president

CHICAGO — Illinois and Chicago filed a lawsuit Monday aiming to stop President Trump’s administration from sending hundreds of National Guard troops to the city, just as troops prepared to deploy and hours after a federal judge blocked troops from being sent to Portland, Oregon.

The quickly unfolding developments come as the administration portrays the Democrat-led cities as war-ravaged and lawless and amid Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration. Officials in both cities have disputed the president’s characterizations, saying military intervention isn’t needed and it’s federal involvement that’s inflaming the situation.

The legal challenge comes after Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker said some 300 of the state’s guard troops were to be federalized and deployed to the nation’s third-largest city, along with 400 others from Texas.

The lawsuit alleges that “these advances in President Trump’s long-declared ‘War’ on Chicago and Illinois are unlawful and dangerous.”

“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the lawsuit says.

Pritzker said the potential deployment amounted to “Trump’s invasion” and called on Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to block it. Abbott pushed back and said the crackdown was needed to protect federal workers who are in the city as part of the president’s increased immigration enforcement.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson confirmed in a weekend statement that Trump authorized using Illinois National Guard members, citing what she called “ongoing violent riots and lawlessness” that local leaders have not quelled.

In Chicago, the sight of armed Border Patrol agents making arrests near famous landmarks amplified concerns from residents already uneasy after an immigration crackdown that began last month. Agents have targeted immigrant-heavy and largely Latino areas.

Protesters have frequently rallied near an immigration facility outside the city, and federal officials reported the arrests of 13 protesters on Friday near the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing facility in Broadview.

The Department of Homeland Security acknowledged that federal agents shot a woman Saturday morning on the southwest side of Chicago. A department statement said it happened after Border Patrol agents patrolling the area “were rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars.”

No law enforcement officers were seriously injured, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said.

In Portland, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut granted a temporary restraining order sought by Oregon and California to block the deployment of guard troops from those states to the city.

There has been a sustained and low-level protest outside the Portland ICE facility, but it’s been less disruptive than the downtown clashes of 2020 when demonstrations erupted after George Floyd’s killing.

Immergut, a first-term Trump appointee, seemed incredulous that the president moved to send National Guard troops to Oregon from neighboring California and then from Texas on Sunday.

“Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order?” she said. “Why is this appropriate?”

Local officials have suggested that many of the president’s claims and social media posts about Portland appear to rely on images from 2020. Under a new mayor, the city has reduced crime, and downtown has seen fewer homeless encampments and increased foot traffic.

Most violent crime around the U.S. has actually declined in recent years, including in Portland, where a recent report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association found that homicides from January through June decreased by 51% this year compared to the same period in 2024.

Since the start of his second term, Trump has sent or talked about sending troops to 10 cities, including Baltimore; Memphis, Tennessee; the District of Columbia; New Orleans; and the California cities of Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

A federal judge in September said the administration “willfully” broke federal law by deploying guard troops to Los Angeles over protests about immigration raids.

Press writes for the Associated Press.

Former Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine received the endorsement of a prominent Democratic women’s group on Monday that backs candidates who support abortion rights. The organization could provide significant funding and grass-roots support to boost Porter’s 2026 gubernatorial campaign.

“Katie Porter has spent her career holding the powerful accountable, fighting to lower costs and taking on Wall Street and Trump administration officials to deliver results for California’s working families,” said Jessica Mackler, president of EMILY’s List. “At a time when President Trump and his allies are attacking Californians’ health care and making their lives more expensive, Katie is the proven leader California needs.”

The organization’s name stands for Early Money Is Like Yeast, a reference to the importance of early fundraising for female candidates. It was founded four decades ago to promote Democratic women who support legal abortion. The group has raised nearly $950 million to help elect such candidates across the country, including backing Porter’s successful congressional campaign to flip a GOP district in Orange County.

“There’s nothing that Donald Trump hates more than facing down a strong, powerful woman,” Porter said. “For decades, EMILY’s List has backed winner after winner, helping elect pro-choice Democratic women to public office. They were instrumental in helping me flip a Republican stronghold blue in 2018, and together I’m confident we will make history again.”

It’s unclear, however, how much the organization will spend on Porter’s bid to be California’s first female governor. There are multiple critical congressional races next year that will determine control of the House that the group will likely throw its weight behind.

The 2026 gubernatorial race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom is wide open after former Vice President Kamala Harris decided not to run and as Sen. Alex Padilla and businessman Rick Caruso mull whether to make a run.

At the moment, Porter, a UC Irvine law professor who unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Senate last year, has a small edge in the polls among the multitude of Democrats running for the seat. The primary is in June.

EMILY’s List, which often avoids making a nod when there are multiple female candidates in a race, made its decision after former state Senate leader Toni Atkins announced in late September that she was dropping out of the race. Former state Controller Betty Yee remains a gubernatorial candidate.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices like to talk about the Constitution’s separation of powers and how it limits the exercise of official authority.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts and his conservative colleagues have given no sign so far they will check President Trump’s one-man governance by executive order.

To the contrary, the conservative justices have repeatedly ruled for Trump on fast-track appeals and overturned federal judges who said the president had exceeded his authority.

The court’s new term opens on Monday, and the justices will begin hearing arguments.

But those regularly scheduled cases have been overshadowed by Trump’s relentless drive to remake the government, to punish his political enemies, including universities, law firms, TV networks and prominent Democrats, and to send troops to patrol U.S. cities.

The overriding question has become: Are there any legal limits on the president’s power? The Supreme Court itself has raised the doubts.

A year ago, as Trump ran to reclaim the White House, the justices blocked a felony criminal indictment against him related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, mob attack on the Capitol as Congress met to certify Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election, for which Trump was impeached.

Led by Roberts, the court ruled for Trump and declared for the first time that presidents were immune from being prosecuted for their official actions in the White House.

Not surprisingly, Trump saw this as a “BIG WIN” and proof there is no legal check on his power.

This year, Trump’s lawyers have confidently gone to Supreme Court with emergency appeals when lower-court judges have stood in their way. With few exceptions, they have won, often over dissents from the court’s three liberal Democrats.

Many court scholars say they are disappointed but not surprised by the court’s response so far to Trump’s aggressive use of executive power.

The Supreme Court “has been a rubber stamp approving Trump’s actions,” said UC Berkeley law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “I hope very much that the court will be a check on Trump. There isn’t any other. But so far, it has not played that role.”

Roberts “had been seen as a Republican but not a Trump Republican. But he doesn’t seem interested or willing to put any limits on him,” said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. “Maybe they think they’re saving their credibility for when it really counts.”

Acting on his own, Trump moved quickly to reshape the federal government. He ordered cuts in spending and staffing at federal agencies and fired inspectors general and officials of independent agencies who had fixed terms set by Congress. He stepped up arrests and deportations of immigrants who are here illegally.

But the court’s decisions on those fronts are in keeping with the long-standing views of the conservatives on the bench.

Long before Trump ran for office, Roberts had argued that the Constitution gives the president broad executive authority to control federal agencies, including the power to fire officials who disagree with him.

The court’s conservatives also think the president has the authority to enforce — or not enforce — immigration laws.

That’s also why many legal experts think the year ahead will provide a better test of the Supreme Court and Trump’s challenge to the constitutional order.

“Overall, my reaction is that it’s too soon to tell,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and a former clerk for Roberts. “In the next year, we will likely see decisions about tariffs, birthright citizenship, alien enemies and perhaps more, and we’ll know a lot more.”

In early September, Trump administration lawyers rushed the tariffs case to the Supreme Court because they believed it was better to lose sooner rather than later.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government could face up to a $1-trillion problem if the court delayed a decision until next summer and then ruled the tariffs were illegal.

“Unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he told the court.

The Constitution says tariffs, taxes and raising revenue are matters for Congress to decide. Through most of American history, tariffs funded much of the federal government. That began to change after 1913 when the 16th Amendment was adopted to authorize “taxes on incomes.”

Trump has said he would like to return to an earlier era when import taxes funded the government.

“I always say ‘tariffs’ is the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary,” he said at a rally after his inauguration in January. “Because tariffs are going to make us rich as hell. It’s going to bring our country’s businesses back that left us.”

While he could have gone to the Republican-controlled Congress to get approval, he imposed several rounds of large and worldwide tariffs acting on his own.

Several small businesses sued and described the tariffs as “the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”

As for legal justification, the president’s lawyers pointed to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. It authorizes the president to “deal with any unusual or extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”

The law did not mention tariffs, taxes or duties but said the president could “regulate” the “importation” of products.

Trump administration lawyers argue that the “power to ‘regulate importation’ plainly encompasses the power to impose tariffs.” They also say the court should defer to the president because tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security.

They said the president invoked the tariffs not to raise revenue but to “rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl and other lethal drugs across our borders.”

In response to lawsuits from small businesses and several states, judges who handle international trade cases ruled the tariffs were illegal. However, they agreed to keep them in place to allow for appeals.

Their opinion relied in part on recent Supreme Court’s decisions which struck down potentially far-reaching regulations from Democratic presidents on climate change, student loan debt and COVID-19 vaccine requirements. In each of the decisions, Roberts said Congress had not clearly authorized the disputed regulations.

Citing that principle, the federal circuit court said it “seems unlikely that Congress intended to … grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

Trump said that decision, if allowed to stand, “could literally destroy the United States of America.” The court agreed to hear arguments in the tariffs case on Nov. 5.

A victory for Trump would be “viewed as a dramatic expansion of presidential power,” said Washington attorney Stephanie Connor, who works on tariff cases. Trump and future presidents could sidestep Congress to impose tariffs simply by citing an emergency, she said.

But the decision itself may have a limited impact because the administration has announced new tariffs last week that were based on other national security laws.

Last month, Trump administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court to rule during the upcoming term on the birthright citizenship promised by the 14th Amendment of 1868.

They did not seek a fast-track ruling, however. Instead, they said the court should grant review and hear arguments on the regular schedule early next year. If so, a decision would be handed down by late June.

The amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

And in the past, both Congress and the Supreme Court have agreed that rule applies broadly to all children who are born here, except if their parents are foreign ambassadors or diplomats who are not subject to U.S. laws.

But Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said that interpretation is mistaken. He said the post-Civil War amendment was “adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to the children of illegal aliens, birth tourists and temporary visitors.”

Judges in three regions of the country have rejected Trump’s limits on the citizenship rule and blocked it from taking effect nationwide while the litigation continues.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court opens its new term on Monday and is scheduled to hear arguments in 33 cases this fall.

The justices will hear challenges to transgender rights, voting rights and Trump tariffs and will reconsider a 90-year-old precedent that protects officials of independent agencies from being fired by the president.

Here are the major cases set for argument:

Conversion therapy and free speech: Does a licensed mental health counselor have a 1st Amendment right to talk to patients under age 18 about changing their sexual orientation or gender identity, even if doing so is prohibited by state law?

California in 2012 was first state to ban “conversion therapy,” believing it was harmful to minors and leads to depression and suicide. Other states followed, relying on their authority to regulate the practice of medicine and to prohibit substandard care.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group, sued on behalf of a Colorado counselor and argued that the state is “censoring” her speech. (Chiles vs. Salazar, to be argued on Tuesday.)

Supreme Court Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., left, Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. attend inauguration ceremonies for Donald Trump in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20 in Washington.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Voting rights and Black majority districts: Does a state violate the Constitution if it redraws its congressional districts to create one with a Black majority?

In the past, the court has said racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional. But citing the Voting Rights Act, it also has ruled states must sometimes create an electoral district where a Black or Latino candidate has a good chance to win.

Otherwise, these minorities may be shut out from political representation in Congress, state legislatures or county boards.

But Justice Clarence Thomas has argued for outlawing all use of race in drawing district lines, and the court may adopt his view in a pending dispute over a second Black majority district in Louisiana. (Louisiana vs. Callais, to be argued Oct. 15.)

Trump and tariffs: Does President Trump have legal authority acting on his own to impose large import taxes on products coming from otherwise friendly countries?

Trump is relying on a 1977 law that empowers the president to act when faced with an “unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad. The measure does not mention tariffs or taxes.

In a pair of cases, lower courts ruled the tariffs were illegal but kept them in place for now. Trump administration lawyers argue the justices should defer to the president because tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. (Learning Resources vs. Trump, to be argued Nov. 5.)

The high court will look at whether transgender athletes can compete in certain sports. Above, a 100-meter hurdles event during a track meet in Riverside in April.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Transgender athletes and school sports: Can a state prevent a transgender student whose “biological sex at birth” was male from competing on a girls sports team?

West Virginia and Idaho adopted such laws but they were struck down by judges who said they violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of laws and the federal Title IX law that bars sex discrimination in schools and colleges.

Trump voiced support for “keeping men out of women’s sports” — a characterization deemed false by transgender women and their advocates, among others. If the Supreme Court agrees, this rule is likely to be enforced nationwide under Title IX. (West Virginia vs. B.P.J. is due to be heard in December.)

Trump and independent agencies: May the president fire officials of independent agencies who were appointed with fixed terms set by Congress?

Since 1887, Congress has created semi-independent boards, commissions and agencies with regulatory duties. While their officials are appointed by the president, their fixed terms keep them in office when a new president takes over.

The Supreme Court upheld their independence from direct presidential control in the 1935 case of Humphreys Executor vs. U.S., but Trump has fired several such officials.

The current court has sided with Trump in two such cases and will hear arguments on whether to overturn the 90-year-old precedent. (Trump vs. Slaughter is due to be argued in December.)

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland, ruling Saturday in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued the order pending further arguments in the case. She said that the relatively small protests the city has seen did not justify the use of federalized forces and that allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.

“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. She later continued, “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”

State and city officials sued to stop the deployment last week, one day after the Trump administration announced that 200 Oregon National Guard troops would be federalized to protect federal buildings. The president called the city “war-ravaged.”

Oregon officials said that characterization was ludicrous. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the city has been the site of nightly protests that typically drew a couple dozen people in recent weeks before the deployment was announced.

Generally speaking the president is allowed “a great level of deference” to federalize National Guard troops in situations where regular law enforcement forces are not able to execute the laws of the United States, the judge said, but that has not been the case in Portland.

Plaintiffs were able to show that the demonstrations at the immigration building were not significantly violent or disruptive ahead of the president’s order, the judge wrote, and “overall, the protests were small and uneventful.”

“The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” Immergut wrote.

After the ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”

Trump has deployed or threatened to deploy troops in several U.S. cities, particularly ones led by Democrats, including Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago and Memphis, Tenn. Speaking Tuesday to U.S. military leaders in Virginia, he proposed using cities as training grounds for the armed forces, alarming many military analysts.

Last month a federal judge ruled that the president’s deployment of some 4,700 National Guard soldiers and Marines in Los Angeles this year was illegal, but he allowed the 300 who remain in the city to stay as long as they do not enforce civilian laws. The Trump administration appealed, and an appellate panel has put the lower court’s block on hold while it moves forward.

The Portland protests have been limited to a one-block area in a city that covers about 145 square miles and has about 636,000 residents.

The protests grew somewhat following the Sept. 28 announcement of the Guard deployment. The Portland Police Bureau, which has said it does not participate in immigration enforcement and intervenes in the protests only if there is vandalism or criminal activity, arrested two people on assault charges. A peaceful march earlier that day drew thousands to downtown and saw no arrests, police said.

On Saturday, before the ruling was released, roughly 400 people marched to the ICE facility. The crowd included people of all ages and races, families with children and older people using walkers. Federal agents responded with chemical crowd-control munitions, including tear gas canisters and less-lethal guns that sprayed pepper balls. At least six people were arrested as the protesters reached the ICE building.

During his first term, Trump sent federal officers to Portland over the objections of local and state leaders in 2020 during long-running racial justice protests after George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police. The administration sent hundreds of agents for the stated purpose of protecting the federal courthouse and other federal property from vandalism.

That deployment antagonized demonstrators and prompted nightly clashes. Federal officers fired rubber bullets and used tear gas.

Viral videos captured federal officers arresting people and hustling them into unmarked vehicles. A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that while the federal government had legal authority to deploy the officers, many of them lacked the training and equipment necessary for the mission.

The government agreed this year to settle an excessive-force lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union by compensating several plaintiffs for their injuries.

Rush and Boone write for the Associated Press and reported from Portland and Boise, Idaho, respectively. AP writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.

On the day that Michele Mulroney was elected president of the Writers Guild of America West, writers won a significant victory. After writers protested ABC’s suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” for days, the network brought the late-night show back on air.

“Our currency is words and stories, and the freedom to be able to express ourselves is really important, and so our members could not feel more strongly about this and of course we will be speaking out and lobbying and working in any way we can to protect this fundamental right,” Mulroney said in a recent interview.

Mulroney, formerly the WGA West vice president and a writer on the 2017 “Power Rangers” movie and 2011 film “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows,” enters her new role at a time when the industry is facing significant challenges.

Those include major consolidation in the industry as studios look to cut costs and move TV and film production overseas because of hefty financial incentives. The climate has been tough for many writers who have struggled to find work after enduring a 148-day strike in 2023. After the walkout, writers did secure groundbreaking protections for AI in contracts, but they are still confronting AI models ripping off their work without compensation.

As the guild gears up for contract negotiations next year, Mulroney said she plans to build on earlier gains in AI and other areas, and aims to convince the studios to pay more for WGA’s health plans amid rising healthcare costs.

“It’s going to need some support from the companies,” Mulroney said. “Their drastic pullback in production and employment led to a pretty severe industry contraction that has contributed to some strain on our funds. We’ll be looking to them to help fix that with us.”

When asked about whether she thinks there is appetite among WGA’s members for another strike, Mulroney said “it’s way too early to speculate about that.”

“It’s really hard out there in the industry for all industry workers and for many of our members, but our members have shown time and again that when they have to, when it’s necessary, we are ready to fight for the contract we deserve,” Mulroney said.

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers declined to comment, but in an earlier statement said its members look forward to working with her “to address key issues for WGA writers and to strengthen our industry with fair, balanced solutions.”

A studio-side source who was not authorized to comment said that the WGA health plan faces “complex financial challenges that require a balanced approach to align with market norms and ensure long-term stability.”

To keep costs down, studios have been moving more productions to the U.K. and other countries offering significant financial incentives, shrinking job opportunities for entertainment industry workers in Southern California. Some have had to move out of state to look for jobs.

Unions including the WGA lobbied for California to boost annual funding for its film and TV tax credit program and succeeded in raising that amount to $750 million, from $330 million.

“This was a real bright spot of good news in an otherwise really bleak and tough time for our industry,” Mulroney said in an interview last week. “Now there needs to be federal action on this, too, so we’ll continue working with our allies to try to keep production in the U.S., and specifically in Hollywood, in Southern California.”

Mulroney declined to comment on President Trump’s renewed threat to impose a 100% tariff on foreign-made films.

Another big worry for writers has been artificial intelligence. The WGA has been outspoken about wanting studios to sue AI companies that writers say are taking their scripts for training AI models without their permission. Earlier this year, studios including Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery took legal action against AI companies over copyright infringement.

“We were glad to see some of the studios come off the sidelines and file lawsuits to protect their copyright from these AI companies that are stealing our members’ work to build their models,” she said. “I think we will probably be dealing with AI and wrangling that for the rest of our lives, right?”

Mulroney, 58, ran uncontested, receiving 2,241 votes or 87% of the votes cast, according to the union. CBS series “Tracker” writer and co-executive producer Travis Donnelly became vice president, and TV comedy show “Primo” executive producer Peter Murrieta became secretary-treasurer.

Mulroney grew up in the U.K., the daughter of a factory worker and a janitor. She’s served on the union’s board of directors for four terms and as an officer for six years prior to being elected president.

Mulroney’s background was in theater and theater directing, but she had always dabbled in writing. In her 20s, she worked in development for a British TV and film studio where she read a lot of scripts, which led her to think, “Maybe I could write one of those things.”

Her first writing gig was for a PBS children’s show called “Wishbone,” about a Jack Russell terrier who imagines himself as a character in literary classics. She’s been a screenwriter for 25 years and is based in West Hollywood with her husband and writing partner, Kieran.

Mulroney succeeds Meredith Stiehm, who led the union during the 2023 strike.

Kimmel coming back on air was a parting gift to Stiehm, said Mulroney, adding that the union is still watching the situation.

“We’re still monitoring,” Mulroney said. “I somehow doubt this is the last instance we’re going to see where censorship and free speech are going to be a topic.”

Protesters issue president 24-hour ultimatum to ‘respond favourably’ to demands, threatening ‘all necessary measures’.

Madagascan President Andry Rajoelina has ignored calls for his resignation by a nationwide youth-led protest movement, condemning what he perceives to be a coup plot driven by rivals.

Protesters took to the streets of the capital, Antananarivo, on Friday after a “strategic” pause in the near-daily demonstrations led by a movement known as “Gen Z”, which has demanded the president’s resignation over his alleged failure to deliver basic services, including water and electricity.

At least 22 people have been killed since the protests started on September 25, according to the United Nations. On Friday, police fired tear gas to disperse marchers in the capital, footage from Real TV Madagasikara showed.

“No one benefits from the destruction of the nation. I am here, I stand here ready to listen, ready to extend a helping hand and … to bring solutions to Madagascar,” Rajoelina said in a speech broadcast on his Facebook page.

He said, without providing evidence, that some politicians were plotting to take advantage of the protests and had considered staging a coup while he was addressing the United Nations in New York last week.

“What I want to tell you is that some people want to destroy our country,” he said, without naming those he alleged were behind the move.

The Gen Z movement rejected Rajoelina’s speech as “senseless”, promising to take “all necessary measures” if the president did not “respond favourably” within 24 hours to its demands.

There were also protests in the northern coastal city of Mahajanga and in the southern cities of Toliara and Fianarantsoa.

‘Opportunistic groups’

Madagascar is rich in resources yet remains one of the world’s poorest countries, with 75 percent of its population of 32 million living below the poverty line in 2022, according to the World Bank.

The recent unrest forced Rajoelina to sack his government on Monday and invite dialogue. In a post on his X account at the end of the week, he said he had also met various groups for the past three days to discuss the situation.

Madagascar’s Foreign Minister Rasata Rafaravavitafika said the country faced “a massive cyberattack” and a “targeted digital manipulation campaign” launched from another country.

“According to analyses by our specialised units, this operation was initially directed from abroad by an agency with advanced technological capabilities,” she said.

She claimed that “opportunistic groups” had “infiltrated” the protests and aimed to “exploit the vulnerability of some of Madagascar’s young people”.

Rajoelina, the former mayor of Antananarivo, first came to power in 2009 following a coup sparked by an uprising that deposed former President Marc Ravalomanana.

After sitting out the 2013 election under international pressure, he was voted back into office in 2018 and re-elected in 2023.

The congressional setback arrives as Milei’s political party faces slumping popularity headed into a midterm election.

Argentina’s struggling President Javier Milei has suffered a new setback as Congress overturned his vetoes of laws increasing funding for public universities and for paediatric care.

On Thursday, senators invalidated both vetoes, which had already been rejected by the Chamber of Deputies, bringing to three the number of laws upheld by Congress despite vehement opposition from the budget-slashing Milei.

Milei, who has implemented deep austerity policies to reduce the size of government, had said the new spending would jeopardise Argentina’s fiscal balance.

The Senate’s vote comes as the United States-backed Milei struggles to end a run on the national currency, the Argentinian peso, in the run-up to the crucial October 26 midterm elections.

The 54-year-old right-winger, in power since December 2023, has been on the ropes since his party’s trouncing by the centre-left in Buenos Aires provincial polls last month.

Those elections, seen as a bellwether ahead of the midterms, shredded his aura of political invincibility and sent markets into a tailspin.

“There’s a sensation of disenchantment and anger with the impact of the cutbacks,” said Sebastian Halperin, a political consultant in Buenos Aires.

He added that Milei had failed to build alliances with governors who influence how their province’s legislators vote in Congress.

Last week, the US government announced it was in talks with Argentina on a $20bn swap line aimed at shoring up the peso.

US President Donald Trump sought to buoy his close ally at talks in New York last week, saying: “He’s doing a fantastic job.”

The two are expected to meet in October as Milei seeks to secure a credit swap line from the US.

Analysts say, however, the president still needs a strong result in the midterms to avoid compromising the progress he has made in steadying Argentina’s economy.

After rallying briefly, the peso slumped again this week over market uncertainty about the amount and extent of the US financial help on offer.

SEOUL, Oct. 2 (UPI) — South Korean President Lee Jae Myung on Thursday apologized for the country’s troubled history of overseas adoptions, acknowledging that “unjust human rights violations” occurred and vowing stronger safeguards going forward.

“South Korea once bore the shameful stigma of being a ‘child exporter,'” Lee said in a Facebook post.

“While some found loving adoptive families, many suffered their entire lives due to the irresponsibility and inaction of certain adoption agencies,” he said. “My heart is heavy when I think of the anxiety, pain, and confusion of international adoptees who were thrown alone into a foreign land at a young age.”

In March, a long-awaited report by South Korea’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that the government violated adoptees’ rights as it sought to expedite overseas adoptions rather than strengthen domestic welfare programs. The report highlighted fraudulent practices such as document falsification, infant substitution and inadequate vetting of adoptive parents.

At least 170,000 South Korean children and babies were sent overseas since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s as the country went through a period of explosive economic growth.

Lee noted that even in the 2020s, long after South Korea had become an economic power, an average of more than 100 children per year were still being sent abroad for adoption.

Acknowledging the “unjust human rights violations” cited in the TRC report, Lee said that there were instances where the government “failed to fulfill its role in this process.”

“On behalf of the Republic of Korea, I offer my sincere apologies and condolences to the international adoptees, their families, and their families of origin who have suffered,” he said.

The president’s remarks came one day after South Korea formally became a party to the Hague Adoption Convention, an international treaty meant to establish safeguards for intercountry adoptions. Seoul ratified the treaty in July, some 12 years after signing the pact.

Moving ahead, Lee called on government ministries to “protect the rights of adoptees and establish a human rights-centered adoption system.”

“I also urge them to devise effective support measures to help international adoptees find their roots,” he added.

Programme, which started after Korean War as a way of removing mixed-race children from society, violated human rights.

South Korea’s president has apologised for a notorious foreign adoption scheme set up after the 1950-53 Korean War that caused “anxiety, pain, and confusion” to more than 14,000 children sent abroad.

President Lee Jae-myung said in a Facebook post on Thursday that he was offering “heartfelt apology and words of comfort” to South Koreans adopted abroad and their adoptive and birth families, seven months after a Truth and Reconciliation Commission said the programme violated the human rights of adoptees.

The commission, which investigated complaints from 367 adoptees in Europe, the United States and Australia, held the government accountable for facilitating adoptions through fraudulent practices, including falsifying records to portray children as abandoned orphans and switching identities.

Lee said he felt “heavy-hearted” when he thought about the “anxiety, pain and confusion” that South Korean adoptees would have suffered when they were sent abroad as children, and asked officials to formulate systems to safeguard the human rights of adoptees and support their efforts to find their birth parents.

Mass international adoptions began after the Korean War as a way to remove mixed-race children born to local mothers and American GI fathers from a society that emphasised ethnic homogeneity, with more than 140,000 children sent overseas between 1955 and 1999.

Foreign adoptions have continued in more recent times, with more than 100 children on average, often babies born to unmarried women who face ostracism in a conservative society, still being sent abroad for adoption each year in the 2020s.

After years of delay, South Korea in July ratified The Hague Adoption Convention, an international treaty meant to safeguard international adoptions. The treaty took effect in South Korea on Wednesday.

Former president Kim Dae-jung apologised during a meeting with overseas adoptees in 1998, saying: “From the bottom of my heart, I am truly sorry. I deeply feel that we have committed a grave wrong against you.”

But he stopped short of acknowledging the state’s responsibility for the decades of malpractice.

WASHINGTON — Democratic lawmakers took a significant risk this week by choosing to fight the Trump administration over the extension of healthcare credits.

A stalemate over the matter led to the federal shutdown on Tuesday night, when Democrats denied Republicans the votes needed to continue funding the government, forcing hundreds of thousands of federal workers into furloughs or to work without pay.

It’s a gamble for a party facing its lowest approval numbers since the Reagan era — and a calculated risk Democratic leaders felt feel compelled to take.

“I am proud to be fighting to preserve healthcare for millions of people, ” Sen. Adam Schiff of California said in an interview Wednesday. “I think this is a very necessary fight.”

The healthcare tax credits are set to expire at the end of the year, and if Democrats are unsuccessful in securing an extension as part of a shutdown deal, then premiums for millions of Americans are expected to skyrocket, Schiff said.

“There’s really not much that can be done to mitigate these dramatic health premium increases people are going to see unless the president and Republicans are willing to work with us on it,” he said.

Entering the shutdown, polls indicated the country was split over who would be to blame, with 19% of Americans faulting Democrats and 26% charging Republicans, according to a New York Times poll. A plurality of respondents — 33% — said both parties were responsible.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, a Democrat and the Senate minority leader, is leading the charge with his worst favorability numbers among his home state residents in over 20 years — and with the highest disapproval ratings of any congressional leader, according a recent Pew survey.

Schumer faced widespread ridicule from within his party in March after reversing course during the last government funding deadline, choosing then to support the Trump administration’s continuing resolution proposal.

That showdown came at the height of an aggressive purge by President Trump of the federal workforce. A government shutdown would only enable more mass firings, Schumer said at the time.

But the current shutdown is already giving Trump administration officials license to resume mass layoffs, this time specifically targeting Democratic states and priorities.

“We’d be laying off a lot of people who are going to be very affected,” Trump said in the hours before the shutdown, adding: “They’re going to be Democrats.”

On Wednesday, Russ Vought, Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget and a longtime advocate of concentrated presidential power, wrote on social media that $8 billion in “Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda” would be canceled to 16 Democratic-majority states, including California, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii.

Hours earlier, the Trump administration had frozen roughly $18 billion for infrastructure projects in New York City pending a review that Vought said would “ensure funding is not flowing based on unconstitutional DEI principles.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson and other Republicans at a news conference Wednesday discussing the shutdown.

(Mariam Zuhaib / Associated Press)

Seeing these actions, Schiff worries about further punitive measures against California.

“California, I’m sure, won’t be far behind in the kind of vindictive actions of the president,” he said.

At a White House press briefing Wednesday afternoon, Vice President JD Vance denied that the administration was planning to structure layoffs based on politics.

“We’re going to have to make things work, and that means that we’re going to have to triage some certain things,” he said. “That means certain people are going to have to get laid off, and we’re going to try to make sure that the American people suffer as little as possible from the shutdown.”

Vance placed the blame squarely on Schumer and other Democrats, saying repeatedly that Democrats had shut down the government because Republicans refused to give billions of dollars in healthcare funding to immigrants in the country illegally. Immigrants without legal status are not eligible for any federal healthcare programs, including Medicaid and health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

“To the American people who are watching: The reason your government is shut down at this very minute is because, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of congressional Republicans — and even a few moderate Democrats — supported opening the government, the Chuck Schumer-AOC wing of the Democratic Party shut down the government,” the vice president said.

Vance said policy disagreements should not serve as the basis for keeping hostage essential services that Americans need. But before those discussions can happen, the government must be reopened.

“I’d invite Chuck Schumer to join the moderate Democrats and 52 Senate Republicans. Do the right thing, open up the People’s Government, and then let’s fix healthcare policy for the American people,” he said.

Some senators, including Democrat Ruben Gallego of Arizona, are exploring a bipartisan offramp from the crisis, including a potential continuing resolution that would reopen the government for roughly a week to provide room for negotiations.

While that option is on the table, less than 24 hours into the shutdown, some Democrats think a short-term solution is contingent on Trump being willing to negotiate with Democrats in good faith.

“It really just depends on whether the president decides he’s going to try to resolve this conflict and negotiate,” Schiff said. “Until he makes that decision that he wants the shutdown to end, it will continue.”

Vance described two categories of demands from congressional Democrats: those acting in good faith who want to make sure the administration engages in a conversation about critical issues such as healthcare, and those who refuse to reopen the government until every demand is met.

“We just write those people off because they’re not negotiating in good faith — and frankly, we don’t need it,” he said, noting that three senators who vote Democratic — John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), and Angus King (I-Maine) — had already broken ranks to vote to fund the government.

“Three moderate Democrats joined 52 Republicans last night,” he said, adding: “We need five more in order to reopen the government, and that’s really where we’re going to focus.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday put off a decision on whether President Trump can fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and said it would hear arguments on the case in January.

The court’s action allows Cook to remain in her position, and it prevents Trump from taking majority control of the historically independent central bank board.

Last month, the president said he fired Cook “for cause,” citing mortgage documents she signed in 2021 confirming that two different properties were her primary residence.

But the flap over her mortgages arose as Trump complained that the Federal Reserve Board, including Cook, had not lowered interest rates to his satisfaction.

“We will have a majority very shortly,” Trump said after he fired Cook.

In September, Trump appointed Stephen Miran, the chair of of his White House Council of Economic Advisers, to serve a temporary term on the seven-member Federal Reserve Board. He joined two other Trump appointees.

Congress wrote the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 intending to give the central bank board some independence from politics and the current president.

Its seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and they serve staggered terms of 14 years, unless “removed for cause by the president.”

The law does not define what amounts to cause.

President Biden appointed Cook to a temporary term in 2022 and to a full term a year later.

In August, Bill Pulte, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleged that Cook committed mortgage fraud when she took out two housing loans in 2021. One was for $203,000 for a house in Ann Arbor, Mich., and the second was for $540,000 for a condo in Atlanta. In both instances, he said she signed a loan document saying the property would be her primary residence.

Mortgage lenders usually offer a lower interest rate for a borrower’s primary residence.

Cook has not directly refuted the allegation about her mortgage documents, but her attorneys said she told the lender she was seeking the Atlanta condo as a vacation home.

Trump, however, sent Cook a letter on Aug. 25 that said, “You may be removed, at my discretion, for cause,” citing the law and Pulte’s referral. “I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position,” he wrote.

Cook refused to step down and filed a suit to challenge the decision. She argued the allegation did not amount to cause under the law, and she had not been given a hearing to contest it.

A federal judge in Washington agreed and blocked her firing, noting that unproven allegation of mortgage fraud occurred before she was appointed to the Federal Reserve.

In a 2-1 vote, the appeals court also refused to uphold her firing.

Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on Sept. 18 arguing Congress gave the president the authority to fire a Fed governor he concludes she is not trustworthy.

“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself — and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” wrote Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

But the justices refused to act on an emergency appeal and decided they will give the case a full hearing and a written decision.

On Monday, YouTube became the latest media and tech company to settle one of President Trump’s lawsuits.

The Google-owned streamer agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle a lawsuit Trump filed after his account was banned following the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol. That brings Trump’s haul from media and tech companies to more than $90 million in the last year.

Some of these suits deal with conflicts the president has experienced with news networks such as ABC and CBS. Others confront the fallout from the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Some of the settlement money will pay for renovations to a presidential library Trump is building on 2.6 acres of waterfront property in Miami. Other funds will go to the nonprofit Trust for the National Mall, with the intention of building a Mar-a-Lago-style ballroom, which is expected to cost $200 million overall.

Here’s a rundown of the payouts:

YouTube: $24.5 million

After the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, YouTube suspended the president’s account on the platform because of Trump’s alleged role in the insurrection. At the time, the company had cited “concerns about the ongoing potential for violence” and violation of its “policies for inciting violence.”

Trump’s lawsuit, filed in 2021 at the U.S. District Court in Northern California, argued the account’s suspension was “censorship.” Before the case was settled, YouTube had already lifted its suspension on Trump in March 2023, in light of the then-upcoming presidential race.

In court documents filed Monday, Alphabet, the parent company of YouTube and Google, did not admit any wrongdoing in the matter. The company did not agree to make any policy or product changes in the deal.

Of the $24.5 million, $22 million is going to Trump, who will contribute the money to the Trust for the National Mall, which is “dedicated to restoring, preserving, and elevating the National Mall” as well as supporting the construction of the White House State Ballroom, according to the filing.

Alphabet will also have to pay an additional $2.5 million to other plaintiffs in the case, including the American Conservative Union and writer Naomi Wolf.

Social media platforms Facebook (now Meta) and Twitter (now X) had suspended Trump’s accounts over Jan. 6, 2021. At the time, Twitter put out a statement, saying that recent tweets from his “account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter” had to be suspended to avoid “the risk of further incitement of violence.”

Mark Zuckerberg of Meta also posted a statement on Facebook after banning Trump’s Meta accounts. He wrote, “We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great.”

In July of that year, Trump sued the companies for “censorship.”

By January 2023, Meta had reinstated Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, as had X in 2022.

Shortly before Trump was going to take office for his second term, in January 2025, Meta decided to pay the incoming president $25 million to settle the lawsuit. Elon Musk, who had purchased Twitter and renamed it “X” in the interim, agreed to pay $10 million to settle its Trump case.

Paramount Global: $16 million

Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to resolve Trump’s legal salvo against “60 Minutes” over the editing of an interview with his 2024 opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump claimed “60 Minutes” edited an interview with Harris to make her look better and bolster her chances in the election. CBS denied the claims, saying the edits were standard and the case was viewed as frivolous by 1st Amendment experts.

Trump wrote on Truth Social that CBS “did everything possible to illegally elect Kamala, including completely and corruptly changing major answers to Interview questions, but it just didn’t work for them.”

Last May, CBS offered $16 million to settle the civil suit filed in Texas. The lump sum included the president’s legal fees and an agreement that “60 Minutes” will release transcripts of interviews with future presidential candidates.

Less than a month after the settlement, the FCC approved Skydance Media’s acquisition of Paramount, which owns CBS.

Disney: $16 million

Earlier this year, ABC news anchor George Stephanopoulos appeared on the network’s “This Week” news program and asserted that Trump was found liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll. In May 2023, a jury in New York declined to find Trump liable for rape, but did find him liable for sexual abuse of Carroll.

Trump responded to the on-air comments with a defamation lawsuit filed in federal court in Florida. The lawsuit was settled by ABC News, owned by Disney, last December. Disney agreed to pay $15 million toward Trump’s presidential library and $1 million of Trump’s legal fees.

The settlement also included an editor’s note, posted on the ABC News website, expressing regret for Stephanopoulos’ comments.

Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.

When a new president enters office, it’s not uncommon for changes to take place, either through the signing of bills into law or via executive orders. Since President Donald Trump was inaugurated a little over eight months ago, we’ve witnessed a slew of adjustments made to Social Security, as well as the passage of his flagship tax and spending law, the “Big, Beautiful Bill.”

While Trump’s big, beautiful bill introduced a number of tax breaks for select groups, including a higher standard tax deduction for eligible seniors from 2025 through 2028, and partial deductions for tips and overtime pay for eligible workers during the same four-year timeline, it also removed some important benefits.

President Trump delivering his State of the Union address. Image source: Official White House Photo.

Specifically, Donald Trump’s law changes the fortunes of the electric-vehicle (EV) industry and its leading pure-play manufacturers, which includes Tesla (TSLA 0.61%), Rivian Automotive (RIVN -2.15%), and Lucid Group (LCID 0.56%), as of today, Sept. 30.

EV makers bid adieu to an important dangling carrot

Among the laundry list of tax and credit adjustments in the president’s big, beautiful bill is a newly shortened timeline that ends the $7,500 tax credit consumers received when purchasing a qualifying new EV or plug-in hybrid, as well as the $4,000 credit when buying a used EV. This EV credit was available to new vans, SUVs, and trucks priced below a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) of $80,000, as well as new sedans with an MSRP of no more than $55,000.

Though this credit (officially known as the Clean Vehicle Credit) was initially slated to end in 2032, based on the Inflation Reduction Act, Donald Trump’s big, beautiful bill brings this new EV purchase credit to an end today, Sept. 30. Qualifying new vehicles purchased after today will no longer be eligible for the $7,500 credit.

This EV credit applied to a significant percentage of the vehicles Tesla sells, including its Model 3 Sedan, all-wheel drive Model X SUV, single and dual motor Cybertruck, and multiple variants of the Model Y SUV. While Rivian’s and Lucid’s EVs are generally priced above the MSRP range where tax credits end, both companies had been angling leases of upcoming models as a way to take advantage of the $7,500 EV credit.

This EV credit was akin to a dangling carrot that allowed pure-play electric-vehicle manufacturers to be more price-competitive with internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Undercutting traditional ICE vehicles on price is viewed as a borderline necessity with EV charging infrastructure still somewhat lacking on a nationwide basis.

Without this upfront cost advantage, it’s likely that future buyers will opt for traditional gas- and diesel-powered vehicles due to the availability of ICE fueling infrastructure and opportunity cost. Whereas it takes just a few minutes to refuel an ICE vehicle, it can take an hour to a full day, depending on the type of charger used, to juice up an EV.

Image source: Tesla.

But wait — there’s more bad news

However, ending this lucrative tax credit that incentivized the purchase of EVs isn’t the only way Donald Trump’s big, beautiful bill is disrupting pure-play EV manufacturers.

When the president signed his flagship tax and spending bill into law on July 4, 2025, it put an end to corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) fines, as well as retroactively eliminated fines for 2022 model years and all subsequent years.

CAFE regulations represent the standard of how far vehicles must travel on a gallon of fuel. These figures, which are set by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, are designed to promote more fuel-efficient vehicles over time and lessen the reliance on fossil fuels. Automakers that failed to meet these standards were subject to fines. With CAFE civil penalties removed, courtesy of Trump’s law, there’s no longer any financial incentive for automakers to meet sky-high mile-per-gallon targets.

This is almost certain to have an adverse impact on the ability of Tesla, Rivian Automotive, and Lucid Group to generate profits.

Government agencies provide automotive regulatory credits to these pure-play EV manufacturers, which sell these tax credits to legacy automakers that are short of compliance targets. For Tesla especially, selling these tax credits plays a key role in its profitability. Without regulatory credits, Elon Musk’s company would have reported a pre-tax loss during the first quarter of 2025.

With the teeth behind CAFE regulations removed by the big, beautiful bill, the market for automotive regulatory credits in the U.S. is going to be severely depressed. It has the potential to expose the fact that Wall Street’s EV darling, Tesla, has been consistently generating more than half of its pre-tax income from unsustainable and/or non-innovative sources, such as selling automotive regulatory credits and earning interest income on its cash.

It’ll also minimize regulatory tax credit revenue for Rivian and Lucid. Whereas Tesla has at least been profitable on a recurring basis for five consecutive years (with the help of automotive regulatory credits), Rivian and Lucid continue to lose money hand over fist as they ramp up operations and attempt to carve out their own unique niches in the automotive marketplace. Despite substantial cash piles for both companies and brand-name financial backing, long-term success is far from a guarantee.

Though I wouldn’t go so far as to say Donald Trump drove a dagger through the heart of the EV industry, his actions are almost certain to thin the herd and make it considerably more difficult for pure-play electric-vehicle makers to compete with traditional ICE vehicles.

The demonstrations, which started over deteriorating living conditions, have left 22 people dead, according to the UN.

Madagascar’s president, Andry Rajoelina, has dissolved his government in response to mass demonstrations over power and water shortages that turned deadly, with the United Nations reporting that at least 22 people have been killed and more than 100 others were injured.

The protests, which began last week and continued into Monday, were led largely by young people, angry over deteriorating living conditions in the capital, Antananarivo.

Experts say they represent the most serious challenge to Rajoelina’s authority since his re-election in 2023, and the largest wave of unrest the island nation has seen in years.

Crowds gathered at Antananarivo’s main university on Monday, carrying placards and singing the national anthem, before attempting to march into the city centre, according to footage broadcast by the local channel 2424.MG.

Police fired tear gas to disperse the demonstrators, as authorities enforced a dusk-to-dawn curfew that has been in place since last week. Security forces have also used rubber bullets to try to quell the unrest.

Looting has been reported at supermarkets, appliance shops and banks across the capital of 1.4 million people. Homes belonging to politicians have also been attacked in recent days.

The president promises dialogue

In a televised address on Monday, Rajoelina acknowledged the public anger and apologised for his government’s failings. “We acknowledge and apologise if members of the government have not carried out the tasks assigned to them,” he said on state broadcaster Televiziona Malagasy (TVM).

The president promised measures to support businesses that suffered losses during the unrest and said he wanted to open a channel of communication with young people. “I understand the anger, the sadness, and the difficulties caused by power cuts and water supply problems. I heard the call, I felt the suffering, I understood the impact on daily life,” he added.

The demonstrations have been driven by frustration at years of economic hardship. Madagascar, an island nation off Africa’s southeast coast, is one of the region’s poorest countries.

About 75 percent of its 30 million people lived below the poverty line in 2022, according to the World Bank.

Many protesters blame Rajoelina’s government for failing to improve conditions, particularly as frequent power outages and water shortages have disrupted daily life.

Casualties and disputes over figures

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said that casualties included protesters and bystanders killed by security forces, as well as people who died in looting and violence carried out by gangs unconnected to the demonstrations.

Madagascar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected those figures, insisting they were not based on official data but on “rumours or misinformation”.

Organisers say they have taken inspiration from youth-led movements in Kenya, Nepal and Morocco. Demonstrators in Antananarivo waved a flag first used in Nepal earlier this month, when protests forced the country’s prime minister to resign.

The movement in Madagascar has been largely coordinated on social media, particularly Facebook, echoing similar online mobilisation seen in Kenya last year, when sustained demonstrations pushed the government to abandon proposed tax legislation.

Moldova’s President Maia Sandu hailed her pro-EU party’s victory in parliamentary elections despite allegations of widespread Russian interference, saying the results showed Russia had ‘failed’.

In 2007, eight years after becoming Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chávez revoked the license of the country’s oldest private television station. Eight months into his second term, President Trump suggested revoking the licenses of U.S. television stations he believes are overly critical of him.

Since he returned to office in January, Trump’s remaking of the federal government into an instrument of his personal will has drawn comparisons to elected strongmen in other countries who used the levers of government to consolidate power, punish their enemies and stifle dissent.

But those familiar with other countries where that has happened, including Hungary and Turkey, say there is one striking difference: Trump appears to be moving more rapidly, and more overtly, than others did.

“The only difference is the speed with which it is happening,” said David Smilde, who lived in Venezuela during Chavez’s rise and is now a professor at Tulane University.

Political enemies of the president become targets

The U.S. is a long way from Venezuela or other authoritarian governments. It still has robust opposition to Trump, judges who often check his initiatives and a system that diffuses power across 50 states, including elections, making it hard for a president to dominate the country. Some of Trump’s most controversial pledges, such as revoking television licenses, remain just threats.

Trump has both scoffed and winked at the allegation that he’s an authoritarian.

During last year’s campaign, he said he wouldn’t be a “dictator” — except, he added, “on day one” over the border. Last month, Trump told reporters: ”A lot of people are saying, ‘Maybe we like a dictator.’ I don’t like a dictator. I’m not a dictator.”

Even so, he has moved quickly to consolidate authority under the presidency, steer federal law enforcement to prioritize a campaign of retribution and purge the government of those not considered sufficiently loyal.

In a recent social media post, Trump complained to his attorney general, Pam Bondi, about a lack of prosecution of his foes, saying “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” Days later, the Department of Justice secured a felony indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump has blamed for the Russian collusion investigation that dogged his first term.

The same day, Trump ordered a sweeping crackdown targeting groups he alleges fund political violence. The examples he gave of victims were exclusively Republicans and his possible targets were those who have funded Democratic candidates and liberal causes. The week before, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, threatened ABC after a comment about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk by late night host Jimmy Kimmel angered Republicans.

ABC suspended Kimmel for five days, but Trump threatened consequences for the network after it returned his show to the airwaves: “I think we’re going to test ABC out on this. Let’s see how we do,” the president said on his social media site.

Trump has said he is repaying Democrats for what he says is political persecution of him and his supporters. The White House said its mission was accountability.

“The Trump administration will continue to deliver the truth to the American people, restore integrity to our justice system, and take action to stop radical left-wing violence that is plaguing American communities.” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said Saturday in response to a question about comparisons between Trump and authoritarian leaders.

U.S. unprepared for attacks on democracy from within

Trump opened his second term pardoning more than 1,500 people convicted of crimes during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, an attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss. He has threatened judges who ruled against him, targeted law firms and universities he believes opposed him, and is attempting to reshape the nation’s cultural institutions.

On Saturday, the president said he was going to send troops to Portland, Oregon, “authorizing Full Force” if necessary. It would be his latest deployment of troops to cities run by Democrats.

Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political scientist and co-author of the book “How Democracies Die,” said he is constantly asked by foreign journalists how the U.S. can let Trump take such actions.

“If you talk to Brazilians, South Koreans, Germans, they have better antennae for authoritarians,” he said. “They experienced, or were taught by their parents, or the schools, the danger of losing a democracy.”

Of the United States, he said: “This is not a society that is prepared for authoritarianism.”

‘America has become little Turkey’

Alper Coskun presumed the U.S. wouldn’t go the way of his native Turkey, where he served in the government, including as the country’s director general of international security affairs. He left as that country’s president, Recep Erdogan, consolidated power.

Coskun now laughs bitterly at the quip his countrymen make: Turkey wanted to become little America, but now America has become little Turkey.

“It’s a very similar playbook,” said Coskun, now at the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace. The difference, he said, is that Erdogan, first elected in 2002, had to move slowly to avoid running afoul of Turkey’s then-independent military and business community.

Trump, in contrast, has more “brazenly” broken democratic norms, Coskun said.

Erdogan, who met with Trump this past week, has had 23 years in office to increase his authority and has now jailed writers, journalists and a potential political rival, Istanbul mayor Ekrem Imamoglu.

“Trump is emulating Erdogan much faster than I expected,” said Henri Barkey, a Turkish professor and expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who lives in the U.S. and has been accused by Erdogan of complicity in an attempted 2016 coup, an allegation Barkey denies.

He said Trump is following in Erdogan’s path in prosecuting enemies, but said he has yet to use the Justice Department to neutralize opponents running for office.

“We have to see if Trump is going to go to that next step,” Barkey said.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has often been cited as a model for Trump. Orbán has become an icon to some U.S. conservatives for cracking down on immigration and LGBTQ rights. Like Trump, he lost an election and spent his years out of office planning his return.

When voters returned Orbán to power in 2010, he moved as quickly as Trump, said Kim Scheppele, who was an adviser to Hungary’s constitutional court and now is a sociologist at Princeton. But there was one difference.

To avoid resistance, Scheppele said, “Orbán had a ‘don’t scare the horses’ philosophy.” She said he spent much of his first year back working on legal reforms and changes to Hungary’s constitution that set him up to consolidate power.

In Venezuela, Chavez faced resistance from the moment he was elected, including an unsuccessful coup in 2002. His supporters complained the country’s largest broadcast network did not cover it in real time, and he eventually pulled its license.

Chavez later deployed the military as an internal police force and accelerated a crackdown on critics before he died in office in 2013.

In the U.S., Smilde said, people trust the country’s institutions to maintain democracy. And they did in 2020 and 2021, when the courts, staff in the administration, and elected officials in state and federal government blocked Trump’s effort to overturn his election loss.

“But now, here we are with a more pointed attack,” Smilde said. “Here, nobody has really seen this in a president before.”

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

MAGNOLIA, Ky. — The leafy soybean plants reach Caleb Ragland’s thighs and are ripe for harvest, but the Kentucky farmer is deeply worried. He doesn’t know where he and others like him will sell their crop because China has stopped buying.

Beijing, which traditionally has snapped up at least a quarter of all soybeans grown in the U.S., is in effect boycotting them in retaliation for the high tariffs President Trump has imposed on Chinese goods and to strengthen its hand in negotiations over a new overall trade deal.

It has left American soybean farmers fretting over not only this year’s crop but the long-term viability of their businesses, built in part on China’s once-insatiable appetite for U.S. beans.

“This is a five-alarm fire for our industry,” said Ragland, who leads the American Soybean Assn. trade group.

The situation might even be enough to test farmers’ loyalty to Trump, although the president still enjoys strong support throughout rural America. If no deal is reached soon, farmers hope the government will come through with aid as it did during Trump’s first term, but they see that as only a temporary solution. Trump said Thursday he was considering an aid package.

U.S. and Chinese officials have held four rounds of trade talks between May and September, with another likely in the coming weeks. No progress on soybeans has been reported.

Getting closer to harvest, “I’m honestly getting worried that the time is running out,” said Jim Sutter, chief executive of the U.S. Soybean Export Council.

Political pressure is growing

After Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, China responded with tariffs of its own, which now total up to 34% on U.S. soybeans. That makes soybeans from other countries cheaper.

China’s retaliatory tariffs also hit U.S. growers of sorghum, corn and cotton; and even geoduck divers have been affected. But soybeans stand out because of the crop’s outsize importance to U.S. agricultural exports. Soybeans are the top U.S. food export, accounting for about 14% of all farm goods sent overseas.

And China has been by far the largest foreign buyer. Last year, the U.S. exported nearly $24.5 billion worth of soybeans, and China accounted for more than $12.5 billion. That compared with $2.45 billion by the European Union, the second-largest buyer. This year, China hasn’t bought beans since May.

With U.S. farmers hurting, the Trump administration is under growing pressure to reach a deal with China. As talks drag on, Trump appears ready to help.

“We’re going to take some of the tariff money — relatively small amount, but a lot for the farmers — and we’re going to help the farmers out a little bit,” Trump said, during what he called a transition period.

The only way most farmers survived Trump’s trade war in his first term was with tens of billions of dollars in government payments. But that’s not what most farmers want.

What farmers expect from Trump

“The American farmer, especially myself included, we don’t want aid payments,” said Brian Warpup, 52, a fourth-generation farmer from Warren, Ind. “We want to work. We work the land, we harvest the land, the crop off the land. And the worst thing that we could ever want is a handout.”

Farmers are looking to Trump for a long-term solution.

“Overwhelmingly, farmers have been in President Trump’s corner,” said Ragland, the president of the soybean association. “And I think the message that our soybean farmers as a whole want to deliver is: ‘President Trump, we’ve had your back. We need you to have ours now.’”

He said farmers appreciate the willingness to provide some short-term relief, but what they ultimately need are strong, reliable markets. “Our priority remains seeing the United States secure lasting trade agreements — particularly with China — that allow farmers to sell their crops and build a sustainable future with long-term customers,” he said.

Ragland, 39, hopes his three sons will become the 10th generation to till his 4,500 acres in Magnolia, Ky. Unless something changes soon, he worries that thousands of farmers may not survive.

Coming into this year, many farmers were just hoping to break even because crop prices were weak while their costs had only increased. Trump’s tariffs, which helped make their crops uncompetitive around the world, drove prices down further. And tariffs on steel and fertilizer sent costs up even more.

Darin Johnson, president of the Minnesota Soybean Growers Assn., said he still has faith in the Trump administration to reach a good trade deal with China.

“I think where the patience is probably wearing thin is the time,” said Johnson, a fourth-generation farmer. “I don’t think anybody thought that we were going to take this much time, because we were told 90 deals — 90 deals in 90 days.”

China’s negotiating strategy

The U.S. soybean industry grew in response to Chinese demand starting back in the 1990s, when China began its rapid economic rise and turned to foreign producers to help feed its people. Protein-rich soybeans are an essential part of the diet.

While China relies on domestic crops for steamed beans and tofu, it needs far more soybeans for oil extraction and animal feed. In 2024, China produced 20 million metric tons of soybeans, while importing more than 105 million metric tons.

American farmers have come to count on China as their biggest customer, and this has “given the Chinese a point of leverage,” Sutter said. By holding off on buying U.S. soybeans, China is seen as trying to leverage that purchasing power in the trade talks.

“I think that’s the strategy,” said Sutter of the U.S. Soybean Export Council. “I think that’s why China is targeting soybeans and other agricultural products, because they know that farmers have a strong lobby and farmers are important to the U.S. government.”

Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, didn’t answer specific questions on soybean purchases but urged the U.S. to work with Beijing.

“The essence of China-U.S. economic and trade cooperation is mutual benefit and win-win,” Liu said.

China turned to Brazil when Trump launched his first trade war in 2018. Last year, Brazilian beans accounted for more than 70% of China’s imports, while the U.S. share was down to 21%, World Bank data show. Argentina and other South American countries also are selling more to China, which has diversified to boost food security.

What American farmers are doing in response

U.S. farmers also are broadening their customer base, said Sutter, who recently traveled to Japan and Indonesia in search of new markets. Taiwan pledged to purchase $10 billion worth of soybeans, corn, wheat and beef in the next four years.

“There’s strong diversification efforts underway,” Sutter said. But “China is so big, it’s hard to replace them overnight.”

Farmers are working to boost consumption at home, too. Growth in biodiesel production has taken in some of the soybeans that were once exported. Other beans are crushed to produce soybean oil and soybean meal. The United Soybean Board is investing in research into the benefits of using soybeans to feed dairy cows and hogs.

But Iowa farmer Robb Ewoldt, a director with the Soybean Board, knows that such domestic uses are growing only gradually.

“We cannot replace a China in one shot,” Ewoldt said. “It’s not going to happen. We need to be realistic in that.”

Tang and Funk write for the Associated Press. Tang reported from Washington and Funk from Omaha. AP journalists Dylan Lovan in Magnolia, Obed Lamy in Warren and Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The Colombian leader was filmed joining thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters outside UN headquarters in New York.

The United States Department of State has said it will revoke the visa of Colombian President Gustavo Petro, citing his “reckless and incendiary actions” in relation to a speech he gave to protesters outside the United Nations headquarters in New York City on Friday.

“Earlier today, Colombian president [Gustavo Petro] stood on a NYC [New York City] street and urged U.S. soldiers to disobey orders and incite violence,” the department said in a post on X.

The post did not provide specific details on Petro’s alleged offence, but footage circulated on social media showed the Colombian leader joining thousands of pro-Palestine protesters outside the UN building in Midtown Manhattan.

In one video clip, Petro can be heard saying his country plans to present a resolution to the UN seeking to establish an “army for the salvation of the world”.

In an unofficial translation of his speech to protesters, Petro said that world nations will contribute soldiers to the army, which will “enforce the orders of international justice” and must be “larger” than the US military.

“I ask all of the soldiers of the army of the US not to point their guns at humanity. Disobey the orders of Trump. Obey the orders of humanity,” the Colombian leader said.

Earlier today, Colombian president @petrogustavo stood on a NYC street and urged U.S. soldiers to disobey orders and incite violence.

We will revoke Petro’s visa due to his reckless and incendiary actions.

— Department of State (@StateDept) September 27, 2025

Huge protests took place outside the UN headquarters on Friday as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke on the fourth day of the UN General Assembly’s General Debate.

The Israeli leader delivered a bombastic speech as he told world leaders Israel must be allowed to “finish the job” in Gaza, where the Israeli army has been accused of perpetrating genocide, and lambasting Western states for their “disgraceful decision” to recognise a Palestinian state.

Petro’s office and Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the visa revocation from the Reuters news agency.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Petro also hit out at US President Donald Trump, saying the US leader was “complicit in genocide” in Gaza and called for “criminal proceedings” over US air attacks on boats in Caribbean waters that Washington has accused of trafficking drugs.

Petro’s social media profile on Friday showed he had reposted several video clips of himself speaking to the pro-Palestinian protesters in New York.

WASHINGTON — On a Phoenix tarmac in 2016, former President Clinton and U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch had a serendipitous meeting on a private jet. The exchange caused a political firestorm. At a time when the Justice Department was investigating Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, the appearance of impropriety prompted a national scandal.

“Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political purposes,” Donald Trump, her Republican rival that year, would later write of the meeting on Twitter. “Totally illegal!”

It was the beginning of a pattern from Trump claiming political interference by Democrats and career public servants in Justice Department matters, regardless of the evidence.

Now, Trump’s years-long claim that it was his opponents who politicized the justice system has become the basis for the most aggressive spree of political prosecutions in modern American history.

“What Trump is doing now with the U.S. attorneys is really in complete opposition to how the people who created those offices imagined what those officials would do — the Founders simply did not envision the office in this way,” said Peter Kastor, chair of the history department at Washington University in St. Louis.

“From the inception of the Justice Department,” he added, “one of the most remarkable things is how it was never used in this way.”

On Thursday, at Trump’s express direction, federal charges were filed against James Comey, the former FBI director, alleging he gave false testimony before Congress and attempted to obstruct a congressional proceeding five years ago.

The indictment was secured from a federal grand jury after Trump fired a U.S. attorney with doubts about the strength of the case — replacing him with a loyalist, and telling Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi openly on social media to pursue charges against him and others.

“JAMES COMEY IS A DIRTY COP,” Trump wrote on social media after the charges were filed. “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Comey, who was fired by Trump in 2017, denies the charges.

“My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way,” Comey said in a statement posted online. “We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either.

“My heart is broken for the Department of Justice. But I have great confidence in the federal judicial system,” Comey continued. “And I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial and keep the faith.”

Behind the charges against Comey, legal experts see a weak case wielded as a cudgel in a political persecution of Trump’s perceived enemy. Comey is accused of lying about authorizing a leak to the media about an FBI investigation through an anonymous source.

It is only the latest example. Over the summer, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Bill Pulte, used his position to accuse three of the president’s political foes of mortgage fraud, referring the cases to the Justice Department for potential charges — actions actively encouraged by Trump online.

“It’s not a list,” Trump said Thursday, asked whether more prosecutions are coming. “I think there will be others. They’re corrupt. These were corrupt radical left Democrats. Comey essentially was Dem — he’s worse than a Democrat.”

The president’s overt use of the Justice Department as a partisan tool threatens a new era of political persecutions that could well backfire on his own allies. The Supreme Court has made clear that presidents enjoy broad immunity for their actions while in office. But their aides do not. Bondi, Pulte and others, just like Comey, are obligated to provide occasional testimony to House and Senate committees under oath.

“The Comey indictment is notable for its personalized politicization being so open,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College. “The same actions carried out clandestinely would seem scandalous, because they are — and the fact they were so blatantly advertised does not make them less corrupt.”

But the Comey case can also be seen as a test of the viability of a prosecution based purely on politics. Already, lawyers for Trump’s other legal targets have said they plan on using his overt threats against them to get cases against their clients thrown out in court.

This week, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, defended Trump’s vocal advocacy for criminal charges against political foes as a matter of “accountability.”

“We are not going to tolerate gaslighting from anyone in the media, from anyone on the other side who is trying to say that it’s the president who is weaponizing the DOJ,” Leavitt said.

“You look at people like [California Sen.] Adam Schiff, and like James Comey, and like [New York Atty. Gen.] Letitia James, who the president is rightfully frustrated with,” she continued. “He wants accountability for these corrupt fraudsters who abused their power, who abused their oath of office to target the former president.”

But Trump’s accusations against Democrats have routinely failed the tests of inspectors general, journalistic inquiry and public scrutiny.

When Trump was investigated over potential coordination between his campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 race, he claimed a liberal, “deep state” cabal was behind an inquiry based on, as the special prosecutor’s report concluded, “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.”

And when charged with federal crimes over his handling of highly classified material, and his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, he dismissed the charges as a witch hunt choreographed by President Biden and his attorney general, a claim that had no basis in fact.

The special counsel investigations against Trump, Kastor said, were “prosecutions, not persecutions.”

“His claims that the investigations surrounding him are specious — the investigations were appropriate,” Kastor added. “These investigations are not.”