president

POPE Leo XIV meets Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky yesterday after the pontiff’s inauguration mass.

The bells of St Peter’s Basilica earlier rang out as Chicago-born Leo waved from the popemobile that slowly went round the square

4

4

4

Guests at the mass also included Prince Edward and US Vice President JD Vance.

Vance paid his respects at the late Pope Francis‘s tomb upon arriving in Rome late on Saturday before heading to the US delegation honouring Chicago-born Leo.

The pope, 69, has publicly criticised Vance, previously sharing an article condemning the Republican’s comments about a hierarchy of who you love in Christianity on a social media account under his name.

Both the United States and Peru get front-row seats at the historic event due to Leo’s dual citizenship as well as strict diplomatic protocol.

Catholic convert Vance – who tangled with Pope Francis over Donald Trump’s mass migrant deportation plans – was joined by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Rubio arrived in Rome ahead of time to try to advance tense Russia-Ukraine peace talks.

Images showed Vance smiling as he shook the hand of President Zelensky – despite the two engaging in the brutal three-way Oval Office shouting match earlier this year.

Moscow last night fired a total of 273 exploding drones and decoys targeting Ukraine’s capital Kyiv, as well as Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions – the biggest Russian drone attack since the start of the war.

4

Unlock even more award-winning articles as The Sun launches brand new membership programme – Sun Club.

Doctors discovered the cancer in Joe Biden last week after urinary symptoms and the detection of a prostate nodule.

Former United States President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with “aggressive” prostate cancer, his office has said in a statement.

Biden was seen last week by doctors after urinary symptoms developed and a prostate nodule was found. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer on Friday, with the cancer cells having spread to the bone, the statement released on Sunday said.

“While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive, which allows for effective management,” his office said.

“The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians”, it added.

The health of the 82-year-old Biden was a key concern among US voters during his time as president and became more so during the 2024 campaign.

After a calamitous debate performance in June 2024, Biden abandoned his bid for a second term. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris became the nominee and lost to Donald Trump, who returned to the White House after a four-year hiatus.

Trump, a longtime political opponent, who has lambasted Biden and continues to blame him for wars and economic ills, posted on social media that he was saddened by the news and “we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery”.

Pete Buttigieg, who was Biden’s transportation secretary, called the former president “a man of deep faith and extraordinary resilience”.

Biden, a self-proclaimed Zionist, was heavily criticised in some quarters at home and overseas for his unconditional support for Israel in its punishing Gaza war after the Hamas-led October 7 attack, and for not using Washington’s leverage to rein in US ally Israel, as death and devastation wracked Palestinians in Gaza.

In recent days, Biden rejected concerns about his age despite reporting in the new book Original Sin that aides had shielded the public from the extent of his cognitive decline while he served as president.

Some prominent Democratic politicians have recently acknowledged that it was a mistake to advance Biden as the nominee, one that likely cost them the White House, given the growing concerns among voters about his age, even though Trump was in his late 70s.

A Reuters/Ipsos polls, some time before the debate, showed a majority of Americans, including most Democrats, believed Biden was too old to serve a second term.

“It was a mistake for Democrats to not listen to the voters earlier,” Democratic U.S. Senator Chris Murphy told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday morning, before Biden’s diagnosis was announced.

Prostate cancers are given a ranking called a Gleason score that measures, on a scale of 1 to 10, how the cancerous cells look compared with normal cells. Biden’s score of 9 suggests his cancer is among the most aggressive.

When prostate cancer spreads to other parts of the body, it often spreads to the bones. Metastasised cancer is much harder to treat than localised cancer because it can be hard for drugs to reach all the tumours and completely root out the disease.

Biden lost a son, Beau Biden, in 2015, to brain cancer.

WASHINGTON — Former President Biden has been diagnosed with an “aggressive form” of prostate cancer, his office said Sunday.

Biden was seen last week by doctors after urinary symptoms and a prostate nodule was found. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer Friday, with the cancer cells having spread to the bone. His office said he has Stage 9 cancer.

“While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management,” his office said in a statement. “The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians.”

Prostate cancers are given a rating called a Gleason score that measures, on a scale of 1 to 10, how the cancerous cells look compared with normal cells. Biden’s score of 9 suggests his cancer is among the most aggressive.

When prostate cancer spreads to other parts of the body, it often spreads to the bones. Metastasized cancer is much harder to treat than localized cancer because it can be hard for drugs to reach all the tumors and completely root out the disease.

However, when prostate cancers need hormones to grow, as in Biden’s case, they can be susceptible to treatment that deprives the tumors of hormones.

The health of Biden, 82, was a dominant concern among voters during his time as president. After a calamitous debate performance in June while seeking reelection, Biden abandoned his bid for a second term. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris became the nominee and lost to Republican Donald Trump, who returned to the White House after a four-year hiatus.

But in recent days, Biden rejected concerns about his age despite reporting in a new book, “Original Sin” by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, that aides had shielded the public from the extent of his decline while he was serving as president.

In February 2023, Biden had a skin lesion removed from his chest that was a basal cell carcinoma, a common form of skin cancer. And in November 2021, he had a polyp removed from his colon that was a benign but potentially pre-cancerous lesion.

In 2022, Biden made a “cancer moonshot” one of his administration’s priorities with the goal of halving the cancer death rate over the next 25 years. The initiative was a continuation of his work as vice president to address a disease that had killed his older son, Beau.

For some folks, this summer will be a time of relaxation: picnics, barbecues, vacation. For others, a mad scramble between work and swim meets, baseball tournaments or shopping before shelves go bare and the Trump tariffs price everything beyond reach.

For Kamala Harris, it’s a time for deciding.

The former vice president is expected to spend a chunk of her summer weighing various options — whether to retire from politics after more than 20 years seeking elected office, whether to mount a 2026 bid for California governor or whether to make a third attempt at the White House in 2028.

According to several who’ve spoken with Harris, she is genuinely undecided, torn between concern and affection for her home state and an undimmed desire to be president.

Of the three options, the most pressing is whether to enter the race to replace her fellow Democrat, the term-limited Gavin Newsom, as governor.

The contest is already well underway — 10 serious (broadly speaking) candidates have so far announced their candidacies. While Harris’ near-universal name recognition and nationwide fundraising base allow her to wait longer than others, a serious gubernatorial bid will take more than a few months to mount.

That forces a decision and a public announcement sooner rather than later.

If she does run, one thing Harris must avoid at all costs is anything that bespeaks arrogance, entitlement or anything less than a 100% commitment to serving as governor. It’s not hard to imagine one of her first utterances as a candidate would be pledging to serve a full four-year term and vowing not to use the office as an interim step toward another presidential bid.

Failing that, voters have every reason to send Harris packing. California doesn’t need another governor with a wandering political eye.

Another imperative Harris faces is offering a compelling reason why she wants to be governor. Seeking the office for the same reason climbers tackle Mt. Everest — because it’s there — won’t do.

History offers a lesson.

In November 1979, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy was preparing to launch an upstart bid for president against the unpopular incumbent, Jimmy Carter. He gave a television interview that was so legendarily awful it’s become an object lesson in how not to start a campaign.

Asked why he wanted to be president, Kennedy paused at length, appearing stricken. He then unspooled a long-winded, curlicued, two-minute response that mentioned natural resources, technology, innovation, productivity, inflation, energy, joblessness and the economy, among other things. His answer was lucid as a fog bank and inspiring as a stalk of celery.

“Kennedy was on a rocket ship,” said Dan Schnur, a veteran communications strategist and political science professor, who uses the Kennedy interview as part of his curriculum at USC, Pepperdine and UC Berkeley. Carter was in dreadful shape, Kennedy was political royalty and the enthusiasm for his candidacy at the Democratic grassroots “looked like it was going to sweep him to the nomination.

“And then he did that one interview,” Schnur recollected, “and he couldn’t answer the most basic question.”

Though Kennedy ended up giving Carter a stiff challenge, he never fully recovered from leaving that terrible impression.

Harris should take heed.

A recent poll by the L.A. Times and UC Berkeley gave her a 50% approval rating among California voters, which is not exactly a number to beat the band. Still, she would enter the governor’s race as a heavy favorite to at least make the runoff under the state’s top-two election system. If a Republican nabbed the second spot, Harris would be strongly positioned to win in November, given California’s strong Democratic leaning.

But, again, neither is a reason for Harris to be governor.

Some of those close to the former vice president wonder how much she really wants, or would enjoy, the job.

In 2015, when the governorship and a U.S. Senate seat both came open, Harris — the state’s attorney general at the time — opted to seek the latter. Her reasons were both personal, involving family considerations, and professional, given the platform and opportunities afforded a member of the Senate.

In short, Harris has never burned with a passion to be California governor.

That makes it all the more important for her to explain — clearly and convincingly — why she’d want to be elected.

“She’s got to give some affirmative reason why she’s running and why it would be good for the voters of California,” Schnur said. “And it’s not just a matter of constructing several words into a sentence.

“It’s not hard for someone as smart as Kamala Harris and her team to concoct a lab-tested phrase that tests well,” he went on. “The challenge isn’t typing out a sentence. It’s developing a core purpose that can then be explained in a sentence.”

Harris has all summer to look inward and figure that out. If she can’t, California voters should choose someone else for their next governor.

In March 2024, I wrote a column about President Biden’s State of the Union speech with a confident headline that made perfect sense to me at the time: “Chill out, my fellow Americans. Your president isn’t cognitively impaired.”

Boy was I wrong. For months, critics and supporters had been raising pointed questions about the president’s physical health and intellectual acuity. Had he won the November election, after all, he would have been the oldest president in American history. (Since he lost, that honor goes to the current White House occupant.) But during his hourlong speech to Congress, Biden had sparred repeatedly with Republican hecklers. He was on his game. Democrats were relieved.

Having watched Trump raise spurious questions during the 2016 campaign about Hillary Clinton’s health —particularly after she was visibly ill at a 9/11 ceremony in Manhattan — I thought Republicans were harping on the issue of Biden’s age more as a tactic than anything else. It was a good distraction, considering that his opponent, then-former President Trump, was only a few years younger and given to rambling incoherence himself.

Republicans may have exaggerated Biden’s issues, but they were, as we soon learned, in the main, correct. By the time the president stood slack-jawed and confused on a debate stage with Trump only three months after his triumphant State of the Union address, it was clear that something was very, very wrong. The debate stage can be a cruel place, and with no prepared speech loaded onto a teleprompter, Biden was suddenly naked in the spotlight. It was not a pretty sight, and suddenly, he was no longer a tenable presidential candidate.

But why are we talking about this old news when we have a president flouting every ethical norm of his office, wantonly violating the Constitution and cozying up to murderous dictators such as Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince whom the CIA concluded had ordered the 2018 killing and dismemberment of Washington Post columnist and Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi?

Biden is back in the news thanks to “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” by longtime CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios White House correspondent Alex Thompson. The book, whose subtitle says it all, has been excerpted in the New Yorker and reviewed by other publications. Its publication date is Tuesday.

I tried to get my hands on a copy, but the publishing house blew me off.

In any case, so much of the book’s insider information has been made available that it is possible to make a convincing case, even from a distance, that Biden’s insistence on running for a second term, despite his promise to be a one-term “bridge,” and his belated decision to drop out, is how we got to where we are today: in the grip of a chaotic, despotic self-dealing president who is turning the Constitution on its head.

Heckuva job, Joe!

I was as surprised as anyone that Biden became the nominee in 2020. I recall watching him stump in Iowa, certain that he was too old for the job. Onstage, he was shouty, his voice rising and falling for no particular reason — “mistaking volume for passion,” as I wrote back then.

And yet, for all his faults, gaffes and frailties, I would still prefer an impaired Biden to the corrupt felon who currently occupies the Oval Office.

Those who have read “Original Sin” say that it does not contain any bombshells. What it offers is a detailed account of the systematic effort by family and advisors to conceal the truth from the American people, and calls out the cowardly Democratic leaders who knew Biden was not up to a second term but were afraid to cross him.

As the Washington Post put it in its review: “The book is a damning account of an elderly, egotistical president shielded from reality by a slavish coterie of loyalists and family members united by a shared, seemingly ironclad sense of denial and a determination to smear anyone who dared to question the president’s fitness for office as a threat to the republic covertly working on behalf of Trump.”

Co-author Thompson, as it happens, was one of the few mainstream political journalists to aggressively report on Biden’s worsening condition and the struggle — you might even call it gaslighting — to keep it from the public.

For that, the White House Correspondents’ Assn. awarded him its top honor in April. In his acceptance speech, Thompson was unflinching.

“President Biden’s decline and its cover-up by the people around him is a reminder that every White House, regardless of party, is capable of deception,” he said. “But being truth tellers also means telling the truth about ourselves. We, myself included, missed a lot of this story, and some people trust us less because of it. We bear some responsibility for faith in the media being at such lows. … We should have done better.”

I take his point. We are now living with the consequences of our failures.

@rabcarian.bsky.social and @rabcarian

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives impeached President Clinton on Saturday, tarnishing his legacy by making him only the second president in the nation’s history ordered to stand trial in the Senate.

In approving two articles of impeachment largely along party lines, the Republican-controlled House alleged that Clinton perjured himself before a federal grand jury and obstructed justice as he sought to conceal his extramarital affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

But two other articles–charging Clinton with lying in a legal deposition in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment case and abusing his presidential power–were voted down. In addition, a Democratic attempt to censure rather than impeach Clinton failed on a strict party-line vote.

And in a stunning symbol of the personal politics that has savaged a growing number of public officials at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, speaker-designate Bob Livingston (R-La.) shocked the packed House chamber by announcing that he will resign over the disclosure of his own adulterous affairs.

At the White House, the president urged Livingston to reconsider and, while impeachment votes were being cast, huddled in the Oval Office with one of the ministers he asked to provide spiritual guidance in his self-imposed penance for breaking his marriage vows.

With the outcome of a likely Senate trial uncertain, Livingston and other Republicans called on Clinton to resign, saying that it was the honorable thing for him to do.

Yet within hours of the votes for impeachment, the president appeared in a White House garden and–in a brace of solidarity with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and scores of congressional Democrats–declared that he was determined to continue the work of his presidency “until the last hour of the last day of my term.”

Saying that he had accepted responsibility for his actions, he again invited lawmakers to censure him as punishment.

“I hope it will be embraced by the Senate,” he said. “I hope there will be a constitutional and fair means of resolving this matter in a prompt manner.”

The historic votes and successive episodes of high drama made for a political day like no other as the close of the American Century nears. It also came at the end of a year of unprecedented bitter political enmity, which gave way to only one moment of unity on the House floor when both sides rose to applaud a call for an end to “slash-and-burn-and-smear politics.”

It was from that chaotic environment that the case against Clinton was formally carried by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), along with the other dozen GOP managers of the impeachment case, to Secretary of the Senate Gary Sisco.

A Solemn, Rule-Bound Senate Trial Looms

There, unless a plea bargain or some other compromise is reached, the case that has consumed Washington for 11 months will be tried in a solemn, rule-bound procedure that was last used against a president 130 years ago. If two-thirds of the Senate finds Clinton guilty on even one of the articles, he will immediately be removed from office as 42nd president of the United States.

On other fronts Saturday:

* With Livingston announcing that he will not accept the speakership when the 106th Congress convenes in January, the scramble for the position, second in the line of succession to the presidency, began anew only six weeks after House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) decided to step down in the face of Republican losses in the midterm elections. Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), a conservative, emerged quickly as the new GOP favorite.

* Before the debate resumed Saturday morning, the first lady arrived on Capitol Hill and met behind closed doors with House Democrats to thank them for their support and ask for fairness in their votes on impeachment.

* After the debate had quieted and the votes impeaching Clinton had been cast, many Democrats left the Capitol for the White House, some riding in a blue-and-white bus that rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Then crowding around the president, first lady and Vice President Al Gore outside the Oval Office, they readily accepted the administration’s gratitude for fighting to keep Clinton in the White House.

* Immediately after adopting the articles, the House appointed 13 Republican lawmakers as managers to present the case before the Senate.

Led by Hyde, they include Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), who began calling for Clinton’s ouster long before the public ever heard the name Lewinsky, and Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale), a junior member of the Judiciary Committee who once served as a municipal judge. Also selected was Rep. Asa Hutchinson, who holds the Arkansas congressional seat that Clinton himself once sought.

* In California’s 52-member delegation, lawmakers heeded the party line on the first article against Clinton, with all 23 Republicans supporting impeachment and 28 Democrats opposed.

But there was some splitting among GOP lawmakers on subsequent articles as Rep. Tom Campbell of San Jose voted against Articles 2 and 4; Rep. Jay C. Kim of Diamond Bar opposed Articles 2, 3 and 4; and Reps. Frank Riggs of Windsor and Brian Bilbray of San Diego voted against Article 4. Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), recovering from hip surgery, did not vote.

* The 16 hours of debate over two days and Saturday’s votes came against the backdrop of U.S. and British strikes against Iraq. Saturday evening, Clinton announced an end to the four-night assault. But Saturday morning, the war still cast a shadow over the House chamber as lawmakers debated the future of the man who had ordered those attacks.

“Every single man and woman in Operation Desert Fox at this very moment is held to a higher standard than their commander in chief,” said Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach). “Let us raise the standard of our American leader to the level of his troops. Let us once again respect the institution of the presidency.”

Although most observers expect Clinton to win acquittal in the Senate, the specter of a potentially long and lurid trial is so ominous that the White House, its Democratic allies and lawyers already have begun efforts to broker a bipartisan compromise to end the ouster process before Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William H. Rehnquist gavels a trial to order.

Hyde Urges Colleagues to Send Stern Message

Hyde, who led the Clinton impeachment inquiry, urged his colleagues to send a stern message to all elected officials that they must support such basic constitutional precepts as telling the truth under oath.

“Equal justice under the law, that’s what we’re fighting for,” he said in a closing statement.

“And when the chief law enforcement officer trivializes, ignores, shreds, minimizes the sanctity of the oath and justice is wounded and you’re wounded and your children are wounded, follow your conscience and you will serve the country.”

On the opposite side of the aisle, House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) argued that censure of the president is the proper course.

“America is held hostage to tactics of smear and fear,” he warned. “Let all of us here today say no to resignation, no to impeachment, no to intolerance of each other and no to vicious self-righteousness.”

But the politics of rancor are likely to carry over into the Senate, where the Republicans hold a 55-45 majority. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has said that he expects a flurry of pretrial motions early next month by the Clinton team. He said that it will be difficult to determine when the trial will begin.

“That time,” he said, “will depend greatly on the president and his lawyers.”

Meanwhile, he added, the Senate legal counsel will be presenting an explanation of historical background and current rules governing impeachment proceedings.

“The process,” Lott said, “is governed both by the Constitution and by our rules and precedents.”

In 1868, President Andrew Johnson escaped ouster on the thinness of a single Senate vote. In 1974, President Nixon resigned before the full House could vote on the three articles of impeachment voted against him by the Judiciary Committee.

The two articles approved by the House accuse Clinton of lying under oath during his appearance before a grand jury and obstructing justice in attempting to conceal his relationship with Lewinsky.

Article 1 says that Clinton “willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury” about his relationship with Lewinsky, his efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and gifts the couple exchanged. It passed on a 228-206 vote, with five members from each side breaking party ranks.

While Clinton’s lawyers have admitted that the president may have been misleading in his testimony, they have bluntly denied that he intentionally lied.

Article 3 says that Clinton “prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony.”

The White House has argued that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr twisted the facts against the president to make his actions appear incriminating, but the vote was 221 to 212, with 12 Republicans voting no and five Democrats voting yes.

Articles 2 and 4, which failed, accused Clinton of committing perjury in a deposition in the Jones case and abusing his power by submitting false statements in written responses to the Judiciary Committee. Article 2 was defeated, 229 to 205, and Article 4, 285 to 148.

Impeachment Grew All but Certain

Although impeachment appeared a long shot a month ago, it was all but certain when the bell rang for the first vote.

The corps of undecideds who held the president’s fate in its hands turned on the president in the end. Only five Republicans bucked their party’s leadership to oppose all four articles of impeachment. Just as many Democrats favored Clinton’s ouster.

Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi was the only Democrat to vote for all four articles. Four other Democrats joined him in voting for the first three articles: Reps. Virgil H. Goode Jr. of Virginia, Ralph M. Hall of Texas, Paul McHale of Pennsylvania and Charles W. Stenholm of Texas.

Saturday’s debate began after the obligatory Pledge of Allegiance, followed immediately by a loud and sustained “aawwwww” sound from Democrats who appeared to be making the sound of gagging.

It was clear that there would be no love lost on either side.

In stark contrast to the scene of Friday’s debate, almost every seat on the House floor was taken and the visitors’ and press galleries were filled to capacity. Lines of tourists and spectators snaked along the third-floor hallways.

Print reporters jammed the Speaker’s Lobby, just off the House floor, and on the sweeping East Lawn of the Capitol television correspondents jostled shoulder to shoulder for position in front of their camera crews.

Inside the House chamber, the first to rise in debate was Rogan. “The evidence is overwhelming; the question is elementary,” he said.

‘He Repeatedly Perjured Himself’

What this impeachment would be all about, he said, was Clinton’s initial intent to do anything he could to get out from under the Jones lawsuit.

“The president was obliged under his sacred oath faithfully to execute our nation’s laws,” Rogan said. “Yet he repeatedly perjured himself and obstructed justice, not for any noble purpose, but to crush a humble, lone woman’s right to be afforded access to the courts.”

Next to speak was Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland). “The Republican process is cynical and it’s dangerous. It will be recorded that they stood on the wrong side of history.”

Rep. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a Judiciary Committee member, evoked the name of Nixon and noted that the same panel had voted articles of impeachment against him during the Watergate scandal.

While President Nixon cheated the political system by trying to hide a political break-in, he said, Clinton subverted the country’s legal system.

“Let it be said that any president who cheats our institutions shall be impeached,” he said.

But it was Livingston’s remarks that set the House on fire.

Addressing the president, the speaker-nominee said that Clinton had “done great damage to the nation over this past year.”

“You have the power to terminate that damage and heal the wounds that you have created,” he thundered. “You, sir, may resign your post.”

Democrats Roar With Disapproval

To Livingston’s right, Democrats roared with disapproval. With Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) presiding in the speaker’s chair and pounding his gavel, Democrats screamed: “No, you resign! You resign!”

And then Livingston did just that, announcing that he would not run for speaker next month and would resign in six months from his seat of 11 years.

The room gasped. The Democrats were suddenly silent (although some would later rise to ask him to reconsider) and when Livingston offered one final “God bless America” in closing, politicians on both sides stood and applauded.

Other speakers followed. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who in his angst called a town meeting last week to help him decide how to vote, announced that he was for the president.

“We’ve all tried to do our best,” he said. “And we will all have to live with our votes the rest of our lives.”

Some spoke with fury.

Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.), a former football star and rising voice in the GOP, spoke with emotion about how a vote to uphold the law was a vote for “our children.” In a pointed reference to the perjury allegations against Clinton, Watts said: “Ask your children. The kid who lies doesn’t last.”

Equally passionate was Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a veteran of the civil rights campaigns of the 1960s who asked for the two sides to come together.

He recalled a violent storm when he was a youngster in Alabama, huddled with his family inside their home.

“We never left the house,” he said. “The wind may blow, the thunder may roll, the lightning may flash, but we must never leave the American house. We must stay together as a family, one house, one family, the American house, the American family.”

When lawmakers had debated impeachment for a final two hours, they spent another hour discussing the Democrats’ censure alternative.

Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who in January will join the Senate, said: “The rule of law requires that the punishment fit the crime. Allow us to vote for censure, the appropriate punishment under the rule of law.”

But Rep. Charles T. Canady (R-Fla.), who like Schumer sits on the Judiciary panel, rejected the proposal as unsuitable.

“The constitutional method is impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate,” he said. “Other methods may seem to us more convenient or more comfortable, but our standard cannot be comfort or convenience.”

The House voted, 230 to 204, on a procedural motion that defeated Democrats’ effort to censure.

Then came the votes on impeachment.

And with that, the lame-duck session of the 105th Congress adjourned.

Times staff writers Edwin Chen, Melissa Healy, Robert L. Jackson, Art Pine and Alissa J. Rubin contributed to this story.

Times on the Web: Video clips from Saturday’s impeachment proceedings, Times political writer Ronald Brownstein’s audio analysis and a complete list of House members’ votes are on The Times’ Web site: https://www.latimes.com/scandal

IMPEACHMENT

* Looking Ahead: The stage is set for a partisan struggle focused on the question of whether the president lied under oath. A48

* Legacy Stained: Clinton can claim other achievements, but history will remember him as the second president to be impeached. A48

* Reaction From Right: Conservatives avoid celebrating even though they see vindication of effort to cut short Clinton’s career. A45

* View from home: Weary Arkansans describe feeling a mixture of melancholy and disengagement over the historic vote. A47

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Next Step: The Senate

On Saturday, just after the historic vote to impeach President Clinton, the House appointed 13 managers who will act as prosecutors in the Senate trial.

The appointment is one of several traditions inherited from the British legal system under which the U.S. Senate has conducted impeachment trials since 1868. Here are some of the others:

The Proceedins:

* The Senators each take an oath as a juror.

* The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as judge and has the power to make and enforce rulings.

* The Senate has subpoena power. Witnesses are sworn in.

* The accused is advised of the charges against him, but the trial will proceed with or without his presence.

* One person on each side–the prosecution and the defense–makes an opening argument.

* Any witness called by one side must be cross-examined by the other side.

* Senators are not to talk during the trial. If a Senator wants to ask a question of a witness, the Senator must submit that question in writing to the chief justice.

* The Senate doors must remain open unless the Senators are deliberating.

* The vote for each article of impeachment is taken separately and without debate. During the deliberations, Senators may speak to each other within limited rules set down by the chief justice.

* Two-thirds vote (67) needed to remove president

*

The Senate

The political party makeup of the 106th Senate did not change from the previous Senate.

Republicans: 55

Democrats: 45

*

Newly elected senators

Republicans

Jim Bunning (Ky.)

Michael D. Crapo (Idaho)

Peter Fitzgerald (Ill.)

George Voinovich (Ohio)

*

Democrats

Evan Bayh (Ind.)

John Edwards (N.C.)

Blanche Lamber Lincoln (Ark.)

Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.)

*

Senators not returning in January

Republicans

Dan Coats (Ind.)

Alfonse M. D’Amato (N.Y.)

Lauch Faircloth (N.C.)

Dirk Kempthorne (Idaho)

*

Democrats

Dale Bumpers (Ark.)

Wendall H. Ford (Ky.)

John Glenn (Ohio)

Carol Moseley-Braun (Ill.)

Researched by TRICIA FORD / Los Angeles Times

Washington, DC – Three days, three countries, hundreds of billions of dollars in investments and a geopolitical shift in the United States’s approach to the region: Donald Trump’s trip to the Middle East has been eventful.

This week, the United States president visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in the first planned trip of his second presidency, after attending Pope Francis’s funeral last month.

Trump was visibly gleeful throughout the trip as he secured investments, criticised domestic political rivals and heaped praise on Gulf leaders. The word “historic” was used more than a few times by US officials to describe the visits.

With Trump returning to the White House, here are five key takeaways from his trip:

A rebuke of interventionism

Addressing an investment summit in Riyadh, Trump promoted a realist approach to the Middle East — one in which the US does not intervene in the affairs of other countries.

He took a swipe at neoconservatives who oversaw the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as he lauded Gulf leaders for developing the region.

“This great transformation has not come from Western intervention or flying people in beautiful planes, giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs,” he said.

“The gleaming marbles of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neo-cons or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities.”

Trump built his political brand with his “America First” slogan, calling for the US to focus on its own issues instead of helping — or bombing — foreign countries.

But his words at the investment summit marked a stern rebuke of the neo-cons who dominated Trump’s Republican Party a decade ago.

“In the end, the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,” Trump said.

Israel sidelined, but no Gaza solution

It is rare for US presidents to travel to the Middle East and not visit Israel, but Trump omitted the US ally from his itinerary as he toured the region.

Skipping Israel was seen as a reflection of the deteriorating ties between the US administration and the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This week’s trip also came in the context of several moves perceived as evidence of the US marginalising Israel. The US has continued to hold talks with Israel’s rival Iran, announced a ceasefire with the Houthis in Yemen, and conducted unilateral negotiations to release Israeli soldier Edan Alexander, a US citizen, from Hamas captivity.

Moreover, while touring the Gulf, Trump did not use his remarks to prioritise the establishment of formal diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel, which had been a top goal during his first term.

It remains unclear how Trump’s decisions will affect the “special relationship” between the two allies, but experts say it is becoming increasingly apparent that the US no longer views the Middle East solely through the lens of Israel.

“Is it a tactical problem for Netanyahu and the entire pro-Israel lobby? I think it is,” Khaled Elgindy, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University, said of Trump’s shift.

“It does throw a wrench in the machinery because it is a president who is showing openly daylight with Israeli decision-making, and not just in rhetoric, but acting on it — leaving Israel out of the process.”

With that chasm emerging, some Palestinian rights advocates had hoped that the US president’s trip to the region would see Washington pursue a deal to end Israel’s war on Gaza.

But as Trump marvelled at the luxurious buildings in the Gulf, Israel intensified its bombardment to destroy what’s left of the Palestinian territory.

No ceasefire was announced, despite reports of continuing talks in Doha. And Israel appears to be pushing forward with its plan to expand its assault on Gaza as it continues to block aid for the nearly two million people in the enclave, leading to fears of famine.

United Nations experts and rights groups have described the situation as a genocide.

But despite preaching “peace and prosperity” for both Israelis and Palestinians, Trump made no strong push to end the war during this week’s trip.

On Thursday, Trump suggested that he has not given up on the idea of depopulating Gaza and turning it over to the US — a proposal that legal experts say amounts to ethnic cleansing.

“I have concepts for Gaza that I think are very good. Make it a freedom zone,” he said. “Let the United States get involved, and make it just a freedom zone.”

Lifting Syria sanctions

In a move that surprised many observers, Trump announced from Riyadh that he will offer sanction relief to Syria, as the country emerges from a decade-plus civil war.

Trump also met with interim Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and described him as a “young, attractive guy”.

A wholesale lifting of sanctions was not expected, in part because of Israel’s hostility to the new authorities in Syria. Israeli officials often describe al-Sharaa, who led al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria before severing ties with the group, as a “terrorist”.

But Trump said he made the decision to lift the economic penalties against Syria at the request of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

“I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,” the US president said.

The White House said on Wednesday that Trump had a list of requests for al-Sharaa, including establishing diplomatic relations with Israel and deporting “Palestinian terrorists”.

Removing US sanctions, which had been imposed on the government of former President Bashar al-Assad, is likely to be a boost for the new Syrian authorities, who are grappling with an ailing economy after years of conflict.

“Lifting sanctions on Syria represents a fundamental turning point,” Ibrahim Nafi Qushji, an economist, told Al Jazeera.

“The Syrian economy will transition from interacting with developing economies to integrating with more developed ones, potentially significantly reshaping trade and investment relations.”

A carrot and a stick for Iran

In Saudi Arabia, Trump declared that he wants a deal with Iran — and he wants it done quickly.

“We really want them to be a successful country,” the US president said of Iran.

“We want them to be a wonderful, safe, great country, but they cannot have a nuclear weapon. This is an offer that will not last forever. The time is right now for them to choose.”

Trump warned Iran that, if it rejects his “olive branch”, he would impose a “massive maximum pressure” against Tehran and choke off its oil exports.

Notably, Trump did not threaten explicit military action against Iran, a departure from his previous rhetoric. In late March, for instance, he told NBC News, “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing.”

Iran says it is not seeking nuclear weapons and would welcome a stringent monitoring programme of its nuclear facilities.

But Israel and some hawks want the Iranian nuclear programme completely dismantled, not just scaled back.

US and Iranian officials have held multiple rounds of talks this year, but Tehran says it has not received an official offer from Washington. And Trump officials have not explicitly indicated what the endgame of the talks is.

US envoy Steve Witkoff said last month that Iran “must stop and eliminate” uranium enrichment, but days earlier, he had suggested that enrichment should be brought down to civilian energy levels.

Several Gulf countries, including the three that Trump visited this week, have welcomed the nuclear negotiations, as relations between Iran and its Arab neighbours have grown more stable in recent years.

Investments, investments and more investments

Before entering politics, Trump was a real estate mogul who played up his celebrity persona as a mega-rich dealmaker. He appears to have brought that business mindset to the White House.

While in the wealthy Gulf region, Trump was in his element. He announced deals that would see Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE buy US arms and invest in American firms. According to the White House, Trump secured a total of $2 trillion in investments from the Middle East during the trip.

And his administration is framing the deals as a major political and economic victory for Trump.

“While it took President Biden nearly four years to secure $1 trillion in investments, President Trump achieved this in his first month, with additional investment commitments continuing to roll in,” the White House said.

“President Trump is accelerating investment in America and securing fair trade deals around the world, paving the way for a new Golden Age of lasting prosperity for generations to come.”

If you voted for Donald Trump last November because you believed he’d increase economic freedom, it’s safe to say you were fooled. Following a reckless tariff barrage, the White House and its allies are preparing a new wave of tax-code gimmickry that has more in common with progressive social engineering than pro-growth reform. And don’t forget a fiscal recklessness that mirrors the mistakes of the left.

Defend these policies if you like, but let’s be clear: The administration shows no coherent commitment to free-market principles and is in fact actively undermining them. Its approach is better described as central planning disguised as economic nationalism.

This week’s example is an executive-order attempt at prescription-drug price control, similar to Democrats’ past proposals. If implemented it would inevitably reduce pharmaceutical R&D and innovation.

Tariffs remain the administration’s most visible economic sin after Trump launched the most extreme escalation of protectionism since the infamous Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Unlike the 1930s, however, today’s economy is deeply integrated with global supply chains, making the damage extensive and far more immediate. Tariffs are only nominally imposed on imports. Ultimately, they’re taxes on American consumers, workers and businesses.

The president has made it clear that he’s fine with limiting consumer choice, blithely telling parents they might have to “settle” for two dolls instead of 30 for their children. Smug pronouncements about how much we should shop (not much) or which sectors we should work in (manufacturing) are economic authoritarianism.

They’re also indicative of a deeper government rot. Policymaking is now done by executive orders as comatose congressional Republicans, like some Biden-era Democrats, allow the president to rule as if he’s a monarch.

A full-throated, assertive Congress would remind any president that manufacturing jobs were mostly lost to technologies that also create jobs and opportunity in members’ districts. Prosperity increases only through innovation and competition and isn’t restored by dragging people backward into lower-productivity jobs.

Now, even Trump’s tax agenda — once considered a bright spot by many free-market advocates — is being corrupted. Instead of championing the broad-based, pro-growth reforms we’d hoped for, the administration is doubling down on gimmickry: exempting tips and overtime pay, expanding child tax credits and entertaining the idea of raising top marginal tax rates.

These moves might poll well, but they’re unprincipled and unproductive. They undermine the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which aimed (however imperfectly) to simplify the code and incentivize growth, and not to micromanage worker and household behavior through the Internal Revenue Service.

And then there are the administration’s misleading, populist talking points about raising taxes on the rich to reduce taxes on lower- and middle-income workers. The U.S. income-tax system is already one of the most progressive in the developed world. According to the latest IRS data, the top 1% of earners pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90% combined. These high earners provide 40% of federal income-tax revenue; the bottom half of earners make up only 3% of that revenue. Thankfully, the House of Representatives steered away from that mistake in its bill.

Meanwhile, some Republican legislators are pushing to extend the 2017 tax cuts without meaningful offsets, setting the stage for a debt-fueled disaster. As noted by Scott Hodge, formerly the longtime president of the Tax Foundation, the GOP’s proposed cuts could add more than $5.8 trillion to the debt over a decade. That’s nearly three times the cost of the 2021 American Rescue Plan, which many Republicans rightly criticized for fueling inflation and fiscal instability.

To be clear: Pro-growth tax reform is essential. But not every tax cut is pro-growth, and no tax cut justifies further fiscal deterioration. Extending the 2017 cuts, which I generally support, shouldn’t be confused with true tax reform.

Some of the provisions being floated — expanded credits, exclusions for tips and overtime, rolling back the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap — are not growth policies. They are wealth redistribution run through the tax code, indistinguishable in substance from the kind of demand-side, Keynesian stimulus Republicans once decried.

Hodge notes that these measures would do more to mimic the American Rescue Plan than to reverse its pricey mistakes. And with the Federal Reserve still fighting inflation, adding trillions in unfunded liabilities to the national ledger is profoundly irresponsible.

None of this should surprise anyone paying attention. This administration is packed with advisors and surrogates who glorify union power, rail against globalization and scoff at the very idea of limited government. Some sound more like Bernie Sanders than Milton Friedman. Whether it’s directing industrial policy or distorting the tax code to reward their favorite behaviors, they are hostile to the competition and liberty of the free market.

Sadly, that hostility has real consequences: higher prices, greater economic uncertainty, sluggish investment and fewer opportunities for middle- and lower-class families.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.

The Trump administration says it has accepted an airplane worth an estimated $400 million from the state of Qatar. While Trump is president, the White House says it would be used as the new Air Force One, then it would go to Trump’s presidential library after his term ends.

The aircraft would become the most expensive gift from a foreign government ever to a US elected official, ABC News reported. But some members of Congress say accepting it would be unconstitutional.

When asked about the potential gift at a May 12 executive order signing, Trump blamed Boeing’s lack of progress in building a new Air Force One. He said he would be “stupid” to refuse a free airplane, and said he won’t use it after he leaves office. “It’s not a gift to me, it’s a gift to the Department of Defense,” he said.

What do experts say?

Legal experts told PolitiFact they believe accepting the gift would violate the US Constitution’s emoluments clause, which reads, “No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

The emoluments clause was designed “to prevent foreign nations from gaining improper influence” over US leaders, said David Forte, Cleveland State University emeritus law professor.

Experts differed on whether accepting the plane would be an impeachable offense.

Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor, said that if Trump accepts the gift, it could be an impeachable deed, because it would amount to “a fully corrupt act.”

Forte, however, said the gift wouldn’t necessarily amount to a bribe or an impeachable offense, but it “is a form of influence buying designed to gain the gratitude of the recipient by playing to his vanity.”

Is this the first time Trump is facing such accusations?

During Trump’s first term, Congressional Democrats, private individuals and attorneys general from Maryland and Washington, DC, filed lawsuits against Trump stemming from the emoluments clause.

However, many of the cases were dismissed on procedural grounds, and the US Supreme Court did not rule on the transactions’ underlying constitutionality.

Trump’s possible acceptance of the aircraft is different, said Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri emeritus law professor.

In his first term, Trump said payments were made to his businesses. This time, there would be no connection to Trump’s businesses. It would be a gift offered for free with no promise of payment from the president or the US Treasury, Bowman said.

NBC News, citing an anonymous senior Justice Department official, reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi approved a memo prepared by the agency’s Office of Legal Counsel that deemed it was legal for the Defense Department to accept the gift. Bondi has previously lobbied on behalf of the state of Qatar.

Trump, on his part, has thanked Qatar for the jet.

“If we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department, during a couple of years whole they’re [Boeing is] building the other one, I think that’s a very nice gesture [from Qatar],” he said on May 12.

Can the emoluments clause be enforced against Trump?

Legal experts said it’s unlikely that Congress, controlled by Republicans, will stop Trump from accepting the gift.

Meghan Faulkner, communications director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, DC, said that since it appears the Justice Department has signed off on receiving the gift, it “could make it harder to hold him accountable”.

Bowman said the Justice Department, according to longstanding policy, wouldn’t prosecute a sitting president.

Faulkner said Trump stands to benefit again after running out the clock on emoluments challenges during his first term. “Enforcing the Emoluments Clause in the courts would face similar challenges (in his second term), including the challenge of finding a plaintiff who has standing to challenge the violations,” she said.

After a signing trade and defence deals with the Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, US President Donald Trump told media in Doha that the two had also discussed the Russia-Ukraine war and Iran’s nuclear programme.

Jose “Pepe” Mujica, a former leftist rebel who became Uruguay’s president from 2010 to 2015, has died at the age of 89.

Uruguayan President Yamandu Orsi announced his death in a social media post on Tuesday. Mujica had been diagnosed with throat cancer in 2024.

“It is with deep sorrow that we announce the death of our comrade Pepe Mujica,” Orsi wrote. “Thank you for everything you gave us and for your deep love for your people.”

Mujica became an icon even beyond Uruguay’s borders, as he led his country to pursue environmental reforms, legalise same-sex marriage and loosen restrictions on marijuana.

He also was celebrated for maintaining his simple lifestyle even during his presidency, when he eschewed the presidential palace in favour of the farmhouse where he grew flowers. He told Al Jazeera in 2022 that such opulence can “divorce” presidents from their people.

“I believe that politicians should live like the majority of their people, not like how the privileged minority lives,” Mujica explained.

News of Mujica’s death has been met with tributes from around the world, particularly from figures on the Latin American left.

“We deeply regret the passing of our beloved Pepe Mujica, an example to Latin America and the entire world for his wisdom, foresight, and simplicity,” Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum wrote on social media.

Chile’s President Gabriel Boric, meanwhile, remembered Mujica’s optimism in a post of his own.

“If you left us anything, it was the unquenchable hope that things can be done better,” he wrote.

For his part, Colombian President Gustavo Petro offered a tribute to Mujica that doubled as a call for greater collaboration and integration across Latin America.

“Goodbye, friend,” Petro wrote in the wake of Mujica’s passing, as he envisioned a more unified region. “I hope that Latin America will one day have an anthem.”

Mujica became a symbol to a generation of political leaders helping to steer their countries out of military dictatorships during the latter half of the 20th century. Like Petro, Mujica was likewise a former rebel fighter.

As a young man in the 1960s, he led armed fighters as part of the far-left Tupamaros movement, which was known for robbing banks, taking over towns and even exchanging gunfire with local police.

Mujica was arrested multiple times and spent nearly a decade in solitary confinement, in a prison where he endured torture.

A government crackdown on the left-wing fighters helped pave the way for a coup in 1973, followed by a brutal military dictatorship that perpetrated human rights abuses like forced disappearances. But in 1985, Uruguay began its transition to democracy, and Mujica and other rebel fighters were released under an amnesty law.

He started to become a force in Uruguay’s politics, joining the Frente Amplio or Broad Front, a centre-left coalition with other former fighters.

After he was elected president at age 74, Mujica staked out progressive stances on civil liberties and social issues including abortion and gay marriage, and he even pushed for the legalisation of marijuana. He also emphasised the development of green energy practices, putting Uruguay at the forefront of addressing the climate crisis.

His long-term partner Lucia Topolansky, whom he met during his time with the Tupamaros, was also politically active, and she served as his vice president after they were married in 2005.

While president, Mujica famously shunned the presidential residence and remained at his flower farm on the outskirts of the capital of Montevideo. He also drove a weathered blue Volkswagen Beetle, one of his trademarks. His modest lifestyle led some to dub him the “world’s poorest president”.

“We elect a president, and it’s as if they’re a candidate to be king, someone with a court, a red carpet, who has to live in a fancy palace,” he told Al Jazeera in 2022, before adding with characteristic bluntness: “Don’t blame the pig, but those who scratch his back.”

Mujica remained a prominent public figure even after leaving the presidency, attending the inauguration of political leaders across Latin America and offering support to candidates in Uruguay, among them Orsi, who was elected in 2024.

“The problem is that the world is run by old people, who forget what they were like when they were young,” Mujica said during a 2024 interview with the news agency Reuters.

Mujica was informed in September 2024 that radiation treatment had effectively targeted cancer of the esophagus, but a doctor reported in January 2025 that the cancer had returned and spread to his liver.

The former rebel and president did not seem overly concerned.

“Honestly, I’m dying,” Mujica told the weekly magazine Busqueda in what he said would be his last interview. “A warrior has the right to rest.”

May 13 (UPI) — José “Pepe” Mujica, former president of Uruguay and a symbol of the Latin American left, died Tuesday at the age of 89 in Montevideo after a battle with esophageal cancer.

“With deep sorrow, we announce the passing of Pepe Mujica. President, activist, leader and guide. We will miss you dearly, old friend. Thank you for everything you gave us and for your profound love for your people,” said Uruguay’s current president, Yamandú Orsi, in a statement.

Mujica served as Uruguay’s president from 2010 to 2015.

Before entering politics, he was a member of the Tupamaros National Liberation Movement in the 1960s. His involvement in the guerrilla group led to his imprisonment for 13 years under Uruguay’s military dictatorship.

Released in 1985, he joined the Broad Front coalition, where he held various positions, including senator and minister of livestock, agriculture and fisheries.

In April 2024, Mujica publicly disclosed his diagnosis with esophageal cancer. By January 2025, he announced that the disease had spread and that he would no longer pursue treatment, stating: “The warrior has the right to rest.”

As president, Mujica championed progressive reforms that positioned Uruguay as a regional pioneer. His administration legalized abortion, same-sex marriage and cannabis, drawing international attention.

Beyond politics, Mujica became widely known for his humble lifestyle, often opting to live in his modest rural home and donating most of his presidential salary to charity.

Plans for his funeral and official tributes have not yet been announced.

President Trump has spent the first major overseas trip of his second administration — next stop Wednesday in Qatar — beating back allegations that he was personally profiting from foreign leaders by accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from the Gulf state’s royal family.

Trump has bristled at the notion that he should turn down such a gift, saying he would be “stupid” to do so and that Democrats were “World Class Losers” for suggesting it was not only wrong but also unconstitutional.

But Democrats were hardly alone in criticizing the arrangement as Trump prepared for broad trade discussions in Doha, the Qatari capital.

Several top Republicans in Congress have expressed concerns about the deal, including that the plane would be a security risk. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Tuesday said there were “lots of issues associated with that offer which I think need to be further talked about,” and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), another member of the Republican leadership team, said that Trump and the White House “need to look at the constitutionality” of the deal and that she would be “checking for bugs” on the plane, a clear reference to fears that Qatar may see the jetliner as an intelligence asset.

Criticism of the deal has even arisen among the deep-red MAGA ranks. In an online post echoed by other right-wing influencers in Trump’s orbit, loyalist Laura Loomer wrote that while she would “take a bullet for Trump,” the Qatar deal would be “a stain” on his administration.

The broad outrage in some ways reflected the stark optics of the deal, which would provide Trump with the superluxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet — known as the “palace in the sky” — for free, to be transferred to his personal presidential library upon his departure from office.

Accepting a lavish gift from the Persian Gulf nation makes even some stolid Trump allies queasy because of Qatar’s record of abuses against its Shiite Muslim minority and its funding of Hamas, the militant group whose attack on Israel touched off a prolonged war in the region.

Critics have called the deal an out-and-out bribe for future influence by the Qatari royal family, and one that would clearly come due at some point — raising serious questions around the U.S.’ ability to act with its own geopolitical interests in mind in the future, rather than Qatar’s.

Trump and Qatar have rejected that framing but have also deflected questions about what Qatar expects to receive in return for the jet.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in response to detailed questions from The Times, said in a statement that Trump “is compliant with all conflict-of-interest rules, and only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.”

Leavitt has previously said it was “ridiculous” for the media to “suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit,” because he “left a life of luxury and a life of running a very successful real estate empire for public service, not just once, but twice.”

Ali Al-Ansari, media attache at the Qatari Embassy in Washington, did not respond to a request for comment.

Beyond the specific concern about Qatar potentially holding influence over Trump, the jet deal also escalated deeper concerns among critics that Trump, his family and his administration are using their political influence to improperly enrich themselves more broadly — including through the creation of a $Trump cryptocurrency meme coin and a promised Washington dinner for its top investors.

Experts and other critics have for years accused Trump of violating constitutional constraints on the president and other federal officials accepting gifts, or “emoluments,” from foreign states without the express approval of Congress.

During Trump’s first term, allegations that he was flouting the law and using his office to enrich himself — including by maintaining an active stake in his golf courses and former Washington hotel while foreign dignitaries seeking to curry favor with him racked up massive bills there — went all the way to the Supreme Court before being dismissed as moot after he’d been voted out of office.

Since Trump’s return to office, however, concerns over his monetizing the nation’s highest office and the power and influence that come with it have exploded once more — and from disparate corners of the political landscape.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), left, speaks with Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security oversight hearing on May 8, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

In a speech last month on the Senate floor, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) alleged dozens of examples of Trump and others in his family and administration misusing their positions for personal gain — what Murphy called “mind-blowing corruption” in Trump’s first 100 days.

Murphy mentioned, among other examples, the meme coin and dinner; corporations under federal investigation donating millions to Trump’s inaugural fund and those investigations being halted soon after he took office; reports that Trump has sold meetings with him at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for millions of dollars; and Donald Trump Jr.’s creation of a private Washington club with million-dollar dues and promises of interactions with administration officials.

Murphy also noted Trump’s orders to fire inspectors general and other watchdogs meant to keep an eye out for corruption and pay-to-play tactics in the federal government, and his scaling back of laws meant to discourage it, such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Corporate Transparency Act.

“Donald Trump wants to numb this country into believing that this is just how government works. That he’s owed this. That every president is owed this. That government has always been corrupt, and he’s just doing it out in the open,” Murphy said. “But this is not how government works.”

When news of the Qatar jet deal broke, Murphy joined other Democratic colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a statement denouncing it.

“Any president who accepts this kind of gift, valued at $400 million, from a foreign government creates a clear conflict of interest, raises serious national security questions, invites foreign influence, and undermines public trust in our government,” the senators wrote. “No one — not even the president — is above the law.”

Other lawmakers — from both parties — have also weighed in.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted Trump’s acceptance of the plane as his “lastest con” and a clear attempt by the Qatari government to “curry favor” with him.

“This is why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution to begin with. It was put in there for a reason,” Schiff said. “And the reason was that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that any action taken by the president of the United States, or frankly any other person holding federal public office, wasn’t going to be influenced by getting some big gift.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in an interview with MSNBC on Monday that he did not think it was a “good idea” for Trump to accept the jet — which he said wouldn’t “pass the smell test” for many Americans.

Experts and those further out on the American political spectrum agreed.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law and an expert in constitutional law, said the gift of the jet, “if it is to Trump personally,” clearly violates a provision that precludes the president from receiving any benefit from a foreign country, which America’s founders barred because they were concerned about “foreign governments holding influence over the president.”

Richard Painter, the top White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said that Trump accepting the jet would be unconstitutional. And he scoffed at the ethics of doing business with a nation that has been criticized as having a bleak human rights record.

“After spending millions helping Hamas build tunnels and rockets, Qatar has enough to buy this emolumental gift for” Trump, Painter wrote on X. “But the Constitution says Congress must consent first.”

Painter criticized the White House justifying the deal by saying that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi had “signed off” on it, given Bondi’s past work for the Qatari government, and said he knew of no precedent for a president receiving a lavish gift without the approval of Congress. He noted that Ambassador Benjamin Franklin received a diamond-encrusted snuff box from France’s King Louis XVI, but only with the OK from Congress.

Robert Weissman, co-president of the progressive nonprofit Public Citizen, said that it was unclear whether Trump would heed the cautionary notes coming from within his own party, but that the Republican-controlled Congress should nonetheless vote on whether the jet was a proper gift for him to receive.

“If the members of Congress think this is fine, then they can say so,” Weissman said, “and the voters can hold them accountable.”

Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro, a prominent backer of Trump, criticized the deal on his podcast Monday, saying that Trump supporters would “all be freaking out” if Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, had accepted it.

“President Trump promised to drain the swamp,” Shapiro said. “This is not, in fact, draining the swamp.”

WASHINGTON — A small nodule was found in the prostate of former President Biden during a routine physical exam, a spokesperson said Tuesday.

A short statement said the finding “necessitated further evaluation,” but it was not clear whether that had already taken place or the outcome of the examination.

The detection of nodules in the prostate generally requires a further exam by a urologist to rule out prostate cancer. These kinds of abnormal growths can be caused by cancer or by less serious conditions, including inflammation or an enlarged prostate.

Biden is 82. His age and concerns about his health were cited by Democratic leaders who pressed him to abandon his reelection bid in 2024 following a disastrous debate performance last June.

But as recently as last week, Biden rejected concerns about his age, saying the broader party didn’t buy into that, and instead blaming the Democratic leadership and “significant contributors.”

President Trump repeatedly raised questions about Biden’s physical and mental capacity during the campaign.

In February 2023, Biden had a skin lesion removed from his chest that was a basal cell carcinoma, a common form of skin cancer. And in November 2021, he had a polyp removed from his colon that was a benign, but potentially pre-cancerous lesion.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday signed a sweeping executive order setting a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to lower the cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. or face new limits on what the government will pay.

The order calls on the Health and Human Services Department, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to broker new price tags for drugs. If a deal is not reached, a new rule will kick in that will tie the price of what the U.S. pays for medications to lower prices paid by other countries.

“We’re going to equalize,” Trump said during a Monday morning news conference. “We’re all going to pay the same. We’re going to pay what Europe pays.”

It’s unclear what — if any — impact the Republican president’s executive order will have on millions of Americans who have private health insurance. The federal government has the most power to shape the price it pays for drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid.

The federal government spends hundreds of billions of dollars on prescription drugs, injectables, transfusions and other medications every year through Medicare, which covers nearly 70 million older Americans. Medicaid, meanwhile, covers nearly 80 million poor and disabled people in the United States.

Ahead of the signing, the nation’s leading pharmaceutical lobby on Sunday pushed back against Trump’s plan, calling it a “bad deal” for American patients. Drugmakers have long argued that any threats to their profits could impact the research they do to develop new drugs.

“Importing foreign prices will cut billions of dollars from Medicare with no guarantee that it helps patients or improves their access to medicines,” Stephen J. Ubl, the president and chief executive of PhRMA, said in a statement. “It jeopardizes the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning to invest in America, making us more reliant on China for innovative medicines.”

Trump’s so-called most favored nation approach to Medicare drug pricing has been controversial since he first tried to implement it during his first term. He signed a similar executive order in the final weeks of his first presidential term, calling for the U.S. to only pay a lower price that other countries pay for some drugs — injectables or cancer drugs given through infusions — administered in a doctor’s office.

That narrow executive order faced hurdles, with a court order that blocked the rule from going into effect under President Biden’s administration. The pharmaceutical industry argued that Trump’s 2020 attempt would give foreign governments the “upper hand” in deciding the value of medicines in the United States.

Trump repeatedly defended pharmaceutical companies, instead blaming other countries for the high price Americans pay for drugs, during a wide-ranging speech at the White House on Monday. The president was flanked by Kennedy, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, Food and Drug Administration commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and National Institutes of Health director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

He did, however, threaten the companies with federal investigations into their practices and opening up the U.S. drug market to bring in more imported medications from other countries.

“The pharmaceutical companies make most of their profits from America,” Trump said. “That’s not a good thing.”

Trump has played up the announcement, saying it will save taxpayers big money. He boasted in one post that his plan could save “TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.”

“Our Country will finally be treated fairly, and our citizens Healthcare Costs will be reduced by numbers never even thought of before,” Trump said in another post ahead of Monday’s announcement.

The White House did not release an analysis of how much money his order would save or which drugs would be affected.

Oz, speaking on Monday, said that he and the agency’s other top leaders would be meeting with drug company executives over the next 30 days to offer new prices on drugs that are based off what other countries pay.

The Health and Human Services Department has the most authority to change the prices of drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid because it can set regulations. Even still, the agency’s power to do so is limited. Congress just approved in 2022 a new law that allows Medicare to negotiate the price it pays for a handful of prescription drugs starting in 2026. Prior to the law, Medicare paid what the drug companies charged. Drug companies unsuccessfully sued over the implementation of the law.

The price that millions of Americans covered by private insurance pay for drugs is even harder for the agency to manipulate.

The U.S. routinely outspends other nations on drug prices, compared with other large and wealthy countries, a problem that has long drawn the ire of both major political parties, but a lasting fix has never cleared Congress.

Trump came into his first term accusing pharmaceutical companies of “getting away with murder” and complaining that other countries whose governments set drug prices were taking advantage of Americans.

On Sunday, Trump took aim at the industry again, writing that the “Pharmaceutical/Drug Companies would say, for years, that it was Research and Development Costs, and that all of these costs were, and would be, for no reason whatsoever, borne by the ‘suckers’ of America, ALONE.”

Referring to drug companies’ powerful lobbying efforts, he said that campaign contributions “can do wonders, but not with me, and not with the Republican Party.”

“We are going to do the right thing,” he wrote.

Seitz and Kim write for the Associated Press. AP writer Will Weissert contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — China and the United States retreated from an emerging economic crisis on Monday, agreeing to drastically reduce tariffs on one another for the next 90 days as they continue to negotiate a more permanent trade deal, providing welcome news for investors and retailers who increasingly feared a breakthrough was out of reach.

The temporary truce will see the United States lower tariffs on Chinese imports to 30% from 145%, and China reduce its import duties on U.S. goods to 10% from 125%, starting Wednesday. Wall Street rejoiced at the announcement of a deal, with the Dow Jones industrial average, the Standard & Poor’s 500 and the Nasdaq all up more than 2%.

Trump referred to the development as a “total reset with China.” But the end result of the provisional agreement is a return to tariff rates that were in place before the president launched a global trade war on April 2, in what he called “Liberation Day” — a move that brought the largest decline in commercial shipping traffic since the COVID-19 pandemic and prompted financial institutions to warn of an imminent recession.

Supply shortages and price increases on Chinese products may still hit American consumers in the coming weeks, a lingering effect of weeks of uncertainty, experts said. Many retailers have already increased their prices. And shipping costs are expected to skyrocket as manufacturers and wholesalers attempt to make up for lost time. The 90-day deadline for a more lasting trade deal could fuel further market volatility in the coming weeks.

Trump’s Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, who led the negotiations with Beijing, also secured a commitment from China to cut non-tariff barriers it had put in place after April 2, including certain import restrictions and blacklisting of U.S. companies.

“It de-escalates trade tensions and reduces the probability of a stagflation,” said Sung Won Sohn, a former commissioner at the Port of Los Angeles, referring to a phenomenon feared the world over by economists: a combination of slow economic growth, high inflation and increasing unemployment. “But this is a temporary truce. A tough road is ahead of us.”

Over the next three months, the Trump administration says it intends to develop a “mechanism” that will “rebalance” the U.S. trade relationship with China — a task that has eluded presidents for decades. Trump hopes to change Beijing’s policy of providing government subsidies to state-owned enterprises and to reduce a $400-billion U.S. trade deficit with China, both tall orders in such a short time frame.

“Supply chains have been disrupted and there are a lot fewer ships sailing the ocean,” Sohn added. “Supplies in stores won’t be as plentiful as it used to be. During the back-to-school season, for example, there will be shortages, stockouts and higher prices. If the negotiation progresses well, there will be more merchandise at retail stores for back-to-school and Christmas.”

After the deal concluded in Geneva, Bessent said he would draw inspiration in the upcoming talks from a preliminary agreement negotiated with Beijing at the end of the first Trump administration called Phase One, which included new rules governing the exchange of intellectual property, technology transfer and financial services. Bessent claimed that deal was not enforced by the Biden administration.

But the Treasury secretary acknowledged that the upcoming talks would be difficult. “Neither side wants a decoupling,” he said.

“I don’t think anything’s going to be easy, because this has been going on for a long time,” Bessent told CNBC.

Before departing for an official visit to the Middle East, Trump said he expected to speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping and praised the agreement as a temporary step toward a permanent deal. The truce, Trump added, does not include tariffs on cars, steel and aluminum.

He also spoke with Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook shortly after announcing the deal, Trump said.

“The relationship is very good. We’re not looking to hurt China — China was being hurt very badly,” the president told reporters at the White House. “They were very happy to be able to do something with us.”

Trump said that pharmaceuticals may also be exempt from tariff reductions with China going forward, speaking at a signing ceremony for an executive order aimed at lowering drug prices.

The majority of the world’s pharmaceuticals are manufactured in China and India. But Trump reserved his harshest critique at the event for the European Union, which produces several high-profile drugs, including Ozempic and Wegovy, weight loss medications that Trump said are heavily overpriced in the United States.

“The European Union is in many ways nastier than China,” Trump said, adding: “We’ve just started with them.”

“We have all the cards,” he said. “They treated us very unfairly.”

CHICAGO — Growing up in the Soviet Union, Pedro Spivakovsky-Gonzalez’s father and grandparents would listen to Voice of America with their ears pressed to the radio, trying to catch words through the government’s radio jamming.

The U.S.-funded news service was instrumental in helping them understand what was happening on the other side of the Iron Curtain, before they moved to the United States in the 1970s.

“It was a window into another world,” Spivakovsky-Gonzalez said. “They looked to it as a sort of a beacon of freedom. They were able to imagine a different world from the one they were living in.”

When Spivakovsky-Gonzalez and his family heard of President Trump’s attempts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for Global Media — which oversees VOA, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia — he said it was a “gut punch.”

The first months of the second Trump administration have delivered blow after blow to American efforts to promote democracy abroad and pierce the information wall of authoritarian governments through programs that had been sustained over decades by presidents of both political parties.

The new administration has decimated the Agency for Global Media, restructured the State Department to eliminate a global democracy office and gutted the U.S. Agency for International Development, which just last year launched an initiative to try to halt the backsliding of democracy across the globe. In all, the moves represent a retrenchment from the U.S. role in spreading democracy beyond its borders.

Experts say the moves will create a vacuum for promoting freedom and representative government, and could accelerate what many see as antidemocratic trends around the world.

“The United States has historically been the leading power in spreading democracy globally. Despite different administrations, that has remained the case — until now,” said Staffan Lindberg, a political science professor at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden.

‘Pillar of American foreign policy’

David Salvo, managing director for the Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund, said promoting democracy abroad has been “a pillar of American foreign policy in the last 50 years” as a means of ensuring more stable, peaceful relationships with other countries, reducing the threat of conflict and war, and fostering economic cooperation.

Yet among President Trump’s early actions was targeting democracy programs through the State Department and USAID, which had launched a new global democracy initiative at the end of the Biden administration. The Treasury Department halted funding to the National Endowment for Democracy, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in April he would shut a State Department office that had a mission to build “more democratic, secure, stable, and just societies.”

Funding cuts have hit the National Democratic Institute, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems and U.S. nonprofits that have worked for decades “to inject resources into environments so that civil society and democratic actors can try to effect change for the better,” including through bolstering unstable democracies against autocrats, Salvo said.

Whether global democracy programs are worth funding was central to a hearing Thursday by a U.S. House Foreign Affairs subcommittee, as Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) repeatedly asked how to “ensure our return on investment is really high.”

About 1.2% of the federal budget went to foreign aid in the 2023 fiscal year, according to the Pew Research Center.

“I understand the committee is interested in how we can improve … and get back to basics,” Tom Malinowski, a former Democratic congressman from New Jersey and assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor under President Obama, told lawmakers. “The problem is the administration is eliminating the basics right now.”

Uzra Zeya, who leads the international nonprofit Human Rights First after serving in the Biden State Department, said it was “heartbreaking and alarming” to watch the U.S. essentially dismantle its democracy and human rights programs.

“The potential long-term impacts are devastating for U.S. national security and prosperity,” she said.

Diminishing the messaging pipelines

For more than 80 years, VOA and its related outlets have delivered news across the world, including to more than 427 million people every week in 49 languages, according to a 2024 internal report. The broadcaster began during World War II to provide Germans with news, even as Nazi officials attempted to jam its signals. The Soviet Union and China attempted to silence its broadcasts during the Cold War. Iranian and North Korean governments have also tried to block access to VOA for decades.

But the most successful attempt to silence VOA has been through its own government. It was in effect shut down in March through a Trump executive order.

Lisa Brakel, a 66-year-old retired librarian in Temperance, Mich., said VOA was a “mainstay” when she was a music teacher in Kuwait in the 1980s. She and her colleagues would listen together in the apartment complex where the American teachers were housed, to stay up to date with news from home.

When she learned the news about the VOA funding cuts, “I thought, ‘No, they can’t shut this down. Too many people depend on that,’” Brakel said. “As a librarian, any cuts to free access to information deeply concern me.”

Emboldening U.S. rivals

The broadcaster’s future remains in flux after a federal appellate court paused a ruling that would have reversed its dismantling. This was just a day after journalists were told they would soon return to work after being off the air for almost two months. Even if they are allowed back, it’s unclear that the mission would be the same.

Last week, the Trump administration agreed to use the feed of One American News, or OAN — a far-right, ardently pro-Trump media network known for propagating conspiracy theories — on VOA and other services.

In Asia, dismantling Radio Free Asia would mean losing the world’s only independent Uyghur language news service, closing the Asia Fact Check Lab as it reports on misinformation from the Chinese Community Party, and curbing access to information in countries such as China, North Korea and Myanmar that lack free and independent media, the broadcaster’s president, Bay Fang, said in a statement.

“Their invaluable work is part of RFA’s responsibility to uphold the truth so that dictators and despots don’t have the last word,” Fang wrote in May in the New York Times.

Experts who monitor global democracy said the information gap created by the administration will embolden U.S. competitors such as Russia and China, which already are ramping up their efforts to shape public opinion.

Barbara Wejnert, a political sociologist at the University at Buffalo who studies global democracies, said diplomatic efforts through U.S. broadcasters and democracy nonprofits helped precipitate a “rapid increase in democratizing countries” in the late 20th century.

“Especially today when the truth is distorted and people don’t trust governments, spreading the notion of freedom and democracy through media is even more vital,” she said.

Fernando writes for the Associated Press.