that requires the release of recordings in the future.

— New state legislation would end a city of Los Angeles policy giving council members veto power over proposed homeless housing projects in their districts.

— Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is on a two-week visit to the U.S. that will include a visit to Los Angeles to meet with entertainment and defense executives, and Silicon Valley to meet with tech leaders.

— Despite pleas from relatives of those killed in the 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, leaders of the state’s largest public sector pension fund have rejected a proposal to consider divesting from retailers who sell assault-style rifles.

— California privacy advocates are asking Facebook to stop opposing their proposed November ballot measure after the Cambridge Analytica debacle.

— Gov. Jerry Brown took aim at opponents of his signature high-speed rail project, cursing at those who argue that rising cost estimates threaten the effort’s viability.

LOGISTICS

Essential Politics is published Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

You can keep up with breaking news on our politics page throughout the day. And are you following us on Twitter at @latimespolitics?

Miss Monday’s newsletter? Here you go.

Please send thoughts, concerns and news tips to politics@latimes.com.

Did someone forward you this? Sign up here to get Essential Politics in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — The State Department said that it is preparing a limited release of commemorative U.S. passports celebrating America’s 250th birthday that feature a picture of President Trump, who would be the first living president to be featured in the travel document.

The concept for the special passport, including a rendering of Trump’s stern-looking visage, had been under consideration for months before finally being approved late Monday and publicly announced Tuesday. Between 25,000 and 30,000 of the new passports will be available to applicants at the Washington passport office beginning shortly before July 4.

It’s the latest instance of Trump having his name and likeness added to buildings, documents and other highly visible tributes. There are efforts to put Trump’s signature on all new U.S. paper currency, also a first for a sitting president, as well as to include his image on a gold commemorative coin to celebrate the country’s founding.

The commemorative passport will be the default document for people applying in person at the Washington office, although those who want a standard passport will be able to get one by applying online or outside Washington, officials said.

“As the United States celebrates America’s 250th anniversary in July, the State Department is preparing to release a limited number of specially designed U.S. passports to commemorate this historic occasion,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said.

“These passports will feature customized artwork and enhanced imagery while maintaining the same security features that make the U.S. passport the most secure documents in the world,” he said.

The limited release passport will feature Trump’s picture over a gold imprimatur of his signature to an interior page, while the cover will feature the words “United States of America” in bold gold print at the top and “Passport” at the bottom — a reversal of the standard cover.

In addition, a small gold laminate American flag, with the number 250 encircled by stars, will be at the bottom of the back cover.

The Bulwark reported earlier on the commemorative passports.

The only presidents featured in current U.S. passports are in a double-page depiction of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota — George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.

Other depictions include the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and scenes of the Great Plains, mountains and islands. Current passports also contain quotations from Martin Luther King Jr. as well as Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower.

The addition of Trump’s picture and signature to the passport book is the newest step his aides have taken to increase the president’s visibility, including adding his name to the U.S. Institute of Peace building and the Kennedy Center performing arts venue.

Trump also has made waves with his plans for a new White House ballroom and a massive arch to be built at one of the entrances to Washington from Virginia.

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors on Monday charged 31-year-old Torrance resident Cole Tomas Allen with attempting to assassinate President Trump after rushing past security at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner in Washington on Saturday.

The domestic terrorism charge, announced during a brief arraignment hearing in federal court in Washington and detailed in a subsequent charging document, carries a potential sentence of life in prison for the Caltech graduate and high school tutor.

Prosecutors also charged Allen with transporting firearms across state lines while traveling by train from California to Washington and with discharging a firearm during the incident at the Washington Hilton, where officials said a federal agent was shot in his ballistic vest.

In the charging document, prosecutors also detailed an email Allen allegedly sent to family members just as he was preparing to breach the event perimeter, in which he allegedly wrote that top Trump administration officials were his target but that he was willing to “go through” others at the event to reach them.

Allen was instead taken down by agents shortly after rushing past them and before descending stairs and entering a ballroom where Trump and other top administration officials were seated. No officials were injured during the incident, which the White House described as the latest in a string of attempts on Trump’s life.

Federal public defenders assigned to represent Allen did not respond to a request for comment Monday. Allen could not be reached for comment. A person previously reached at the Allen family home in Torrance — which was searched by the FBI over the weekend — declined to comment.

At the morning hearing, Asst. U.S. Atty. Jocelyn Ballantine said Allen “traveled across multiple state lines with a firearm” and “attempted to assassinate the president with a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun.”

Top administration officials — including acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel — echoed those claims at a subsequent news briefing. Blanche described Allen as a serious threat, while also downplaying his proximity to the president and the likelihood that he ever could have caused harm to administration officials.

“Law enforcement did not fail. They did exactly what they are trained to do,” Blanche said. He said Allen had either fallen or was tackled to the ground while under fire from law enforcement.

Blanche and Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said Allen was charged with attempting to assassinate the president because of his writings — which Trump and others in the administration have referred to as a “manifesto.”

Blanche said officials have seized devices from Allen’s hotel room and his home in Torrance, which could add additional context to his motivations, but officials were not prepared to discuss what may have been found on those devices. Pirro said additional charges were pending.

Blanche emphasized that the investigation into the incident is in its early stages. It still isn’t clear, for example, who fired the shot that struck the Secret Service agent.

“We’re still looking at that,” Blanche said.

In the charging document, prosecutors included the text of the manifesto — an emailed document they allege Allen had scheduled to automatically send to family members around the time he entered the secured area at the hotel, in which he declared that Trump administration officials were his targets.

In the emailed document, titled by the writer as an “Apology and Explanation,” Allen allegedly wrote that Trump administration officials would be “prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest” in terms of how he targeted them.

“I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that,” he wrote, according to the charging document.

Allen allegedly wrote that Secret Service agents were “targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated non-lethally if possible”; that police, hotel employees and hotel guests were not his targets; and that he would be using buckshot to “minimize casualties,” according to the document.

“I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it,” he wrote, according to the documents. Allen, a tutor in Torrance, also apologized to his family, colleagues and students, but said he felt he had to act as a U.S. citizen represented by the Trump administration.

“What my representatives do reflects on me. And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes,” he allegedly wrote.

The charging document also described the initial moments when Allen entered the secured area and a Secret Service agent was allegedly shot in his ballistic vest.

Prosecutors wrote that federal agents “heard a loud gunshot” as Allen rushed through a metal detector holding a long gun, that a Secret Service officer identified only by the initials “V.G.” was “shot once in the chest” in a ballistic vest, and that he “drew his service weapon and fired multiple times at ALLEN, who fell to the ground and suffered minor injuries but was not shot.”

Allen was found in possession of a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun and a Rock Island Armory 1911 .38-caliber pistol, the document alleged.

Prosecutors requested Allen be held in detention. U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Sharbaugh, who presided over the hearing, set a second hearing for Thursday morning to determine whether Allen will be held in custody.

Federal public defenders assigned to Allen after he submitted a financial affidavit to the court requesting representation noted that Allen has no prior criminal record, a factor in determining a criminal suspect’s handling before trial.

Those attorneys — Tezira Abe and Eugene Ohm — did not respond to a request for comment after the hearing.

Allen, clad in a royal blue jumpsuit, showed no visible injuries and said little at the hearing, aside from identifying himself and acknowledging that he understood the legal proceedings.

Allen had allegedly outlined his disdain for and intent to kill Trump administration officials in the manifesto written before the correspondents’ dinner. According to the New York Post, Allen in that document described himself as a “Friendly Federal Assassin” who wouldn’t hesitate to shoot any of the more than 2,600 people in attendance to reach officials.

Those at the event included hundreds of journalists and many Trump administration officials — including Vice President JD Vance and First Lady Melania Trump.

Allen had booked a room at the Washington Hilton, where the dinner took place.

Trump in a “60 Minutes” interview Sunday said he “wasn’t worried” at the sound of gunshots. “We live in a crazy world,” he said.

Trump, who has been dogged by questions about his relationship with the deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein throughout his second term, bristled at the shooter’s reference to a “pedophile” and “rapist” in the manifesto.

“I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody,” Trump said in the interview with CBS reporter Norah O’Donnell. “I’m not a pedophile.”

He also railed against O’Donnell for quoting that portion of the manifesto, saying it was inappropriate to do so.

During an earlier news conference Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the White House was considering whether to revise Secret Service protocols for large events attended by the president, despite his satisfaction with the agency’s performance at Saturday’s event.

Leavitt said the Secret Service successfully neutralized the suspect and cleared the president, first lady and vice president from the room within minutes.

Still, with major celebrations planned around the nation’s 250th anniversary, the World Cup and the Olympics, discussions on potential updates to Secret Service plans will begin this week, led by Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Leavitt said. For security reasons, the results of those discussions will likely be kept a secret, she added.

“If adjustments need to be made to protect the president, they will be made,” she said.

Leavitt also called on Congress to pass funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which houses the Secret Service, after a political impasse has led to an historic 73-day lapse in such funding.

Leavitt also suggested anti-Trump rhetoric from the president’s detractors played a role in him being targeted and needed to be toned down.

“It is inspiring these crazy people across the country to target not just the president, but those who work for him and those who support him,” Leavitt said.

“Nobody is recent years has faced more bullets and violence than President Trump,” she added. “This political violence stems from a systemic demonization of him and his supporters by commentators — yes, by elected members of the Democrat Party, and even some in the media.”

Blanche echoed that argument — pointing blame at the media, many of whom had been in the ballroom with Trump.

“When you have reporters, when you have media just being overly critical and calling the president horrible names for no reason and without evidence, without proof, it shouldn’t surprise us that this type of rhetoric takes place,” he said.

Good morning from Brussels.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Events in Washington DC this weekend caught Brussels off guard as officials were enjoying the start of spring.

A 31-year-old man named as Cole Tomas Allen has been arrested after opening fire Saturday evening outside the reception hall of the annual White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA gala), which Donald Trump was attending for the first time. The White House says it was a targeted attempt at the life of Trump and his officials.

Fortunately, no one was killed.

In Europe, EU leaders quickly voiced support for the US President, who had skipped the event for years before agreeing this time to attend, despite strained relations between the White House and the press corps under his second term.

“I just spoke to @POTUS Donald Trump to express my solidarity with him and @FLOTUS after the attempted attack,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wrote on X. She added that “political violence has no place in our democracies”.

French President Emmanuel Macron called the incident “unacceptable”, while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said: “We decide by majorities, not by the gun.”

Transatlantic tensions briefly faded, even as Reuters reported the US could seek to suspend Spain from NATO over its refusal to back the US and Israel’s war in Iran.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez played down the threat and joined EU leaders in condemning the attack. “Violence is never the answer,” Sánchez wrote on X. “Humanity will only move forward through democracy, coexistence and peace.”

On Sunday, Trump rejected any link between the armed intrusion at the WHCA dinner and the Middle East war. He said the incident would not “deter” him from “winning the war”.

Earlier in the weekend, Trump cancelled a trip to Pakistan planned for envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, writing on social media: “Too much time wasted on traveling, too much work!” He added, referring to Iran: “There is tremendous infighting and confusion within their ‘leadership’.”

On his side, after going to Oman and Pakistan over the weekend, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghtchi landed in Russia to meet Vladimir Putin.

According to the Iranian news agency Fars, Tehran has sent, via Pakistan, written messages to Washington regarding its “red lines” in the negotiations.

After talks with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, Araghchi wrote on Telegram that he had briefed his French counterpart on ceasefire developments and ongoing diplomatic efforts “to end the imposed war”. He stressed “the importance of European countries playing a constructive role in this process”.

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, the situation remains fragile. Over the weekend, Israel and Hezbollah accused each other of violating the ceasefire.

The Shia Islamist political party and military organisation released several statements on Sunday saying its fighters targeted Israeli troops and positions in response to Israeli ceasefire violations and attacks on Lebanese villages.

On Sunday evening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened a group of ministers and senior security officials to discuss both Iran and the situation in Lebanon, according to local media. One option under consideration is escalating strikes against Hezbollah, including targeting areas beyond southern Lebanon.

At least 2,509 people have been killed and 7,755 injured in Lebanon since the start of Israeli strikes in early March, the country’s health ministry said.

Lebanon’s Minister for Displaced Persons, and Technology and AI, Dr. Kamal Shehadi told Euronews’ Europe Today that “the truce is not holding” but there are “clear signs that both sides are making an effort” to avoid escalation beyond the current level of violence.

Shehadi said the government’s most important leverage to help disarm Hezbollah is having the vast majority of the Lebanese people backing them and calling for Hezbollah to surrender its weapons to the Lebanese Armed Forces.

“The international community is supportive of Lebanon’s intention to control all the weapons on Lebanese territory. Now, that’s not enough, clearly, and so what we need to do is continue to put pressure on Hezbollah to get Hezbollah to accept and to relinquish its weapons, because the weapons today are only going to bring more retaliation from Israel,” Shehadi said. Watch the full interview here.

Meanwhile, Brussels is preparing for the visit of Péter Magyar, whose opposition party won Hungary’s 12 April election.

“I will travel to Brussels on Wednesday for informal talks with the President of the European Commission on unlocking EU funds,” he wrote on X. “We have no time to waste.”

A honeymoon now begins between Budapest and Brussels after 16 years of tension under outgoing Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who announced on Saturday he won’t take up his seat in parliament after his Fidesz party suffered a heavy loss in the 12 April vote.

Meanwhile, incoming Prime Minister Magyar said on Saturday he had information that wealthy figures linked to Orbán’s outgoing government were moving assets abroad and called on authorities to detain fleeing oligarch families.

“I am aware that Hungary’s National Tax and Customs Administration (NAV), based on reports from banks, has suspended several high-value transfers linked to Antal Rogán’s circle on suspicion of money laundering. I call on the leadership of NAV to immediately freeze these stolen funds,” Magyar wrote on X, referring to the outgoing top minister under Orbán’s administration.

On 40th Chernobyl disaster anniversary, Zelenskyy accuses Russia of committing ‘nuclear terrorism’

As Ukrainians marked the 40th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Russia of “nuclear terrorism”, alleging it repeatedly sends attack drones over the site.

On social media, Zelenskyy warned that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has once again pushed the world to “the brink of a man-made disaster”.

He also said drones now regularly fly over Chernobyl. “The world must not allow this nuclear terrorism to continue, and the best way is to force Russia to stop its reckless attacks.”

Russian strikes on Ukraine continued through the anniversary, with Moscow launching 144 drones in a barrage during the night between Saturday and Sunday.

Read the full story by Lucy Davalou.

Germany suspects Russia of Signal phishing attacks targeting politicians

The German government believes Russia is behind a new phishing campaign targeting lawmakers and senior officials via the Signal messaging app.

The incident is the latest in Moscow’s hybrid war targeting Europe.

Victims are said to receive messages posing as Signal support, prompting them to enter a PIN, click a link or scan a QR code. If successful, the scam gives hackers access to messages, group chats, and any photos or files shared by the user.

Media reports say at least 300 accounts belonging to political figures were compromised. Civil servants, diplomats, military personnel and journalists were also targeted.

Vice-President Andrea Lindholz (CSU) has ruled out banning Signal, saying MPs should be free to decide how they communicate.

You can read the story of Sonja Issel & Evelyn Ann-Marie Dom here.

More from our newsroom

Zelenskyy says he is ready to meet Putin in Azerbaijan. On a visit to Azerbaijan, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he is ready to meet Vladimir Putin there, as US-led diplomatic talks have stalled in recent weeks. Read **Sasha Vakulina’**s story here.

Kenya’s Sabastian Sawe becomes first person to run marathon in less than two hours. In London, Kenya’s Sabastian Sawe made history by becoming the first athlete ever to break the two-hour barrier in the marathon. Jesús Maturana has the full story.

Today we are also keeping an eye on

– European Parliament plenary session kicks off in Strasbourg. A debate on the “Importance of consent-based rape legislation in the EU” is scheduled later today.

WASHINGTON — President Trump was preparing to take the stage at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner Saturday night, eager — by his own account — to “let it rip” before a room of Washington’s elite and reporters he has spent years calling the enemy of the people.

Then shots were heard. Secret Service agents rushed him off the stage. And within hours, the president was at the White House calling for unity, offering overtures to a press corps that he had long clashed with.

“I just want to say you did a fantastic job, what a beautiful evening and we are going to reschedule,” Trump told Weijia Jiang, the president of the White House Correspondents’ Assn., at a news briefing after the shooting at the dinner.

His magnanimity did not last long. On Sunday night, sitting down for an interview with Norah O’Donnell of CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Trump reacted with fury to her reading of the suspected shooter’s manifesto, calling her a “disgrace.”

The manifesto characterized his targets as rapists and pedophiles.

“You’re horrible people. Horrible people,” Trump said. “He did write that. I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody.

“I’m not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person? I got associated with all — stuff that has nothing to do with me,” he added. “You should be ashamed of yourself reading that because I’m not any of those things.”

It marked a return to the familiar dynamic between the president and the press after a night of shared crisis and purpose — raising doubts about how long the goodwill would last.

Just hours before, at the briefing, Trump expressed dismay at the violent outburst at the Washington Hilton, where the black-tie event has been held for more than 50 years.

“I will tell you, I fought like hell to stay, but it was protocol,” the president said. On Sunday he repeated his desire to reschedule the event, telling Fox News that he is committed to attending it in the near future, even proposing to do it within 30 days.

Trump appeared to be enjoying himself moments before Cole Tomas Allen, a 31-year-old tutor from Torrance, allegedly ran past a security checkpoint at the hotel and fired off two shots. Oz Pearlman, a mentalist and the entertainer for the night, seemed to be doing a trick for the president and the first lady when the shots were fired, videos show.

Trump was preparing to deliver remarks at the end of the night. His team was excited about it, and the president had been making tweaks to his speech on Air Force One up until Saturday morning.

“It will be funny. It will be entertaining,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a red carpet event ahead of the dinner.

The speech was going to mark Trump’s first at the White House correspondents’ dinner. He told Fox News on Sunday that he was “really going to let it rip,” and that he had considered the moment an “important event” until it came to a halt.

Trump said he would like to reschedule the event within the next month, adding that he will make an “entirely different speech” — one that he said will be focused on “love.”

It is unclear how long Trump’s media-friendly tone will last, but some Republicans continued to blame reporters for the violent act. Kari Lake, the senior advisor to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, said some reporters attending the event “have spent a decade spreading absolute lies” about Trump.

Trump, for his part, used the security breach at the event to make the case for his White House ballroom project, claiming that the Washington Hilton is “not a particularly secure building” and is a prime example of why legal challenges holding up its construction need to be dismissed.

“We need the ballroom,” Trump told reporters. “Today, we need levels of security that probably nobody’s ever seen before.”

However, the annual dinner’s venue is picked not by the White House, but by the White House Correspondents’ Assn., an independent organization of journalists who cover the president.

Trump has vowed to return to the event in the near future, and has called for it to take place within the next month to show that “bad people” cannot “change the course of the country.” But the ballroom project could not be ready that quickly.

It remains under construction and “ahead of schedule,” Trump has said. Earlier this month, a federal appeals court allowed construction on the project to continue through early June, as legal challenges remain ongoing.

The construction of the $400-million ballroom on the White House grounds has come under searing scrutiny. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which sued last year to stop the project, has argued that Trump lacked authority to make architectural changes to the White House grounds.

Carol Quillen, president and chief executive of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, has argued the White House is “the most evocative building in our country” and any changes should go through a review process, including a public comment period. Trump on Sunday described the lawsuit as one brought by a “woman walking a dog.”

The attempted attack, which marks the third time in less than two years that Trump has faced the threat of a gunman, has reignited questions about the tense political environment besetting the United States.

Trump, for his part, called his job a “dangerous profession” and said he believed he has become the target of attacks because of his presidency’s own consequence.

“The people that do the most, the people that make the biggest impact, they are the people that they go after,” Trump told reporters at the White House after being rushed out of the hotel.

In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, he added: “If you’re a consequential president, you’re in much more danger than if you’re not a consequential president.”

As an example, Trump pointed to his war in Iran, a conflict that recent polling shows has contributed to his approval rating falling to around 40%. The president said the war “should’ve been done by previous presidents … but nobody did anything about it.”

At Saturday night’s dinner, people infiltrated the hotel to protest the Iran war and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Two demonstrators, wearing suits, crashed a red carpet photo shoot in the hotel lobby and called for Hegseth to be arrested for war crimes, underscoring how the foreign conflict is fueling the political rhetoric at home.

In the hours after the shooting, Trump remained defiant. In an interview, he said he was determined to show a unified front and not let “one nut” derail his agenda or events.

“I hate it when a sick, bad person,” he told Fox News on Sunday. “I hate someone like that changing the course of our country.”

April 26 (UPI) — Israeli President Isaac Herzog decided to hold off on a pardon for the country’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, on charges of corruption, opting instead to attempt to negotiate a plea deal.

Netanyahu has been on trial for six years on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust across three separate cases but denies he has violated any laws, calling the charges a “witch hunt.”

Herzog has been under pressure from Netanyahu, his allies and U.S. President Donald Trump to issue the prime minister a pardon, though he has held off as opinions in Israel are relatively split on the trials, The New York Times and The Times of Israel reported.

“President Isaac Herzog sees reaching an agreement between the parties in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s cases as a proper and correct solution,” Herzog’s office said in a statement.

“The president believes that it is right to first, before discussing the pardon request itself, exhaust a process that could lead to the formation of an agreement between the parties, outside the walls of the court,” his office said.

Netanyahu became the first active Israeli prime minister to be put on trial in 2020, when he was charged with allegedly accepting cigars and champagne in exchange for political favors.

In the second case, he allegedly boosted circulation of an Israeli newspaper that offered him positive coverage and, in the third case, he allegedly promoted regulatory changes to benefit an telecommunications company in exchange for positive coverage by an online news organization.

Netanyahu in November requested the pardon from Herzog, whose office said at the time that it would consider the request and review it with justice officials because of the “significant implications” a pardon for such charges could have.

A plea agreement would require an admission of guilt, in addition to likely requiring Netanyahu to resign from office, which he has said is unacceptable and part of why he calls the trials an effort to drive him from office.

The trial “stirs divisions and deepens rifts,” he said in the request for a pardon, and said that “to repeal the threats [to Israel] and realize the opportunities, national unity is required.

WASHINGTON — In the span of 10 days, the nation’s capital saw a cascade of ethical scandals that cut across party lines and branches of government, raising fresh doubts about whether Washington is capable of holding itself accountable.

Three members of Congress — two Democrats and a Republican — resigned within days of one another as they faced calls for their expulsion due to their alleged misconduct. A fourth lawmaker is facing the same pressure but has so far refused to step down.

A Cabinet secretary stepped down amid a months-long investigation into allegations that she pursued a romantic relationship with a member of her security detail, while her husband stood accused of sexually assaulting female staffers in her agency.

In a separate case, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed last week that it put a senior counterterrorism official on administrative leave as it investigates an ex-boyfriend’s allegations that she was seeking out wealthy men online to pay for luxury items.

The back-to-back resignations and investigations, spanning both parties and both the legislative and executive branches, have reignited a debate about whether Washington’s rules and institutions for self-oversight can keep pace with the misconduct unfolding within it. Even those charged with policing it say the system is failing.

“Clearly, we have an ethical problem,” Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord), the top Democrat on the House Ethics Committee, said in an interview.

DeSaulnier, who has served on the committee since 2023, said the panel is long overdue for an overhaul. He would like to see the committee speed up investigations and give it more authority to root out misconduct before lawmakers can resign to avoid accountability.

“It takes too long,” he said, drawing an analogy to law enforcement standards for officers facing misconduct allegations. “If you’re a law enforcement officer, there are standards for a suspension with pay or without pay. I think we need to take a look at things like that.”

The committee’s records show that since 1976, it has investigated 28 instances in which a House member was suspected of sexual misconduct. The outcome in 13 of those cases was a loss of jurisdiction, meaning the member resigned, retired or otherwise left the House before the committee could reach a conclusion on the allegations.

“Unfortunately, there likely exist matters never reported to the Committee,” the panel said in a rare statement last week. It added that its “greatest hurdle” in evaluating allegations of sexual misconduct is “convincing the most vulnerable witnesses to share their stories.”

Lonna Drewes, left, and her attorney, Lisa Bloom, arrive at a news conference in which Drewes accused U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) of sexual assault, on April 14 in Beverly Hills.

(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

The two most recent cases in which the committee lost jurisdiction were the investigations into former California Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat accused of sexual assault who denied the allegations, and Republican former Texas Rep. Tony Gonzales, who last month admitted to a sexual relationship with a staffer who later died by suicide.

The committee is currently investigating Rep. Cory Mills, a Florida Republican, on allegations of “sexual misconduct and/or dating violence.” Mills has denied wrongdoing and declined to step down, telling CNN that House Speaker Mike Johnson told him not to resign and let the process play out.

Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has defended his stance on ensuring there is due process for House members, telling reporters last week that representatives should not be removed based only on allegations.

“There’s got to be an element of due process,” he said at a news conference, in which he also acknowledged that “sometimes it takes a long time” to achieve that and that he is open to suggestions on how to make the process better.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has also expressed hesitance in ousting members before they receive due process. He said that much in relation to Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.), who eventually resigned as she faced an ethics investigation and federal criminal charges of stealing $5 million in disaster relief funds. She has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

House Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Guest (R-Miss.) and Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) speak to reporters after a hearing with the House Ethics Committee on Capitol Hill on Tuesday in Washington.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

The stance has drawn objections from 14 House Democrats in competitive swing districts, including California Reps. Mike Levin and Derek Tran.

In a letter addressed to Johnson and Jeffries, the lawmakers urged both House leaders to push the Ethics Committee to “expedite their investigation” with more transparency, including public hearings.

“We must demonstrate that no one is above the law and that serious misconduct will result in serious consequences,” the lawmakers wrote.

The calls for reform are not limited to the House.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Congress as a whole needs to increase transparency around how ethics complaints are handled and create a system that better protects junior staffers rather than members and senior aides who oversee them.

“The House of Representatives has an office that provides legal advice and representation to staff, but the Senate doesn’t appear to have such a thing,” Schiff said. “So that is also something I’m looking into.”

Schiff is also looking beyond Capitol Hill. He is pushing to install an inspector general inside the executive office of the President, a watchdog position that has never existed there despite being standard across the rest of the federal government.

Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz, left, chair of the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, and David Smith, assistant director, Office of Investigations U.S. Secret Service, arrive for the House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing titled Federal Pandemic Spending: A Prescription for Waste, Fraud and Abuse in Rayburn Building on Feb. 1, 2023.

(Tom Williams / CQ Roll Call via Associated Press)

President Trump has fired at least a dozen inspectors general during his second term, according to the New York Times. The dismissals of those independent watchdogs across the executive branch are likely to complicate Schiff’s efforts, which he said will need to “overcome the instinctual opposition of many in the president’s party who may view [the bill] as an indictment of the president’s actions.”

“But if we are ever going to ensure that a president and his administration are not above the law, an inspector general in the executive office is critical,” he said.

Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said he has long advocated for installing an independent watchdog in the White House but doubts that a Congress operating under its own cloud of scandal would take that step now.

“They are not complying with their own rules,” he said. “It is a big problem.”

Painter also argued that Trump’s own conduct is itself reshaping what members of his own administration and allies in Congress believe they can get away with.

Trump, for example, entered his second term as the first president convicted of a felony — for fraud in a sex scandal involving a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels. Separately, he was found liable by a jury for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll in a decades-old incident.

The president’s past social ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have also received renewed scrutiny as his administration is criticized for the handling of the files. Trump has denied wrongdoing in all three matters.

“That sends a message to the entire administration and to Congress as to what is acceptable,” Painter said.

Trump, who is known for chiming in on myriad topics on social media, has not talked much about the sex scandals on Capitol Hill. But the president did call Swalwell a “sleazebag” in a recent interview with the Daily Mail.

“I don’t know anything about the charges, but he’s a bad guy,” Trump said. “He’s always been a bad guy, he’s a corrupt politician, and everyone knows it, so it’s happening to him, and we’ll see what happens. Right? Let him go defend himself.”

The president has not been as candid with his administration’s own controversies, but watchdogs in executive agencies have scrutinized some of his members.

Lori Chavez-DeRemer attends the world premiere of Amazon MGM’s “Melania” at The Trump-Kennedy Center on Jan. 29 in Washington.

(Taylor Hill / WireImage via Getty Images)

The White House declined to comment on the allegations against former Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who stepped down last week after multiple allegations of abusing her position’s power, including having an affair with a subordinate and drinking alcohol on the job.

The New York Times reported that Chavez-DeRemer was under investigation by the agency’s inspector general, and that an imminent report was likely to be unfavorable toward her. The investigation had been ongoing for several months before her departure.

In a separate case, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to the Los Angeles Times that Julia Varvaro, the agency’s deputy assistance secretary, was put on administrative leave amid an investigation into allegations that she was seeking out so-called sugar daddies online.

The scandals come as recent polling shows Americans are growing more dissatisfied with Trump and Congress.

Congress’ approval rating has plummeted to 10%, according to Gallup polling released last week. Public approval of Trump has dropped to 28%, according to a Marquette University Law School poll released earlier this month. The president’s approval ratings are tightly linked to concerns about the Iran war and the economy.

Some lawmakers, like DeSaulnier, worry the scandals will continue to erode Americans’ confidence in the government and the people who represent them.

“If they don’t have trust in these institutions and the people who are in these positions, that’s a real, serious problem for American democracy,” he said.

For Democrats or, for that matter, anyone who believes in checks and balances, things are starting to look up.

President Trump’s days of untrammeled war-making, law-breaking and generally doing whatever he damn well pleases may finally be drawing to a close. Public opinion, history and, especially, the surging price of gasoline and groceries, all point to a Democratic takeover of the House in November’s midterm election.

There’s a direct correlation between a president’s approval rating and the way his party performs at the midpoint of his term. Anything below 50% favorability portends political trouble; right now Trump’s positive standing in polls hovers around a dismal 40%.

Then there’s the history part. Since World War II, the party out of the White House has gained an average of more than two dozen House seats in midterm elections. Democrats need to pick up just three to take control beginning in January.

(While the Republican grip on the Senate seems weaker than just a few months ago, the GOP is still favored to hang onto the chamber in November.)

There is, however, a looming threat causing nervousness among Democrats and their allies as they contemplate a celebratory fall, a landmine of sorts buried deep in the congressional election process.

Let’s acquaint ourselves with Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.

The pertinent language written by the Framers states, “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.” In other words, it’s up to the House and Senate to acknowledge and abide by the will of voters as expressed in the election returns.

What could possibly go wrong?

Well, if you let your paranoia run wild, quite a lot. If the election outcome is close — and probably it would have to be very close — Republican lawmakers could theoretically seize on phony claims of fraud and effectively nullify the results of enough contests to deny Democrats control of the House.

There’s plenty of skepticism that would or could ever take place. But if it were to happen, hello, national crisis!

Normally, we could count on the occupant of the White House to humbly submit to the election returns, even if it’s a “shellacking” as President Obama called his walloping in the 2010 midterm election, or a “thumpin’ ” as President George W. Bush described his electoral spanking in 2006.

Not Trump.

This president has amply demonstrated the lengths to which he’ll go to overturn an honest election, siccing a violent mob on lawmakers certifying his 2020 defeat, telling endless lies and using the Justice Department to confiscate ballots and intimidate innocent election officials and others Trump deems his enemies.

He strong-armed Texas into a highly unusual, highly partisan redrawing of its congressional boundaries, an effort to net five seats and lengthen the odds against a Democratic takeover.

The move appears to have backfired, spurring voters in California and, last week, Virginia to redraw their state’s political maps to more than offset Texas and boost Democrats in November. (The Virginia results are being contested in court.)

Voters attend an Arlington Democrats redistricting vote watch party during a special election Tuesday in Virginia. A measure to redraw the state’s congressional map was narrowly approved.

(Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

That failure doesn’t take away Trump’s malign intent. And in the supine Speaker Mike Johnson, he has the perfect handmaiden to undermine the midterm vote.

In 2020, Johnson was the lead author of a Supreme Court brief seeking to overturn the results in four states that Joe Biden had indisputably won. That speaks to Johnson’s probity and integrity.

How would subversion of November’s election take place?

One theory goes like this: When the balloting is over, Johnson could appoint a House committee packed with Trump’s acolytes to investigate alleged voting irregularities. (And if you think Trump won’t be bellowing the words “rigged” and “fraud” in the face of defeat, you’ve either been in a coma or living on another planet for the last decade.)

Those hearings and the “evidence” they turn up could then be cited by election officials in key states — collaborators, if you will — as a reason to delay the certification of election results and block the seating of majority-making Democrats in the next Congress. In their place, the theory goes, Republicans could vote to fill those seats with GOP candidates who lost at the polls, keeping themselves in control.

Derek Muller, an election law expert, suggests that scenario is little more than a fever dream of doomsday devotees and overly nervous Nellies.

He said he’d be very surprised if all the election results weren’t certified by Jan. 3, when the new Congress convenes, given the legal remedies available to prevent stalling and undue delay. And, Muller said, there is no assurance Republicans would march in lockstep behind a plan to prevent the seating of Democrats.

Thwarting a duly elected Democratic majority “involves extraordinary coordination and precedents that have never occurred, with a unique convergence of factors,” said Muller, who teaches law at Notre Dame — though, he added, if control of the House came down to, say, a single seat “all bets are off.”

Far-fetched? Perhaps. Some of the spun-up theories surrounding November’s election do sound a bit like a product of political science fiction.

But what kind of president picks a fight with the pope? Plunges the world into crisis by unilaterally going to war with Iran with no exit plan? Demolishes the East Wing of the White House on an egotistical whim?

If Trump, an inveterate norm-buster, sees a way to keep his grip on unchecked power, don’t put anything past him.

President Obama is planning to speak in the “near future” on U.S. policy in the Mideast, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday.

“It’s a speech to a broader audience than just the Arab world,” Carney said at his televised briefing. He didn’t specify when or where the president will speak, but said it will be in “the relatively near future.”

Obama is scheduled to begin a five-day European trip May 23.

The speech will come as the United States faces a slew of issues in the Middle East, including pro-democracy uprisings in several countries, a stalled Mideast peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, and the ongoing issue of nuclear proliferation and Iran.

The speech also will come within weeks of the U.S. raid in Pakistan during which terrorist leader Osama bin Laden was killed. The raid has raised questions from some about the future of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, which the West invaded seeking to end the Taliban state that was sheltering terrorists after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The raid has also raised questions about what Pakistan leaders knew about Bin Laden and whether the founder of Al Qaeda was being protected by elements of the Pakistani intelligence community.

Obama is scheduled to meet next week with Jordan’s King Abdullah II, a strong U.S. ally, and with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been invited to address Congress. Efforts to bring peace between Netanyahu’s government and the Palestinians have bogged down despite early U.S. efforts. Complicating that issue is the apparent reconciliation between Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian National Authority, and Hamas, which controls Gaza, the other part of the Palestinian entity. Israel and the United States view Hamas as a terrorist group.

In 2009, Obama visited Cairo in what was billed as an overture to the Islamic world, still smarting from the Bush years and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama mainly spoke of the positive power of Islam as a world force.

Since then, much of the Arab world has been shattered by ongoing pro-democracy revolutions and, in some cases, civil wars and extensive state repression.

In some countries, notably Syria and Libya, where the United States has had long-term questions about the rulers, the United States strongly condemned the use of force against citizens and took even more severe actions. The Obama administration helped engineer a United Nations resolution that has imposed a no-fly zone on Libya, which is being enforced by NATO. The Obama administration has also spoken out forcefully against Syria’s violence against its citizens.

Though it has condemned state violence, the Obama administration has been less forceful with some nations with friendlier governments, such as Yemen and Bahrain, and it was slow to condemn Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, who was eventually deposed by the military after extensive demonstrations.

Michael.muskal@latimes.com

Twitter.com/LATimesmuskal

WASHINGTON — Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger met privately with President Trump and administration officials Wednesday to press for federal support and yet-unpaid wildfire recovery funding as the region continues to rebuild from the 2025 fires.

“This afternoon we met with President Trump and Administration officials to advocate for families who lost everything,” Bass and Barger said in a statement. “We had a very positive discussion about FEMA and other rebuilding funds as well as the support of the President to continue joining us in pressuring the insurance companies to pay what they owe — and for the big banks to step up to ease the financial pressure on L.A. families.”

Barger said the two leaders had a “high-level discussion” with the president in the Oval Office, sharing stories about what fire survivors are experiencing day to day. She added that “we left details behind with the President,” but did not specify whether Trump made any funding or policy promises during the meeting.

“First and foremost, today’s meeting was to thank the President for his initial support of infusing federal resources to expedite debris removal, as well as his recent tweet about insurance companies, which have already proven fruitful,” she said in a statement provided to The Times.

Bass was similarly reserved about the discussions, telling reporters that “we will follow up with the details,” but signaled progress is being made on federal support.

“I think what’s important is that we certainly got the president’s support in terms of, you know, what is needed, and then the appropriate people were in the room for us to follow up. And that was Russ Vought, who is the head of the Office of Management and budget,” Bass told KNX on Wednesday.

The meeting comes on the heels of a yearlong standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over wildfire recovery funding, disaster response and whether the federal government should have a say in local rebuilding permitting.

California leaders, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, have accused the Trump administration of withholding billions in critical wildfire aid, prompting a lawsuit over stalled recovery funds. Officials allege political bias in the delay of billions of dollars from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Newsom visited Washington in December. When he made his rounds on Capitol Hill, he met with five lawmakers, including three who serve on the Senate and House appropriations committees, to renew calls for $33.9 billion in federal aid for Los Angeles County fire recovery.

But the governor said he was denied a meeting with FEMA and would not say whether he had attempted to meet with Trump to discuss the issue.

Bass, meanwhile, appears to have found a path to the president on a subject that has been paramount for her community.

The fruitful meeting comes after Trump lobbed insults at the mayor at a news conference earlier this year, where he called her “incompetent” for how she handled last year’s wildfire recovery efforts. He alleged that under Bass’ leadership, the city’s delay in issuing local building permits will take years when it should have taken “two or three days.”

California officials, including Newsom, have urged the Trump administration to send Congress a formal request for the $33.9 billion in recovery aid needed to rebuild homes, schools, utilities and other critical infrastructure destroyed or damaged when the fires tore through neighborhoods more than 15 months ago.

What Bass and Barger’s meeting with the president ultimately produces remains to be seen.

The billions in recovery aid have not yet materialized, but the meeting could potentially give those discussions new momentum.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment about the meeting.

Earlier this month, Trump criticized insurance provider State Farm on Truth Social for its handling of the devastating Los Angeles County wildfires. He accused the insurance giant of abandoning its policyholders when tragedy struck.

“It was brought to my attention that the Insurance Companies, in particular, State Farm, have been absolutely horrible to people that have been paying them large Premiums for years, only to find that when tragedy struck, these horrendous Companies were not there to help!” Trump wrote.

But the rebuke didn’t come out of the blue. It stemmed from a controversial February visit to Los Angeles by Trump administration officials.

Trump tapped Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin in an effort to strip California state and local governments of their authority to permit the rebuilding of homes destroyed in the Eaton and Palisades fires.

Within the week, Zeldin was in Los Angeles, bashing Newsom and Los Angeles officials at a roundtable with fire victims and reporters, saying that residents were suffering from “bureaucratic, red tape delays and incompetency” and that leadership was “denying them … the ability to rebuild their lives”.

During the trip, officials heard direct complaints from local leaders and fire victims about insurers being slow, restrictive and insufficient with their claim payouts.

After these meetings, Trump directed Zeldin to investigate the insurers’ responses. State Farm, facing roughly $7 billion in fire-related claims, is also under formal investigation by California’s insurance commissioner over its handling of the crisis.

Despite tensions with the administration, Bass and Barger appeared confident that progress was being made on the insurance and funding issues.

“Our job is to fight for our communities,” their joint statement concluded. “When it comes to this recovery, our federal partners are essential, and we are grateful for the support of the President.”

Two cabinet-level ministers in Peru have resigned after interim President Jose Maria Balcazar announced he would defer a decision to buy F-16 fighter jets from the United States company Lockheed Martin.

Defence Minister Carlos Diaz and Foreign Minister Hugo de Zela cited their opposition to the move in their resignation letters on Wednesday.

“A strategic decision has been taken in the area of national security with which I have a fundamental disagreement,” Diaz wrote.

The fighter jets have long been a source of controversy in Peru, where critics have questioned whether the purchase is a sign of deference to US President Donald Trump.

Last week, the left-wing Balcazar — Peru’s ninth president in a decade — announced he would leave the decision about whether to invest $3.5bn in the purchase to the country’s next elected leader.

Balcazar himself had only been in office since February, selected by Congress to replace the latest in a string of impeached presidents.

Last week, he abruptly cancelled a signing ceremony for the F-16 deal, which would have seen an initial batch of 12 new planes added to Peru’s ageing air force. The country aims to acquire 24 jets overall.

Balcazar explained he was not pulling out of the deal, but that he felt the next presidential administration should be involved in making such a hefty financial commitment.

“For us to commit such a large sum of money to the incoming government would be a poor practice for a transitional government,” Balcazar said at the time.

“We remain firm in respecting all agreements that may have been reached at the level of the armed forces, or in this case, with the relevant ministry of the air force, to carry out the corresponding negotiations.”

His decision, however, was met with pushback, both domestically and from the US. The US ambassador to Peru, Bernie Navarro, responded on April 17 with a warning posted on social media.

“If you deal with the U.S. in bad faith and undermine U.S. interests, rest assured, I, on behalf of
[President] Trump and his administration, will use every available tool to protect and promote the prosperity and security of the United States and our region,” Navarro wrote.

Critics of the deal, however, have argued that Peru has received more competitive offers from French and Swedish aircraft makers like Dassault Aviation and Saab AB, respectively.

But Navarro on Wednesday denied that the US had been outcompeted. In a statement, he wrote that the “bid was made at a high level of competitiveness” and called the plane fleet “the most technically advanced fighter jets ever built”.

He also denounced the delay as an unreasonable stoppage on a deal he characterised as already signed.

“In planning the delivery of a product of this calibre, there is no such thing as an inconsequential delay,” he wrote.

“Every delay results in significant costs. The same package cannot be available in a couple of months, or even weeks.”

The decision to spend the $3.5bn on 24 fighter jets was made in 2024 under former President Dina Boluarte. The purchase was to be financed by $2bn in domestic borrowing in 2025 and $1.5bn in 2026.

In September, the US Department of Defense approved a potential sale of F-16s to Peru.

But Boluarte was removed from office in October, and her successor, Jose Jeri, lasted just four months in office before he too was impeached.

The instability in Peru’s presidency comes at a time when the Trump administration is seeking greater influence over Latin America, as part of what the US president has called his “Donroe Doctrine”.

Already, the Trump administration has pushed Peru to distance itself from Chinese investment. In February, for instance, it publicly protested against Chinese ownership in the Pacific port of Chancay.

“Peru could be powerless to oversee Chancay, one of its largest ports, which is under the jurisdiction of predatory Chinese owners,” the Trump administration wrote in a social media post.

“We support Peru’s sovereign right to oversee critical infrastructure in its own territory. Let this be a cautionary tale for the region and the world: cheap Chinese money costs sovereignty.”

Just this week, one of Trump’s allies, Representative Maria Elvira Salazar, warned that the Chinese-owned port was a danger to the US.

“That’s a direct threat in our hemisphere, right in the country of Peru,” she told a congressional committee. “For that reason, the new Peruvian government, which will be elected next June, must take it back.”

She added that, if the Peruvian government responded accordingly, “the United States will help them under the Trump administration”.

The country, however, is enmeshed in a messy presidential race replete with vote-counting delays and accusations of malpractice.

Election experts have said there is no evidence of voter fraud. But the slow vote count has left the race’s outcome undetermined, more than a week after the ballots were cast on April 12.

Right-wing leader and former First Lady Keiko Fujimori is all but assured of progressing to a run-off in June. But who will join her is uncertain.

Left-wing Congress member Roberto Sanchez is currently in the lead in the race for second place, with 12 percent of the votes tallied, but far-right candidate Rafael Lopez Aliaga, a former mayor, is close behind with 11.9 percent. Lopez Aliaga has been a vocal supporter of the Trump administration.

The final vote count for the first round of the election is expected to be delivered in May.

Traditionally, Peru’s new president should be sworn in on July 28, the country’s independence day.