trump

Shutdown standoff forces US President Trump’s hand as airport queues spiral and security staff go unpaid.

Immigration enforcement agents will be deployed across major United States airports from Monday, President Donald Trump has announced, in an extraordinary move to ease a security crisis triggered by a prolonged political standoff in Washington.

Trump confirmed the plan in a social media post on Sunday, with his senior border official Tom Homan named to lead the effort.

This came after weeks of mounting chaos at airport security checkpoints and a day after Trump threatened the move unless Democrats backed down on a funding battle.

The crisis stems from Congress’s failure to renew funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the federal agency that oversees airport security.

Since February 14, tens of thousands of workers, including Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners responsible for passenger checks, have continued working without receiving paycheques.

More than 366 have since resigned, according to DHS, and unscheduled absences have more than doubled, leaving major airports struggling to cope.

“This loss significantly decreases TSA’s ability to meet passenger demand and leaves critical gaps in staffing, as each new recruit requires 4-6 MONTHS of training,” it said last week in a post on X.

Queues at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson and New York’s JFK airports stretched for hours at the weekend, with New Orleans advising passengers to arrive at least three hours before departure.

Union officials say some officers have taken on second jobs, while several airports have begun collecting food and gift cards for staff who can no longer make ends meet.

Homan said agents from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), trained in law enforcement and immigration, not airport security, would take on supporting roles, such as monitoring exit lanes and checking identification, freeing TSA officers to focus on screening lines.

“I don’t see an ICE agent looking at an X-ray machine,” he acknowledged on Sunday, adding that a detailed plan for which airports and how many agents would be finalised by the end of the day.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy warned the situation was “going to get much worse” before it improves.

At the heart of the standoff is a bitter dispute over immigration enforcement.

Democrats have refused to pass a full DHS funding bill unless the administration agrees to reforms of ICE. Their demands hardened after federal agents fatally shot two US citizens, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, during immigration raids in Minneapolis in January.

Democrat Senator Dick Durbin said his party had attempted nine times to pass emergency funding for DHS entities including the TSA, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Coast Guard. Republicans have blocked each attempt, insisting on a single comprehensive funding package for the entire department.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries warned bluntly that deploying “untrained ICE agents” at airports risked repeating the conduct that had already cost lives.

In an unusual intervention, billionaire and Trump ally Elon Musk said he would “offer to pay” the salaries of TSA workers.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — A statue of Christopher Columbus has been placed on the grounds of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, the latest effort by President Trump’s administration to recognize the controversial explorer.

The statue is a replica of one that was tossed into Baltimore’s harbor in 2020 during Trump’s first term at a time of nationwide protests against institutional racism.

Trump endorses a traditional view of Columbus as a leader of the 1492 mission seen as the unofficial beginning of European colonization in the Americas and the development of the modern economic and political order. In recent years, Columbus also has been recognized as a primary example of Western Europe’s conquest of the New World, its resources and its Native people.

“In this White House, Christopher Columbus is a hero, and President Trump will ensure he’s honored as such for generations to come,” the White House posted on X.

“We are delighted the statue has found a place where it can peacefully shine and be protected,” said John Pica, a Maryland lobbyist and president of the Italian American Organizations United, which owns the statue and agreed to lend it to the federal government for placement at or near the White House.

The statue, made mostly of marble, was created by Will Hemsley, a sculptor based in Centreville on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

The original statue was toppled by protesters July 4, 2020, and thrown into Baltimore’s Inner Harbor during the national social justice reckoning in the months after the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. It was one of many statues of Columbus that were vandalized around the same time, with protesters saying the Italian explorer was responsible for the genocide and exploitation of Native peoples in the Americas.

In recent years, some people, institutions and government entities have displaced Columbus Day with the recognition of Indigenous Peoples Day. President Biden in 2021 became the first U.S. president to mark Indigenous Peoples Day with a proclamation.

Trump dismisses the shifting views on Columbus as the work of “left-wing arsonists,” bending history and twisting Americans’ collective memory. “I’m bringing Columbus Day back from the ashes,” he declared last April. Echoing his 2024 campaign rhetoric, he complained that “Democrats did everything possible to destroy Christopher Columbus, his reputation, and all of the Italians that love him so much.”

Witte writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy was supposed to start the year with a bang, fueled by a jump in tax refunds from President Trump’s tax cut legislation. But soaring gas prices are on track to eat up those refunds, leaving most Americans with little extra to spend.

“Next spring is projected to be the largest tax refund season of all time,” Trump boasted in a prime-time speech in December intended to address voter concerns about the economy and stubbornly high prices, though exaggerating the anticipated refunds.

But that was before the Iran war, which the U.S. and Israel began on Feb. 28. Oil and gas prices have skyrocketed since then, with the nationwide average price of gas reaching $3.94 Sunday, up more than a dollar from a month earlier.

Gas prices are likely to remain elevated for some time, even if the war ends soon, because shipping and production have been disrupted and will take time to recover. Economists now expect slower growth this spring and for the year, as dollars that are spent on gas are less likely to be used for restaurants, new clothes or entertainment.

Lower- and middle-income households are likely to be hit particularly hard, because they receive smaller refunds and spend a greater proportion of their earnings on gas.

“The energy shock is to going to hit those who have the least cushion,” said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy at the left-leaning Groundwork Collaborative and a former economist in the Biden White House. “And it doesn’t look like those tax refunds are going to be here to save them.”

Neale Mahoney, director of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, calculates that gas prices could peak in May at $4.36 a gallon, based on oil price forecasts by Goldman Sachs, followed by slow declines for the rest of the year. The notion that gas prices decline much more slowly than they rise is so ingrained among economists that they refer to it as the “rocket and feathers” phenomenon — rising like a rocket before falling like a feather.

In that scenario, the average household would pay $740 more in gas this year, nearly equal to the $748 increase in refunds that the Tax Foundation has estimated the average household will receive.

Through March 6, refunds have risen by much less than that, according to Internal Revenue Service data: They have averaged $3,676, up $352 from $3,324 in 2025. Still, average refunds could rise as more complex returns are filed.

Other estimates show similar impacts. Economists at Oxford Economics, a consulting firm, estimate that if gas prices average $3.70 a gallon all year, it will cost consumers about $70 billion — more than the $60 billion in increased tax refunds.

The gas price spike comes with many consumers already in a precarious position, particularly compared with 2022, when gas prices also soared because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. At that time, many households still had fattened bank accounts from COVID-19 pandemic-era stimulus payments and companies were hiring rapidly and sharply lifting pay to attract workers.

Now, hiring is nearly at a standstill and Americans’ saving rate has steadily fallen in the last few years as many households borrow more to sustain their spending.

“When you start looking across the perspective from a consumer side, you’re seeing people who have maxed out their credit cards, are using ‘buy now, pay later’ to purchase their groceries,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation think tank. “They’re making it work for now, but that can fall apart quite quickly.”

The consequences are likely to worsen the “K-shaped” phenomenon in the U.S. economy, analysts said, in which higher-income households have fared better than lower-income households. The bottom 10% of earners spend nearly 4% of their incomes on gasoline, Pantheon Macroeconomics estimates, while the top 10% spend just 1.5%. The Trump tax breaks also benefited the wealthiest taxpayers most.

For now, most analysts still expect the U.S. economy to expand this year, even if more slowly, given the gas price shock. Higher gas prices will probably worsen inflation in the short run, and over time weaker spending will also slow growth.

American consumers and businesses have repeatedly shaken off shocks since the pandemic emergency — soaring inflation, rising interest rates, Trump’s tariffs — and continued to spend, defying concerns that the economy would tip into recession. Many economists note that the proportion of their incomes that Americans spend on gas and other energy has fallen significantly compared with a decade ago.

Data from the Bank of America Institute released Friday showed that spending on gas on the bank’s credit and debit cards shot 14.4% higher in the week ended March 14 compared with a year ago. Before the war, such spending was running 5% below the previous year, a benefit to consumers.

Spending on discretionary items — restaurants, electronics and travel — is still growing, the institute said, evidence of consumer resilience. But there is little sign it is accelerating, as many economists had hoped.

“The longer these gasoline prices persist, the more that will gradually sap consumer discretionary spending,” said David Tinsley, senior economist at the institute.

Other analysts expect growth will slow because of the war. Bernard Yaros and Michael Pearce, economists at Oxford Economics, forecast that the U.S. economy will grow just 1.9% this year, down from an earlier estimate of 2.5%.

“We had anticipated a lift in spending from a bumper tax refund season,” they wrote, “but the rise in gasoline prices, if sustained, would more than offset that boost.”

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

The “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine is a central feature of U.S. strategy designed to secure hegemony and limit Chinese and Russian influence in Latin America and the Caribbean. It does not, however, represent a decisive shift in Washington’s relations with the region. Although the corollary does not make this explicit in its formal statement, in practice it makes more evident what liberal rhetoric has long sought to mask: military and covert interventions aimed at preserving U.S. domination in the Western Hemisphere, undermining progressive movements and governments, and backing right-wing regimes. In this sense, it abandons even the pretense of respect for international law and human rights. In what follows we argue that the Trump Corollary constitutes not only an ideological and imperialist offensive against decolonial and multipolar currents in Latin America, but also a strategic project whose assault on Venezuela has broader geopolitical implications.

The ideological backdrop

Although Washington’s unrestrained militarism, which enjoys bipartisan support, is indeed cause for alarm, the erosion of even the pretense of commitment to liberal-democratic values, human rights, and international law did not begin with the Trump administration. The live-streamed Israeli genocide in Gaza, enabled and backed by the Biden administration, has made this difficult to deny. Moreover, it highlights how the U.S.-European axis has normalized impunity for systematic violence against non-combatants. This erosion of even its own professed liberal values has helped consolidate a political climate in which the Trump administration could intensify its offensives against Venezuela and Cuba and pursue a war of aggression against Iran.

This normalization of necropolitics can be better understood through the ideological logic used to justify it. We can make sense of this logic by distinguishing between two different tendencies within Western Eurocentric modernity. On the one hand is the myth of European supremacy, what Enrique Dussel calls the “developmentalist fallacy,” which has been used to justify colonization, with its racial hierarchy, since the invasion of Amerindia in 1492. On the other is a rational, emancipatory current rooted in ideas of community, equality, and liberty. As critical historians have shown, these emancipatory traditions did not originate solely in Europe; they were also present among some Indigenous peoples, such as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, whose Great Law of Peace established participatory forms of government centuries before European contact. Historically, these ideals were never extended fully to colonized peoples, nor to people of color within the metropole. This contradiction persists. Washington’s recent rhetoric justifying attacks on Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran expresses the colonial, violent side of modernity while discarding its emancipatory, humanist dimensions.

Civilizational rhetoric and the objectives of the Trump Corollary

It is this myth of European supremacy, often expressed with religious fervor even when stripped of its humanist facade, that serves as the ideological justification for the offensives launched this year. This worldview was crystallized in a speech delivered by Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the 62nd Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2026. That speech anticipated the inauguration in Miami, on March 7, of Shield of the Americas, a new U.S. partnership with right-wing allies in Latin America and the Caribbean, to be led by former Secretary of DHS Kristi Noem. Rubio, in effect, called for a rejection of historical accountability, stating:

We do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame. We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it. . . . The great Western empires had entered into terminal decline, accelerated by godless communist revolutions and by anti-colonial uprisings that would transform the world and drape the red hammer and sickle across vast swaths of the map in the years to come.

This rhetoric illustrates Rubio’s disdain for anti-colonial struggles that commenced not with the Cold War and communism, but at the very start of the European invasions of Amerindia. Indeed, the “guilt and shame” surrounding the subjugation and exploitation of Indigenous peoples was expressed as early as the sixteenth century, when Bartolomé de Las Casas documented and denounced the tortures inflicted upon them in the name of a European civilizing mission. The same civilizational appeal surfaced again at the Miami summit, where Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called upon members of the Shield to defend their shared cultures and, in particular, “Western Christian civilization.” By casting anti-colonialism as an insidious force, Rubio’s rhetoric functions to blunt decolonial critiques of the Trump Corollary.

Despite Washington’s zeal for exporting Western ideals, decolonizing currents in Latin America’s political, economic, social, and cultural life have taken deep root. Since the 1960s, Marxism, along with liberation theology, liberation philosophy, and Indigenous struggles for self-governance, have helped articulate ethical and political critiques of colonial domination, racial hierarchy, and dependent forms of development from the perspective of the Global South. Indigenous cosmovisions and the philosophy of buen vivir have influenced constitutional and political life in the region and beyond. For example, the United Nations now recognizes the concept of the rights of nature as central to sustainable development. The recognition of the rights of Mother Earth has also been incorporated into the constitutions of both Bolivia and Ecuador, and the plurality of Indigenous and Afro-descendent nationalities is recognized in several Latin American constitutions.

The Trump Corollary emerges in direct opposition to these decolonial currents. It seeks to restore U.S. primacy over the hemisphere’s governance and resources by curtailing the region’s expanding commercial and diplomatic ties with China, Russia, and other non-Western partners. To advance this agenda, Washington has worked to destabilize or overthrow progressive governments while favoring right-wing administrations more aligned with its interests, in some cases through intimidation, electoral interference, or direct military intervention. Much like the Alliance for Progress, Operation Condor, and the invasion of Panama before it, this latest evolution of the Monroe Doctrine invokes the pretext of security to reassert Washington’s influence over hemispheric political and economic life while limiting the region’s turn toward greater autonomy. Yet that effort confronts a regional reality that Washington cannot easily reverse. Trade relations transcend political divisions in Latin America and the Caribbean. And in South America, China has become the principal trading partner for much of the subregion. This complicates Washington’s efforts to rein in Latin America’s turn toward multipolarity. China’s Third Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean presents the region as an “essential force” in the move toward a multipolar world and economic globalization, and describes the bilateral relationship in terms of equality, mutual benefit, openness, and shared well-being. This stated approach stands in clear contrast to the Trump Corollary’s posture of coercion, Western supremacy, and geopolitical subordination. It is, in part, this regional turn toward multipolarity that the assault on Venezuela seeks to counter.

Venezuela: The central case

The violent reality of the Trump Corollary has been most clearly revealed in Venezuela. Washington’s campaign of deadly strikes against maritime vessels in the Caribbean, a series of extrajudicial killings that claimed the lives of more than 145 people, served as a prelude to the January 3 surprise aerial assault on Caracas, named Operation Absolute Resolve. The maritime victims included people from nations such as Colombia, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela who were targeted without public evidence of narco-trafficking or due process. Operation Absolute Resolve itself claimed the lives of more than 120 people, including civilians and security forces, and culminated in the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. In Venezuela, the Trump Corollary deploys military force, coercive diplomacy, and control over strategic resources. It also deals a blow to the Bolivarian cause by making an example of a state that has stood as the leading force of regional independence and integration for more than two decades.

Rather than moving, in the short term, to dismantle Chavista institutions, as many Venezuelan opposition hard-liners in Miami and Madrid expected, the Trump administration in the aftermath of Operation Absolute Resolve instead has resorted to “deal-making” with Acting President Delcy Rodríguez. The recognition of interim president Delcy Rodríguez as “the sole Head of State” of Venezuela might be part of an effort by the Trump administration to strip President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores of the presidential immunity to which they are entitled. Despite Trump’s praise for a supposedly mutually beneficial relationship with the Chavista government, this is not a win-win situation. Acting President Rodríguez is attempting to balance Washington’s demands for unfettered access to the country’s natural resources with Venezuela’s own economic interests and the long-term survival of the Bolivarian Revolution. That coercive political context also affects the economic arrangements now taking shape in Venezuela.

As new economic agreements are being “negotiated,” major Venezuelan state assets previously frozen, seized, or placed beyond Caracas’s control remain unrecovered. Prior to Operation Absolute Resolve, the U.S. seized Venezuelan aircraft and targeted ships carrying Venezuelan oil that U.S. authorities said were involved in sanctions evasion. The most egregious case is that of Citgo, Venezuela’s most valuable foreign asset. Caracas has already lost real control over it, and U.S. courts are now overseeing proceedings that could permanently strip Venezuela of ownership to pay creditors.

More recently, a series of Trump administration officials have gone to Caracas to press for greater U.S. influence over Venezuela’s oil industry. They have also “negotiated” with the Chavista government to bring about legal reforms that will facilitate U.S. investment in the extraction of critical minerals and other natural resources. According to Venezuela Analysis (02/20/26), “The Trump administration is forcing all royalty, tax, and dividend payments from Venezuelan oil production [to] be paid into accounts managed by Washington.” For Venezuelan critics of U.S. intervention, these arrangements may result in a significant transfer of national wealth under pressure. Other observers argue that renewed investment could bring Venezuela badly needed revenues. In any case, there is no doubt that these economic arrangements are being carried out in a coercive context.

Regional extensions of the corollary

The offensive against Venezuela did not occur in isolation. It was soon followed by a strangling energy embargo on Cuba designed to provoke a humanitarian crisis to bring about “regime change.” After more than sixty-six years of U.S. embargo against Cuba, this latest escalation is intended not only to destabilize and isolate the island but also to shatter the morale of the forces of resistance throughout the region. At the same time, it has galvanized worldwide solidarity, despite the betrayals of governments that have succumbed to U.S. pressure to expel Cuban doctors and dismantle other forms of Cuban internationalist assistance. Meanwhile, the administration has been pressuring Mexico with the specter of unilateral military strikes against drug cartels, signaling a disregard for Mexico’s repeated insistence on its own sovereignty. In Colombia, Washington antagonized President Gustavo Petro with politically charged drug-trafficking allegations and threats of military intervention, a confrontational posture that later gave way to rapprochement after Petro met with Trump at the White House. In Honduras, the U.S. intervened to back the presidency of the right-wing candidate Nasry “Tito” Asfura who won the presidential election in December 2025 and took office on January 27.

The latest example of this interventionist regional posture was the U.S.-Ecuadorian military operation launched on March 3, which conducted bombings near the Colombian border in northeastern Ecuador, ostensibly aimed at narco-terrorists and illegal mining. In Ecuador, as in Peru, small-scale artisanal mining is often practiced within Indigenous communities living near mineral deposits and employs methods with a far lighter environmental impact than industrial-scale extraction. Whatever its stated purpose, the operation may have the effect of displacing artisanal mining and opening mineral-rich territory to large North American transnational corporations. In brief, by convening twelve compliant right-wing regional leaders in Miami, the Shield of the Americas summit serves to institutionalize Washington’s renewed drive toward regional hegemony. But the significance of this offensive is not only regional.

Geopolitical implications

The Trump Corollary has geopolitical importance because the recent offensive to consolidate U.S. hegemony in the Americas has served as a strategic prelude to the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. The offensive in Venezuela not only stops Venezuelan crude from reaching Cuba, thereby sharpening the knife of the subsequent energy embargo, but also secures strategic leverage over the largest oil reserves in the world ahead of Iran’s restrictions on passage through the Strait of Hormuz. In this sense, Venezuela is not peripheral to the wider conflict, but central to it. This does not, however, mean that the Trump administration ever had a clear, coherent rationale for starting this war of aggression against Iran.

The ever-shifting rationale for the war was at first framed in terms of protecting demonstrators in Iran, then became an effort to overthrow the government, and has now dissolved into incoherence, with no consistent justification offered at all. In any case, the war may also carry broader geopolitical implications, insofar as prolonged disruption in Gulf oil exports would place pressure on China, whose energy needs depend heavily on Middle Eastern crude shipments. It is also beginning to generate visible political strains within NATO, as doubts about the direction of the war grow in Europe, with Spain as the clearest example. It has likewise raised concerns among some U.S. allies in the Gulf about the wisdom of continuing to host major U.S. bases.

Taken together, the shifting rationale for the war, the U.S.-Israeli callous disregard for civilian life and infrastructure, its mounting economic costs, and the danger that the conflict could spiral out of control and raise the specter of the possible deployment of nuclear weapons suggest that the decision to wage war on Iran was a profound miscalculation, one harmful not only to Iran and the wider region, but also to the people of the U.S. and the global economy. It also exhibits in stark relief the same colonial ideology that underlies the Trump Corollary. For these reasons, opposition to the war, as well as to the Trump Corollary, is growing both at home and abroad.

William Camacaro is a Venezuelan-American  National Co-Coordinator in the Alliance for Global Justice. He was a co-founder of the Bolivarian Circle of New York “Alberto Lovera” and Senior Analyst for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA). He holds a Master’s Degree of Fine Arts and a Master’s Degree in Latin American Literature from City University of New York. William has published in the Monthly Review, Counterpunch, COHA, the Afro-America Magazine, Ecology, Orinoco Tribune and other venues. He has organized delegations to Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela. He has been a long-time activist for social justice in the United States, such as organizing protests against police brutality in NYC, for the independence of Puerto Rico, and for the freedom of political prisoners. William has also been a leader in defense of progressive governments and social movements in Latin America.

Frederick B. Mills, Ph.D., is professor of philosophy and a member of the Philosophy of Liberation Association and the American Philosophical Association. He has received awards for excellence in teaching and international outreach from Bowie State University. Mills has published articles on philosophy of mind, ethics and public policy, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Mario Bencastro, Enrique Dussel as well as political analysis on contemporary Latin American politics. He has contributed articles to Counterpunch, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, and other independent media.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Source: Orinoco Tribune

March 22 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump is threatening to obliterate Iran’s power plants if it doesn’t re-open the Strait of Hormuz and allow oil tankers through.

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump posted on Truth Social Saturday night.

CNN quoted Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad ⁠Baqer Qalibaf as saying that if Trump carries out this plan, Iran will retaliate by attacking infrastructure and energy facilities throughout the Middle East, driving up the prices for oil even further than they have been for the past three weeks.

The New York Times said about 175 people were injured Sunday morning in Iranian missile attacks on Arad and Dimona, residential neighborhoods in southern Israel.

The locations are near Israel’s biggest nuclear research and reactor center.

Last week, Trump asked members of NATO, whose countries depend on the oil transported through the Strait of Hormuz, to help re-open and police the essential trade route between Iran and Oman.

Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Japan responded with a statement of support that said, “We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait.”

Iran closed the waterway Feb. 28 after the United States and Israel tried to destroy Iran’s nuclear program and long-range missile manufacturing facilities.

What began as a social media post from President Trump on Saturday has grown quickly into a full-scale plan to deploy ICE agents to U.S. airports.

Amid a partial government shutdown, TSA lines have grown to be hours long at some U.S. airports, creating problems for travelers across the country. Call-out rates have started to increase at some airports, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said at least 376 TSA agents have quit since the partial shutdown began Feb. 14.

White House border advisor Tom Homan said that ICE plans to dispatch agents to airports as soon as Monday, and that he was working with other officials to determine where to send agents.

“It’s a work in progress,” Homan said during a Sunday appearance on CNN. “But we will be at the airports tomorrow helping TSA move those lines along.”

Homan stressed that ICE agents would provide support where possible, so that TSA staffers could better fulfill specialized positions.

“I don’t see an ICE agent looking at an X-ray machine, because they are not trained in that,” Homan said.

On Saturday, President Trump posted to social media, “If the Radical Left Democrats don’t immediately sign an agreement to let our Country, in particular, our Airports, be FREE and SAFE again, I will move our brilliant and patriotic ICE Agents to the Airports where they will do Security like no one has ever seen before.”

The pushback to the White House plans was immediate.

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, released a statement that read, “Masked, armed police at travel checkpoints is a hallmark of dystopian movies. Now, Donald Trump is threatening to bring this tool of fascism to America. He is manufacturing chaos at airports for political leverage and trying to force Democrats to accept unaccountable secret police at security checkpoints around the country.”

Also speaking to CNN on Sunday, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, “The last thing that the American people need are for untrained ICE agents to be deployed at airports all across the country, potentially to brutalize or, in some instances, kill them. We’ve already seen how ICE conducts itself.”

Representatives from Los Angeles International Airport did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for Orange County’s John Wayne Airport said she was not currently aware of any communication or Homeland Security guidance on the proposed plan.

A spokesperson for San Francisco International Airport said airport officials have not yet received anything specific from Homeland Security about a deployment of ICE agents. He said SFO security personnel are not part of TSA, and as a result, the airport has not had any checkpoint backups.

This is the April 21, 2021, edition of the Essential Politics newsletter. Like what you’re reading? Sign up to get it in your inbox three times a week.

Outgoing presidents often leave decisions for their successors to take on.

Over the last two decades, and four presidents, how to end America’s longest war — in Afghanistan — has been among the largest open questions. President Biden inherited it from President Trump, who inherited it from President Obama, who took it from President George W. Bush. Unpopular, seemingly unending and unwinnable, the war is a case study in how the choices of one administration echo into the next.

Last week, Biden formally announced a deadline of Sept. 11 — the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks that provoked the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan — to end military involvement in the country.

“War in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multigenerational undertaking,” he said.

The prospective exit also has been years in the works. Obama promised to scale back U.S. involvement, but first he sent a surge of troops. Trump vowed several times to withdraw all troops, making chaotic progress that stopped short of a full exit. Biden is now the third president to make a similar commitment.

Whether he will follow through remains to be seen. My colleagues David S. Cloud and Tracy Wilkinson have extensively covered the American involvement in Afghanistan, from Trump’s growing tensions with the Pentagon over withdrawal to the lives of Afghanistan’s youngest generation, which was born into U.S. occupation.

Taken together, their work over the last few years reveals the deep roots of Biden’s promise, and the complicated history that will color his path forward.

The long path to leaving

January 2017: A president who promised peace leaves office after eight years of war

During his first presidential campaign, Obama pledged to end the war in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq. He ended his presidency as the first two-term president to see U.S. forces at war for all eight years.

Experts saw his legacy as mixed. He did reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan, cutting their ranks to 8,400, and his administration reduced American deaths — if not Afghanis’ — by relying on diplomacy and on drones to launch airstrikes. Yet intelligence officials said the U.S. faced more threats in more places than the country had seen since the Cold War. “We’re now wrapped up in all these different conflicts, at a low level and with no end in sight,” one expert told The Times.

August 2017: Trump presides over a stalemate and negotiated settlement

Trump the candidate ran as a tough-on-the-Taliban leader, promising a hard-fought and fast victory to end U.S. engagement. But Trump the president softened when it came time to reveal formal plans, Cloud and Wilkinson wrote with former Times reporter W.J. Hennigan. Fighting continued — to show U.S. forces could not be pushed out — while Trump promised that the 16-year war might end “some day” in a negotiated settlement. It was an acknowledgment that victory would elude a president who loved to win and refused to concede defeat.

“This entire effort is intended to put pressure on the Taliban, to have the Taliban understand you will not win a battlefield victory,” then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said. “We may not win one, but neither will you. So at some point, we have to come to the negotiating table and find a way to bring this to an end.”

By February 2018, the Trump administration proposed a defense budget that increased spending in Afghanistan by almost $2 billion, for a total of $48.9 billion in the next fiscal year.

December 2018: Trump presses for peace talks and announces a withdrawal of half of troops

That month, a series of announcements signaled Trump’s growing dissatisfaction with involvement in Afghanistan. Increased Taliban attacks had caused hundreds of Afghan civilian and military casualties a month, prompting Trump administration officials to press for a cease-fire agreement, but with dim prospects, Cloud wrote.

Less than two weeks later, administration officials announced a drastic plan: withdraw up to half of the 14,000 American troops serving in Afghanistan, potentially by summer. The backlash was swift from U.S. lawmakers, allies and even the Pentagon. Defense Secretary James N. Mattis was so furious that Trump would abandon allies in Syria and Afghanistan that he resigned in protest, as Cloud reported.

February-May 2020: A truce and a landmark agreement to withdraw

With 12,000 troops still in Afghanistan, the Trump administration brokered a temporary deal with the Taliban to reduce violence for a week in February, Wilkinson reported. The test was a success, and on Feb. 29, U.S. and Taliban officials signed an accord to end the war. The Taliban would prevent Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from using Afghan territory to threaten the U.S., without renouncing its terrorist ties. In return, the U.S. would withdraw its troops within 14 months, setting a deadline of May 1, 2021.

The plan again drew backlash, from former Trump and Obama administration officials, who warned a complete withdrawal could backfire, Cloud, Wilkinson and Stefanie Glinksi reported. Even as conflict continued between the Taliban and the Afghan government into May, the Trump administration remained committed to removing troops.

November 2020: Hopes of exiting before the election dashed

Trump, hoping that a full exit in 2020 would boost his reelection prospects, made clear to advisors that he cared little about conditions in Afghanistan, Cloud and Wilkinson reported. He wanted out, period. By July, the number of troops on the ground had shrunk to 8,600.

But as the peace talks the U.S. hoped to broker struggled to get off the ground, administration officials said about 4,000 troops would have to remain into November. The Pentagon said too rapid a withdrawal would doom the talks, invite violence and cause American forces to have to abandon valuable equipment. Trump said he wanted a withdrawal by the end of his term in January, and in November — as he refused to concede his loss to Biden — he ordered troop levels reduced in Iraq and Afghanistan, to 2,500 in each country.

Trump’s relationship with Congress further deteriorated in December, in part over the bipartisan pushback to his withdrawal plans. It was among the reasons he cited in vetoing the annual National Defense Authorization Act, Cloud and Jennifer Haberkorn wrote.

April 2021: Biden says it’s “time to end the forever war.”

When Biden took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2,500 troops remained in Afghanistan. But the new president faced the decision of whether to honor Trump’s May 1 deadline for withdrawing them — the final exit from the war, Cloud wrote. Once again, Defense Department officials pressured the president to delay a full withdrawal as the deadline the Trump administration negotiated with the Taliban approached.

On April 14, Biden made his decision public: The drawdown would proceed, but not so quickly. The U.S. would fully exit by Sept. 11, Cloud and David Lauter wrote.

“I am now the fourth United States president to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan. Two Republicans. Two Democrats,” Biden said. “I will not pass this responsibility onto a fifth.”

The top half of the front page of the Los Angeles Times on Oct. 9, 2001.

(Los Angeles Times)

Policing, policy and the Minneapolis verdict

— The conviction of former Police Officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd reenergized a push for sweeping criminal justice reform by President Biden and leading Democrats, who said Tuesday’s verdict was just the first step on the path to national healing, report Evan Halper, Eli Stokols and Sarah D. Wire.

— Anticipating an uproar, Facebook said it would crack down on violent content, hate speech and harassment ahead of the Chauvin verdict. But as Brian Contreras reports, critics are wondering why the platform doesn’t take those precautions all the time.

The latest on the environment

— China, Japan and South Korea are the world’s biggest funders of coal-fired power plants around the globe — and the Biden administration is looking to win their agreement to deep cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade, write Anna M. Phillips and Wilkinson.

— Biden will convene leaders from around the world on Thursday and Friday as he marks the United States’ return to the global fight against climate change, Chris Megerian writes. Three people with knowledge of the White House plans say Biden will pledge to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at least in half by 2030.

— Solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars will go far in helping California and the Biden administration meet their aggressive climate goals — but not far enough. As time runs short, scientists and government officials say the moment to break out the giant vacuums has arrived, Halper writes.

More from Washington

— Vice President Kamala Harris traveled to North Carolina on Monday to talk about economic opportunities and electric school buses as part of the Biden administration’s efforts to promote its roughly $2-trillion infrastructure, clean energy and jobs plan, Noah Bierman writes.

— The Supreme Court is weighing whether immigrants granted temporary protected status can get green cards — and if the Biden administration will make that decision, David G. Savage reports.

— The Justice Department has brought charges against hundreds of people who stormed the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, but one of its most pivotal potential cases involves a man who never set foot inside the building, writes Del Quentin Wilber.

— After Jan. 6, many of the nation’s largest corporations pledged that they would suspend donations to elected officials who opposed the certification of Joe Biden’s victory, hindered the peaceful transfer of power or incited violence. The vast majority kept their word, report Seema Mehta, Maloy Moore and Matt Stiles.

— What is there left to say about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Plenty, it turns out. In a new biography, Pelosi dishes on chiding Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and using the nickname “Moscow Mitch,” writes Wire.

US President Donald Trump has threatened to ‘obliterate’ Iran’s power plants if Tehran fails to open the Strait of Hormuz to all vessels within 48 hours. This major escalation comes as Trump faces pressure over skyrocketing domestic energy prices due to the now three-week-long war.

Tehran responds to Trump’s threat by saying all US energy infrastructure in the region will be targeted if Iran is attacked.

United States President Donald Trump has threatened to attack Iran’s power plants if freedom of navigation is not fully restored at the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours, a dramatic escalation as the US-Israeli war on Iran continues for a fourth week.

The statement on Saturday came as Trump faces increasing pressure to secure the vital waterway that Iran has promised to keep closed to “enemy ships”, leading to soaring oil prices and plunging stock markets.

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST,” Trump, who is in his Florida home for the weekend, wrote on Truth Social at 23:44 GMT.

He did not specify which plant he was referring to as the biggest.

Following Trump’s threat, the Iranian army said it would target all energy infrastructure belonging to the US in the region if Iran’s fuel and energy infrastructure were attacked.

Trump’s escalatory comments came barely a day after he talked about “winding down” the war that he launched alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 28, when the US and Iran were engaged in nuclear negotiations.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump said the US was “getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East”.

Key waterway

Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world’s oil and gas passes through during peacetime, has virtually ground to a halt since the early days of the war.

Iran has said the Strait of Hormuz is open to all except the US and its allies, with Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi saying last week that he had been “approached by a number of countries” seeking safe passage for their vessels.

“This is up to our military to decide,” he told the US television network CBS, adding that a group of ships from “different countries” had been allowed to pass, without providing details.

The head of US Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, asserted on Saturday that Iran’s ability to attack vessels on the strait had been “degraded” after US fighter jets dropped 5,000-pound (about 2,300kg) bombs on an underground Iranian coastal facility storing antiship cruise missiles and mobile launchers earlier this week.

The strike also destroyed “intelligence support sites and missile radar relays” used to monitor ship movements, Cooper said.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Manuel Rapalo said there seemed to be a “gap between what the White House appears to want in the Strait of Hormuz and what the US military says they have already accomplished”.

“It is interesting, to say at the very least, to hear Trump talking about a major escalation, given the fact that we’ve been hearing throughout the course of the day how much damage the US has done, supposedly, to Iran’s ability to target oil tankers and vessels navigating through the strait.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump took the United States to war without a vote of support from Congress, but lawmakers are increasingly questioning when, how and at what cost the war with Iran will come to an end.

Three weeks into the conflict, the toll is becoming apparent. At least 13 U.S. military personnel have died and more than 230 have been wounded. A $200-billion request from the Pentagon for war funds is pending from the White House. Allies are under attack, oil prices are skyrocketing, and thousands more U.S. troops are deploying to the Middle East with no endgame in sight.

“The real question is: What ultimately are we trying to accomplish?” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told the Associated Press.

“I generally support anything that takes out the mullahs,” he said. “But at the end of the day, there has to be a kind of strategic articulation of the strategy, what our objectives are.”

Trump said late Friday that he was considering “winding down” the military operations even as he outlined new objectives and goals and despite the continued buildup of forces in the region.

Congress stands still

The president’s decision to launch the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is testing the resolve of Congress, which is controlled by his party. Republicans have largely stood by the commander in chief, but will soon be faced with more consequential wartime choices.

Under the War Powers Act, the president can conduct military operations for 60 days without approval from Congress. So far, Republicans have easily voted down several resolutions from Democrats designed to halt the war.

But the administration will need to show a more comprehensive strategy ahead or risk blowback from Congress, lawmakers said, especially as they are being asked to approve billions in new spending.

Trump’s casual comment that the war will end “when I … feel it in my bones” has drawn alarm.

“When he feels it in his bones? That’s crazy,” said Virginia Sen. Mark R. Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

House speaker says mission is ‘all but done’

The president’s party appears unlikely to directly challenge him, even as the conflict drags on. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said the military operation will be over quickly.

“I do think the original mission is virtually accomplished now,” Johnson told the AP and others at the Capitol this week.

“We were trying to take out the ballistic missiles, and their means of production, and neuter the navy, and those objectives have been met,” he said.

Johnson acknowledged that Iran’s ability to threaten ships in the Strait of Hormuz is “dragging it out a little bit,” especially as U.S. allies have largely rebuffed the president’s request for help.

“As soon as we bring some calm to the situation, I think it’s all but done,” Johnson said.

But the administration’s stated goals — of ending Iran’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon and degrading its ballistic missile supplies, among others — have perplexed lawmakers as shifting and elusive.

″Regime change? Not likely. Get rid of the enriched uranium? Not without boots on the ground,” Warner said.

“If I’m advising the president, I would have said: Before you take on a war of choice, make the case clear to the American people what our goals are,” he said.

The power of the purse

The Pentagon has told the White House that it is seeking an additional $200 billion for the war effort, an extraordinary amount that is unlikely to win support. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York called the amount “preposterous.”

The Defense Department’s approved appropriations from Congress this year are more than $800 billion, and Trump’s tax breaks bill gave the Pentagon an additional $150 billion over the next several years for various upgrades and projects.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said the country has other priorities.

“How about not taking away funding for Medicaid, which will impact millions of people? How about making sure SNAP is funded?” she said, referring to the healthcare and food assistance programs that were cut as part of last year’s Republican tax reductions.

“These are things that we should be doing for the American people,” she said.

Many lawmakers have recalled the decision by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to come to Congress to seek an authorization for the use of military force — a vote to support his proposed military actions in Afghanistan and later Iraq.

Tillis said Trump has latitude under the War Powers Act to conduct the military campaign, but that will soon shift.

“When you get into the 45-day mark, you’ve got to start articulating one of two things — an authorization for the use of military force to sustain it beyond that or a very clear path on exit,” he said.

“Those are really the options the administration needs to be thinking about.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

US President Donald Trump threatens to ‘obliterate’ Iran’s power plants if it fails to open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours. 

President Trump frequently contradicts himself, sometimes in the same speech, social media post or even sentence. On Friday, he sent a torrent of mixed signals about the Iran war that raise more questions about the direction of the conflict and his administration’s strategy.

Within a few hours, Trump said he was considering winding down the war, his administration confirmed it was sending more troops to the Middle East and, in an effort to lessen the economic influence on global energy markets, the United States lifted sanctions on some Iranian oil for the first time in decades — relieving some of the pressure that Washington traditionally has used as leverage.

The confusing combination of actions deepens a sense among Trump’s critics that there is no clear, long-term strategy for the war the U.S. and Israel launched against Iran. Now in its fourth week, the war remains on an unpredictable path and a credible endgame is unclear as the global economy is being roiled.

‘Winding down’ the war

After another rough day in the financial markets, Trump said Friday afternoon on his social media network: “We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East.”

Trump contended that the U.S. has adequately degraded Iranian naval, missile and industrial capacity and prevented Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

The president then suggested the U.S. could pull out of the conflict without stabilizing the Strait of Hormuz, the channel through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply travels. The strait has been ravaged by Iranian missile, drone and mine attacks during the war.

“The Hormuz Strait will have to be guarded and policed, as necessary, by other Nations who use it — The United States does not!” Trump wrote. But, in another contradiction, he said the U.S. would help if asked, “but it shouldn’t be necessary once Iran’s threat is eradicated.”

While oil that traverses the strait is usually bound for Asia and other places rather than North America, the chaos still affects the United States. Oil is bought and sold globally, so a shortage in oil for Asian countries leads to bidding up prices on oil sold to companies in America too.

That fact, coupled with an Israeli strike on Iran’s gas fields and an Iranian retaliation that crippled a major terminal to ship liquefied natural gas from Qatar, helped tank U.S. equity markets Friday, with the S&P dropping 1.5%. There also was a sharp increase in U.S. fuel prices.

More troops to the war zone

Even as Trump said the U.S. was close to winding down the war, his administration announced it was sending three more warships to the Middle East with about 2,500 additional Marines. It was the second time in a week that the administration said it was deploying more forces to the war zone. The military says some 50,000 are supporting the war effort.

Trump has often said he has ruled out sending in ground troops, but not always, and his administration has hinted at a possible deployment of special forces or similar units.

The Marines being sent to the region are an expeditionary unit designed for quick amphibious landings, but their deployment does not mean a ground invasion is certain. Analysts have suggested the presence of U.S. forces on the ground may be needed to ultimately secure the strait.

The surge in troops came just a day after news emerged that the Pentagon was seeking an additional $200 billion from Congress to fund the war. That extraordinarily high figure does not suggest that the war was winding down.

Lifting some sanctions on Iran

The administration said it would lift sanctions on the sale of Iranian oil, provided it was already at sea as of Friday. The move was an attempt to help lower skyrocketing energy prices by allowing freer sale of oil that Iran has let pass through the strait. It also extends a financial lifeline to the Iranian government that Trump is targeting.

His administration has tried other methods to lower oil prices. It has tapped the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve and lifted sanctions on some Russian oil. Yet Brent crude remained at $112 per barrel Friday, and analysts say oil prices are likely to remain high for months regardless of the next steps in the war.

The Iranian oil eventually would have reached another country, but now the United States and its allies can bid on it as well, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote on X.

“At present, sanctioned Iranian oil is being hoarded by China on the cheap,” Bessent wrote. “By temporarily unlocking this existing supply for the world, the United States will quickly bring approximately 140 million barrels of oil to global markets, expanding the amount of worldwide energy and helping to relieve the temporary pressures on supply caused by Iran.”

While 140 million barrels may seem like a lot, that is only a couple of days’ worth of oil on the global market.

Patrick De Haan, the head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, a U.S. fuel-tracking service, said he does not expect the temporary suspension to have a major influence on gas prices. The de facto closure of the strait has a much greater effect, he said. “Prices will likely still continue to rise so long as the Strait remains silent,” De Haan said.

And the contradictions in the position were obvious in Bessent’s post announcing the move, which labeled Iran “the head of the snake for global terrorism.” He said the administration would take steps to prevent Tehran from cashing in on the sales, but it was unclear how that would be done.

Even among some Republicans, the contradictions triggered rare public skepticism.

“Bombing Iran with one hand and buying Iran oil with the other,” South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace posted on X on Saturday.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press. AP business writer Dee-Ann Durbin in Ann Arbor, Mich., contributed to this report.

March 21 (UPI) — President Donald Trump threatened to send U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents to airports to cover for the Transportation Security Administration unless Democrats agree to Republican funding plans for the Department of Homeland Security.

On Truth Social, the president posted: “If the Democrats do not allow for Just and Proper Security at our Airports, and elsewhere throughout our Country, ICE will do the job far better than ever done before! The Fascist Democrats will never protect America, but the Republicans will.”

In an earlier post, he said ICE agents at airports “will do Security like no one has ever seen before, including the immediate arrest of all Illegal Immigrants who have come into our Country, with heavy emphasis on those from Somalia, who have totally destroyed, with the approval of a corrupt Governor, Attorney General, and Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, the once Great State of Minnesota.”

Former acting ICE Director John Sandweg told The Washington Post that the threat is being used as a punishment.

“This is again an example, it seems to me, of the president seeking to utilize ICE in a way that achieves political goals, almost as a punishment,” Sandweg said. “The operations, to me, don’t seem to be designed to focus on public safety.”

The DHS, which includes TSA, shut down on Feb. 14 because Congress couldn’t agree on a funding bill for the department. Democrats don’t want to fund it until guardrails are put on the agency, and Republicans haven’t agreed to Democrats’ demands.

Because of this, TSA workers have been working without pay for more than a month. Some are quitting or taking days off work, creating long lines at airports.

Earlier on Saturday, billionaire Elon Musk offered to pay the TSA salaries during the shutdown.

“I would like to offer to pay the salaries of TSA personnel during this funding impasse that is negatively affecting the lives of so many Americans at airports throughout the country,” Musk said on X. Axios reported that based on TSA’s headcount, it would cost him more than $40 million per week. The White House didn’t respond to Musk’s offer.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Saturday told Republicans to support a Democratic bill to fund TSA. He said airport delays have reached a “boiling point.”

“If you want TSA workers to get paid, then vote yes,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said in a statement that Trump should focus on his own party.

“Surely, the next thing people want after waiting hours in long TSA lines is to get wrongfully detained by ICE,” she said. “Here’s an idea: instead of sidelining TSA agents and sending ICE to harass travelers, the president should tell Republicans to stop blocking our bill to pay TSA.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Saturday that he will order federal immigration officers to take a role in airport security starting Monday unless Democrats agree on a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

In a pair of social media posts, Trump first threatened and then said he had made plans to put officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in airports if the congressional standoff continues. He made the announcement as a partial shutdown contributes to long lines to pass through screening at some of the nation’s largest airports.

The president suggested ICE agents would bring the administration’s immigration crackdown into the nation’s airports, promising to arrest “all Illegal Immigrants.”

“I look forward to moving ICE in on Monday, and have already told them to, ‘GET READY. NO MORE WAITING, NO MORE GAMES!’” Trump wrote while spending the weekend in Florida.

The move appears to be a pointed effort to expand the type of immigration enforcement that has become a sticking point in Congress. Democrats pledged to oppose funding for the Department of Homeland Security unless changes were made in the wake of a crackdown in Minnesota that led to the fatal shootings of two protesters. Democrats are asking for better identification for federal law enforcement officers, a new code of conduct for those agencies and more use of judicial warrants, among other measures.

The Minnesota operation was tied in part to allegations of fraud involving Somali residents. On Saturday, Trump said ICE officers sent to airports would focus on arresting immigrants from Somalia who are in the United States illegally. Repeating his criticism of Somalis, he said they “totally destroyed” Minnesota.

“If the Democrats do not allow for Just and Proper Security at our Airports, and elsewhere throughout our Country, ICE will do the job far better than ever done before,” Trump said.

Trump’s posts did not offer additional detail on how ICE would take a role in airport security and what it meant for the Transportation Security Administration, which screens passengers and luggage for hazardous items.

The vast majority of TSA employees are considered essential and continue to work during the funding lapse, but they are doing so without pay. Call-out rates have started to increase at some airports, and Homeland Security said at least 376 have quit since the partial shutdown began Feb. 14.

On Saturday, in a rare weekend session, the Senate rejected a motion by Democrats to take up legislation to reopen TSA and pay workers who are now going without paychecks. Republicans argue that they need to fund all parts of the Department of Homeland Security, not just certain ones. A bill to fund the agency failed to advance in the Senate on Friday.

There were signs of progress, though, with the restarting in recent days of stalled talks between Democrats and the White House. On Saturday, Republican and Democratic senators were set to meet for a third consecutive day with White House officials behind closed doors as Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York spoke of “productive conversations.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) urged the bipartisan group to act quickly. He has said that Democrats and the White House need to find compromise as lines at airports have grown.

“If that group that’s meeting can’t come up with a solution really quickly, things are going to get worse and worse,” Thune said Saturday.

Binkley writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

March 21 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order forcing networks and the NCAA to avoid scheduling conflicts with the annual Army-Navy game in December.

The order would create an exclusive broadcast window for the college football game, played between the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., and the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md. The game is usually played on the second Saturday in December, but College Football Playoffs and other post-season games have conflicted with the annual broadcast.

“Such scheduling conflicts weaken the national focus on our Military Service Academies and detract from a morale-building event of vital interest to the Department of War,” a White House press release titled “Preserving America’s Game” said. “Accordingly, it is the policy of the United States that no college football game, specifically college football’s CFP or other postseason games, be broadcast in a manner that directly conflicts with the Army‑Navy Game.”

The order says that the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Commerce must work with the NCAA, College Football Playoff and broadcasters to prevent scheduling conflicts during the usual time slot for the game.

“Nobody’s going to play football for four hours during that very special time of the year, in December. It’s preserved forever for the Army-Navy game,” Trump said just before signing the order. “Of course, we’ll probably get sued at some point,” he added.

The president was surrounded by Naval Academy midshipment as he signed the order. Navy won the game against Army on Dec. 13, 17-16.

“Thank you for signing that executive order protecting the sanctity of the Army-Navy game,” Navy coach Brian Newberry said. “It’s a game with a soul, and it deserves to be protected.”

Some have suggested the Army-Navy game be played on a different day or to broadcast other games at the same time.

Army head coach Jeff Monken told The Athletic in February that he would rather play the game on Thanksgiving weekend to avoid conflict with the playoffs.

“I think Army-Navy is a huge part of the history of college football, and what it is today, even,” he said. “Give us a four-hour block on Thanksgiving, or on Friday of Thanksgiving, or on Saturday of Thanksgiving, and give us a four-hour block, and just say nobody else plays during this four-hour block. That’s still protecting the game.”

Media law experts say the White House should be careful of intervening in college sports.

Jeffrey Cole, director of the Center for the Digital Future at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, wrote in an email to The Washington Post that the White House should have these important conversations.

“But, it should not be a ‘decider.’ If change is needed at the federal level, it should come from legislation.”

The Army vs. Navy game has been played annually since 1930. CBS Sports has the broadcast rights through 2038.

The game has traditionally been played on the last weekend of November or the first weekend of December, The Athletic reported. It moved to the second weekend of December in 2009 to bring more attention and ratings to CBS.

“We are deeply appreciative of President Trump’s executive order preserving a dedicated window for the Army-Navy Game — America’s Game — a tradition that represents far more than football by honoring our service academies and the mission of developing leaders for our nation,” Navy Athletic Director Michael Kelly said in a statement to The Athletic. “Maintaining its exclusivity ensures the country can come together to recognize the sacrifice, commitment and readiness that are essential to our military. We are also encouraged that this step helps create a pathway for Navy Football to participate in the College Football Playoff when earned, allowing us to both preserve tradition and embrace opportunity.”

“We’re grateful for the President’s leadership and for everyone working to protect, preserve, and unite around America’s game and the values it stands for,” Army Athletic Director Tom Theodorakis said in a statement.

US president’s reference to Japan’s 1941 attack on naval base in Hawaii has shaken the Japanese public as PM Takaichi’s silence gets mixed reaction.

There has been embarrassment, confusion, and unease in Japan after US President Donald Trump used the Pearl Harbor attack during World War II to justify his secrecy before launching the war on Iran.

Trump was asked by a reporter why he did not tell allies in Europe and Asia in advance of the US-Israel attack on Iran during a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi at the White House on Friday.

Trump cited Pearl Harbor to defend his decision saying, “Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor, OK?”

Following the remarks, social media reaction has ranged from accusations of ignorance and rudeness by the US president to claims that he does not see Japan as an equal partner. There were calls for Japan to protest Trump’s comments.

Tsuneo Watanabe, a senior fellow at the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, said in an opinion piece in the Nikkei newspaper on Saturday that the remarks signalled Trump is “not bound by existing American common sense”.

“I get the impression that the comment was intended to bring the Japanese reporter [who asked the question] or Ms Takaichi into complicity in order to justify his ‘sneak attack’ on Iran during diplomatic negotiations and without telling allied countries,” Watanabe wrote.

There is also a feeling that an unspoken understanding exists between United States and Japanese leaders to tread carefully on the subject.

Both sides need each other, with Washington relying on Japan to host 50,000 troops and an array of powerful hi-tech weapons, and Japan relying on the US nuclear umbrella to deter hostile, nuclear-armed neighbours.

Japan’s post-World War II constitution bans the use of force except for its self-defence, but Takaichi and other officials are now seeking to expand the military’s role.

Mixed reaction to Takaichi’s response

Takaichi, a hardline conservative, was praised by some for not reacting to Trump’s comments, letting them pass with a roll of her eyes and a glance at her ministers seated nearby.

The goal of her summit was to deepen ties with her most important ally, and she arrived shortly after Trump suggested Japan was among the nations that did not quickly join his call to help protect the Strait of Hormuz.

Some, however, criticised Takaichi for not speaking up.

Hitoshi Tanaka, a former diplomat and a special adviser at the Japan Research Institute think tank, wrote on X that he felt embarrassed to see Takaichi flattering Trump.

“As national leaders, they are equals … To make an equal relationship is not to flatter,” he said. “Just doing what pleases Trump and calling it a success if you are not hurt is too sad.”

Initially, social media placed some of the blame on the Japanese reporter who asked the question that prompted Trump’s Pearl Harbor comment.

The reporter, Morio Chijiiwa with TV Asahi, later said on a talk show he asked the question to represent the feelings of Japanese who are not happy about Trump’s one-sided attack on Iran, and because other countries, including Japan, are now being asked to help out after the US and Israel started the war.

“So that’s why I asked the question. I was meaning to say, ‘Why didn’t you tell us, why are you troubling us?’” he said.

“Then President Trump hit back with the Pearl Harbor attack … I found it extremely awkward for him to change the subject.”

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser, with an assist from Libor Jany and Howard Blume, giving you the latest on city and county government.

It was a dramatic moment for City Hall: Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, appearing at a meeting about reining in certain traffic stops by police, revealed that he had been pulled over only two days earlier.

Harris-Dawson, who is Black, told his colleagues that police have stopped him four times since he took office in 2015. During the most recent incident, he said, an officer asked him a number of questions, including, “How do you have this vehicle?”

“It was as traumatic on Wednesday as it was when I was 16,” Harris-Dawson said at the March 6 committee meeting.

It wasn’t the Los Angeles Police Department that pulled over Harris-Dawson’s car, a Tesla Model Y with a government license plate. Instead, it was an officer from the L.A. Unified School District police, who began trailing him while he was heading to work on the freeway, Harris-Dawson said recently.

The district has provided minimal details, and its police union has not commented. But the union that represents nearly 8,700 LAPD officers, known for its bare knuckle politics, is now deeply involved.

Ricky Mendoza, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, urged Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman on Thursday to investigate whether Harris-Dawson attempted to resist, delay or obstruct the officer who carried out the traffic stop, in violation of state law.

Mendoza pointed to a California Post story that accused Harris-Dawson of contacting an unnamed school board member during the incident “in an apparent effort to get out of the citation.”

Tom Saggau, a police union spokesperson, said Harris-Dawson was caught driving “recklessly” in a school zone — and should have disclosed it during his remarks about the incident.

“Mr. Harris-Dawson’s testimony implied LAPD pulled him over because of his race, not his driving behavior,” Saggau said in an email. “That implication painted our minority-majority membership as racist, and we will always stand up for our membership and correct falsehoods and other tall tales.”

Harris-Dawson, for his part, told The Times he received the citation for attempting to enter a left turn lane too early — before it was actually marked as a turn lane. That maneuver did not pose a threat to anyone, he said.

Harris-Dawson said he did contact other people during the traffic stop, to ensure he had real-time witnesses. He would not provide their names.

“I called several people during that encounter so that there was a record of it besides myself,” he said.

The Times reached out to the school board about the police union’s claims. Four of the seven, either in person or through a representative, said they did not talk to Harris-Dawson about the stop.

The dispute comes as the council is weighing new limits on “pretextual stops,” where officers use a minor violation as justification to pull someone over and then investigate whether a more serious crime has occurred. The stops have disproportionately affected Black and Latino drivers, and the LAPD has scaled back their use over the past decade.

At the meeting where Harris-Dawson revealed he had been pulled over, two council committees were discussing next steps on the issue.

On Thursday, a Harris-Dawson aide hit back at the union, accusing the group of trying to divert the public’s attention away from that work.

“Just like pretextual traffic stops, the call for these pointless investigations violates the public trust, is wholly ineffective, and wastes precious resources that could be used to keep us safe,” said Harris-Dawson spokesperson Cerrina Tayag-Rivera in a statement this week.

Asked about his recent experience with the school police, Harris-Dawson said: “It’s not up to the driver to determine if a stop is pretextual, but it felt pretextual.”

School district officials have offered only minimal information about the incident.

“During our morning school drop-off, a Los Angeles School Police Department officer conducted a traffic stop based on an observed moving traffic violation in the vicinity of one of our high schools and issued the driver a citation,” the statement said.

Harris-Dawson told The Times that the encounter began the morning of March 4, during his drive from his South L.A. home to City Hall, when he noticed a white, unmarked car following him on the northbound 110 Freeway.

He took the Adams Boulevard offramp, turned right on Adams and headed toward Main Street, with the unmarked car following him through multiple intersections. When he turned left on Main, the officer turned on his lights and pulled him over, he said.

The officer walked up to the car with his hand on his gun and told him to roll down the windows, Harris-Dawson said.

“Because it was an unmarked car … I thought I was dealing with Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” he said.

Harris-Dawson said the officer told him that he had illegally crossed the double-yellow line in the center of the street, preparing to turn left before his car was actually in the marked left-turn lane.

The intersection is four blocks from Santee High School.

Harris-Dawson said the officer asked him how he came to possess the car. He informed the officer that it was a city vehicle and that he sits on the council. He handed the officer his driver’s license and, at a certain point, demanded it back.

The officer refused twice, Harris-Dawson said.

“He said, ‘Are you accusing me of taking your property?’” Harris-Dawson said. “I said, ‘That’s absolutely what I’m accusing you of.’”

Harris-Dawson said he was cited for violating the state vehicle code that prohibits motorists from driving the double-yellow lines.

“That stop was not about traffic safety,” he said, adding: “It was an investigative stop where the officer decided to give a citation, frankly, because I failed the attitude test.”

Harris-Dawson said through his spokesperson that he has paid the $238 citation. Asked if he is considering any legal action, he responded: “I’m weighing all my options.”

Meanwhile, Mendoza said he wants not just the D.A. but also City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to investigate Harris-Dawson’s behavior during the stop, determining who he called, what he said, and whether the officer was contacted by a school board member.

The police union president said it’s “unethical and potentially illegal for a city leader to use their position of power to attempt to avoid accountability for their reckless driving in a school zone.”

The Police Protective League is well known for its heavy involvement in city politics, especially during election season. On the Westside, the union has already put nearly $500,000 into efforts to reelect Councilmember Traci Park.

The union has endorsed Mayor Karen Bass, a close ally of Harris-Dawson, but hasn’t been spending on her behalf.

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, who sits on the council’s public safety committee, said he believes the union is trying to “bully” Harris-Dawson, to ensure that others remain silent about pretextual stops.

“I think the council president is very courageously bringing up a reform on one of the most racist practices” in the LAPD, he said.

State of play

— DROPPING CHAVEZ: The bombshell New York Times report that found that labor organizer Cesar Chavez sexually abused minors left the state’s elected officials scrambling to rename streets, buildings and of course, the holiday itself. In L.A., Bass and several council members said they would rename the March 31 holiday “Farm Workers Day,” a move also backed at the county level by Supervisor Janice Hahn. Meanwhile, Raul Claros, running for an Eastside council seat, said Cesar Chavez Avenue should be renamed Dolores Huerta Avenue.

— DEMS WEIGH IN: The L.A. County Democratic Party threw its endorsement behind Bass and Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez, Katy Yaroslavsky, Monica Rodriguez, Hugo Soto-Martínez and Tim McOsker. The group also backed several newcomers: Marissa Roy for city attorney, Zach Sokoloff for city controller and council candidates Barri Worth Girvan and Jose Ugarte.

— PLUS THE COUNTY: The Dems also threw their support behind four countywide candidates: Sheriff Robert Luna, Assessor Jeffrey Prang, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and State Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, who is running to replace termed-out Supervisor Hilda Solis.

— SPEAKING OF WHICH: It’s been pretty clear from the past year that Horvath is not a fan of Bass, offering bracing critiques of the city’s approach to homelessness and other issues. But her four colleagues — Hahn, Solis, Kathryn Barger and Holly Mitchell — have all lined up behind the mayor’s reelection, according to a campaign announcement issued Friday.

— POLICE PAYOUT: A jury awarded $5.9 million to a former LAPD commander who claimed she was wrongfully fired over an alcohol-fueled incident in 2018. The commander, Nicole Mehringer, said she was held to a different standard than her male colleagues, losing her job after being arrested on a charge of public intoxication.

— MINDING MEASURE ULA: Councilmember Ysabel Jurado was named the chair of a new three-member ad hoc committee formed to take a fresh look at the impacts of Measure ULA, the 2022 tax on high-end property sales. She will be joined by Councilmembers John Lee and Imelda Padilla in examining the measure, which has been criticized by real estate leaders.

— HOLLYWOOD’S HOMELESS: Bass and Soto-Martínez celebrated the opening of a new homeless services hub on Hollywood Boulevard to help unhoused residents shower, find new clothes, obtain meals and receive help finding an apartment or a bed in an interim housing facility.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to address homelessness went to South Los Angeles, focusing on the area around Broadway and 23rd Street, according to the mayor’s team.
• On the docket next week: The council meets Tuesday to discuss its strategy for complying with Senate Bill 79, which seeks to add taller, denser apartments within a half mile of rail and dedicated bus stops.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Caracas, March 20, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The US Treasury Department has issued a new sanctions waiver as the Trump administration seeks to deepen US control over Venezuela’s oil sector.

General License 52 (GL52), published on Wednesday, authorizes US entities to engage in transactions with Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA under conditions that limit Venezuelan sovereignty.

An updated FAQ from the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control clarified that the exemption allows US companies to engage in activities related to the exportation of Venezuelan-origin oil products, export diluents and inputs to Venezuela as well as enter into new contracts for oil and gas production.

However, in line with recent US licenses, GL52 mandates that all tax, royalty, and dividend payments be made into US Treasury-controlled accounts.

Following the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has taken control over Venezuelan crude exports while imposing conditions favorable to Western energy conglomerates.

Thus far, Washington has returned US $500 million out of an initial January deal worth $2 billion. US authorities have also confirmed Venezuelan imports of US-manufactured medicines and medical equipment. Trump officials had vowed that US energy revenues could only be used for purchases from US suppliers and that Caracas would need to submit a “budget request” to access its funds.

The White House issued GL52 amid soaring energy prices caused by the US and Israeli war against Iran. Tehran has responded to massive bombings by targeting US military assets in the region and closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Last week, the US Treasury amended licenses to allow US imports of fertilizers from Venezuela, as well as repair works in the South American country’s electric grid. Venezuela’s electrical infrastructure remains in a precarious state after years of US sanctions, and expanded power capacity is a precondition for recovery of the oil industry.

Despite the broadened waivers for corporations hand-picked by the White House to engage with Venezuela, PDVSA and its subsidiaries remain under financial sanctions, while third-country firms risk secondary sanctions should they enter into agreements without a US Treasury special license.

In late January, Venezuelan authorities approved a pro-business overhaul of the country’s Hydrocarbon Law, granting private companies reduced fiscal responsibilities, increased control over production and exports, and the possibility of taking disputes to international arbitration bodies.

Chevron and Shell, with US Treasury approval, were the first companies to take advantage of the new incentives. Chevron’s Petropiar joint venture with PDVSA was granted a new 500 square-kilometer bloc to drill for extra-heavy crude in the Orinoco Oil Belt, while Shell is set to take over light and medium crude and natural gas operations in the eastern state of Monagas.

Last week, European energy giants Eni and Repsol, who were also given the inside track by the White House, announced an agreement with the Venezuelan government for the development of the Cardón IV offshore natural gas project.

Eni and Repsol each own 50 percent stakes in Cardón IV, which has been in operation since 2009. Neither firm nor Caracas offered details on the renewed agreement, though both enterprises had lobbied for improved conditions and mechanisms to recoup accumulated debt due to US sanctions.

According to Bloomberg, ONGC Videsh (India), Maha Capital AB (Sweden), and J&F Investimentos (Brazil) are among the companies likely to receive special licenses for involvement in Venezuela’s oil sector as Washington seeks to counter rising crude prices. Nevertheless, analysts stress that the Venezuelan oil industry does not have the capacity to significantly ramp up output in the near future.

On March 11, the Trump administration formally recognized Acting President Delcy Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “sole authority,” days after Venezuela and the US reestablished diplomatic ties following a seven-year hiatus.

On Monday, Rodríguez appointed new executive boards for PDVSA’s US-based affiliates, including refiner CITGO. Asdrúbal Chávez, who held multiple roles in both PDVSA and CITGO since the 2000s, was picked as president of CITGO and its parent company, PDV Holding. At the time of writing, US authorities have not commented on the proposed new leadership for the companies, which had been run by the US-backed opposition since 2019.

CITGO is currently in the closing stages of a court-mandated auction that will see Venezuela lose ownership of its most prized foreign asset to address creditor claims against the country. The sale to Amber Energy, a subsidiary of vulture fund Elliott Management, is pending authorization from the US Treasury Department.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.

Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro has been named in two separate criminal investigations led by prosecutors in the United States.

The New York Times was the first to report the existence of the two probes on Friday, citing sources familiar with the proceedings.

Media reports indicate that Petro is not personally the target of the investigations, which focus on drug-smuggling in Latin America.

But according to the Times, US attorneys in Brooklyn and Manhattan are looking into whether Petro met with drug traffickers and solicited donations from them for his 2022 presidential campaign. Al Jazeera has not independently verified the Times report.

By Friday afternoon, Petro had issued a statement denying the claims, which threaten to reopen the rift between the US and Colombia.

“In Colombia, there is not a single investigation into my relationship with drug traffickers, for one simple reason: I have never in my life spoken with a drug trafficker,” Petro wrote on the social media platform X.

He added that he told campaign managers to never accept donations from bankers or drug traffickers.

The investigations in the US, he argued, would ultimately exonerate him, and he blamed Colombia’s right-wing opposition for stirring controversy.

“So, the proceedings in the US will help me to dismantle the accusations of the Colombian far right, which is indeed closely linked to Colombian drug traffickers,” Petro said.

Petro has not been charged with any crimes, and the investigations are in their initial stages, according to the Times.

But experts say the timing of the report is significant, as it comes barely two and a half months before Colombia is set to hold a closely watched presidential election on May 31.

“If this would have happened a week before the first round, it would be election interference,” Sergio Guzman, director at Colombia Risk Analysis, a security think tank, told Al Jazeera.

“This seems to be more of a warning that shows how the US could influence the outcome of the election.”

Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing president, is limited to a single term in office, but the election is likely to be a referendum on his four years in office.

It will also be a test for Petro’s Historic Pact coalition, whose candidate, Ivan Cepeda, is currently leading in the polls.

But United States President Donald Trump has repeatedly sought to boost the prospects of right-wing candidates in Latin America. He and Petro have been at loggerheads since Trump returned to office in January 2025.

Their feud came to a head in January after the US attacked Venezuela and abducted its president, Nicolas Maduro.

Shortly afterwards, a reporter asked if the US would take military action against Colombia. Trump replied: “It sounds good to me.”

To cool tensions, Trump and Petro held a call afterwards and agreed to meet.

Petro then visited the White House in early February to mend his often-combative relationship with Trump. While there, the Colombian delegation interacted with their counterparts, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Republican Senator Bernie Moreno, a longtime critic of Petro’s government, was also in attendance. Guzman believes the senator’s presence was significant.

“We don’t have a lot of straightforward answers about what were the commitments during that meeting, but Bernie Moreno did say that he wanted Petro not to be as involved in elections,” Guzman told Al Jazeera.

“And guess what? Petro is fully involved in the elections.”

The meeting also addressed collaborative efforts to combat drug trafficking, an issue core to Trump’s foreign policy.

Both presidents walked away from the meeting in good spirits, with Petro sharing a photo signed by Trump that read, “Gustavo – a great honor. I love Colombia.”

But Petro and Trump have long been at odds over how to tamp down on narcotics smuggling.

Colombia, the region’s largest producer of cocaine, has been criticised by the Trump administration for what it sees as soft-on-crime policies, including negotiations with armed groups.

Petro, meanwhile, has denounced the US for its lethal tactics, calling them tantamount to murder.

The US, for instance, has bombed at least 46 alleged drug boats and vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Some of the 159 people killed were Colombian citizens.

The US has also floated the idea of conducting military attacks in Latin America against suspected drug traffickers, and it recently began joint operations against gangs in Ecuador, Colombia’s neighbour.

Analysts say actions like these have Latin American leaders on edge.

Trump’s aggressive manoeuvres suggest that the US president is willing to jeopardise “the sovereignty and peace of every nation” in his campaign against illicit drugs, according to Rodrigo Pombo Cajiao, a constitutional law professor at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.

Pombo Cajaio pointed to the US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3. Maduro was a longtime adversary of Trump, and he is currently being held in prison in New York on drug-related charges.

“Every political leader in the region has been put on notice” after that abduction, Pombo Cajiao said.

“As the world’s leading producer of cocaine, Colombia found itself at high risk of judicial prosecution” from the US, he added.

Currently, Petro’s Historic Pact is leading May’s presidential race. A GAD3 poll released this week suggested Cepeda is ahead in the polls with 35 percent voter approval, ahead of far-right candidate Abelardo de la Espriella, who had 21 percent.

Trump calls NATO cowardly over lack of support for Iran war, says Strait of Hormuz should be protected ‘by other nations who use it’.

A federal judge in the United States has agreed to block the administration of President Donald Trump from enforcing a policy limiting news reporters’ access to the Pentagon.

Friday’s ruling sides with The New York Times in its argument that key portions of the new rules are unlawful.

US District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, DC, ruled that the Pentagon policy illegally restricts the press credentials of reporters who walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules.

The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, claiming the credentialing policy violates the journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.

The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including those from The Associated Press, have continued reporting on the military.

Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials.

He ruled that the Pentagon policy ultimately violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech and due process.

“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now,” the judge wrote.

Times lauds ruling

New York Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said the newspaper believes the ruling “enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country”.

“Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars,” Stadtlander said in a statement. “Today’s ruling reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf.”

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer who represented the Times at a hearing earlier this month, said in a statement that the court ruling is “a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war”.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

It has argued that the policy imposes “common sense” rules that protect the military from the disclosure of national security information.

“The goal of that process is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to American military headquarters,” government lawyers wrote.

The Times’ legal team, meanwhile, claimed the policy is designed to silence unfavourable press coverage of President Trump’s administration.

“The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from granting itself the unbridled power to restrict speech because the mere existence of such arbitrary authority can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.

Weeding out ‘disfavoured’ journalists

The judge said he recognises that “national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected”.

“But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing,” Friedman wrote.

Friedman said the “undisputed evidence” shows that the policy is designed to weed out “disfavored journalists” and replace them with those who are “on board and willing to serve” the government, a clear instance of illegal viewpoint discrimination.

“In sum, the Policy on its face makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s [credentials],” he wrote. “It provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”

The Pentagon had asked the judge to suspend his ruling for a week for an appeal. Friedman refused.

The judge ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times journalists. But he said his decision to vacate the challenged policy terms applies to “all regulated parties”.

Friedman gave the Pentagon a week to file a written report on its compliance with the order.

The Times argued that the Pentagon has applied its own rules inconsistently. The newspaper noted that Trump ally Laura Loomer, a right-wing personality who agreed to the Pentagon policy, appeared to violate the Pentagon’s prohibition on soliciting unauthorised information by promoting her “tip line”.

The government didn’t object to Loomer’s tip line but concluded that a Washington Post tip line does violate its policy because it purportedly “targets” military personnel and department employees.

The judge said he does not see any meaningful difference between the two tip lines.

“But the problem is that nothing in the Policy explicitly prevents the Department from treating these two nearly identical tip lines differently,” Friedman added.

The US is moving military assets to the Middle East that are key to providing support for ground troop operations. Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett says it’s the clearest sign yet of potential US boots on the ground in Iran to secure the Strait of Hormuz.