RESULT

Politics in the year after a presidential election are typically focused on local and statewide contests.

But the races decided on Tuesday — which include a pivotal mayoral contest in New York and California’s referendum on congressional redistricting — will have national implications. The gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey will be a report card on President Trump’s second term.

As a result, cable news will be paying special attention. The races will also serve as an important test run for a couple of cable news networks in transition.

“This is the first election of the 2026 midterms, and we know what happens 30 seconds after the mid-terms are over — 2028 starts in earnest,” said Chris Stirewalt, political editor for Nexstar Media Group’s NewsNation. “In New Jersey and Virginia, you have two states that look a lot like the country as a whole. President Trump’s approval ratings in those places is about the same as it is nationally.”

MSNBC will be covering its first election night without the resources of NBC News. The progressive-leaning network — which changes its name to MS NOW on Nov. 15 — is being spun off by parent company Comcast into a new entity called Versant.

NBC News no longer shares correspondents or analysts with MSNBC. The channel’s line-up of opinion hosts including Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Nicolle Wallace, Ari Melber and Lawrence O’Donnell remains intact.

Loyal MSNBC viewers will notice that election data maven Steve Kornacki will not be crunching numbers on his big board. Kornacki signed a new deal last year with NBC, where he works for the news and sports divisions.

Kornacki will be a part of the network’s coverage on NBC News Now, its free streaming channel. “NBC Nightly News” anchor Tom Llamas is leading the coverage with Hallie Jackson, the network’s senior Washington correspondent; and “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker.

MSNBC host Ali Velshi will take on the voter analysis duties previously held down by Kornacki. The network said it will have 15 correspondents reporting throughout the country, including West Coast-based Jacob Soboroff delivering analysis on TikTok.

MSNBC national correspondent Jacob Soboroff.

(MSNBC/Paul Morigi/MSNBC)

CNN will use the night to test the appeal of its new direct-to-consumer streaming service launched last week.

While CNN will have its usual array of anchors and experts led by anchor Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper and Erin Burnett, the network will also offer an alternative streaming feed featuring its analyst Harry Enten alongside conservative commentator Ben Shapiro and “The Breakfast Club” radio host Charlamagne tha God.

“CNN Election Livecast” will be only be available from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Pacific to subscribers of CNN All Access. The program will be a discussion of the results presented as “a more casual option” for viewers, according to a representative for the network.

The feed will mark the first time CNN, owned by Warner Bros. Discover, has produced full-scale live coverage exclusively for a streaming audience.

Martha MacCallum and Bret Baier of Fox News

(Fox News)

Fox News will rely on anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum for a special telecast at 10 p.m. Eastern and 7 p.m. Pacific, pre-empting its comedic talk show “Gutfeld!”

The 2025 election night will also mark a change in calling the results. All of the major broadcast networks and cable channels will be using data analysis from the Associated Press, which teamed with Fox News and NORC at the University of Chicago several years ago to create an alternative to the research company used by CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN.

Starting Tuesday, all five networks will get voting results at the same time.

Leland Vittert, Elizabeth Vargas and Chris Cuomo will anchor election night coverage for NewsNation.

(NewsNation)

The exception is Nexstar Media Group’s NewsNation, which will use Decision Desk HQ to call its races during its coverage co-anchored by Stirewalt, Chris Cuomo, Leland Vittert and Elizabeth Vargas. The service was the first to call the results of the 2024 presidential election, beating the competition by 15 minutes.

The ability to call the races sooner means more time for analysis, which is expected to lean heavily into what the results say about the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential campaign.

Stirewalt said the night has the potential to set up the political plot lines of the next two years. He believes the passage of Proposition 50 in California and a victory for New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani would elevate Gov. Gavin Newsom and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as 2028 presidential contenders.

“That’s would be a big feather in the cap for AOC, who can say that she’s leading a movement,” Stirewalt said. “Gavin Newsom gets to ring the bell. He gets to say ‘I won. I did something that was controversial. I took it to Donald Trump. I’m delivering a win.’”

THE first celebrity eliminated from Strictly Come Dancing has been revealed.

Controversial reality star Thomas Skinner found himself losing the public vote alongside professional partner Amy Dowden after weeks of chaos around his inclusion in the BBC show.

4

4

After landing near the bottom of the leaderboard, Thomas ended up facing off against former England rugby star Chris Robshaw and his partner Nadiya Bychkova, in the dance-off.

All four judges opted to save Chris and kick Thomas out of the competition.

Speaking about his time on the show, Skinner said: “I’ve loved it. I’ve never danced before and my stay was short, but Amy’s amazing.

“It’s been great fun and I’ve enjoyed it. I can’t really dance that well but I’ve had fun! Thank you, Amy – sorry that we haven’t done too good, ’cause you’re a different class.”

The news leaked late on Saturday night after Sunday’s episode was recorded.

Viewers were delighted with the result with one writing: “The strictly spoiler results have absolutely made my evening. I can sleep well now. #Strictly #StrictlyComeDancing” 

A second said: “If the spoiler I just saw is true I cheered so loud thank you British public thank you Strictly.”

Another added: “Absolutely the right result!! Good job for once public!!”

The judges’ decision came after the couples’ scores from week one and two were added to the public vote.

It came after Skinner, who has made his name as a social media star, ended Saturday’s show with a joint score of 29, having scored just 13 for his performance.

Dowden added of her time with Skinner: “I’ve got to know the real Tom and he is adorable. He’s looked after me.

“We’ve laughed so much. We’ve worked so hard and a glitterball would have been amazing, but what I’ve learnt in the last few years is happiness, health and being alive is more important than anything. I’ve made a new friend for life and I wouldn’t change a thing.

“There is a ballroom boy in there, so I’m a bit gutted he didn’t get to do the ballroom, but the last three years, as you know, have been quite difficult for me.

“I lost all confidence as a dancer – but walking into the room with you with a massive smile and a laugh, you brought me back and, honestly, thank you.”

4

4

It comes after Skinner hit the headlines after he admitted to cheating on his wife just weeks after their wedding in an interview with The Sun, having previously apologised for picking up a journalist’s phone and walking out of a press event for Strictly midway through.

The remaining 14 couples will take to the dancefloor next week for movie week when Strictly Come Dancing returns at 6.05pm on Saturday October 11, on BBC One and iPlayer.

Head to the secretary of state’s website to find out if you’re registered. You’ll need to enter a California driver’s license or ID number or the last four digits of your Social Security number.

You can also call the state’s voter hotline at (800) 345-VOTE(8683) to get a paper application mailed you to you, or you can pick one up at a county election office, most California libraries and United States Post Office locations; Department of Motor Vehicle office and various federal, state, and local government offices.

Proposition 50, the California-slaps-back initiative, is cruising to a comfortable victory on Nov. 4, a slam dunk for Gov. Gavin Newsom and efforts to get even with Texas.

Or not.

It’s actually a highly competitive contest between those wanting to offset the GOP’s shameless power grab and opponents of Democrats’ retaliatory gerrymander — with many voters valuing California’s independent redistricting commission and still making up their minds.

Obviously, both things can’t be true, so which is it?

That depends on which of the polls you choose to believe.

Political junkies, and the news outlets that service their needs, abhor a vacuum. So there’s no lack of soundings that purport to show just where Californians’ heads are at a mere six weeks before election day — which, in truth, is not all that certain.

Newsom’s pollster issued results showing Prop. 50 winning overwhelming approval. A UC Berkeley/L.A. Times survey showed a much closer contest, with support below the vital 50% mark. Others give the measure a solid lead.

Not all polls are created equal.

“It really matters how a poll is done,” said Scott Keeter, a senior survey advisor at the Pew Research Center, one of the country’s top-flight polling organizations. “That’s especially true today, when response rates are so low [and] it’s so difficult to reach people, especially by telephone. You really do have to consider how it’s done, where it comes from, who did it, what their motivation is.”

Longtime readers of this space, if any exist, know how your friendly columnist feels about horse-race polls. Our best advice remains the same it’s always been: Ignore them.

Take a hike. Read a book. Bake a batch of muffins. Better still, take some time to educate yourself on the pros and cons of the question facing California, then make an informed decision.

Realizing, however, the sun will keep rising and setting, that tides will ebb and flow, that pollsters and pundits will continue issuing their prognostications to an eager and ardent audience, here are some suggestions for how to assay their output.

The most important thing to remember is that polls are not gospel truth, flawless forecasts or destiny carved in implacable stone. Even the best survey is nothing more than an educated guess at what’s likely to happen.

That said, there are ways to evaluate the quality of surveys and determine which are best consumed with a healthy shaker of salt and which should be dismissed altogether.

Given the opportunity, take a look at the methodology — it’s usually there in the fine print — which includes the number of people surveyed, the duration of the poll and whether interviews were done in more than one language.

Size matters.

“When you’re trying to contact people at random, you’re getting certain segments of the public, rather than the general population,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the nonpartisan Berkeley IGS Poll and a collaborator with The Times. “So what needs to happen in order for a survey to be representative of the overall population … you need large samples.”

Which are expensive and the reason some polls skimp on the number of people they interview.

The most conscientious pollsters invest considerable time and effort figuring out how to model their voter samples — that is, how to best reflect the eventual composition of the electorate. Once they finish their interviews, they weight the result to see that it includes the proper share of men and women, young and old, and other criteria based on census data.

Then pollsters might adjust those results to match the percentage of each group they believe will turn out for a given election.

The more people a pollster interviews, the greater the likelihood of achieving a representative sample.

That’s why the duration of a survey is also something to consider. The longer a poll is conducted — or out in the field, as they say in the business — the greater the chances of reflecting the eventual turnout.

It’s also important in a polyglot state like California that a poll is not conducted solely in English. To do so risks under-weighting an important part of the electorate; a lack of English fluency shouldn’t be mistaken for a lack of political engagement.

“There’s no requirement that a person be able to speak English in order to vote,” said Keeter, of the Pew Research Center. “And in the case of some populations, particularly immigrant groups, that have been in the United States for a long time, they may be very well-established voters but still not be proficient in English to the level of being comfortable taking a survey.”

It’s also important to know how a poll question is phrased and, in the case of a ballot measure, how it describes the matter voters are being asked to decide. How closely does the survey track the ballot language? Are there any biases introduced into the poll? (“Would you support this measure knowing its proponents abuse small animals and promote gum disease?”)

Something else to watch for: Was the poll conducted by a political party, or for a candidate or group pushing a particular agenda? If so, be very skeptical. They have every reason to issue selective or one-sided findings.

Transparency is key. A good pollster will show his or her work, as they used to say in the classroom. If they won’t, there’s good reason to question their findings, and well you should.

A sensible person wouldn’t put something in their body without being 100% certain of its content. Treat your brain with the same care.

Gov. Gavin Newsom answering the Republican redistricting power-grab in Texas with a plan of his own is a powerful example of how Golden State Democrats are standing up to President Trump and firing up their base. But while the partisan fireworks draw attention, California Democrats are also quietly offering a different kind of model for the national party that may prove more meaningful in the long run. They’re not just resisting Trump; they’re actually governing.

Forget what you think you know about California and its lefty Democrats. They’re inching to the center, meeting voters where they are, and it’s improving people’s lives.

Just look at San Francisco, long seen as a dysfunctional emblem of failed progressive governance.

The city’s new mayor, Daniel Lurie, a nonprofit leader and philanthropist, has shaken off left-wing taboos and focused on delivering results. Instead of defunding the police, he’s hiring more officers and cracking down on shoplifting and drug crimes. Instead of demonizing the business community, he’s partnering with them. He’s also reforming zoning laws to make it easier to build more housing, which should ease the city’s affordability crunch and the homelessness crisis. Lurie has been in office less than a year, but already crime is plummeting and his approval rate has reached 73%.

National Democrats can find a lesson here: Voters care about results, not just empathy and ideology.

In Sacramento, Newsom and legislative Democrats are taking a similar tack, with a stubborn focus on affordability and the courage to stare down opposition, even in their own coalition. For example, the Legislature recently reformed the California Environmental Quality Act, a well-intentioned 50-year-old law that had been twisted to obstruct construction projects, clean energy development and public transportation. This angered some powerful environmental activists, but it will ultimately help bring down costs for housing and energy.

CEQA reform is emblematic of California’s new, more balanced approach on some thorny issues, like energy and climate. The state recently announced that two-thirds of its power now comes from clean energy sources — a major achievement. At the same time, Newsom and the Legislature agreed to a package of bills that will increase oil drilling while extending the state’s cap-and-trade program. Together, the package can reduce energy costs for Californians and strengthen our state’s chances of reaching carbon neutrality by 2045. Some environmental justice advocates and climate purists oppose the deal, but it’s an example of how to make progress in the long term while addressing affordability in the short term.

Immigration is another example: Newsom and other leading California Democrats continue to stand up to the Trump administration’s inhumane immigration policies, including suing to stop the deployment of troops to Los Angeles. But they also recently passed a budget that pulls back on costly plans to provide health insurance to all low-income undocumented immigrants.

This reflects the new California model: principled resistance and pragmatic governance. The results speak for themselves. The Golden State recently surpassed Japan to become the fourth-largest economy in the world.

Democratic leaders are making these moves because they are listening to voters who consistently say that the high cost of living is their top concern.

In 2024, these concerns contributed to a surprising number of Californians abandoning Democrats, even with Kamala Harris, the state’s former U.S. senator and attorney general, on the ticket. Trump flipped 10 counties and boosted his support in 45. Since 2016, 72% of California counties have gotten redder, including many with heavy Latino populations.

Democrats are paying attention and are wisely changing course. Being responsive to voter concerns doesn’t have to mean sacrificing core values, but it does require new approaches when the old ways aren’t working.

Karen Skelton (whose father is a political columnist for the Los Angeles Times) is a political strategist, having worked in the White House under Presidents Clinton and Biden and at the United States Departments of Energy, Transportation and Justice.

McLaren have been determined to keep the fight between their two drivers as fair as possible but their approach was always likely to lead to controversy at some point.

That was certainly the case at Monza, as they interfered after the sort of twist of fate that often turns driver’s races.

Norris unquestionably deserved the second place on the balance of the race, but his pit stop problem left the team with an agonising quandary.

It is normal practice to pit the lead driver first in such a scenario but McLaren decided they wanted to pit Piastri first, saying they made the decision to ensure he was clear of Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc, who had pitted earlier on a conventional strategy.

Norris questioned it when told of the decision, saying he was fine “as long as there was no undercut”, which would be him being passed by Piastri going faster on his out lap. He was assured there would be no such thing.

Piastri’s stop was faultless at 1.9 seconds but Norris’s front right wheel gun had a problem and his stop was 5.9, so Piastri was in the lead when Norris re-emerged on to the track.

Piastri was immediately told to let Norris back past. His engineer Tom Stallard said: “Oscar, this is a bit like Hungary last year. We pitted in this order for team reasons. Please let Lando past and then you are free to race.”

Piastri replied: “I mean, we said a slow pit stop was part of racing, so I don’t really get what’s changed here. But if you really want me to do it, then I’ll do it.”

After the race, Norris said: “Every now and again we make mistakes as a team. Today was one of them.”

The point of view of both drivers is understandable, and it will be interesting to see how McLaren manage this in the increasing tension of a title fight.

Speaking to Sky Sports later, Piastri was accepting of the decision, saying: “The decision to swap back was fair. Lando was ahead of me the whole race. I don’t have any issues with that.”

Shaquille O’Neal was never suspended for drug use of any kind during his decorated 19-year NBA career. The rugged 7-foot-1, 325-pound Hall of Fame center freely acknowledged playing through pain and openly worried about damage to his kidneys and liver from his prolonged use of legal anti-inflammatory medications.

He also recently recounted on “Inside the NBA” a bizarre story about testing positive for cocaine ahead of the 1996 Olympics. The result was thrown out — and never publicized — because O’Neal told officials he’d eaten a poppy seed muffin shortly before the test.

Never mind that while poppy seeds can trigger a false positive test for opioids such as morphine or codeine, they can’t do the same for cocaine, which is identified in drug tests by the presence of its major metabolite, benzoylecgonine.

So in his recounting of an episode from nearly 30 years ago, O’Neal was wrong either about the illegal substance for which he tested positive or about what he ingested that caused the false positive. Perhaps he just meant to say codeine rather than cocaine.

Point being, recollections can be fuzzy, and O’Neal isn’t immune to such fuzziness, something to keep in mind when listening to the four-time NBA champion ‘fess up to his use of painkillers on this week’s “Armchair Expert With Dax Shepard” podcast.

O’Neal toggled between referring to opioid painkillers such as oxycodone and powerful, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories such as Indocin. He said he used opioids when recovering from injuries and took NSAIDs throughout his career.

But he also said his doctor told him he was addicted to painkillers, leading to “a heated discussion.” O’Neal didn’t feel high, he said, even when he would take more than the prescribed dose. “I would do homeboy math,” he said. “If it said take one, I’m taking three.”

“It was a club sandwich, fries and two pills for 19 years.”

O’Neal first discussed painkillers during his four-part HBO documentary “Shaq,” which premiered in 2022, and on the podcast Shepard mostly asked him to expand on what he’d said then about the potential damage to internal organs, the warnings from doctors and his current regrets.

In the documentary, O’Neal had this to say: “Sometimes I couldn’t play if I didn’t take it. All it did was mask the pain…. Had a lot of painkillers. I got limited kidney stuff now going on. I don’t have the full range, but I took so many painkillers that [doctors are] saying, ‘Hey, man, we don’t need you taking that stuff now. You got to be careful.’

“My kidneys are kind of just chilling out right now,” he continued. “I don’t want to flare ‘em back up.”

Both opioids and NSAIDs can cause kidney and liver damage, and O’Neal didn’t specify on the podcast which substances caused him the most concern. He said he struggled with accepting that he might have an addiction, eventually concluding, “I had to have them. So, is that addiction?”

And he hid the use of painkillers from his wife and kids, although he said “the trainers knew.”

As far back as 2000 — a year when O’Neal was the NBA‘s most valuable player and led the Lakers to the first of three consecutive championships — he expressed concern about the dangers of anti-inflammatories.

O’Neal suspected that the kidney disease that threatened the life of fellow NBA star Alonzo Mourning might be the result of anti-inflammatories and said he would stop taking them.

Two years later, however, O’Neal had resumed NSAID use. After a stomach ailment he originally believed was an ulcer, diagnostic tests were done on his kidneys and liver.

He described the results to The Times thusly: “I’m not great, but I’m cool.”

O’Neal was playing with a badly aching arthritic big toe, a sprained wrist and a handful of unlisted bangs and bruises. He needed the pills, although it was unclear whether he was referring to painkillers, anti-inflammatories or both.

“I tried to stay off of them, but if I don’t take them I can’t move or play,” he said in 2002. “I was taking them. When my stomach was giving me problems I had to get the test.”

O’Neal has long championed non-prescription means of addressing pain. He’s been the spokesperson for the topical analgesic Icy Hot since 2003 and he spoke on Capitol Hill in 2016, plugging efforts to give police better tools to recognize when drivers are under the influence of drugs. He pledged two years of funding for officers to become drug recognition experts.

O’Neal’s comments on Shepard’s podcast are a clear indication that his use of painkillers and NSAIDs continues to weigh heavily on his mind. He added that these days he relaxes with a different vice: a hookah.

“I’ve never been into weed,” he said. “Hookah, it enables me to follow the routine of sit your ass down.”

Ireland back row Brittany Hogan says the performance in Saturday’s final World Cup warm-up against Canada is more important than the result.

Canada are ranked second in the world and Ireland head into the game in Belfast off the back of a 27-21 comeback win over Scotland.

Scott Bemand’s side will face Japan, Spain and New Zealand in Pool C at the tournament in England.

“At the end of the day with the result, it’s another warm-up game but it’s another stepping stone towards a successful World Cup,” said Hogan, who is one of 10 Ireland changes for the game in Belfast.

“We’re going to be looking for a performance, and if that puts us on the right or wrong side of the scoreboard it’s not the be all and end all.

“We need to make sure we go through our processes and play our game.”

Ireland lost 21-8 to the Canadians in Vancouver in October in WXV1, and Hogan said the Irish were left “very frustrated” in a match that was closer than the scoreline suggested.

“We’re under no illusions that this is going to be a hard-fought match,” added Hogan.

“We are going to have to earn every single inch against them, and they are a physically dominant team, but we just have to match that.

“We did that when we played against them in Canada in WXV1. It’s about bringing our game awareness, knowledge and tactics into it too.”

Former Ireland internationals Lindsay Peat, Claire Small and Fiona Hayes will join presenter Nicola McCarthy and commentator Oisin Langan in Belfast from 11:50 BST on BBC iPlayer & BBC Two NI.

Stanford University’s student newspaper is suing the Trump administration, claiming the threat to deport foreign students for speaking out against Israel’s handling of the war in Gaza is chilling free speech.

That threat is hampering the paper’s ability to cover campus demonstrations and to get protesters to speak on the record, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Northern California.

Some Stanford Daily writers, who are foreigners in the country on student visas, have even turned down assignments to write about unrest in the Middle East because they’re afraid they’ll be deported. Writers have also asked the paper to remove previously published stories from its website, citing the same concerns, the lawsuit says.

“In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” the newspaper’s lawyers wrote in their complaint.

The suit accuses Trump administration officials, specifically Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristin Noem, of placing their statutory authority to deport a foreign visa holder whose beliefs they deem un-American ahead of the constitutional right — guaranteed by the 1st Amendment— to free speech.

“When a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights,” the newspaper’s lawyers wrote, “the Constitution prevails.”

Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, scoffed at the lawsuit, calling it “baseless.”

“There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world’s terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,” she said in a statement.

The lawsuit — which was filed by the 133-year-old student newspaper, not by the university itself — is the most recent salvo in an increasingly bitter fight between Trump and many of the nation’s elite universities. The president has made clear he sees top schools as hotbeds of liberal ideology and breeding grounds for anti-American sentiment.

His weapon of choice is to threaten to withhold billions of dollars in federal research grants from institutions that refuse to adopt policies on issues such as diversity, transgender rights and Israel that fall in line with his Make America Great Again ideology.

Critics call Trump’s campaign an attack on academic freedom, but fearing massive budget cuts, several Ivy League schools — including the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia and Brown — have recently cut deals with the Trump administration in an attempt to limit the damage.

Stanford announced this week that it will be forced to lay off hundreds of employees as a result of cuts to research funding and changes to federal tax laws.

The Stanford Daily’s lawsuit focuses on two unnamed students, John and Jane Doe, who the paper’s lawyers say began self-censoring out of a well-founded fear of having their visas revoked and being deported.

Rubio has claimed that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows the secretary of State to revoke a noncitizen’s legal status if it is decided the person’s actions or statements “compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”

Rubio used that interpretation to justify the March arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was held in a Louisiana jail before a federal judge ordered his release.

The complaint cites the cases of two other foreign students — one at Columbia and one at Tufts — who were arrested for participating in pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations.

At Stanford, the plaintiff referred to as Jane Doe was a member of the group Students for Justice in Palestine. She has published online commentary accusing Israel of committing genocide and perpetuating apartheid, according to the lawsuit. She has also used the slogan, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which has become a flash point in the Israel-Gaza debate.

Referencing the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — which includes Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip — the slogan is viewed as a call for freedom and self-determination by Palestinians. To many Israelis, it sounds like a call for their total destruction.

As a result, Doe’s profile appeared on the Canary Mission, a pro-Israel website that creators say is devoted to outing “hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews.” Department of Homeland Security officials have acknowledged they consult the website’s profiles — most of which are of students and faculty at elite universities — for information on people worthy of investigation.

As a result, since March, Jane Doe has deleted her social media accounts and has “refrained from publishing and voicing her true opinions regarding Palestine and Israel,” the lawsuit claims.

John Doe has participated in pro-Palestine demonstrations, has accused Israel of genocide and chanted, “From the river to the sea.” But after the Trump administration started targeting campus demonstrators for deportation, he “refrained from publishing a study containing criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza,” according to the lawsuit.

Unlike Jane Doe, John has since resumed public criticism of Israel despite the threat of deportation, according to the lawsuit.

WASHINGTON — President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to impose his threatened 50% tariffs on Brazil, setting a legal rationale that Brazil’s policies and criminal prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro constitute an economic emergency under a 1977 law.

Trump had threatened the tariffs July 9 in a letter to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. But the legal basis of that threat was an earlier executive order premised on trade imbalances being a threat to the U.S. economy. But America ran a $6.8 billion trade surplus last year with Brazil, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

A statement by the White House said Brazil’s judiciary had tried to coerce social media companies and block their users, though it did not name the companies involved, X and Rumble.

Trump appears to identify with Bolsonaro, who attempted to overturn the results of his 2022 loss to Lula. Similarly, Trump was indicted in 2023 for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

The order would apply an additional 40% tariff on the baseline 10% tariff already being levied by Trump. But not all goods imported from Brazil would face the 40% tariff: Civil aircraft and parts, aluminum, tin, wood pulp, energy products and fertilizers are among the products being excluded.

The order said the tariffs would go into effect seven days after its signing on Wednesday.

Also Wednesday, Trump’s Treasury Department announced sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes over alleged suppression of freedom of expression and Bolsonaro’s ongoing trial.

De Moraes oversees the criminal case against Bolsonaro, who is accused of masterminding a plot to stay in power despite his 2022 defeat.

On July 18, the State Department announced visa restrictions on Brazilian judicial officials, including de Moraes.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

MAGA has a problem, in the form of Donald Trump. Put simply: MAGA wants to define what MAGA (or “America first”) means, and Donald Trump wants it to mean whatever he says at any given moment.

I should offer a little definitional clarity and political nuance. Make America Great Again means different things to different people. The Trump coalition is not monolithic, it contains factions that do not necessarily consider themselves to be MAGA. But as shorthand, MAGA is an identifiably distinct bloc on the right, and it’s the dominant faction in the broader GOP coalition. Its internal diversity notwithstanding, it still has a worldview or ideology. And the MAGA faithful are increasingly frustrated by the fact that Trump doesn’t always share, or prioritize, that ideology.

They believed that if you could just “let Trump be Trump” he would follow their conception of MAGA. In Ronald Reagan’s first term, many movement conservatives were frustrated by what they perceived as the Gipper’s drift toward centrism. They blamed moderates in the administration. “Let Reagan be Reagan” became a rallying cry on the right.

“It’s a piece of conventional wisdom on the new American right that Donald Trump struggled in his first term because he hired the wrong people — old-think Bush Republicans, figures like Rex Tillerson and Steven Mnuchin, who didn’t have a populist bone in their bodies,” the news website Semafor’s Ben Smith offers in an astute analysis.

As a result, Smith continues, “Trump’s most passionate supporters weren’t going to make that mistake again. They created initiatives like American Moment, Project 2025, and others aimed at grooming and credentialing a cadre of MAGA appointees. When Trump took office, the America Firsters moved en masse into the Department of Defense. Big Tech avengers seized the antitrust apparatus. Conspiracy-minded podcasters took over the FBI.

“And yet — just as Trump often ignored his conventional advisers in the first term, he’s stunned loyalists by sweeping aside this carefully assembled apparat in 2025.”

Trump said as much to the Atlantic magazine last month: “I think I’m the one that decides” what “America first” means.

“It turns out that personnel isn’t policy,” the executive director of the American Conservative, Curt Mills, “glumly” told Smith. The idea that “personnel is policy” is another Reagan-era mantra; put Reaganites in important positions and you’ll get Reaganite policies. Putting Trumpists in powerful positions doesn’t yield the same results.

Immigration hawks have been panicking over the president’s suggestion that farm and hotel workers should be excluded from his deportation schemes. As Trump told Fox News, “I’m on both sides of the thing.” Foreign policy “restrainers” were beclowned by his support of Israel’s strikes on Iran and his apparent about-face on helping Ukraine.

On China, Trump’s been a hawk as promised, except when he hasn’t, allowing NVIDIA to sell chips to China, and ignoring the law by refusing to sell or shutter TikTok.

Then there’s the Jeffrey Epstein fiasco, which has bedeviled Trump for weeks. It’s intensity and durability can best be explained by the fact that it divides those who define Trumpism as loyalty to Trump and those who believe that loyalty would be, must be rewarded by a cleansing of corrupt globalist elite — or something.

In short, there is no “Trumpism” that is an analogue to Reaganism. Reaganism is a philosophical approach. What defines Trump’s reign is better understood as a psychological phenomenon both as an explanation of his behavior and of his fans’ cultish and performative loyalty. To the extent Trump has a philosophy it is to follow his instincts, which are most powerfully informed first by his own ego but also the dramaturgy of professional wrestling, reality TV and Norman Vincent Peale’s prosperity gospel.

He’s said many times that he considers unpredictability a virtue in itself, which by definition means he is going to disappoint anyone who expects philosophical coherence. When Trump was a bull in a China shop, the people most excited by the sound of breaking vases and dishware assumed there was a broader method to the madness. But now the same people are learning that Trump won’t be saddled by his fans any more than he is by norms.

This was always going to be the case (as I noted in 2017), but what adds to MAGA’s frustration is that anyone can see and copy the bull-handling techniques that are most likely to work. Compliment him, call him “daddy,” celebrate his genius and expertise, and you too can manipulate him with at least moderate success.

Perhaps most significant, it’s becoming clear that a movement defined by loyalty to a mercurial personality is bound to split apart once that personality leaves the stage — if not sooner.

X: @JonahDispatch

Broad economic sanctions, most of which are imposed by the U.S. government, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people each year — disproportionately children. This week the Lancet Global Health journal published an article that estimated that number at about 564,000 annually over a decade. This is comparable to the annual deaths around the world from armed conflict.

Sanctions are becoming the preferred weapon of the United States and some allies — not because they are less destructive than military action, but more likely because the toll is less visible. They can devastate food systems and hospitals and silently kill people without the gruesome videos of body parts in tent camps and cafes bombed from the air. They offer policymakers something that can deliver the deadly impact of war, even against civilians, without the political cost.

The above estimate of 564,000 annual deaths from sanctions is based on an analysis of data from 152 countries over 10 years. The study was by economists Francisco Rodríguez, Silvio Rendón and myself.

It’s a horrifying finding, but not surprising to economists, statisticians and other researchers who have investigated these impacts of economic sanctions. These are measures that target the entire economy, or a part of it that most of the rest of the economy depends on, such as the financial sector or a predominant export, for example in oil-exporting economies.

The sanctions can block access to essential imports such as medicine and food and the necessary infrastructure and spare parts to maintain drinkable water, including electrical systems.

Damage to the economy can sometimes be even more deadly than just the blocking of critical, life-sustaining imports. Venezuela is an example of a country that suffered all of these impacts, and the case is far more well-documented than for most of the now 25% of countries under sanctions (up from 8% in the 1960s). In Venezuela, the first year of sanctions under the first Trump administration took tens of thousands of lives. Then things got even worse, as the U.S. cut off the country from the international financial system and oil exports, froze billions of dollars of assets and imposed “secondary sanctions” on countries that tried to do business with Venezuela.

Venezuela experienced the worst depression, without a war, in world history. This was from 2012 to 2020, with the economy contracting by 71% — more than three times the severity of the Great Depression in the U.S. in the 1930s. Most of this was found to be the result of the sanctions.

Our study found that a majority of people who died as a result of sanctions in all countries were children under 5. This atrocity is consistent with prior research. Medical studies have found that children in this age group become much more susceptible to death from childhood diseases such as diarrhea, pneumonia and measles when they become malnourished.

These results are also consistent with statistical studies by the Bank of International Settlements and other statisticians and economists who find that recessions in developing countries substantially increase death rates. Of course, the destruction caused by sanctions, as above, can be many times worse than the average recession.

In 2021, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) wrote a letter to then-President Biden, asking him to “lift all secondary and sectoral sanctions imposed on Venezuela by the Trump Administration.” The impact of these sanctions, he said, “is indiscriminate, and purposely so. … Economic pain is the means by which the sanctions are supposed to work. But it is not Venezuelan officials who suffer the costs. It is the Venezuelan people.”

This is why U.S. sanctions are illegal under treaties the United States has signed, including the Charter of the Organization of American States. They are also prohibited during wartime under the Geneva and Hague conventions, as collective punishment of civilians. U.N. experts have argued, quite persuasively, that something that is a war crime when people are bombing and shooting each other should also be a crime when there is no such war.

These sanctions also violate U.S. law. In ordering the sanctions, the president is required by U.S. law to declare that the sanctioned country is causing a “national emergency” for the United States and poses “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security. But this has almost never been true.

Given the deterioration of the rule of law in the United States, and the lack of regard for human rights in America’s foreign policy — and increasingly at home — it’s easy to be pessimistic about the prospects for ending this economic violence. But it will end.

We have seen victories against much more formidable adversaries and entrenched policies, including wars — most recently against the U.S. participation in the war in Yemen. Organized opposition got Congress to pass a related war powers resolution in 2019. This forced an end to at least some of the U.S. military support and blockade that had put millions of people at emergency levels of hunger, thereby saving thousands of lives.

The CIA’s formal post-9/11 torture program, which included waterboarding, was ended by executive order in 2009, after public exposure and considerable opposition.

The biggest advantage of sanctions, for the policymakers who use them, is the invisibility of their toll. But that is also their Achilles’ heel. When the economic violence of broad sanctions becomes widely known, they will be indefensible and no longer politically sustainable.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is the author of “Failed: What the ‘Experts’ Got Wrong About the Global Economy.”

This Morning star Ashley James has recalled a scary incident where she suspects her drink was spiked, which left her blacking out and meant she woke with no memory of her night.

Ashley James has recalled a scary incident where she suspected her drink was spiked and ended up blacked out. Detailing the experience, the This Morning star told Mirror: “There have been many occasions where I’ve wondered if I’ve been spiked. But we blame ourselves and think, ‘Maybe I was just drunk.’”

“I remember visiting my brother at university for a night out years ago. I had a total blackout, woke up in my brother’s room and I’d been sick – everywhere,” she said. Ashley continued: “That was a disproportionate reaction to what I drank that evening and I have no memory of the evening itself. It was terrifying.”

READ MORE: GMB’s Susanna Reid wows in ‘bright and summery’ red dress that’s £50 off at Debenhams

The mum-of-two added, “I was really young so I didn’t think about spiking or what I should do in that situation. Like so many others, I blamed myself or simply thought the drinks were stronger than I thought. Luckily, nothing worse has happened.”

In our exclusive chat, the DJ and presenter, 38, admitted she wants to better the world for her children; Alfie, four, and Ada, two, whose dad is partner Tommy Andrews – particularly after some of these terrifying experiences of her own.

“I’m outspoken, but the more you talk about things, the more you can fight for change. There are so many scary things out there, especially as a mother; the thought of my children experiencing things I have – whether it’s trolling or other issues – makes me nervous. The world’s a scary place now.”

On the topic of trolling, something celebrities are all too familiar with, she talks about her experiences on social media and gossip website, Tattle Life, which is now being shut down. The website allows users to post anonymously, but Ashley says the harassment she has encountered on it has made its way into her home life, too.

“People don’t realise that it’s not just gossiping and chatting, it’s much darker,” she says. “In my case, someone made a false allegation against me to social services, who came to my door. “I told them that, day or night, if they came to my door they’d only see loved children, so I wasn’t worried. But it does endanger people when their family is involved. It’s scary as it’s entering the real world.”

Ashley continues, “Social services are overstretched as it is, so there should be repercussions for wasting their time. Put bluntly, other children could die if social services’ attention is elsewhere because of these allegations. People need to be accountable. If they’re going to say it online, they should say it with their faces and names made public. They should be as accountable online as they are offline.”

Experiences like this have made Ashley ultra-aware when it comes to educating her children about the internet. “My son is amazing; he’s sweet, sensitive and kind and I never want the world to convince him that those aren’t worthy attributes for men. We definitely need more kind and compassionate boys and men in the world, so that’s what I want to teach him,” she says.

Earlier this year, Ashley took to social media after being told that Alfie may need extra help from the Special Educational Needs department when he begins school. Ashley says she’s trusting her gut.

“The school did a SEN report which didn’t specifically label him or say why he needs extra help, and to be honest, I don’t really mind. I think any parent would welcome extra support for their child. “My role as his mum is to guide him and to trust my instincts, to ensure that he can thrive in a school setting. So, I feel reassured.”

As we chat about creating a better world for her children, Ashley says she’s working with anti-spiking campaign CounterSpike and charity Spike Aware UK to get rid of drink spiking in the future.

Admitting she wants to get rid of the ‘victim blaming’ mentality, Ashley said: “We ask how much they’ve had to drink. Even as parents, especially with daughters, people find themselves saying, ‘You can’t go out like that.’ But you’re equating their outfit to their morals, or their safety.

“The problem – even if it’s well intended – is that it’s telling her that she’s responsible for bad things happening to her, rather than the person doing them,” says Ashley. That’s why she’s pleased that CounterSpike has developed SpikeStixx, which enables people to test their drinks. “It’s a way to reassure your mates they haven’t just drunk too much – to know for sure.

“More than anything, it will hopefully help stop people from doing it. Because, right now, statistics from CounterSpike show that 90% of spiking goes unreported.”

“One day, my son and daughter will be going out into this world without me. I would really like to think that things will improve, and they can do that without fear.”

Ashley is the official ambassador for the launch of CounterSpike’s campaign and its SpikeStixx, which are available to buy at counterspike.com

* Follow Mirror Celebs on Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

When the Dodgers left Los Angeles for their final road trip before the All-Star break last summer, they had a 55-36 record and a 7 1/2-game lead in the National League West.

That team went on to win the World Series.

When this year’s Dodgers land in Milwaukee on Sunday night to begin the last road trip before the All-Star break, their record will be a game better and their division lead about the same, pending the results of San Diego’s game Sunday night.

But if you take a good look under the hood, there are obvious — and worrying — differences between this year and last year.

Dodgers second baseman Hyeseong Kim strikes out in the seventh inning against the Houston Astros at Dodger Stadium Sunday.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

In 2024, the Dodgers had one of the best records in baseball against teams with a winning record. After Sunday’s 5-1 loss to the Houston Astros, this year’s team is just a game over .500 — 20-19 — against teams over .500. Those are the only kind of teams the Dodgers will face in the playoffs.

And it’s not just that they lose, it’s how they lose that’s troubling.

In losing three in a row for the first time since mid-May, the Dodgers were outscored 29-6 by the Astros. The sweep was Houston’s first in a three-game series at Dodger Stadium since 2008, when the team played in the National League.

Manager Dave Roberts, however, pronounced himself unconcerned.

“I know we’re a good team,” he said. “The point is to win as many games in the regular season as possible. I really don’t care who we beat, I just want to win more games than anyone.

“So right now, or even going forward, I don’t pay too much attention to that.”

Look a little deeper, though, and there are other concerns. The Dodgers’ injured list, already as crowded as a Beyoncé concert — it swelled to 12 players with Max Muncy’s addition Thursday — could get even larger this week depending on the health of outfielder Teoscar Hernández and utility player Tommy Edman.

Teoscar Hernández, who fouled a ball off his left foot Saturday, spent 13 days on the IL with a groin problem in May and has been troubled by that injury and a nagging hip-flexor issue that could be behind a slump that has seen him hit .188/.240/.321 over his last 30 games. Edman didn’t play Sunday after a ball off the small toe on his right foot over the weekend. Both players had MRI scans Sunday with Edman’s showing a fracture of the toe.

Dodgers designated hitter Shohei Ohtani is called out by umpire Paul Clemons during the eighth inning of a loss to the Astros at Dodger Stadium Sunday.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Kiké Hernández has been battling a sore left elbow that affects his swing for about a month. He may have to be shut down to let it heal.

“There is talk about one of those guys potentially going on the IL,” Roberts said. “I don’t see it being Tommy but we’re still kind of trying to figure that out. And then who would we bring [up]?”

With those three unavailable, the only player Roberts had on the bench Sunday was catcher Will Smith. And with the rotation still missing four starters to injury, he gave the ball to right-hander Emmet Sheehan, who had thrown just four big-innings all season.

That left manager Dave Roberts with a short bench. And with the rotation still missing four starters to injury, he gave the ball to right-hander Emmet Sheehan, who had thrown just four big-league innings all season.

Sheehan went one better Sunday, yielding just a run on five hits over five innings. But his teammates did little against Houston starter Ryan Gusto (6-3), who gave up four hits — including a run-scoring double to Dalton Rushing — over a season-high six innings.

Will Klein came on in favor of Sheehan to start the sixth and after two quick outs, the Astros loaded the bases on a double, a hit batter and an infield single. Klein (1-1) then walked Zack Short on a 3-2 pitch to force in the go-ahead run.

The Astros padded their lead with back-to-back homers from Christian Walker and Yainer Díaz to start the seventh off reliever Tanner Scott.

Jose Altuve closed the scoring with another solo homer off Anthony Banda in the ninth.

ATLANTA — President Trump and other Republicans have long criticized states that take weeks to count their ballots after election day. This year has seen a flurry of activity to address it.

Part of Trump’s executive order on elections, signed in March but held up by lawsuits, takes aim at one of the main reasons for late vote counts: Many states allow mailed ballots to be counted even if they arrive after election day.

The U.S. Supreme Court last month said it would consider whether a challenge in Illinois can proceed in a case that is among several Republican-backed lawsuits seeking to impose an election day deadline for mail ballots.

At least three states — Kansas, North Dakota and Utah — passed legislation this year that eliminated a grace period for receiving mailed ballots, saying they now need to be in by election day.

Even in California, where weekslong vote counting is a frequent source of frustration and a target of Republican criticism, a bill attempting to speed up the process is moving through the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Order asserts federal law prohibits counting late ballots

The ballot deadline section of Trump’s wide-ranging executive order relies on an interpretation of federal law that establishes election day for federal elections. He argues this means all ballots must be received by that date.

“This is like allowing persons who arrive 3 days after Election Day, perhaps after a winner has been declared, to vote in person at a former voting precinct, which would be absurd,” the executive order states.

It follows a pattern for the president, who has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of such ballots even though there is no evidence they are the source of widespread fraud. The issue is tied closely to his complaints about how long it takes to count ballots, his desire for results on election night and his false claims that overnight “dumps” of vote counts point to a rigged election in 2020, when he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

But ballots received after election day, in addition to being signed and dated by the voter, must be postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service indicating they were completed and dropped off on or before the final day of voting.

Accepting late-arriving ballots has not been a partisan issue historically. States as different as California and Mississippi allow them, while Colorado and Indiana do not.

“There is nothing unreliable or insecure about a ballot that comes back after election day,” said Steve Simon, the chief election official in Minnesota, which has an election day deadline.

In his executive order, most of which is paused by the courts, Trump directs the attorney general to “take all necessary action” to enforce federal law against states that include late-arriving ballots in their final counts for federal elections. He also directs the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to condition federal funding on compliance.

Trump’s rhetoric motivates Republican states

Republicans in five states have passed legislation since the 2020 election moving the mail ballot deadline to election day, according to the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks election legislation.

Earlier this year, GOP lawmakers in Kansas ended the state’s practice of accepting mail ballots up to three days after election day, a change that will take effect for next year’s midterms. Problems with mail delivery had prompted Kansas to add the grace period in 2017.

Kansas state Sen. Mike Thompson, a Republican who chairs the committee that handles election legislation, compared the grace period to giving a football team extra chances to score after the game clock expires.

“We need this uniform end to the election just so that we know that all voters are operating on the same time frame,” he said.

A history of complaints in California

California has long been a source of complaints about the amount of time it takes for ballots to be counted and winners declared.

“The rest of the country shouldn’t have to wait on California to know the results of the elections,” U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, a Wisconsin Republican who chairs the Committee on House Administration, said during an April hearing.

He said California’s “lax election laws” were to blame for the delays.

The nation’s most populous state has the largest number of registered voters in the country, some 22.9 million, which is roughly equivalent to the number of voters in Florida and Georgia combined.

California also has embraced universal mail voting, which means every registered voter automatically receives a ballot in the mail for each election. The deadline for election offices to receive completed ballots is seven days after election day as long as they are postmarked by election day.

A survey of some 35,000 Los Angeles County voters during last fall’s election found that 40% waited until election day to return their ballot.

Election officials say the exhaustive process for reviewing and counting mail ballots combined with a large percentage of voters waiting until the last minute makes it impossible for all results to be available on election night.

California Democrats consider changes to speed the count

Under state law, election officials in California have 30 days to count ballots, conduct a post-election review and certify the results.

Dean Logan, Los Angeles County’s chief election official, told Congress in May that his team counted nearly 97% of the 3.8 million ballots cast within a week of election day in 2024. Jesse Salinas, president of the state clerks’ association, said his staff in Yolo County, near Sacramento, already works 16-hour days, seven days a week before and after an election.

Assemblyman Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) introduced legislation that would keep the state’s 30-day certification period but require county election officials to finish counting most ballots within 13 days after the election. They would be required to notify the state if they weren’t going to meet that deadline and give a reason.

“I don’t think that we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend like these conspiracies aren’t out there and that this lack of confidence doesn’t exist, in particular among Republican voters in California,” said Berman. “There are certain good government things that we can do to strengthen our election system.”

He acknowledged that many counties already meet the 13-day deadline in his bill, which awaits consideration in the state Senate.

“My hope is that this will strengthen people’s confidence in their election system and their democracy by having some of those benchmarks and just making it very clear for folks when different results will be available,” Berman said.

Cassidy writes for the Associated Press. AP writer John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas, contributed to this report.