trump

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday he would sign an order instructing the Homeland Security secretary to immediately pay Transportation Security Administration agents as Congress struggled to reach a deal to end a budget impasse that has jammed airports and left workers without paychecks.

Trump announced his decision in a social media post saying he wanted to quickly stop the “Chaos at the Airports.”

“It is not an easy thing to do, but I am going to do it!” the president posted.

With pressure mounting, the White House had floated the extraordinary move of invoking a national emergency to pay TSA agents, while senators were reviewing a “last and final” offer from Republicans to Democrats to end the funding impasse at the Department of Homeland Security.

Details of the president’s plan were not immediately available, but a national emergency declaration would be politically fraught and almost certain to face legal challenges. Instead, the president may simply be shifting money from other sources.

Democrats have been refusing to fund Homeland Security as they seek changes to rein in Trump’s immigration enforcement operations. The Senate came to a standstill and senators, ready to leave town for their own spring break, had prepared to stay all night to reach a deal.

“The president is doing absolutely the right thing,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the GOP whip. “The TSA agents are going to be paid.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the chair of the Appropriations Committee, has said there is funding elsewhere that can be legally used to pay the TSA as well as the Coast Guard without declaring a national emergency.

The funding shutdown, now in its 41st day, has resulted in travel delays, missed paychecks and even warnings of airport closures. TSA workers are coming up on their second missed payday Friday, with thousands refusing to show up for work.

Multiple airports are experiencing greater than 40% callout rates of TSA workers and nearly 500 of its nearly 50,000 transportation security officers have now quit during the shutdown. Nationwide on Wednesday, more than 11% of the TSA employees on the schedule missed work, according to DHS. That is more than 3,120 callouts.

Trump, who has largely left the issue to Congress to resolve, had warned he was ready to take action, even threatening to send the National Guard to airports, in addition to his deployment of ICE agents who are now checking travelers’ IDs — a development drawing concerns. The White House has been considering a menu of options.

“They need to end this shutdown immediately or we’ll have to take drastic measures,” Trump said during a morning Cabinet meeting at the White House.

At George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Melissa Gates said she would not make her flight to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, after waiting more than 2½ hours and still not reaching the security checkpoint. She said no other flights were available until Friday.

“I should have just driven, right?” Gates said. “Five hours would have been hilarious next to this.”

A ‘last and final’ offer on the table

Earlier Thursday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) announced he had given the final offer to Democrats.

Thune did not disclose details of the new framework, but he said that it picked up on what had been the Republican offer over the weekend, before talks with the White House and Democrats had broken off.

“Enough is enough,” he said.

But as senators retreated to privately discuss the new plan, the action stalled out.

Democrats argue the GOP proposals have not gone far enough at putting guardrails on officers from ICE, Customs and Border Protection and other federal agencies that are engaged in the immigration sweeps, particularly after the deaths of two Americans protesting the actions in Minneapolis.

They want federal agents to wear identification, remove their face masks and refrain from conducting raids around schools, churches or other sensitive places. Democrats have also pushed for an end of administrative warrants, insisting that judges sign off before agents search people’s homes or private spaces.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said they needed to see real changes. “We’ve been talking about ICE reforms from day one,” he said.

Any deal will almost certainly need to involve a compromise as lawmakers on the left and right flanks revolt. Conservative Republicans have panned their own GOP proposals, demanding full funding for immigration operations and skeptical of the promise from leaders that they would address Trump’s proof-of-citizenship voting bill in a subsequent legislative package.

Republicans said after a private lunch meeting that there were other options to shift money than invoking the national emergency.

The GOP’s big tax cuts bill that Trump signed into law last year funneled billions to DHS, including $75 billion for ICE operations, ensuring the money is flowing for his immigration and deportation agenda even with the funding shutdown. ICE and other immigration officers are still being paid.

Republicans say the Trump administration has already made strides to meet Democrats’ demands, particularly after swearing in former Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin as the new homeland security secretary to replace Kristi Noem. He has given a nod to the need for the judicial warrants for searches.

Airport lines grow as TSA workers endure hardships

“This is a dire situation,” the acting TSA administrator, Ha Nguyen McNeill, testified at a House hearing Wednesday.

She described the multiple hardships facing unpaid TSA workers — piling-up bills and eviction notices, even plasma donations to make ends meet — and warned of potential airport closures if more employees refuse to come to work.

“At this point, we have to look at all options on the table,” she said.

McNeil also said TSA officers working at the nation’s airports had experienced a more than 500% increase in the frequency of assaults since the shutdown began.

“This is unacceptable,” McNeill said.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Treasury Department is working on plans to put President Trump’s signature on all new U.S. paper currency, the agency announced Thursday.

The move would be a first for a sitting president. The news was first reported by Vanity Fair.

It’s the latest instance of Trump putting his name and likeness on American cultural institutions, following his renaming of the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Kennedy Center performing arts venue and a new class of battleships, among other tributes.

The plans come in tandem with an effort to get Trump’s face on a coin.

This month, a federal arts commission approved the final design for a 24-karat gold commemorative coin bearing Trump’s image to help celebrate America’s 250th birthday on July 4.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s signature would also appear on the currency, according to a Treasury news release.

Bessent said in a statement that “there is no more powerful way to recognize the historic achievements of our great country” than with U.S. dollar bills bearing Trump’s name.

U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach said in a statement that printing Trump’s signature on the American currency “is not only appropriate, but also well deserved.”

The Mint, which is part of the Treasury Department, manufactures and distributes the currency.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — When President Trump ordered immigration raids in Los Angeles last June, only a handful of those arrested were violent criminals. The sweeps split families, cost businesses millions of dollars and drove many undocumented residents into hiding.

Activists protested the Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions, prompting the president to deploy thousands of federal troops in what he called a security operation. A federal judge called it unlawful and said the deployment caused “greater harm” to the city.

Now, Trump wants a redo.

At a Cabinet meeting Thursday, he called on the mayors and governors of several blue cities and states to allow troops to “come in and stop the crime,” pointing to purported successes in Washington, Memphis and New Orleans.

“Crime is down 75% in a short period of time,” Trump told his top advisors. “We could do that for L.A. and we could do that for, frankly, San Francisco.”

The president framed the deployments as both a crime-fighting and immigration enforcement tool, saying that federal authorities can remove people from cities in ways local officials cannot.

“We can do it much more effectively, because [local leaders] can’t do what we do,” Trump said. “All the time, people come up to me … and they say ‘thank you so much.’ I know immediately what they’re talking about. They’re able to walk to work.”

Trump also said this week that he would consider deploying the National Guard at airports to assist with mounting security delays amid a 40-day partial government shutdown.

The renewed call comes after a series of controversial federal interventions in cities across the country. In Washington, Trump has repeatedly touted a visible security presence near federal buildings, crediting it with improving public safety, though local officials and analysts have debated how much of any decline in crime can be attributed to his order.

U.S. Marines stationed outside the federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles in June.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

In January, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Minneapolis during the civil unrest that followed the fatal shooting of Renee Good by a federal immigration agent. The Pentagon prepared active-duty troops for a possible deployment, but they were ordered to stand down following the shooting of a second Minneapolis civilian, Alex Pretti, the same month.

Immigration sweeps in Los Angeles targeted workplaces, neighborhoods and churches, stirring widespread panic and forcing many undocumented residents — including those with long-term residency and native-born children — into hiding. As a result, businesses reported sharp declines in revenue and customer traffic. A county analysis found that 82% of surveyed businesses experienced negative impacts, with some losing more than half their income amid workforce shortages and traffic reductions.

During the fallout, Mayor Karen Bass condemned Trump’s deployment of some 4,000 California National Guardsmen and 700 U.S. Marines.

“Deploying federalized troops on the heels of these raids is a chaotic escalation,” she said. “The fear people are feeling in our city right now is very real — it’s felt in our communities and within our families, and it puts our neighborhoods at risk. This is the last thing that our city needs.”

The president called the occupation off after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that control of the California National Guard should be returned to the governor, rejecting the federal government’s authority to maintain control indefinitely. A similar Supreme Court ruling effectively ended federalized deployments throughout the country.

“The judges are really hurting this country,” Trump said Thursday. “Frankly, the justices — the Supreme Court — has really hurt our country, too.”

At the meeting, Trump also narrowed his comments on San Francisco and its mayor, Daniel Lurie.

“San Francisco was a great city, could quickly become a great city again,” Trump said. “But we can do it much more effectively.”

Last year, Trump considered carrying out similar federal law enforcement operations in the city. He backed off after a somewhat conciliatory phone call with Lurie, in which Trump said the mayor asked him “very nicely” to call off the deployment. Afterward, he agreed to give the newly elected mayor “a chance” to address crime in the city.

“In San Francisco, crime is down 30%, encampments are at record lows, and our city is on the rise,” Lurie said in a statement Thursday. “Public safety is my number one priority, and we are going to stay laser focused on keeping our streets safe and clean.”

A spokesperson for Lurie’s office said the two have not spoken since that October conversation, indicating Trump’s latest remarks do not reflect any new request or ongoing negotiations. Even so, the president struck a measured tone toward the San Francisco mayor on Thursday. He said Lurie is “trying very hard” but insisted federal intervention would get the job done faster.

Whether any Democrat-led city will take Trump up on that offer remains to be seen. City leaders have previously resisted federal deployments, arguing they undermine local control and risk inflaming already tense situations.

The White House did not respond to questions about whether any current plans exist to redeploy federalized troops to California cities.

Times staff writer Melissa Gomez in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has settled for roughly $1.2 million a lawsuit from Michael Flynn, the former national security advisor to President Trump who pleaded guilty during the Republican’s first term to lying to the FBI about his conversations with a top Russian diplomat and was later pardoned.

Court papers filed Wednesday do not reveal the settlement amount, but a person familiar with the matter, who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity to disclose nonpublic information, confirmed the total as about $1.2 million.

The settlement resolves a 2023 lawsuit in which Flynn sought at least $50 million and asserted that the criminal case against him amounted to a malicious prosecution. It also represents a stark turnabout in position for a Justice Department that during the Biden administration had pressed a judge to dismiss Flynn’s complaint. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, a former personal lawyer for the president, has openly criticized the Russia investigation in which Flynn was charged and the Justice Department in the last year has opened investigations into former officials who participated in that inquiry.

The Justice Department cast the settlement as an “important step in redressing” what it says was a “historic injustice” of the Russia investigation that shadowed Trump for much of his first term.

“This Department of Justice will continue to pursue accountability at all levels for this wrongdoing. Such weaponization of the federal government must never be allowed to happen again,” a spokesperson said.

In a separate statement, Flynn said: “Nothing can fully compensate for the hell that my family and I have endured over these many years — the relentless attacks, the destruction of reputations, the financial ruin, and the profound personal toll inflicted upon us all. No amount of money or formal resolution can erase the pain caused by a prosecution that should never have been brought.”

The settlement is the latest turn in the long-running legal saga involving Flynn, one of six Trump associates charged as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. That investigation found Russia interfered in the election on Trump’s behalf and that the Trump campaign eagerly welcomed the help, but it ultimately found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who vigorously campaigned at Trump’s side, served for weeks as his first national security advisor before being pushed out of his position. He remained a Trump ally even after agreeing to cooperate with Mueller’s team. He was pardoned in the final weeks of the president’s first term.

Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI when he said he had not discussed with the Russian envoy, Sergey Kislyak, sanctions that the outgoing Obama administration had just imposed on Russia for election interference. During that conversation, Flynn advised that Russia be “even-keeled” in response to the punitive measures, and assured him “we can have a better conversation” about relations between the countries after Trump became president.

The conversation alarmed the FBI, which at the time was investigating whether the Trump campaign and Russia had coordinated to sway the election. In addition, White House officials were stating publicly that Flynn and Kislyak had not discussed sanctions, which the FBI knew was untrue.

Flynn was ousted from his position in February 2017 after news broke that Obama administration officials had warned the White House that Flynn had indeed discussed sanctions with Kislyak and was vulnerable to blackmail. He pleaded guilty months later to a false statement charge.

But Flynn later sought to withdraw his guilty plea, saying federal prosecutors had acted in “bad faith” and broken their end of the bargain when they sought prison time for him.

The Justice Department in 2020 moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the FBI had no basis to interview Flynn about Kislyak and that any statements he made during the interview were not material to the FBI’s broader counterintelligence probe.

Flynn was pardoned by Trump in November 2020, ending the court case and the legal wrangling.

In his lawsuit, Flynn maintained his innocence and said he was targeted by the “virulently anti-Trump leadership” of the FBI’s Russia investigation. He contended that investigators pursued him despite knowing there was no evidence of a crime and coerced his guilty plea.

“He was falsely branded as a traitor to his country, lost at least tens of millions of dollars of business opportunities and future lifetime earning potential, was maliciously prosecuted and spent substantial monies in his own defense,” says the lawsuit, adding that Flynn will continue to suffer “mental and emotional pain.”

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

A United States judge has said that he will not dismiss the drug-trafficking and weapons possession charges brought against former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.

But in a Thursday court hearing, Judge Alvin Hellerstein questioned whether the US government has the right to bar Venezuela from funding Maduro’s legal expenses.

The hearing was the first for Maduro and his wife since a brief January arraignment, where they pleaded not guilty.

Maduro and Flores have sought to have the charges against them thrown out. Hellerstein declined to do so, but he pressed the prosecution on some of the issues Maduro’s legal team raised in its petition to dismiss the case.

Among them was a decision by the administration of US President Donald Trump to prevent the Venezuelan government from financing Maduro’s defence.

Federal prosecutors argued that national security reasons prevented the US from allowing such payments. They also pointed to ongoing sanctions against the Venezuelan government.

But Hellerstein pushed back against that argument, noting that Trump had eased sanctions against Venezuela since Maduro’s abduction on January 3. He also questioned how Maduro might pose a security threat while imprisoned in New York.

“The defendant is here. Flores is here. They present no further national security threat,” said Hellerstein. “I see no abiding interest of national security on the right to defend themselves.”

Hellerstein emphasised that, in the US, all criminal defendants have the right to a vigorous defence, as part of the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment.

“The right that’s implicated, paramount over other rights, is the right to constitutional counsel,” he said.

Maduro, who led Venezuela from 2013 to 2026, has been charged with four criminal counts, including narco-terrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine, the possession of machine guns and the conspiracy to possess machine guns and other destructive devices.

He and his wife were taken into US custody on January 3, after Trump launched an attack on Venezuela.

The Trump administration has framed the military operation as a “law enforcement function”, but experts say it was widely considered illegal under international law, which protects local sovereignty.

Maduro has cited his status as the leader of a foreign country as part of his push to see the case dismissed.

When he last appeared in court, on January 5, he told the judge, “I’m still the president of my country.”

In a February hearing, his defence team sought to dismiss the charges on the basis that preventing Venezuela from paying his legal fees was “interfering with Mr Maduro’s ability to retain counsel and, therefore, his right under the Sixth Amendment to counsel of his choice”.

In an interview with the news agency AFP on Thursday, Maduro’s son, Venezuelan lawmaker Nicolas Maduro Guerra, said that he trusts the US legal system but believes that his father’s trial has been mishandled.

“This trial has vestiges of illegitimacy from the start, because of the capture, the kidnapping, of an elected president in a military operation,” Maduro Guerra said in Caracas.

Protests and counter-protests took place in front of the New York City courthouse on Thursday, with some condemning the US’s actions and others holding signs in support of the trial with slogans like, “Maduro rot in prison.”

Trump himself weighed in on the proceedings during a Thursday cabinet meeting, hinting that further charges could be brought against Maduro.

“He emptied his prisons in Venezuela, emptied his prisons into our country,” Trump said of Maduro, reiterating an unsubstantiated claim.

“And I hope that charge will be brought at some point. Because that was a big charge that hasn’t been brought yet. It should be brought.”

Trump has had an adversarial relationship with Maduro since his first term in office, when he issued a bounty for the Venezuelan leader’s arrest. He has frequently repeated baseless claims that Maduro intentionally sent immigrants and drugs to the US in a bid to destabilise the country.

Those claims have served as a pretext for Trump claiming emergency powers in realms such as immigration and national security. On Thursday, Trump emphasised that, while he expected a “fair trial”, he expected more legal action to be taken against Maduro.

“I would imagine there are other trials coming because they’ve really sued him just at a fraction of the kind of things that he’s done,” Trump said. “Other cases are going to be brought, as you probably know.”

Once upon a time in California, I went to the Orange County fairgrounds to watch Arnold Schwarzenegger give the signal for a wrecking ball to drop onto a vehicle.

The audience went wild, and Schwarzenegger went on to become governor and deliver on his promise to roll back a car tax increase, thereby blowing a $4-billion hole in the state budget.

I think it’s fair to say that in the current gubernatorial campaign season, the excitement level is several decibels below what we experienced in 2003. But once again, it’s fair to say we’ve not seen anything quite like this year’s derby.

“There’s no historical precedent in modern California history for a governor’s race with such a large field or such an amorphous field of candidates,” said longtime political observer Dan Schnur. “Unless you’re paying very close attention, it feels like a big multi-headed political blob.”

To break that down, eight Democrats and two Republicans are running in the primary, and here’s the craziest thing about that:

The two Republicans could be the top two vote-getters because the Democrats have arranged themselves into a circular firing squad. While the Dems scramble for votes in the June 2 primary, the two Republicans lead in the polls because they’re splitting the GOP vote, and under the rules of the top-two primary, they could face off in the November election.

That means that California, which is one of the bluest states in the country and has nearly twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans, could end up with a Republican governor, which would be like having a Dodgers manager who wears a Yankees jersey in the dugout.

And by the way, if it happens, the Republican would be able to shuffle regulatory boards, attempt to squeeze budgets and create a bit of chaos, but still not get much accomplished because of Democratic super-majorities in the Senate and Assembly.

And he would be targeted for recall even before he takes office. (More on that in a minute.)

There is a way for the Democrats to avoid this humiliation, but they can’t seem to agree on anything at the moment. Party leaders have all but asked the candidates at the bottom of the polls to bow out, but understandably the response has been, “Why me? I’m no worse than the others.”

USC decided to host a debate night, a simple enough proposition, but then flubbed the deal by leaving four candidates off the invitation list — four candidates of color. A kerfuffle followed, and the debate was dumped, and an attempt to let everyone into the party fell apart.

So now what?

It’s possible the Dems will huddle around one or two candidates who then move up in the polls and remove the threat of the unthinkable — two Republicans head-to-head. That would be Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco going against former Fox TV host Steve Hilton.

It’s also possible the Dems will play dirty and either spend money to promote one of the two Republican candidates or torpedo one of them. All they want, at the moment, is for a Democrat to make it past the primary, because that would all but ensure victory in November, given voter registration advantages.

And then, if that doesn’t work, there’s the recall scenario.

“You could shut it down probably within five or six months,” said Mike Madrid, a longtime California GOP political consultant.

“It would surely happen,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who helped Schwarzenegger knock Gov. Gray Davis out of office, and take his job, in the 2003 recall.

A wealthy Democratic donor could bankroll the recall campaign, Stutzman said. Or public employee unions might put up the money, given that a Republican winner is likely to create a state version of Elon Musk’s ham-handed attempt to fire nearly everyone on the federal payroll.

“The pitch,” Stutzman said of the recall strategy in an email, would be that “Trump still looms and CA must resist, and a GOP gov is a fluke of weird election law. Difficult to imagine it wouldn’t succeed.”

I thought of one more approach the Democrats could use to make sure at least one of them is on the ballot in November. Tom Steyer, a leader for many years on one of the most critical issues in California and the world, climate change, has already spent tens of millions of dollars on TV ads that run about every two minutes, promoting him as the best candidate for governor.

They’re so repetitious, you can’t help but tune them out.

But everyone would pay close attention if Steyer instead ran ads offering incentives for either Bianco or Hilton to leave the state. Steyer could offer $10 million cash for Bianco to move to Hawaii, and maybe throw in a beach house. He could buy a private jet for Hilton to take him back to his native Britain. Every day, there could be new ads upping the ante until one of them leaves the Golden State.

Wouldn’t that be a better use of Steyer’s money? It might even get him elected.

To be honest, having some honest pushback against Democratic authority in California wouldn’t be a terrible thing. It’s not as if Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats are winning the battle against homelessness, housing shortages, affordability and other big challenges, and voters understandably want more — way more — for their tax dollars.

An experienced, no-nonsense, sensible, fiscally conservative GOP candidate would do the state good.

The problem is that the two Republicans in the running, Bianco and Hilton, are Trump toadies.

In an embarrassingly amateurish political stunt, Bianco blew the president a kiss and all but begged for an endorsement by seizing 650,000 ballots from last November’s election to determine whether they were fraudulently counted.

Hilton recently said in an interview with ABC’s Eyewitness News 7 that he believes “everybody supports” Trump’s immigration policies.

Hilton might have missed the news that U.S.-born residents are carrying their passports in case they’re targeted by skin color. That Californians by the thousands have joined the resistance. That despite claims, most deportees don’t have criminal records. And that even some of the state’s GOP lawmakers have begged Trump to stop raiding industries that rely on immigrant help (and are often owned by Republicans).

And by the way, is this a smart time for a GOP candidate in California to be doing his best Trump impression?

The president’s popularity is down, consumer prices are up, he’s shamelessly pardoned drug lords and Jan. 6 barbarians, he thinks the presidency is a game of Battleship after promising to keep us out of wars, gas prices are sky high, he just said he was glad that Vietnam War hero and former FBI Director Robert Mueller had died, and he’s playing golf all day as if everything’s hunky dory.

Like I said, there’s not a big-name character like Schwarzenegger in the race, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t good options. If you like Bianco or Hilton, so be it. Otherwise I suggest you read up on the other eight:

Steyer, Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former L.A. Mayor and legislative leader Antonio Villaraigosa, former Rep. Katie Porter, former state attorney general and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former State Controller Betty Yee, San José Mayor Matt Mahan, and U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell.

And you better act fast.

The primary is less than 10 weeks away.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

The U.S. can continue to detain immigrants without bond, an appeals court ruled on Wednesday, handing a victory to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

The opinion from a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis overturned a lower court ruling that required that a native of Mexico arrested for lacking legal documents be given a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

It’s the second appeals court to rule in favor of the administration on this issue. The 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled last month that the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country was consistent with the Constitution and federal immigration law.

Both appeals court opinions counter recent lower court decisions across the country that argued the practice is illegal.

In November, a district court decision in California granted detained immigrants with no criminal history the opportunity to request a bond hearing and had implications for noncitizens held in detention nationwide.

Under past administrations, most noncitizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border had an opportunity to request a bond hearing while their cases wound through immigration court. Historically, bond was often granted to those without criminal convictions who were not flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to recent border crossers.

In the case before the 8th Circuit, Joaquin Herrera Avila of Mexico was apprehended in Minneapolis in August 2025 for lacking legal documents authorizing his admission into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security detained Avila without bond and began deportation proceedings.

He filed a petition seeking immediate release or a bond hearing. A federal judge in Minnesota granted the petition, saying the law authorized detention without bond when a person seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to being admitted. The judge found this was not the case for Avila because he had lived in the country for years without seeking naturalization, asylum or refugee status and thus wasn’t “seeking admission.”

Circuit Court Judge Bobby E. Shepherd wrote for the majority in a 2-1 opinion that the law was “clear that an ‘applicant for admission’ is also an alien who is ‘seeking admission,’” and so Avila couldn’t petition on these grounds.

Circuit Court Judge Ralph R. Erickson dissented, saying that Avila would have been entitled to a bond hearing during his deportation hearings if he had been arrested during the past 29 years. Now, he wrote, the Circuit Court has ruled that Avila and millions of others would be subject to mandatory detention under a novel interpretation of “alien seeking admission” that hasn’t been used by the courts or five previous presidential administrations.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Avila, didn’t immediately return an email message seeking comment.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi hailed the ruling, writing in a social media post: “MASSIVE COURT VICTORY against activist judges and for President Trump’s law and order agenda!”

At question is the issue of whether the government is required to ask a neutral judge to to determine whether it is legal to imprison someone.

It’s based on the habeas corpus, which is a Latin legal term referring to the constitutional right for people to legally challenge their detention by the government.

Immigrants have filed more than 30,000 habeas corpus petitions in federal court alleging illegal detention since Trump took office, according to a tally by the Associated Press. Many have succeeded.

McAvoy writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump on Thursday continued projecting confidence in the U.S. war effort in Iran, suggesting online and during a high-level Cabinet meeting that Iran has been “obliterated,” that its leaders were “begging” for a deal, and that the U.S. is “roaming free” over Iran and “NEEDS NOTHING” from its European allies.

His description of the war as all but finished — he actually said “we’ve won” — stood in contrast to the facts on the ground, where Iran continued to launch attacks and threaten oil tanker traffic in the vital Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. continued sending troops and warships to what is already the largest U.S. military buildup in the Middle East in decades.

Trump’s framing of the conflict also contrasted with that of Iranian officials, who have remained publicly defiant, downplayed negotiations and outwardly rejected several of Trump’s conditions for ending the war — as Trump himself acknowledged, accusing them of saying one thing in private and another in public.

“They better get serious soon, before it is too late,” the president wrote on social media, “because once that happens, there is NO TURNING BACK, and it won’t be pretty.”

“They are begging to make a deal, not me,” Trump reiterated later Thursday, while hosting his first Cabinet meeting since the war began. “Anybody that sees what is happening understands why they are begging to make a deal.”

Trump asserted that Iran’s military capabilities have been destroyed, and that the American mission is “ahead of schedule.” He said American forces were operating without opposition over Iran, and “there’s not a damn thing they can do about it” because they’ve been “beat to s—.”

Trump’s outward confidence, a defining feature of the war campaign that has been consistently echoed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and other administration loyalists, continued despite growing concerns this week in Congress — and not only from Democrats.

Several Republicans emerged from a classified war briefing Wednesday clearly frustrated with the administration for not providing a clearer picture of the path out of the now monthlong war, or clear answers on whether it planned to deploy ground troops.

“We want to know more about what’s going on,” said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “We’re just not getting enough answers.”

“I can see why he might have said that,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Democrats have hammered the president — contrasting the war and its massive budget with rising fuel costs for average Americans and lamenting the deaths of U.S. service members.

“Thirteen American lives lost and tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent in just three weeks since Donald Trump plunged us into war without congressional authorization. There is still no plan, no clear justification, and no end in sight,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said. “Americans called for lower prices, not endless wars.”

For weeks, Trump, Hegseth and other war leaders such as Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have focused on U.S. wins in the conflict — tallying up Iran’s sunken ships and grounded planes, assassinated leaders and undermined missile capabilities.

In recent days, Trump has suggested that, because of those wins, Iran is buckling and its leaders reaching out for a deal. He has said the U.S. is pushing a 15-point plan that will forever block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon or threatening the U.S. or its allies. And he and others in his administration have accused the media of ignoring tremendous battlefield wins to harp on losses instead.

Israel, America’s major partner in the conflict, has projected similar confidence while showing no signs of slowing its attacks on Iran. On Thursday it announced it had killed several senior Iranian naval commanders, including Commodore Alireza Tangsiri, the head of Revolutionary Guard’s navy.

Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz said the deaths should send a “clear message” that Israel will continue to hunt down top Iranian military officials. Iran did not immediately acknowledge Tangsiri’s death.

The head of U.S. Central Command, Adm. Brad Cooper, praised Tangsiri’s killing, said U.S. strikes would continue, and called on Iranian fighters to “immediately abandon their post and return home to avoid further risk of unnecessary injury or death.”

Meanwhile, death, destruction and environmental and economic damage from the war spread far beyond Iran, where officials recently increased their estimated death toll to nearly 2,000.

Israel was fighting off a barrage of incoming missiles Thursday, with booms heard in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and an impact reported in the central town of Kafr Qassem. Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Tahsin al Khafaj on Thursday said 23 people had been wounded in a Wednesday strike on a military clinic in western Iraq’s Anbar province.

Israeli soldiers grieve during the funeral of Staff Sgt. Ori Greenberg, 21, at the Mount Herzl military cemetery in Jerusalem on Thursday.

(Odd Andersen / AFP via Getty Images)

Thousands of additional U.S. troops are on their way to the region, while many of the tens of thousands already stationed there have been displaced into hotels and other temporary housing — diminishing their war-fighting capabilities — by Iranian attacks that have left the 13 regional military bases they normally live on “all but uninhabitable,” the New York Times reported.

Iran announced Thursday that it had launched drone and missile attacks on a U.S. military base in Kuwait and a separate air base used by American forces in Saudi Arabia.

Jasem Mohamed al-Budaiwi, the secretary-general of the Gulf Cooperation Council, accused Iran of charging fees for ships to safely transit the Strait of Hormuz, continuing the economic toll on global oil supplies. Environmental experts warned of massive pollution from burning oil and gas fields.

Russia, emboldened by the Iran war, which has drawn resources away from Ukraine and led the U.S. to ease sanctions on Russian oil, has launched a renewed spring offensive against Ukraine.

The distance between U.S. and Iranian messaging about the war and their negotiations to end it — which foreign officials have said are occurring through intermediaries — has contributed to the tensions and the reluctance of allies to get involved, with some citing similar frustrations as Republicans in Congress this week.

Many allies have largely stayed out of the conflict despite Trump vacillating between demanding their help and insisting it isn’t necessary.

In one of his posts to social media Thursday morning, Trump blasted allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, for having “DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO HELP” in the conflict, and said the U.S. would “never forget.”

During his Cabinet meeting, Trump said that when the “right deal” is made with Iran, the Strait of Hormuz will reopen — while insisting that Iran no longer has any “mine droppers” that would threaten merchant vessels passing through the key oil route.

Steve Witkoff, one of Trump’s top advisors leading the negotiations in the Middle East, said the Iranians were looking for an “offramp,” that Pakistan is serving as a mediator between Washington and Tehran, and that the U.S. has presented a 15-point plan that “forms the framework for a peace deal.”

“These are sensitive, diplomatic discussions and you have directed us to maintain confidentiality on the specific terms and not negotiate through the news media, as others do,” Witkoff said. “We will see where things lead and if we can convince Iran that this is the inflection point, with no good alternatives for them other than more death and destruction.”

Trump has also declined to say whom Washington is negotiating with in Iran, but described them as “very smart,” “not fools,” and “very lousy fighters, but great negotiators.”

He also said he knows they are “the right people” for the U.S. to be dealing with because they had given him a “present” — and proved they are in control — by allowing “eight big boats of oil” travel through the strait this week.

Asked if he intended to send U.S. troops into Iran to take its enriched uranium, he called it a “ridiculous question” that he wouldn’t answer.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he is confident that more merchant vessels will soon be able to safely pass through the Strait of Hormuz. He also told the president that he believed the oil market is currently “well supplied” and that once the war ends, energy prices will drop.

Hegseth repeatedly slammed the media for falsely framing the war effort as floundering or unfocused, saying Iran’s “air defenses are gone,” its leaders hiding in “underground bunkers,” and its fighters losing morale.

He said Iranian officials in private are admitting “very heavy losses,” and that the U.S. and the world are benefiting from having Trump, whom he called the “ultimate deal maker,” working toward a peace deal.

In the meantime, he said, the U.S. military will “continue negotiating with bombs.”

March 26 (UPI) — A Trump administration attorney admitted in federal court that the Department of Justice misrepresented an internal memo to justify arrests in immigration courts.

U.S. attorney Jay Clayton acknowledged in a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Castel that the department had been incorrectly relying on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo to make arrests in immigration courts. This led to agents showing up to immigration hearings and detaining dozens of people.

The memo, “2025 ICE Guidance,” directed federal agents that they “may conduct civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses when they have credible information” that a person targeted for detainment would be “present at a specific location.”

Clayton wrote that the Trump administration was unaware of the error until Tuesday. ICE personnel received an email reminding them that “the May 27, 2025, Guidance does not apply to Executive Office for Immigration Review courts, regardless of their location.”

“Based on our discussions with ICE today, this regrettable error appears to have occurred because of agency attorney error,” Clayton wrote. “We deeply regret that this error has come to light at this late stage, after the parties have expended significant resources and time to litigate this case and this court has carefully considered Plaintiffs’ challenge to the 2025 ICE guidance.”

Civil Rights organizations brought a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the arrests of people attending immigration court hearings last year.

“In the months since the Court relied on the government’s representation to deny Plaintiffs preliminary relief, Defendants have continued arresting noncitizens at their immigration court hearings, resulting in their detention — often in facilities hundreds of miles away,” the New York Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union responded in a court filing.

Amy Belsher, an attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union representing plaintiffs, said in a statement that the admission by the Trump administration was a “shocking revelation.”

“It is yet again another example of ICE’s brazen disregard for the lives of immigrants in this country,” Belsher said in a statement. “It is now clearer than ever that there is no justification for ambushing and arresting people who are showing up for court.”

In January, former Milwaukee County, Wisc., Judge Hannah Dugan resigned from her post after being convicted for obstructing law enforcement last year. Dugan was charged after helping an immigrant evade federal immigration agents who showed up at their immigration hearing to detain them.

Dugan faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. She has not been sentenced.

MONTCLAIR, N.J. — A few years ago, Allison Posner was barely involved in politics.

Now the 42-year-old mother of two from Maplewood, New Jersey, hands out food and diapers to immigrant families outside a nearby detention facility. She waves signs on a highway overpass between school pickups and orthodontist appointments. And this weekend, she’ll lead a No Kings protest march across this affluent town alongside her husband, her children and thousands of others who are convinced President Trump represents a direct threat to American democracy.

“The people in the suburbs are definitely radicalizing,” said Posner, a freelance actor.

A growing faction of concerned citizens living in suburban communities across the United States — places once known for political moderation or even conservatism — are increasingly positioned on the front lines of the anti-Trump resistance. More than a year into the Republican president’s second term, the soccer moms are becoming bona fide activists taking to their well-manicured streets to fight Trump and his allies.

The leftward lurch could cost Republicans control of Congress for the president’s final two years in office. It could also reshape the Democratic Party by elevating a fresh crop of fiery progressive candidates emboldened to push back against the Trump administration more aggressively than the establishment may prefer.

Indivisible, the activist organization spearheading the third round of No Kings protests this weekend, said roughly two-thirds of more than 3,000 planned demonstrations will be held outside urban areas. Overall, more than 9 million people are expected to turn out nationwide for what leaders predict will be the largest day of protesting in U.S. history.

“We’re going to be everywhere,” Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin said.

Organizers said sign-ups have been especially enthusiastic in suburban areas with high-profile congressional races like Scottsdale, Arizona; Langhorne, Pennsylvania; East Cobb, Georgia; and here in northern New Jersey’s 11th District, which holds a special election April 16.

Democratic voters last month chose Analilia Mejia, a former political director for Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, as their candidate to replace Mikie Sherrill, the more moderate Democrat who was recently elected as New Jersey’s governor.

Posner said she’s excited to have a fighter represent her district, someone who can channel the outrage she sees every day.

“I’m seeing people from the PTA or the neighborhood who would have never joined a protest in the past, who are now asking how they can get involved,” Posner said. “This is not some other people’s fight. This is our fight.”

‘Our hair is on fire’

For decades, affluent suburbs like those in northern New Jersey helped elect Republicans who fit the districts they represented: business-oriented, culturally moderate and disinterested in ideological fights.

That began to change in the Trump era.

Across the country, college-educated suburban voters recoiled from Trump’s brand of politics. They shifted sharply toward Democrats in the 2018 midterms and in the presidential elections that followed. Districts like New Jersey’s 11th, once a Republican stronghold, have since become part of a new liberal coalition rooted in places that were, until very recently, politically competitive.

Even in Summit, New Jersey, one of the nation’s wealthiest suburbs, Jeff Naiman feels as if he’s living in an “authoritarian nightmare” of Trump’s making.

“It’s like our hair is on fire,” says Naiman, a 59-year-old radiologist who leads his local chapter of Indivisible. “Our country’s being torn apart.”

He’s supporting Mejia, and he has no doubt she’ll win next month’s special election — and again in November’s general election.

“In this environment,” Naiman said, “I think the chances of her losing the general election are basically zero.”

Mejia, an outspoken progressive activist endorsed by Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., emerged from the crowded Democratic primary last month, beating more moderate candidates like former congressman Tom Malinowski.

She’s critical of Israel’s war in Gaza, calls for the abolition of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and backs Medicare for All. She’s also eager to raise concerns about what she describes as Trump’s dictatorial tendencies and will be one of the featured speakers at a No Kings protest this weekend.

“A ZIP code does not protect anyone from rising violent authoritarianism,” she said in an interview.

Mejia still describes herself as a soccer mom, even as her Republican critics accuse her of trying to soften her activist image ahead of Election Day.

“My youngest plays baseball and soccer, my oldest lacrosse and basketball,” she said. “And when I take my children to activities, to games, and I speak to other parents, I know that we’re all experiencing this economy and this political moment very similarly.”

Mejia defended herself against accusations of antisemitism for her position on Israel, which she accused of committing genocide in the war in Gaza, a topic that emerged as a key issue in the race.

“When I say Palestinians have rights, like Jewish people and Israelis have rights, that is not antisemitism, that is humanism,” she said while acknowledging there is antisemitism within the Republican and Democratic parties. “I am an Afro Latina raising two Black sons in America. I know othering kills. I know how dangerous it is when we dehumanize communities.”

A Republican balancing act

New Jersey’s 11th District was represented by a Republican until Sherrill was elected during the 2018 midterm elections that served as a harsh verdict at the halfway mark of Trump’s first term.

Joe Hathaway, the Republican nominee in next month’s special election and a town councilman from Randolph Township, hopes to convince voters that Mejia is too radical for them. Republican strategists in Washington, too, believe a surge of far-left Democratic candidates nationwide like Mejia in otherwise moderate districts might help their party maintain its razor-thin House majority this fall.

Yet suburban Republicans are facing serious political headwinds from the leader of their own party in the White House. Hathaway, for example, initially declined to say whether he voted for Trump.

“I don’t think it’s important,” he said in an interview, before acknowledging that he cast his ballot for the president three times. “This job is representing the district. NJ-11 comes first, before a president, before your party.”

Hathaway backs the president’s war in Iran and many of the economic policies in Trump’s big tax and spending cuts bill. But he was also quick to highlight areas of disagreement.

The Republican said he supports most of the Democrats’ demands in the Department of Homeland Security shutdown fight, including proposals to require federal immigration agents to wear body cameras, clearly identify themselves, take off face masks and receive better training.

He also wants Republicans who lead Congress to stand up to Trump, whose use of executive authority Hathaway said is “pressure testing” the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution.

“Congress needs to reassert that it is the first branch of government and take more of a leadership role than it’s been doing,” he said.

Inside the suburban shift

Suburban Americans have been slowly moving away from the Republicans over the past 15 years, according to Gallup polling that tracks party affiliation over time.

Trump was unable to stop the shift despite warnings that Democrats would “destroy” the suburbs with low-income housing.

In 2020, Democrat Joe Biden won 54% of voters who said they lived in the suburbs while Trump won only 44%, according to AP VoteCast. That was a substantial improvement on Democrat Hillary Clinton’s performance in a smaller survey of validated 2016 voters conducted by the Pew Research Center, which found that Clinton and Trump split the group about evenly.

The suburbs have also grown more diverse and educated over the past few decades, demographic shifts that may make Democrats more confident. In both of the past two presidential elections, AP VoteCast found that college-educated and non-white suburban voters were much likelier to support the Democratic candidate.

Naiman, the Summit radiologist, said he’s witnessed a transformation in his town, which was represented by Republicans at the state and federal level for decades until Trump took over.

“I don’t think that Summit is going to be swinging towards Republicans anytime soon — at least not as long as Trumpism is around,” he said.

Peoples writes for the Associated Press. AP polling editor Amelia Thomson DeVeaux in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Pressure is mounting on Congress to end the funding shutdown that has resulted in travel disruptions, missed paychecks and even warnings of airport closures, but lawmakers have yet to resolve the underlying issue of reining in President Trump’s immigration enforcement operations.

Senators intend to vote Thursday on a Republican proposal that would fund the Transportation Security Administration and much of the Department of Homeland Security, except the enforcement and removal operations conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That plan is expected to fail.

Democrats argue it does not go far enough at putting guardrails on officers from ICE, Customs and Border Protection and other federal agencies who are engaged in the immigration sweeps, particularly after the deaths of two Americans protesting the actions in Minneapolis.

Trump, who has largely left the issue to Congress to resolve, threatened to send the National Guard to airports, in addition his deployment of ICE agents who are now checking travelers IDs — a development drawing concerns.

“They need to end this shutdown immediately or we’ll have to take drastic measures,” Trump said Thursday during a Cabinet meeting at the White House.

With Congress set to leave town by week’s end for its own spring break recess, calls are intensifying for an end to the 41-day stalemate that’s put the livelihoods of TSA officers at risk as they provide airport security without pay.

Multiple airports are experiencing greater than 40% callout rates of TSA workers and more than 480 of its nearly 50,000 transportation security officers have now quit during the shutdown. Nationwide, nearly 11% of TSA workers — more than 3,200 on a single day — missed work.

Trump stays out of the fray

The Republican president initially signed off on the plan the GOP senators brought to him late Monday. By Tuesday, he said he would not be happy with any deal.

Trump did not directly address the status of negotiations late Wednesday evening during an annual fundraising dinner for the House Republicans’ campaign committee as Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., works to keep majority control of the chamber in the November elections.

But Trump criticized Democrats for refusing to settle their demands on immigration changes. On Thursday, he revived his campaign for senators to end the filibuster as a way to overpower opposition to GOP policies, something most Republican senators do not want to do.

The GOP’s big tax cuts bill that Trump signed into law last year funneled billions to DHS, including $75 billion for ICE operations, ensuring the money is flowing for his immigration and deportation agenda even with the funding shutdown. ICE and other immigration officers are still being paid.

The situation is partly of Trump’s making, a strategy the president put in place last fall when he cut a deal with Democrats to end a previous federal shutdown. At that time, Trump agreed to fund the federal government, except for DHS, which was then put on temporary funding that has expired.

A stopgap measure

The Republican offer added one new restraint on immigration officers, funding the use of body cameras that had previously been agreed to. It excluded other policies that Democrats have demanded, such as that federal agents wear identification, remove their face masks and refrain from conducting raids around schools, churches or other sensitive places.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said they needed to see real changes. “We’ve been talking about ICE reforms from day one,” he said.

Democrats had been in several days of talks with the White House, including with border czar Tom Homan, that appeared to be making progress toward a deal. The White House presented its own offer with several items Democrats had been demanding, including officer IDs and training.

But those negotiations broke down over the weekend.

Republicans say Democrats are putting the country at risk. They say the Trump administration has already made strides to meet Democrats’ demands and has shown a new approach to its immigration operations, swearing in Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin as the new homeland security secretary to replace Kristi Noem.

But conservative Republicans also panned the proposal, demanding full funding for immigration operations and skeptical of the promise from GOP leaders that they would address Trump’s proof-of-citizenship voting bill in a subsequent legislative package.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said late Wednesday that if Democrats put a “more realistic offer on the table, we’ll be back in business.”

Asked if Congress would consider a stopgap measure to temporarily fund the department, Thune said: “We’ll see.”

Airport lines grow as TSA workers endure hardships

Passengers are facing more four-hour waits to clear security at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston.

The airport’s website said Thursday morning that travelers should expect to wait two hours, 30 minutes in the security line at one of its open terminals and four hours at the other.

Lines and wait times are expected to grow Thursday and Friday because of “significantly higher passenger traffic,” according to an update on the airport’s website.

“This is a dire situation,” the acting TSA administrator, Ha Nguyen McNeill, testified at a House hearing Wednesday.

She described the multiple hardships facing unpaid TSA workers — piling up bills and eviction notices, even plasma donations to make ends meet — and warned of potential airport closures if more employees refuse to come to work.

“At this point, we have to look at all options on the table,” she said. “And that does require us to, at some point, make very difficult choices as to which airports we might try to keep open and which ones we might have to shut down as our callout rates increase.”

She cited the growing financial strain on the TSA workforce.

“Some are sleeping in their cars, selling their blood and plasma, and taking on second jobs to make ends meet,” she said.

McNeil also said TSA officers working at the nation’s airports have experienced a more than 500% increase in the frequency of assaults since the shutdown began.

“This is unacceptable, and it will not be tolerated,” McNeill said.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writers Rebecca Santana and Ben Finley in Washington; Wyatte Grantham-Philips in New York; Rio Yamat in Las Vegas; Russ Bynum in Savannah, Ga., and Gabriela Aoun Angueira in San Diego contributed to this report.

Perhaps it was predictable that reality TV would become a pipeline into American politics. After all, political theater was the ultimate unscripted spectacle before reality TV became a genre unto itself.

Consider the raw drama of the first televised presidential debate, where a sweaty Richard Nixon and confident John F. Kennedy traded barbs. Or Anita Hill’s should-have-been-damning testimony against then-Supreme Court justice candidate Clarence Thomas during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in 1991. Or President George W. Bush’s 2003 “mission accomplished” speech from a carrier off the coast of California, mere weeks into a war in Iraq that lasted years.

Modern programmed reality TV isn’t political theater, but it has become a springboard into modern politics for some stars of the genre. From President Trump to Dr. Oz, Caitlyn Jenner to Sean Duffy, campaigns and political offices are littered with the names of former cast members from reality series. Here’s a list of the most memorable jumps from trash TV to the smoldering dumpster of 21st century politics.

Donald Trump, president of the United States, ’The Apprentice’

Before he was a two-time president of the United States, Trump was one of America’s most recognizable make-believe bosses thanks to his 14-season run on NBC’s reality competition “The Apprentice,” created by reality TV kingmaker Mark Burnett. With his practiced executive scowl and scripted boardroom catchphrase, “You’re fired!,” the show burnished his image as a decisive billionaire dealmaker, even as his real-life business results were far less impressive. Off camera, Trump’s businesses filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection six times between 1991 and 2014. Never mind. It was his knack for showmanship, and his undying need for attention, that proved the perfect entry into post-decorum politics. How does pretending to be in charge on a middling reality competition qualify anyone to safely and successfully run the most powerful nation on Earth? It doesn’t. Sleep tight.

Sean Duffy, Transportation secretary, ’The Real World’ and ‘Road Rules: All Stars’

Sean Duffy first appeared on MTV’s “The Real World: Boston,” where he was introduced as a flirtatious, conservative lumberjack/student hybrid. In short, he was a casting director’s dream. He later joined “Road Rules: All Stars,” where he met his future wife Rachel Campos-Duffy. Trading hot tub confessionals for courtrooms, Duffy became a Wisconsin district attorney and then a congressman. By 2025, he’d risen to secretary of Transportation under Trump, completing a career arc from staged arguments with pretend roommates to heated exchanges with the press about the effects of a government shutdown on airport safety. Dude.

Markwayne Mullin, Homeland Security secretary, MMA fighter

After a fiery confirmation hearing, Mullin is now Trump’s second secretary of Homeland Security in the 2.0 administration, following the disastrous tenure of wannabe reality show star Kristi Noem. Mullin was not a reality star per se, but in his role as a professional mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter he performed in cages for live, streaming and pay-per-view cable audiences. As an early 2000s champ in the sport, Mullin boasted an undefeated 5-0 record and the Oklahoma chapter of the National Wrestling Hall of Fame inducted him in 2016. How do these MMA skills, or his former life running the family plumbing business qualify him to protect the national security of this great nation? It’s unclear, but his fighting instincts have already resulted in a viral moment out of a 2023 Senate hearing, when he challenged Teamsters President Sean O’Brien to a physical fight, offering to “finish it here.” Now he’ll be running the DHS. What could go wrong?

Omarosa Manigault Newman, former assistant to Trump and director of communications for the office of public liaison, ‘The Apprentice’

Newman became one of reality television’s more memorable villains thanks to her run on “The Apprentice,” where her Machiavellian ways and unapologetic ambition revolted viewers and impressed her fake boss. She would eventually parlay that dubious notoriety into more than one role in the first Trump White House. Her tenure was brief, ending in a high-profile departure and her accusation that Trump is a “racist, a bigot and a misogynist.” She then wrote a book, “Unhinged: An Insider‘s Account of the Trump White House.” Perhaps she’ll adapt her written account into a reality show, only to reignite her fame and win the White House. From there? She’d hire Trump, of course, then swiftly end his run on the show with two simple words: “You’re Fired!”

Spencer Pratt, Los Angeles mayoral candidate, ‘The Hills’

Best known as one-half of reality TV’s most polarizing couple on “The Hills,” Pratt built a reputation as a needling instigator, often leaning into the role of villain with annoying enthusiasm. After stints on other reality shows such as “Big Brother U.K.,” he began speaking out about local California issues, including wildfire recovery and environmental policy. Earlier this year Pratt, a Republican, announced that he would be running for mayor of Los Angeles in the upcoming mayoral election, challenging incumbent Karen Bass. Does he really want to govern the Left Coast, or is his candidacy a ploy for a new reality show? Let’s hope it’s the latter.

Caitlyn Jenner, California gubernatorial candidate, ‘Keeping Up With the Kardashians’

An Olympic gold medalist long before reality TV fame, Jenner reentered public consciousness through a show about nothing. The hit series relaunched her into the spotlight as a member of one of America’s most visible families. Using that fame, she ran as a Republican in 2021 in California’s gubernatorial recall election, positioning herself as a political outsider. Her campaign leaned heavily on her life story — from her athletic achievement to her personal reinvention — but she failed to keep up with the competition.

Clay Aiken, U.S. congressional candidate, ‘American Idol’

Aiken rose to fame as the earnest, vocally gifted runner-up on “American Idol” circa 2003. His polite demeanor, impressive vocal range and dramatic rendition of “Bridge Over Troubled Water” earned him a devoted fanbase known as the “Claymates.” Aiken went on to have a semi-successful music career before running for Congress in North Carolina as a Democrat in 2014. Aiken made the mistake of leaning into his strengths as a thoughtful, policy-oriented candidate rather than relying on his past achievement as a vapid reality show contestant. He lost, of course.

Jim Bob Duggar, Arkansas state House representative and state Senate candidate, ’19 Kids and Counting’

As the patriarch of TLC’s “19 Kids and Counting,” Jim Bob Duggar became synonymous with a conservative Christian lifestyle when the show aired in 2008; it garnered high ratings and ran for 10 seasons. He espoused many of the same ideals as an elected official in the Arkansas House of Representatives from 1999 to 2003, before leaving the political stage for reality TV. But the show was canceled in 2015 when the Duggars’ eldest son, Josh, admitted to molesting several girls, some of whom were his sisters. A conviction on child pornography charges followed. (More recently, his brother Joseph was charged with child sex abuse.) Jim Bob Duggar attempted a political comeback in 2021 when he ran for a vacated seat in the Arkansas state Senate, leaning on what he believed was his reputation as an upstanding family man. Reality bit back, and he lost.

Mehmet Oz, U.S. Senate candidate and administrator of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, ‘The Dr. Oz Show’

Like so many questionable figures Americans came to trust in the 2000s, Dr. Oz got his start as a frequent guest on “The Oprah Winfrey Show.” He went on to launch “The Dr. Oz Show,” where he dispensed health advice to millions of viewers. His blend of seemingly measured medical guidance and on-camera charisma appealed to viewers who were tired of looking at egg-headed doctors, like the kind who practice real medicine off screen. He announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania as a Republican in 2021, focusing on an anti-establishment platform. He lost the general election to Democrat John Fetterman, but the doctor is still in. Trump appointed him administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and vice presidential nominee, ‘Sarah Palin’s Alaska’

File this under “Folks who tried to reinvent themselves on reality TV after tanking in politics.” Sarah Palin served as the ninth governor of Alaska before being selected as Sen. John McCain‘s running mate ahead of the 2008 presidential election. After losing to Barack Obama and Joe Biden, she veered away from politics, a decision that probably had nothing to do with an ethics scandal dubbed Troopergate that involved Palin. Burnett saw an opportunity, producing the 2010 TLC reality series “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.” It followed the Palin family engaging in activities such as fishing, prospecting for gold and camping in the region. In short, it looked like a tourism ad for Alaska and was canceled after one season. It also failed to kickstart her political career. She lost her 2022 bid for Alaska’s U.S. House seat, failing in both a special election and her general election comeback attempt. Apparently it isn’t Sarah Palin’s Alaska, after all.

Ross Harrison, Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute, says public talk of diplomacy between the US and Iran is hiding hardline positions, warning that despite the messaging, the situation is still likely heading toward military escalation.

WASHINGTON — Most Americans believe recent U.S. military action against Iran has gone too far, and many are worried about affording gasoline, according to a new AP-NORC poll.

As the war launched by the U.S. and Israel continues in its fourth week, the survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicates that while President Trump’s approval rating is holding steady, the conflict could be swiftly turning into a major political liability for his Republican administration.

While Trump is deploying more warships and troops to the Middle East, about 59% of Americans say U.S. military action in Iran has been excessive.

Meanwhile, 45% are “extremely” or “very” concerned about being able to afford gas in the next few months, up from 30% in an AP-NORC poll conducted shortly after Trump won reelection with promises that he would improve the economy and lower the cost of living.

There is significant support for at least one of the president’s objectives, which is preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. About two-thirds of Americans say that should be an “extremely” or “very” important foreign policy goal for the U.S. However, they are just as likely to say it’s important to keep U.S. oil and gas prices from rising — a juxtaposition that could be difficult for the White House to manage.

About 4 in 10 U.S. adults continue to approve of Trump’s performance as president, which is unchanged from last month. His approval on foreign policy, while slightly lower than his overall approval, also largely held steady.

Trump has left unclear his next steps on Iran. Despite escalating threats, he’s also suggested diplomatic talks could resolve the fighting. Americans remain broadly apprehensive about Trump’s ability to make the right decisions on the use of military force outside the U.S., and they mostly oppose more aggressive steps, such as deploying ground forces.

Republicans and Democrats prioritize keeping gas prices low

Keeping the price at the pump down is the rare goal that unites Americans in both major political parties.

About three-quarters of Republicans and about two-thirds of Democrats say it’s highly important to prevent U.S. oil and gas prices from going up.

However, concern about the current situation isn’t evenly felt. Only about 3 in 10 Republicans said they’re “extremely” or “very” worried about affording gas in the next few months, as opposed to about 6 in 10 Democrats.

Trump’s focus on Iran’s nuclear program also appears more compelling to Republicans than to Democrats. About two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. should prioritize keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but about 8 in 10 Republicans say this is at least “very” important, compared with about half of Democrats.

The war has exacerbated political debates over the role that Israel should play in U.S. foreign policy, especially since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a leading voice for attacking Iran. Only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults say preventing Iran from threatening Israel should be a high priority.

Toppling Iran’s leaders is viewed as slightly less important. Only about 3 in 10 say it’s at least “very” important for the U.S. to replace Iran’s government with one that’s friendlier to U.S. interests.

Most Americans say U.S. action has gone too far in Iran

As Trump provides mixed messages on whether the Iran war will end soon, about 9 in 10 Democrats and about 6 in 10 independents say the Iran attacks have “gone too far.”

Republicans are more divided. About half of Republicans say the U.S. military action has been “about right,” but relatively few want to see it go further. Only about 2 in 10 Republicans say the U.S. military action has not gone far enough, while about one-quarter say it’s gone too far.

Recent AP-NORC polling has found that about 6 in 10 Americans say Trump has “gone too far” on a range of issues, including his approach to tariffs and presidential power. That number, which is broadly reflective of his overall approval, signals that while Trump’s actions in Iran are unpopular, it’s still comparable to other controversial moves he’s taken as president.

Further entrenching the U.S. in the war could change that, depending on what happens next. About 6 in 10 Americans “somewhat” or “strongly” oppose deploying U.S. troops on the ground to fight Iran, including about 8 in 10 Democrats and roughly half of Republicans. Just under half of Americans oppose airstrikes targeting Iranian leaders and airstrikes against military targets in Iran, while about 3 in 10 are in favor and about 3 in 10 don’t have an opinion.

Many Americans distrust Trump on use of military force abroad

About half of U.S. adults have “only a little” trust or “none at all” in Trump when it comes to making the right decisions about the use of military force outside the U.S., in line with an AP-NORC poll from February.

About 34% of U.S. adults approve of the way Trump is handling foreign policy, similar to 36% in February. That measure has been consistent in recent months despite a cascade of actions, including confrontations over Greenland and an attack on Venezuela, that have generated controversy at home and abroad.

It’s also very similar to Trump’s approval on Iran in the new poll, which found that 35% of Americans have a positive view of his handling of that issue.

Sanders and Catalini write for the Associated Press. The AP-NORC poll of 1,150 adults was conducted March 19-23 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Donald Trump said Iran is negotiating with the US but is “afraid to say it”. Speaking at a Republican fundraising dinner, Trump said that Iran’s leaders fear they could be “killed by their own people” or by the US.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum praises services from Cuban doctors, who often work in underserved rural areas.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has confirmed that her country will continue receiving Cuban medical workers, as part of a longstanding programme meant to build goodwill between the island and other Latin American countries.

Her remarks on Wednesday come as the United States pressures Latin American countries to sever their ties to Cuba’s medical programme.

Sheinbaum, however, told reporters during a news conference that the agreement was a benefit to Mexico. Thousands of Cuban medical workers have deployed there since 2022 to work largely in poor, rural areas.

“We have a very good agreement that’s also been a great help to us. It’s a bilateral agreement that’s been very beneficial for Mexico,” said Sheinbaum.

“It’s hard to get Mexican doctors and specialists to go out to many rural areas where we need medical specialists, and the Cubans are willing to work there.”

In February, the US passed a law that opens the door to sanctions on countries that continue to participate in the programme.

It called for the US secretary of state to issue a report within 90 days about which countries continue to pay the government of Cuba for the “coerced and trafficked labour of Cuban medical professionals”.

The move comes amid a wider push to further isolate Cuba and topple the government in Havana, a longtime target of US ire. So far, countries including the Bahamas, Honduras, Guatemala, Jamaica and Guyana have ended their participation in the Cuban medical exchange programme.

Cuba has long depicted the decades-old programme as a means of signalling solidarity with other countries. It has also become an important source of foreign revenue for the island nation, which has been under a restrictive US economic embargo since 1960.

The administration of US President Donald Trump, however, has depicted the programme as akin to forced labour.

“Basically, it’s human trafficking,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in February.

“I mean, they’re barely even being paid. Their freedom of movement is tightly restricted. And we want these countries to understand that’s what they’re participating in.”

Experts at the United Nations have also raised similar concerns, including about the confiscation of passports, which the Cuban government justifies as a means of preventing trained doctors from fleeing the country after their state-sponsored studies.

The pressure on the Cuban medical missions is part of a broader push under Trump’s second term to seek regime change on the island.

By threatening tariffs on Cuba’s trading partners, Trump has largely cut the island off from accessing the foreign oil necessary to power its electrical grid.

Trump has also said that he hopes to “take” Cuba and install a new government that will be more pliant to US demands.

The Mexican government has tried to balance its friendly relations with Cuba with the US’s demands.

In the absence of energy shipments, Sheinbaum’s government has sent vessels with humanitarian aid to the island.

WASHINGTON — President Trump will travel to Beijing for a rescheduled summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping on May 14 and 15, the White House announced on Wednesday.

Trump had been scheduled to travel to China later this month but previously announced he was delaying the trip so he could be in Washington to help steward the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran. The Republican president had announced a rescheduled trip even though the war in Iran continues and the U.S. is pressing Tehran to accept a ceasefire proposal.

The president and First Lady Melania Trump also plan to host Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan, for a White House visit later this year, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.

Leavitt, when asked if the new dates for Trump’s trip could suggest he believes the Iran war could end soon, offered an optimistic tone that the conflict could reach an endgame before he travels.

“We’ve always estimated four to six weeks,” Leavitt responded. “So you could do the math on that.”

The United States and Israel launched the attacks against Iran on Feb. 28.

The China trip had been planned for months but began to unravel as Trump pressured Beijing and other world powers to use their military might to protect the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for the flow of oil. The strait has been effectively closed as Iran targets energy infrastructure and traffic through it.

Trump said last week while meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin in the Oval Office that he would be going to China in five or six weeks’ time instead of at the end of the month. He said he would be “resetting” his visit with Xi.

“We’re working with China — they were fine with it,” Trump said then. “I look forward to seeing President Xi. He looks forward to seeing me, I think.”

Trump’s visit to China is seen as an opportunity to build on a fragile trade truce between the two superpowers, but it has become tangled in his effort to find an endgame to the war in Iran. Soon after pressing China and other nations to send warships to secure access to Middle Eastern oil, Trump indicated last week that his travel plans depended on Beijing’s response, though he added then that the U.S. didn’t need help from the allies that rebuffed his request.

Madhani writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has offered Iran a 15-point ceasefire plan aimed at temporarily halting the war in the Middle East, as the Pentagon simultaneously orders thousands of Marines, paratroopers and a warship to the region.

The plan presented to Iranian leadership Tuesday broadly included a 30-day ceasefire and sanctions relief for Iran in exchange for a laundry list of U.S. demands, according to the Associated Press and other outlets.

But Iran dismissed the proposal Wednesday, criticizing the White House’s terms as “excessive” and out of step with reality, according to Iranian state-run media.

Those terms included limitations on Tehran’s missile stockpiles, and the permanent end to its nuclear program, its support for regional militias including Hezbollah, and of its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, various outlets reported, citing Pakistani officials mediating the negotiations.

Several of those provisions have long been considered nonstarters for Iran, which sees its missile stockade and regional alliances as central to national security.

Iranian officials responded with defiance and skepticism.

“Iran will end the war when it decides to do so and when its own conditions are met,” an Iranian official told state media. “Not when Trump envisions its conclusion.”

The official outlined the Islamic Republic’s terms for ending the conflict, which included a halt to “aggression and assassinations,” an end to fighting on all fronts, enforceable guarantees that hostilities will not resume, compensation for war damages and a formal recognition of Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has stated that Iran is not interested in a ceasefire but rather a comprehensive “end of war” on all fronts, including the lifting of sanctions and guarantees to allow Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear enrichment for energy and medical applications.

Iranian officials told state media that they believed the Trump administration’s diplomatic efforts were deceptive.

“You have reached a stage where you are negotiating with yourselves,” Iranian military spokesman Ebrahim Zolfaqari said in a televised address Wednesday. “Do not call your defeat an agreement.

Since the start of the conflict, Iranian leaders have voiced suspicion of any diplomatic talks with the Trump administration, pointing to prewar diplomatic efforts as evidence they were “tricked.” The Islamic Republic says it made clear in those talks that it had no interest in developing nuclear weapons, but Trump launched his military campaign nonetheless.

There have been conflicting media reports over Tehran’s exact position. Statements from Iranian officials and state-linked outlets have left open the possibility that elements of the proposal are still under review, while some reports frame the response as an outright refusal.

The Iranian response also conflicts with President Trump’s insistence that negotiations were progressing.

“We have had very, very strong talks,” he said Sunday in Florida. “We have points, major points of agreement. I would say almost all points of agreement will at some point very, very soon meet.”

Compounding the issue, Israel — which continues to carry out routine bombing campaigns over Iran — has stayed out of the talks.

Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke about the peace deal in a phone call Tuesday. In a televised address, Netanyahu said that Trump “believes there is an opportunity” to realize U.S.-Israeli war objectives in an agreement “that will safeguard our vital interests.”

“At the same time, we continue to strike both in Iran and in Lebanon,” Netanyahu said. “We will safeguard our vital interests in any scenario.”

The negotiations are being facilitated by Pakistan, with support from Egypt and Turkey — countries that have pushed to contain a conflict that has killed more than 2,400 people, further destabilized the embattled region and disrupted global oil markets.

As Washington pursued a diplomatic end to the conflict, the Pentagon deployed an additional 2,000 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division to the Mideast. An additional 5,000 Marines and thousands of sailors are already en route to the region, where 50,000 more Marines are currently stationed.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters on Wednesday that the deployment “sends a signal to Iran that they need to get their act together,” but denied any coming escalations by the American side. Johnson instead said that he believes “Operation Epic Fury is almost done.”

Now in its fourth week, the operation began with a series of intensive airstrikes that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, and dozens of other high-ranking officials. Since then, the U.S. and Israel have carried out over 9,000 strikes targeting Iranian military infrastructure and nuclear program.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday that while the president’s diplomatic envoys seek a peace deal, his department of war will continue to “negotiate with bombs.”

“The president has made it clear that you will not have a nuclear weapon. The War Department agrees,” Hegseth told reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office. “Our job is to ensure that, and so we’re keeping our hand on that throttle.”

Iranian retaliatory strikes have hit Gulf infrastructure and halted energy production and shipping in the region, spurring global fears of an enduring supply crunch. Meanwhile, Israel has expanded operations in Iran and sought to expand its borders into Lebanon.

Oil prices, which had surged above $120 per barrel earlier in the conflict, fell sharply this week on hopes that a ceasefire could ease supply woes.

In a statement Wednesday, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres demanded an end to the fighting, which he said “has broken past limits even leaders thought imaginable.”

He specifically called on the U.S. and Israel to end the war, as “human suffering deepens, civilian casualties mount, and the global economic impact is increasingly devastating.”

Times staff writers Ana Ceballos, in Washington, D.C., and Nabih Bulos, in Beirut, contributed to this report.

Governing, the political sages tell us, is all about making choices, particularly when leadership faces finite resources and the choices are between war and peace; this is the “guns or butter” balancing raised by Lyndon Johnson’s pursuit of the Vietnam War and, appropriately, by President Trump’s Iran war.

Thus far, according to budget experts and the Trump administration itself, the war has cost Americans about $25 billion, with the White House reportedly preparing to seek $200 billion more in military funding. That points to the obvious question of what the U.S. could buy if it stopped spending on the Iran adventure.

Here’s the short answer: Medicaid coverage, free school lunches, and housing, child care and community college assistance for tens of millions of Americans. Those estimates come from Bobby Kogan, senior director for federal budget policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.

Kogan is not alone in doing the math. Similar estimates have been published by the Century Foundation and Mother Jones.

Democrats in Congress have offered their own juxtapositions: “$11.3 billion would have fully funded the training of 100,000 new nurses to solve our staffing crisis,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) observed on social media. “Instead, it was spent in just six days on an illegal war with no endgame.” (She wrote when that was the government’s estimate on spending in only the first week of the Iran war.)

Details will follow. But first, a reminder that the “peace dividend” — that is, the surge of available resources for socially beneficial spending after the cessation of hostilities — has always been an elusive concept.

In part that’s because it invariably gets tied up in conflicts over precisely what peacetime programs political leaders wish to fund, and that often involves tougher decisions than whether to mount a bombing campaign against a perceived adversary.

“What happened to the peace dividend?” economist Augusto Lopez-Claros asked last year, referring to the supposed surfeit of funds that was to flow after the end of the Cold War. His answer was that there were always alternatives, many of them militaristic in nature, in the wings to suck up the funds that had been spent in the past.

The issue has especially acute significance today, not merely because of the Iran war. The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have been campaigning to cut federal spending, almost entirely on social programs such as Medicaid and on Social Security and Medicare benefits, ostensibly because they contribute heavily to our “unaffordable” federal budget deficits.

Never mind that the largest single contributor to the deficit is the massive tax cut enacted by Republicans in 2017, during the first Trump term, which were made permanent by the GOP’s budget bill last year.

Placing military spending in the context of alternatives is typically shunned by Republicans and conservatives. The Wall Street Journal editorial board derided the exercise as “dorm room politics,” referring specifically to an estimate by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) that the $200 billion reportedly sought by the White House “would pay for free college for every American,” and more.

That doesn’t mean the exercise isn’t worthwhile, however. Kogan acknowledges that it wouldn’t be up to the Pentagon to redirect its budget to the social programs that could be funded with its funding request, but his point in making the comparisons is “to get a sense of scale.”

So let’s dive in, starting with Kogan’s work. He matched the cost of several social services against the $25 billion estimated to be spent on the war through the end of this week and the $200-billion new request. He also broke down some of the spending by ordnance. The price of one Tomahawk missile, invoiced about $3.5 million each, could cover Medicaid for a year for 275 people, for example; the U.S. has fired an estimated 300 of them in the Iran war so far, for more than $1 billion.

Kogan calculated that more than 3.1 million people could be covered by Medicaid for $25 billion, and 24.8 million could be covered for $200 billion. He based this estimate on the Congressional Budget Office’s finding that the federal share of Medicaid came last year to $668 billion to cover about 82 million adult and child enrollees, or about $8,048 per person annually.

Then there’s free school lunches, which the government has pegged at up to $4.69 per day for about 30 million children receiving meals in school. If they all received free lunch, that would come to a little over $25 billion, based on a 180-day school year. (Only about two-thirds of those children receive free meals, with the rest receiving cut-price meals or paying full price.)

Child care isn’t typically a governmental responsibility (though it should be); Kogan uses an estimate from the nonprofit organization Child Care Aware that care cost Americans about $13,128 on average in 2024; inflating that to a 2026 figure yields an average of $14,048, meaning that 1.78 million households could be covered for about $25 billion, and about 14.2 million for $200 billion.

Tuition for a two-year path to an associate degree in community college, that portal to higher education for millions of Americans, will cost an average of $8,700 this year by Kogan’s reckoning, based on the College Board’s estimate of $8,300 for 2025. That means that about 2.87 million Americans could have their tuition fully covered for about $25 billion, and nearly 23 million students could be covered for $200 billion.

The progressive Century Foundation contributed estimates of how much in social program spending could be accommodated for $200 billion. Its roster includes the cancellation of all medical debt for the 100 million Americans shouldering about $194 billion in medical debt. The enhanced Affordable Care Act premium subsidies that expired this year could be continued for almost six years for about $200 billion, extrapolating from the 10-year, $350-billion estimate produced by the CBO. “Ensuring health coverage for all Americans,” the foundation noted, “could save an estimated 68,000 lives per year.”

The foundation also notes that $200 billion could ameliorate the draconian cuts in Medicaid imposed by the preposterously named One Big Beautiful Bill that the GOP enacted as a budget measure in July. The work requirement in that bill is estimated to reduce Medicaid spending by $326 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO, mostly by throwing enrollees out of the program. The work rules, which as I’ve reported do nothing to enhance employment, could be deferred for six years, preventing the loss of coverage for about 5.2 million Americans.

Mother Jones reported soberly that $200 billion would cover the wages of 2.8 million public school teachers, based on an average salary of $72,030, as reported by the National Education Assn.

The publication took a rather more fanciful approach for some calculations. It reported that $200 billion would pay for 2,666 sequels to the “Melania” documentary, based on the $75-million reported cost of its production and marketing by Amazon, its sponsor. And 500 more White House ballrooms, based on the latest projection of $400 million for just one.

Obviously all these calculations are somewhat chimerical. No one really believes that if Congress rejects the $200-billion ask, that money would be redeployed for any of these social programs, at least while the GOP remains in control of the government purse strings. The basic arithmetic itself is subject to cavils resulting from the murkiness of some of the cost calculations and projections.

But they’re not far wide off the mark in terms of orders of magnitude. Millions of dollars in social spending could be covered by billions of dollars in military spending, and much more productive investments could be made in the years and decades to come.

The lost “peace dividend” encompasses not just domestic needs, but also “the potentially catastrophic risks that we are taking on in the future because we are misallocating resources now,” Lopez-Claros observed — “spending massively on defense while leaving unattended climate change mitigation, pandemic preparedness, the shamefully high levels of malnourishment in the world, among others. We may well come to regret this and by then, unfortunately, it might be too late.”

Even before the first bombs fell on Iran, after all, the U.S. was shortchanging all those imperatives. “Just last July, Trump signed into law the biggest cuts to the social safety net in all U.S. history,” Kogan says, including “the biggest cuts to Medicaid ever, and the biggest cuts to SNAP, ever.” (The GOP budget bill cut SNAP, the food stamp program, by $186 billion, leaving “nearly 3 million young adults ages 18 to 24 who receive SNAP vulnerable to losing that assistance,” the Urban Institute estimated after the bill was signed.

At their heart, these calculations are not really about dollars and cents. The financial figures just help us keep score of the choices that define us as a nation.

Iran’s military has said the United States is failing in its war and negotiating with itself to save face, dismissing claims by US President Donald Trump that talks are under way to end the conflict.

“Has the level of your inner ⁠struggle reached the stage ⁠of you negotiating with yourself?” Ebrahim Zolfaqari, spokesperson for the unified command of Iran’s armed ⁠forces, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, said on Wednesday in comments carried by Iran’s semiofficial Fars news agency.

“Don’t call your failure an agreement,” he added, mocking US leadership.

The statement is the latest official Iranian denial that Tehran is engaged in diplomacy with Washington, even as Trump insists talks are ongoing and reports circulate of the US sending a peace proposal.

Speaking to reporters at the White House yesterday, the US president said Washington is speaking to the “right people” in Iran, which he claimed wants to make a deal “so badly”.

“They are talking to us, and they’re making sense,” said Trump.

Trump’s position marks a stark shift from days earlier, when he threatened to strike Iran’s power plants if Tehran did not fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, where it has threatened vessels from “enemy” nations. Hours before the ultimatum expired on Monday – and US markets reopened for the trading week – Trump said he would delay any planned attack by five days, citing diplomatic progress. Iranian officials denied this.

Zolfaqari said there would be no return to previous oil prices or the prior regional order “until our will is done”.

‘Obscurity in Iran’

Questions over possible diplomacy were amplified by US media reports that Washington had sent Tehran a 15-point plan to end the war.

The Wall Street Journal, quoting unnamed officials, reported that the plan calls on Iran to dismantle its three main nuclear sites, end any enrichment on its soil, suspend its ballistic missile programme, curb support for its regional allies and fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz. In return, Iran would have nuclear-related sanctions lifted and the US would assist the country’s civilian nuclear programme, according to the Journal.

Al Jazeera’s Mohamed Vall, reporting from Tehran, said there is “total confusion” in Iran over the status of potential negotiations.

“Contrary to the clarity with which Donald Trump seems to speak, there is obscurity in Iran,” said Vall. “What we hear instead are the officials and politicians here saying the complete opposite. They say there is no negotiation.

“There is total confusion, total obscurity, and it’s really making this situation very interesting and very strange,” he added.

While there is a “cloud of mistrust” between the US and Iran, Tehran is engaged diplomatically with several regional countries, including Pakistan, said Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi, also reporting from Tehran. Islamabad, which appears to have emerged as a possible mediator in the conflict, delivered the US’s plan to Tehran, according to The New York Times.

Israel, Iran trade strikes

Amid the competing claims about negotiations, Israel continued to strike Iran, and the US reportedly prepared to send more troops to the Middle East.

Israel’s military said it carried out a series of late-night strikes on infrastructure in Tehran. Iran’s Fars news agency reported at least 12 people killed and 28 wounded in an “enemy attack” on the residential area of Varamin in southern Tehran.

Iran, for its part, claimed to fire more missiles at Israel, including targeting a military base in the northern Israeli city of Safad, as well as sites in the cities of Tel Aviv, Kiryat Shmona and Bnei Brak. There were no immediate reports of casualties from that missile salvo, though an earlier rocket attack by Hezbollah killed one woman in northern Israel.

Meanwhile, the US was expected to send at least 1,000 soldiers from the Army’s elite 82nd Airborne Division to the ⁠Middle East, adding to some 50,000 US soldiers already in the region, the Reuters and AP news agencies reported.

“As the US is preparing for peace talks, it’s also preparing for war,” said Al Jazeera’s John Hendren from Washington, DC. “Diplomacy and military moves are going on at the same time.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Tuesday that Iran wants to “make a deal” with the United States to end the war in the Middle East, saying that negotiations are ongoing with the conflict in its fourth week.

Iran has publicly denied that talks are happening. But Trump told reporters during an Oval Office event that negotiations are underway and being led by Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“I’d like to think we are in a good bargaining position,” Trump said.

Trump said he remains skeptical of Tehran’s intentions, saying he doesn’t necessarily “trust them,” but indicated that he is encouraged to continue talks after receiving what he described as a “very big present worth a tremendous amount of money” from Iran.

“I am not going to tell you what the present is,” Trump told reporters. But he said it was a “significant prize” related to “oil and gas” that signaled to him that he was “dealing with the right people.”

Conflicting messages over the diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran come as Pakistan has offered to host peace talks in Islamabad aimed at ending the hostilities, which have killed more than 2,400 people, further destabilized the Middle East and disrupted global oil markets.

“Pakistan welcomes and fully supports ongoing efforts to pursue dialogue to end the WAR in Middle East, in the interest of peace and stability in region and beyond,” Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif wrote on X.

Any potential talks between the United States and Iran would face significant challenges. Key U.S. demands — particularly related to Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs — remain difficult to resolve, even though Trump claims Iran has already agreed to concessions related to its ability to have nuclear weapons.

It is also unclear who within Iran’s leadership would be willing to negotiate, especially as Israel has vowed to keep targeting Iranian leaders after killing several already.

Trump has not publicly responded to Pakistan’s offer to act as an in-between for the United States and Iran. He also sidestepped a question about a New York Times report that said the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, has been pushing him to continue the war against Iran.

The president instead expressed confidence in his senior advisors handling the negotiations with Iran. He did not specify who U.S. officials are engaging with, but insisted they are “talking to the right people.”

When asked by a reporter why he had agreed to a cease-fire with the Iranians, Trump said: “They are talking to us, and they’re making sense.”

As the talks continue, Trump said that the United States is “way ahead of schedule” in its war with Iran, a nation that he said was so battered that it had no choice but to come to the negotiating table. Iran, however, showed on Tuesday that it still has firepower as it fired a new wave of missiles at Israel, Iraq and other gulf nations.

Iran fired at least 10 waves of missiles at Israel. In Tel Aviv, a missile with a 220-pound warhead slammed into a street in the city center, blowing out windows of an apartment building and sending smoke billowing. Four people suffered minor wounds, rescue worker Yoel Moshe said.

In Kuwait, power lines were hit by air defense shrapnel, causing partial electricity outages for several hours. Bahrain said it was attacked with missiles and drones, and that an Emirati soldier serving with its forces had been killed. The United Arab Emirates said air defense systems responded to similar attacks, and Saudi Arabia said it destroyed Iranian drones targeting its oil-rich Eastern Province.

Israel pounded Beirut’s southern suburbs, saying that it was targeting infrastructure used by the Iran-linked Hezbollah militant group, and carried out an extensive series of strikes on Iranian “production sites,” without providing more information.

On Tuesday, Defense Minister Israel Katz said Israel intended to seize Lebanon’s south Lebanon to a create a “security zone.”

Speaking at an assessment meeting with the Israeli military’s chief of staff, Katz said the military would control up to the Litani River, a waterway that runs through south Lebanon, meeting the Mediterranean some 20 miles north of the border with Israel.

“Hundreds of thousands of residents of southern Lebanon who evacuated northward will not return south of the Litani River until security for the residents of the north [of Israel] is ensured,” he said.

His words were the clearest articulation yet of Israel’s plans in Lebanon, going far beyond the “limited and targeted ground operations” announced by the Israeli military earlier this month.

Lebanon, meanwhile, took steps to undercut Tehran’s influence in the country and its support for Hezbollah. In a statement released on X on Tuesday, Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi said the government was expelling Iranian Ambassador Mohammad Reza Shibani and declared him persona non grata. He gave Shibani until Sunday to leave the country.

Hezbollah condemned the move and called it a “grave national and strategic mistake.” Political figures aligned with the group also issued public statements urging the Iranian ambassador to ignore the decision.

In Washington, Trump said he would like to find a resolution that would avoid further casualties and damage to critical infrastructure in the region.

“If we can end this without more lives being down, without knocking out $10-billion electric plants that are brand new and the apple of their eye, I’d like to be able to do that,” he said. “But they can’t have certain things.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, meanwhile, told reporters that he would rather “negotiate with bombs.”

“The president has made it clear that you will not have a nuclear weapon. The War Department agrees,” Hegseth said. “Our job is to ensure that, and so we’re keeping our hand on that throttle, as long and as hard as is necessary to ensure the interests of the United States of America are achieved on that battlefield.”

His comments came as thousands of U.S. Marines were on their way to the region, raising speculation that the U.S. may try to seize Kharg Island, which is vital to Iran’s oil network. The U.S. bombed the Persian Gulf island more than a week ago, hitting its defenses but saying it had left oil infrastructure intact.

The Pentagon declined to comment on the deployment.

Ceballos and Quinton reported from Washington. Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.