SACRAMENTO — A five-bill insurance reform package, including a measure to prohibit most midterm premium increases or policy cancellations on commercial and personal insurance policies, was approved Thursday by the Senate.
Insurance companies also would have to give the policyholder at least 60 days’ notice of a premium increase, non-renewal or any change in coverage for liability policies. A 26-1 vote sent the bill, by Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Van Nuys), to the Assembly, where a similar bill is pending.
Included in the package are three bills that were the subject of recent political radio ads by Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, the probable Democratic nominee for governor. The ads accused Gov. George Deukmejian’s Administration of “blocking” the bills, even thou1734877300Those bills would:
– Establish as many as 10 state insurance rate appeals panels to hear consumer complaints of excessive rates. The vote was 21-10.
– Allow reduced automobile insurance coverage for senior citizens over 65 years of age that could save them an estimated 30%. The vote was 22-5.
– Require the state insurance commissioner to set up a pool of insurance companies to underwrite certain categories of risk when the commissioner determines there is a general lack of liability insurance available in that field. The vote was 22-1.
Another bill approved by the Senate would grant a one-time 5% rebate for liability policyholders if Proposition 51 is approved on the June 3 election ballot. The ballot measure, widely supported by the insurance industry, would limit certain defendants’ liability in personal-injury lawsuits. The vote was 22-9.
Andrew Rosindell has resigned from the Conservative Party and defected to Reform UK.
The former shadow minister and MP for Romford said the Tories were “irreparably bound to the mistakes of previous governments” and not willing to take “meaningful accountability” for poor decisions.
He said he had spoken to Nigel Farage on Sunday evening before agreeing to join his party. The Reform UK leader called him “a great patriot” who “will be a great addition to our team”.
Rosindell’s move comes after Robert Jenrick joined Reform on Thursday, hours after being sacked from the shadow cabinet by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who had accused him of plotting to defect.
In a statement on X, Rosindell said the “views and concerns of constituents such as mine in Romford have been consistently ignored for far too long”.
“Our country has endured a generation of managed decline,” he added. “Radical action is now required to reverse the damaging decisions of the past and to forge a new course for Britain.”
Rosindell said he had joined the Conservative Party when he was 14, and he was shadow minister for foreign affairs before his resignation.
He cited the Labour government’s decision to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and the “failure of the Conservative Party both when in government and more recently in opposition to actively hold the government to account on the issue” as part of the reason for his defection.
“Both the government and the opposition have been complicit in the surrender of this sovereign British territory to a foreign power,” he said.
Farage said: “The Tories’ lies and hypocrisy over the Chagos Islands betrayal has tipped him over the edge, and we are delighted to welcome him to our ranks.”
Democratic lawmakers and candidates for office around the country increasingly are returning to the phrase, popularized during the first Trump administration, as they react to this administration’s forceful immigration enforcement tactics.
The fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent this month in Minneapolis sparked immediate outrage among Democratic officials, who proposed a variety of oversight demands — including abolishing the agency — to rein in tactics they view as hostile and sometimes illegal.
Resurrecting the slogan is perhaps the riskiest approach. Republicans pounced on the opportunity to paint Democrats, especially those in vulnerable seats, as extremists.
An anti-ICE activist in an inflatable costume stands next to a person with a sign during a protest near Legacy Emanuel Hospital on Jan. 10 in Portland, Ore. The demonstration follows the Jan. 7 fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis as well as the shooting of two individuals in Portland on Jan. 8 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
(Mathieu Lewis-Rolland / Getty Images)
“If their response is to dust off ‘defund ICE,’ we’re happy to take that fight any day of the week,” said Christian Martinez, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee. The group has published dozens of press statements in recent weeks accusing Democrats of wanting to abolish ICE — even those who haven’t made direct statements using the phrase.
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) amplified that message Wednesday, writing on social media that “When Democrats say they want to abolish or defund ICE, what they are really saying is they want to go back to the open borders policies of the Biden administration. The American people soundly rejected that idea in the 2024 election.”
The next day, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) introduced the “Abolish ICE Act,” stating that Good’s killing “proved that ICE is out of control and beyond reform.” The bill would rescind the agency’s “unobligated” funding and redirect other assets to its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security.
Many Democrats calling for an outright elimination of ICE come from the party’s progressive wing. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said in a television interview the agency should be abolished because actions taken by its agents are “racist” and “rogue.” Jack Schlossberg, who is running for a House seat in New York, said that “if Trump’s ICE is shooting and kidnapping people, then abolish it.”
Other prominent progressives have stopped short of saying the agency should be dismantled.
A pair of protesters set up signs memorializing people who have been arrested by ICE, or have died in the process, at a rally in front of the Federal Building in Los Angeles on Friday.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
Sen. Alex Padilla, (D-Calif.) who last year was forcefully handcuffed and removed from a news conference hosted by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, joined a protest in Washington to demand justice for Good, saying “It’s time to get ICE and CBP out,” referring to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
“This is a moment where all of us have to be forceful to ensure that we are pushing back on what is an agency right now that is out of control,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said on social media. “We have to be loud and clear that ICE is not welcome in our communities.”
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) said Democrats seeking to abolish ICE “want to go back to the open borders policies of the Biden administration.”
(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)
Others have eyed negotiations over the yearly Homeland Security budget as a leverage point to incorporate their demands, such as requiring federal agents to remove their masks and to turn on their body-worn cameras when on duty, as well as calling for agents who commit crimes on the job to be prosecuted. Seventy House Democrats, including at least 13 from California, backed a measure to impeach Noem.
Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Diego), who serves on the House Committee on Appropriations, said his focus is not on eliminating the agency, which he believes has an “important responsibility” but has been led astray by Noem.
He said Noem should be held to account for her actions through congressional oversight hearings, not impeachment — at least not while Republicans would be in control of the proceedings, since he believes House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) would make a “mockery” of them.
“I am going to use the appropriations process,” Levin said, adding that he would “continue to focus on the guardrails, regardless of the rhetoric.”
Chuck Rocha, a Democratic political strategist, said Republicans seized on the abolitionist rhetoric as a scare tactic to distract from the rising cost of living, which remains another top voter concern.
“They hope to distract [voters] by saying, ‘Sure, we’re going to get better on the economy — but these Democrats are still crazy,’” he said.
Dozens of Angelenos and D.C.-area organizers, along with local activists, rally in front of the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles on Friday. Democrats have for years struggled to put forward a unified vision on immigration — one of the top issues that won President Trump a return to the White House.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
Democrats have for years struggled to put forward a unified vision on immigration — one of the top issues that won President Trump a return to the White House. Any deal to increase guardrails on Homeland Security faces an uphill battle in the Republican-controlled Congress, leaving many proposals years away from the possibility of fruition. Even if Democrats manage to block the yearly funding bill, the agency still has tens of billions of dollars from Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Still, the roving raids, violent clashes with protesters and detentions and deaths of U.S. citizens and immigrants alike increased the urgency many lawmakers feel to do something.
Two centrist groups released memos last week written by former Homeland Security officials under the Biden administration urging Democrats to avoid the polarizing language and instead channel their outrage into specific reforms.
“Every call to abolish ICE risks squandering one of the clearest opportunities in years to secure meaningful reform of immigration enforcement — while handing Republicans exactly the fight they want,” wrote the authors of one memo, from the Washington-based think tank Third Way.
“Advocating for abolishing ICE is tantamount to advocating for stopping enforcement of all of our immigration laws in the interior of the United States — a policy position that is both wrong on the merits and at odds with the American public on the issue,” wrote Blas Nuñez-Neto, a senior policy fellow at the new think tank the Searchlight Institute who previously was assistant Homeland Security secretary.
Roughly 46% of Americans said they support the idea of abolishing ICE, while 43% are opposed, according to a YouGov/Economist poll released last week.
Sarah Pierce, a former policy analyst at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services who co-wrote the Third Way memo, said future polls might show less support for abolishing the agency, particularly if the question is framed as a choice among options including reforms such as banning agents from wearing masks or requiring use of body cameras.
“There’s no doubt there will be further tragedies and with each, the effort to take an extreme position like abolishing ICE increases,” she said.
Laura Hernandez, executive director of Freedom for Immigrants, a California-based organization that advocates for the closure of detention centers, said the increase in lawmakers calling to abolish ICE is long overdue.
“We need lawmakers to use their power to stop militarized raids, to close detention centers and we need them to shut down ICE and CBP,” she said. “This violence that people are seeing on television is not new, it’s literally built into the DNA of DHS.”
Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) introduced the “Abolish ICE Act.”
(Paul Sancya / Associated Press)
Cinthya Martinez, a UC Santa Cruz professor who has studied the movement to abolish ICE, noted that it stems from the movement to abolish prisons. The abolition part, she said, is watered down by mainstream politicians even as some liken immigration agents to modern-day slave patrols.
Martinez said the goal is about more than simply getting rid of one agency or redirecting its duties to another. She pointed out that alongside ICE agents have been Border Patrol, FBI and ATF agents.
“A lot of folks forget that prison abolition is to completely abolish carceral systems. It comes from a Black tradition that says prison is a continuation of slavery,” she said.
But Peter Markowitz, a law professor and co-director of the Immigration Justice Clinic at the Cardozo School of Law, said the movement to abolish ICE around 2018 among mainstream politicians was always about having effective and humane immigration enforcement, not about having none.
“But it fizzled because it didn’t have an answer to the policy question that follows: If not ICE, then what?” he said. “I hope we’re in a different position today.”
In the aftermath of the U.S. military strike that seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, the Trump administration has emphasized its desire for unfettered access to Venezuela’s oil more than conventional foreign policy objectives, such as combating drug trafficking or bolstering democracy and regional stability.
During his first news conference after the operation, President Trump claimed oil companies would play an important role and that the oil revenue would help fund any further intervention in Venezuela.
Soon after, “Fox & Friends” hosts asked Trump about this prediction.
As a historian of U.S.-Latin American relations, I’m not surprised that oil or any other commodity is playing a role in U.S. policy toward the region. What has taken me aback, though, is the Trump administration’s openness about how much oil is driving its policies toward Venezuela.
As I’ve detailed recently, U.S. military intervention in Latin America has largely been covert. And when the U.S. orchestrated the coup that ousted Guatemala’s democratically elected president in 1954, the U.S. covered up the role that economic considerations played in that operation.
By the early 1950s, Guatemala had become a top source for the bananas Americans consumed, as it remains today.
The United Fruit Company, based in Boston, owned more than 550,000 acres of Guatemalan land, largely thanks to its deals with previous dictatorships. These holdings required the intense labor of impoverished farmworkers who were often forced from their traditional lands. Their pay was rarely stable, and they faced periodic layoffs and wage cuts.
The company’s seemingly unlimited clout in the countries where it operated gave rise to the stereotype of Central American nations as “banana republics.”
In Guatemala, a country historically marked by extreme inequality, a broad coalition formed in 1944 to overthrow its repressive dictatorship in a popular uprising. Inspired by the anti-fascistideals of World War II, the coalition sought to make the nation more democratic and its economy more fair.
After decades of repression, the nation democratically elected Juan José Arévalo and then Jacobo Árbenz, under whom, in 1952, Guatemala implemented a land reform program that gave landless farmworkers their own undeveloped plots. Guatemala’s government asserted that these policies would build a more equitable society for Guatemala’s impoverished, Indigenous majority.
United Fruit sought to enlist the U.S. government in its fight against the elected government’s policies. While its executives did complain that Guatemala’s reforms hurt its financial investments and labor costs, they also cast any interference in its operations as part of a broader communist plot.
United Fruit executives began to meet with officials in the Truman administration as early as 1945. Despite the support of sympathetic ambassadors, the U.S. government apparently wouldn’t intervene directly in Guatemala’s affairs.
The company turned to Congress.
It hired well connected lobbyists to portray Guatemala’s policies as part of a communist plot to destroy capitalism and the United States. In February 1949, multiple members of Congress denounced Guatemala’s labor reforms as communist.
Sen. Claude Pepper called the labor code “obviously intentionally discriminatory against this American company” and “a machine gun aimed at the head of this American company.”
Seventy-seven years later, we may see many echoes of past interventions, but now the U.S. government has dropped the veil: In his appearance after the strike that seized Maduro this month, Trump said “oil” 21 times.
Aaron Coy Moulton is an associate professor of Latin American history at Stephen F. Austin State University in Texas and the author of “Caribbean Blood Pacts: Guatemala and the Cold War Struggle for Freedom.” This article was produced in collaboration with the Conversation.
US forces say another Venezuela-linked tanker seized as Trump continues moves to take control of nation’s oil reserves.
Published On 16 Jan 202616 Jan 2026
Share
United States forces have seized an oil tanker in the Caribbean that the Trump administration said had links to Venezuela, the sixth tanker vessel detained as Washington moves to take full control of Venezuelan oil resources.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the US Coast Guard had boarded the tanker Veronica early on Thursday.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Noem said the vessel had previously passed through Venezuelan waters and was operating in defiance of President Donald Trump’s “established quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean”.
US Marines and sailors stationed on board the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R Ford took part in the operation alongside a coastguard tactical team, which Noem said conducted the boarding.
The US military said the ship was seized “without incident”.
The Veronica is the sixth sanctioned tanker seized by US forces as part of President Trump’s promise to take indefinite control of the production, refining and global distribution of Venezuela’s oil products. It was also the fourth ship seized since the US abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a military operation in Caracas almost two weeks ago.
The latest seizure came as Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodriguez, told parliament on Thursday that there would be reforms to legislation governing Venezuela’s oil sector. The Hydrocarbons Law, among other provisions, limits the involvement of foreign entities in exploiting the country’s national resources.
Without providing details, Rodriguez told parliament the reforms would touch on Venezuela’s so-called anti-blockade law, which provides the government with tools to counteract US sanctions in place since 2019.
Rodriguez said the envisioned legal reform would result in money for “new fields, to fields where there has never been investment, and to fields where there is no infrastructure”.
Rodriguez also said funds from oil would go to workers and public services.
Oil exports are Venezuela’s main source of revenue.
Since Maduro’s abduction, Trump has claimed the US now controls Venezuela’s oil sector and has made clear that the takeover of the country’s vast oil reserves was a key goal of his military onslaught against the nation and its leader.
Addressing oil executives last week, Trump said: “You’re dealing with us directly and not dealing with Venezuela at all. We don’t want you to deal with Venezuela.”
Venezuela sits on about a fifth of the world’s oil reserves and was once a major crude supplier to the US.
But Venezuela only produced about 1 percent of the world’s total crude output in 2024, according to OPEC, having been hampered by years of underinvestment, US sanctions and embargoes.
The proposed oil reform aims to improve conditions for foreign investors. (Adriana Loureiro)
Caracas, January 15, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuela’s Acting President Delcy Rodríguez announced a “partial reform” of the country’s hydrocarbon legislation during the annual “Memoria y Cuenta” speech before the National Assembly on Thursday.
Rodríguez justified the reform with the need to attract investment for Venezuela’s oil industry.
“We have brought a draft of a bill that aims to incorporate the productive models of the Anti-Blockade Law into the Hydrocarbon Law,” she told deputies. “The new investments will be directed to areas where there was no prior investment or no infrastructure.”
The Acting President went on to vow that the government would prioritize social spending and infrastructure works with energy revenues, though she did not offer further details. The legislative project will now be discussed by the National Assembly before being brought up for a vote.
The 2001 Hydrocarbon Law was one of the major early projects in former President Hugo Chávez’s tenure. The legislation reasserted the Venezuelan state’s sovereignty over the oil industry, significantly raising royalties and taxes and mandating that state oil company PDVSA retain majority stakes in joint ventures. The law was a catalyst for the failed 2002 US-backed coup against Chávez.
Venezuela’s National Constituent Assembly (2017-2020) approved the Anti-Blockade Law in 2020 in an effort to skirt US-led economic sanctions. The bill spurred the creation of several business models favoring private investors, including concession-type deals in the oil industry whereby private partners collect a majority of the crude produced.
The oil reform announcement comes amid repeated claims by Washington to take control of Venezuelan crude dealings. Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has vowed to administer the OPEC member’s oil sales for an “indefinite” period.
On Wednesday, senior Trump officials unveiled the first sales worth US $500 million, with the funds deposited in accounts controlled by the US government. Multipleoutlets reported that the main account holding the proceeds is located in Qatar.
One US official described Qatar as a “neutral location where money can flow freely with US approval and without risk of seizure.” On January 9, the White House issued an executive order to shield Venezuelan oil revenues administered by Washington from creditors looking to collect on debts owed by Venezuela.
Democrat politicians quoted by Semafor raised questions about the deal’s transparency and lack of accountability. For its part, the Trump administration has courted oil companies about investing in Venezuela, claiming that they will only “deal” with Washington rather than Venezuelan authorities.
The scope of US control over Venezuelan oil sales, as well as the mechanisms to return proceeds to Caracas, remains unclear, however. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced upcoming sanctions withdrawals or waivers to facilitate transactions.
Commodities traders Vitol and Trafigura have reportedly begun moving a combined 4.8 million barrels of Venezuelan crude to storage hubs in the Caribbean after receiving licenses from the US Treasury Department.
Economics outlet Bitácora Económica reported on Thursday, citing “unofficial sources,” that the Venezuelan Central Bank (BCV) had an account opened in the Qatar National Bank (QNB) where oil proceeds were deposited. According to the same report, the BCV will receive a license to five Venezuelan private banks that will offer US $330 million through foreign currency exchange tables. Healthcare and infrastructure imports will reportedly be given priority. US officials have claimed that only imports from US manufacturers will be allowed.
Venezuela’s Central Bank has been under US Treasury sanctions since 2019. Similarly, Washington has levied wide-reaching unilateral coercive measures against the oil industry, including financial sanctions, an export embargo, and secondary sanctions.
With its military operation and moves to wrest control of Venezuela’s oil sector, the Trump administration has also broadcast its intention to clamp down on bilateral Venezuelan deals with geopolitical rivals such as China. The US Navy has imposed a naval blockade and seized multiple tankers since December in an effort to strong-arm Caracas.
Washington’s unilateral actions saw two Chinese-flagged supertankers turn back amid trips to load Venezuelan oil. In recent years, China has been the main destination for Venezuelan crude and fuel oil exports, with shipments partly used to offset debt from longstanding oil-for-loan deals.
According to Bloomberg, Beijing has sought assurances from Venezuelan and US officials over its loans to the Caribbean nation. The Chinese government reiterated its condemnation of the January 3 US attacks and pledged to “take all necessary measures to protect its legitimate rights and interests in Venezuela.”
Watch: The “two main parties are rotten”, Robert Jenrick says in first speech as a Reform member
Former Conservative shadow minister Robert Jenrick has announced he is joining Reform UK, hours after he was sacked by Tory leader Kemi Badenoch for plotting to defect to Nigel Farage’s party.
Jenrick was unveiled at a press conference by Farage, who thanked Badenoch for expelling her former Tory leadership rival and helping “realign the centre-right of British politics”.
In a tirade against his old party and former colleagues, Jenrick said the Conservatives “broke” the country, were “rotten” and had “betrayed its voters”.
Speaking minutes before he took to the stage, Badenoch said it was a “good day” for the Conservatives and Jenrick was “now Nigel Farage’s problem”.
Jenrick becomes the second sitting Tory MP – after Danny Kruger in September 2025 – to switch to Farage’s party, which has been consistently leading in national opinion polls for months.
It also follows the defection of former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi this week, and about 20 former Tory MPs to Farage’s party, which now has six sitting MPs in the House of Commons.
In the video, she said: “I was presented with clear, irrefutable evidence that he was plotting in secret to defect in a way designed to be as damaging as possible to his shadow cabinet colleagues and the wider Conservative Party.”
Hours passed without a response from Jenrick, as Conservative sources told the BBC his plans had been rumbled after materials, including a defection speech, had been found “lying around”.
When Farage appeared at a press conference in Westminster on Thursday afternoon, he said he “had to think very quickly as to how I should respond to this”.
Farage said that, while he had been talking to Jenrick for months, he had not intended to present him as the party’s latest Tory defector at the press conference.
But he thanked Badenoch for what he called “the latest Christmas present I’ve ever had” before Jenrick walked on stage, following an awkward delay, to join the Reform UK leader.
Watch: Jenrick joins Farage at Reform UK’s press conference
“It’s time for the truth,” Jenrick said in his speech. “Britain has been in decline. Britain is in decline.”
He added: “Both Labour and the Conservatives broke Britain. And both are now dominated by those without the competence or backbone needed to fix it.”
He said the Conservatives were in denial about the state of Britain and called out some of his former shadow cabinet colleagues by name in a string of personal criticisms.
He said shadow chancellor Mel Stride had “oversaw the explosion of the welfare bill” and “blocked the reforms needed” when he was the work and pensions secretary.
Dame Priti Patel, Jenrick said, had allowed a “million migrants to come here” in what he called “the greatest failure of any British government in the post-war period”.
Jenrick – a former housing secretary and immigration minister – served alongside both Stride and Patel in the Conservative governments led by Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
While Jenrick accepted had roles in governments that had “failed so badly”, he said he had been “let down” by Johnson and Sunak.
Questioned by journalists after his speech, Jenrick said he had no ambitions to lead Reform UK and had not been offered a role in his new party, saying “I want Nigel to be prime minister”.
Farage said Jenrick “will be joining our frontline team”, without specifying his role.
It appears Jenrick was bounced into the move to Reform UK by Badenoch.
Minutes before Jenrick was unveiled as Reform UK’s latest recruit, the Tory leader told the BBC: “I think the fact that Robert Jenrick was very happy to tell me just a few days ago he had no plans to defect while clearly plotting to do so and hurt his colleagues is not suitable for the Tory party.”
She added: “It is not a blow to lose someone who lies to his colleagues.
“I think people can see that the only person that is telling the truth is me. I have a duty to protect my colleagues… and I have a duty to those who vote Conservative.
“This has been a good day, bad people are leaving my party.”
Watch: ‘Jenrick is no longer my problem’ – Badenoch
Badenoch has appointed West Suffolk MP Nick Timothy, a former aide to Theresa May, as his replacement, praising him as “a true Conservative” and “formidable campaigner”.
Various Conservative sources have been speaking to the BBC with versions of what happened, with one shadow cabinet minister claiming Jenrick left a printed copy of his resignation speech lying around, “like something from The Thick Of It”.
This was backed up by a senior Conservative MP close to Badenoch, who said they had got hold of a “full speech and media plan” for his defection, and another Conservative source talking about “material” that was left “lying around”.
This source told the BBC there was “plenty of evidence” Jenrick was getting closer to Reform and the defection was being planned “quite soon” and “in the most damaging way possible for the party”.
It is alleged Jenrick had dinner with Farage last month – and his team had been speaking to “various people” about the possibility.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said Badenoch’s decision showed “weakness” and questioned why it had taken her so long to act.
“Jenrick has been making toxic comments to try and divide our country for months and months and months and it’s only now, when he’s on the verge of defecting to Reform, that Badenoch gets round to sacking him,” he said.
Sir Keir said the “flood” of Conservative politicians going across to Reform UK showed the “Tory party is a sinking ship” and added: “Nigel Farage is welcoming these failed politicians into his ranks and building his party as a party of the Tory politicians who let the country down so badly.”
Jenrick’s sacking and switching of allegiances is a pivotal moment for the future of the British right wing, with Conservative MPs genuinely fearful their party is being usurped by Reform UK.
He finished second in the leadership election in 2024 and his creative use of social videos has only given him greater prominence since.
Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper MP said Jenrick “has an industrial-grade brass neck to be complaining about how broken Britain is, when it was him and his Conservative cronies who did such damage to our country and to trust and faith in politics”.
She added: “Reform and the Conservatives are two sides of the same coin.”
People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyuk and lawmakers tear up protest placards during a party meeting at the National Assembly in Seoul on Tuesday. Photo by Asia Today
Jan. 13 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s People Power Party has shown little sign of regaining support despite an apology and a reform package tied to the Dec. 3 emergency decree, with polls showing the gap widening between the conservative party and the ruling Democratic Party of Korea.
Political observers said Tuesday that public sentiment appears to be moving in favor of President Lee Jae-myung and the Democratic Party, while the People Power Party has stagnated or slipped in successive surveys.
In a poll commissioned by the Energy Economy Newspaper and conducted by Realmeter from Sunday through Thursday among 2,530 voters nationwide age 18 and older, party support stood at 47.8% for the Democratic Party and 33.5% for the People Power Party. The Democratic Party rose 2.1 percentage points from the prior week, while the People Power Party fell 2.0 points, the poll found.
Analysts cited what they called a “Yoon Suk-yeol factor” as a key reason the conservative party has struggled to draw a positive response. While People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyuk’s reform plan included an apology over the martial law declaration, critics said it did not clearly address how the party would define its relationship with former President Yoon Suk-yeol.
They said the plan offered no direct message on accountability, political separation or future ties beyond expressing regret and leaving past issues to the courts and “history’s judgment.”
Some observers also questioned whether Jang’s personal reform push has enough political impact to shift voter views. The measures he announced last week focused on an apology over martial law, a youth-centered party vision and a proposed party name change, but did not spell out what the party would abandon or where it would draw clear lines.
Political commentator Park Sang-byeong said an apology alone is not the same as taking responsibility, adding that he saw no visible political decision-making behind the message.
As global crises multiply and trust in international institutions erodes, the United Nations faces growing questions about its relevance and authority. Thirty years after pledges to end hunger and reduce inequality, progress is stalling, wars are spreading, and UN Security Council vetoes are paralysing action.
In this episode of Talk to Al Jazeera, UN General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock reflects on the UN’s credibility, the limits of the UNSC, and whether a more assertive UNGA can drive reform before the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals deadline.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae arrives for work at the court as the ruling Democratic Party was set to introduce a bill the same day to establish a special tribunal for insurrection cases linked to former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s failed imposition of martial law in Seoul, South Korea, 22 December 2025. Photo by YONHAP /EPA
Dec. 31 (Asia Today) — Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said the judiciary will seek to ensure court system reforms benefit the public as debate over judicial changes continues in the National Assembly.
In a New Year’s address released Wednesday, Cho said the courts will “reflect from the public’s perspective” and deliver decisions “based on law and principle.” He added the judiciary will act responsibly so reforms move in “the most necessary and desirable direction” from the standpoint of citizens.
Cho said 2025 brought a major social crisis involving an emergency declaration and impeachment, prompting renewed reflection on democracy and the rule of law. He said public interest and expectations toward courts and trials have grown, and he acknowledged concerns raised about the judiciary.
He said the judiciary will prepare to open additional rehabilitation courts in Daejeon, Daegu and Gwangju to provide more specialized bankruptcy services without regional disparities, expanding opportunities for faster rehabilitation for businesses and individuals under economic strain.
Cho also said expanded staffing and budget will allow further support for expedited trials and initiatives aimed at ensuring courts free of discrimination for socially vulnerable groups. He said the judiciary plans to pilot specialized courts to resolve disputes closely tied to daily life, including lease conflicts.
He said the judiciary will continue to broaden access to justice based on the next-generation electronic litigation system and criminal electronic litigation system launched this year.
Cho said overseas participants at a 2025 Sejong International Conference expressed admiration for South Korea’s rule-of-law philosophy, and he said the judiciary will seek closer international cooperation through the Asia-Pacific Chief Justices Conference scheduled for September 2026.
Separately, Constitutional Court Chief Justice Kim Sang-hwan said in his own New Year’s address that 2025 led South Koreans to reconsider the meaning of the Constitution, citing Article 1’s principle that sovereignty resides with the people. He pledged to conduct constitutional adjudication fairly and independently to meet public expectations.
Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, continuing his assault on spiraling workers’ compensation insurance costs, on Friday announced a three-pronged reform program designed to curb fraudulent and unwarranted claims.
As part of the plan. Garamendi endorsed legislation introduced by Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D-Los Angeles) that would eliminate a “guaranteed cap” on insurers’ expenses. The bill would give Garamendi greater discretion to reduce workers’ compensation rates for employers.
Garamendi also announced the creation of a new workers’ compensation fraud investigation team and an outreach program to employers to educate them on new insurance fraud laws.
“California businesses are being strangled by exorbitant workers’ compensation insurance premiums,” Garamendi said. “Workers’ compensation costs have gotten out of control, especially in the areas of insurer expenses and fraud.”
Margolin’s bill, introduced in the Legislature on Friday, aims to eliminate the “guaranteed expense cap,” an arbitrary measure of workers’ compensation carrier costs. This cap was one of the primary reasons that Garamendi late last year turned down an 11.9% rate increase request from the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau, which determines what minimum rates should be for the industry. Garamendi only allowed a 1.2% increase.
The cap allows workers’ compensation carriers to claim that their expenses amount to 32.8% of premiums, no matter what their true expenses are, when they request rate increases. Actual expenses are far lower–about 20% to 25% of premiums, Garamendi said.
“This bill is a way to guarantee that California employers are not charged excessive premiums by workers’ compensation carriers,” Margolin said. “This bill would allow Garamendi to address what an appropriate expense load would be.”
Insurance representatives Friday criticized the proposed expense cap limitations.
“A panel that Garamendi helped form has been studying workers’ compensation rating practices for over a year, and they are set to give their recommendations in March,” said Richard Wiebe, spokesman for the American Insurance Assn. in Sacramento. “Garamendi has apparently decided their recommendations are irrelevant.”
Insurers are more supportive of Garamendi’s efforts to combat fraud. Robert Gore, vice president of the Assn. of California Insurance Cos., noted that the new fraud unit is made possible by a law partially written and supported by the insurance industry.
Garamendi said he was creating a new workers’ compensation fraud investigation unit, funded by legislation that took effect Jan. 1. The law is designed to target doctors, attorneys and medical care workers who encourage the filing of fraudulent workers’ compensation claims.
Under the tough new law, making false statements to support fraudulent workers’ compensation claims is a felony. Convictions can be punished by up to five years in prison and fines equaling twice the fraud.
“The people who are committing workers’ compensation fraud now think they can do it with impunity, but that has changed,” Margolin said. “If you commit workers’ compensation fraud, you go to jail.”
Garamendi also said he plans to step up a public information campaign about the new workers’ compensation fraud law. The campaign will be conducted through partnerships with other state agencies, such as the Employment Development Department and local chambers of commerce.
The mother of a local tennis star joined Los Angeles County prosecutors on Monday in calling for stricter DUI penalties in California after they say her son was killed by a two-time drunk driver.
Braun Levi, an 18-year-old South Bay tennis standout, was struck and killed by a car in the early-morning hours of May 4 in Manhattan Beach.
According to Los Angeles County prosecutors, 33-year-old Jenia Resha Belt was behind the wheel, speeding while driving on a suspended license and with a blood alcohol level almost twice the legal limit. Belt, prosecutors say, has a previous conviction for driving drunk.
“California’s current DUI laws are broken and weak and fail to protect families like ours, and it’s devastating,” Braun’s mother, Jennifer Levi, said at a news conference Monday. “His death haunts my every breath, every day.”
Although his parents were proud of his athletic and academic achievements, they were most proud of how he treated other people, Levi said. “He had a smile for everybody. He had a heart for everybody. I miss him so much.”
In light of her son’s death, Levi said she would work with state Sen. Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera), whose granddaughter died after being hit by a drunk driver last year, to write and pass a bill that will restructure the state’s DUI penalty laws and requirements, she said.
“The feeling, the sight, the smell of identifying our son’s body will never leave my mind, body or soul, so I will not be silent,” she said.
The SoCal athlete, who died a month before his high school graduation after entering the top national ranks in boys tennis, is part of a larger trend of DUI-related deaths over the last 15 years, according to a CalMatters investigative series that L.A. Dist. Atty. Nathan J. Hochman referenced.
Roadway deaths have been steadily rising since 2010, partially due to repeat drunk drivers and people driving over the speed limit, CalMatters reported. Alcohol-related deaths have increased by 50% over the last decade, according to the investigation.
“Braun should be home right now from his first semester at UVA, spending the holidays with his family, their first as a family still displaced by the Palisades fire,” said Councilmember Traci Park, whose district includes Pacific Palisades.
“He should be planning his future, not being remembered for the way his life was taken from him.”
California’s DUI laws, although considered to be nation-leading in the 1980s, have fallen behind the curve, Hochman said.
Hochman warned drivers, especially ahead of the New Year’s Day holiday, that his office would continue to charge them — and potentially those who over-serve alcohol at bars or parties — with serious crimes.
“We are here to prevent crimes and send crystal clear messages to would-be drunk and drug drivers, to people who want to engage in excessive speed on our roads: We will come after you,” Hochman said, calling the issue a “fight for people’s lives.”
Belt is charged with second-degree murder, felony gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and a misdemeanor count of driving with a suspended license after a DUI. She is being held on $2-million bail and faces life in prison if convicted.
