support

WASHINGTON — The Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee said some of its members would support a presidential pardon for convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in exchange for her assistance in the committee’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

But good luck getting any of them to admit it.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) told Politico Wednesday that “a lot of people” support the idea of Maxwell receiving a pardon from President Trump in exchange for her cooperation in the committee’s investigation.

Although Comer said he opposed a pardon himself — “other than Epstein, the worst person in this whole investigation is Maxwell” — he offered that his committee was “split” on the issue.

Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, the top Democrat on his committee, condemned the idea of a Maxwell pardon and said Democrats on the committee uniformly oppose it.

“It’s outrageous that Republicans on the Oversight Committee are considering a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell,” Garcia said in a statement. “She is a sexual abuser who facilitated the rape of women and children.”

The Times reached out to all 26 Republicans on the committee to see who, if anyone, supported the idea of a pardon.

Although most didn’t respond, the few who did expressed outrage at the idea.

“I am absolutely not supporting a pardon for her nor have I heard that from anyone else,” said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.).

“Never in a thousand years,” said Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.).

Maxwell declined to answer the committee’s questions during a video deposition in February from the Texas federal prison where she is serving her 20-year prison sentence.

She is still challenging her 2021 conviction on five counts related to the sex trafficking of minors for her role in recruiting and grooming girls for Epstein to abuse. She was accused at trial of also participating in the abuse of one victim.

At the time of her February deposition, Maxwell’s attorney David Oscar Markus said she would offer the “unfiltered truth” if granted clemency by Trump.

Attorneys who have represented victims abused by Epstein and Maxwell strongly opposed the idea of a pardon.

“This is a woman who belongs behind bars for the rest of her life for what she did to women,” said Spencer Kuvin, who has represented numerous Epstein victims.

Sigrid McCawley, a managing partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, questioned the value of information Maxwell could provide.

“Ghislaine Maxwell is a proven self-serving liar,” McCawley said in a statement. “There is nothing credible that she will offer the government, and the assertion that she would provide information is simply a smoke screen.”

Trump has not said he is considering a pardon but when asked by reporters he has declined to rule it out.

Epstein abused more than 1,000 girls and young women over the span of decades. He negotiated a lenient deal nearly two decades ago with federal prosecutors in south Florida that allowed him to serve 13 months in a Palm Beach County jail where he was allowed to come and go freely to settle claims that he had abused dozens of high school girls.

Following investigative reporting on that deal by the Miami Herald, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York brought new sex charges against Epstein in July 2019. He died in federal custody one month later.

Epstein and Maxwell counted members of the British royal family, multiple presidents and business titans among their friends.

They have been accused of forcing some of their victims to have sex with some of those men. But Maxwell is the only other person who has ever been charged in connection with Epstein’s crimes.

The committee has deposed numerous people who knew Epstein, including Ohio billionaire Les Wexner, who hired Epstein to manage his finances, and former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The committee has not, however, deposed Trump, who once famously called Epstein a “terrific guy” and said, “I just wish her well,” when told of Maxwell’s arrest in 2020.

The Department of Justice has also released millions of pages of documents from its investigations into the deceased sex offender in response to the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was signed into law last year.

The release of the files has led to criminal inquiries in the United Kingdom into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former prince, and Peter Mandelson, the former British ambassador to the United States, over allegations that they provided secret government information to Epstein.

So far, the files have not led to any publicly known criminal investigations in the United States.

Ricky Hatton’s son Campbell said the family have not been able to grieve his father’s death privately but called the support they have had from people a “blessing”.

The former world light-welterweight and welterweight champion died last September aged 46.

Thousands of people lined the route for the boxer’s funeral procession from Hyde to Manchester Cathedral the following month.

“As a family we’ve not been able to grieve with any privacy and there’s a lot of negatives that have come from that – but if there’s a positive, it’s that people walking down the street say nice things and check up on us. That’s the blessing behind it,” Campbell, who has also boxed professionally, told BBC Radio Manchester.

“To everyone it’s heartbreaking. Not just Manchester, the whole country and the sport are heartbroken because they have lost Ricky Hatton but it’s just my dad to me.”

He added: “We were all so proud of the fanbase he had but to see it day to day… It’s nice.

“It shocked me the most at the funeral when we were in the cars making our way to the cathedral.

“There wasn’t a part of the route that wasn’t full of people. You couldn’t see a bit of pavement for the three hours we were in the car.

“We knew how popular he was but to actually see it in front of you was something else and we can’t thank people enough.”

A special Evening4Ricky is being held at Manchester Arena, a venue where he enjoyed some of the greatest successes of his career, on Sunday, 7 June.

Campbell said they want the event to be “a celebration and a party” for the much-loved boxer.

“I think everyone in boxing, if they’re available, they want to be here and that is a testament to the man he was. It’s massive for people,” he said.

“I think it will be impossible for it to end up being a sad occasion. It’s going to be a great night.”

Former state Controller Betty Yee dropped out of the 2026 governor’s race on Monday, citing low levels of support from voters and donors.

Yee, a Democrat, was part of a sprawling field of politicians vying to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. But despite the bevy of prominent candidates running to lead the nation’s most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy, this year’s governor’s race has long lacked a clear front-runner well known by the electorate.

“The whole notion that voters are looking for experience and competence is not a top priority, and that’s been really my wheelhouse in terms of how we grounded this campaign was based on my experience,” she said in a virtual press conference Monday morning. “The donors have felt the chill of the polling … and it really just came down to where I’m not going to have sufficient resources to get us to the finish line.”

The former two-term state controller did not immediately endorse another candidate and said she would take a few days to assess the field before making an announcement.

The race was upended earlier this month when then-Rep. Eric Swalwell, among the leading Democrats in the race, was accused of sexual assault and other misconduct. The East Bay Democrat, who is facing multiple criminal investigations, promptly ended his gubernatorial bid and resigned from Congress.

Yee, 68, was well regarded by Democrats during her tenure in Sacramento. And she highlighted her no-drama persona on Thursday.

“California — had enough chaos, fear and horrendous political scandals? Ready for calm, cool, collected change? Some may consider that boring. But that’s the point. We need Boring Betty,” Yee posted on the social media site X. “No crisis. No circus. Just competent, drama-free leadership you can trust. #BoringisBetter”

But she never had the financial resources to aggressively compete in a state with many of the most expensive media markets in the nation.

Yee reported raising nearly $583,000 for her gubernatorial bid in 2025, according to campaign fundraising reports filed with the California secretary of state’s office. Yee’s announcement that she is dropping out of the race came days before the latest financial disclosures will be publicly reported.

Despite being elected to the state Board of Equalization twice and as state controller twice, Yee was not widely known by most Californians. She never cracked double digits in gubernatorial polls.

Her name will still appear on the ballot. She was among the candidates who rebuffed state Democratic Party leaders’ request earlier this year to reconsider their viability amid fears that the party could be shut out of the November general election because of the state’s unique primary system. The top two vote-getters in the June primary will move on to to the November general election, regardless of party affiliation.

Though California’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, the makeup of the gubernatorial field makes it statistically possible for Republicans to win the top two spots if Democratic voters splinter among their party’s candidates. Yee said fear of that scenario playing out “kind of took over” the gubernatorial race.

“Was it possible? Yes. Was it plausible? No, we’re in California. That was not going to happen,” she said, adding that the top-two primary system should be done away with.

Still, Yee was beloved by Democratic Party activists, and previously served as the party’s vice chair.

No Democratic candidate reached the necessary threshold to win the party’s official endorsement at its February convention, but Yee came in second with support from 17% of delegates despite calls for her to drop out of the race.

“Every poll shows that this race is wide open, and I know this party,” she said in an interview at the convention. “Frankly, I’ve been in positions where it’s been a crowded field, and we work hard and candidates emerge.”

The gubernatorial primary will take place June 2, though voters will start receiving mail ballots in about two weeks.

JENNIFER Aniston has shown support for her ex Justin Theroux after he welcomed a baby with his younger wife.

The actor, 54, and his other half Nicole Brydon Bloom, 32, became parents for the first time on Saturday with the arrival of their baby boy.

The couple took to Instagram to share a black and white photo of the tot lying on his dad’s chest.

They captioned it: “He’s here. We are so in love.”

As hundreds of their fans flocked to like and comment on the post, one of the well-wishers was his ex-Jennifer, 57, who showed her subtle support by pressing like on it.

The Hollywood star didn’t comment but her like shows she’s happy for her ex as he celebrates this milestone moment in his life.

READ MORE ON JENNIFER ANISTON

WOO YOU KIDDING?

We’ve not seen last of ‘sad’ Jen…why middle-aged women are mad for woo-woo

JEN’S JIM BUDDY

Jennifer Aniston’s relationship heats up as she reveals unseen pictures

It was confirmed back in December that Justin and Nicole were expecting their first child.

The pair got married in a secret ceremony on a beach in Tulum, Mexico in March last year.

Pictures published by TMZ, showed Justin in a cream jacket and black bow tie kissing Nicole, who looked great in a backless white wedding dress.

The bride went barefoot on the sand and at one point was twirled around by smitten Justin.

The couple began dating in early 2023 but didn’t go official until December of that year.

They got engaged in Summer 2024 in Italy, while Justin was on the promo trail for Beetlejuice Beetlejuice at the Venice Film Festival.

The pair posed for pictures at the glitzy event and a huge diamond ring could be seen glistening on Nicole’s finger.

The actress is the daughter of late journalist David Bloom who died from a blood clot in 2003 while covering the Iraq war.

Justin and Jennifer first met in 2007, before beginning their relationship in 2011.

They married in 2015, announcing their split two years later and their subsequent divorce.

“This decision was mutual and lovingly made at the end of last year,” the two shared in a statement.

“We are two best friends who have decided to part ways as a couple, but look forward to continuing our cherished friendship.”

Justin eventually opened up to the New York Times about the divorce, saying, “The good news is that was probably the most — I’m choosing my words really carefully — it was kind of the most gentle separation, in that there was no animosity.

“Again, neither one of us is dead, neither one of us is looking to throw hatchets at each other…. It’s more like, it’s amicable.

“It’s boring, but, you know, we respected each other enough that it was as painless as it could be.”

He added: “It was heartbreaking, only in the sense that the friendship would not be the same, as far as just the day to day.

“But the friendship is shifting and changing, you know, so that part is something that we’re both very proud of.”

‘This will be a great and brilliant day for the world’ US President Donald Trump said at a Turning Point USA event as Iran fully opens the Strait of Hormuz. He also thanked Gulf states for their ‘tremendous’ support.

The State Department in the United States has announced it is restricting visas for “individuals from countries in our hemisphere who support our adversaries in undermining America’s interests in our region”.

Thursday’s statement underlined that 26 individuals had already seen their visas stripped as part of the policy.

The State Department’s stance comes as President Donald Trump seeks to expand US influence across the Western Hemisphere, as part of a platform he calls the “Donroe Doctrine”, a riff on the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine.

Since taking office for a second term, Trump has taken an aggressive stance towards stopping drug trafficking across the Americas, threatening economic penalties and military action for noncompliance.

He has also sought to check China’s growing sway over the region, as an increasing number of Latin American countries tighten their bonds with the Asian superpower.

The State Department explained that the expanded visa restrictions would penalise those who “knowingly direct, authorise, fund, or provide significant support to” US adversaries in the Western Hemisphere.

“Activities include but are not limited to: enabling adversarial powers to acquire or control key assets and strategic resources in our hemisphere; destabilising regional security efforts; undermining American economic interests; and conducting influence operations designed to undermine the sovereignty and stability of nations in our region,” the statement added.

The language was vague, never mentioning China or the campaign against drug-trafficking cartels.

But it continues a trend under the Trump administration to revoke visas from foreign critics and political opponents.

Last year, for instance, the administration sought to revoke visas for pro-Palestine protesters, claiming their presence could have foreign policy consequences for the US.

More recently, the administration has terminated the immigration visas for at least seven individuals with familial ties to the Iranian government or individuals connected to the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Revoking visas

The statement on Thursday did not identify the 26 individuals facing visa restrictions as part of the expanded policy.

But it cited the same authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act that the Trump administration has used to attempt to deport pro-Palestine student protesters last year.

Under the law, the entry of foreign nationals can be restricted when the secretary of state has reason to believe they pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

While the administration has abandoned deportation efforts against some of the targeted individuals, at least two, Mahmoud Khalil and Badar Khan Suri, continue to face expulsion.

More recently, the administration has terminated the immigration visas for at least seven individuals with familial ties to the Iranian government or individuals connected to the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Already, some figures in Latin America have seen their visas revoked over political disagreements with the US.

In July, Brazilian officials involved in the prosecution of former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro saw their US visas withdrawn. They included Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, a frequent target of right-wing ire.

Then, in September, the Trump administration stripped Colombian President Gustavo Petro of his visa after he made an appearance at the UN General Assembly that was critical of US policy.

The State Department, at the time, denounced Petro for “reckless and incendiary actions”. He was later invited to visit the White House in February, as part of a detente with Trump.

Visa restrictions have been part of Trump’s larger policy to exert pressure on foreign groups and limit immigration into the US.

Earlier this year, the administration enacted immigrant visa bans on dozens of countries, citing both national security and alleged stresses on social services.

Trump has also sought to take a more militaristic approach towards Latin American governments it deems as adversarial, referring to the whole of the Western Hemisphere as the US’s “neighbourhood”.

In January, the US launched an attack on Venezuela that culminated in the abduction and imprisonment of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, and it has also initiated an ongoing fuel blockade against Cuba.

Some of Trump’s actions in the region have been deadly. The Venezuela attack left dozens of Cubans and Venezuelans killed. And since September, the Trump administration has conducted at least 51 lethal strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea.

The death toll in that campaign has reached at least 177 people. Rights groups have decried the attacks as extrajudicial killings.

But the Trump administration has labelled multiple drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organisations” and has argued they are seeking to destabilise the US through the drug trade.

Other US allies criticise Trump’s move, including France, Spain and Turkiye, and China also condemns the plan.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer says his country will not join the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz announced by United States President Donald Trump, a move also criticised by other US allies.

“We are not supporting the blockade,” Starmer told BBC radio on Monday, adding that the United Kingdom “is not getting dragged in” to the US-Israel war on Iran.

Starmer said it was vital to get the strait reopened. In peacetime, about 20 percent of the world’s oil supplies pass through the strategic waterway that links the Gulf to the Indian Ocean.

“It is in my view vital that we get the strait open and fully open, and that’s where we’ve put all of our efforts in the last few weeks, and we’ll continue to do so,” he said.

Al Jazeera’s Rory Challands, reporting from London, said Starmer has continued to “maintain a delicate balancing act” of saying the UK will not be joining the war while being careful not to level any criticism directly at Trump regarding his actions in the war.

Traffic through the strait has been heavily restricted since the start of the war. Iran has allowed through only some vessels serving friendly countries, such as China.

Starmer made his statement as the US military announced it would block all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports starting from 14:00 GMT. It was unclear, however, how the US military would enforce the blockade.

“The blockade will be enforced impartially against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas, including all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman,” the US military’s Central Command said.

US forces would not impede vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports, it added.

In a lengthy social media post on Sunday, Trump said his goal was to clear the strait of mines and reopen it to all shipping and Iran must not be allowed to profit from controlling the waterway.

Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that France and the UK would hold a conference in the coming days aimed at restoring freedom of navigation in the strait.

Macron reiterated that no diplomatic effort be spared in reaching a lasting end to the US-Israel war on Iran.

Nicole Grajewski, assistant professor at the Center for International Research at the Paris Institute of Political Studies, said a US blockade was “not a minor coercive signal” but could rather be considered essentially a resumption of the war.

Other US allies also criticised Trump’s move, including Spanish Defence Minister Margarita Robles, who said the planned naval blockade “makes no sense”.

“It’s one more episode in this whole downward spiral into which we’ve been dragged,” she said.

Fellow NATO ally Turkiye said the Strait of Hormuz should open “as soon as possible”.

“Negotiations with Iran should be conducted, persuasion methods should be used and the strait should be opened as soon as possible,” Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan told the state-run Anadolu news agency.

China, Washington’s great power rival and a big importer of Iranian oil, also criticised the plan.

“The Strait of Hormuz is an important international trade route for goods and energy, and maintaining its security, stability and unimpeded flow is in the common interest of the international community,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Guo Jiakun said, urging Iran and the US not to reignite the war.

“I’m repeating myself a lot, but I feel a lot of support. Not only from the owners but from Richard [Hughes] and Michael [Edwards]. A lot of support from them but as weird as it might sound, I also feel the support from the fans,” said Slot.

“In Paris when the players went out for the warm-up and after the 4-0 loss [against Manchester City] the fans immediately started singing ‘we love Liverpool‘.

“I think it’s fair to say we were outplayed for 90 minutes and they were still singing and clapping for us.

“I’ve said it many times, the club knows the period of time we’re in and in the meantime, I feel complete support.”

He added that Wednesday’s defeat to PSG would serve as motivation during this “defining” period of the season, which starts with Fulham‘s visit to Anfield on Saturday.

“We faced the champions of Europe and we experienced that we were not on the level we should have been.

“The good thing is we have four or five days to show we can be much more competitive. It also tells us we want to keep improving and playing at that level next season.

“I think if you experience that two days ago, you want to be involved next season to show we can do even better. Therefore, we have to perform in the league as well.”

BRUSSELS — NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has weathered a fresh ordeal with President Trump, this time over the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, a conflict that does not even involve the world’s biggest military alliance and one it was never consulted about.

Since launching the war, Trump has derided U.S. allies as “cowards,” slammed NATO as “a paper tiger” and compared U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer to Neville Chamberlain, who is probably best remembered for a policy of appeasement toward Nazi Germany.

That comes on top of Trump’s repeated threats to seize control of Greenland, which have deeply strained relations with U.S. allies in NATO and raised fears that doing by force could spell the end of the organization.

In recent days, the man who is as good as chairman of the NATO board suggested that the U.S. might leave the trans-Atlantic alliance. Trump already threatened to walk out in 2018 during his first term. His complaint now is that some allies ignored his call to help as Iran effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz, a vital trade waterway.

After talks with Rutte on Wednesday, the alliance’s most powerful leader took to social media to show his annoyance. “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN,” Trump posted.

Peppered with questions later on CNN about whether Trump intended to take America out of NATO, Rutte said: “He is clearly disappointed with many NATO allies, and I can see his point.”

Keeping America in

Rutte has earned a reputation as a “Trump whisperer,” notably helping to draw up a plan that has seen European allies and Canada buy U.S. weapons for Ukraine, and keep the administration involved in Europe’s biggest war in decades.

Indeed, one of his most demanding tasks since taking office in 2024 has been to keep the mercurial U.S. leader engaged in NATO, particularly as America has set its sights on security challenges elsewhere, in the Indo-Pacific, Venezuela, and most recently Iran.

Rutte has used flattery, praising Trump for forcing allies to spend more on defense. He has congratulated the U.S. leader over the war and refrained from criticizing Trump’s warning that “a whole civilization will die” should Iran not reopen the strait.

“This was a very frank, very open discussion but also a discussion between two good friends,” Rutte told CNN. He declined to confirm reports that Trump is considering moving U.S. troops out of European countries that do not support the war.

Asked whether the world is safer thanks to the U.S.-Israel war, Rutte said: “Absolutely.”

War launched by a NATO member, not at one

The striking thing about the war on Iran is that NATO has no role to play there. As a defensive alliance it has protected ally Turkey when Iranian missiles were fired in retaliation at its territory, but the war was launched by a NATO member, not at one.

Rutte himself has said that NATO would not join the war, and there is no public confirmation that the U.S. had even raised the issue at the organization’s Brussels headquarters, although it cannot be ruled out that the administration made a request on Wednesday for that to happen.

NATO declined to say whether security for the strait has been officially discussed and referred questions to the United Kingdom, which is leading an effort outside the alliance to make the trade route safe for shipping once the ceasefire is working.

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna said Thursday that his country is always ready to consider providing support through NATO to partners who request it there.

“If the U.S. or any other NATO ally is asking (for) our support, we are always read to discuss it,” he told broadcaster CNBC. “But for that, we need of course the official ask to discuss then what is the mission, what is the goal?”

If allies “need our support, then we need to plan together,” he said.

NATO trying to stay out

Rutte himself insists that the alliance will only defend itself, and not become involved in another conflict outside of NATO territory, which is considered to be much of Europe and North America.

“This is Iran, this is the Gulf, this is outside NATO territory,” he said.

NATO has operated outside of the Euro-Atlantic area in the past, notably in Libya and Afghanistan. But there is no appetite to do so again given its chaotic U.S.-led exit from Afghanistan in 2021, which former NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg described as a “defeat.”

Trump’s ire seems most directed at Spain and France, rather than NATO itself. Spain has closed its airspace to U.S. planes involved in the Iran war and has refused U.S. forces the use of jointly operated military bases.

After the two-week ceasefire was announced, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez posted on X that his government “will not applaud those who set the world on fire just because they show up with a bucket.”

“What’s needed now: diplomacy, international legality, and PEACE,” he added.

France has been critical, insisting that the war was launched without respecting international law and that Paris was never consulted about it. No blanket restrictions were placed on the use of joint bases or its airspace, but French authorities have said they’re making such decisions on a case by case basis.

Cook writes for the Associated Press.

BUDAPEST, Hungary — Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday urged Hungarians to back Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in upcoming elections, dubbing the populist leader a defender of “Western civilization” during a visit to Hungary meant to help push Orbán over the finish line.

Vance’s two-day visit to Budapest was the clearest sign yet that President Trump’s administration is going all in for an Orbán victory when Hungarians go to the polls on Sunday. With only five days until the vote, Orbán, the European Union’s longest-serving leader and a close Trump ally, is trailing in the polls.

Speaking before over 1,000 Orbán supporters at an election rally at a sports arena in Budapest, Vance campaigned openly for the autocratic leader, telling the crowd: “We have got to get Viktor Orbán reelected as prime minister of Hungary, don’t we?”

Orbán is running for his fifth-straight term as prime minister. He and his nationalist-populist Fidesz party are facing their toughest race in two decades against a center-right challenger, the Tisza party led by Péter Magyar, that could bring an end to his 16 years in power.

Orbán has bristled at the slightest mention of the Hungarian election by any of his EU partners, decrying any expressions of support for his opponent as a grave breach of Hungary’s sovereignty and meddling in the election.

Yet Vance’s appearance alongside Orbán at the election rally — dubbed a “Day of Friendship” event — was an unusual step from a foreign leader, and a break with most politicians who avoid taking an active role in the political campaigns of other countries.

To loud applause, Vance asked rally attendees: “Will you stand for Western civilization? Will you stand for freedom, for truth, and for the God of our fathers?”

“Then, my friends, go to the polls in the weekend. Stand with Viktor Orbán, because he stands for you, and he stands for all these things,” Vance said.

‘I love that Viktor’

Long accused by critics of taking over Hungary’s institutions, clamping down on press freedom and overseeing entrenched political corruption — charges he denies — Orbán has become an icon in the global far-right movement.

Trump has repeatedly endorsed Orbán’s candidacy for reelection, and many in the Make America Great Again movement approve of the Hungarian leader’s opposition to immigration, curtailing of LGBTQ+ rights, and capture of the media and academia.

But with most independent polls showing a double-digit deficit for Fidesz among decided voters ahead of the vote, Orbán has sought to boost his profile by appearing publicly with his international admirers.

Vance spoke at length on Tuesday about what he views as the civilizational dangers posed by progressivism, “faceless bureaucrats” and censorship. He lauded Orbán for his strong stand against immigration, and his adversarial approach to the EU.

“I admire what you’re fighting for,” Vance said. “I am here because President Trump and I wish for your success, and we are fighting right here with you.”

Vance used his phone to call Trump from the lectern, to loud applause. After first reaching an automated message about the caller’s voicemail box not being set up yet, Trump answered the call and told the crowd through a microphone: “I love Hungary and I love that Viktor, I tell you he’s a fantastic man.”

Trump said Orbán had not allowed migrants “to storm” and “ruin” Hungary.

“He’s kept Hungarian people in your country,” Trump said.

Hungarian ‘reconquista’

The Trump administration’s embrace of Orbán reflects its affinity for European far-right parties broadly, and the admiration, from Spain to France to Germany and the Netherlands, has been mutual.

Orbán has long been a thorn in the side of the EU, and has tested the bloc’s system of governance by frequently using his veto power to paralyze decision-making in order to leverage concessions.

Last month, he vetoed a major, 90-billion euro ($104-billion) EU loan to Ukraine, angering the bloc’s leaders who accused him of hijacking the critical aid while undermining the EU in an effort to win his election.

At the rally on Tuesday, Orbán declared that “freedom-loving Americans and Hungarians must unite and save Western civilization.”

“To do this, we must fight the progressives that nest in Brussels,” the EU’s de-facto capital, he continued. He declared that Hungary had launched a “reconquista” of EU institutions which “will bring new patriotic governments to power.”

Late last month, Orbán hosted dozens of allies from around Europe and beyond at the Hungarian iteration of the Conservative Political Action Conference, and at a meeting of the far-right Patriots for Europe party family, the third-largest group in the European Parliament.

Trump sent a video message to Conservative Political Action Conference Hungary, saying Orbán had his “complete and total endorsement” and was a “fantastic guy.”

Still, Trump’s recent approach to foreign affairs has reverberated in Europe, with his actions over Greenland, Venezuela and Iran straining those relationships. Some commentators have suggested support from Vance and Trump may not help boost Orbán’s popularity at home.

Orbán, however, has remained deferential, and echoed Trump’s false claims that he won the 2020 election.

Russian energy

Orbán’s government has broken with most EU countries by refusing to assist Ukraine with financial aid or weapons to ward off Russia’s full-scale invasion. Meanwhile, it has remained firmly committed to purchasing Russian energy despite EU efforts to wean off such supplies.

In November, Hungary received an exemption from U.S. sanctions on Russian oil and gas after a White House meeting between Orbán and Trump.

Yet at a joint news conference with Orbán earlier on Tuesday, Vance seemed to contradict U.S. efforts to push its allies to break with Russian energy, excoriating other EU countries for moving to cease their imports of Russian fossil fuels in response to the war.

“It’s funny to watch prime ministers and leaders in some of the Western European capitals talk about the energy crisis when frankly they should have been following the policies of Viktor Orbán,” he said.

Despite his clear endorsement of Orbán, Vance lashed out at the EU for what he said was “one of the worst examples of foreign election interference that I’ve ever seen or ever even read about.”

Vance did not address numerous recent reports that Russian secret services are meddling in Hungary’s election to tip it in Orbán’s favor.

Spike writes for the Associated Press. Mike Catalini in Morrisville, Pa., contributed.

United States Vice President JD Vance is travelling to Budapest to bolster support for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, whose Fidesz Party faces its most difficult election in over a decade.

The White House announced last week that Vance would arrive in Hungary on Tuesday and hold two days of bilateral meetings.

In February, US President Donald Trump endorsed right-wing leader Orban ahead of Hungary’s April 12 parliamentary elections, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited the country that month to show support.

Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor of sociology at Princeton University in the US who has spent years as an analyst and critic of Orban’s government, says that the trip is meant to underscore the close relationship between Trump and his Hungarian counterpart.

“Orban will make a big deal out of the fact that he’s got Trump’s support. And that’s why Vance is coming,” she said, adding that she is sceptical that Vance’s trip will have a large impact on the outcome of the election.

“If you look at the polls in Hungary, they show the opposition with an 8 to 12 percent lead, in some recent polls up to a 20 percent lead. One visit by a relatively low-profile American vice president is not going to change that.”

Robust opposition

Orban’s 16-year tenure has been marked by the erosion of the independence of institutions such as the judiciary and the media, as well as reforms that critics say have slanted the electoral system in favour of Orban and his Fidesz party.

But despite what the opposition has described as a deeply imbalanced electoral environment, most polls show the 62-year-old Orban trailing the 45-year-old opposition leader, Peter Magyar, and his Tisza Party.

Magyar is a former high-ranking Fidesz official who broke with the party two years ago and has emerged as a popular voice railing against Orban’s rule.

His campaign has focused on corruption, deteriorating social services, economic conditions, and Orban’s combative relationship with the European Union, which has often centred on immigration and support for Ukraine.

The European Union suspended billions of euros in funding for Hungary in 2022 over what it characterised as democratic backsliding and declining judicial independence.

Magyar has pledged a more cordial relationship with the European bloc, as well as reforms that could lead to the restoration of suspended funds.

While Orban has depicted the opposition as a destabilising force that will sell out the country’s national interests on behalf of Ukraine and the EU, Magyar’s right-leaning politics mean that policies on issues such as immigration would see little change.

“Magyar is centre-right; he’s basically a believer in much of what Orban has done, minus the corruption. In EU terms, he’s slightly eurosceptical but wants to get the money back,” said Scheppele.

Blueprint for the US right

While Orban’s approach to consolidating power and his embrace of far-right politics have mired his relationships in Europe, they have made him a source of inspiration for the US far right and prominent members of the Trump administration, such as JD Vance.

Hungary has previously hosted the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an annual summit where individuals and groups from across the US right and allies from other countries gather to discuss the future of the conservative movement.

When CPAC convened in Budapest in 2024, Trump sent a video praising Orban for “proudly fighting on the front lines of the battle to rescue Western civilisation”.

Shared ire for Muslims, immigrants, and centres of liberal politics such as universities has helped cement that bond, and Vance himself has enjoyed especially close relations with Orban’s government.

When he was selected as Trump’s running mate in July 2024, Orban’s political director shared a photo of himself posing with Vance, captioned: “A Trump-Vance administration sounds just right.”

Orban’s Hungary has been at the centre of the Trump administration’s shifting policy towards Europe, firmly aligning itself with far-right parties and immigration restrictionists in countries such as France and Germany.

Scheppele says that Orban’s relationship with the Trump administration and status as an icon of the global far right may be of limited use in an election that is mostly focused on domestic issues.

But she noted that more tangible steps, such as a pledge of US financial support from the Trump administration if Orban wins, could buoy his chances in the closing days of the race.

“The big thing to watch is that, when Orban came to the US recently, Trump appeared to promise a fiscal safety net if Orban wins,” said Scheppele, adding that the US took similar steps before the 2025 midterm elections in Argentina in order to bolster right-wing ally Javier Milei, now the country’s president.

“Trump hasn’t made that kind of formal promise, and he’s now denied that he made any specific promise. But the Orban people think that Trump is going to backstop them if they win the election,” Scheppele added. “If Vance makes that kind of announcement, it could be a real game-changer.”

BBC star Dilly Carter has been part of Sort Your Life Out since it began back in 2021.

There’s good news for fans of BBC’s Sort Your Life Out as organising expert Dilly Carter has shared an exciting career update.

Sort Your Life Out Unpacked is a podcast based on the show and launches Tuesday, April 7. It will see Dilly speak to a celebrity guest as they bring along three mystery objects from their home.

At the end of each episode, BBC fans will discover if the person wants to keep, donate or recycle their item in true Sort Your Life Out Style.

With promises of tears, laughs and surprises along the way, Dilly teased what people can expect to see and hear in a behind-the-scenes preview.

On Sort Your Life Out’s official Instagram, the BBC star can be seen posing in a studio as she says: “Finally, I can reveal what I’ve been up to!

“I am going to be the host of a brand new podcast called Sort Your Life Out Unpacked. Look at my beautiful set.

Showing a tour of the studio, it had a miniature Sort Your Life Out house, which is often seen in the warehouse of the regular show, alongside a photo of the other team members, including Stacey Solomon, Robert Bent and Iwan Carrington.

Explaining a bit more about the concept of the podcast, she told people that when the celebrity brings in the items, she’ll have no idea what they are beforehand.

Dilly added: “This is going to be the celebrity podcast that teaches you all about celebrities’ homes. It’s the one you don’t want to miss.”

They captioned the post: “We can’t wait for you to listen to the brand new Sort Your Life Out Unpacked podcast with our very own Dilly Carter! Coming tomorrow on @bbciPlayer and tune in on @BBCSounds #SYLO #Podcast #SortYourLifeOut #DillyCarter.”

It wasn’t long before people commented on the clip, with many sharing their excitement at the announcement.

One person said, “Congratulations, lovely lady. Exciting, can’t wait!” Someone else wrote: “OMG I NEEDED THIS!!!!!!!!!!! Dilly, I will be listening to it on repeat.”

Sharing the news on the BBC social media account last week, another person commented: “We can’t wait to listen!” As someone else shared: “So proud of you xx”

A synopsis for the new podcast series reads: “Amongst funny anecdotes and personal revelations, we learn how to organise and sort our own lives out.

“Celebrity guests include Elizabeth Day, Lorraine Kelly, Fatiha El-Ghorri, Kerry Katona, Eddie Kadi, Dr Alex George, Sophie Ellis-Bextor, Sort Your Life Out’s own Stacey Solomon and many more.”

Sort Your Life Out Unpacked launches on BBC Sounds and BBC iPlayer on April 7.

CNN will host a California gubernatorial primary debate May 5.

The two-hour debate will take place at 6 p.m Pacific time at a venue in the Los Angeles area that is yet to be determined. CNN anchors Elex Michaelson and Kaitlan Collins will serve as moderators.

The debate will air live across CNN, CNN International, CNN en Español and, for viewers without cable, on CNN’s subscription streaming service.

Participating candidates must have at least 3% support among likely primary voters in two state polls or an average of 3% across two polls that meet CNN’s methodology standards. The polls must be released between Feb. 1 and April 27.

The candidates must also have raised, contributed or lent to their campaigns at least $1 million, based on publicly available data from the California secretary of state.

Candidates from both parties are eligible to participate due to California’s “jungle primary” system, in which all candidates appear on the same ballot regardless of political affiliation. The top two finishers advancing to a November runoff, even if they are both from the same party.

Two Republicans, conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, are the leading candidates, according to a poll released Wednesday by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

The poll showed six Democratic candidates currently qualifying for the debate under CNN’s standards: U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, former House Rep. Katie Porter, philanthropist Tom Steyer, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, former state Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa and San José Mayor Matt Mahan.

CNN typically does not carry debates involving candidates in statewide races, but the network believes that the California contest is significant enough for a national platform.

“One out of approximately every eight Americans lives in the Golden State and it is at the forefront of some of the most complex challenges of our time,” said David Chalian, CNN’s political director and Washington bureau chief. “California’s jungle primary system also allows for the debate to include a wide spectrum of viewpoints and proposals to tackle those challenges that will reverberate across the country in this pivotal election year.”

WASHINGTON — Less than a week after he and other House Republican lawmakers rejected a Senate plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security — but not its immigration enforcement operations — Speaker Mike Johnson has made a complete about-face.

Johnson’s embrace of a two-track Senate bill marks a sharp reversal, after he had derided it as a “joke,” and said he was “quite convinced that it can’t be that every Senate Republican read the language of this bill.”

But now that Johnson appears to be fully on board, securing support from his own conference could prove more difficult after a sizable group of House Republicans blasted the Senate-passed bill last week.

President Trump said Thursday he will sign an order to pay all Homeland Security employees who have gone without paychecks during the partial government shutdown that has reached a record 48 days.

Trump used a similar maneuver to resume pay for the Transportation Security Administration after many employees had called out from work, resulting in long delays at airport security lines for travelers. Trump’s latest intervention is expected to apply to other non-law enforcement employees at the department, including many employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard and the agency responsible for coordinating federal cybersecurity efforts.

Despite that unilateral move announced in a social media post, the funding lapse for some Homeland Security needs is likely to stretch into next week as the House contemplates passing the very same Senate plan it previously rejected.

There was no legislative resolution Thursday after both the House and Senate met for just a few minutes in pro forma sessions. Nonetheless, the Republican leadership and Trump have coalesced around a plan to fully fund Homeland Security as part of a two-step process. The agreement puts the congressional leaders on the same page for ending the impasse after they had pursued separate paths that resulted in Congress leaving Washington for its spring recess without a fix.

During the brief sessions, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) put aside the House plan to fund the entire department for 60 days. Then the House met briefly without taking up the bipartisan Senate plan that had been worked out with Democrats, though Thune is looking toward eventual passage.

“I don’t know the particulars around what the House will do with it,” Thune told reporters. “My assumption is, at some point, hopefully, they’ll move it.”

Johnson’s about-face

Johnson (R-La.) and Thune announced Wednesday that they would return to the Senate measure, which funds most of Homeland Security with the exception of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol. Republicans will try later to fund those agencies through party-line spending legislation that could take months to finish.

Neither outcome is guaranteed, and the strategy could potentially still face opposition from the GOP’s ranks even though Trump has given his support.

House Republicans held a conference call later Thursday to discuss the next steps. The GOP leadership indicated to lawmakers that it does not expect to recall them to Washington during the spring recess; they are due back April 14.

Public backlash was swift after lawmakers left Washington last week without a resolution, with the tabloid website TMZ posting paparazzi-style photos of members at airports and out of town. The regularly scheduled break, while drawing criticism, is typically used by lawmakers to reconnect with constituents and travel abroad.

Lawmakers also heard from White House budget director Russ Vought. The White House is expected to release Trump’s 2027 budget proposal on Friday.

Funding ICE remains a hurdle

Democrats in both chambers were aligned last week with the Senate’s plan, and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York blamed House Republicans on Thursday for taking no action on it during the brief morning session.

“The deep division and dysfunction among House Republicans is needlessly extending the DHS shutdown and hurting federal workers who are missing another paycheck,” Schumer said.

Johnson will look to persuade the most conservative lawmakers within his conference to go along with the two-step approach agreed upon with the president, and Trump’s latest social media post could help. The president thanked Thune and Johnson for their work, and sought to project Republican unity.

“Republicans are UNIFIED, and moving forward on a plan that will reload funding for our FANTASTIC Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers,” Trump wrote.

Many in the GOP conference have taken the stance that ICE and the Border Patrol need to be included as part of any funding agreement.

“Let’s make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again,” Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) posted on X. “If that’s the vote, I’m a NO.”

Meanwhile, the budget package that Trump wants voted on by June 1 is expected to fund ICE and Border Patrol through the remainder of Trump’s term, as a way to try to ensure those agencies are no longer at risk from Democrats objecting to his immigration enforcement agenda.

Thune acknowledged the potential hurdles to that route, such as efforts to expand the scope of the bill. He said the goal is to keep it “as narrow and focused as possible” in order to pass it “with haste.”

The vast majority of Homeland Security employees have reported to work during the shutdown, but many thousands have gone without pay. As more Transportation Security Administration agents called out from work, there was increasing frustration for air travelers confronted by long waits at some airport security lines. Those bottlenecks appeared to be clearing this week as agents began receiving backpay after Trump signed an executive order.

About 10,000 FEMA workers are being paid because their wages come out of the non-lapsing Disaster Relief Fund. At least 4,000 FEMA employees are furloughed or currently working without pay.

Freking and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Strong majorities of California voters believe American democracy is under attack and, in the wake of U.S. Supreme Court rulings narrowing federal protections, support enacting a new state Voting Rights Act to prohibit discrimination and efforts to suppress the ability to cast a ballot, a new poll showed.

The survey showed a sharp partisan divide over increasing voting rights protections, with Democrats and political independents overwhelmingly in favor and a majority of Republicans opposed. Fears that American democracy was either under attack, or at the very least being “tested,” were shared across political allegiances, according to a new poll released Thursday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

“I think that it suggests that the California voters, especially Democrats and independents, are very worried about some of what they’ve seen going on in Washington, both the court decisions and the Trump administration,” said Eric Schickler, the institute’s co-director. “They see it as threatening kind of core American values.”

That anxiety comes after years of baseless claims by President Trump that the 2020 election was stolen from him, as well as Republican-led efforts to restrict the use of mail-in ballots and impose new requirements for voters to show identification and proof of citizenship.

Trump earlier this week signed an executive order to place new federal controls on voting by mail in states such as California, an action that Democrats called unconstitutional and vowed to challenge in court.

Schickler said Republican concerns about the fate of American democracy may stem in large part from allegations about voter fraud hyped by Trump and his supporters, including unfounded claims that droves of undocumented immigrants are swaying elections.

The survey found that 67% of California voters believe American democracy is under attack, including 84% of Democrats, 40% of Republicans and 64% of voters registered as “no party preference” or with other political parties. An almost equal number of Republicans, 38%, believed democracy was being “tested” but not under attack, compared with 13% of Democrats and 26% of independents. The remainder of those surveyed said American democracy is in no danger.

The partisan divide was more pronounced when voters were asked if they wanted California to enact its own Voting Rights Act after decisions by the Supreme Court limited federal protections against discrimination and unequal access to ballots, the poll found.

Overall, 66% of California registered voters backed adopting new state voter protections, with 88% of Democrats supporting new laws compared with 25% of Republicans and 66% of voters who are political independents or belong to other parties. Support for new state laws was strongest among Black voters — 72% — who historically have been targeted with discriminatory voting policies, including Jim Crow-era laws such as literacy tests and poll taxes.

The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned those policies, ensuring that the right to vote cannot be denied because of race. The law also ensured that Black Americans and other communities of color had the opportunity to participate in all parts of the political system and elect the leaders of their choosing, influencing how political districts are drawn. The act was reauthorized by Congress in 2006 by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

“Now it has come to the point where the president has tried to convince people that somehow equal voting rights is bad, because, in his words, ‘The wrong people are voting right,’” said Matt Barreto, faculty director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project, referring to Trump. “You have super majorities, very large percentages of Californians, who want the state to do more to protect voting rights, I think, because of the very tenuous climate right now, with the president constantly going after states for vote by mail and trying to get their voter rolls and these other sorts of things.”

Recent rulings by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court also have rolled back federal protections under the Voting Rights Act. A pending case, Louisiana vs. Callais, which involves the drawing of congressional districts, may overturn some of the remaining protections, Barreto said.

“I think people should be extremely nervous this court has not shown a lot of support for voting rights, and that’s the reason why California has an opportunity to pass its own state laws,” he said.

Among the laws California legislators could adopt, Barreto said, would be protections for early voting, banning onerous requirements on voters to prove citizenship and provide identification, and ensuring that congressional and other political districts are created to allow minority groups to elect representatives of their choice.

The Berkeley poll also found widespread support among California voters for requiring that the top three financial backers supporting and opposing ballot measures be listed in official ballot voter guides. A majority of Californians also supported expanding access to translation and interpreter assistance for populations that make up at least 5% or 5,000 voters in a county.

The Berkeley IGS poll surveyed 5,109 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 15. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

Funding for the poll was provided to IGS by the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, a private foundation based in San Francisco that aims to increase civic participation and improve the state’s democratic processes.

WASHINGTON — As President Trump assembled his Cabinet last week, he asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance to give an update on the Iran war.

Rubio, known for his hawkish views, gave an impassioned defense of the war, calling it “a favor” to the United States and the world.

Vance, who has long pushed for restraint in U.S. military intervention overseas, was more sedate. He said that the U.S. now has “options” it didn’t have a year ago and that it is important Iran does not get a nuclear weapon — before redirecting his remarks toward wishing the troops a happy Easter.

The exchange was a distillation of their diverging postures toward the war that their boss has launched in Iran. And it comes as some would-be Republican presidential candidates begin quietly courting officials in key states like New Hampshire in the early stages of the GOP’s next nomination fight.

With Vance and Rubio seen as the party’s strongest potential candidates in a 2028 primary, the two have to balance their roles in the Trump administration with their future political plans.

“It’s very obvious from the way that Rubio talks about Iran and the way that Vance talks about Iran that they are of different casts of mind,” said Curt Mills, the executive director of “The American Conservative” magazine and a vocal critic of the war. The Cabinet meeting episode was telling, he said, because it seemed as though Vance, discussing Easter, was “literally trying to talk about anything else other than the war.”

The White House addressed the Rubio-Vance relationship on Wednesday in an unsolicited statement after the initial publication of this article.

“President Trump has full confidence in both Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio, who continue to be trusted voices within the administration,” said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. “He values both the vice president and the secretary’s opinions and wealth of expertise.”

It’s too soon to forecast how Republican voters might feel about the war next spring, when the 2028 contest is expected to begin in earnest, but the risks for both Vance and Rubio are acute. Rubio’s full-throated support for the war could come back to haunt him depending on how the conflict develops. Vance, meanwhile, would risk accusations of disloyalty if he were to stray too far from Trump, but struggles to square an appearance of support for the war with his past comments.

Vance, who served in the Marines in the Iraq war, has said that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but he’s long been skeptical of foreign military interventions.

Trump seemed to allude that Vance may have held onto that position in private discussions about Iran, telling reporters that Vance was “philosophically a little bit different than me” at the outset of the conflict.

“I think he was maybe less enthusiastic about going, but he was quite enthusiastic,” Trump said.

Though Vance has been careful in how he speaks about the war, what he’s not saying has been conspicuous. On a March 13 trip to North Carolina, he was twice asked by reporters if he had concerns about the conflict. Each time, he said it was important that Trump could have conversations with advisers “without his team then running their mouths to the American media.”

A few days later at the White House, when Vance was again asked if he had concerns, he accused the reporter of “trying to drive a wedge between members of the administration, between me and the president.”

For Rubio, long before he became the country’s chief diplomat, he voiced support for muscular foreign policy and American intervention abroad.

Days into the war, he told reporters that it was “a wise decision” for Trump to launch the operation, that there “absolutely was an imminent threat” from Iran and that the operation “needed to happen.”

State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott pointed to last week’s Cabinet meeting as evidence that “the entire administration is in lockstep behind President Trump.”

“Secretary Rubio is proud to be on the team implementing President Trump’s policies, and he has a great relationship, both professionally and personally, with the entire team,” Pigott said.

Fractures are emerging in the GOP

The apparent split between Rubio and Vance on the Iran war is emblematic of the divide starting to cleave within the Republican Party. A recent survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found some divisions within the GOP on Iran, with about half of Republicans saying the U.S. military action has been “about right.” Relatively few Republicans, about 2 in 10, say military action has not gone far enough, while about one-quarter say it’s gone too far.

While some conservatives have described the war as a betrayal, many other Republicans have cheered on the president’s actions.

Alice Swanson, a 62-year-old who attended Vance’s event in North Carolina, said she wants Vance and Rubio to run together in 2028 but favors the vice president.

“I think he fully believes and supports exactly what his convictions are,” Swanson said.

Swanson acknowledged, nonetheless, that Vance has been an outspoken opponent of interventionist policy but has been quieter on the subject since the war. “I can see both sides,” Swanson said after expressing full support for Trump’s decisions.

Tracy Brill, a 62-year-old from Rocky Mount, spoke highly of Rubio, but declared, “I love JD Vance.”

She made it clear she sides with the president, calling the course he’s taken “spot on.” But she defended the vice president if he seems at odds with his past statements, noting politicians do it frequently. “They’ve all changed their positions at one point or another,” she said.

However, Joe Ropar, attending the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, said Rubio’s unequivocal support for the Iran war helped crystallize his preference for the secretary of state for 2028.

“I’m not looking at JD Vance for president, and it’s for stuff like that,” said Ropar, a 72-year-old retired military contractor from McKinney, Texas. “I don’t 100% trust him.”

Benjamin Williams, of Austin, Texas, said at CPAC that both Trump and Vance are “tied to this war.” The 25-year-old marketing specialist for Young Americans for Liberty is looking elsewhere for a candidate.

The political risks might not be known until the field fills out

Whether the war becomes a political problem for Vance and Rubio depends on who ultimately enters the GOP’s next presidential primary.

While Vance and Rubio are currently considered the overwhelming front-runners, former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu expects a half dozen high-profile Republicans to enter the contest.

Sununu and former RNC Committeewoman Juliana Bergeron told The Associated Press that multiple Republican presidential prospects have reached out to them in recent weeks to discuss the political landscape in the state that traditionally hosts the opening presidential primary; they declined to name them.

Republican strategist Jim Merrill, a top New Hampshire adviser for Rubio’s 2016 presidential bid, predicted that Iran would become a flashpoint in 2028 — just as the Iraq war was for Democrats in 2004 and 2008.

“If for some reason things don’t go as anticipated, there will be contrasts drawn,” he said.

Still, Sununu is doubtful that Iran would become a meaningful dividing line in a prospective Vance-Rubio matchup given their status as prominent members of the Trump administration. Both will likely take credit if the conflict ends well, and both would look bad if it does not, he predicted.

“They’re tied together with the success or failure of Iran. It doesn’t really separate one versus the other, at least I don’t think that’s how the electorate will see it,” Sununu said.

Price and Peoples write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York. AP writers Matthew Lee in Washington, Bill Barrow in Rocky Mount, N.C., and Thomas Beaumont in Grapevine, Texas, contributed to this report.

Céline Dion is officially coming back to the stage.

The singer announced on Instagram that she will return to the stage this fall, performing 10 shows at the Paris La Défense Arena. In 2022, Dion canceled her North America tour due to muscle spasms. She was later diagnosed with stiff-person syndrome, an autoimmune neurological disorder, which prevented her from performing.

The concert announcement comes after speculation last week by fans in Paris who spotted posters around the city referencing Dion’s songs, including “Power of Love” and “Pour Que tu M’aimes Encore.”

Dion, who turned 58 on Monday, called this news “the best gift” of her life.

“I’m so happy. I’m so ready to do this. I’m feeling good. I’m strong,” Dion said. “I’m feeling excited, obviously. Of course, a little nervous, but most of all, I am grateful to all of you. I can’t wait to see you again.”

While Dion performed at the opening ceremony of the 2024 Olympics in Paris and at an Elie Saab fashion show in Saudi Arabia, she has not headlined her own concert since her Courage World Tour in 2020. In her video, Dion thanked her fans, who supported her in the “most difficult times.”

“Over these last few years, every day that’s gone by, I felt your prayers and support, your kindness and love,” Dion said. “You’ve helped me in ways that I can’t even describe, and I’m truly so fortunate to have your support. I’ve missed you so much.”

Dion will perform twice a week — on Wednesdays and Saturdays — from Sept. 12 to Oct. 14. In a press statement, Frédéric Longuépée, president of La Défense Arena, called Dion’s residency a major milestone for the venue, which opened in 2017.

Fans can register for presale tickets until April 2, and general ticket sales will go on sale April 10.

Dion discussed her battle with stiff-person syndrome in her 2024 documentary, “I Am: Celine Dion.” In the film, the singer explained how SPS causes a vocal strain that makes it difficult for her to perform. Before her 2022 diagnosis, she had already experienced symptoms for 17 years.

While SPS has no known cure, Dion did not lose motivation to continue performing.

“If I can’t run, I’ll walk. If I can’t walk, I’ll crawl, but I won’t stop,” Dion said.

WASHINGTON — Buried in the fine print of the massive deficit-reduction bill is–of all things–a brand new social program.

The new program will cost $1 billion over the next five years–somewhat less than the Clinton Adminstration had requested, but still a substantial sum in this era of tight budgets.

Supporters, including Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, insisted that some provisions in the new program actually would save the government money in the long run. Even many of the program’s supporters questioned that assertion, however, although they insisted that the money is worth spending in any case.

The family preservation and support program–along with expanded spending for childhood immunization, tuberculosis prevention, food stamps, “empowerment zones” intended to help inner cities and the earned income tax credit for low-income workers–represents the flip side of the massive budget cutting and tax-raising efforts of the bill. All told, those social programs–aimed in large part at helping families with children–will receive an additional $29 billion from the bill.

“The President’s long-term investments for kids and families have been very well supported by this bill,” said Shalala.

The social-program funds not only were key to keeping some of President Clinton’s policy initiatives alive, they were crucial to winning support for the budget in the heavily Democratic House, where liberal Democrats and members of the Congressional Black Caucus had threatened to vote against the budget bill unless it contained money to back up at least part of Clinton’s promise to “invest” in programs for the poor.

“There are a number of important features in this bill that represented the basis for many liberal and progressive Democrats to feel they could support the overall budget,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles).

The survival of the family preservation program, which at several points during the long budget negotiations seemed likely to die, would mark the end of a long legislative road. The program would give money to the states for early intervention and support programs for troubled families. It has passed the House three times and was approved by both chambers last year as part of another piece of legislation ultimately vetoed by then-President George Bush.

Supporters of the program argued that, by intervening early, social workers can help troubled families before their situations deteriorate so much that the state has to place children in costly foster care programs.

Skeptics, including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), argued that the ability of social workers to accomplish those goals has never been proven. At one point during budget talks, Moynihan derided the program as “welfare for social workers,” several participants said.

But other legislators argued that, even if the program does not save money by avoiding foster-care placements, it will provide badly needed help for children. “This creates early intervention to keep children from being abused,” said Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), who was the program’s chief sponsor in the House.

The program “has been pared down a good deal, but at least we got it,” Matsui said.

The birth of this new program is an object lesson in how legislators and Administration officials can use the arcane rules of the budget-cutting process to advance other items on the legislative agenda.

Over the years, Waxman has become a master at that art. This time around, he engineered a new $200-million program to expand the number of tuberculosis patients who can receive federal Medicaid benefits over the next five years. He also played a key role in winning money for the Administration’s proposed child immunization program, which would receive $585 million under the budget bill.

Although immunization has been a high priority for Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Waxman and other supporters of the program had to overcome opposition not only from congressional conservatives but from some White House officials who were willing to accept much lower dollar amounts for the program as they sought to hit their deficit-cutting goals, according to Administration and congressional sources.

Under the tuberculosis program, people who are poor but not otherwise eligible for Medicaid–primarily single men without children–and who have active tuberculosis can receive government-supplied out-patient services if the state they live in decides to participate. Public health officials said they hope that the additional money will reduce the rapid spread of the disease by targeting a group of people who often do not receive care.

The immunization program has two major components. The first part will provide $500 million over the next five years to pay for vaccinations for 2.6 million children whose families lack insurance. The money also will cover the 6.5 million children now covered under Medicaid, relieving the states of a financial burden.

The second part of the bill, which has drawn howls of outrage from drug manufacturers, would allow all states to buy vaccines in bulk at the price manufacturers provide to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–something 11 states now do. The CDC has negotiated steep discounts from the prices that drug companies charge private pediatricians.

WASHINGTON — With the Iran war in its fifth week, support for President Trump is at its lowest point ever, with a growing body of recent polling showing him losing ground with key voting blocs that helped power his 2024 victory.

While public dissatisfaction is evident among many groups surveyed, the decline in support for the president has been most pronounced among Latino voters.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released March 24 found 36% of voters approve of the president’s job performance, the lowest it has been during his second term. The poll found 62% disapproved.

Other polls, such as the AP-NORC poll, placed the figure at 38%.

In all, the president is underwater on almost every single public policy issue. With the exception of crime, which sits around 47% approval, he has recorded no gains in any polled category, according to experts.

On immigration, the president’s marquee issue, approval fell from roughly 45% in late 2025 to 39% in February, according to Reuters.

About 1 in 4 respondents approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, Reuters found, as domestic gas prices surged by more than $1 per gallon after fighting commenced last month. The share of Republicans who disapprove of his handling of cost-of-living issues rose 7 points in one week to 34%.

The shift comes amid growing economic unease and amplified backlash over the war in Iran. About 1 in 3 Americans approve of the military operation, according to a Reuters survey.

And a growing divide among prominent conservatives has emerged over the U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

The clashes have played out in public and are exposing tensions within the Republican Party, with conservative commentators such as Megyn Kelly openly questioning whether the war is in America’s best interest.

“This is not a foreign policy that makes sense and it is not what Trump ran on. It is, in many ways, a betrayal of his campaign promises, what he sold himself as and of his MAGA base,” Kelly said earlier this month.

Other conservative pundits, including Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, are also opposed.

But the real damage is showing up in the one place Trump can’t afford to lose: his base.

Trump entered his second term buoyed by historic gains with Latino voters. Exit polls indicated he improved his standing with them by more than 20 percentage points in 2024 compared with his 2016 victory, fueling widespread narratives that the demographic was undergoing a durable shift toward Republicans. In all, 48% of Latinos gave him their support in the last election.

Since then, his approval among Latino voters has plummeted to 22%, according to a March 2026 analysis by the Economist.

In a bipartisan poll by UnidosUS released in November, 14% of Latino voters said their lives were better after Trump took office, while 39% said they had gotten worse.

The president’s rapport with Latinos reflects a deep dissatisfaction with economic conditions, according to Mike Madrid, a veteran California Republican political consultant and expert on Latino voting trends.

“Overwhelmingly, this is a function of the economy and affordability,” he said. “Latino voters moved away from Biden-Harris for the exact same reasons that they’re moving away from Donald Trump right now.”

Research and polling suggests Latino voters prioritize cost-of-living issues — such as housing, wages and inflation — over immigration, a topic often emphasized in national messaging.

“It’s not even close,” Madrid said. “Immigration is not even a top 5 issue for Latino voters.”

Madrid suggested the demographic rallying is less a “reversion” and more a reflection of a rapidly changing electorate.

“Latinos have emerged as the only true swing vote in America,” he said. “And they’re rejecting whichever party is in power.”

These volatile, double-digit voting shifts directly contrast more stable voting patterns among other major demographic groups, including the Black and white electorates, where shifts from cycle to cycle tend to be just a few points.

The reason: dramatic turnout fluctuations. Who decides to show out or stay home on election day tends to change by the year. It’s compounded by the fact that there are far more first-time Latino voters than in any other category.

Polling this month suggests Trump is also losing ground among young voters, another group that contributed to his 2024 gains.

More than half of men under the age of 30 supported Trump in that election, helping him turn several swing states.

In just a year, that demographic has cratered by 20 points.

“Trump won in 2024 because of men. They are abandoning him right now,” CNN senior data analyst Harry Enten said Tuesday.

The reversals could have massive implications for the November midterm elections, particularly in competitive congressional districts where small swings could determine control of the House.

Republicans have warned that if they lose hold of their narrow congressional majority, Trump is likely to face a third impeachment.

UCLA political scientist Matt Barreto said movement away from Republicans is already visible in real-world election outcomes, not just polling.

“We’ve already seen in the Virginia and New Jersey legislative and gubernatorial elections really large shifts in the Latino vote, 25 points back to the Democratic Party,” Barreto said. He added that similar patterns have emerged in places such as Miami and Texas, where Democratic candidates have outperformed expectations with strong Latino support.

Latino Democrats who sat out the 2024 election are returning to the electorate, while some Latino Republicans are disengaging, he said.

That dynamic could prove decisive in November. There are more than 40 congressional districts where the number of registered Latino voters exceeds the margin of victory in 2024, Barreto said. Many of them are closely divided between the parties.

“At the district level, the Latino vote is going to make a huge impact,” he said.

Do newspaper endorsements for president still matter? Certainly not as much as they once did, but that doesn’t stop most newspapers (including this one) from exercising their 1st Amendment right to spout off about their choice of candidate, and it doesn’t stop the presidential campaigns from breathlessly reporting each and every endorsement as if it were handed down by the Oracle of Delphi.

So who’s winning the endorsement race?

That all depends on how you look at it.

According to Editor & Publisher, the longtime bible of the newspaper business, the tally as of Saturday was 112 for Republican Mitt Romney and 84 for President Obama. That list didn’t include papers from Sunday, when many delivered their endorsements, but it suggested a shift from 2008, when E&P;’s final tally showed daily newspapers — which historically have skewed Republican — endorsing Obama over Republican John McCain by a better than 3-2 margin, 296 to 180

The American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara has also been tracking endorsements, but it limits its list to the 100 largest newspapers. On average, they tend to have more liberal editorial pages, presumably reflecting their locations in Democratic-leaning big cities. As of Sunday, the project showed 33 endorsements for Obama and 27 for Romney. (Although most newspapers have issued their endorsements by now, a significant number are apparently waiting for the final week of the campaign.)

The tally reflects some notable gains for the GOP, however. According to the American Presidency Project, nine of the 100 top newspapers have switched sides from Obama to Romney since 2008, whereas only one went the other direction.

Among those abandoning the president was his Arlington Heights, Il., Daily Herald in his home state, which cast its lot — albeit a bit hesitantly– with Romney on Sunday.

“We believe that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are good and decent men who care about the country,” the newspaper wrote. “We believe each possesses extraordinary skills and talent. But, philosophically, it is clear that one trusts government too much; the other appears to trust it too little.” The editorial went on to criticize “the tone of Obama’s relentless insinuations that wealthy Americans refuse to pay their fair share. That tone is divisive and damaging for the nation and for our economy. It creates villains and victims, and unfairly so.” That, it said, was, “ultimately, the point where we must break with him.”

The San Antonio Express-News was the only one of the big papers to go the other way. It had endorsed McCain in 2008. This year, it said that while Obama has “had his failings,” such as a failure to pursue immigration reform and to tackle the debt crisis, “These shortcomings … don’t justify a change in leadership, particularly when many of Mitt Romney’s proposals — such as an across-the-board 20 percent cut in taxes and the elimination of unspecified itemized deductions — invite skepticism.”

Concluded the Express-News: “No candidate has all the right policies — that includes Barack Obama. But having weathered the challenges of the last four years, we believe he is in a better position to guide the nation over the next four years — and has earned from voters the privilege to do so.”

It is probably in the nature of newspaper editorials to stop short of adulation and unbridled enthusiasm. That certainly is the case with virtually all the endorsements of Obama and Romney, very few of which are wholehearted.

The Chicago Tribune (owned by the Tribune Co., which also owns The Times) endorsed Obama, but its editorial page editors said, “On questions of economics and limited government, the Chicago Tribune has forged principles that put us closer to the challenger in this race, Republican Mitt Romney. We write with those principles clearly in our minds. Romney advocates less spending, less borrowing — overall, a less costly and less intrusive role for government in the lives of the governed.” So why not just endorse Romney? The Trib concluded that he had been “astonishingly willing to bend his views to the politics of the moment: on abortion, on immigration, on gun laws and, most famously, on healthcare.”

And several newspapers that did endorse Romney expressed the hope that, if elected, he would turn out to be the moderate Romney, not the “severe” conservative he presented himself to be in the Republican primaries.

“Let us stipulate,” said the Houston Chronicle, the largest newspaper to switch from Obama in 2008 to Romney this year. “The Mitt Romney we are endorsing is the Massachusetts moderate who worked successfully alongside an 88 percent Democratic majority in the state Legislature to produce what the Obama administration says became its model for national healthcare reform.”

Not everyone was so equivocal. The New York Post, never known for mincing words, did not choose this occasion to begin.

“Four frustratingly long years ago, a war-weary and economically battered America took a flier on a savior,” the Post wrote.

Next paragraph, in full: “It didn’t work out.”

Some newspapers that endorsed candidates in 2008 decided not to pick anyone this year. The Oregonian, in Portland, supported Obama four years ago, during a campaign in which he held one of his largest rallies in that city. The paper sounded a bit miffed this year when it said it wasn’t endorsing anyone this time around because the candidates hadn’t campaigned in Oregon. “The access and close observation that inform our endorsements for state and local offices and Congress do not apply in a national race; our CNN-level view of the presidential race is similar to everyone else’s,” the paper said.

The New York Times was the largest of the nation’s newspapers to endorse a candidate. It concluded Saturday that Obama “has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless.” Romney, it said, “has gotten this far with a guile that allows him to say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear. But he has tied himself to the ultraconservative forces that control the Republican Party and embraced their policies, including reckless budget cuts and 30-year-old, discredited trickle-down ideas.”

The two largest newspapers in the country, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, do not usually issue formal endorsements, although the Journal has made no secret of its strong preference for Romney.

The Los Angels Times, for what it’s worth, endorsed Obama and followed up with an explanation from Editorial Page Editor Nick Goldberg of why the newspaper endorses anyone at all, given its mandate to be nonpartisan and unbiased in its news articles. The article contained one reminder of the historically less-than-awesome power wielded by newspaper endorsements: The Times’ first endorsement, in 1884, was for Republican James G. Blaine.

Remember him?

mitchell.landsberg@latimes.com

Twitter: @LATlands

GRAPEVINE, Texas — A generational divide over the Iran war surfaced between older attendees and their political heirs at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, as the group’s leaders pleaded for unity in a challenging midterm election year for Republicans.

Younger conservatives at CPAC, which concluded Saturday, spoke of disappointment and even betrayal over President Trump’s war against Iran, saying in interviews with the Associated Press that the president’s actions run counter to his many pledges to oppose foreign entanglements.

Meanwhile, older conservatives were looking past Trump’s campaign criticism of military action to achieve regime change, arguing that the war in Iran is a pragmatic act necessitated by threats to the United States.

The bright dividing line emerged in conversations with a dozen participants on either end of the age spectrum who gathered this week for the annual meeting of conservatives, being held outside Dallas. That split could reflect flagging enthusiasm for Trump among some younger voters, a potentially troubling sign for Republicans heading into midterm elections and for the conservative movement as it looks beyond Trump’s tenure.

“We did not want to see more wars. We wanted actual America-first policies, and Trump was very explicit about that,” said Benjamin Williams, a 25-year-old marketing specialist for Young Americans for Liberty. “It does feel like a betrayal, for sure.”

Worries about sending troops to Iran

Williams, from Austin, Texas, said he worries about his friends in the military, especially his Air Force officer brother. More broadly, he sees the war as an unnecessary disruption to the stability in the Middle East that could have long-term negative effects on the U.S. economy.

“Trump’s rhetoric was very important for people of my generation,” Williams said.

Auburn University sophomore Sean O’Brien’s support for Trump has slipped, especially with his talk of sending U.S. ground troops into Iran. “I’m not happy,” he said.

Sending troops into Iran, he said, “would be full betrayal.”

With at least 1,000 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division deploying in the Middle East, O’Brien said, “That’s what keeps me up at night.”

Older attendees’ views

Older CPAC participants were far more supportive of the war effort, describing Trump as wisely responsive to what they described as the threat Iran posed. Several suggested that Trump did not initiate the war, but that Iran had decades ago.

“I don’t believe he started a new war. He was acting in response to a 40-year-old war by Iran,” said 70-year-old retired defense contractor Joe Ropar of McKinney, Texas. “How long were we supposed to wait? I think he did what he had to do when he had to do it.

“Do nothing? I’m not on board with that,” Ropar said.

Echoing a common theme from older participants, Kelle Phillips said Trump’s decision was a pragmatic reaction to a real threat that overrules the best hopes of campaign rhetoric.

“You campaign on what you want to do and then the world’s dynamics happen,” said Phillips, a 61-year-old author and religious instructor from Frisco, Texas. “I think the difference is if you have someone in the Iranian regime who wants to destroy America, you can’t reason with them.”

Trump’s goals in Iran, James Scharre believes, are short-term and not a concern for those adverse to a long slog overseas.

Scharre, 61, also interprets Trump’s steadfast campaign opposition to regime change as a preference, not an ironclad promise.

“I think he said he was against it,” he said. “Trump is a wise leader. He does what works. And I’m for it.”

High-profile conservatives also split

Cracks in the conservative coalition began appearing early in the war, led by influential opinion leaders like podcaster Tucker Carlson, a staunch opponent of the Iran war.

Joe Kent recently quit his post as Trump’s director of the Center for Counterterrorism at the Department of Homeland Security, saying in his departure statement that “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran” and that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.”

Right-wing podcaster Stephen K. Bannon, a longtime Trump advisor and former White House aide who is expected to speak at CPAC, has worried aloud that a protracted Mideast military engagement would cost Republicans support by pushing some conservatives to sit out the November midterms.

This comes at a time when Republicans’ hold on the U.S. House is in jeopardy and the GOP’s thin Senate majority is not as secure as it appeared just a few months ago.

A recent survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicates that while Trump’s approval rating is low but holding steady, the conflict could be turning into a major political liability for his administration. About 59% of Americans say U.S. military action in Iran has been excessive, the poll found.

Calls for unity

CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp acknowledged conservatives were divided over Iran and said the convention’s annual straw poll will include a question about it. The results were to be released later Saturday.

“Any consensus is still to be determined. I think people trust President Trump, so I don’t think there’s been any shaking of his support,” Schlapp told the AP. “But I think underneath there’s concern about where does this lead.”

Tiffany Krieger, a 20-year-old sophomore at the University of Pittsburgh, said her onetime level-10 support for Trump has dipped to 5 over the war.

“It seems like the love for him is plateauing. We see our party splitting apart and we’re supposed to be united,” said Krieger, of Harrisburg, Pa. “I think this issue with the war has put a line through the conservative movement.”

Almost if addressing Krieger directly, Mercedes Schlapp, senior fellow for the CPAC foundation, opened Thursday’s session of the conference in Texas with a direct appeal.

“We cannot divide from within,” she told an audience of hundreds from the stage at the convention center. Referring to political opponents, she added: “Let’s stay united. They want us divided.”

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press.