speech

This past week Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Trump spoke at a rally. Trump’s speech seemed familiar: Disparage Los Angeles (“trash heap”). Criticize Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass (“incompetent, and they paid troublemakers, agitators and insurrectionists”). Restate grievances about the 2020 election (“rigged and stolen”). Chide the crowd to support the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (“You better push your favorite congressmen”).

But this speech was different from his others. The location was Ft. Bragg in North Carolina — and the audience was mostly soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, the “All Americans.” Internal unit communications revealed soldiers at the rally were screened based on political leanings and physical appearance. “If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration,” the guidance advised, “and they don’t want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out.”

So what followed was to be expected. A sea of young soldiers in uniform — selected for their preference for the president — cheering and clapping for partisan commentary. This obviously violates Defense Department regulations. Heck, it’s even spelled out in a handy Pentagon FAQ:

Q. Can I ever wear my uniform when I attend political events?

A. No; military members must refrain from participating in political activity while in military uniform in accordance with both DoDD 1344.10 and DoDI 1344.01. This prohibition applies to all Armed Forces members.

But what happened during Trump’s appearance at the Army base is worse than breaking regs. The commander in chief forced an important unit to choose sides. He broke the All Americans in two. In essence, his statement to the troops there was: “Those who like me and my politics, come to my rally. The rest of you — beat it.” (Maybe we should start calling them the “Some Americans.”)

Imagine what it was like the day after. The soldiers who chose not to attend wondered how their next rating would go. Some lieutenant from California worried if his commander now has a problem with where he’s from — and is checking whether he was at the rally. Maybe it’s better if he wasn’t, and he instead chose to abide by Defense regulations?

No matter which way you lean, that speech injected partisan acid into the 82nd Airborne. And it will drip down and corrode from the stars at the top to the lowest-ranking private.

Militaries require extraordinary cohesion to function in combat. For those of us who’ve chosen this profession, one thing is burned into our brains from that very first day our hair’s shorn off: We’re all we’ve got. There’s nobody else. When you are hundreds and thousands of miles away from everyone else you’ve ever known, and you’re there for weeks and months and a year, you realize just how important the person next to you is, regardless of where they’ve come from, who their parents are, or whether their community votes red or blue.

Fighting units are like five separate fingers that form a fist. Partisan acid burns and weakens our fist.

Then there are the indirect effects. This speech damaged the military’s standing with a large swath of America. The image of soldiers cheering the partisan applause lines of a commander in chief who just sent thousands of troops to Los Angeles over the state’s objections? Not a good look.

These optics risk ruining the military’s trust with roughly half of America. The military is the last remaining federal institution that a majority of Americans trust “a great deal.” But it’s been slipping since the last Trump administration and may fall under 50%. Yet the military requires firm trust to fund and fill critical needs.

That’s important because not everyone wants to serve in the military. Many would prefer not to think about the expected self-sacrifice, or the daily discomforts of military discipline. Moreover, not everyone is even able to serve in the military. Roughly three-quarters of young Americans can’t qualify.

What if someone who would have been the next Mike Mullen — Los Angeles native, Navy admiral and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs — gets turned off by this rally and opts against the Naval Academy?

Then zoom out a little. What if much of California takes offense at this speech, not to mention at the soldiers and Marines so recently forced upon the local and state governments?

California hosts more active-duty troops than any other state — by a wide margin. It’s also the biggest donor state in the country, contributing $83 billion more to the federal government than it receives. The bases and other strategic locations up and down the Pacific Coast are beyond value. California is America’s strong right arm.

To sever California’s support for the military is simply unthinkable. It just can’t happen. We’ve got to fix this.

The first fix is simple. Hold troops to the accepted standards. Hegseth’s most recent book argued that the Defense Department has “an integrity and accountability problem.” Here’s the secretary’s chance to show America he stands for standards.

But we know mistakes happen, and this could become a powerful teachable moment: When the commander in chief orders troops to such an event, the only acceptable demeanor is the stone cold silence the generals and admirals of the Joint Chiefs display at the State of the Union, regardless of their politics and regardless of what the president is saying. Just a few years ago, two Marines in a similarly awful situation did just this right thing.

A further fix calls for more individuals to act: The roughly 7,500 retired generals and admirals in America need to speak up. The military profession’s nonpartisan ethic is at a breaking point. They know the old military saying: When you spot something substandard, and you fail to correct it, then you’ve just set a new standard.

The reason many of these retired senior officers often don’t speak out is their fear that defending neutrality risks having a political impact. Yet their continued silence carries a grave institutional effect — the slow-motion suicide of the profession that gave them their stars.

The president mentioned Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee in his speech, and it’s too bad his speechwriter didn’t include a certain anecdote that would’ve fit the occasion. When the Civil War was over and terms were being agreed upon at Appomattox Court House, Lee noticed Col. Ely Parker, a Tonawanda Seneca man serving on Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s staff. Lee quipped, “I am glad to see one real American here.”

To which Parker replied, “We are all Americans.” Since that very moment, we’ve been one country and one Army, All Americans, indivisible and inseparable from society.

If only we can keep it.

ML Cavanaugh is the author of the forthcoming book “Best Scar Wins: How You Can Be More Than You Were Before.” @MLCavanaugh

June 16 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Christian-based pregnancy center’s request, challenging New Jersey over its claim the pro-life group misled women about offering abortion services.

The Supreme Court will decide later this year whether First Choice Women’s Resource Centers can use federal courts to block the state’s attorney general from investigating its donor, advertising and medical personnel records.

First Choice, which provides parenting classes and free ultrasounds to women facing unplanned pregnancies, claims a 2023 subpoena violated its free speech rights.

Attorney General Matthew Platkin “has made no secret of his hostility towards pregnancy centers,” the pro-life group wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court, as it called Platkin’s subpoena “invasive” for demanding access to records.

“State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents,” lawyers for First Choice wrote. “Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands.”

Platkin argues that the subpoena he issued has yet to be enforced in state court. He also said the donor information he sought was from two websites, which he claimed may have misled people into thinking First Choice provided abortions.

“Nonprofits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our state, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so — as we do to protect New Jerseyans from a range of harms,” Platkin wrote in a statement.

The Supreme Court will focus on whether First Choice sued prematurely, not whether New Jersey’s subpoena was valid, according to Platkin.

“First Choice is looking for a special exception from the usual procedural rules as it tries to avoid complying with an entirely lawful state subpoena,” Platkin added. “No industry is entitled to that type of special treatment — period.”

Lawyers for First Choice said the group is not seeking special treatment and believes their free speech rights are being targeted.

“New Jersey’s attorney general is targeting First Choice simply because of its pro-life views,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erin Hawley said in a statement. “The Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from unjustified demands to disclose their identities, and First Choice is entitled to vindicate those rights in federal court.”

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for October.

“We are looking forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court and urging it to hold that First Choice has the same right to federal court as any other civil rights plaintiff,” Hawley added.

“The First Amendment protects First Choice’s right to freely speak about its beliefs, exercise its faith, associate with like-minded individuals and organizations, and continue to provide its free services in a caring and compassionate environment to people facing unplanned pregnancies.”

Frame it as a call to action or a presidential campaign announcement, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s address to America on Tuesday has tapped into our zeitgeist (German words feel oddly appropriate at the moment) in a way few others have.

“Democracy is under assault right before our eyes,” Newsom said during a live broadcast with a California flag and the U.S. flag in the background. “The moment we’ve feared has arrived.”

What moment exactly is he referring to?

President Trump has put Marines and National Guardsmen on the streets of Los Angeles, and granted himself the power to put them anywhere. Wednesday, a top military leader said those forces could “detain” protesters, but not outright arrest them, though — despite what you see on right wing media — most protesters have been peaceful.

But every would-be authoritarian ultimately faces a decisive moment, when the fear they have generated must be enforced with action to solidify power.

The danger of that moment for the would-be king is that it is also the time when rebellion is most likely, and most likely to be effective. People wake up. In using force against his own citizens, the leader risks alienating supporters and activating resistance.

What happens next in Los Angeles between the military and protesters — which group is perceived as the aggressors — may likely determine what happens next in our democracy. If the military is the aggressor and protesters remain largely peaceful, Trump risks losing support.

If the protesters are violent, public perception could further empower Trump.

The president’s immigration czar Tom Homan, said on CNN that what happens next, “It all depends on the activities of these protesters — I mean, they make the decisions.”

Welcome to that fraught moment, America.

Who would have thought Newsom would lead on it so effectively?

“Everybody who’s not a Trumpist in this society has been taken by surprise, and is still groggy from the authoritarian offensive of the last five months,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at the embattled Harvard University, and author of “How Democracies Die.”

Levitsky told me that it helps shake off that shock to have national leaders, people who others can look to and rally behind. Especially as fear nudges some into silence.

“You never know who that leader sometimes is going to be, and it may be Newsom,” Levitsky said. “Maybe his political ambitions end up converging with the small d, democratic opposition.”

Maybe. Since his address, and a coinciding and A-game funny online offensive, Newsom’s reach has skyrocketed. Millions of people watched his address, and hundreds of thousands have followed him on TikTok and other social media platforms. Searches about him on Google were up 9,700%, according to CNN. Love his message or find it laughable, it had reach — partly because it was unapologetically clear and also unexpected.

“Trump and his loyalist thrive on division because it allow them to take more power and exert even more control,” Newsom said.

I was on the ground with the protesters this week, and I can say from firsthand experience that there are a small number of agitators and a large number of peaceful protesters. But Trump has done an excellent job of creating crisis and fear by portraying events as out of the control of local and state authorities, and therefore in need of his intervention.

Republicans “need that violence to corroborate their talking points,” Mia Bloom told me. She’s an expert on extremism and a professor at Georgia State University.

Violence “like in the aftermath of George Floyd, when there was the rioting, that actually was helpful for Republicans,” she said.

Levitsky said authoritarians look for crises.

“You need an emergency, both rhetorically and legally, to engage in authoritarian behavior,” he said.

So Trump has laid a trap with his immigration sweeps in a city of immigrants to create opportunity, and Newsom has called it out.

And it calling it out — pointing out the danger of protesters turning violent and yet still calling for peaceful protest — Newsom has put Trump in a precarious position that the president may not have been expecting.

“Repressing protest is a very risky venture,” said Levitsky. “It often, not always, but often, does trigger push back.”

Levitsky points out that already, there is some evidence that Trump may have overreached, and is losing support.

A new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 76% of Americans oppose the military birthday parade Trump plans on throwing for himself in Washington, D.C. this weekend. That includes disapproval from more than half of Trump supporters.

A separate poll by Quinnipiac University found that 54% of those polled disapprove of how he’s handling immigration issues, and 56% disapprove of his deportations.

Bloom warns that there’s a danger in raising too many alarms about authoritarianism right now, because we still have some functioning guardrails. She said that stoking too much fear could backfire, for Newsom and for democracy.

“We’re at a moment in which the country is very polarized and that these things are being told through two very different types of narratives, and the moment we give the other side, which was a very apocalyptic, nihilistic narrative, we give them fodder, we justify the worst policies” she said.

She pointed to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, when some protesters placed flowers in the barrels of soldiers’ guns, and act of peaceful protest she said changed public perception. That, she said, is what’s needed now.

Newsom was clear in his call for peaceful protest. But also clear that it was a call to action in a historic inflection point. We can’t know in the moment who or what history will remember, said Levitsky.

“It’s really important that the most privileged among us stand up and fight,” he said. “If they don’t, citizens are going to look around and say, ‘Well, why should I?”

Having leaders willing to be the target, when so many feel the danger of speaking out, has value, he said.

Because fear may spread like a virus, but courage is contagious, too.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday night accused President Trump of intentionally fanning the flames of the Los Angeles protests and “pulling a military dragnet across” the city endangering peaceful protesters and targeting hardworking immigrant families.

The Democratic governor’s comments were a forceful rebuke to the president’s claims that deploying the California National Guard and U.S. Marines to the city was necessary to control the civil unrest.

“Donald Trump’s government isn’t protecting our communities — they’re traumatizing our communities,” Newsom said. “And that seems to be the entire point.”

The governor posted his video address to California on social media hours after Trump said at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina that he sent in troops to protect immigration agents from “the attacks of a vicious and violent mob.”

The picture Trump painted of the federal government’s role in the protests against immigration raids marks a sharp contrast to Newsom’s assertion that state and local law enforcement were successfully keeping the peace before federal authorities deployed “tear gas, “flash-bang grenades” and “rubber bullets” on Angelenos exercising their constitutional right to free speech and assembly.

Then Trump “illegally” called up the California National Guard, Newsom said.

“This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation, putting our people, our officers, and even our National Guard at risk,” Newsom said. “That’s when the downward spiral began. He doubled down on his dangerous National Guard deployment by fanning the flames even harder. And the president, he did it on purpose.”

The governor, who has become a target for Republicans and a central figure in the political and legal battle over the protests, has said for days that an “unhinged” Trump deployed federal troops to intentionally incite violence and chaos, seeking to divert attention away from his actions in Washington and assert his “dictatorial tendencies.”

Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a request for a restraining order earlier Tuesday asking a federal judge to call off the “Department of Defense’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles and the takeover of a California National Guard unit.” The request came the day after California filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration alleging that the deployment of the guard without the governor’s consent violated the U.S. Constitution.

After returning to Washington, Trump commented on the “good relationship” he’s always had with Newsom, before blaming the governor for the unrest.

“This should never have been allowed to start, and if we didn’t get involved, Los Angeles would be burning down right now,” Trump said, and then made a reference to the deadly wildfires in the Los Angeles area in January. “Just as the houses burned down.”

He said the military is in the city to de-escalate the situation and control what he described as paid “insurrectionists,” “agitators” and “troublemakers.”

“We have a lot of people all over the world watching Los Angeles,” Trump said. “We’ve got the Olympics, so we have this guy allowing this to happen.”

On Monday, Trump said his top border policy advisor Tom Homan should follow through on threats to arrest the governor. Newsom immediately jumped on the comment, comparing the federal administration to an “authoritarian regime.”

“I never thought I’d hear those words. Honestly, Democrat, Republican. Never thought I’d hear those in my lifetime — to threaten a political opponent who happens to be sitting governor,” Newsom said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) declined to answer a question about whether Newsom should be arrested on Tuesday and instead said the governor should be “tarred and feathered.”

Newsom took a shot at Johnson during his address, saying the speaker has “completely abdicated” his responsibility for Congress to serve as a check on the White House. He warned that “other states are next.”

“At this moment, we all need to stand up and be held to account, a higher level of accountability,” Newsom said, imploring protesters to exercise free-speech rights peacefully. “I know many of you are feeling deep anxiety, stress and fear. But I want you to know that you are the antidote to that fear and anxiety.

“What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment. Do not give in to him.”

Times staff writer Laura Nelson and Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner contributed to this report.

The setting matched the message Tuesday as Donald Trump stood beneath the gun barrels of a 57,000-ton battleship in Los Angeles Harbor and fired rhetorical blasts on immigration, trade and national security.

But protesters on shore nearly drowned out Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, as his shipboard rally set the stage for Wednesday’s GOP debate at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley.

Borrowing Richard Nixon’s polarizing pledge to stand up for the “silent majority” amid the social upheaval of the 1960s, Trump told supporters gathered on the ship’s stern that Americans were disgusted by the U.S. allowing immigrants to “just pour into the country” illegally.

TRAIL GUIDE: All the latest news on the 2016 presidential campaign >>

“They’re disgusted when a woman who’s nine months pregnant walks across the border, has a baby, and you have to take care of that baby for the next 85 years,” Trump, wearing a red baseball cap emblazoned with his “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan, told the crowd.

“Booooooo!” the audience responded.

The comment was typical of Trump’s remarks on illegal immigration on the campaign trail. He has led in polls for much of the summer, tapping into fears about people in the country illegally and garnering support mostly from restive Republicans drawn to his political-outsider status.

Trump appeared unfazed by the loud and relentless taunting by demonstrators waving signs reading “Deport Trump!” and “We’re All Anchor Babies.” But the talkative New York real estate tycoon, whose speeches can exceed a full hour, spoke for just 13 minutes, packing his remarks, as usual, with superlatives.

He pledged a military buildup that would force the leaders of Russia and Iran to respect America.

“Nobody’s going to mess with us,” he said.

He called President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran “one of the dumbest deals and one of the weakest contracts I’ve ever seen of any kind.”

“Fire him, Donald!” a man in the crowd bellowed. “Fire him!”

Get more national political news and the latest from Campaign 2016 >>

Trump, the only one of the 15 candidates in Wednesday’s debates to appear publicly Tuesday in Southern California, assailed Obama on trade with Japan, China and Mexico, saying the leaders of all three countries were smarter and more cunning, a favorite comparison of his.

Japan’s “massive ships float right here and they drop off the cars, right?” he said, gesturing to the giant container vessels floating nearby. “They drop off thousands and thousands and thousands of cars. Millions of cars. And we sell them beef.”

The crowd erupted in laughter.

Trump’s event was a fundraiser for Veterans for a Strong America, a group that endorsed him Tuesday.

Trump’s stature with veterans has been bumpy. Trump offended some this summer when he mocked Arizona Sen. John McCain’s record of service as a prisoner of war for five years in Vietnam, saying he’s “not a war hero.”

He ignored calls to apologize, but has been casting himself as a champion of veterans, as he did again aboard the battleship Iowa, now a museum.

“We have illegal immigrants that are treated better, by far, than our veterans,” he said.

Trump, who received draft deferments during the Vietnam War and has never served in the military, has called on CNN, the sponsor of Wednesday’s debate, to donate its advertising revenue to veterans groups.

Marine veteran Scott Fischer of Lake Forest, who attended the rally, said he was undecided on Trump but was concerned about illegal immigration.

“They’re just letting everyone from all these countries in,” he said.

One of Trump’s biggest applause lines was his promise to make Mexico pay for a wall along its entire border with the U.S. He lamented drugs pouring into the country.

“Not a good deal: We get the drugs, they get the money,” he said. “The drug cartels are going wild. They cannot believe how stupid our government is.”

It was just such comments that drew 18-year-old Rebekah Kritz of San Pedro and a couple of hundred other protesters to the ship’s berth.

“He’s a racist,” Kritz said bluntly. “We can’t let people just constantly call for a wall to be built to keep others out. It’s like putting people against people.”

Follow @finneganLAT and @kurtisalee for political news.

ALSO:

Trump and Schwarzenegger: A political comparison

Meet the busboy who’s taking on Donald Trump over immigration

A frail Nancy Reagan probably won’t make the GOP debate

It turns out Zoe Saldaña was more than just emotionally drained after tearfully accepting her supporting actress Oscar for “Emilia Pérez” at this year’s Academy Awards — she was also worn out physically.

The 46-year-old actor explained Wednesday on the ABC talk show “Live With Kelly and Mark” how she had been fighting a cold and felt fully exhausted immediately following one of her career-defining moments.

“I collapsed right after. I lost my voice within an hour after I won the award,” she said. “I couldn’t stand on those heels that I had. All I wanted to do was crawl in bed and maybe cry. I don’t know why, I just needed to cry.”

The “Avatar” star noted that up until that point her body was running on all cylinders for months on end during awards season.

“Your body is running on pure adrenaline so you know that your immune system is in optimal condition, but once you tell your body that it’s over, then everything sort of collapses,” Saldaña said.

The Oscar victory capped an impressive awards season run for the “Guardians of the Galaxy” actor, having won the Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG and Critics’ Choice awards for her role as Mexico City attorney Rita Castro in “Emilia Pérez.”

While her performance was almost universally celebrated and well-regarded, the film as a whole was heavily criticized for its incomplete and offensive portrayals of transgender issues and the lack of consideration taken in depicting Mexico.

LGBTQ+ media advocacy group GLAAD declared the film is “Not Good Trans Representation.” The organization did not nominate “Emilia Pérez” for any GLAAD Media Awards.

Although physically and emotionally exhausted, Saldaña managed to make some attention-grabbing statements in the Oscars press room after a Mexican journalist noted that the movie’s presentation of Mexico was “really hurtful for us Mexicans.”

“First of all, I’m very, very sorry that you and so many Mexicans felt offended,” Saldaña said in the defense of the film. “That was never our intention. We spoke and came from a place of love, and I will stand by that.”

She went on to further disagree with the Mexican journalist’s point of view regarding the centrality and importance of Mexico in the 13-time Oscar nominated movie.

“For me, the heart of this movie was not Mexico. We were making a film about friendship. We were making a film about four women,” Saldaña explained. “And these women are still very universal women that are struggling every day, but trying to survive systemic oppression and trying to find the most authentic voices.”

Outside of the issues within the film, much of the main cast and crew of the movie was bogged down by mostly self-inflicted negative press.

Actor Karla Sofía Gascón faced backlash in January after Canadian writer Sarah Hagi resurfaced tweets dating from 2016 to 2023 that spoke negatively of Muslims’ clothing, language and culture in her home country of Spain. Additionally, Gascón caught heat for resurfaced comments about the 2020 killing of George Floyd, the ensuing racial reckoning, the Black Lives Matter movement and the COVID-19-era Academy Awards ceremony in 2021.

Gascón later apologized for her previous online remarks and deactivated her X account.

The film’s director Jacques Audiard spoke openly on record about how little he prepped to portray Mexico and denigrated the Spanish language during his press tour.

When asked by a Mexican journalist at a red carpet event about how much he had to study up on Mexico and Mexican culture to prepare for the movie, Audiard gave a telling answer.

“No, I didn’t study that much. What I needed to know, I already knew a little about,” the filmmaker said. “It was more about capturing the little details and we came a lot to Mexico to see actors, to see locations, to see the decorations and so on.”

Speaking with the French outlet Konbini, Audiard spoke down on the Spanish language, saying, “Spanish is a language of modest countries, of developing countries, of the poor and migrants.”

Audiard later apologized for his comments after the movie received backlash from Mexican audiences.

Selena Gomez, who played a pivotal supporting role in the film, was criticized for her proficiency in Spanish. Mexican actor Eugenio Derbez was among those who called out Gomez’s performance and Spanish language ability.

Gomez has previously said her Spanish fluency waned after she started working in television at age 7. She responded to the criticism on social media, saying, “I did the best I could with the time I was given. Doesn’t take away from how much work and heart I put into this movie.” Derbez later apologized.

In a country that prides itself on democracy, freedom of speech, and the right to protest, a chilling question is emerging: Who gets to speak, and who is being silenced?

More than 1,000 international students and recent graduates across the United States have reportedly had their visas revoked or their legal status altered. Meanwhile, American citizens have faced detentions at airports and border crossings, been interrogated about their political beliefs, and had their phones searched for content against President Donald Trump. Are we witnessing a quiet erosion of First Amendment rights?

Presenter: Stefanie Dekker

Guests:

Nora Benavidez – Civil rights lawyer

Conor Fitzpatrick – Senior lawyer at Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

Tamara Turki – Student at Columbia University

Federal Communications Commissioner Anna M. Gomez traveled to Los Angeles this week to sound an alarm that attacks on the media by President Trump and his lieutenants could fray the fabric of the 1st Amendment.

Gomez’s appearance Wednesday at Cal State L.A. was designed to take feedback from community members about the changed media atmosphere since Trump returned to office. The president initially expelled Associated Press journalists from the White House, for example. He signed an executive order demanding government funding be cut to PBS and NPR stations.

Should that order take effect, Pasadena-based radio station LAist would lose nearly $1.7 million — or about 4% of its annual budget, according to Alejandra Santamaria, chief executive of parent organization Southern California Public Radio.

“The point of all these actions is to chill speech,” Gomez told the small crowd. “We all need to understand what is happening and we need people to speak up and push back.”

Congress in the 1930s designed the FCC as an independent body, she said, rather than one beholden to the president.

But those lines have blurred. In the closing days of last fall’s presidential campaign, Trump sued CBS and “60 Minutes” over edits to an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, alleging producers doctored the broadcast to enhance her election chances. CBS has denied the allegations and the raw footage showed Harris was accurately quoted.

Trump-appointed FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, upon taking office in January, revived three complaints of bias against ABC, NBC and CBS, including one alleging the “60 Minutes” edits had violated rules against news distortion. He demanded that CBS release the unedited footage.

The FCC’s review of Skydance Media’s pending takeover of CBS-parent Paramount Global has been clouded by the president’s $20-billion lawsuit against CBS. The president rejected Paramount’s offer to settle for $15 million, according to the Wall Street Journal, which said Trump has demanded more.

Two high-level CBS News executives involved in “60 Minutes” were forced out this spring.

Gomez, in an interview, declined to discuss the FCC’s review of the Skydance-Paramount deal beyond saying: “It would be entirely inappropriate to consider the complaint against the ’60 Minutes’ segment as part of a transaction review.” Scrutinizing edits to a national newscast “are not part of the public interest analysis that the commission does when it considers mergers and acquisitions,” she said.

For months, Gomez has been the lone voice of dissent at the FCC. Next month, she will become the sole Democrat on the panel.

The longtime communications attorney, who was appointed to the commission in 2023 by former President Biden, has openly challenged her colleague Carr and his policies that align with Trump’s directives. She maintains that some of Carr’s proposals, including opening investigations into diversity and inclusion policies at Walt Disney Co. and Comcast, go beyond the scope of the FCC, which is designed to regulate radio and TV stations and others that use the public airwaves.

The pressure campaign is working, Gomez said.

“When you see corporate parents of news providers … telling their broadcasters to tone down their criticisms of this administration, or to push out the executive producer of ’60 Minutes’ or the head of [CBS] News because of concerns about retribution from this administration because of corporate transactions — that is a chilling effect,” Gomez said.

Wednesday’s forum, organized by the nonprofit advocacy group Free Press, was punctuated with pleas from professors, journalists and community advocates for help in fending off Trump’s attacks. One journalist said she lost her job this spring at Voice of America after Trump took aim at the organization, which was founded more than 80 years ago to counter Nazi propaganda during World War II.

The Voice of America’s remaining staffers could receive reduction-in-force notices later this week, according to Politico.

Latino journalists spoke about the difficulty of covering some stories because people have been frightened into silence due to the administration’s immigration crackdown.

For now, journalists are able to carry out their missions “for the most part,” said Gabriel Lerner, editor emeritus of the Spanish-language La Opinión.

But he added a warning.

“Many think that America is so exceptional that you don’t have to do anything because fascism will never happen here,” Lerner said. “I compare that with those who dance on the Titanic thinking it will never sink.”

The White House pushed back on such narratives:

“President Trump is leading the most transparent administration in history. He regularly takes questions from the media, communicates directly to the public, and signed an Executive Order to protect free speech on his first day back in office,” spokesperson Anna Kelly said. “He will continue to fight against censorship while evaluating all federal spending to identify waste, fraud, and abuse.”

FCC Commission Chairman Brendan Carr on Capitol Hill.

(Alex Wroblewski / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Traditionally, the five-member FCC has maintained an ideological balance with three commissioners from the party in power and two from the minority. But the senior Democrat — Geoffrey Starks — plans to step down next month, which will leave just three commissioners: Gomez, Carr and another Republican, Nathan Simington.

Trump has nominated a third Republican, Olivia Trusty, but the Senate has not confirmed her appointment.

Trump has not named a Democrat to replace Starks.

Some on Wednesday expressed concern that Gomez’s five-year tenure on the commission could be cut short. Trump has fired Democrats from other independent bodies, including the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Gomez said if she is pushed out, it would only be because she was doing her job, which she said was defending the Constitution.

Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) applauded Gomez’s efforts and noted that he’s long appreciated coordinating with her on more routine FCC matters, such as ensuring wider broadband internet access.

“But now the fight is the survival of the free press,” Ruiz said.

He noted that millions of people now get news from non-journalist sources, leading to a rise of misinformation and confusion.

“What is the truth?” Ruiz said. “How can we begin to have a debate? How can we begin to create policy on problems when we can’t even agree on what reality is?”

OTTAWA, Ontario — King Charles III said Canada is facing unprecedented challenges in a world that’s never been more dangerous as he opened the Canadian Parliament on Tuesday with a speech widely viewed as a show of support in the face of annexation threats by President Trump.

Trump’s repeated suggestion that the U.S. annex Canada prompted Prime Minister Mark Carney to invite Charles to give the speech from the throne outlining his governments priorities for the new session of Parliament. The king is the head of state in Canada, which is a member of the Commonwealth of former colonies.

“We must face reality: since the Second World War, our world has never been more dangerous and unstable. Canada is facing challenges that, in our lifetimes, are unprecedented,” Charles said in French.

He added that “many Canadians are feeling anxious and worried about the drastically changing world around them.”

It’s rare for the monarch to deliver what’s called the speech from the throne in Canada. Charles’ mother, Queen Elizabeth II, did it twice before in 1957 and 1977.

”I have always had the greatest admiration for Canada’s unique identity, which is recognized across the world for bravery and sacrifice in defense of national values, and for the diversity and kindness of Canadians,” he said.

Charles, on his 20th visit to Canada, noted that it has been nearly 70 years since his mother first opened Parliament.

“In the time since, Canada has dramatically changed: repatriating its constitution, achieving full independence, and witnessing immense growth. Canada has embraced its British, French, and Indigenous roots, and become a bold, ambitious, innovative country that is bilingual, truly multicultural,” the monarch said.

He said when his late mother opened a new session of Canadian Parliament in 1957, World War II remained a fresh, painful memory and said the Cold War was intensifying.

“Freedom and democracy were under threat,” he said. “Today, Canada faces another critical moment. Democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination, and freedom are values which Canadians hold dear, and ones which the government is determined to protect.”

Charles also said that the Canadian government “will protect Canada’s sovereignty by rebuilding, rearming, and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces.

“It will stimulate the Canadian military industry by participating in the ‘ReArm Europe’ plan and will thus contribute, together with European partners, to trans-Atlantic security. And it will invest to strengthen its presence in the North, as this region, which is an integral part of the Canadian nation, faces new threats,” the king said.

Former Canadian Prime Ministers Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper were among those in attendance.

The speech isn’t written by the king or his U.K. advisers as Charles serves as a nonpartisan head of state. He read what was put before him by Canada’s government, but makes some remarks of his own.

Carney, the new prime minister and a former head of the Bank of England, and Canada’s first Indigenous governor general, Mary Simon, the king’s representative in Canada, met with Charles on Monday.

Canadians are largely indifferent to the monarchy, but Carney has been eager to show the differences between Canada and the United States. The king’s visit clearly underscores Canada’s sovereignty, he said.

Carney won the job of prime minister by promising to confront the increased aggression shown by Trump.

The king said that Canada can build new alliances and a new economy that serves all Canadians. More than 75% of Canada’s exports go to the U.S. and Carney is eager to diversify trade.

The new U.S. ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, said that sending messages to the U.S. isn’t necessary and Canadians should move on from the 51st state talk, telling the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. that if there’s a message to be sent, there are easier ways to do that, such as calling him or calling the president.

“There are different ways to ‘send a message’ and a phone call is only of them,” said Daniel Beland, a political science professor at McGill University. “The king would normally add his own short introductory remarks and observers will be listening to them very carefully with the issue of Canada’s sovereignty in mind.”

The king said that among the priorities for the government is protection of the French language and Quebec culture, which are at the heart of Canadian identity.

“They define the country that Canadians, and I, love so much. Canada is a country where official and Indigenous languages are respected and celebrated,” he said.

“The government is committed to protecting the institutions that promote these cultures and this identity throughout the world, such as CBC/Radio-Canada.”

He also said the Canada must protect Quebec’s dairy supply management industry. Trump attacked the industry in trade talks.

A horse-drawn carriage took king and queen to the Senate of Canada Building for the speech. It will accompanied by 28 horses, 14 before and 14 after. He will receive the Royal Salute from the 100-person guard of honor from the 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment before entering the chamber for his speech.

The king will return to the U.K. after the speech and a visit to Canada’s National War Memorial.

Justin Vovk, a Canadian royal historian, said the king’s visit reminds him of when Queen Elizabeth II opened the Parliament in Grenada, a member of the commonwealth, in 1985.

A U.S.-led force invaded the islands in October 1983 without consulting the British government following the killing of Grenada’s Marxist prime minister, Maurice Bishop.

Gillies writes for the Associated Press.

King Charles III and Queen Camilla are on their first official visit to Canada since Charles became the British monarch in 2022.

The two-day trip, though brief, carries symbolic weight at a time when Canada has faced tariffs and threats from US President Donald Trump.

Here’s what you need to know about the visit.

What do we know about the ‘Speech from the Throne’?

A major highlight of Charles’s visit is his scheduled address on Tuesday from the Canadian Senate.

Often referred to as a “Speech from the Throne”, the address is traditionally used to open a new session of Parliament and is usually delivered by the governor general on the monarch’s behalf.

The speech is ceremonial and not tied to any new legislative session. It is expected to include reflections on Canada’s democratic institutions, messages of unity, and an emphasis on reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

Although symbolic, the speech is a rare opportunity for Canadians to hear directly from the monarch in a parliamentary setting. It also serves as a public reaffirmation of the king’s role as head of state in Canada.

It is the first such address to be delivered by a British monarch in Canada since 1977.

In a statement on Monday, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney said the speech will outline the government’s plan to deliver the change Canadians “want and deserve”.

This includes defining “a new economic and security relationship with the United States … to bring down the cost of living, and to keep communities safe,” Carney said.

What time is the speech?

Charles is set to deliver the speech shortly after 11am local time (15:00 GMT).

How long are the king and queen in Canada?

The royal couple are in Canada for a two-day tour, which began on Monday.

They came at Carney’s invitation. While the visit is short, it has included several important engagements that reflect Canada’s historical ties to the monarchy.

The itinerary features official ceremonies, cultural events, and meetings with Indigenous leaders, according to the Canadian government’s official website.

Why is the king visiting?

Charles’s visit to Canada serves multiple purposes, both symbolic and practical. Primarily, it aims to reinforce the enduring relationship between Canada and the Crown, highlighting shared values and historical ties.

The timing of the visit is particularly noteworthy as it coincides with heightened tensions following US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs as well as controversial remarks suggesting the annexation of Canada.

Carney’s invitation for Charles to deliver the “Speech from the Throne” has been viewed as seeking to reaffirm Canada’s sovereignty and constitutional framework.

Barbara Messamore, professor of history at the University of the Fraser Valley, said Canadians have found comments by Trump about turning the country into the 51st US state “deeply offensive”.

“I think it is a good moment to show the world that we are a distinct nation with a distinct history, and we’d like to keep it that way,” Messamore told Al Jazeera. “We value, of course, our relationship with our American friends and neighbours, but we don’t want to join them.”

Is a visit by the monarch rare?

While members of the British royal family have frequently toured Canada over the years, visits by the reigning monarch are relatively uncommon. Queen Elizabeth II, for example, visited Canada 22 times during her seven-decade reign.

This is Charles’s first time visiting the country as monarch. He last visited in 2022, when he was still the prince of Wales.

What is Canada’s connection to the monarchy?

Canada is a constitutional monarchy, which means the country recognises the king as its official head of state.

While the role is largely ceremonial, the Crown plays a critical function in Canada’s political system. The king’s duties are carried out in Canada by the governor general, currently Mary Simon, who represents the monarch at the federal level.

The monarchy is built into Canada’s constitutional framework. The Constitution Act of 1867 established the king – or queen – as part of the Parliament of Canada, alongside the House of Commons and the Senate.

Beyond politics, the Crown holds particular importance in Indigenous relations. Many historical treaties were made directly with the British Crown, not with the government of Canada.

This has been largely highlighted in local media coverage, Messamore said.

“Indigenous nations are front and centre, and they value that kinship relationship,” she said.

Although support for the monarchy varies across Canada, with many Canadians questioning its relevance, the institution remains embedded in the nation’s political and legal foundations.

This is because it has always provided a “bulwark against American ambitions”, Messamore said.

“These moments are really important ones about Canadian patriotism. The reaction to the king’s visit has been very positive,” she said.

“We don’t always all agree on our form of governance, but we’ve made it very difficult to change that fundamental aspect of our Canadian Constitution.”

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell defended the central bank’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic Sunday in a Princeton University commencement speech in which he also praised government employees and U.S. universities, both of which have been targeted by the Trump administration.

The Fed chair and the central bank have been subject to extensive criticism in recent weeks by President Trump and former Fed governor Kevin Warsh, a potential successor to Powell.

In his speech, Powell, who noted he graduated from Princeton 50 years ago, defended the central bank’s decision to cut its key interest rate to nearly zero in response to the pandemic shutdown. It also launched an asset-purchase program that involved buying trillions of dollars of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities, intended to keep longer-term interest rates low.

“With little warning, economies around the world came to a hard stop” as the pandemic hit, Powell said. “The possibility of a long, severe, global depression was staring us in the face. Everyone turned to the government, and to the Federal Reserve in particular as a key first responder.”

Powell singled out longtime government employees for praise: “Career civil servants at the Fed who are veterans of previous crises stepped forward and said, ‘We got this,’” he said.

Trump has subjected Powell to a stream of attacks for months because the Fed has kept its key rate unchanged this year, after cutting it three times at the end of 2024. The president has claimed that there is “no inflation” so the Fed should reduce borrowing costs. Powell has noted that inflation persists.

This month, Trump called Powell a “fool” for not cutting rates and last week called the Fed chair “Too Late Powell.”

Powell has not responded to Trump’s attacks, a stance that has previously won him support among Republicans on Capitol Hill.

In his Sunday speech, he defended American universities, which have come under sharp attacks from the Trump administration as research grants and other funding have been cut for several Ivy League universities, including Princeton.

“Our great universities are the envy of the world and a crucial national asset,” Powell said. “Look around you. I urge you to take none of this for granted.”

Late last month, Warsh, who served as one of the Fed’s governors from 2006 to 2011, slammed the central bank, saying it had allowed inflation to spike to its highest level in four decades in 2022. Warsh is considered a leading candidate to become the next Fed chair when Powell’s term ends next May.

“Each time the Fed jumps into action, the more it expands its size and scope,” Warsh said in a speech on the sidelines of the International Monetary Fund’s spring meetings. “More debt is accumulated … more institutional lines are crossed, and the Fed is compelled to act even more aggressively the next time.”

The Fed does not issue debt, but Warsh and other Fed critics argue that its purchase of Treasury bonds enabled to federal government to borrow and spend more.

Powell has acknowledged that the Fed could have moved quicker to raise interest rates once inflation began to rise in 2021. Still, on Sunday, he defended the Fed’s pandemic record.

“Through the joint efforts of many, we avoided the worst outcomes,” Powell said. “It is hard to imagine the pressure people face at a time like that. Their collective efforts saved our economy, and the career civil servants involved deserve our respect and gratitude; it is my great honor to serve alongside them.”

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

JOE Biden is facing fresh scrutiny over his health while in office amid his “aggressive” prostate cancer diagnosis.

The former president, 82, claimed to have had cancer in a speech he gave three years ago – which sparked fears for his health at the time.

4

4

4

Biden’s comments came during a speech about “cancer-causing” emissions from oil refineries near his childhood home in Delaware.

He said: “That’s why I and so damn many other people I grew up with have cancer and why for the longest time Delaware had the highest cancer rate in the nation.”

Biden’s use of the present tense led to speculations that the president was suffering from cancer.

But these were dismissed after it was suggested that the comments were a reference to “non-melanoma skin cancers”.

Before assuming the presidency, Biden had a number of “localized, non-melanoma skin cancers” removed by surgery.

In November 2021, Biden had a polyp removed from his colon that was a benign, but potentially pre-cancerous lesion.

And in February 2023, he had a skin lesion removed from his chest that was a basal cell carcinoma, a common form of skin cancer.

Non-melanoma skin cancer typically develops in the areas of the body most exposed to the sun such as the face, ears, hands, shoulders, upper chest, and back.

But Biden is now facing fresh scrutiny over his cancer comments following the announcement of his cancer diagnosis on Sunday.

This comes as Donald Trump took a swipe at his predecessor and said he was “surprised” the public wasn’t told long ago about Biden’s cancer.

The US President cast doubt on the timeline of Biden’s diagnosis on Monday as he said it usually takes a “long time” to reach such an aggressive stage of cancer.

Trump was backed up by a leading oncologist who claimed that the former president likely had cancer when he took office in 2021.

Dr Zeke Emanuel said: “He had it while he was President.

“He probably had it at the start of his presidency, in 2021.”

Biden announced his cancer diagnosis in an official statement from his personal office on Sunday.

The statement said that he was seen by doctors last week after suffering urinary symptoms, with a prostate nodule then being found.

He was then diagnosed with prostate cancer on Friday, with the cancer cells having spread to the bone.

The statement read: “Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms.

“On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone.

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

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

A Gleason score of 9 means the cancerous cells “look very abnormal” and that the disease is “likely to grow quickly”, according to Cancer Research UK.

Biden served as US president from 2021 to 2025, with his term ending on January 20 when Donald Trump took office.

4