trump

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser, with an assist from Noah Goldberg, offering up the latest on city and county government.

L.A. voters finally got a chance this week to see how the leading candidates for mayor behave onstage with each other, and they didn’t disappoint.

The back-to-back debates offered plenty of cutting moments as Mayor Karen Bass, Councilmember Nithya Raman and reality television star Spencer Pratt faced off against each other.

But the two showdowns also served up a few surprises. Here are three that were noteworthy:

Raman and a campaign pledge

Bass went mano-a-mano with Raman on Tuesday for 90 minutes in the drab settings of the Sherman Oaks Adult Center.

Technically it was Raman’s home turf, since the facility is located in her Hollywood Hills district. But the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn., the event’s host, wasn’t an especially friendly audience — in part because of their diverging views on real estate development.

Raman soldiered on, telling the audience about her big promise of the day: If elected, she would cut the number of homeless encampments across the city in half by the 2028 Olympic Games.

Then she went further, saying she would remove every encampment by the end of 2030, the conclusion of her hoped-for first term as mayor.

Raman has spent much of the campaign talking up her record on homelessness in her district, which stretches from Silver Lake to Reseda, pointing to a 54% reduction in the number of tents and encampments over three years. She’s been contrasting that work with Bass’ Inside Safe program, which secured a 17.5% reduction over two years citywide.

“I don’t think anybody in Los Angeles right now can say that we are satisfied with spending extraordinary amounts of money and getting only incremental progress,” Raman said the following night, at a debate sponsored by NBC4 and Telemundo 52 at the Skirball Cultural Center.

As part of her pitch, Raman unveiled a four-part strategy to get the city’s nearly 27,000 “unsheltered” homeless residents indoors.

Still, her pledge drew criticism from Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who has emerged as a Bass supporter in recent days. Rodriguez said Raman has been in office since 2020, spending half that time in charge of the committee that oversees homelessness, and is only offering a comprehensive encampment strategy weeks before the election.

“What’s stopped her for the last six years?” Rodriguez asked in a text message.

Bass and needle exchange

On Wednesday, Bass and Raman joined Pratt for the one-hour televised debate at Skirball. Pratt spent much of the night promising to rid the streets of drug addicts, whom he regularly refers to as “zombies” on social media.

“When you get rid of all the drug addicts on the street, the police won’t be responding to the drug addicts all day long,” he said.

Echoing that theme, NBC4’s Colleen Williams told the three candidates that Norm Langer of Langer’s Delicatessen wants the city to end its needle “giveaway program.”

Williams asked the three candidates if they would do as Langer requested. Raman said no. Pratt said yes.

Bass, after a brief pause, also said yes. That was something of a surprise, since the city’s Department on Disability delivers those types of services as part of its HIV/AIDS prevention services, collecting dirty syringes and offering clean ones to drug users.

The mayor’s budget calls for nearly $1.2 million in the coming fiscal year for overdose prevention and syringe exchange services, City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo said in an email.

Bass spokesperson Paige Sterling said the mayor’s office is now “actively reviewing these programs.”

“Needle exchange programs like this are not designed to end people’s addictions, and we should be doing everything we can to end drug use in our parks — especially given the increased use of deadly drugs like Fentanyl,” she said in a text message.

Langer said needle giveaways should not be in or near “sensitive sites” like parks and schools, including MacArthur Park.

Officials in Los Angeles County’s Department of Public Health said so-called harm reduction programs, including the distribution of Narcan and syringes, help save lives and improve public health, reducing the number of overdose deaths and the transmission of HIV and viral hepatitis.

Pratt was in fact kinda chummy with Bass

He calls Bass trash on social media — at least in Spanish. He reposted an AI video that portrays her as the Joker. He blasted her as “an incredible liar” during Wednesday’s debate.

Yet the evidence is clear: Pratt, the former star of MTV’s “The Hills,” did get friendly with Bass for a few moments during his hour onstage with her.

At one point, Pratt praised Bass for working to fund the Los Angeles Police Department, saying her efforts were “important, actually.” At another point, he flagged for the moderators that Bass was trying to rebut some of Raman’s remarks.

“Mayor Bass would like to respond,” Pratt nudged them.

“Thank you,” Bass replied.

Team Raman has been trying to make the case that Bass has been going easy on Pratt, as part of a larger strategy to ensure that she faces him in the top-two Nov. 3 runoff. During the debate, Raman accused the two of teaming up to attack her, saying they were afraid of facing her in Round 2.

Pratt pushed back on the idea, saying he considers Bass to be the more formidable opponent. “You think it’s easier to run against the incumbent mayor with all the unions [endorsing her], or a random council member who’s been a failure for six years?” he said.

Halfway through the debate, Bass tried to reply to another Raman remark, and Pratt stepped in again to assist.

“See how nice they are being to each other?” Raman said.

State of play

— DOUBLE NO-SHOW: Bass won’t be returning to the debate stage next week, skipping a candidate forum scheduled for Wednesday on Fox11. Pratt also is not attending, according to organizers. That leaves City Councilmember Nithya Raman, tech entrepreneur Adam Miller and community organizer Rae Huang. Bass spokesperson Alex Stack said the mayor will be in Sacramento that day lobbying for state funding.

The main organizers of the event — the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs and the League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles — issued a statement calling Bass’ withdrawal from the debate “disappointing.” “Public forums such as this are a cornerstone of democratic accountability,” the groups said.

— TICKING TIMEBOMB: Szabo, the city administrative officer, issued a grim warning this week about the proposal heading to the November ballot that would repeal the city’s business tax, depriving the city of about $860 million per year. Szabo said the measure, backed by a coalition of business leaders, would lead to “an immediate and lasting contraction of public services” and “fundamentally undermine” the city’s ability to host the 2028 Olympic Games.

— THREE MORE STOPS: Metro’s D Line subway extension finally opened Friday, offering three additional stations along Wilshire Boulevard. The line’s westernmost point is now the La Cienega Boulevard station.

— MAD FOR MCKINNEY: L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman and the union that represents rank-and-file police officers endorsed prosecutor John McKinney, dealing a fresh setback to the reelection campaign of City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto. The police union withdrew its endorsement of Feldstein Soto last month, citing her handling of a data breach dealing in part with police lawsuits.

— AIRBNB’S BIG BUCKS: Meanwhile, a campaign committee sponsored by Airbnb just put $1.5 million in an independent expenditure committee backing McKinney, according to a new filing with the secretary of state. Michael Trujillo, political strategist for Feldstein Soto, responded on X:
“Hydee Feldstein Soto SUED AIRBNB for GOUGING LA FIRE SURVIVORS and now they are crying with this IE in support of their hand picked puppet.”

— ROOTING FOR RAMAN: She didn’t get Democratic Socialists of America to reopen its endorsement process for the mayoral primary election. But Raman got something else: a recommendation in DSA’s newly released voter guide.

The group’s L.A. chapter said a vote for Raman would ensure that “a left candidate with a proven track record of delivering for working class Angelenos” makes it into the top two against Bass. The DSA also issued a caveat, saying in boldface that its “recommendation” is “not an endorsement” — and therefore will not cause the group to expend any resources on her behalf.

— THEN THERE’S THIS: The centrist 501(c)4 nonprofit group Thrive LA took a sharply different approach, issuing a voter guide that — wait for it — endorses both Bass and Pratt in the primary. Why? The group doesn’t want Raman, arguing she would bring “higher taxes, more regulation, less housing production, and an ideological approach to governance.”

— STOPPING TRAFFIC STOPS: The City Council took a step toward imposing new restrictions on “pretextual” traffic stops this week, asking the Los Angeles Police Commission to adopt new guidelines similar to San Francisco, which bars officers from pulling drivers over for broken taillights and other minor equipment violations, unless there is a safety threat.

— NOHO TRAGEDY: A jury found Thursday that an LAPD officer was not liable for the death of a 14-year-old girl who was killed by a bullet fired by the officer as he pursued a suspect in a Burlington department store. The family of Valentina Orellana-Peralta filed a lawsuit contending that the officer should have slowed down and deferred to other officers at the scene who had already determined that the suspect wasn’t armed with a gun.

— MEA CULPA: We made a mistake in last week’s newsletter, incorrectly reporting that Councilmember Traci Park voted against L.A.’s “sanctuary city” ordinance. Although Park was highly critical of the ordinance after it passed, she was absent from the council’s vote.

— THEY’RE HERE: Our voters guides have arrived, giving you the rundown on who’s running for what in a whole bunch of races. Take a look!

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to address homelessness revisted a long list of spots that have been targeted by the program previously.
• On the docket next week: As we mentioned earlier, the next televised forum is set for Wednesday, with the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs, the League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles and Fox11 hosting.

Stay in touch

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

May 8 (UPI) — President Donald Trump intends to fire Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary because he is frustrated with the agency.

Trump signed off on the decision to replace Makary as he has clashed with Trump, officials in the Department of Health and Human Services and other officials in the administration, multiple reports said on Friday.

The reports — from NBC News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post — all were attributed to Trump administration sources who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the issue.

Makary, a former surgeon at Johns Hopkins, was confirmed to run the FDA in March 2025 on a vote the included two Democratic members of the Senate voting yes.

His nomination carried some controversy because, like several other Trump cabinet members and nominees, is a former Fox News contributor who preferred that society develop natural immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19 instead of the CDC’s preferred method of using vaccine-induced immunity during the pandemic.

The reports suggest that Makary has struggled to run the FDA as long-time staff have left the agency and a range of healthcare, pharmaceutical and advocacy groups have been highly critical of its actions.

The Department of Health and Human Services and Makary have not commented on the reports, and sources for all four news organizations noted that the plan could change if Trump changes his mind.

May 8 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday delivered a Mother’s Day address as he hosted Gold Star Mothers and Angel Mothers in the White House Rose Garden.

Starting with his own mother, Trump thanked mothers across the country in a 20-minute speech that included specific thanks for mothers in the audience and those who work for his administration.

“I want to thank every single mother here this afternoon and all across our nation for your work,” Trump said.

“Every single day, America’s moms are raising — really — raising the future of our country … You have the most important job there is in America or any place else, and you’re doing an incredible job,” he said.

During the speech, Trump honored the mothers of children who died in crimes linked to illegal immigrants, whom he has dubbed Angel Mothers, noting that he hoped to prevent their ranks from growing due to “open borders” and what his administration has in pursuit of that goal.

The president honored Gold Star Mothers — the mothers of members of the military who have been killed in action — some of whom in attendance lost children during the war in Afghanistan.

Questioning whether “time heals all wounds,” Trump said that “our hearts are out to you on Mother’s Day.”

He also spoke about legislative and executive actions his administration has meant to benefit mothers and families.

“We’re honored to be joined by many strong and truly heroic moms who have stood up for their children,” he said, wishing them a Mother’s Day “filled with love and gratitude and joy.”

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Truce will also include swap of 1,000 prisoners of war from each country, US president says.

⁠United States ⁠President Donald Trump ⁠says ‌there will be a three-day ceasefire in ⁠the war between ⁠Russia and ⁠Ukraine.

Posting on Truth Social on Friday, the US leader said the truce would last from ⁠Saturday to Monday.

“I am pleased to announce that there will be a THREE DAY CEASEFIRE (May 9th, 10th, and 11th) in the War between Russia and Ukraine,” Trump posted.

“The Celebration in Russia is for Victory Day but, likewise, in Ukraine, because they were also a big part and factor of World War II. This Ceasefire will include a suspension of all kinetic activity, and also a prison swap of 1,000 prisoners from each Country,” he added.

Russia had previously announced a two-day unilateral ceasefire to mark its May 9 World War II Victory Day on Saturday.

Ukraine previously stated that it too had offered a truce but that this had been ignored by Moscow.

“This request was made directly by me,” Trump said on Friday, thanking his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy for agreeing to it.

“Talks are continuing” on ending the war, Trump said, adding that “we are getting closer and closer every day”.

“Hopefully, it is the beginning of the end of a very long, deadly, and hard fought War.”

More to come…

Two press freedom groups that own shares in Paramount Skydance are demanding to see the company’s books and internal documents, citing allegations that the company’s leaders may have promised favors to the White House to win approval for Paramount’s deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.

The letter, sent Thursday to Paramount chief legal officer Makan Delrahim, says that media reports alleging that Paramount owner David Ellison and others promised favors to the Trump administration “create credible concern that Paramount leadership has offered, solicited, or effectuated a corrupt exchange,” which the groups argue would “constitute a breach of fiduciary duties” and open the company up to a “range of potential civil and criminal penalties.”

The letter cites Delaware law that allows stockholders to inspect the company’s books and records “for any proper purpose.”

Paramount declined to comment on the letter.

Among the issues raised in the letter are promises reportedly made by David Ellison and his father, Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison, that they would make “sweeping” changes at the news network CNN, which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.

The Ellison family acquired Paramount, which includes CBS and the storied Melrose Avenue film studio, last summer.

The letter cites changes implemented in CBS since their acquisition, including their decision to end late night television house Stephen Colbert’s show days after he characterized a settlement Paramount reached with Trump as a “big fat bribe.”

Under Ellison’s ownership, the letter says, numerous high-profile reporters have left the network and its ratings have dropped to “historic lows.”

Larry Ellison, who is backing the financing of Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner, reportedly told White House officials that Paramount would “implement the CBS playbook” at CNN if the merger is approved, and remove anchors and commentators at the cable news network that Trump doesn’t like, according to the letter.

The effort comes just two weeks after Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders overwhelmingly approved the proposed merger. Investors have supported the Larry Ellison family takeover, which would become the biggest Hollywood merger in nearly a decade. The deal would pay Warner stockholders $31 per share — four times the stock price a year ago.

The letter was written on behalf of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which develops secure communication tools for journalists and tracks violations of press freedom, and Reporters Without Borders, which tracks press freedom globally.

The organizations are being represented by former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, who established the Public Integrity Project this year to challenged alleged government corruption, as well as Delaware attorney Ronald Poliquin.

The missive, which could be a precursor to a lawsuit, opens another avenue of attack against the controversial $111-billion deal, which would transform the smaller Paramount into an industry titan.

With Warner Bros. Discovery, the Ellisons would also control HBO, TBS and the vast film and TV library of Warner Bros., which includes the Harry Potter, DC Comics, and Scooby-Doo, in addition to CNN.

Paramount, led 43-year-old David Ellison, wants to finalize its Warner Bros. takeover by the end of September. President Trump favors the deal; he has long agitated for changes at CNN.

But the proposed merger would saddle the combined company with $79 billion in debt, stoking fears that Paramount would be forced to make steep cost cuts to juggle such a large debt load.

Politicians, unions and progressive groups separately have pressed California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to scrutinize the proposed merger, hoping that he brings an antitrust lawsuit in an attempt to upend the deal.

More than 4,000 film industry workers, including Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston, Ted Danson, J.J. Abrams, Jane Fonda and Kristen Stewart, have signed an open letter imploring Bonta and other regulators to block the merger. The group lamented the proposed tie-up, saying it “would reduce the number of major U.S. film studios to just four.”

Opponents fear the consolidation would lead to massive layoffs and diminish the quality of programming that Warner Bros., CNN and HBO are known for.

Hollywood has sustained thousands of layoffs over the last seven years since Walt Disney Co. swallowed Fox’s entertainment assets in another huge merger. In addition, the film production economy hasn’t recovered from shutdowns during the 2023 labor strikes. An estimated 42,000 entertainment industry jobs were lost from 2022 and 2024.

On Thursday, 34 California Democrats in Congress also sent a letter to Bonta, encouraging him to look closely at the merger.

The deal is expected to become one of the largest leveraged buyouts ever.

Ballou, who is working with the press freedom groups, previously served as a Justice Department special counsel with expertise in private equity transactions.

He resigned from the Justice Department in January 2025 when Trump returned to office. In his book, “Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America,” Ballou examined large leveraged buyouts and found that many of which resulted in bankruptcies.

May 8 (UPI) — President Donald Trump threatened to raise tariffs to “much higher levels” on the European Union if it doesn’t agree to a trade deal by July 4.

“I had a great call with The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. We discussed many topics, including that we are completely united that Iran can never have a Nuclear Weapon. We agreed that a regime that kills its own people cannot control a bomb that can kill millions. I’ve been waiting patiently for the EU to fulfill their side of the Historic Trade Deal we agreed in Turnberry, Scotland, the largest Trade Deal, ever! A promise was made that the EU would deliver their side of the Deal and, as per Agreement, cut their Tariffs to ZERO! I agreed to give her until our Country’s 250th Birthday or, unfortunately, their Tariffs would immediately jump to much higher levels,” the president said Thursday afternoon on Truth Social.

The threat came after The EU has struggled to agree on the terms of the Turnberry Accord, which was for the United States to lower tariffs on EU products and for the EU to remove tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and invest billions in U.S. industries, including energy.

Von Der Leyen said on X that the bloc is still committed to the deal.

“I had a very good call with @POTUS. We discussed the situation in the Middle East and our close coordination with regional partners. We are united that Iran must never possess a nuclear weapon. Recent events have clearly shown that the risks to regional stability and global security are too great.

“We also discussed the EU-U.S. trade deal. We remain fully committed, on both sides, to its implementation. Good progress is being made towards tariff reduction by early July.”

Last week, Trump threatened to raise tariffs on European autos to 25%. It’s unclear if his renewed threat is specifically for vehicles or if it encompasses all EU exports.

Complicating matters is that Trump’s current method of levying tariffs was blocked Thursday by the U.S. Court of International Trade.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the administration’s tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Trump then added a 10% across-the-board tariff and then later upped it to 15%.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in an interview with Politico Thursday that the EU is moving slowly.

“With the tariffs, they’ve at least started a process. They’re working it through,” Greer said. “It’s a pain. I understand it’s slow. We’re not patient. But there are other things where they haven’t even started a process.”

“We’re 95% compliant for nine months … and they’ve been 0% compliant during that time. What am I supposed to do?” he said.

FIFA have come in for criticism for the inflated prices of tickets at World Cup 2026 in US, Canada and Mexico.

President Donald Trump is the latest person to ‌take a shot at the sky-high World Cup ticket prices, saying he would not pay $1,000 to watch the United States ⁠play against Paraguay on ⁠June 12 in Los Angeles.

Trump said he was unaware of the prices football fans are being asked to pay to watch a group-play match at the World Cup.

“I did not know that number,” ⁠Trump told The New York Post. “I would certainly like to be there, but I wouldn’t pay it either, to be honest with you.”

Earlier this week, FIFA President Gianni Infantino defended the cost of seats for the World Cup, saying ⁠they were in line with prices for major US sporting events.

“We have 25% of the group stage tickets which can be bought for less than $300,” Infantino said. “You cannot go to watch in the US a college game, not even speaking about a top professional game of a certain level, for less than $300. And this is the World Cup.”

The average cost of a ‌ticket for the World Cup final on July 19 in East Rutherford, New Jersey, is $13,000, according to reports. It was $1,600 for the 2022 final in Qatar.

Trump is worried the pricing will shut out working-class Americans from being able to attend a game.

“If people from Queens and Brooklyn and all of the people that love Donald Trump can’t go, I would be disappointed, but, you know, at the same time, it’s an amazing success,” he said of the World Cup that he helped land for the US during his first term as president. “I would like to be able to ⁠have the people that voted for me to be able to go.”

FIFA also released some ⁠tickets on Thursday, which gives fans a chance at first-come first-serve tickets.

According to TicketData.com, the current average price for Group Stage games is $567, down from $684 14 days ago and $720 from 30 days ago.

Field Level Media took a quick look Wednesday on the Ticketmaster website for the June 19 group-stage ⁠match between the US and Australia in Seattle, and that search did not display any bargains.

The lowest price for two tickets early Wednesday evening was a resale pair ⁠for $2,725.10, which broke down to $2,290 for the tickets and $435.10 in service fees. However, ⁠a new search 30 minutes later showed the total price climbing to $2,770.90 for seats high in the upper deck along the sideline at Lumen Field. For fans more familiar with football than futbol, they could be considered on the 25-yard line.

On Thursday afternoon, a newly listed pair of resale tickets ‌was the lowest offering – two for $2,553.10. Those tickets were in the upper deck around the football end line and NFL end zone.

On its own marketplace, FIFA takes a 15% purchase fee from the buyer of a resold ticket and a ‌15% ‌free from the seller.

TicketData.com said the cheapest available ticket has dropped in price for 87 of the 91 matches in the US and Canada over the past 14 days.

The World Cup will be played at 16 sites in the United States (11), Mexico (three) and Canada (two).

With President Trump continuing to tank in the polls, the parlor game we know as “2028 Republican primary speculation” is back in full swing among the chattering classes.

Vice President JD Vance — who would normally be considered the heir apparent, and who just happened to make a campaign stop in Iowa recently — now finds his “America First” brand positioning complicated by Trump’s Iran misadventure. So much for an easy glide path to the nomination.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio would seem to benefit from Vance’s stumbles, but in a political moment that fetishizes “authenticity,” Rubio risks coming across like a man who irons his blue jeans. Add to that his reputation as a foreign policy hawk in a party that increasingly wants out of “forever wars,” and he’d be the ideal presidential candidate for … 2004.

All of which has opened the door to more imaginative speculation. “If Pat Buchanan and Roger Ailes had a baby,” former “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd recently quipped, “it would be Tucker Carlson.”

Ailes, of course, was the media-savvy evil genius who took Fox News to No. 1. And while “Pitchfork Pat’s” populist presidential campaigns weren’t ultimately victorious, he is credited with paving the way for Trump’s eventual 2016 victory.

As this comparison suggests, Carlson could make a formidable Republican presidential candidate. The hitch? Carlson and Trump have recently been trading blows, which is not where any potential Republican candidate wants to be.

For all of his polling woes, Trump still enjoys an 85% approval rating among Republicans, according to the recent Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll. And his recent defeat of Indiana Republican legislators who dared defy him over gerrymandering only underscores the point: Trump’s grip on the Republican Party remains firm.

Even if you dismiss talk of a third Trump term as overwrought constitutional fan fiction, it’s hard to imagine a Republican nominee emerging without Trump’s blessing — let alone in defiance of it.

Which brings us to the latest theory making the rounds: Trump isn’t going to pass this torch to anyone lacking the proper surname.

In this telling, Vance is the loyal, if naive, assistant manager waiting for the boss to retire and hand him the keys to the office — only to discover it’s a family business and the ne’er-do-well son has just pulled into the parking lot in a Ferrari.

Enter Donald Trump Jr., whose chief qualification is name recognition so strong it could probably win a Republican primary on its own.

Add to that daddy’s endorsement, and as the Bulwark’s Jonathan V. Last has noted about Vance and Rubio, “Challenging Don Jr. would turn them into enemies of the people.”

But that doesn’t mean this is a slam dunk for Junior.

As British-American journalist Sarah Baxter recently wrote, “like Logan Roy, the patriarch in the television drama Succession, Trump loves playing his children off against each other. He thinks it instills a healthy killer instinct in his privileged offspring.”

This is to say that Junior isn’t the only potential heir lurking in the wings.

Last year, for example, Eric Trump told a journalist: “I think I could do it. And by the way, I think other members of our family could do it too.”

Which brings us to the wildest speculation of all: Ivanka Trump.

Now, to be sure, Ivanka has kept a polite distance from politics (and her father) in recent years, and she doesn’t exactly electrify the MAGA faithful. But she was always her father’s favorite, and her aforementioned liabilities could be overcome with a sufficiently enthusiastic paternal endorsement.

And once she became the standard bearer, Ivanka could market herself as both continuity and “change” — a neat trick, if she can pull it off.

In that sense Republicans could keep the Trump brand while offering a kinder, gentler, fresher face — all while making GOP history with a female presidential nominee.

This, of course, raises the question: Why would Ivanka — or any of the Trumps — want to be part of a political dynasty?

Among the many reasons, the Trump family is raking in cash. Lots of it. And as long as the next president could conceivably be a family member — a possibility that remains operable even if a Trump family member were to lose the general election in 2028 — the spigot will remain on.

That’s one of the reasons that, although Vance would normally be Trump’s obvious successor, the smart money might actually be to bet on someone with the last name “Trump.”

Now, if this dynastic denouement sounds far-fetched, of course it is. But so was electing a thrice-married casino magnate to the presidency in 2016. And so reelecting him in 2024.

We’re living in an era when the seemingly improbable isn’t just possible — it might even be likely.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

US President Donald Trump says the ceasefire with Iran is still in effect, despite American and Iranian forces trading fire in the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday. Trump threatened pain for Tehran unless it signs a truce quickly.

NEW YORK — President Trump’s 10% global tariffs were declared unlawful by a federal trade court in a fresh blow to the administration’s economic agenda, several months after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated earlier levies he’d imposed.

A divided three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan on Thursday granted a request by a group of small businesses and two dozen mostly Democrat-led states to vacate the tariffs. Trump imposed the 10% duties in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which had never previously been invoked.

The court for now only immediately blocked the administration from enforcing the tariffs against the two companies that sued and Washington state, making clear that it was not issuing a so-called universal injunction. The panel found that the other states that sued lacked standing because they aren’t direct importers, instead arguing that they were harmed by having to pay higher prices for goods when businesses passed on tariff costs.

It wasn’t immediately clear what the ruling would mean for now for other importers that had been paying the contested levies.

The majority of the panel rejected the administration’s stance that “balance-of-payments deficits” — a key criterion for imposing the Section 122 tariffs — was “a malleable phrase.” They concluded that Trump’s proclamation imposing the levies failed to identify that such deficits existed within the meaning of the 1974 law, instead using “trade and current account deficits to stand in the place.”

The decision is the latest setback for the president’s effort to levy tariffs without input from Congress. Earlier duties — overturned by the Supreme Court on Feb. 20 — were issued under a different law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. In that case, the justices ruled Trump had exceeded his authority, kicking off a legal scramble by importers for almost $170 billion in refunds.

The U.S. Justice Department could challenge the trade court’s latest ruling by taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled against the Trump administration during the last tariff fight.

Section 122 allows presidents to impose duties in situations where the U.S. faces what the law defines as “fundamental international payments problems.” Even before Trump issued the tariffs, economists and policy experts debated whether the president would be able to build a solid legal framework using the statute.

In a proclamation declaring the use of Section 122, Trump said that tariffs were justified because the U.S. runs a “large and serious” trade deficit. He also pointed to the negative net flows of income from investments Americans have overseas and other things that showed the U.S. balance-of-payments relationship with the rest of the world was deteriorating.

Under the law, presidents have the ability to impose tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. on a short-term basis to address concerns about how money is flowing in and out of the country. Those concerns include “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” and an “imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar.”

Unlike other legal options Trump might pursue to impose tariffs, Section 122 can be invoked without waiting for a federal agency to conduct an investigation to determine whether the levies are justifiable. But they can still be challenged in court.

The small businesses and states that sued argued that Section 122 became outdated when the U.S. ditched the gold standard decades ago. They say Trump improperly conflated “balance-of-payments deficits” with U.S. trade deficits in order to justify using the law.

They also allege that Trump’s order announcing the Section 122 tariffs was “riddled with omissions and mischaracterizations” around the meaning of a balance-of-payments deficit. The trade deficit cited by Trump is just one part of calculating the country’s balance of payments position, the states say.

Under Section 122, the president can order import duties of as much as 15%. The executive action can last 150 days, at which point Congress would have to extend it. Trump has said he would aim to increase the rate to 15% from 10%.

The states argue that Trump’s new tariffs violate other requirements in Section 122, including that such duties not be discriminatory in their application. The states argue that Trump’s new tariffs improperly exempt some goods from Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

According to the complaint, the Trump administration conceded during the previous litigation over his IEEPA tariffs that trade deficits “are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.”

The clash over Section 122 emerged just as the legal fight over refunds from Trump’s IEEPA tariffs began to heat up. A different judge in the Court of International Trade, U.S. Judge Richard Eaton, is overseeing the massive refund effort and ordered Customs and Border Protection to give him regular updates on a largely automated process the government will use to issue most refunds.

Larson and Tillman write for Bloomberg.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Republican lawmakers in Tennessee forged ahead with a plan Thursday that could carve up a majority-Black congressional district, reshaping it to the GOP’s advantage as part of President Trump’s strategy to try to hold on to a slim House majority in the November midterm elections.

Protesters shouted “No Jim Crow” outside the House and Senate chambers as lawmakers convened to consider the legislation. As the Republican-led House later voted for the new map, Democratic lawmakers locked arms at the front of the chamber while protesters yelled and made noise. A final vote in the Senate would sent the map to Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who called lawmakers into special session.

The redistricting effort in Tennessee is one of several rapidly advancing plans in Southern states as Republicans try to leverage a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that weakened the federal Voting Rights Act.

The court ruled that Louisiana relied too heavily on race when creating a second Black-majority House district as it attempted to comply with the federal law. The high court’s decision altered a decades-old understanding of the law, giving Republicans grounds to try to eliminate majority-Black districts that have elected Democrats.

Louisiana has postponed its congressional primary to give time for state lawmakers to craft a new House map. Legislation awaiting a final vote in Alabama also would upend the state’s congressional primaries if courts allow the state to change its U.S. House districts. In South Carolina, meanwhile, Republican lawmakers urged on by Trump have taken initial steps to add congressional redistricting to their agenda.

The states are the latest to join an already fierce national redistricting battle. Since Trump prodded Texas to redraw its U.S. House districts last year, eight states have adopted new congressional districts. From that, Republicans think they could gain as many as 13 seats while Democrats think they could gain up to 10. But some competitive races mean the parties may not get everything they sought in the November elections.

Tennessee Republicans act despite protests

As a first step to adopting new House districts, Tennessee lawmakers gave final approval Thursday to legislation that would repeal a state law prohibiting mid-decade redistricting. They then passed a bill that would reopen a candidate qualifying until May 15 to allow time for new people to enter the U.S. House primaries and existing candidates to switch districts or drop out.

The proposed House map would break up Tennessee’s lone Democratic-held district, centered on the majority-Black city of Memphis, creating a ripple effect of alterations to districts throughout the western and central parts of the state.

Republican House Speaker Cameron Sexton said the proposed districts were drawn based on population and politics, not racial data.

But Democrats dismissed such assertions.

“These maps are racist tools of white supremacy at the behest of the most powerful white supremacist in the United States of America, Donald J. Trump,” said state Rep. Justin Pearson, a Black Democrat from Memphis who is running for the U.S. House.

State Rep. Torrey Harris, another Black Democrat from Memphis, said he would lose part of his voting power as a result of the congressional districts.

“You cannot celebrate democracy while carving out Black communities,” he said. “We all know it, whether we say it or not, that this map impacts Black people negatively.”

Democrats noted that the state Supreme Court in April 2022 rejected a challenge to the current congressional map, finding it was too close to the election to make changes. This year, there’s even less time before the Aug. 6 primary, raising the potential of confusion for both candidates and voters, Democrats said.

A plan for a new primary advances in Alabama

Protesters watching an Alabama legislative committee Thursday erupted in shouts of “shame” as Republican lawmakers advanced legislation to authorize special congressional primaries if the state can put a new congressional map in place for the November midterms.

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision arising from Louisiana, Alabama is seeking to overturn a court injunction that created a second U.S. House district with a substantial percentage of Black voters. That map led to the 2024 election of Rep. Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat. Republicans want instead to use a 2023 map drawn by state lawmakers that would give the GOP an opportunity to reclaim Figures’ district.

If a court grants Alabama’s request, the legislation under consideration would ignore the May 19 primary results for congressional seats and direct the governor to schedule a new primary under the revised districts.

The House passed the legislation on a party-line vote Thursday after four hours of fiery debate. A final vote in the Senate is expected Friday.

South Carolina may add redistricting to its agenda

The South Carolina Senate could take up a resolution Thursday giving lawmakers permission to return later, after their regular work ends, to redraw congressional districts that could eliminate the state’s only Democratic-held district. The proposal, which passed the House on Wednesday, needs a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

Republican House leaders said after the vote that they plan to introduce a new map Thursday and hold committee meetings on Friday. But during debate Wednesday, Republicans fended off specific questions from Democrats, including why they were willing to stop the June 9 U.S. House primary elections well after candidates filed and how much a rescheduled primary could cost.

Democratic Rep. Justin Bamberg said he felt sorry for Republicans who, he said, were giving up their principles to follow the whims of Trump.

“The president of the United States is a very powerful man. Wields a heavy, heavy thumb — Truth Social, X, Meta, Instagram. To be honest I don’t envy our Republican colleagues,” Bamberg said.

Loller, Chandler, Collins and Lieb write for the Associated Press. Chandler reported from Montgomery, Ala.; Collins from Columbia, S.C.; and Lieb from Jefferson City, Mo. AP reporter Kristin M. Hall contributed to this report.

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican raised the “need to work tirelessly in favor of peace” in talks Thursday with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who came to Rome on a fence-mending visit after President Trump’s criticisms of Pope Leo XIV over the Iran war.

Both the Vatican and the U.S. State Department stressed that Rubio’s meetings with Leo and the Vatican’s top diplomat underscored strong bilateral ties. Those relations, though, have been strained over Trump’s repeated broadsides about Leo’s calls for peace and dialogue to end the U.S.-Israeli war.

Rubio, a practicing Catholic, has often been called on to tone down or explain Trump’s harsh rhetoric. He had an audience first with Leo, which was complicated at the last minute by Trump’s latest criticism of the Chicago-born pope. During a 2½-hour visit, Rubio then met with the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who on the eve of his visit had strongly defended Leo and criticized Trump’s attacks.

“Attacking him like that or criticizing what he does seems a bit strange to me, to say the least,” Parolin said Wednesday.

After the meetings, the U.S. State Department said that Rubio and Parolin discussed “ongoing humanitarian efforts in the Western Hemisphere and efforts to achieve a durable peace in the Middle East. The discussion reflected the enduring partnership between the United States and the Holy See in advancing religious freedom.”

In a separate statement about the audience with Leo, U.S. State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said that the two discussed the situation in the Middle East and the Western Hemisphere. “The meeting underscored the strong relationship between the United States and the Holy See and their shared commitment to promoting peace and human dignity,” he said.

The Vatican, for its part, said that during Rubio’s meetings with both Leo and Parolin, “the shared commitment to fostering good bilateral relations between the Holy See and the United States of America was reaffirmed.”

It said the two sides exchanged views on the current events “with particular attention to countries marked by war, political tensions, and difficult humanitarian situations, as well as on the need to work tirelessly in favor of peace.”

Rubio also has meetings Friday with Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani. Those meetings might not be much easier for Washington’s top diplomat, given both have strongly defended Leo against Trump’s attacks and have criticized the Iran war as illegal — drawing the president’s ire.

A mission to smooth ties

The tensions began when Trump lashed out at Leo on social media last month, saying the pope was soft on crime and terrorism for comments about the administration’s immigration policies and deportations as well as the Iran war. Leo then said that God doesn’t listen to the prayers of those who wage war.

Later, Trump posted a social media image appearing to liken himself to Jesus Christ, which was deleted after a backlash. He has refused to apologize to Leo and has sought to explain away the post by saying that he thought the image was a representation of him as a doctor.

Rubio said that Trump’s recent criticisms of Leo were rooted in his opposition to Iran potentially obtaining a nuclear weapon, which he said could be used against millions of Catholics and other Christians.

Leo has never said Iran should obtain nuclear weapons and that the Catholic Church “for years has spoken out against all nuclear weapons, so there is no doubt there.”

“The mission of the church is to preach the Gospel, to preach peace. If someone wants to criticize me for announcing the Gospel, let him do it with the truth,” Leo said late Tuesday, after Trump again accused him of being “OK” with Iran having a nuclear weapon.

By Thursday, tensions seemed to have eased.

Rubio gave Leo a small crystal football paperweight. He acknowledged Leo’s known allegiance to the Chicago White Sox, saying “you’re a baseball guy,” but noted that the football had the seal of the State Department on it.

“What to get someone who has everything?” Rubio joked as he gave Leo the paperweight.

Leo, for his part, gave Rubio a pen apparently made of olive wood — “olive being of course the plant of peace,” Leo said — with his coat of arms on it and a picture book of Vatican artworks.

Trump also has criticized Meloni and other NATO allies for a lack of support for the Iran war, recently announcing plans to withdraw thousands of American troops from Germany in the coming months.

Vatican seen as willing to have dialogue

Giampiero Gramaglia, former head of the ANSA news agency and its onetime Washington correspondent, said that he didn’t expect much to come out of Rubio’s visit for Italian or Vatican relations. He, and other Italian commentators, believe Rubio instead was looking to smooth over relations with the pope for his own political ambitions, as well as the upcoming midterm U.S. congressional elections and 2028 presidential race.

“I doubt Rubio has the role of conciliator for Trump,” he told Italy’s Foreign Press Association. “I have the perception that Rubio’s mission is more about himself” and his political ambitions as a prominent Catholic Republican.

The Rev. Antonio Spadaro, undersecretary in the Vatican’s culture office, said that Rubio’s mission wasn’t to “convert” the pope to Trump’s side. Rather, Washington “has come to acknowledge — implicitly but legibly — that (Leo’s) voice carries weight in the world that cannot simply be dismissed.”

“The situation created by President Trump’s remarks required a high-level, direct intervention, conducted in the proper language of diplomacy: a semantic corrective to a narrative of frontal conflict with the church,” he wrote in an essay this week.

Cuba is also on the agenda

Rubio said that topics other than the Iran war were on the agenda for the Vatican visit, including Cuba. The Holy See is particularly concerned about the Trump administration’s threats of potential military action there following its January ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Trump has said frequently that Cuba could be “next,” and even suggested that once the Iran war is over, naval assets deployed in the Middle East could return to the United States by way of Cuba.

Rubio is the son of Cuban immigrants and a longtime Cuba hawk.

“We gave Cuba $6 million of humanitarian aid, but obviously they won’t let us distribute it,” Rubio said. “We distributed it through the church. We’d like to do more.”

Winfield and Lee write for the Associated Press. Lee reported from Washington.

A large scale immigration enforcement operation launched under Donald Trump in Minneapolis significantly disrupted federal crime fighting efforts in the region, according to a review of court records and interviews with law enforcement officials.

The operation brought thousands of immigration agents into Minnesota beginning in December as part of a broader crackdown targeting undocumented immigrants and alleged criminal networks.

While the administration described the campaign as a public safety initiative focused on violent offenders, officials and legal records suggest the crackdown diverted federal resources away from investigations into serious crimes including gun trafficking, drug offenses, gang activity, and sex trafficking.

Federal Criminal Prosecutions Dropped Sharply

Court records reviewed by Reuters showed a steep decline in federal prosecutions during the first four months of the year.

Between January and April, federal prosecutors charged only eight individuals with gun or drug crimes compared with seventy seven during the same period last year.

Overall felony prosecutions also fell sharply, with ninety felony cases filed compared with nearly double that number a year earlier.

A significant portion of those cases involved immigration related offenses or arrests linked to protests against the crackdown itself rather than traditional violent crime investigations.

Prosecutors and Agents Were Reassigned

Officials said many federal agents who had previously worked on drug task forces and gang investigations were reassigned to immigration enforcement duties.

Some investigators reportedly became unavailable for ongoing criminal investigations because they were focused on immigration operations.

The crackdown also triggered major staffing problems inside the Minnesota office of the United States Attorney.

Several prosecutors reportedly resigned after being ordered to investigate the widow of a protester who was fatally shot during the immigration operation.

Sources familiar with the office said staffing levels dropped to roughly half of their normal strength, leaving prosecutors struggling to manage existing cases.

Local Authorities Say Public Safety Was Affected

Mary Moriarty, the top prosecutor in Hennepin County, said federal investigators had begun bringing complex criminal cases to local authorities because federal prosecutors lacked the resources to handle them.

She argued that the diversion of resources toward immigration enforcement weakened efforts to address serious crimes such as drug trafficking and sex trafficking.

Former federal prosecutor John Marti warned that reduced federal involvement could leave dangerous criminals operating without effective intervention.

Officials also expressed concern that the long term impact on federal and local cooperation could continue even after the immigration operation ends.

Immigration Crackdown Sparked National Controversy

The operation became one of the most controversial domestic security actions of Trump’s presidency.

Federal agents conducted large scale raids, detentions, and deportation efforts across Minneapolis, leading to protests and confrontations with demonstrators.

Two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, were fatally shot during the unrest, intensifying public outrage and increasing political pressure on the administration.

The crackdown eventually prompted a partial retreat by federal authorities amid growing criticism over aggressive policing tactics.

Cases Delayed and Dismissed

The shortage of prosecutors and staff disruptions also affected ongoing criminal cases.

In one example, a federal judge dismissed a firearms case against Tavon Timberlake after prosecutors repeatedly missed deadlines, with staffing shortages cited as one factor.

Federal prosecutors also sought to drop a major carjacking case involving multiple deaths so that local prosecutors could take over.

At the same time, authorities continued pursuing charges against dozens of protesters linked to demonstrations against the immigration operation, although many of those cases were later dismissed.

Analysis

The Minneapolis operation highlights the broader national debate over balancing immigration enforcement with traditional public safety priorities.

Supporters of the crackdown argue that stronger immigration controls are necessary to combat crime and restore law and order. Critics contend that redirecting federal resources toward mass immigration enforcement weakens efforts to investigate violent crime and organised criminal activity.

The situation in Minnesota also illustrates how large scale political priorities can reshape the functioning of federal law enforcement agencies at the local level.

Analysts say the long term consequences may include weakened cooperation between federal and local authorities, reduced capacity for complex investigations, and growing concerns over whether public safety resources are being allocated effectively.

With information from Reuters.

Who won the 2020 election?

Was the Capitol attacked on Jan. 6, 2021?

Can Donald Trump be elected to a third term as president?

No brainers, right?

The answers are, of course, “Joe Biden,” “yes” and “no.” Any fact- and reality-based American would say so. But that humongous class of people pointedly doesn’t include the president of the United States. And apparently for that reason, his nominees for federal judgeships — the very jobs in which you’d most want fact-based individuals — hem, haw, stammer and ultimately decline to give direct answers when Democratic senators test them with such easy-peasy questions at confirmation hearings.

One after another, month after month, Trump nominees for district and appeals courts across the land say that the answers to the questions are matters of debate, of “significant political dispute.” Well, they’re in dispute only because Trump says they are, as does every ambitious officeholder and office-seeker desperate to remain in the retributive ruler’s good graces — including, alas, would-be judges.

To watch them squirm and then squirt out the same rehearsed reply, the same legalistic word salad, just like the dozens of nominees before them would be hilarious (see below) if it weren’t so ominous for the rule of law in the nation.

Trump nominees for other high-ranking jobs, likewise prepped for Senate Democrats’ questions by their Trump handlers, give the same rote response. But the fact that candidates for lifetime seats on the federal bench, making decisions of life-changing consequences for millions of Americans, would choose to dodge the truth is most sickening.

In their truth-trolling to keep Trump happy, lest he yank their chance at new black robes, these candidates fail the test of judicial independence. As one Democrat, Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, told four district judge nominees last week at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, their humiliating hedging “on an issue of fact” — Biden won in 2020 — “reflects not only on your honesty but really on your fitness to be a federal judge.”

Indeed. That judicial nominees would curry Trump’s favor bodes ill for future federal jurisprudence in the one branch of government that’s stood up for the rule of law against Trump, repeatedly, when Congress and the Supreme Court have not. To be fair, a number of judges confirmed in Trump’s first term have been among the many who’ve ruled against his and his administration’s second-term abuses of power. Yet just as Trump has populated his Cabinet and executive branch with sycophants, unlike in Trump 1.0, he’s obviously applying new litmus tests to potential judges. One of them, clearly, is playing along with his election lies.

His nominees’ failure to speak truth to Trump’s power should be disqualifying. But they’re not disqualified, because the Senate is run by Republicans who share their fear of him.

That fact is a big reason to hope that Democrats capture the majority in November’s midterm elections and that, under new management, the Senate will finally take seriously its constitutional “advice and consent” responsibility to act as a check on Trump nominees for the final two years of his term — including, perhaps, one for the Supreme Court.

And, yes, this is Trump’s final term, for all of his teasing about “Trump 2028.” The Constitution’s 22nd Amendment says as much in its opening line: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”

Yet the four wannabe district judges at last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing — Michael J. Hendershot of Ohio; Arthur Roberts Jones and John G.E. Marck, both of Texas; and Jeffrey T. Kuntz of Florida — struggled over that clear language.

All four hesitated when Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, asked them to describe the amendment. He even read its initial words before querying Marck, “Is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028?”

Marck paused, then sputtered: “Senator, with ah, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this to me strikes as more of a hypothetical of something that could be raised.”

“It’s not a hypothetical,” Coons countered, then asked again whether Trump is “eligible to run for a third term under our Constitution.”

“Um, I would have to, to review the, the actual wording of it,” Marck blabbered.

Coons turned to the others: “Anybody else brave enough to say that the Constitution of the United States prevents President Trump from seeking a third term?” Silence.

“Anybody willing to apply the Constitution by its plain language in the 22nd Amendment?” Coons persisted. Crickets.

His Democratic colleague, Blumenthal, inquired of the foursome, “Who won the 2020 election?” All agreed in turn that Biden “was certified” the winner. None would say he “won” because — as we and they know —Trump insists to this day that he won; he’s turned the power of his “Justice” Department to trying to prove that obvious falsehood. Far be it from these future judges to contradict the president who nominated them.

Here’s Hendershot’s gibberish to Blumenthal’s simple query: “Senator, I want to be mindful of the canons here. I know this question has come up many times in these hearings and it’s become an issue of significant political dispute and debate. So, with, with that, I would say that, that President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election.”

After the others replied similarly, Blumenthal turned justifiably scathing: “It’s pretty irrefutable that Joe Biden won the election. But you’re unwilling to use that word because you are afraid. You are afraid. Of what? President Trump? That is exactly what we do not need on the federal bench today. We need jurists who are fearless and strong, not weak and pathetic.”

Apparently unshamed, each similarly demurred when he asked if the Capitol had been attacked. “You’ve seen the videos, have you not?” Blumenthal blurted.

No matter, Senator. These would-be triers of fact apparently won’t believe their eyes. Not when their patron, the president, insists on lies.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Democrats have a huge opportunity to make a huge difference. But whether they’ll grab it is a huge question.

In 2020, I wrote that voters were “weary, anxious and looking for salve” after President Trump’s first term. I said then that the experienced, reassuring Joe Biden fit the moment. Now I fear that if Democrats nominate a similar presidential candidate in 2028, one who wins yet doesn’t act with alacrity on democracy preservation and helping Americans live better lives, a fed-up electorate will once again turn them out as ineffectual.

Who can or should lead the party at a time like this?

I’m not alone in hoping for a tough and confrontational 2028 nominee, someone who is aggressive, persistent and, when necessary, as ruthless as the forces on the opposite side. This person also must have the energy to undertake the mammoth task of repairing the institutional wreckage of Trumpism. Which suggests Democrats should be checking out younger nominees.

Fortunately, newer generations of leaders are emerging. Those who “get it,” in my view, include Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

Obviously any Democrat will be better than anyone from Trump’s team or orbit, including JD Vance, Donald Trump Jr. or Marco Rubio. The issue facing Democrats is whether moderate or policy wonkish people such as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear or Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro would be the democracy warriors this moment demands. Repairing a crucial interstate bridge with lightning speed is a great thing and, sometimes, so is outreach to Republicans and Fox News. But would they prioritize thinking big and fighting hard for the fundamental changes we need?

Where would centrist former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger, the new Virginia governor, land on this scale? Even after coming around to supporting new House maps that will net four seats for her party? Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, who began his podcast by inviting MAGA guests, championed a referendum on five new Democratic seats in his state and led his party to a redistricting triumph. Where would he land? Would he prioritize outreach to Republicans or the battle to assure a “no kings” future for America? The need for structural changes in our outdated institutions is glaringly obvious. Who will run to repair this country? Who can be trusted to follow through? Because the solutions are out there, staring us in the face:

Checks on presidential pardon power. A larger, term-limited Supreme Court bound to an enforceable ethics code. A national law requiring independent redistricting commissions or, better yet, multi-member districts with proportional representation. A voting rights law that sets minimum standards for mail voting, early voting and voter IDs. Anti-corruption laws that prevent profiteering by presidents and their allies. Explicit limits on presidential construction and alterations to federal properties. A stronger “impoundment” act with sharp teeth to make sure future presidents spend taxpayer money constitutionally, as Congress intends, instead of any way they want. D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood to start rebalancing a Congress and electoral college that have shortchanged urban America since the late 19th century.

It’s a long list, and there’s no guarantee that today’s Supreme Court would allow any of it. But realizing some of these goals will take decades; we can’t be discouraged by temporary impediments such as the current lineup of justices. The work on all of it should start ASAP — next year in the next Congress if Democrats are running one or both chambers. And at some point, we’ll have a different high court.

I can already hear the protests: What about affordability? That’s the best part: Trump has done so many things to make life more expensive that simply reversing them would have immediate impact. Stop the Iran war; reopen the Strait of Hormuz; aim to restore the Obama-era agreement that kept Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check; end the Trump tariffs; stop shrinking labor forces in agriculture, healthcare, construction and other industries by ending detentions and deportations of noncriminals; reverse last year’s tax breaks for elites and restore the money for Medicaid and health insurance premium subsidies; and kill off the Versailles-level Trump ballroom that he now wants to fund with taxpayer dollars (initially $400 million, now $1 billion).

Then Democrats could revisit some of their own affordability priorities, including the expanded child tax credit that significantly reduced child poverty, new ways to put housing within reach of more people and national paid family leave. They could also crack down on military spending that is pointless in the modern era and refocus on cheap and effective equipment such as drones like Ukraine is using to strike inside Russia.

As it happens, a stark indicator of the political tides came as I was writing this. Maine Gov. Janet Mills suddenly dropped out of the Democratic Senate primary race against Graham Platner. It was a lightning bolt, given her establishment support after being recruited by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. But in a way it was inevitable.

Mills is 78. If she had gone on to win the primary and defeat GOP Sen. Susan Collins, she would have been sworn in at age 79. Platner is 41, an oyster farmer and military veteran with a compelling, relatable persona. Though he has a controversial past, Mills’ negative ads did nothing to dent his appeal. Polls showed him winning the primary vote against Mills, sometimes by 2 to 1, and with a consistent general-election edge against Collins as well.

Platner told Jon Stewart last week that the party leadership establishment had largely ignored him. His message to them? “You should be curious, because I’m polling 40 points ahead.” By the next morning, Mills was out, and the establishment — Schumer and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, chair of the Senate campaign committee — said they’d work with Platner to flip the seat.

The midterm races are sending Democrats clues. They should take them seriously.

Jill Lawrence is a journalist and the author of “The Art of the Political Deal: How Congress Beat the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock.” Bluesky: @jilldlawrence

On one of her previous visits to Los Angeles, Argentine filmmaker Lucrecia Martel found herself having a smoke on Hollywood Boulevard.

There, while she stepped over the famous concrete-embedded stars, an unhoused man struck up a conversation with her.

“He kept explaining to me that he was poorly dressed because he was currently living on the street after someone robbed him, but he had written a screenplay,” Martel, 59, recalls in Spanish over coffee on a morning in April at a West Hollywood hotel.

“He told me they had stolen a watch from him — not a Rolex but a known brand,” she continues. “The whole time he was trying to convince me he was a millionaire who just so happened to be on the street because of random circumstances.”

One of Latin America’s most indispensable storytellers, Martel is fascinated by how prevalent that dream still is in L.A. — that movies can change your life overnight.

“That particular fantasy is par for the course in this city,” she says, though she’s not above it. It’s the reason she’s back to promote her first documentary, “Our Land,” out Friday.

Unhurried when it comes to her output, Martel has only made four fiction features, among them 2001’s “La Cienaga” and 2008’s “The Headless Woman” (returning to theaters this month in a new 4K restoration). Her biting and formally audacious narratives examine class, politics and — a speciality — the interiority of women through enigmatic portraits of psychologically complex individuals.

“Our Land,” a piercing indictment of the enduring wounds of colonialism, chronicles the murder of Indigenous Argentine activist Javier Chocobar in 2009 and the prolonged trial of the perpetrators in 2018.

Chocobar was shot during a confrontation with armed men over land in the Tucumán province of Argentina where the Chuschagasta Indigenous community has lived for many generations. Martel explores the killing not as an isolated event in her country’s recent past but as part of a long history of dispossession.

“Racism is a foundational element,” she says of her homeland. “The only consistent thing in Argentina, from the country’s birth to the present day, is the rejection of Indigenous people.”

In Argentina, Martel explains, public education has indoctrinated the population into believing Indigenous people no longer exist. Yet many Argentines proudly claim a connection to the Europeans, Italians in particular, who arrived in the country in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

“When giving speeches, our presidents always say, ‘We are a country of immigrants,’ or ‘We came from the boats,’” says Martel. “They use metaphors like these because deep down Argentines feel much more indebted to European immigration than to our Indigenous population. But more than half of the people in Argentina have Indigenous ancestors.”

In 2020, Chocobar’s three convicted murderers appealed their guilty verdicts and were set free. “Our Land” premiered at the Venice Film Festival in September 2025, which brought renewed attention to the case. A month later, the sentence was upheld and two of the men returned to prison (one died in the interim).

Martel believes that outcome was a response to her film. “Communities wage the fight but cinema helps,” she says.

“I believe that we must use cinema for its enormous power to alter perception and not soothe the rich,” Martel says. “It’s not about delivering a message but rather about showing how an idea functions.”

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

For over 14 years, Martel worked on “Our Land” on and off. This time included periods when she focused on 2017’s “Zama,” her masterful period piece following a Spanish official in 18th century Argentina “who doesn’t want to be American,” she says, referring to the continent. In her mind, both “Zama” and “Our Land” come from the same impulse to dissect colonialism.

As part of her research process, Martel and her team created a detailed archive of documents related to the case that the Chuschagasta community now has at its disposal. Over the years, Delfín Cata, one of the Indigenous men present during the attack, would call Martel. He never asked about how her film was going, but the director sensed he was tacitly checking in on her progress, hoping that she was not losing faith.

“That was a confirmation that, beyond my own interest, there were people who needed this film,” she says. “I felt the immense satisfaction of knowing I was doing something that would be concretely useful.”

For Martel, the question of whether she was the right person to make this film (one she got in Venice) seems unfair. “It’s wrong to prevent a human being from speaking about their own history because they are not a woman, because they are not Black, or because they are not Indigenous,” she says. “It’s better to make mistakes trying to understand something than not to try at all. The chances of making a mistake are enormous in a film, no matter how good your intentions are.”

A key piece of evidence in the Chocobar case, prominent in the film, is a video that one of the attackers filmed, presumably expecting the Indigenous community to react violently, to justify firing his gun at them. The Chuschagasta men that faced them weren’t armed. As used by their aggressors, the camera functioned as a weapon.

Hollywood feels incompatible with Martel’s sophisticated, confrontational movies rooted in her country’s troubles. By Martel’s own admission, it doesn’t feel like a fit for her.

“I would have to force myself to create something outside my own country, outside my own language,” she says. “And that doesn’t really appeal to me.”

Still, Marvel Studios famously asked to meet with her when seeking a director for 2021’s “Black Widow.” Martel says she was among many directors they contacted, but she was curious to take the meeting even if she knew nothing would come of it.

“They wanted to do it over Zoom and I happened to be here in Los Angeles,” she remembers. “I told them I could come in, because I wanted to see what the whole process was like.”

Martel describes the month she spent in L.A. — an eye injury prevented her from flying home sooner — as a “lot of fun in the end,” even if no blockbuster emerged from it. More recently, another Hollywood offer did tempt her, but she ultimately passed.

“It was a good book suggested to me by an actress of undoubted talent,” Martel shares, careful to avoid names. “I considered it, but you very quickly have to picture yourself spending three years or at least a year and a half living in the United States making a movie. I have a thousand things in Argentina to worry about.”

Still, Hollywood, and its significance to moviemaking, has a singular, unnerving allure on her. Two of Martel’s favorite movies set in L.A. are David Lynch’s nightmarish “Mulholland Drive” and Robert Aldrich’s psychodrama “What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?”

“There is something ruthless and utterly devoid of sanity at the heart of this film industry, and I’ve never felt that darkness as clear as in ‘Mulholland Drive,’” she says. “How can an industry that handles so many millions [of dollars] and such impeccably dressed famous people be so full of lunatics? That film captures that perfectly.”

And occasionally, she thinks, a big production breaks the mold, such as Todd Phillips’ “Joker,” which won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival in 2019 when Martel served as jury president — a controversial choice.

“It certainly had an impact on me,” says Martel. “I didn’t vote for it, though. I had another favorite, a Chinese film that stood no chance of winning.”

Phillips, she thinks, created a premonition for what was to come. “For me, the real killer clowns are Trump, Milei or Orbán,” Martel says, referring to polarizing leaders. “They expose themselves to ridicule and spout all sorts of nonsense. Those are clowns. And I think that movie captured that.”

Not one to mince words, Martel elaborates on the relation of Joaquin Phoenix’s social outcast turned supervillain and President Trump.

“The origin of the Joker is social resentment,” she says. “Trump holds no resentment toward society because the system gave him everything. But he has exploited the people who do harbor resentment. That is where you see the kind of clown he is, one who knows how to use people.”

Artificial intelligence, far-right ideologies, voracious capitalism — all of it makes Martel alarmed, seeing it as pushing us collectively to the brink of collapse. But there is hope, she thinks.

“What we have invented is very dangerous but we can dismantle it,” she says. “That is the only thing I’m betting on, that, at some point, a consensus will emerge and we’ll go, ‘Let’s not do this.’”

“I believe that we must use cinema for its enormous power to alter perception and not soothe the rich,” she says. “It’s not about delivering a message but rather about showing how an idea functions.”

She points to one of her subjects in “Our Land,” an Indigenous man who told her he loves the 1959 Charlton Heston epic “Ben-Hur,” a passion she does not share but understands.

“That’s a blow for all of us who make auteur cinema,” Martel says with a laugh. “That feeling that ‘Ben-Hur’ evoked gave him the strength to continue fighting for his community’s territory.”

The night before our interview, Martel rode around L.A. on a scooter holding onto a friend. These days she uses a cane to help her with mobility. “The city has great light,” she says, still open to being surprised by it.

Caracas, May 6, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The US Treasury Department has issued a sanctions waiver allowing the provision of services related to the restructuring of Venezuelan debt.

General License 58 (GL58), issued on Tuesday, authorizes the provision of “legal, financial advisory, and consulting services” to the Venezuelan government and state oil company PDVSA in relation to “potential restructuring of debt” owed by the Venezuelan state, PDVSA, and PDVSA affiliates.

The license does not allow creditors to transfer or settle debt, nor directly engage with Venezuelan authorities. It additionally forbids any payment to consultants using cryptocurrencies or gold.

The Trump administration’s latest move is a necessary step to locate creditors and assess the size of Venezuela’s foreign debt, estimated to be as high as US $170 billion, split between defaulted bonds, unpaid loans, and international arbitration awards.

Venezuelan bonds, which have steadily increased in value in recent months, rallied again on Tuesday as investor confidence in a restructuring deal grows. Bonds that fell below 10 cents on the dollar are currently trading between 40 and 60 cents on the dollar. Creditor groups have also held meetings with the Trump administration as they seek to engage Caracas.

Though the Nicolás Maduro government prioritized debt service after the Venezuelan economy fell into deep recession after 2014, US economic sanctions beginning in 2017 accelerated the economic tailspin and shut Venezuela out of financial markets, making debt payments impossible. The defaulted state and PDVSA bonds, estimated at around $66 billion, have been accruing interest ever since.

The Venezuelan government, led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, has not publicly disclosed plans regarding the country’s external debt. In March, the Trump administration recognized Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “sole leader,” clearing another hurdle for creditors. 

Rodríguez, who previously served as vice president, took over the presidency following the US kidnapping of Maduro on January 3. In the four months since, the acting administration has fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement with Washington. Trump officials have made multiple visits to Caracas and have been hosted at the presidential palace.

In parallel, Venezuelan authorities have advanced multiple pro-business legislative reforms in a bid to attract foreign investment in sectors such as energy and mining. Projects to change the Caribbean nation’s labor, tax, and housing laws are currently underway. 

In parallel, Rodríguez has installed a commission to assess the “strategic” value of Venezuelan state assets and their possible privatization. The Cisneros Group, one of the country’s largest private sector conglomerates, has announced plans to raise funds ahead of potential sell-offs of state assets.

Caracas also reestablished ties with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in April. Economy Vice President Calixto Ortega was recently appointed as the country’s representative before the IMF. Venezuelan leaders have stated that their priority is to access around $5 billion in IMF-issued Special Drawing Rights to address urgent needs in public services and infrastructure.

Rodríguez has stated that there are “no plans” to contract an IMF loan, though a debt-restructuring agreement would place a significant burden on Venezuelan finances. The government’s budget for 2026 was estimated at around $20 billion.

For her part, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva stated that the Washington-based institution is willing to support a loan program for Venezuela but that clarity on economic data and external debt is a necessary prior step.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

Five months ago, President Trump was stinging from one of the first political defeats of his second term as Republican state senators defied him on redistricting in Indiana. Now he has proved he can still punish wayward party members after he endorsed a slate of challengers who defeated almost every one of those lawmakers he wanted to dislodge.

The results will likely bolster Trump’s confidence heading into upcoming Republican primaries where he wants to help oust more incumbents, including U.S Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

Indiana’s primary also ratchets up the pressure on Republican lawmakers in other states to move aggressively to redraw congressional district boundaries before the November elections. Alabama and Tennessee have already begun special sessions that could limit Black voters’ strength in Democratic-leaning districts, and some of Trump’s allies in South Carolina want to follow suit.

State Sen. Linda Rogers, one of the Indiana lawmakers who voted against redistricting and lost her seat Tuesday, said the outcome “will probably discourage others in other states.”

“If someone is going to ask you to take a tough vote, you may think twice about your conscience and what’s best for your community and instead what’s best for you and your career,” she said.

Redistricting efforts began last year, when Trump saw an opportunity to give Republicans an additional edge, but they were supercharged last week when the U.S. Supreme Court gutted a provision of the Voting Rights Act that influenced how political lines are drawn.

Trump’s success in Indiana, aided by more than $8.3 million in campaign cash in races that usually see very little spending, reaffirmed the president’s continued strength within a Republican Party that he has dominated for a decade, despite his inevitable slide toward lame-duck status and his sagging poll numbers.

“Historic night for Indiana as Republicans stood with me and President Trump to nominate some great America First conservatives,” Gov. Mike Braun, R-Ind., posted on social media. “I look forward to winning big in November and serving Hoosiers with this team in the statehouse!”

Trump backed primary challenges against seven Republican state senators who rejected his redistricting plan in December. Five of the president’s candidates won, and another race remained too close to call.

Trump was relatively restrained on social media about the voting. He shared a series of photos celebrating the victories of candidates he endorsed in Indiana and Ohio, which also held primaries Tuesday. But he otherwise passed on boasting or renewing his attacks on Massie or Cassidy.

Massie has been among the members of Congress who frustrated the president by pressing for release of the Jeffrey Epstein case files. Cassidy was among the Republican senators who voted to convict Trump on 2021 impeachment charges after the Jan. 6 riot.

James Blair, one of Trump’s top political advisers, was more direct, posting an image from the movie “Gladiator” depicting Russell Crowe’s ancient Roman character Maximus exulting after a combat victory.

Rogers, the Indiana state senator, faced almost $670,000 in television advertising against her, funded by political action committees associated with Braun and U.S. Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind.

She said she did not regret her vote against redistricting.

“It would have been easy for me to hit that ‘yes’ button,” she said. “To hear the number of people who asked me not to, then the number of people who thanked me, would mean I wasn’t representing them.”

Louisiana’s primary, in which Trump has endorsed U.S. Rep. Julie Letlow over Cassidy, is set for May 16. Kentucky, where Trump has endorsed Massie’s challenger, retired Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein, will hold its primary May 19.

Beaumont and Barrow write for the Associated Press.

¿Qué en la fregada?

What the hell?

That’s what I muttered after learning that Los Angeles Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez wants to allow noncitizens to vote in city and school board elections.

Talk about a solution in search of a problem, considering everything Angelenos are facing right now.

While the specter of la migra continues to haunt the city, far more crushing are problems that affect everyone — affordability, housing, traffic, pollution. Maybe Soto-Martínez and his colleagues should double down on fixing those things first and sell their message better to voters instead of picking up a new issue?

I know the first-term council member comes from a good place. His parents were formerly undocumented, just like my dad, and he has been a fierce advocate for immigrants going back to his labor organizing days. I have friends without legal status and others in the DACA program for people who came to the U.S. illegally as children. I think giving them, as well as green card holders and others with papers, a chance to participate in elections is a righteous idea.

But to paraphrase the Book of Ecclesiastes, there’s a time and a place for everything. In 2026, Angelenos should be focused on electing people and approving initiatives that will improve the city for everyone, not a narrow plank benefiting a slice of the population.

So I called up Soto-Martínez and challenged him to convince this doubting Tomás.

He hopes his proposal will reach the City Council later this month for a vote on whether to place it on the November ballot. If voters pass the measure, it goes back to the council to decide when — if ever — to enfranchise the immigrants.

The proposal, already vilified in conservative media, isn’t as radical as it seems. Noncitizens are already prohibited from voting in federal elections, but there’s a well-established history of their participation in local ones, including in Vermont and Maryland. They can already vote in L.A. neighborhood council elections, and in San Francisco school board elections if they have a child in the district.

Besides, L.A. has long led the way in weaving undocumented immigrants into the fabric of civic life.

This is a sanctuary city where Mayor Karen Bass has stood up to President Trump’s xenophobia. Where eight of the 15 council members are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Where LAUSD Supt. Alberto Carvalho — himself formerly undocumented — has striven to make local schools as welcoming as possible (Carvalho is on paid leave after the FBI raided his home and office earlier this year). Even the LAPD learned decades ago that it’s better to embrace undocumented immigrants than castigate them for their lack of legal status.

“If you’re contributing to this economy, you should have the right to decide who represents you,” Soto-Martínez told me.

Fair point. But isn’t thumbing our noses at Trump asking for more of what he has already inflicted on L.A., making life even more miserable for undocumented immigrants? Could he use the noncitizen voter rolls as a list of whom to deport? Besides, doesn’t extending the franchise to noncitizens give fuel to his crazy conspiracies about stolen elections?

“You always hear, ‘Don’t poke the bear, don’t instigate them,’ but that’s not how you deal with a bully,” Soto-Martínez replied. “They’re coming at us already. While they’re removing people’s right to vote in the Supreme Court, we’re expanding it. … And it has nothing to do with Trump. It’s about fairness.”

Tell that to Trump.

I mentioned that Santa Ana — a city far more Latino than Los Angeles, though not as liberal — decisively rejected a similar measure in 2024. Soto-Martínez’s fellow Democratic Socialist council members, Ysabel Jurado and Eunisses Hernández, have voiced their support for his measure. But I wonder whether the full council will move it along to voters in a year when some members, including Soto-Martínez, are running for reelection.

I couldn’t get a comment from Bass. Councilmember Nithya Raman, who’s running against her, said in a statement that Soto-Martínez’s push “is worth taking seriously” but that it’s “critical to getting this right, and we must not make decisions lightly or quickly.”

“We’re going to have to organize,” Soto-Martínez acknowledged. “But we live in a political moment where it’s the right conversation to have about what this city stands for.”

Avance Democratic Club President Nilza Serrano at Mariachi Plaza in Boyle Heights in 2022.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

He’s going to have to convince people like Nilza Serrano. She’s president of Avance, L.A. County’s largest Latino Democratic club, and heads the California Democratic Party’s Latino caucus. Serrano is no wokosa — she supported Rick Caruso in the last mayoral election and is now siding with Bass.

While Serrano thinks Soto-Martínez is on to something, she said that voting rights for noncitizens are a nonissue for the people she’s trying to get to the polls for the June primary and November general elections. The economy and Trump’s deportation deluge are more on their minds.

I asked if Soto-Martínez’s proposal would cheapen citizenship for people like her. Serrano and her family came here legally from Guatemala in the 1980s before becoming U.S. citizens, a process that took years.

“Not for me,” she replied. “But it’s hard to say for others. I’d have to do a little bit more research.”

So I continued with my own research, calling someone I was sure would have a fit about the idea: Los Angeles County Hispanic Republican Club President David Hernandez.

“Isn’t San Francisco already doing it?” the Navy veteran cracked.

I thought Hernandez would go on an anti-liberal rant, but.…

“I believe there’s a strong argument,” he said, “that if someone has established residency and is a member of the community and suffered the consequences of whatever local policies will be enacted, they should have a say in who gets elected.”

Did the ghost of Joaquin Murrieta, California’s original avenging Latino, suddenly possess Hernandez? To make sure I was hearing right, I asked again if noncitizens voting in L.A. elections is a good thing.

How could he support that, as a Trump-voting Republican?!

“We have to be pragmatic,” he replied. He approves of noncitizens voting in L.A. neighborhood council elections, because that’s true local control.

He understands that allowing them to vote in municipal elections might come off as an insult to the memory of civil rights activists who lost their lives fighting for that right for Black Americans. But U.S. citizens are already taking it for granted, he noted — turnout in the November 2022 L.A. mayoral election was a pitiful 44%.

“Maybe noncitizens will appreciate voting more than citizens,” he said.

I’m still not fully convinced that Soto-Martínez’s push is wise right now, but I like that he’s being careful.

“We need to get in the weeds of this,” he said of the City Council’s deliberations, which he characterized as attempting to ensure maximum benefit and minimum fallout.

Let’s see what they come up with in a few weeks.

The US, Canada and Mexico will co-host the World Cup between 11 June and 19 July.

Iran are scheduled to play two games in Los Angeles, against New Zealand on 15 June and Belgium on 21 June, and then Egypt in Seattle on 26 June.

US secretary of state Marco Rubio said last week that no-one with ties to the IRGC would be admitted to the country.

“We are going to the World Cup, for which we qualified, and our host is Fifa – not Mr Trump or America,” Taj said.

“If they accept hosting us, then they must also accept that they must not insult our military institutions in any way.

“Because if they do, then naturally it could create the same kind of situation that happened in Canada, where there was a possibility we might have to return.

“So there must be this kind of guarantee so that we can go with peace of mind.”

The US and Israel launched air strikes on Iran in February.

Iran was the only Fifa federation among the 211 member countries that did not have representation at the Fifa congress in Vancouver.

Fifa president Gianni Infantino said Iran will be going to the US and playing as scheduled – despite Iran’s request in March for its matches to be moved to Mexico.

United States President Donald Trump has said that the US military operation to move stranded ships out of the Strait of Hormuz has been paused temporarily.

Trump made the announcement on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday.

He said the decision was made “based on the request” of Pakistan and other countries and the “fact that Great Progress has been made toward a Complete and Final Agreement” with representatives of Iran.

“We have mutually agreed that, while the Blockade will remain in full force and effect, Project Freedom (The Movement of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz) will be paused for a short period of time to see whether or not the Agreement can be finalized and signed,” he wrote.

There was no immediate comment from Iran.

Trump’s announcement came as tensions escalated in the Gulf, with the US military saying it destroyed several Iranian boats in the Strait of Hormuz, as well as cruise missiles and drones. The United Arab Emirates said its air defences dealt with missile and drone attacks from Iran for a second day, while another commercial ship in the Strait of Hormuz reported being hit by an “unknown projectile”.

For its part, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a new map of the strait, with an expanded area of Iranian control, and warned vessels on Tuesday to stick to the corridors it has set or face a “decisive response”.

In Washington, DC, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that the US has completed its offensive operations against Iran, dubbed “Operation Epic Fury”, and “there’s no shooting unless we’re shot at first”.

But Iran must “pay a price” for its efforts to control the strait, he said.

“The Straits of Hormuz do not belong to Iran. They don’t have a right to shut it down and blow up ships and lay mines,” Rubio said.

“Under no circumstances can we live in a world where we accept, ‘OK, this is normal – you have to coordinate with Iran. You have to pay them a toll in order to go through the Straits of Hormuz’. Not only is that unacceptable in the straits, you’re creating a precedent that could be repeated in multiple other places around the world.”

The maritime chokepoint, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s energy supplies normally pass, has been effectively sealed by Iran since the US and Israel launched their war on the country on February 28.

Following a ceasefire in April, the US imposed its own blockade on Iranian ports in a bid to compel Tehran to agree to Washington’s terms in peace talks mediated by Pakistan, including reopening the key waterway and halting all nuclear enrichment.

The closure of the strait has disrupted global trade, causing oil and fertiliser prices to soar and prompting fears of a global recession and a food emergency.

Earlier on Tuesday, Trump told reporters at the White House that the US’s military and economic action was forcing Tehran to the negotiating table despite its defiant public stance.

“Iran wants to make a deal. What I don’t like about Iran is they’ll talk to me with such great respect, and then they’ll go on television. They’ll say, ‘We did not speak to the president’,” he said. “So they play games. But let me just tell you, they want to make a deal. And who wouldn’t? When your military is totally gone, we could do anything we want to them.”

Trump, who is facing mounting pressure at home as petrol prices rise ahead of crucial midterm elections, went on to say that Iran’s military had ‌been reduced to firing “peashooters”.

When asked what Iran would need to do to violate the ceasefire, Trump said: “They know what not ⁠to do.”

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, meanwhile, said that the renewed violence in the Strait of Hormuz does not constitute a breach of the four-week-old truce.

“American forces won’t need to enter Iranian waters. It’s not necessary. We’re not looking for a fight. But Iran cannot be allowed to block innocent countries and their goods from international waterways,” he said at the Pentagon.

“Right now, the ceasefire certainly holds, but we’re going to be watching very, very closely,” he added.