trump

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked Chinese President Xi Jinping if he wanted to buy weapons from the United States, the U.S. ambassador to China said.

David Perdue said Trump raised the prospect of the arms sales from the U.S. to its ascendant geopolitical rival, an unlikely offer that if consummated would upend generations of U.S. policy toward China and Taiwan and expose U.S. technology to a potential foe. Perdue, speaking to Shannon Bream on Fox News Channel’s “Fox News Sunday” days after Trump hosted Xi for a state visit in Washington, didn’t specify when the offer was made.

Perdue said Sunday that Trump, a Republican, was downplaying longstanding U.S. arms sales to Taiwan — which have drawn protest from Beijing for years — by couching it as just one of many sales Washington makes around the world — and even asking Xi if he’d be in the market for U.S. weaponry.

Bream had cited concerns from Republican and Democratic lawmakers over delayed aid packages and weapons orders to Taiwan, the self-ruled democracy that seeks to defend itself from China’s threat to invade the island. Bream asked if the U.S. is denying arms to Taiwan to appease the Chinese president, who visited Trump last week.

Perdue pushed back on the suggestion, stating that Trump “is as strong on Taiwan as I’ve ever seen anybody” and has sold it plenty of weapons. Perdue also said Trump and Xi continue to talk about future U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan.

“But President Trump continues to say, ‘Hey, we sell arms to other people around the world,’” Perdue said. “He actually asked President Xi, would he like to buy some, at one point.”

The U.S. is bound by its own laws to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself. While not recognizing Taiwan as a country, the U.S. is the island’s strongest informal backer and arms provider. But multiple U.S. leaders have left ambiguous whether they would commit military force to defend the U.S. ally should China invade.

China has pressed Washington to halt the arms sales, most prominently during a previous summit in May between Trump and Xi in Beijing. After that meeting, the United States paused the sale of a record-breaking $14 billion package — and Trump described arms sales to Taiwan as a “very good negotiating chip” with China.

In their private talks at the White House last week, Xi pressed Trump to oppose Taiwan independence, according to Chinese state media.

In Beijing, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun did not confirm Perdue’s remarks when asked about the matter on Monday. But he told reporters that China has always strengthened its national defense capabilities based on its needs and is committed to maintaining world peace and stability.

Finley writes for the Associated Press.

Last week’s settlement of the antitrust lawsuit between state attorneys general and Paramount Skydance over its planned merger with Warner Bros. Discovery marked a clear victory for David Ellison.

If approved by a judge, the settlement would clear the way for the emerging Hollywood mogul to complete the blockbuster $111-billion purchase after months of uncertainty over whether the deal would overcome intense opposition in Hollywood.

What’s more, Ellison achieved the settlement without having to agree to any so-called structural remedies that California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta had been seeking.

But Ellison can hardly rest on his laurels. The Paramount Skydance chief executive will have to work hard to repair badly frayed relations with Hollywood talent who fiercely opposed the consolidation of two historic studios as a bad deal for workers. And the 43-year-old tech scion will be constrained by some of the terms that were imposed in the consent decree negotiated with Bonta and other attorneys general.

“I don’t envy David Ellison. You bought this ship, now you’ve got to sail it. And you’re facing threats on all fronts: bad will, everybody rooting for you to fail and operating a business in an incredibly uncertain, challenging time,” said Gabriel Kahn, a professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. “At the same time, you are going to have to mortgage everything to make these debt payments.”

As part of the deal, Paramount agreed to a slate of requirements that, if it fails to deliver, could induce financial penalties, litigation and other costs.

For one thing, Paramount would have to pay a penalty and divest the Miramax film studio if it does not distribute 30 or more films a year in theaters.

The studio also pledged to spend $300 million more each year on film production in the U.S. and further boost its film spending if the federal government adopts a film tax credit of at least 20%; it agreed not to sell or close its lot on Melrose or the Warner Bros lot in Burbank and to operate them “in a manner consistent with past practices,” until 2031.

Additionally, Paramount is required to establish a board to ensure editorial independence for CNN and CBS News, though it will be appointed by Paramount directors with the authority to remove its members.

Beyond attempting to smooth the industry’s many ruffled feathers, Hollywood’s newest mogul must now also wrestle down an astonishing $80 billion in debt accrued as a result of this highly leveraged merger.

Ellison’s father, billionaire Larry Ellison, late last year agreed to backstop the $47 billion in equity needed to complete the acquisition. Royal families from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to contribute another $24 billion for an equity stake by assuming some of Ellison’s financial commitments.

The months-long battle was bitter and hard fought and enmity within the industry has yet to subside.

On Tuesday, the morning after Bonta announced the settlement agreement, protesters converged outside of Paramount Skydance’s Melrose Avenue gate criticizing the deal. Some held fake gravestones that read: “RIP local business,” “RIP crew call” and “RIP creativity.”

Two days later, a coalition of several groups including the Committee for the First Amendment, filed an amicus brief asking the court to reject the consent decree, saying that it failed to address the anti-competitive concerns of the state attorneys general and would not protect jobs or consumers.

The sense of betrayal was acute.

“Hate to say it but we all got played,” wrote actor Mark Ruffalo, a leading organizer in Block the Merger, a grassroots organization made up of 1st Amendment advocates and Hollywood celebrities who aggressively opposed it, in a post on X.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) repudiated the deal, saying in a statement. that it “enables a handful of billionaires to call the shots in the media.”

The entertainment unions struck more cautionary notes.

SAG-AFTRA, the actors union, wrote in a statement that the deal “addresses some of our deep concerns,” but added, “We hope that the process of engaging with the attorneys general has impressed upon them the fact that in addition to collective bargaining, our members rely on the law to help protect our interests. These are the lowest standards that our employers must meet.”

Bonta, who had spearheaded the antitrust suit, gave a tepid endorsement of the consent decree.

“I want to be clear about something right up front: This settlement is not a vote of support for this merger. It is not a blessing,” he said.

During Paramount’s heated and often contentious legal and political wrangling to wrest control of Warner Bros., many in Hollywood became increasingly apprehensive. Combining two legacy studios, opponents feared, would bring even more job losses to an industry already battered by runaway production.

The skepticism hardened as the Ellisons made several controversial moves after Skydance acquired Paramount last summer. They included agreeing to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit filed by President Trump over a “60 Minutes” interview segment, canceling the “Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs and appointing Bari Weiss as editor in chief of CBS News, who engaged in a wholesale overhaul that led to a revolt at the esteemed “60 Minutes.”

When the newly formed Paramount Skydance announced its intention to swallow up Warner Bros. Discovery just months later, a massive wave of political pressure and public backlash began.

But the Ellisons dug in.

In January — after Netflix threw a surprise wrench into the Ellisons’ designs on Warner Bros. by offering $72 billion, which the studio accepted — Paramount took Warner Bros. to court and launched a hostile takeover bid.

A month later, Netflix walked away from the deal and collected a $2.8-billion termination fee after the Warners’ board agreed to Paramount’s higher all-cash bid.

But many in Hollywood began agitating against the planned merger and pushing for guardrails and protections.

In April, Block the Merger released an open letter declaring their opposition; its list of professionals across the film and television industry eventually swelled to nearly 6,000 names, including Ruffalo, Jane Fonda, Ben Stiller, Sofia Coppola, Trey Parker and Denis Villeneuve.

“The future of free media and a strong entertainment industry in America is at stake here,” said Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, who also helped lead the Block the Merger campaign.

The Writers Guild of America sued to stop the deal, saying it violated antitrust laws. The union last week settled its lawsuit, citing the costs of continuing the litigation, after Paramount agreed not to lay off writers at CBS Broadcast News for years and to pay $17.5 million to the union’s health fund. Nonetheless, the guild said: “We continue to believe the merger will cause damage to writers and the industry at large.”

Some backed the megadeal, including power broker Ari Emanuel.

The WME executive and chairman and CEO of TKO came out swinging, excoriating the antitrust suit, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in July. “They say they are protecting competition. Their actions threaten to destroy it,” he wrote.

The Ellisons’ ongoing ties with Trump — whose administration has clashed with ABC, CNN and other networks — only deepened the suspicions.

Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison has been a Trump supporter and friend. In addition to political donations, he participated in a Nov. 14, 2020, conference call that discussed ways to challenge Trump’s presidential election defeat.

Both Ellison and his son David reportedly promised the president they would make “sweeping” changes at CNN, which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.

In June, David Ellison attended the “UFC Freedom 250” event hosted by Trump on the South Lawn of the White House, and last week he was a guest at the White House state dinner honoring Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Amid the high-level public-facing Trump engagements, Paramount had been quietly trying to allay fears about the relationship to industry insiders.

Two individuals in the entertainment industry, who declined to be named for fear of retaliation, said that Paramount sent emissaries to extend a kind of olive branch, explaining their commitment to Hollywood and downplaying the relationship as a necessary step to get the deal done.

In August, Ellison published an op-ed in the New York Times in which he extolled his lifelong love of movies and laid out his case that he could be “trusted as a steward” of the media giant he was amassing, that includes two institutional news organizations (CBS and CNN) and the legacy studios he wished to combine.

However, his seemingly conciliatory message was undercut that same month when he threatened to relocate Paramount’s base to Tennessee or Texas. Ellison built his Skydance production in Santa Monica.

Across the industry, workers viewed the mixed messaging with wariness and anger.

“If Ellison truly wants to be a steward and do the things that he said he can do and wants to do in that article, I think people would welcome it,” said Pamala Buzick Kim, a co-founder of Stay in LA, the 23,000-member grassroots campaign aimed at boosting local film and television production. “They just have no evidence of it.”

Aside from the bad blood, Ellison’s biggest challenge may be financial.

At a time of massive industry upheaval, most observers believe that the company will have to lay off droves of workers to bring its costs down.

“I will honestly say that the biggest work that they have cut out for them is servicing this debt, and that’s going to guide every decision,” said Kahn, the USC professor.

“Now they’re going to have to fire lots of people in order to reduce costs to be able to make this deal pencil out, and they’re going to be skating on the razor’s edge to make sure that they have enough revenue coming in going forward to service this debt. They have almost no room to maneuver.”

But Paramount has one thing working in its favor: leverage. David (as in Ellison), for better or worse, is now the industry’s Goliath.

“I think temper tantrums can be easily forgotten if the work is there,” said Buzick Kim. “I think most people would be happy to leave it behind them — if the work is there.”

Times staff writers Meg James, Stephen Battaglio and Samantha Masunaga contributed to this report.

Private dinner will be the first one-on-one meeting between the two men, according to reports.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei is set to dine one-on-one with US President Donald Trump at the White House.

The meeting on Sunday evening, confirmed by Trump, comes after months of open conflict between the artificial intelligence startup and the Trump administration.

The private dinner would be the first one-on-one meeting between the two men, according to US media, including Axios, which first reported the dinner.

Trump confirmed the dinner on Sunday evening and reaffirmed his stance against slowing the pace of AI development.

Trump also reiterated his belief that new regulations would open the door for China to outpace the United States in AI advancement.

Although he acknowledged Amodei’s concern that going too fast on artificial intelligence could expand risks, Trump said it was more important for the US to maintain a technological edge over China.

“We’re about maybe a year and a half up on China,” Trump told Fox News while attending the Presidents Cup golf tournament in Illinois.

“We’re leading, and we’re building tremendous, trillions of dollars’ worth of places. And why should we give that up?”

The meeting comes two days after a federal appeals court upheld the Pentagon’s decision to classify Anthropic as a “supply chain risk”, which prohibits the US military from using its models.

The startup was sanctioned by the Trump administration after refusing in February to allow its tools to be used for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance.

Trump also badmouthed Amodei, saying he was trying to be “a perfect little angel” after the Anthropic chief called for a pause in AI development.

Amodei was absent from the state dinner held for Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, attended by AI industry leaders, including Amodei’s rival Sam Altman of OpenAI.

Despite mounting calls to slow down AI development due to the risk of losing control of the technology, the US government believes that the sector’s major players – OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta – cannot afford to slow down for fear that China will gain the upper hand.

Trump and Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House of Representatives, are set to meet with leading AI executives on Tuesday.

WASHINGTON — Since the 2024 election, Democratic congressional candidates have reached a consensus about how to broadly discuss the border — make it secure — but they still lack a cohesive message about ICE.

Some advocate abolishing the agency, while others offer visions for how to rein it in and reform it.

Meanwhile, for Republicans, President Trump’s immigration policies have offered a win on one issue (the border) while creating another issue that many voters find troubling (violence during raids).

Some battleground Republicans are distancing themselves from Trump and have shifted from talking about mass deportations to emphasizing deporting criminals.

Most voters don’t care more about immigration than the cost of living. But it remains an important issue, and for both Republicans and Democrats, the balance in messaging about immigration is delicate, as about half of Americans see the administration’s tactics against immigrants as too aggressive.

As the Nov. 3 midterms approach, Democratic candidates in various states including Illinois, Minnesota and New Jersey have said Immigration and Customs Enforcement should be abolished. In Michigan, progressive Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed has said as much — and taken aim at fellow party members.

“The idea that somehow we can’t say ‘abolish ICE’ because we’re so afraid of what they’re going to say, when we’ve seen ICE terrorize people in our streets,” he said before Michigan’s Senate primary in July. “To me, it is exactly the kind of cowardice that we don’t need from Democrats.”

The Democratic dilemma was crystallized last month when Democratic National Committee members approved dueling messages — one to abolish ICE, the other to reform it.

Among those in the reform camp is Randy Villegas, the political science professor running against Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) in California’s Central Valley.

Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford), presiding over a congressional subcommittee meeting in Washington on March 6, is seeking reelection in California’s 22nd District.

(Allison Robbert / Ap Photo/allison Robbert)

Villegas is in favor of a pathway to citizenship for longtime immigrants as well as a secure border. He’s called for ending the use of for-profit detention facilities and prosecuting ICE agents who engage in illegal conduct.

It’s a personal issue too. Villegas is the son of immigrants from Mexico, and, according to a 2021 NPR story, his brother is a DACA recipient, granted protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. He said the constituents of the mostly rural 22nd District deserve a representative who understands the effects of the broken immigration system; he recalls his mother being unable to visit her sister when she was dying of cancer.

“Kern County was ground zero for these ICE raids last year. What did Valadao do or say about it? Absolutely nothing. This is somebody who likes to pretend they’re a moderate on immigration. He voted to triple ICE’s budget,” Villegas said in an interview, noting that he organized a local workshop with immigration attorneys.

After the raids, led by Customs and Border Protection agents who were reported to have gone “rogue” weeks before President Biden left office, Valadao released a statement saying he had spoken to agency officials and urged them to target “criminals rather than those responsible for producing our nation’s food supply.”

Valadao, a dairy farmer and the son of immigrants from the Azores islands of Portugal, says on his campaign website that he supports a “reasonable and responsible” pathway to citizenship, a guest worker program that could stabilize the agricultural workforce and a focus on removing immigrants who have committed serious crimes.

Last year, he sponsored the Dignity Act, a bipartisan bill that would create a new temporary legal status for immigrants who meet certain requirements and pass a criminal background check.

Valadao declined an interview request but said in a statement that “our immigration system is broken after decades of inaction, and it’s critical that we restore law and order while recognizing the contributions of people who have lived and worked peacefully in our communities for years.”

In Texas, Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico frequently has said that the southern border should be treated “like our front porch,” with a welcome mat and a lock on the door.

Talarico says immigration enforcement is necessary but that resources should be refocused to target cartels, gang members and human traffickers. As for ICE, he said the government should “tear down this secret police force and replace it with an agency that is actually going to focus on public safety.”

Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, has embraced President Trump’s crackdown on immigration.

(Tony Gutierrez / Ap Photo/tony Gutierrez)

Centrist Democratic strategists said Talarico’s messaging strikes the right tone for swing voters.

During the Biden administration, voters lost trust with Democrats on immigration and border security, said Sarah Pierce, a former U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official who leads immigration work at the center-left think tank Third Way. That needs to stay top of mind for Democratic candidates, she said.

“Americans don’t trust that Democrats are even willing to enforce immigration laws, so obviously there’s a lot of pressure on the party to rectify that,” Pierce said. “At the same time, this is the most anti-immigrant administration we’ve had in history.”

Talarico’s opponent, Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, touts Trump’s hard-line immigration policies and has made border security a key part of his campaign.

Paxton also believes states should work with the federal government on immigration enforcement. This year, his office conducted raids in Houston and transferred 50 immigrants to ICE custody.

James Talarico, the Democratic Senate candidate in Texas, has called for reforming Immigration and Customs Enforcement but unlike some Democratic candidates, he has not called for abolishing the agency.

(Danielle Villasana / Getty Images)

Matt Terrill, a Republican strategist who was chief of staff for then-Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign, said Republican candidates need Trump to turn out the GOP base so they retain control of Congress.

Some Republican candidates are conveying a more nuanced message, but it might not matter to voters who already feel betrayed by Trump. That’s the assessment of Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University who studies Republican and Homeland Security politics.

“A lot of Republican candidates are struggling to figure out a message on what had been a great political strength that has turned into a major liability,” Dallek said. “Different Republicans are giving different answers to try to appeal to the Latino vote, maybe to independents, to voters who might typically vote Republican and support closed borders, but think that ICE has gone too far.”

Many Republican candidates aren’t avoiding immigration. A Third Way analysis of last month’s spending on immigration-related ads in competitive House and Senate races found that Republicans had spent more than $50 million — five times more than Democrats.

At issue, however, is the messaging. Earlier this year, White House officials and House Republican leaders reportedly told their members to avoid talking about “mass deportations” and talk up removing criminals.

Rep. Gabe Evans, who is running for reelection in Colorado, described the distinction as “gangbangers, not grandmas.”

At the Republican National Convention in 2024, Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas) denounced “open borders” before a crowd waving signs reading “mass deportation now!”

As the Trump administration’s enforcement campaign took shape, however, she signed a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson calling on ICE to focus its resources on arresting immigrants with criminal records, and in March she intervened after local high school mariachi performers were detained.

This month, De La Cruz released a campaign ad, featuring the wife of a DACA recipient who was detained this year by ICE. The wife said that she had voted for Democrats before, “but Monica puts people over politics.”

A representative for De La Cruz did not respond to requests for comment.

Her opponent, Tejano musician Bobby Pulido, said he doesn’t like talking in absolute terms like abolishing ICE. But without the historic funding approved by Republicans this year, the agency would have been prevented from continuing what he sees as bad policy on humanitarian and economic levels.

But Pulido also says that the Biden administration waited too long to impose border restrictions.

“It feels like it went from ‘let ‘em all in’ to ‘kick ‘em all out,’” he said in an interview. “I don’t think that either one is good. We need immigrants, but everybody always says do it the legal way. We have to actually legislate pathways for that to happen.”

One Republican has directly broken with Trump in her bid for reelection. In a campaign ad released Sept. 17, Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, standing in front of the White House, speaks directly to the president. “The same Hispanics who helped you get to the White House in 2024 feel betrayed today,” she said.

Polling shows that many in that district, where Latinos make up three-quarters of registered voters and more than half were born outside the U.S., now think Trump’s immigration crackdown has gone too far. Polls also show Salazar is deadlocked with her opponent, Eliott Rodriguez, a fellow Cuban American and newscaster who fired back at her for voting in favor of Trump’s policies.

DENVER — The office of Colorado’s attorney general is a perch 10 stories above downtown Denver. From his aerie, Phil Weiser has a sweeping view of the city skyline, the gold-domed Capitol and, occasionally, a red hawk on the wing.

But looking toward November, Weiser sees something darker.

Federal agents swarming polling places. Voters intimidated or blocked from casting their ballots. A tyrannical president using his powers, real and imagined, to undermine or try to overturn the Nov. 3 election.

“With this administration what we have seen is it’s important that we not limit our imagination to what … type of harm could happen,” Weiser said during a sunny noon hour in the Mile High City.

For that reason, Colorado’s attorney general and his Democratic peers around the country have spent more than a year strategizing — by phone, via Zoom, sometimes in person — on ways to Trump-proof the midterm election.

They’ve researched history and the law, war-gamed what-ifs, divvied up responsibilities and drafted emergency lawsuits and temporary restraining orders so they can be hurried into court at a moment’s notice.

“We have prepared for a range of contingencies … so that we’re ready to act,” Weiser said.

“We’re not going to be reacting in real time” or pulling all-nighters, he added. “We are going to be following through on plans we’ve made, having looked at what’s possible.”

The efforts of Weiser, California’s Rob Bonta and more than 20 other Democratic attorneys general are part of a mass mobilization aimed at thwarting Trump’s unprecedented efforts to pervert and subvert November’s midterm balloting.

It’s remarkable that kind of man-the-barricades action is needed to preserve and protect the voting franchise in this, the land of the free and home of the brave. But having weighed the threats, Weiser said his greatest fear of election interference comes not from a bad overseas actor or some terrorist group, but rather our own federal government “and what this administration might do.”

So here we are.

To fend off that threat from within, state Democratic parties across the nation are aiming to recruit 10,000 volunteers to guard polling places in the event armed federal agents show up.

Various sponsors have launched education campaigns to explain election rules and offer hotlines for voters who have trouble casting their ballot.

Civil rights groups and democracy-defending organizations have staged their own tabletop exercises brainstorming and rehearsing various scenarios. A group of Democratic U.S. senators has done the same.

“What we’re doing is preparing for the fact that Donald Trump, in 2020, lied about the election in advance, lied about it in the aftermath, went to court … and then he instigated a violent insurrection in this very building,” Marc Elias, a Democratic elections attorney, told MS NOW in a July interview at the Capitol. “So I think we need to take these threats in the 2026 midterm run-up … both seriously and literally.”

In a more courageous, less heedlessly partisan world, Republicans would be working with Democrats to keep the power-drunk Trump in check. (The House and Senate supposedly comprise a separate and equal branch of government, with its own power, prerogatives and such.)

But, as Weiser noted, this Republican-led Congress “has been lacking in backbone, lacking in the role of checks and balances. That has left it to state attorneys general to fill that vacuum, going to court and essentially playing the role of a check on a lawless and often bullying president.”

The nation’s 24 Democratic attorneys general have filed more than 125 lawsuits in Trump’s second term alone, fighting his moves on trade and tariffs, energy and immigration policies and efforts to gut or eliminate programs and whole government agencies. They’ve prevailed in the overwhelming majority of cases that have been adjudicated or settled.

Even before Trump was elected again, some attorneys general began conferring on ways to fight the excesses they anticipated in a second administration. Anyone who didn’t see them coming wasn’t paying attention, said Weiser, who, most likely, will be elected Colorado’s next governor on Nov. 3.

(His victory in Colorado’s Democratic primary stemmed in good part from Weiser’s record battling Trump in court.)

“The worst-case scenario was that a Trump presidency would work to implement Project 2025 and would do things like try to end birthright citizenship, try to interfere with the delivery of ballots in the mail, would seek to use ICE in ways that were a basic affront to the rule of law,” Weiser said. “All those things have happened.”

So why not expect more of the same come November?

Trump is constitutionally (small “c”) incapable of acknowledging the result of any election he didn’t win. He’s openly urged supporters to “cheat like hell.” Thus, one can only assume malign intent when the president tries to wantonly purge voter rolls, hijack the U.S. Postal service to gum up mail balloting and override the Constitution (capital “c”) by federalizing November’s election.

Some might call such fears melodramatic, or overblown.

But as Weiser said, “We need to stay nervous and stay vigiliant because [of] what this president has shown, Jan. 6 being one of the telling examples.”

Trump’s refusal to accept the outcome of elections “is historic,” the attorney general said. “It is unique. It’s a threat. And it’s why we have to stand our guard.”

Vote, to bring this rogue president to heel. Stay vigilant, to make sure that vote counts.

Two good watchwords for this midterm election.

US president rejects Iran’s seven-day plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, saying the deal is not ‘acceptable’.

The US president said he would end a so-called ‘EV mandate’ that steered consumers to electric vehicles.

United States President Donald Trump has announced new fuel economy standards that roll back requirements adopted under his predecessor, arguing they will lower automobile prices and encourage manufacturers to expand production in the US.

In a social media post on Saturday, Trump said the new standards would “TERMINATE” what he called former US President Joe Biden’s “EV (electric vehicle) mandate”, accusing the previous administration of imposing costly requirements on carmakers and steering consumers towards electric vehicles.

“These new Standards will take the waste out of building cars in America. That means LOWER PRICES, saving families thousands on a new, beautiful, and safe car,” Trump wrote.

The changes form part of a broader Trump administration effort to reverse Biden-era policies supporting lower-emission vehicles, increasing the gap between US policy and global trends favouring electric vehicles.

While Trump and US Republicans have used the term “EV mandate” to describe higher fuel efficiency requirements instituted under Biden, a Democrat, there are no federal guidelines or laws that require Americans to buy electric cars or bar the sale of ones powered by petrol.

At the centre are Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. This system, established by the US Congress in 1975, requires automakers to meet average fuel economy targets across all cars and light trucks they sell, meaning that a brand that sells an inefficient vehicle would also have to sell a more efficient one to help comply with the government’s standards.

Under rules finalised by the Biden administration in 2024, the required fleetwide fuel economy was scheduled to rise from 39.1 miles per gallon (mpg) to about 50.4mpg by 2031. The administration said then the measures would reduce fuel consumption and emissions to combat climate change while helping motorists save money at the pump.

As a result, auto manufacturers have ramped up production of EVs to help meet the Biden-imposed fuel economy requirements. The Republican-controlled US Congress, however, gutted consumer tax incentives last year for electric vehicles as part of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Trump did not provide details regarding what the new fuel economy standards would be. But in December 2025, he announced a proposal that would set the industry fleetwide average for light-duty vehicles at roughly 34.5mpg by 2031, more than 30 percent lower than the Biden-era rule.

In a reposting of Trump’s announcement, US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said an announcement would be “COMING MONDAY”.

Al Jazeera has reached out to the White House for comment.

“America will never be a communist country,” states the 30-second television ad.

Never mind that socialism is a more probable scenario given the rise of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Nithya Raman’s healthy lead in the Los Angeles mayoral race. This commercial is not about semantics, political systems or the health of the nation.

It’s about touting the alleged achievements of President Donald Trump, from “reigniting American manufacturing” to “defend[ing] law and order” and giving Americans the “largest tax cuts in history.”

One can argue the legitimacy of such claims if they still have the energy to do so after 10 years of relentless MAGA puffery, but the real issue here is that this particular piece of bluster is produced and funded by the U.S. government.

Laws prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for “publicity or propaganda,” even if the White House is referring to its new ad campaign as a PSA.

“This is the sort of government propaganda one might expect in North Korea, not the United States of America, and it is an egregious and utterly illegal misuse of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars,” wrote Democratic House and Senate Appropriations Committee members in a letter sent Friday to Trump’s Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

They demanded that the ad be immediately taken off the air and that “Federal employees who knowingly violated Federal law in working on and paying for this advertisement” be disciplined. “The law is not complicated,” they wrote. “You cannot use taxpayer dollars for political advertisements.”

The spot, which first aired Wednesday on conservative media outlets Fox News and Newsmax, cost $14,000, according to the firm AdImpact, which tracks media spending. By Friday, that number had jumped to $430,000 as the ad hit multiple markets across the country.

And it isn’t the only instance of American tax dollars at work — for Trump. A second ad paid for by you aired Thursday night on CBS.

The minute-long commercial featured footage of the president speaking against the backdrop of Mount Rushmore in an audacious display that might have turned George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt to stone if they weren’t already immortalized in granite.

It included clips from the U.S. military’s Jan. 3 capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, snippets from Trump’s Independence Day weekend speech, a voiceover from UFC CEO Dana White praising the president as “the toughest, most resilient person” he’s ever met, and a montage of images featuring Trump, Trump and more Trump. It ends with the star of the show proclaiming, “This is only the beginning of the golden age of America,” then comes the written disclosure: “Paid for by the U.S. Government.”

Anyone who has lived in or traveled to countries with state-run media will recognize the similarities between Trump’s ads and those of, say, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein or current strongmen like North Korea’s Kim Jong Un: the intense leader-like gaze, the baseless claims, substandard production quality and music that suggests the subject of the ad should be worshipped. (Trump’s choice for the first ad was “Love Me” by R&B singer JMSN, who opposed the use with an emphatic “I would never…”)

But on U.S. television, the ad feels more desperate than dictatorial. The whiff of desperation coming from the ad blitz may have something to do with the president’s dismal polling numbers headed into November’s midterms.

The administration has argued its ads are “educational and unapologetically patriotic” public service announcements. The White House said in a statement, “These public service announcements are about reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad.”

A White House official reportedly said that the PSAs “are clearly not political” and noted that “the President is not on the ballot and the ads don’t have a call to action.”

Trump has repeatedly told his base to vote like he was on the ballot.

With propaganda like this coming out of the White House, communism is hardly the biggest threat facing the country.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser and Noah Goldberg, giving you the latest on city and county government.

It’s one of the most exacting tasks to face a left-leaning candidate running for office in L.A.: filling out the Democratic Socialists of America’s questionnaire.

During the candidate endorsement process, the DSA’s L.A. chapter issues a lengthy form that ends with a spate of yes or no questions, mainly around hot-button topics: Do you support Medicare for All? Do you favor the policies of the Green New Deal? Would you put a halt to police exchange programs with Israel?

When filling out the form, mayoral candidate Nithya Raman voiced support for all three. But unlike some DSA-endorsed candidates, the council member declined to give a yes or no answer on an assortment of other topics, opting for longer explanations.

Raman, a DSA member, declined to check either box when asked if she would work as mayor to repeal a law prohibiting homeless encampments near schools. She did the same on whether to divert funds from law enforcement into other public services.

She also declined to say yes or no on removing police from K-12 schools, and on banning the use of facial recognition and other surveillance technologies.

The answers offer the latest sign that Raman has been proceeding with caution on some of the DSA’s litmus test issues. Raman, who tweeted “defund the police” six years ago, said in February that the ranks of the Los Angeles Police Department should not get any smaller.

Appearing Wednesday in Pico-Union, she said she was proud to have the DSA as part of her coalition but also described herself as politically independent.

“I’ve made sure that the decisions that I’m making, the votes that I’m taking, are ones that are based on an understanding of how these policies are actually going to improve the lives of Angelenos,” said Raman, who received the DSA endorsement earlier this month.

Mayor Karen Bass, Raman’s opponent, did not seek the endorsement, saying she was not aligned with some of the group’s positions.

Raman’s questionnaire stands in contrast with those of some of her DSA colleagues.

Hugo Soto-Martínez answered nearly every yes-no question posed by the DSA during his first run for City Council in 2022. Ysabel Jurado did the same during her successful council campaign two years later.

So what were Raman’s longer answers? On homeless encampments, she wrote that she has repeatedly voted against increasing the number of locations where tents are prohibited — and doesn’t want to saddle homeless people with criminal records that could stifle their ability to find permanent housing.

Regarding cuts to the LAPD, Raman said she would expand the city’s network of unarmed crisis response teams, ensuring that “trained professionals” — not police officers — respond to mental health and substance use calls.

On campus police, Raman said schools “should never default to armed officers for discipline or student well being.” And on facial recognition software, Raman said she would prohibit surveillance technologies that lack “clear evidence of need and completely enforceable safeguards for civil rights and privacy.”

“I will also require real oversight and consent before the city deploys any of it,” she wrote.

Raman even declined to say yes or no when asked if she wants noncitizens to vote in local elections. But she explained in writing that she voted earlier this year to put a proposal from Soto-Martínez on the ballot that would give the council the ability to enact noncitizen voting for city and school board elections.

The council later dropped that measure.

Picking apart the Paramount deal

Raman and Bass weighed in recently on the deal struck by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison on the studio’s merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

Both mayoral candidates said Paramount should be held accountable for the promises contained in the settlement, which requires the company to distribute 30 films per year in theaters for the first two years after the merger, then 32 films per year for the next three years.

Of the two, Raman sounded more dismayed by the deal.

“There was a better outcome than this,” Raman told reporters at a recent news conference. “But this is the outcome that we have, and now it’s incumbent upon us to fight for the best results for workers here.”

For much of this year, Bass and Raman voiced concern that the merger would trigger mass layoffs within the film and television industries. But last month, Bass began calling for the two parties to engage with each other in good faith, saying too many productions had come to a standstill, putting people out of work.

“The prolonged uncertainty around this decision has already led to job losses and left workers wondering what it would mean for their futures,” Bass said in a statement this week.

The settlement alleviated the anxiety felt by some at City Hall that Paramount might follow through on its threat to leave California.

Bass’ stance aligned her more with IATSE, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, whose leaders voiced their own concerns about uncertainty while appearing with the mayor at City Hall last month.

Raman was more in sync with Writers Guild of America West, which denounced Bass for pressing Bonta to seek a resolution, saying “industry workers deserve a mayor who believes in upholding the law.”

Bass’ campaign is supported by IATSE Local 33 and the California IATSE Council, which said earlier this year that the mayor has “done more to bring our jobs back to Los Angeles than anyone in city government.”

On Thursday, the Writers Guild endorsed Raman, saying she is a “true pro-labor candidate who walks the walk.”

State of play

— POLLING PRESSURE: A new poll put Raman decisively in the lead in the mayor’s race, showing her with a double-digit advantage over Bass. The findings will ramp up the pressure on Bass and her allies to go sharply negative against Raman while courting the huge number of voters who say they are still undecided.

— MAKING THEIR CASE: Bass and Raman sat down with The Times for two separate, wide-ranging interviews, discussing issues like homelessness, the Palisades fire and the biggest mistakes they’ve made in office.

— PEOPLE MOVER POSTPONED: The opening date of the People Mover train being built at Los Angeles International Airport has been delayed yet again, with contractors now aiming for early January. The 2.25-mile automated train, which has been over budget for years, was originally supposed to open three years ago.

— EXECUTIVE ORDER: Bass ordered a review of the LAPD’s dealings with mentally ill people this week, saying the training that police officers are receiving is “woefully inadequate.” The mayor said she was particularly troubled by a July 29 incident in which police fatally shot a man who approached them with an aluminum bat.

— HURDLES TO HOUSING: Why has housing production been lagging in L.A.? Real estate developers pointed to a list of reasons, including high interest rates, pandemic-era policies like rent freezes and Measure ULA, the voter-approved tax on high-end property sales.

— TRUMP REBUFFED: An appeals court blocked the Trump administration from stopping the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority from applying for millions of dollars in federal funding. The agency had applied on behalf of homeless service organizations from across the county.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to address homelessness went to the area around 11th and Irolo streets, a location represented by Councilmember Heather Hutt.
• On the docket next week: Bass and Raman are slated to appear Tuesday at the Skirball Cultural Center for the 2026 Jewish Los Angeles Mayoral Forum. The event is hosted by the Jewish Federation Los Angeles, the Skirball Cultural Center, ADL Los Angeles and other groups.

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.

United States President Donald Trump has rejected a roadmap submitted by Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz within a week.

“I reject their proposal,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on Saturday, before departing for Tennessee by helicopter.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that Tehran formally submitted a seven-day roadmap to the US via mediator Qatar, and was awaiting Washington’s response.

“It appears as though the proposal is dead in the water,” said Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, DC.

Late on Friday, US media reports indicated Trump would reject the proposal.

Trump was “privately sceptical” that Tehran would meet his demands, and reportedly told aides that he expects a renewed bombing campaign on Iran after the November US midterm elections, The Wall Street Journal reported, quoting unnamed US officials.

“President Trump has vacillated between extreme optimism, saying that ‘talks are going well’ to ‘I want to annihilate Iran’,” Hanna said about the recent diplomacy between Washington and Tehran.

“There is no consistency in terms of the [Trump] administration’s reaction,” he said.

But “the one thing that has been made clear by President Trump is that he is content to stay in the status of limbo”, Hanna added, despite concerns from much of the American public that the Iran conflict is turning into another “never-ending war”.

The Strait of Hormuz, a waterway key to the world’s oil supply, is central to the conflict between the US and Iran, which is at an impasse after nearly seven months, though new mediation efforts took place this week.

Earlier in the week, Araghchi held talks with Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, and previously set out conditions for ending the war and reopening the vital shipping channel.

On Friday, the top Iranian diplomat said: “Iran has conveyed to the United States, through Qatar, a concrete seven-day plan. If the necessary conditions are met, the strait can be reopened, and normal maritime passage restored within seven days.”

He was speaking at the United Nations in New York, where he and other senior Iranian officials were attending the General Assembly.

Under the plan, Washington would lift its naval blockade of Iranian ports, waive sanctions on Iranian oil sales, release an estimated $12bn in frozen Iranian assets and observe a ceasefire covering the region, including Lebanon and Yemen.

“The choice now rests with the United States. Iran does not accept coercion, threats or intimidation, and Iran will not surrender its sovereign rights under pressure,” Araghchi had said.

On Saturday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told Al Jazeera that Tehran no longer trusts negotiations with the US after previous rounds of talks were followed by attacks and sanctions.

“We have no trust in the American side and do not know on what basis an understanding can be reached with it,” said Pezeshkian, who was also in New York for the UNGA.

He denied that Iran was responsible for blocking the Strait of Hormuz, saying the US “closed the routes before us”. He described the closure as “a natural response when routes are cut off to Iran”.

The Iranian president said the crisis could be resolved through negotiations rather than force, and that the waterway would reopen to commercial shipping if talks ended the war.

Sept. 25, 2026 7:17 PM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump is canceling nearly $1 billion in spending approved by Congress, the White House announced Friday, using a rare and contested power to axe funding for immigrant services and diversity-focused initiatives.

Trump’s Office of Management and Budget described the funding cut as focused on “the most harmful government spending.”

Most of the cuts are focused on Health and Human Services programs that serve refugees and unaccompanied minors accused of being in the country illegally. The administration says the funds are no longer necessary because illegal border crossings have diminished considerably.

Also targeted for cuts were a Department of Education program for migrant students, a Department of Justice office focused on reducing racial tensions, a business development initiative for minority entrepreneurs, housing counseling services from the Housing and Urban Development Department and a series of grants from the Health and Human Services Department that the administration called “outright harmful and blatantly ideological.”

A White House news release announcing the funding rescission notes that some of the organizations are led by people who worked in the Obama administration.

Trump’s move was condemned by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican in a tough reelection campaign and chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Collins said in a statement that the action came without warning or consultation. She also said she would work to address with colleagues “these illegal actions.”

“Not only is the delay itself an impoundment that was not reported to Congress, but also it is a usurpation of Congress’s appropriations powers,” Collins said. “OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding.”

Under federal law, Congress has 45 days to review the president’s proposed spending cuts before they take effect. But Trump made that all but impossible by announcing them with just five days left in the federal fiscal year and the House out of session through the November election. The Government Accountability Office, which is an arm of Congress, says the maneuver known as a “pocket rescission” is illegal.

Collins called it the latest attempt by OMB to “undermine Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse.”

A year ago, Trump issued a pocket rescission for the first time in nearly 50 years by blocking $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to block that rescission, saying that Trump’s authority over foreign affairs weighed heavily in its decision. This year, Trump is targeting domestic spending.

The use of a pocket rescission fits into a broader pattern by the Trump administration to exert greater control over the U.S. government, eroding Congress’ power.

What was essentially the last pocket rescission occurred in 1977 when President Carter rescinded it, and the Trump administration argues it’s a legally permissible tool, despite some murkiness, since Carter had initially proposed the claw-back well ahead of the 45-day deadline.

The administration has also fired federal workers, imposed a historic increase in tariffs, and started the war in Iran without going through Congress, putting the burden on the judicial branch to determine the limits of presidential power.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, described the White House action as “theft from the American people, plain and simple.”

“These are funds Congress has delivered on a bipartisan basis and should be helping people — not cut off by a president more focused on building a ballroom than investing in families,” Murray said.

Murray said that in recent spending negotiations, Democrats fought to include language to prevent the administration from usurping Congress’ power on spending decisions, but Republicans have declined to go along.

“While Trump spends tax dollars on ads promoting himself” — a reference to a taxpayer-paid TV spot that has drawn bipartisan rebuke — “Congress needs to reassert its powers to help people, and it’s past time Republicans join us in that fight,” she said.

In addition to immigrant services, the White House said it was rescinding $70 million for what it called “woke” international education programs, $28 million in grant funding for Health and Human Services research programs, and $9 million in debt relief for foreign countries that fund climate change policies. An additional $10 million was being withheld from a minority business development program.

Freking and Cooper write for the Associated Press.

Sept. 25, 2026 6:59 PM PT

The White House signaled Friday night that CNN would be left off Air Force One for President Trump’s Saturday trip, the latest media restriction from the administration in an ongoing dispute with 1st Amendment implications.

The news organization was replaced by Real America’s Voice News, a conservative outlet.

The news came just after journalists from three news outlets that Trump banned last week from the White House grounds — CNN, MS NOW and Politico — returned to the executive complex with TV cameras, laptops and microphones in hand.

A judge temporarily struck down the ban in an overnight ruling early Thursday, but his decision didn’t directly address White House pool reporters. The networks continued to refrain from covering Trump as part of the pool, even as reporters from all three outlets were allowed back in the White House.

The temporary order from the judge mentioned only the White House grounds and said nothing directly about Air Force One.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., the news outlets’ attorney, did not immediately respond to an email and phone call requesting comment Friday night.

For a while during the day, the U.S. network video pool for the White House was back in operation for the first time since Trump banned the three news outlets in an extraordinary showdown over media access.

At noon on CNN, viewers could see Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping touring the National Archives Museum along with their wives, Melania Trump and Peng Liyuan. The banner along the bottom of the screen read: “Trump and China’s Xi Visit National Archives.” It was a routine report from a state visit — but for the fact that CNN had not aired live video of Trump in several days.

“As of now, all systems are go,” said a person familiar with the pool, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the fluidity of the situation.

The pool consists of five major U.S. broadcast outlets that take turns shooting and sharing video. When the White House banned CNN — which belongs to the pool — from White House grounds, along with MS NOW and Politico, the other four pool providers declined to participate in a show of solidarity.

CNN was not commenting directly earlier Friday, referring instead to its editorial coverage. But Brian Stelter, the network’s media analyst, posted on X that CNN had a pool assignment at the National Archives event and that the White House had approved the network’s credentials.

Golden and Noveck write for the Associated Press.

At first glance, it looks like a typical Republican campaign advertisement. As images of President Trump flash across the screen, the 30-second spot says, “America will never be a communist country” and boasts about the “largest tax cuts in history.”

But there’s something different near the end — a bit of text at the bottom that says “paid for by the U.S. government.”

According to AdImpact, which tracks media spending, the advertisement cost $14,000 and it ran during conservative shows on Fox News and Newsmax.

The White House said in a statement the ad is “educational and unapologetically patriotic.”

“These public service announcements are about reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad,” the White House statement said.

Fox News and Newsmax did not immediately return a request for comment.

The White House did not say what agency paid for the spot, which includes background music with singers crooning “love me” over and over.

The advertisement does not say who voters should support in the midterms, but it meshes with campaign messaging from Trump and other Republicans, particularly during the party’s unusual convention in Dallas earlier this month.

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who is in line to chair the House Judiciary Committee if his party wins the majority in November, said in a social media post that it’s a violation of the Hatch Act for government employees to work on such a video.

“It is blatantly unethical under numerous federal ethics provisions proscribing the use of government resources for political campaigns,” Raskin wrote.

Republicans also criticized the ad.

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who is not running for reelection, referenced the former right-wing Hungarian prime minister to critique the advertisement.

“It’s inappropriate. It’s not like they need a GoFundMe page to have the dollars to do that sort of ad and they could do it. But using taxpayer dollars, it feels like Viktor Orban,” he said.

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy said he hadn’t seen the ad but questioned whether it was legal.

“I don’t generally like to see politicians use public money to pay for their own campaign ads,” he said.

Catalini writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Joey Cappelletti and Steven Sloan in Washington contributed to this report.

Trump’s administration considers measures boosting dyed diesel and pushing for state tax relief, but avoids an outright export ban; such measures aim to ease domestic diesel prices without severe supply crunches or export bans that could spike prices further.

WASHINGTON — Expectations were low entering President Trump’s meetings with China’s leader, Xi Jinping, this week, after officials on both sides tempered hopes for a breakthrough. Yet the summit’s stark lack of substance surprised even the closest China watchers.

It was a visual affair designed to project a new phase of managed competition between a prevailing superpower and a rising one — a message that Washington and Beijing are ultimately capable of responsible leadership. But even a cursory look beneath the surface revealed the challenges ahead for the world’s most consequential bilateral relationship.

Industry pleas and bipartisan calls for Trump to negotiate a meaningful framework on artificial intelligence fell on deaf ears. A trade truce between the two sides was extended for a mere two months. And Trump again warned Xi not to assist Iran as the U.S. war there continues — a warning that, so far, has gone unheeded, with millions of dollars’ worth of crucial Chinese parts reportedly arriving in Tehran by the planeload.

“The U.S.-China relationship has settled into a managed stalemate. It has stabilized at the top without stabilizing underneath,” said Craig Singleton, a senior fellow on China at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“The elaborate pageantry matters precisely because there is still relatively little substantive progress to showcase,” Singleton said. “Trump appears to value the personal relationship as an end in itself. Xi treats his relationship with Trump as a means to shape U.S. choices and forestall future competitive actions.”

President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump stand with Chinese President Xi Jinping and First Lady Peng Liyuan before Thursday night’s state dinner.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

The summit followed a playbook from Trump that has become familiar over the last decade, placing his direct relationships at the center of diplomacy and reducing the complexities of statecraft to blunt attempts at charm.

As he did during his lavish state visit to Beijing this spring, Trump repeatedly patted Xi on the back, a gesture considered highly inappropriate in Chinese political culture that nevertheless reflected Trump’s strategic focus on personal friendship.

He toured Xi around a series of controversial renovations to the White House, including the South Lawn — now paved over with a massive helipad designed as the presidential seal — and the Rose Garden, also paved over in order for Trump to host al fresco dinner parties.

Before entering a heavily gilded Oval Office, Trump walked Xi along a renovated colonnade now adorned with gold-framed portraits of U.S. presidents. He paused at one for his predecessor, President Biden, replaced with a mocking image of an autopen, suggesting the former president was incapable of signing documents himself.

Trump patted Xi on the back once more, and the two men laughed, in a moment that generated outrage online.

“Let’s be very clear on this one point,” John Delaney, a former Democratic member of Congress, wrote on social media. “The President mocking a former President in front of the communist leader of China is the most un-American thing an American president has ever done.”

Tim Cook, executive chairman of Apple Inc., during the state dinner for Chinese President Xi Jinping.

(Annabelle Gordon / Bloomberg / Getty Images)

Part of the state visit included a dinner at the White House that was attended by some of the country’s most prominent tech executives, such as Elon Musk, Sam Altman and Mark Zuckerberg. The tech giants’ presence at the event was notable given that there was heightened public interest in knowing how China and the United States are planning to regulate artificial intelligence.

During the visit, Xi called for artificial intelligence to remain “under human control” as the two countries race for technological advancement in the industry. Lawmakers and AI industry leaders have also called for guardrails on the nascent technology, which experts warn could soon surpass human understanding. Trump, however, has been reluctant to embrace limits on the industry, and it is unclear how much the topic was discussed while Xi was in Washington.

Xi Jinping’s remarks reflect growing concern within China over whether governments in Washington or Beijing will be able to contain a technology with potentially transformative capabilities, according to a U.S. official.

But the visit showed a surprising alignment of visions between the U.S. and Chinese presidents, embracing fierce competition that avoids miscalculation and conflict. Both stressed the importance of dialogue, with Xi invoking the concept of the Thucydides trap, a historical paradigm that holds that rising powers inevitably clash with established ones.

“I don’t think anyone will be surprised if there are no significant agreements,” said David Ochmanek, a senior researcher at Rand. “My sense is that Xi sees little reason to compromise with us on anything right now.”

Trump and Xi arrive for a state dinner in the East Room of the White House on Thursday night.

(Brendan Smialowski / AFP / Getty Images)

The two men are expected to meet twice more this year, alongside other world leaders, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Shenzhen, China, and the Group of 20 summit in Miami.

“We do not need to avoid mentioning competition, but our competition should be a healthy one, and should be kept within bounds,” the Chinese president said Thursday from the Cross Hall of the White House. “It should be a race of catching up with one another, not a wrestle in which one either wins or loses. China and the United States must hold the line of no conflict, and no confrontation between us.

“Our two militaries should maintain regular dialogue, and improve mechanisms for crisis communication and prevention,” he continued. “The Thucydides trap can be overcome.”

Sept. 25, 2026 1:13 PM PT

MONTGOMERY, Alabama — President Trump vowed to campaign in 35 of the most competitive battleground districts in the final sprint to November’s midterm elections.

Instead, he will begin October by stumping in Alabama and Oklahoma, two of the most Republican states in the nation. His events are sure to draw enthusiastic crowds of fans, but his choice of destinations is a reminder of his deep unpopularity in much of the country during a campaign season he’s sought to make all about himself.

Trump will hold rallies Thursday in Durant, Okla., and Friday in Mobile, Ala., where he is sure to draw crowds, but also has raised eyebrows.

While organizers insist the rallies are in locations with media markets that span state lines and they will help bolster broader turnout, Trump’s itinerary is yet another sign of the uphill fight that his party faces. Republicans already have been pouring money into red states once considered safe as they try to shore up candidates facing an unhappy electorate that has soured on Trump and his polices.

Some Republicans also have been distancing themselves from the president in recent weeks as they try to appeal to voters beyond Trump’s “Make America Great Again” base. They’ve removed or downplayed references to the president on their websites and increasingly voiced opposition to his unpopular war with Iran.

But Trump’s events next week are likely to deliver something he craves: adoring crowds. He is almost guaranteed to fill the venues with the kind of die-hard supporters who fueled his political rise, projecting excitement as he tries to bolster enthusiasm and rally Republicans.

“The President’s ability to engage with and activate low-propensity voters is unmatched. That’s why he’ll be barnstorming the country to activate the voters we need to win in November,” Republican National Committee spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said, promising more October rallies.

Democrats, meanwhile, celebrated the announcement. “The political floor is falling out from underneath Trump and Congressional Republicans, forcing them to scramble to spend and campaign in deep red territory in the final weeks,” said Viet Shelton, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The RNC noted that Durant is on the Texas border and next to the Dallas-Fort Worth media market and will draw Republicans in Texas, which has emerged as one of the most critical states on the map. Scandal-plagued Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, whom Trump backed over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, is locked in a tight race against Democrat James Talarico. Gov. Greg Abbott also is facing a stronger-than-expected challenger in Democrat Gina Hinojosa.

Mobile is next to Florida’s panhandle, a Republican stronghold where high turnout can help bolster Trump-backed candidates running for Senate and governor. However, Florida Republican Sen. Ashley Moody is not expected to attend.

In Oklahoma, Trump will be stumping for Mike Mazzei, whom he backed as the Republican nominee for governor during a competitive primary. Mazzei is running against Oklahoma’s Democratic House Minority Leader Cyndi Munson.

“This race continues to get more competitive — and national Republicans are right to be worried about Mazzei,” Democratic Governors Assn. spokesperson Kevin Donohoe said in a statement.

Alabama, meanwhile, holds deep nostalgia for Trump and his early supporters. He held his first mega-rally in Mobile more a decade ago, drawing some 30,000 people to a college football stadium. The crowd made clear to skeptics of his campaign that he was more than a celebrity novelty.

“It’s very natural that he would host a rally here as he is gearing up for the midterm elections,” said John Wahl, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor and former chair of the Alabama Republican Party.

Although Republicans remain the heavy favorites in Alabama’s statewide campaigns, they face a more challenging political landscape.

Former Democratic Sen. Doug Jones is mounting a vigorous campaign for Alabama governor against one of Trump’s most vocal allies, Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who welcomed the president’s visit.

Republican Rep. Barry Moore, running to replace Tuberville in the Senate with Trump’s backing, said the president’s rally “will be the jet fuel we need to win big in Alabama.”

Mobile is also near Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District, which leans red after its lines were redrawn but is not a slam dunk for Republicans as they try to dislodge Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures.

Figures has been criticizing the president’s plan to lower import tariffs on foreign beef in an appeal to cattle ranchers as he tries to fend off a challenge from his Trump-backed opponent, State Rep. Rhett Marques.

Trump has promised to ramp up his campaigning in the election’s final stretch and had said he would visit all of the most competitive districts .

“It’s all about 35 races,” he said at a recent Rose Garden dinner attended by Republican lawmakers. “I’m going to go to every one of those 35 places and we’re going to see if we can get everyone elected.”

Colvin and Chandler write for the Associated Press. Colvin reported from New York. AP reporter Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.

Voting rights groups have warned system may falsely identify voters as non-citizens, leading to disenfranchisement.

The United States Supreme Court has allowed the administration of US President Donald Trump to use a controversial voter verification system just weeks away from the midterm election in November.

The court’s emergency order on Friday allows the Department of Homeland Security to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, programme in its efforts to verify the eligibility of voters on state voter rolls.

Voting rights groups have argued the use of the system, which was revamped under the Trump administration in 2025, risks falsely identifying individuals as non-voters, potentially leading to individuals being wrongfully purged from voter rolls.

Those challenging the administration’s use of the database have charged that information on citizenship can be out of date. They pointed to a Travis County, Texas election official who found that up to 25 percent of the “non-citizens” identified by the system in the jurisdiction were in fact US citizens.

US states oversee election administration under the country’s constitution and are not required to use the SAVE system, but several Republican-led state governments have voluntarily opted to use the database.

Still, it was not immediately clear if Friday’s decision would have any meaningful impact on the midterm elections on November 3, in which voters will determine which parties control the US House of Representatives and the Senate.

Existing law blocks most states from systematically purging voters from their rolls within 90 days of an election. The emergency order is not also the final say on the matter, only granting the administration the ability to use the system until the court makes a final ruling.

The three liberal justices on the panel, which has a 6-3 conservative supermajority, issued a dissenting opinion, saying the majority disregarded “the harms that the modified SAVE system has caused, and will likely continue to cause, to lawful voters”.

The Citizens for Ethics watchdog group charged that the decision “puts millions of Americans at risk of being unlawfully targeted by the admin’s unreliable voter purge system weeks before the midterms”.

Trump has focused heavily on election administration in the run-up to the midterm vote, which could serve as a major check on his authority in the final two years of his term.

He has for years claimed, without evidence, that US elections are marred by widespread fraud and has repeatedly falsely claimed the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, was “stolen”.

Evidence has suggested that fraud of any kind, including instances of non-citizens voting in the US, has been glancingly rare in the country.

In September, the Supreme Court rejected a bid from Trump to restrict mail ballot procedures before the midterm election.