president

Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan has been declared the winner of the country’s presidential election.

The electoral commission on Saturday said the incumbent had secured nearly 98 percent of the vote that saw key candidates jailed or barred and triggered days of violent protests.

More to follow…

WASHINGTON — President Trump made sure during his visit to Asia this week to praise regional allies who have backed his push to bring about a permanent end to the Israel-Hamas war.

As he handed out plaudits, Trump appeared to go out of his way to name-check one leader in particular — Indonesia’s Prabowo Subianto — for his help in Gaza.

“I want to thank Malaysia and Brunei as well as my friend, President Prabowo of Indonesia, for their incredible support of these efforts to secure the new day for the Middle East,” Trump told leaders at the Assn. of Southeast Nations summit in Malaysia, using only the Indonesian president’s first name. “It really is a new day.”

In the weeks since Israel and Hamas agreed to a fragile ceasefire and hostage deal, Indonesia, which boasts the biggest Muslim population in the world, has emerged as an intriguing partner to a White House keen on making peace in the Middle East a defining legacy of his presidency.

Trump has said that a priority tied to that plan, if the fragile ceasefire can hold, is building on his first-term Abraham Accords effort that forged diplomatic and commercial ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco.

White House officials believe that a permanent peace agreement in Gaza could pave the way for Indonesia as well as Saudi Arabia — the largest Arab economy and the birthplace of Islam — to normalize ties with Israel, according to a senior administration official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity.

For his part, Subianto has shown eagerness to build a relationship with Trump and expand his nation’s global influence.

Earlier in October, at a gathering in Egypt to mark the ceasefire, Subianto was caught on a hot mic talking to the U.S. leader about a Trump family business venture. He appeared to ask Trump to set up a meeting with the president’s son Eric, the executive vice president of the Trump Organization, which has two real estate projects underway in Indonesia.

But Indonesia, much like Saudi Arabia, has publicly maintained it can’t move forward on normalizing relations with Israel until there’s a clear pathway set for a Palestinian state.

“Any vision related to Israel must begin with the recognition of Palestinian independence and sovereignty,” said Indonesian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Yvonne Mewengkang.

Could Trump’s dealmaking pave the way?

There may be a reason for the administration to be hopeful that the ceasefire deal has created an opening for Indonesia to soften its position. The White House might also have some cards it could play as it pitches Subianto.

Jakarta badly wants to join the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and Trump’s backing would be pivotal. Indonesia views joining the 38-member OECD as an opportunity to raise Indonesia’s international profile, access new markets, and attract investment from other organization members.

Greater U.S. investment in Indonesia’s rare earths industry could also be inviting to Jakarta, which boasts a top-20 world economy.

Indonesia has set its sights on dominating the global nickel market, and is already responsible for about half of the metal used around the world. Demand has skyrocketed as automakers need it for electric vehicle batteries and clean electricity projects that require larger batteries.

“Trump’s transactional dealmaking opens up possibilities that otherwise might not exist,” said Daniel Shapiro, a former top State Department official who worked on Israel-Indonesia normalization efforts during the Biden administration. “If the Indonesians have something they’re seeking from the United States — whether it’s in the realm of tariff relief, other types of trade arrangements, or security arrangements — this could represent an opportunity.”

Indonesia pledged troops and helped with Trump’s 20-point plan

Indonesian officials were among a small group of leaders from Muslim and Arab nations whom the White House used as a sounding board to help the administration fine-tune Trump’s 20-point ceasefire and hostage proposal. And Trump at this week’s summit in Malaysia again conferred with Subianto and other leaders about U.S.-led efforts to maintain the ceasefire in Gaza, according to a White House official who was not authorized to comment publicly about the private leaders’ conversation.

And Subianto, at the annual gathering of world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly days before the ceasefire agreement was reached, pledged 20,000 Indonesian troops for a prospective U.N. peacekeeping mission in Gaza. In the remarks, Subianto reiterated his country’s call for “an independent Palestine” but underscored the need to “recognize and guarantee the safety and security of Israel.”

Rabbi Marc Schneier, a president for the interfaith group Foundation for Ethnic Understanding and an advocate of the Abraham Accords effort, said Subianto’s pledge for troops and his rhetoric about Israel suggest that the Indonesian leader could be primed to make the leap.

“Yes, he’s talking about a Palestinian state, but he’s also being clear that he wants a Palestinian state that does not come at the expense of a Jewish state,” Schneier said. “That’s what gives me hope.”

Indonesia’s historic backing of Palestinian state

Trump met with Subianto and other leaders soon after the U.N. remarks, and seemed as impressed with the Indonesian president’s style as he was with the pledge to a peacekeeping mission. Trump said he particularly enjoyed watching Subianto “banging on that table” in his U.N. speech.

But Subianto is likely to face deep skepticism from the Indonesian public on Israel normalization efforts.

Indonesian leaders, dating to the Republic’s first president, Sukarno, have sought to burnish an image of “a country that leads the fight against world colonialism,” said Dina Sulaeman, a scholar at Padjadjaran University in Bandung, Indonesia. The country had a protracted struggle for independence, freeing itself from Dutch colonial rule in its late 1940s revolution.

Indonesian leaders’ historical support for Palestinian statehood is also at odds with the current government in Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which remains adamantly opposed to a two-state solution.

“So, if Indonesia suddenly wants to join the Abraham Accords and normalize Israel’s occupation of Palestine, the good image that the Indonesian government has built … over decades will collapse,” Sulaeman said.

The Trump administration had talks with the Indonesians about joining the Abraham Accords in its first term. The Biden administration, which tried to pick up on the normalization effort, also had “serious talks” with the Indonesians, Shapiro said.

Shapiro said he was directly involved in talks between the Biden administration and senior Indonesian officials about using a November 2023 state visit by then Indonesian President Joko Widodo to offer preliminary announcements “about moving forward” on a normalization effort. But the Hamas Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel scuttled the effort.

“My judgment is there is good possibility, assuming the ceasefire holds,” Shapiro said of Trump’s chances of getting Jakarta to sign the accords. “How and when that deal can begin to take shape — that remains to be seen.”

Madhani and Tarigan write for the Associated Press. Tarigan reported from Jakarta.

GYEONGJU, South Korea, Oct. 31 (Yonhap) — President Lee Jae Myung and Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. discussed ways to strengthen bilateral cooperation during summit talks Friday.

The two sides met on the margins of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, with Lee expressing hopes for a higher level of cooperative bilateral ties through Marcos’ visit to South Korea.

“For a long time, South Korea and the Philippines have supported and cooperated with one another as friendly nations,” Lee said, noting Manila’s deployment of troops in support of South Korea during the 1950-53 Korean War.

Marcos said the two countries have reached multiple milestones in ties, citing the signing of a bilateral free trade deal, and cooperation in the defense and security sectors.

Lee also thanked Marcos for the creation of a “Korean help desk” within the Philippine police to deal with cases involving South Korean nationals, according to presidential spokesperson Kim Nam-jun.

The two sides agreed to strengthen cooperation in areas such as defense, shipbuilding and infrastructure, as well as for regional coordination to stamp out transnational crime, including scam centers, he said.

Lee also said he would make efforts for “peaceful co-existence” on the Korean Peninsula, while Marcos pledged his country will cooperate in such efforts as the upcoming chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations next year, Kim added.

[email protected]

(END)

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

The following is the full transcript of President Obama’s remarks in Osawatomie, Kan., Tuesday as provided by the White House.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I want to start by thanking a few folks who’ve joined us today. We’ve got the mayor of Osawatomie, Phil Dudley is here. (Applause.) We have your superintendent Gary French in the house. (Applause.) And we have the principal of Osawatomie High, Doug Chisam. (Applause.) And I have brought your former governor, who is doing now an outstanding job as Secretary of Health and Human Services — Kathleen Sebelius is in the house. (Applause.) We love Kathleen.

Well, it is great to be back in the state of Tex — (laughter) — state of Kansas. I was giving Bill Self a hard time, he was here a while back. As many of you know, I have roots here. (Applause.) I’m sure you’re all familiar with the Obamas of Osawatomie. (Laughter.) Actually, I like to say that I got my name from my father, but I got my accent — and my values — from my mother. (Applause.) She was born in Wichita. (Applause.) Her mother grew up in Augusta. Her father was from El Dorado. So my Kansas roots run deep.

My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out. (Applause.)

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known. It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth. And you know what? Every American shared in that pride and in that success — from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor. (Applause.) So you could have some confidence that if you gave it your all, you’d take enough home to raise your family and send your kids to school and have your health care covered, put a little away for retirement. Today, we’re still home to the world’s most productive workers. We’re still home to the world’s most innovative companies. But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments — wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t — and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

Now, for many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over this harsh reality. But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or even sometimes understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets — and huge bonuses — made with other people’s money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.

It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we’re still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs and the homes and the basic security of millions of people — innocent, hardworking Americans who had met their responsibilities but were still left holding the bag.

And ever since, there’s been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance, restore fairness. Throughout the country, it’s sparked protests and political movements — from the tea party to the people who’ve been occupying the streets of New York and other cities. It’s left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock. It’s been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women running for president. (Laughter.)

But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what’s at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

I am here to say they are wrong. (Applause.) I’m here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. (Applause.) These aren’t Democratic values or Republican values. These aren’t 1 percent values or 99 percent values. They’re American values. And we have to reclaim them. (Applause.)

You see, this isn’t the first time America has faced this choice. At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world’s industrial giant, we had to decide: Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? Would we restrict education to the privileged few? Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress.

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed. He was the Republican son of a wealthy family. He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. He believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It’s led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. (Applause.) He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn’t profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn’t safe. And today, they still can’t.
And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.” (Applause.)

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist — (laughter) — even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women — (applause) — insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax. (Applause.)

Today, over 100 years later, our economy has gone through another transformation. Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and it’s made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere they want in the world. And many of you know firsthand the painful disruptions this has caused for a lot of Americans.
Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where workers were cheaper. Steel mills that needed 100 — or 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100 employees, so layoffs too often became permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle. And these changes didn’t just affect blue-collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the Internet.

Today, even higher-skilled jobs, like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like China or India. And if you’re somebody whose job can be done cheaper by a computer or someone in another country, you don’t have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages or better benefits, especially since fewer Americans today are part of a union.

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class — things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.

Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us? Insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you’re on your own” economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. (Applause.) We know that it doesn’t result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. We know it doesn’t result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that’s enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.

Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year. I’m not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars. I’m saying people who make a million dollars every single year. For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent.

Now, this kind of inequality — a level that we haven’t seen since the Great Depression — hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country. That’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made. It’s also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. (Applause.) It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them, that our elected representatives aren’t looking out for the interests of most Americans.

But there’s an even more fundamental issue at stake. This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that’s at the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people — we tell our kids — that in this country, even if you’re born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. That’s why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.

And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40 percent. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it’s estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class — 33 percent.

It’s heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal. But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work? That’s inexcusable. It is wrong. (Applause.) It flies in the face of everything that we stand for. (Applause.)

Now, fortunately, that’s not a future that we have to accept, because there’s another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country — a view that’s truer to our history, a vision that’s been embraced in the past by people of both parties for more than 200 years.

It’s not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America. It’s not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all of society’s problems. It is a view that says in America we are greater together — when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share. (Applause.)

So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today’s economy? Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who’s best at busting unions, who’s best at letting companies pollute as much as they want. That’s a race to the bottom that we can’t win, and we shouldn’t want to win that race. (Applause.) Those countries don’t have a strong middle class. They don’t have our standard of living.

The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race to the top — the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security. Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication, the strongest commitment to research and technology.

The world is shifting to an innovation economy and nobody does innovation better than America. Nobody does it better. (Applause.) No one has better colleges. Nobody has better universities. Nobody has a greater diversity of talent and ingenuity. No one’s workers or entrepreneurs are more driven or more daring. The things that have always been our strengths match up perfectly with the demands of the moment.

But we need to meet the moment. We’ve got to up our game. We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission — a national mission. (Applause.) Government and businesses, parents and citizens. In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class. The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. And their incomes are twice as high as those who don’t have a high school diploma. Which means we shouldn’t be laying off good teachers right now — we should be hiring them. (Applause.) We shouldn’t be expecting less of our schools –- we should be demanding more. (Applause.) We shouldn’t be making it harder to afford college — we should be a country where everyone has a chance to go and doesn’t rack up $100,000 of debt just because they went. (Applause.)

In today’s innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science and research, the next generation of high-tech manufacturing. Our factories and our workers shouldn’t be idle. We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges so they can learn how to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries. And by the way, if we don’t have an economy that’s built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won’t all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance. (Applause.) Because if we want an economy that’s built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering. (Applause.) This country should not be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America. (Applause.)

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in the places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, communicate with the rest of the world. And that’s why the over 1 million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed, they shouldn’t be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools — (applause) — all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

Yes, business, and not government, will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there. But as a nation, we’ve always come together, through our government, to help create the conditions where both workers and businesses can succeed. (Applause.) And historically, that hasn’t been a partisan idea. Franklin Roosevelt worked with Democrats and Republicans to give veterans of World War II — including my grandfather, Stanley Dunham — the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill. It was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, a proud son of Kansas — (applause) — who started the Interstate Highway System, and doubled down on science and research to stay ahead of the Soviets.

Of course, those productive investments cost money. They’re not free. And so we’ve also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share. Look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending. But we don’t have unlimited resources. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices.

Today that choice is very clear. To reduce our deficit, I’ve already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law and I’ve proposed trillions more, including reforms that would lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. (Applause.)

But in order to structurally close the deficit, get our fiscal house in order, we have to decide what our priorities are. Now, most immediately, short term, we need to extend a payroll tax cut that’s set to expire at the end of this month. (Applause.) If we don’t do that, 160 million Americans, including most of the people here, will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000 starting in January and it would badly weaken our recovery. That’s the short term.

In the long term, we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing — all those things that helped make us an economic superpower? Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country? Because we can’t afford to do both. That is not politics. That’s just math. (Laughter and applause.)

Now, so far, most of my Republican friends in Washington have refused under any circumstance to ask the wealthiest Americans to go to the same tax rate they were paying when Bill Clinton was president. So let’s just do a trip down memory lane here.

Keep in mind, when President Clinton first proposed these tax increases, folks in Congress predicted they would kill jobs and lead to another recession. Instead, our economy created nearly 23 million jobs and we eliminated the deficit. (Applause.) Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century. This isn’t like in the early ‘50s, when the top tax rate was over 90 percent. This isn’t even like the early ‘80s, when the top tax rate was about 70 percent. Under President Clinton, the top rate was only about 39 percent. Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of you, millions of middle-class families. Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1 percent. One percent.

That is the height of unfairness. It is wrong. (Applause.) It’s wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million. (Applause.) It’s wrong for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. (Applause.) And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me. (Laughter.) So do most Americans — Democrats, independents and Republicans. And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.

This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare. It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.

Finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street. (Applause.) As infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full-blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second Depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country.

But part of the deal was that we wouldn’t go back to business as usual. And that’s why last year we put in place new rules of the road that refocus the financial sector on what should be their core purpose: getting capital to the entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and financing millions of families who want to buy a home or send their kids to college.

Now, we’re not all the way there yet, and the banks are fighting us every inch of the way. But already, some of these reforms are being implemented.

If you’re a big bank or risky financial institution, you now have to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail, so that taxpayers are never again on the hook for Wall Street’s mistakes. (Applause.) There are also limits on the size of banks and new abilities for regulators to dismantle a firm that is going under. The new law bans banks from making risky bets with their customers’ deposits, and it takes away big bonuses and paydays from failed CEOs, while giving shareholders a say on executive salaries.

This is the law that we passed. We are in the process of implementing it now. All of this is being put in place as we speak. Now, unless you’re a financial institution whose business model is built on breaking the law, cheating consumers and making risky bets that could damage the entire economy, you should have nothing to fear from these new rules.

Some of you may know, my grandmother worked as a banker for most of her life — worked her way up, started as a secretary, ended up being a vice president of a bank. And I know from her, and I know from all the people that I’ve come in contact with, that the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals, they want to do right by their customers. They want to have rules in place that don’t put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing. And yet, Republicans in Congress are fighting as hard as they can to make sure that these rules aren’t enforced.

I’ll give you a specific example. For the first time in history, the reforms that we passed put in place a consumer watchdog who is charged with protecting everyday Americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders or payday lenders or debt collectors. And the man we nominated for the post, Richard Cordray, is a former attorney general of Ohio who has the support of most attorney generals, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the country. Nobody claims he’s not qualified.

But the Republicans in the Senate refuse to confirm him for the job; they refuse to let him do his job. Why? Does anybody here think that the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors?

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: Of course not. Every day we go without a consumer watchdog is another day when a student, or a senior citizen, or a member of our Armed Forces — because they are very vulnerable to some of this stuff — could be tricked into a loan that they can’t afford — something that happens all the time. And the fact is that financial institutions have plenty of lobbyists looking out for their interests. Consumers deserve to have someone whose job it is to look out for them. (Applause.) And I intend to make sure they do. (Applause.) And I want you to hear me, Kansas: I will veto any effort to delay or defund or dismantle the new rules that we put in place. (Applause.)

We shouldn’t be weakening oversight and accountability. We should be strengthening oversight and accountability. I’ll give you another example. Too often, we’ve seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there’s no price for being a repeat offender. No more. I’ll be calling for legislation that makes those penalties count so that firms don’t see punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business. (Applause.)

The fact is this crisis has left a huge deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. And major banks that were rescued by the taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit of trust. At minimum, they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crisis. They should be working to keep responsible homeowners in their home. We’re going to keep pushing them to provide more time for unemployed homeowners to look for work without having to worry about immediately losing their house.

The big banks should increase access to refinancing opportunities to borrowers who haven’t yet benefited from historically low interest rates. And the big banks should recognize that precisely because these steps are in the interest of middle-class families and the broader economy, it will also be in the banks’ own long-term financial interest. What will be good for consumers over the long term will be good for the banks. (Applause.)

Investing in things like education that give everybody a chance to succeed. A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share. And laws that make sure everybody follows the rules. That’s what will transform our economy. That’s what will grow our middle class again. In the end, rebuilding this economy based on fair play, a fair shot, and a fair share will require all of us to see that we have a stake in each other’s success. And it will require all of us to take some responsibility.

It will require parents to get more involved in their children’s education. It will require students to study harder. (Applause.) It will require some workers to start studying all over again. It will require greater responsibility from homeowners not to take out mortgages they can’t afford. They need to remember that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

It will require those of us in public service to make government more efficient and more effective, more consumer-friendly, more responsive to people’s needs. That’s why we’re cutting programs that we don’t need to pay for those we do. (Applause.) That’s why we’ve made hundreds of regulatory reforms that will save businesses billions of dollars. That’s why we’re not just throwing money at education, we’re challenging schools to come up with the most innovative reforms and the best results.
And it will require American business leaders to understand that their obligations don’t just end with their shareholders. Andy Grove, the legendary former CEO of Intel, put it best. He said, “There is another obligation I feel personally, given that everything I’ve achieved in my career, and a lot of what Intel has achieved…were made possible by a climate of democracy, an economic climate and investment climate provided by the United States.”

This broader obligation can take many forms. At a time when the cost of hiring workers in China is rising rapidly, it should mean more CEOs deciding that it’s time to bring jobs back to the United States — (applause) — not just because it’s good for business, but because it’s good for the country that made their business and their personal success possible. (Applause.)

I think about the Big Three auto companies who, during recent negotiations, agreed to create more jobs and cars here in America, and then decided to give bonuses not just to their executives, but to all their employees, so that everyone was invested in the company’s success. (Applause.)

I think about a company based in Warroad, Minnesota. It’s called Marvin Windows and Doors. During the recession, Marvin’s competitors closed dozens of plants, let hundreds of workers go. But Marvin’s did not lay off a single one of their 4,000 or so employees — not one. In fact, they’ve only laid off workers once in over a hundred years. Mr. Marvin’s grandfather even kept his eight employees during the Great Depression.

Now, at Marvin’s when times get tough, the workers agree to give up some perks and some pay, and so do the owners. As one owner said, “You can’t grow if you’re cutting your lifeblood — and that’s the skills and experience your workforce delivers.” (Applause.) For the CEO of Marvin’s, it’s about the community. He said, “These are people we went to school with. We go to church with them. We see them in the same restaurants. Indeed, a lot of us have married local girls and boys. We could be anywhere, but we are in Warroad.”

That’s how America was built. That’s why we’re the greatest nation on Earth. That’s what our greatest companies understand. Our success has never just been about survival of the fittest. It’s about building a nation where we’re all better off. We pull together. We pitch in. We do our part. We believe that hard work will pay off, that responsibility will be rewarded, and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on. (Applause.)

And it is that belief that rallied thousands of Americans to Osawatomie — (applause) — maybe even some of your ancestors — on a rain-soaked day more than a century ago. By train, by wagon, on buggy, bicycle, on foot, they came to hear the vision of a man who loved this country and was determined to perfect it.

“We are all Americans,” Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. “Our common interests are as broad as the continent.” In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, no matter who he was talking to, everybody would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance. (Applause.)

And well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and we’ve changed in many ways since Roosevelt’s time. The world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex. But what hasn’t changed — what can never change — are the values that got us this far. We still have a stake in each other’s success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule of our national life,” he said, “the rule which underlies all others — is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.” And I believe America is on the way up. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris has yet to decide if she’ll run for president in 2028. She’s also not going to dish on her former boss, Joe Biden. And her advice for a Brown-skinned person just getting into politics? There will be many situations when you walk into a meeting room and no one looks like you. Keep your chin up, your shoulders back and remember — all of us have your back.

“All of us” referred to the cheering, sold-out crowd at the Wiltern Theatre in Los Angeles on Tuesday evening who’d come to see the former Democratic presidential candidate speak about her new book, the election-campaign memoir “107 Days.” The chanted “Kamala!” “Kamala!” as she walked on stage. The outbursts of adoration continued for the next hour in eruptions of applause and supportive shout-outs (“We love you!”) as she spoke about everything from the need to pass Proposition 50 to how she coped with the devastating loss to Donald Trump in the 2024 election.

Moderated by actor Kerry Washington, “A Conversation With Kamala Harris” was one of nearly 20 stops on a tour that’s already seen Harris speak in New York, London and at the Wiltern last month. Zealous attendees paid anywhere from $55 to $190 on tickets to see Harris again following “one of the wildest and most consequential campaigns in American history” (the latter is an official descriptor for her book). The memoir details her historically short run for president, the whirlwind 107 days between the time Biden withdrew from the race and Harris become the Democratic nominee to her devastating loss on Nov. 5.

Harris fans flock to the Wiltern to see Kamala speak about her book, “107 Days.”

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Were there any great revelations or gotcha moments on stage Tuesday evening? Not really, but that’s not what this tour is about — at least for those who chose Harris over watching Game 4 of the World Series between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Toronto Blue Jays. The former attorney general of California shared her thoughts about the current Department of Justice — a “thin-skinned president” is using it as his own personal tool of “vengeance.” She explained how her loyalties to Biden may have cost her votes, and called out the Washington Post and the L.A. Times, whose “billionaire owners pre-capitulated” to Trump when they pulled their respective editorial boards’ endorsements for Harris. She drew a big laugh when discussing the importance of parsing fact from fiction in today’s mediaverse, and made up her own example of misinformation: “Circumcisions are causing autism!” And on a more serious note, she detailed the emotional fallout she experienced after losing the election: “For months [she and her husband, Doug Emhoff] never even mentioned it.”

Criticisms of Harris’ book have centered around a frankly tired refrain that she should accept more personal accountability for the election loss as opposed to blaming the influence of outside forces. On Tuesday she appeared willing to explore those themes when she said she constantly interrogated herself on the campaign trail: Are you doing everything you can to win this election? But before she could go much deeper, Washington told her that she needed to know that we, the audience, understood she did everything she could. The crowd erupted in affirming shouts and applause.

Clearly, a book tour attended by The Converted is not going to produce headline-worthy grist, especially with an interviewer who is an admitted Harris friend and supporter. That’s what debates and media interviews are for, and this was a fan event.

And her base was thirsty. Since Harris has largely stayed out of the spotlight since last November, the audience appeared ready to relive some of the joy they felt in the brief time she was running for office, and perhaps find a glimmer of hope in dark times for those who see the current administration’s actions as anti-democratic, at best.

Before “The Conversation With Kamala Harris” kicked off at 7 p.m., attendees who spotted Harris’ husband, Emhoff, in the first few rows of the venue lined up to shake his hand and take selfies with the former second gentleman of the United States. The close access to SGOTUS was surprising, given the heightened security around political figures after violent events such as the home-invasion assassinations of Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband in June, and the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a speaking event last month. Yet the atmosphere was casual and relaxed.

Despite heightened threats of politically-motivated violence, President Trump pulled Harris’ Secret Service detail, as he has done to many of those he sees as his enemies. But as a former state office holder, Harris’ security detail Tuesday was provided by the California Highway Patrol.

The conversation lasted a little over an hour, with a few prescreened questions at the end from audience members, such as the query from an attendee who identified himself as Ramon Chavoya, a proud Latino. He asked for Harris’ advice on getting into local politics. She was the first Black and first South Asian female candidate to be chosen by either party to run for the Oval Office. Her very presence was a reminder that the face of the nation is changing, despite a rise in xenophobic movements and legislation. She advised the aspiring young politician that he would likely stand out, but that he wasn’t alone. “We’re all in the room with you,” she said, a sentiment Harris’ supporters surely understood.

GYEONGJU, South Korea — The United States and South Korea advanced trade talks on Wednesday, addressing details of $350 billion that would be invested in the American economy, after negotiations and ceremonies that included the presentation of a gold medal and crown to President Trump.

Both were gifts from the country’s president, Lee Jae Myung, who dialed up the flattery while Washington and Seoul worked to nail down financial promises during the last stop of Trump’s Asia trip.

Although both sides said progress has been made — Trump said things were “pretty much finalized” — no agreement has been signed yet. The framework includes gradual investments, cooperation on shipbuilding and the lowering of Trump’s tariffs on South Korea’s automobile exports, according to Kim Yong-beom, Lee’s chief of staff for policy. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The announcement came after a day of adulation for the visiting American president from his hosts. There was a special lunch menu featuring U.S.-raised beef and a gold-adorned brownie. A band played Trump’s campaign anthem of “Y.M.C.A.” when he stepped off Air Force One. Lee told him that “you are indeed making America great again.”

Trump can be mercurial and demanding, but he has a soft spot for pomp and circumstance. He was particularly impressed by a choreographed display of colorful flags as he walked along the red carpet.

“That was some spectacle, and some beautiful scene,” Trump told Lee during their meeting. “It was so perfect, so flawlessly done.”

Earlier in the day, Trump even softened his rhetoric on international trade, which he normally describes in predatory terms where someone is always trying to rip off the United States.

“The best deals are deals that work for everybody,” he said during a business forum.

Trade deal with Seoul in process

Trump was visiting while South Korea is hosting the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in the historical city of Gyeongju. He previously stopped in Japan, where he bonded with the new prime minister, and Malaysia, where he attended a summit of the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations.

The Republican president has been trying to tie up trade deals along the way, eager to show that his confrontational approach of tariffs is paying dividends for Americans who are uneasy about the job market and watching a federal government shutdown extend into its fifth week.

South Korea has been particularly tough to crack, with the sticking point being Trump’s demand for $350 billion of direct investment in the U.S.

Korean officials say putting up cash could destabilize their own economy, and they’d rather offer loans and loan guarantees instead. The country would also need a swap line to manage the flow of its currency into the U.S.

Trump, after meeting with Lee, said “we made our deal pretty much finalized.” He did not provide any details.

Oh Hyunjoo, a deputy national security director for South Korea, told reporters earlier in the week that the negotiations have been proceeding “a little bit more slowly” than expected.

“We haven’t yet been able to reach an agreement on matters such as the structure of investments, their formats and how the profits will be distributed,” she said Monday.

It’s a contrast from Trump’s experience in Japan, where the government has worked to deliver the $550 billion in investments it promised as part of an earlier trade agreement. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced up to $490 billion in specific commitments during a dinner with business leaders in Tokyo.

For now, South Korea is stuck with a 25% tariff on automobiles, putting automakers such as Hyundai and Kia at a disadvantage against Japanese and European competitors, which face 15%.

Lee, speaking at the business forum before Trump arrived, warned against trade barriers.

“At a time when protectionism and nationalism are on the rise and nations focus on their immediate survival, words like ‘cooperation,’ ‘coexistence’ and ‘inclusive growth’ may sound hollow,” he said. “Yet, paradoxically, it is in times of crisis like this that APEC’s role as a platform for solidarity shines brighter.”

Trump and Lee swap praise

Lee took office in June and had a warm meeting with Trump at the White House in August, when he praised Oval Office renovations and suggested building a Trump Tower in North Korea.

He took a similar approach when Trump visited on Wednesday. The gold medal presented to Trump represents the Grand Order of Mugunghwa, the country’s highest honor, and Trump is the first U.S. president to receive it.

Trump said, “It’s as beautiful as it can possibly be” and “I’d like to wear it right now.”

Next was a replica of a royal crown from the Silla Kingdom, which existed from 57 B.C. to 935 A.D. The original crown was found in a tomb in Gyeongju, the kingdom’s capital.

Besides trade disagreements, there have been other points of tension between Washington and Seoul this year. More than 300 South Koreans were detained during a U.S. immigration raid on a Hyundai plant in Georgia in September, sparking outrage and betrayal.

Lee said at the time companies would likely hesitate to make future investments unless the visa system was improved.

“If that’s not possible, then establishing a local factory in the United States will either come with severe disadvantages or become very difficult for our companies,” he said.

Asked Monday about the immigration raid, Trump said, “I was opposed to getting them out,” and he said an improved visa system would make it easier for companies to bring in skilled workers.

Trump-Xi meeting is expected Thursday

While in South Korea, Trump is also expected to hold a closely watched meeting on Thursday with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Washington and Beijing have clashed over trade, but both sides have indicated that they’re willing to dial down tensions.

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Wednesday that he expects to lower tariffs targeting China over the flow of fentanyl ingredients.

“They’ll be doing what they can do,” he said. Trump added that “China is going to be working with me.”

Trump sounded resigned to the idea that he wouldn’t get to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on this trip. The president previously floated the possibility of extending his stay in South Korea, but on Wednesday said “the schedule was very tight.”

North Korea has so far dismissed overtures from Washington and Seoul, saying it won’t resume diplomacy with the United States unless Washington drops its demand for the North’s denuclearization. North Korea said Wednesday it fired sea-to-surface cruise missiles into its western waters, in the latest display of its growing military capabilities as Trump visits South Korea.

Trump brushed off the weapons test, saying, “He’s been launching missiles for decades, right?”

The two leaders met during Trump’s first term, although their conversations did not produce any agreements about North Korea’s nuclear program.

Megerian writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Kim Tong-hyung and Hyung-jin Kim contributed to this report from Seoul and Josh Boak contributed from Tokyo.

WASHINGTON — The White House pressed U.S. Navy officials to launch 2,000-pound live bombs instead of dummy explosives during an elaborate military demonstration for the service’s 250th anniversary celebration that President Trump attended, two people familiar with planning for the event told the Associated Press.

One person familiar with the planning said White House officials insisted to Navy planners that Trump “needed to see explosions” instead of just a “big splash” during the Oct. 5 demonstration.

Original planning for what the Navy dubbed the Titans of the Sea Presidential Review called for military personnel to use dummies and not live bombs, a third person familiar with the Navy’s planning said.

That person, who like the others was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity, would not comment on why the Navy decided to switch to live bombs.

The White House said no switch was made. Deputy press secretary Anna Kelly in a statement said: “Organizers always planned to use live munitions, as is typical in training exercises.”

The episode is the latest example of the Trump administration turning the military toward the president’s wishes in ways large and small — from summoning generals from around the world to Washington for a day of speeches to his lethal strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean.

The Navy and other military branches typically use dummy, or inert, bombs for training and demonstrations. Dummies are cheaper than live bombs because they do not contain expensive explosives, fuses and other components. They’re also safer.

However, military officials often argue that the use of live ammunition for events like the 250th birthday celebration also fulfills a training purpose and that the ordnance would have been expended anyway at a later date. The Navy declined to comment.

The switch required Navy officials to change up detailed plans for the Norfolk military demonstration to ensure safety protocols were met, according to the three people familiar with the planning.

The White House pushed forward with the event despite a U.S. government shutdown, which has led nonessential federal workers to be sent home without pay and reduced operation of many non-critical government services.

A celebration for the Marines also used live artillery

Confirmation that the Navy decided to use live bombs instead of dummies at the Naval Base Norfolk event comes as the administration faces scrutiny over an Oct. 18 live fire demonstration at Camp Pendleton, in which a misfire of a live artillery round led to shrapnel spraying onto Interstate 5 in Southern California.

No one was injured when shrapnel struck two California Highway Patrol vehicles. That Camp Pendleton event marking the Marines 250th anniversary was attended by Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Last week, 27 members of the California congressional delegation and the state’s two senators sent a letter to Hegseth asking whose decision it was to shoot live artillery over the busy freeway and how authorities planned for the safety risks.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who says he’ll weigh a 2028 White House run after the midterm elections next year, criticized the decision and closed a section of the roadway connecting San Diego to Los Angeles for hours during the Oct. 18 Marine showcase. The White House criticized him for closing the highway and said the Marines said there were no safety concerns.

Trump is a fan of military pomp

Trump hasn’t been shy about his fondness for pomp and pageantry that celebrates military might.

In his second term, he has pushed the U.S. services to hold big parades and demonstrations, an idea inspired by a Bastille Day parade he attended in France early in his first term. He was a guest of honor at the 2017 event, which commemorated the 100th anniversary of the U.S. entry into World War I.

The Army included tanks in a June parade in the nation’s capital, requested by Trump, to mark its 250 years despite concerns from city officials that the heavy vehicles would damage the city’s streets. And he appeared to relish the massive military welcome he received last month during his second state visit to the United Kingdom.

At the Navy celebration this month in Norfolk, the president and first lady Melania Trump watched the military demonstration from the deck of an aircraft carrier before Trump delivered a speech in which he criticized his political opponents and attacked Democratic lawmakers.

At sea, the Navy had seven Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers fire a variety of their guns, including a large 5-inch gun. Four destroyers also launched the Navy’s Standard Missile 2 (SM-2). Each missile costs approximately $2 million.

Meanwhile, aircraft from USS Truman’s air wing fired missiles and general-purpose bombs and performed a strafing run with their gatling guns. The Navy’s MH-60S Seahawk helicopters also fired hydra rockets and guns.

Trump then spoke on a pier between two towering Navy vessels, an aircraft carrier and an amphibious assault ship. The carrier displayed a Navy fighter jet that had the words “President Donald J. Trump ‘45-47’” printed on the fuselage, right under the cockpit window.

A Navy spokesperson told the AP shortly after the event that sailors put the president’s name on the aircraft for the visit and this was “customary for visits of this type.”

In addition to the live bomb demonstration, Navy destroyers launched missiles and fired shells into the Atlantic Ocean, and Navy SEALs descended from helicopters and fighter jets catapulted off vessels.

The shift to live bombs also required further spreading out of the guided missile destroyers in the waters off Norfolk for the military demonstration.

Madhani, Toropin and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

GYEONGJU, South Korea — President Trump said Wednesday that “it’s too bad” he’s not allowed to run for a third term, conceding the constitutional reality even as he expressed interest in continuing to serve.

“If you read it, it’s pretty clear,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One enroute from Japan to South Korea. “I’m not allowed to run. It’s too bad.”

The president’s comments, which continue his on-again, off-again musings about a third term, came a day after House Speaker Mike Johnson said it would be impossible for Trump to stay in the White House.

“I don’t see the path for that,” he told reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday.

Johnson, the Republican leader who has built his career by drawing closer to Trump, said he discussed the issue with the president, and he thinks Trump understands the situation.

“He and I have talked about the constrictions of the Constitution,” he said.

The speaker described how the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment does not allow for a third presidential term and changing that, with a new amendment, would be a cumbersome, decade-long process winning over states and votes in Congress.

“But I can tell you that we are not going to take our foot off the gas pedal,” he said. “We’re going to deliver for the American people, and we’ve got a great run ahead of us — he’ll have four strong years.”

Trump stopped short of characterizing his conversation with Johnson, and his description of the prohibition on third terms was somewhat less definitive.

“Based on what I read, I guess I’m not allowed to run,” he said Wednesday. “So we’ll see what happens.”

Trump has repeatedly raised the idea of trying to stay in power. Hats saying “Trump 2028” are passed out as souvenir keepsakes to lawmakers and others visiting the White House, and Trump’s former 2016 campaign chief-turned-podcaster Stephen Bannon has revived the idea of a third Trump term.

Trump told reporters Monday on Air Force One on his trip to Japan that “I would love to do it.”

He went on to say that his Republican Party has great options for the next presidential election — in Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was traveling with him, and Vice President JD Vance, who visited with senators at the Capitol on Tuesday.

“All I can tell you is that we have a great group of people,” Trump said.

Pressed if he was ruling out a third-term bid, Trump demurred. Asked about a strategy where he could run as vice president, which could be allowed under the laws, and then work himself in the presidency, he dismissed the idea as “too cute.”

“You’d be allowed to do that, but I wouldn’t do that,” he said.

The chit chat comes as Trump, in his words and actions, is showing just how far he can push the presidency — and daring anyone to stop him.

He is sending National Guard troops to cities over the objections of several state governors; accepting untold millions in private donations to pay the military and fund the new White House ballroom, picking winners and losers in the government shutdown.

Johnson, the Louisiana Republican who rose swiftly to become House speaker with Trump’s blessing, dismissed worries about a potential third term by the president’s critics whose “hair is on fire.”

“He has a good time with that, trolling the Democrats,” Johnson said.

Megerian and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

Kai Trump, President Trump’s eldest granddaughter, a high school senior and University of Miami commit, has secured a sponsor invitation to play in an LPGA Tour event Nov. 13-16.

The 18-year-old will compete in the Annika at Pelican Golf Club in Belleair, Fla. She currently attends the Benjamin School in Palm Beach and is ranked No. 461 on the American Junior Golf Assn. rankings. She also competes on the Srixon Medalist Tour on the South Florida PGA. Her top finish was a tie for third in July.

“My dream has been to compete with the best in the world on the LPGA Tour,” Trump said in a statement. “This event will be an incredible experience. I look forward meeting and competing against so many of my heroes and mentors in golf as I make my LPGA Tour debut.”

Sponsor invitations have long been used to attract attention to a tournament through a golfer who is from a well-known family or, in recent years, has a strong social media presence. Kai Trump qualifies on both counts.

She is the oldest daughter of Donald Trump Jr. and his ex-wife, Vanessa, and has nearly 8 million followers combined on Instagram, Tiktok, YouTube and X. In addition to posting her own exploits on and off the course, she creates videos playing golf with her grandpa and chronicled their visit to the Ryder Cup.

She also recently launched her own sports apparel and lifestyle brand, KT.

“Kai’s broad following and reach are helping introduce golf to new audiences, especially among younger fans,” said Ricki Lasky, LPGA chief tour business and operations officer, in a statement.

The oldest of the president’s 11 grandchildren, Kai became known nationally when she made a speech in support of her grandfather’s campaign at the 2024 Republican National Convention. Her parents divorced in 2018, and her mother has been dating Tiger Woods for about a year.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Tuesday unveiled their long-promised report on former President Biden’s use of the autopen, delivering a blistering critique of his time in office and inner circle that largely rehashes public information while making sweeping accusations about the workings of his White House.

The GOP report does not include any concrete evidence that aides conspired to enact policies without Biden’s knowledge or that the president was unaware of laws, pardons or executive orders signed in his name. But Republicans said their findings cast doubt on all of Biden’s actions in office. They sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi urging a full investigation. President Trump ordered a similar inquiry earlier this year.

At its core, the report advances contested claims that Biden’s mental state declined to a degree that allowed White House officials to enact policies without his knowledge. It focuses heavily on the pardons he granted in office, including to his son, Hunter Biden, based on depositions with close Biden aides.

“The cost of the scheme to hide the fallout of President Biden’s diminished physical and mental acuity was great but will likely never be fully calculated,” the report reads. “The cover-up put American national security at risk and the nation’s trust in its leaders in jeopardy.”

Biden has strenuously denied he was unaware of his administration’s actions, calling such claims “ridiculous and false.” Democrats on the House Oversight committee denounced the probe as a distraction and waste of time.

Republicans are shifting attention back to Biden at a tumultuous time, 10 months into Trump’s presidency, with the government shut down and Congress at a standstill over legislation to fund it. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has kept the House out of session for nearly a month, with most public-facing committee work grinding to a halt.

The report on Biden was largely compiled over several months before the shutdown began. Based on interviews with more than a dozen members of Biden’s inner circle, the report offers few new revelations, instead drawing broad conclusions from unanswered questions.

It includes repeated references to polls of Biden’s approval rating and perceptions of his public gaffes and apparent aging, much of it publicly known.

It alleges a “cover-up of the president’s cognitive decline” orchestrated by Biden’s inner circle and takes particular aim at Biden’s doctor, Kevin O’Connor, who invoked his Fifth Amendment right against testifying. Republicans also singled out senior aides Anthony Bernal and Annie Tomasini, who similarly pleaded the Fifth. All three “should face further scrutiny” from the Justice Department, Republicans said.

Republicans also sent a letter to the D.C. Board of Medicine urging that O’Connor face “discipline, sanction or revocation of his medical license” and “be barred from the practice of medicine in the District of Columbia.”

The report does not include full transcripts of the at-times multiple hours of recorded testimony that witnesses delivered before the committee. It repeatedly scolds Biden officials and Democratic allies for defending Biden’s mental state.

“The inner-most circle, or cocoon, of the White House senior staff organized one of the largest scandals in American history — hiding a cognitively failing president and refusing any means of confirmation of such demise,” the report says.

While the report claims that record-keeping policies in the Biden White House “were so lax that the chain of custody for a given decision is difficult or impossible to establish,” Republicans do not offer any concrete instances of the chain of command being violated or a policy being enacted without Biden’s knowledge.

Still, Republicans argue that Biden’s use of the autopen should be considered invalid unless there is documented proof of him approving a decision.

“Barring evidence of executive actions taken during the Biden presidency showing that President Biden indeed took a particular executive action, the committee deems those actions taken through use of the autopen as void,” the report says.

Democrats and legal experts have warned that broad scrutiny of executive actions could pose future legal headaches for the Trump administration and congressional Republicans, who also often enact policies directed by lawmakers through devices like the presidential autopen.

Brown and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Democratic presidential nominee Michael S. Dukakis stepped up his attacks on the ethical standards of the Reagan Administration on Saturday, offering his harshest criticism yet of the President’s role in the Pentagon procurement scandal.

Asked if he blamed President Reagan and Vice President George Bush, the presumed Republican nominee, personally for the corruption, Dukakis responded: “There’s an old Greek saying . . . The fish rots from the head first. It starts at the top.”

Dukakis said that misconduct and scandal have become “almost an epidemic” under Reagan. “It’s the guy at the top who has to be held accountable,” he added.

“If an Administration comes to Washington with a contempt for public service,” the Massachusetts governor said, “we shouldn’t be surprised if people it attracts to the government share that contempt.”

Dukakis’ acid comments at a press conference here capped a seven-state campaign swing in the industrial Midwest and Deep South targeted at Reagan Democrats–or “Bubba Democrats” as some here in Kentucky call themselves–the 18% of the electorate whose defection helped Reagan win landslide elections in 1980 and 1984.

The strategy holds the risk of alienating supporters of the still-popular President. Until now, Dukakis usually has avoided direct criticism of Reagan, aiming his sharpest barbs at outgoing Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III.

In his three-day campaign swing, his second since the convention, Dukakis repeatedly mocked Bush’s promise to put an ethics office in the White House. “In the Dukakis White House, the ethics office will be in the Oval Office, not somewhere down the hall,” he said.

He also cited testimony last week by David Packard, former head of the Reagan Commission on Defense Management and a former deputy secretary of defense, before the Senate Armed Services Committee investigating the Pentagon scandal.

Packard “testified that this Administration has helped create an environment in which, and I quote, ‘honest and efficient military acquisition is impossible,’ ” Dukakis told more than 5,000 people at an outdoor rally in this steamy Ohio River city.

“My friends, in a Dukakis Administration we’re not going to surrender our national security to greed and corruption,” he added. “We’re not going to use our defense dollars to line the pockets of Washington consultants. We’re going to pay for the tanks and equipment and training the men and women of our armed forces need and deserve.”

Dukakis has called for sharp spending cuts for Reagan’s “Star Wars” missile defense system. He opposes further deployment of the MX missile, as well as further spending on the mobile Midgetman missile system. He also would forgo two proposed Navy aircraft carrier task forces.

Dukakis focused mostly on economic development and education in his campaign visits to Secaucus, N.J.; Cleveland; Flint, Mich.; Racine, Wis.; Springfield, Ill.; Louisville, and Raleigh, N.C.

Despite sweltering weather at every stop, Dukakis encountered sizable crowds and palpable enthusiasm almost everywhere. His rally here, for example, was a sharp contrast with the visit in 1984 by then-Democratic nominee Walter F. Mondale.

Only a few hundred lonely voters showed up then. Even state Democratic leaders “mostly ducked it,” recalled Mayor Jerry E. Abramson. On election day, Kentucky, a state with twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans, gave 69% of its votes to Reagan.

This time, every top elected Democrat in the state crowded the platform in sweat-soaked shirts, waving flags and grinning for the cameras. State Chairman Jerry Lundergan happily held the candidate’s coat. A plane circled overhead, towing a banner: “Our Choice: President Dukakis!”

“He’s what America needs,” said Dale Robinson, 25, a law clerk who clutched two Instamatic cameras and a tiny U.S. flag. “He stands for what America is all about.”

“I think we need a change,” agreed Mike Johnson, 34, a high school teacher. “And I think he’ll do a better job of handling the deficit than Bush.”

Later, at an indoor state fairground hall in Raleigh, aides tried to re-create the excitement of Dukakis’ victory speech in Atlanta.

First came the now-familiar thumping beat of Neil Diamond’s “America” to warm up the crowd. Then in came the candidate, marching like a prize fighter under TV lights as the crowd roared to its feet. A singer belted out the National Anthem, the crowd faced a giant flag to chant the Pledge of Allegiance and Dukakis used a TelePrompTer to speak of an America that “cares for each other and, yes, loves one another.”

“He’s inspiring us to be Americans again,” said Janice Brady, who held her 9-year-old daughter, Amanda. “Just like Reagan.”

In a sign of California’s rising status as a major hub of Democratic politics, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday he’s considering a run for president in 2028 — just a day after former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris made the same pronouncement.

Newsom, a Democrat who has won national prominence this year pitching himself a leader of the resistance to President Trump, admitted for the first time publicly that he is seriously weighing a 2028 presidential run.

In an interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning,” Newsom was asked whether he would give “serious thought” after the 2026 midterms to a White House bid.

“Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise,” Newsom replied. “I’d just be lying. And I’m not — I can’t do that.”

Harris said this weekend in an interview with the BBC that she expects a woman will be president in the coming year. “Possibly,” she said, it could be her.

“I am not done,” she said. “I have lived my entire career as a life of service and it’s in my bones.”

It’s still more than three years until the November 2028 election, and entirely possible only one or neither of the two California politicians could throw their hat in the race.

But the early willingness of Newsom and Harris to publicly consider a White House bid shows that the Golden State is still a major hub of Democratic politics. It also sets up a potential 2028 political showdown between two of California’s weightiest political figureheads.

For years, Newsom has denied presidential ambitions. But since Trump defeated Harris in the November 2024 election, the California governor has emerged as a vocal critic of the Trump administration’s agenda.

Under Newsom’s leadership, California has filed dozens of lawsuits against Trump — most noticeably against the Trump administration’ deployment of National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles. The governor has also become more aggressive on social media, taking to X to taunt and troll Trump.

Still, Newsom, whose term ends in January 2027 and who cannot run again for governor because of term limits, cautioned that he is not rushing into a 2028 presidential campaign.

“I have no idea,” Newsom said Sunday of whether he will actually decide to run.

After Trump defeated Harris in November, Harris was viewed as a possible candidate for California governor. But in July she announced that, after “serious thought” she would not run for the top California office.

“For now, my leadership — and public service — will not be in elected office,” Harris said in a statement. “I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans.”

Newsom’s interest in the White House raises the stakes for passing Proposition 50, a California ballot measure he has pushed — in response to a similar initiative in Texas — that would allow state Democrats to temporarily change the boundaries of U.S. House maps so that they are more favorable to Democrats. California voters will vote on Prop 50 in a special election next week.

Newsom has cast his effort as a response to Trump’s push to redraw maps in Republican-controlled states to make them more favorable to the GOP.

“I think it’s about our democracy,” Newsom said in the CBS interview. “It’s about the future of this republic. I think it’s about, you know, what the founding fathers lived and died for, this notion of the rule of law, and not the rule of Don.”

If Newsom is successful and Proposition 50 passes, the move could potentially help future Democratic candidates for the White House.

But either way, both Newsom and Harris would face high hurdles in battleground states if they ran for president.

Just being a Californian is a liability, some argue, at a time when Republicans depict the state as a bastion of woke ideas, high taxes and crime.

While California boasts the world’s fifth-largest economy and is home to the massive tech powerhouse of Silicon Valley and the cultural epicenter of Hollywood, it has struggled in recent years with high housing costs and massive income inequality. In September, a study found California tied with Louisiana for the nation’s highest poverty rate.

Newsom, 58, a former San Francisco mayor who was born to a wealthy and well-connected San Francisco family, suggested in the CBS interview that he had already surmounted significant obstacles. Early on, Newsom struggled in school and suffered from dyslexia.

“The idea that a guy who got 960 on his SAT, that still struggles to read scripts, that was always in the back of the classroom, the idea that you would even throw that out is, in and of itself, extraordinary,” Newsom said. “Who the hell knows? I’m looking forward to who presents themselves in 2028 and who meets that moment. And that’s the question for the American people.”

Harris, 61, who served as a U.S. senator and California attorney general before she became vice president in 2020 and then the Democratic Party’s nominee in the 2024 presidential election, received criticism last year after losing to Trump by more than 2.3 million votes, about 1.5% of the popular vote. Some Democrats accused her of being an elite, out of touch candidate who failed to connect with voters in battleground states who have struggled economically in recent years.

But speaking in Los Angeles last month as she promoted her new memoir, “107 Days,” Harris appeared to take little responsibility for her 2024 loss.

“I wrote the book for many reasons, but primarily to remind us how unprecedented that election was,” Harris said.

“Think about it. A sitting president of the United States is running for reelection and three and a half months before the election decides not to run, and then a sitting vice president takes up the mantle to run against a former president of the United States who has been running for 10 years, with 107 days to go.”

Newsom has already raised eyebrows this year by traveling to critical battleground election states.

In July, Newsom traveled more than 2,000 miles to South Carolina, a state that traditionally hosts the South’s first presidential primary. He said he was working to help the party win back the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026. But at the time there were a dozen competitive House districts in California. South Carolina, a staunchly conservative state, did not have a single competitive race.

After Newsom spoke in South Carolina, Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress and renowned Democratic kingmaker who rescued former President Biden’s 2020 campaign, told The Times that Newsom would be “a hell of a candidate.”

“He’s demonstrated that over and over again,” Clyburn said, stopping short of endorsing him. “I feel good about his chances.”

But other leading South Carolina Democrats voiced doubts that Newsom could win over working class and swing voters in battleground states.

Richard Harpootlian, a South Carolina attorney, former state senator and former chairman of the state Democratic Party, called Newsom “a handsome man with great hair.”

“But the party is searching for a left-of-moderate candidate who can articulate blue-collar hopes and desires,” Harpootlian told The Times.

“If he had a track record of solving huge problems like homelessness, or the social safety net, he’d be a more palatable candidate,” he added. “I just think he’s going to have a tough time explaining why there’s so many failures in California.”

US president begins trip to Malaysia, Japan and South Korea, with international trade and China on the agenda.

Reuters

‘Woman with a very independent mind’

Oct. 25 (UPI) — Kamela Harris said she may run again for U.S. president in the 2028 election.

The interview will be broadcast Sunday on the BBC and excerpts were released on Saturday.

The former vice president told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg that her grandnices would “in their lifetime for” see a woman in the White House and “possibly” it could be her.

“I am not done,” Harris said. “I have lived my entire career as a life of service and it’s in my bones.”

Harris, who turned 61 on Monday, said she hasn’t made a decision yet, more than three years before the election.

Harris lost to Donald Trump in the 2024 election after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race on July 21, just than a month before the Democratic convention.

Her book, 107 days, released on Sept. 23, details the short length of her campaign.

Harris dismissed polls that have her trailing in the Democratic nomination behind California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“If I listened to polls I would have not run for my first office, or my second office – and I certainly wouldn’t be sitting here,” said Harris, the former California senator, attorney general and state attorney who challenged Biden for the top spot on the ticket in 2020.

Harris again criticized her 2024 opponent, calling him a “tyrant.”

The White House responded to Harris’s comments.

“When Kamala Harris lost the election in a landslide, she should’ve taken the hint –the American people don’t care about her absurd lies,” spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said.

“Or maybe she did take the hint and that’s why she’s continuing to air her grievances to foreign publications.”

Trump defeated Harris in the popular vote, 77.3 million to 75 million, and the Electoral College vote 312-226.

She noted warnings about him while campaigning have come true.

For example, “He said he would weaponize the Department of Justice – and he has done exactly that.”

And she noted changes to other agencies.

“You look at what has happened in terms of how he has weaponised, for example, federal agencies going around after political satirists … His skin is so thin he couldn’t endure criticism from a joke, and attempted to shut down an entire media organisation in the process.”

Business leaders and institutions are wrong to bow to the president’s demands, she said.

“There are many… that have capitulated since day one, who are bending the knee at the foot of a tyrant, I believe for many reasons, including they want to be next to power, because they want to perhaps have a merger approved or avoid an investigation.”

In July, Harris said she won’t run for California governor in 2026.

“For now, my leadership – and public service – will not be in elected office,” Harris said at the time.

Catherine Connolly, a pro-Palestine, left-wing candidate, is on course for a landslide victory as vote counting continues.

Left-wing independent candidate Catherine Connolly is set to become Ireland’s next president after her rival conceded defeat.

Vote counting in the presidential election was still under way on Saturday, but Heather Humphreys of the centre-right Fine Gael party told reporters she “wanted to congratulate Catherine Connolly on becoming the next president of Ireland”.

“Catherine will be a president for all of us, and she will be my president, and I really would like to wish her all the very, very best,” Humphreys said.

Voting slips were being counted by hand with the final result of Friday’s election expected to be declared later on Saturday once all 43 electoral constituencies across the country have completed counting.

Polls had suggested consistent and strong voter support for Connolly, 68, over her rival Humphreys, 64.

Deputy Prime Minister and Fine Gael leader Simon Harris also was quick to wish Connolly “every success”, adding: “She will be President for all this country.”

“Her success will be Ireland’s success,” he posted on X.

Connolly, a former barrister and independent lawmaker since 2016, has been outspoken in criticising Israel over its war in Gaza and has garnered the backing of a range of left-leaning parties, including Sinn Fein, the Labour Party and the Social Democrats.

Her campaign was especially popular among young people, who approved of her strong pro-Palestine stance and her commitment to social justice, among other issues.

Connolly and Humphreys were the only contenders after Jim Gavin, the candidate for Prime Minister Micheal Martin’s Fianna Fail party, quit the race three weeks before the election over a long-ago financial dispute. Martin had backed Gavin in the race.

While Irish presidents represent the country on the world stage, host visiting heads of state and play an important constitutional role, they do not have the power to shape laws or policies.

The winner will succeed Michael D Higgins, who has been president since 2011, having served the maximum two seven-year terms.

If confirmed, Connolly will be Ireland’s 10th president and the third woman to hold the post.

Oct. 24 (UPI) — The Treasury Department announced sanctions against Colombian President Gustavo Petro Urrego over cocaine production and smuggling into the United States.

The sanctions include Petro’s wife, first lady Veronica del Socorro Alcocer Garcia, his son Nicolas Petro and “close associate” Armando Benedettie, the Treasury Department announced Friday in a news release.

“Since President Gustavo Petro came to power, cocaine production in Colombia has exploded to the highest rate in decades, flooding the United States and poisoning Americans,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.

“President Petro has allowed drug cartels to flourish and refused to stop this activity,” Bessent said.

“Today, President [Donald] Trump is taking strong action to protect our nation and make clear that we will not tolerate the trafficking of drugs into our nation.”

The sanctions are imposed in accordance with the president’s Executive Order 14059, which targets foreigners who are involved in the global trade of illicit drugs.

The sanctions freeze all property or interests in property owned by the Petro, his wife, son and associate that are located in the United States or territories controlled by the United States.

All such properties must be reported to the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

The Treasury Department said Colombia is the world’s leading producer and exporter of cocaine that often is bought by Mexican drug cartels and smuggled into the United States.

Petro on Oct. 8 said an alleged drug-smuggling vessel that was sunk by the U.S. military in the Caribbean was manned by Colombian citizens.

He has recalled the Colombian ambassador to the United States after the U.S. military sank a vessel that was near Colombian waters and Trump halted U.S. financial support for Colombia.

Petro also met with U.S. diplomat John McNamara on Monday to ease tensions between Colombia and the Trump administration.

Petro is a former guerrilla member who became Colombia’s president in 2022 and “has provided narco-terrorist organizations with benefits under the auspices of his ‘total peace’ plan,” according to the Treasury Department.

Such policies have led to record cultivation of coca and production of cocaine, which the Treasury Department said prompted Trump to declare Colombia a “major drug-transit or major drug-producing country” that has failed to uphold its responsibility to control such activities.

The Treasury also said Petro has allied with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro‘s “narco-terrorist regime” and the Cartel de Los Soles.

The Colombian president’s activities create a significant risk of the international proliferation of illicit drugs, according to the federal agency.

MEXICO CITY — The United States slapped sanctions on Colombian President Gustavo Petro on Friday and said it was sending a massive aircraft carrier to the waters off South America, a new escalation of what the White House has described as a war against drug traffickers in the region. Also Friday, the U.S. military conducted its 10th strike on a suspected drug-running boat, killing six people in the Caribbean Sea.

The Treasury Department said it was sanctioning Petro, his wife, his son and a political associate for failing to stop the flow of cocaine to the United States, noting that cocaine production in Colombia has risen in recent years. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused Petro of “poisoning Americans.”

Petro denied those claims in a statement on X, saying he has fought to combat drug trafficking for decades. He said it was “quite a paradox” to be sanctioned by a country with high rates of cocaine consumption.

The sanctions put Petro in the same category as the leaders of Russia and North Korea and limit his ability to travel to the United States. They mark a new low for relations between Colombia and the United States, which until recently were strong allies, sharing military intelligence, a robust trade relationship and a multibillion-dollar fight against drug trafficking.

Elizabeth Dickinson, a senior analyst for the Andes region at the International Crisis Group, a think tank, said that while Petro and the U.S. government have had disagreements over how to tackle trafficking — with the Americans more interested in eradicating coca fields and Colombians focused on cocaine seizures — the two countries have been working for decades toward the same goal.

“To suggest that Colombia is not trying is false and disingenuous,” Dickinson said. “If the U.S. has a partner in counternarcotics in Latin America, it’s Colombia. Colombian forces have been working hand in hand with the Americans for literally four decades. They are the best, most capable and frankly most willing partner the U.S. has in the region.

“If the U.S. were to cut this relationship, it would really be the U.S. shooting themselves in the foot.”

Many viewed the sanctions as punishment for Petro’s criticism of Trump. In recent days, Petro has accused the U.S. of murder, saying American strikes on alleged drug boats lack legal justification and have killed civilians. He has also accused the U.S. of building up its military in South America in an attempt to topple Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The quickened pace of U.S. airstrikes in the region and the unusually large buildup of military force in the Caribbean Sea have fueled those speculations.

On Friday, a Pentagon official said the U.S. ordered the USS Gerald R. Ford and its strike group to deploy to U.S. Southern Command to “bolster U.S. capacity to detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities that compromise the safety and prosperity of the United States.”

The USS Ford is currently deployed to the Mediterranean Sea along with three destroyers. It would probably take several days for the ships to make the journey to South America.

The White House has increasingly drawn a direct comparison between the war on terrorism that the U.S. declared after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the Trump administration’s crackdown on drug traffickers.

Trump this month declared drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and said the U.S. was in an “armed conflict” with them, relying on the same legal authority used by the Bush administration after 9/11.

When reporters asked Trump on Thursday whether he would request that Congress issue a declaration of war against the cartels, he said that wasn’t the plan.

“I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We’re going to kill them, you know? They’re going to be like, dead,” Trump said during a roundtable at the White House with Homeland Security officials.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to rule for the first time on whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials.

A decision could come at any time.

And even a one-line order siding with President Trump would send the message that he is free to use the military to carry out his orders — and in particular, in Democratic-controlled cities and states.

Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency appeal last week asking the court to reverse judges in Chicago who blocked the deployment of the National Guard there.

The Chicago-based judges said Trump exaggerated the threat faced by federal immigration agents and had equated “protests with riots.”

Trump administration lawyers, however, said these judges had no authority to second-guess the president. The power to deploy the National Guard “is committed to his exclusive discretion by law,” they asserted in their appeal in Trump vs. Illinois.

That broad claim of executive power might win favor with the court’s conservatives.

Administration lawyers told the court that the National Guard would “defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence” in response to aggressive immigration enforcement, but it would not carry out ordinary policing.

Yet Trump has repeatedly threatened to send U.S. troops to San Francisco and other Democratic-led cities to carry out ordinary law enforcement.

When he sent 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, their mission was to protect federal buildings from protesters. But state officials said troops went beyond that and were used to carry out a show in force in MacArthur Park in July.

Newsom, Bonta warn of dangers

That’s why legal experts and Democratic officials are sounding an alarm.

“Trump v. Illinois is a make-or-break moment for this court,” said Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent critic of the court’s pro-Trump emergency orders. “For the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that allows the president to send troops into our cities based upon contrived (or even government-provoked) facts … would be a terrible precedent for the court to set not just for what it would allow President Trump to do now but for even more grossly tyrannical conduct.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case warning of the danger ahead.

“On June 7, for the first time in our nation’s history, the President invoked [the Militia Act of 1903] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor. Since that time, it has become clear that the federal government’s actions in Southern California earlier this summer were just the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” their brief said.

“At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate. … What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time.”

Conservatives cite civil rights examples

Conservatives counter that Trump is seeking to enforce federal law in the face of strong resistance and non-cooperation at times from local officials.

“Portland and Chicago have seen violent protests outside of federal buildings, attacks on ICE and DHS agents, and organized efforts to block the enforcement of immigration law,” said UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo. “Although local officials have raised cries of a federal ‘occupation’ and ‘dictatorship,’ the Constitution places on the president the duty to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed.’”

He noted that presidents in the past “used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Those who cheer those interventions cannot now deny the same constitutional authority when it is exercised by a president they oppose,” he said.

The legal battle so far has sidestepped Trump’s broadest claims of unchecked power, but focused instead on whether he is acting in line with the laws adopted by Congress.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Beginning in 1903, Congress said that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” if he faces “danger of invasion by a foreign nation … danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States or the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States.”

While Trump administration lawyers claim he faces a “rebellion,” the legal dispute has focused on whether he is “unable to execute the laws.”

Lower courts have blocked deployments

Federal district judges in Portland and Chicago blocked Trump’s deployments after ruling that protesters had not prevented U.S. immigration agents from doing their jobs.

Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, described the administration’s description of “war-ravaged” Portland as “untethered to the facts.”

In Chicago, Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, said that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

But the two appeals courts — the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and the 7th Circuit in Chicago — handed down opposite decisions.

A panel of the 9th Circuit said judges must defer to the president’s assessment of the danger faced by immigration agents. Applying that standard, the appeals court by a 2-1 vote said the National Guard deployment in Portland may proceed.

But a panel of the 7th Circuit in Chicago agreed with Perry.

“The facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois, even giving substantial deference to his assertions,” they said in a 3-0 ruling last week. “Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities.”

Attorneys for Illinois and Chicago agreed and urged the court to turn down Trump’s appeal.

“There is no basis for claiming the President is ‘unable’ to ‘execute’ federal law in Illinois,” they said. “Federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks.”

U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, shown at his confirmation hearing in February, said the federal judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the Trump administration’s deployment of troops.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer presented a dramatically different account in his appeal.

“On October 4, the President determined that the situation in Chicago had become unsustainably dangerous for federal agents, who now risk their lives to carry out basic law enforcement functions,” he wrote. “The President deployed the federalized Guardsmen to Illinois to protect federal officers and federal property.”

He disputed the idea that agents faced just peaceful protests.

“On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protestors at the Broadview facility. The physical altercations became more significant and the clashes more violent as the size of the crowds swelled throughout September,” Sauer wrote. “Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them. More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations.”

He said the judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the deployment, and he urged the court to cast aside their rulings.

With the fate of President’s Trump’s right-wing agenda at stake, the California ballot measure crafted to tilt Congress to Democratic control has turned into a fight among millionaires and billionaires, a former president, a past movie-star governor and the nation’s top partisans.

Californians have been inundated with political ads popping up on every screen — no cellphone, computer or living-room television is spared — trying to sway them about Proposition 50, which will reconfigure the districts of the largest state congressional delegation in the union.

Besides opposing pleas from former President Obama and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state’s powerful, left-leaning labor unions are another factor that may influence the outcome of the Nov. 4 special election.

Unions representing California school teachers, carpenters, state workers and nurses have plowed more than $23 million into efforts to pass Proposition 50, according to an analysis of campaign finance disclosure reports about donations exceeding $100,000. That’s nearly one-third of the six-figure donations reported through Thursday.

Not only do these groups have major interests in the state capitol, including charter school reform, minimum wage hikes and preserving government healthcare programs, they also are deeply aligned with efforts by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his fellow Democrats to put their party in control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 election.
“There are real issues here that are at stake,” said veteran Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman, who has represented several unions that have contributed to Newsom’s committee supporting Proposition 50.

“There’s always a risk when making sizable donations, that you’re putting yourself out there,” Kaufman said. “But the truth is on Proposition 50, I think it’s much less calculated than normal contributions. It really is about the issue, not about currying favor with members of the Legislature, or the congressional delegation, or the governor. Even though, of course, it benefits them if we win.”

High stakes brings in big money from across the nation

Newsom’s pro-Proposition 50 committee has raised more than $116 million, according to campaign disclosure filings through Thursday afternoon, though that number is sure to increase once additional donations are disclosed in the latest fundraising reports that are due by midnight Thursday.

The multimillion-dollar donations provide the best evidence of what’s at stake, and how Proposition 50 could determine control of the House during the final two years of Trump’s presidency. If the Democrats take control of the House, not only could that derail major parts of Trumps agenda, it probably would lead to a slew of congressional hearings on Trump’s immigration crackdown, use of the military in American cities, accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from Qatari’s royal family, the cutting of research funding to universities and the president’s ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, among many others.

The House Majority PAC — the Democrats’ congressional fundraising arm — has donated at least $15 million to the pro-Proposition 50 campaign, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) was in Los Angeles to campaign for the ballot measure last weekend. Obama joined Newsom on a livestream promoting the proposition Wednesday, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin hosted a bilingual phone bank in Los Angeles on Thursday.

“Make no mistake about what they’re trying to do and why it’s so important that we fight back,” Martin said. “We’re not going to be the only party with one hand tied behind our back. If they want a showdown, we’re going to give them a showdown and in just a little under two weeks it starts right here with Prop. 50 in California.”

Billionaire financier George Soros — a generous donor to liberal causes and a bogeyman to Republicans — has contributed $10 million. Others have chosen to fund separate entities campaigning in favor of Proposition 50, notably billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer, who chipped in $12 million.

On the opposition side, the largest donor is Charles Munger Jr., the son of the longtime investment partner of billionaire Warren Buffett, who has contributed $32.8 million to one of the two main committees opposing Proposition 50. The Congressional Leadership Fund — the GOP’s political arm in the House — has donated $5 million to the other main anti-Proposition 50 committee and $8 million to the California Republican Party.

Although Republicans may control the White House and Congress, the California GOP wields no real power in Sacramento, so it’s not surprising that Republican efforts opposing Proposition 50 have not received major donations from entities with business before the state.

The California Chamber of Commerce opted to remain neutral on Proposition 50. Chevron and the California Resources Corp., petroleum companies that have given to California Republicans in the past, also remain on the sidelines.

In contrast, Democrats control every statewide office and hold supermajorities in both houses of the California Legislature. The pro-Proposition 50 campaign has been showered with donations from groups aligned with Sacramento’s legislative leaders — with labor organizations chief among them.

Among the labor donors, the powerful carpenters unions have donated at least $4 million. Newsom hailed them in July when he signed legislation altering a landmark environmental law for urban apartment developments to boost the supply of housing. The California Conference of Carpenters union has become one of the most pro-housing voices in the state.

“This is the third of the last four years we’ve been together signing landmark housing reforms, and it simply would not have happened without the Carpenters,” Newsom said at the time.

Daniel M. Curtin, director of the California Conference of Carpenters, pointed to a letter he wrote to legislators in August urging them to put redistricting on the ballot because of the effect of Trump’s policies on the state’s workers.

“These are not normal times, and this isn’t politics as usual. Not only has the Trump administration denied disaster assistance to victims of California’s devastating forest fires, he’s damaging our CA economy with mass arrests of law-abiding workers without warrants,” wrote Curtin, whose union has 70,000 members in the state. “The Trump administration is now unilaterally withdrawing from legally binding union collective bargaining agreements with federal workforce unions. The President has made it clear that this is just the beginning.”

Proposition 50 was prompted by Trump urging Republican leaders in Texas to redraw their congressional districts to boost the number of GOP members in the House and keep the party in control after the 2026 election. Newsom sought to counter the move by altering California’s congressional boundaries in a rare mid-decade redistricting.

With 52 members in the House, the state has the largest congressional delegation in the nation. But unlike many states, California’s districts are drawn by an independent commission created by voters in 2010 in an effort to end partisan gerrymandering and incumbent protection.

The state’s districts would not have been redrawn until after the 2030 U.S. census, but the Legislature and Newsom agreed in August to put Proposition 50, which would give Democrats the potential to pick up five seats, on the November ballot.

Money from California unions pours in

Although much of the money supporting the efforts comes from wealth Democratic donors and partisan groups aimed at helping Democrats take control of Congress, a significant portion comes from labor unions.

The Service Employees International Union, which represents more than 700,000 healthcare workers, social workers, in-home caregivers and school employees and other state and local government workers, has contributed more than $5.5 million to the committee.

On Oct. 12, the union celebrated Newsom signing bills ensuring that workers, regardless of immigration status, are informed about their civil and labor rights under state and federal law as well as updating legal guidance to state and local agencies about protecting private information, such as court records and medical data, from being misused by federal authorities.

“Thank you to Governor Newsom for … standing up to federal overreach and indiscriminate, violent attacks on our communities,” David Huerta, president of SEIU California, said in a statement.

Huerta was arrested during the first day of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles in June and charged with a felony. But federal prosecutors are instead pursuing a misdemeanor case against him, according to a Friday court filing.

An SEIU representative did not respond to requests for comment.

The California Teachers Assn., another potent force in state politics, has contributed more than $3.3 million, along with millions more from other education unions such as the National Education Assn., the California Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers.

CTA had a mixed record in this year’s legislative session.

Newsom vetoed a bill to crack down on charter school fraud, Senate Bill 414. The CTA opposed the bill, arguing that it didn’t go far enough to target fraud in some of the schools, and had urged the governor to reject it.

Newsom signed CTA-backed bills that placed strict limits on ICE agents’ access to school grounds. But he also vetoed union-backed bill that would have required the state Board of Education to adopt health education instructional materials by July 1, 2028.

CTA President David Goldberg said their donations are driven not only by issues important to the union’s members, but also the students they serve who are dependent on federally funded assistance programs and impacted by policies such as immigration.

“It’s about our livelihood but it really is about fundamental issues … for people who serve students who are just incredibly under attack right now,” Goldberg said.

“The governor’s support for labor would be exactly the same with or without Proposition 50 on the ballot. But he would acknowledge this year is more urgent than ever for labor and working people,” said Newsom spokesperson Bob Salladay. “Trump is taking a wrecking ball to collective bargaining, to fair wages and safe working conditions. He would be backing them up under any circumstances, but especially now.”

Critics of Proposition 50 argue that these contributions are among the reasons voters should oppose the ballot measure.

“The independent redistricting commission exists to prevent conflicts of interest and money from influencing line drawing,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition, the committee backed by Munger Jr., who bankrolled the 2010 ballot measure to create the independent commission. “That’s why we want to preserve its independence.”

Other labor leaders argued that although they are not always in lockstep with Newsom, they need to support Proposition 50 because of the importance of Democrats winning the congressional majority next year.

Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the powerful California Labor Federation, said the timing of the member unions’ donations of millions of dollars to Newsom’s ballot measure committee for an election taking place shortly after the bill-signing period was “unfortunate” and “weird.”

“Because we have so many bills in front of him, we were gun-shy,” she said, noting that the federation has sparred with the governor over issues such as the effect of artificial intelligence in the workplace. “Never be too close to your elected officials. Because we see the good, the bad, the ugly.”

Times staff writers Andrea Flores and Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.