trump

Caracas, August 28, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – US President Donald Trump has announced a major energy agreement with Venezuela to “more than double US oil reserves.”

“The US has just entered into the biggest oil deal in history with Venezuela,” he wrote on social media. “Working with highly respected [Venezuelan Acting President] Delcy Rodríguez, and through a partnership with private business, [the US] has secured majority control of more than 65 billion barrels of proven Venezuelan oil reserves.”

Trump added that the purported agreement would lower US fuel prices “long into the future” while setting Venezuela “on a course toward tremendous success and great prosperity.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the reported deal “a huge win for both the American and Venezuelan people” and claimed it would bring “nearly US $100 billion in private investment” to the Caribbean nation. Trump and Rubio disclosed no specifics about the arrangement.

Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez confirmed the “historic agreement” via a social media message on Friday night.

“I extend my deepest gratitude to Trump, Rubio, and the US government for their support in developing this agreement, which represents a historic milestone in US-Venezuela relations,” she wrote.

Rodríguez stated that the deal will involve private corporations developing 17 “strategic fields” with 65 billion barrels of proven reserves. She echoed Rubio’s $100 billion investment claim and pledged that the projects would yield $209 billion in tax revenues. According to the acting president, the announced agreement “ushers in a new era of growth and prosperity.”

The high-level negotiations were first reported by Axios on Thursday.

The Venezuelan Constitution establishes that all mineral and hydrocarbon resources are “inalienable public domain” goods. Transferring ownership of oil reserves would require a constitutional reform.

According to Reuters, the deal could take the form of a long-term lease, with the Trump administration then auctioning or allocating fields to select corporations. Bloomberg reported that the lease could be as long as 100 years.

The seventeen fields in question are said to include undeveloped extra-heavy crude projects in the Orinoco Oil Belt and mature light crude fields in Lake Maracaibo. The resulting supply would be “guaranteed” for the US as part of efforts to rein in rising fuel costs amid the ongoing standoff with Iran in the Persian Gulf.

Bloomberg additionally reported that Washington’s direct involvement in Venezuela’s oil industry could be conducted by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) in partnership with Venezuelan oil mogul Alejandro Betancourt. The Biden administration created the OSC in 2022 to fund private sector initiatives deemed vital for US national security interests. 

Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the acting Rodríguez administration has fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement with Washington while also opening the country’s energy and mining sectors to Western companies. 

A new Hydrocarbon Law and associated regulations were drafted in consultation with oil executives and US officials. The reform slashed royalties and taxes and ceded control over operations and sales to private firms under joint venture or concession-type models. Caracas also acceded to foreign companies’ demands in allowing for legal disputes to be settled by international arbitration bodies.

The legislative overhaul replaced the 2001 Hydrocarbon Law approved by former President Hugo Chávez and subsequent decrees that established a leading role for the Venezuelan state in the energy sector, which in turn fueled the country’s economic and social progress in the 2000s.

The US Treasury has maintained wide-reaching sanctions in place while issuing licenses to hand-picked companies and barring the participation of enterprises from China, Iran, and Russia. Furthermore, Venezuelan oil revenues are presently deposited in a US Treasury account, with the disbursement timings and amounts left at Trump officials’ discretion.

On Thursday, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) amended eight sanctions waivers concerning oil, mining, and telecommunications. OFAC removed a requirement that contracts signed with Venezuelan state entities be drafted in accordance with US laws or jurisdiction. The agency stated that “investment-related reforms” by the acting Rodríguez government had made the clause unnecessary.

Venezuela’s investor-friendly regulatory environment has led to industry giants, including Chevron, Repsol, and Shell, striking new deals or renegotiating existing ones for crude and natural gas exploration. Companies with no energy track record such as Lionheart Capital and Crossover Energy are likewise set to take control of strategic oilfields.

Oil services company SLB, formerly Schlumberger, recently signed an agreement with PDVSA for reservoir studies and service provision. SLB has set the reactivation of 15 oil rigs in the South American country as a short-term priority.

According to Reuters, the multinational firm will also access prized data on Venezuela’s oilfields, from reservoir characterization to real-time output information. SLB allegedly seeks to “make Venezuela’s oil data reliable again.”

In another indication of Caracas’ dramatic diplomatic realignment with Washington, Venezuelan officials are reportedly mulling the possibility of exiting the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Venezuela played a leading role in the creation of OPEC in 1960 as it sought to bring together Global South oil-producing nations to secure better and more stable oil prices in global markets. Former President Chávez also prioritized revamping OPEC after a prior “Oil Opening” under US-aligned governments had oriented the industry toward US interests and undermined the organization.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.

[Updated on August 28 at 8.30 pm ET following Trump’s announcement.]

Aug. 29 (UPI) — A federal judge in California on Friday ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution’s First and Fifth Amendments when it sought to deport international students critical of Israel.

Judge Noël Wise, of the Northern District of California, sided with student journalists at the Stanford Daily, which sued because some of its noncitizen writers had been afraid of deportation for expressing opinions critical of the administration’s policies.

“Foundational to America’s enduring democracy are our freedoms of speech and the press embodied in the First Amendment,” Wise wrote in a 90-page ruling. “In the United States, free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility. It is evidence of its strength.”

Wise ruled that it was unconstitutional for State Secretary Marco Rubio to use immigration law to deport students for their opinions.

Last year, Rubio sought the deportations of several student activists in the pro-Palestininan movement, including Columbia University’s Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University’s Rümeysa Öztürk.

Fearing similar repression, the Stanford Daily sued to stop the government from revoking the visas of other students with views critical of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Wise said the strength of the Constitution “is diminished when members of our society — citizens and noncitizens alike — must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation.”

“In March 2025, that retaliation was directed at those engaged in pro-Palestine and anti-Israel speech,” the judge continued. “In September 2025, caught in the government’s net were people critical of Charlie Kirk.

“In May 2026, it potentially included ‘weighing in on a peace deal that’s being negotiated’ in Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Tomorrow, or perhaps even today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like.”

Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, whose Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued the government on behalf of the students, said, “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” the attorney added in a statement.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Saturday urged US President Donald Trump to avoid creating turmoil, saying problems could be resolved through dialogue and implementation of a memorandum of understanding, Anadolu reports.

“If we proceed through dialogue and on the basis of the memorandum of understanding, we will resolve the problems and secure our rights,” Pezeshkian said in a ceremony in Tehran, as cited by Mehr News Agency.

“It is in the interest of the country, the region and the world that Trump does not create turmoil and that Israel does not cause insecurity and aggression,” he added.

Pezeshkian said Iran does not favor war but would respond firmly to any assaults.

“We do not like war, but we will stand with strength against aggression and defend ourselves,” he said, adding that no power could force a united nation determined to defend its territory to surrender.

He said Tehran was seeking to resolve problems through dialogue, but stressed that the Iranian people, officials and military commanders would “never surrender” in the face of threats and aggression.

The president also accused Israel of seeking to sow divisions among Muslim countries, saying greater unity among Islamic nations could thwart such efforts.

READ: Iran says it agreed with Oman on Hormuz passage route, links reopening to US commitments

Turning to domestic issues, Pezeshkian said maintaining industrial production during the coming winter was a “red line,” stressing that supplies of gas, electricity and water to production facilities should not be interrupted.

He said the government would manage consumption of water, electricity, gas and fuel and, if restrictions became necessary, would first impose them on government offices and public buildings rather than shift the burden onto the public.

Pezeshkian called on the public to cooperate with the government to maintain stability, saying Iran’s adversaries should not believe that pressure would force the country to surrender.

The US-Israeli war against Iran began on Feb. 28, with attacks targeting military, nuclear and infrastructure sites across the country. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes against Israel and US military facilities across the region.

Iran and the US reached a 14-point memorandum of understanding in June, mediated by Pakistan and Qatar, aimed at ending hostilities and opening a 60-day window for negotiations toward a broader agreement.

The memorandum also addressed the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and lifting of the US naval blockade, as well as sanctions and Iran’s frozen assets.

​​​​​​​Tehran has maintained that further progress in talks depends on Washington fulfilling its commitments under the memorandum, while Iranian officials have said the Strait of Hormuz will not fully reopen until those obligations are implemented.

READ: Dialogue ‘only viable way out’ of US-Iran conflict, China says amid sanctions threats

Aug. 28 (UPI) — President Donald Trump Friday signed an executive order to create the U.S. Space Academy to train and educate potential aerospace workers and service members.

“That’s a big deal. So, you think of West Point, and you think of Annapolis, and you think of the Air Force Academy, and you think of the Coast Guard Academy — great — they’re all great, but we’re going to have now a space force,” Trump said at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. “We’re going to have an academy for what the people in this room love the most.”

The action said the mandate for the academy is to “strengthen the Nation’s space workforce by expanding opportunities to educate and develop the next generation of leaders across the space domain.”

Trump also awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor to the crew of the Artemis II.

He also signed a directive to begin the process of creating the new academy by creating a commission chaired by NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman. The commission will report to the president within 120 days on key details to establish the school.

The White House said the academy will be a “NASA-led federal academy dedicated to combining rigorous technical education with leadership development, discipline and a durable commitment to public service. The Space Academy will develop a professional corps of civically grounded leaders prepared to advance American interests within the space domain.”

The location hasn’t yet been named, but Trump said in his remarks that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has been pushing for it to be in Texas.

Trump created the U.S. Space Force in 2019 during his first term in office.

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

Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman is waiting to hear whether she has secured a prize coveted by many of the city’s left-of-center candidates: an endorsement from the Democratic Socialists of America.

Earlier this year, the DSA’s Los Angeles chapter took up the idea for the June 2 primary, only to decide against it. They made that decision after hours of debate, all under the watchful eyes of local reporters. The group later recommended Raman in its June 2 voter guide, but that didn’t give her access to the DSA’s vaunted get-out-the-vote apparatus, which goes only to endorsed candidates.

This time around, endorsement discussions for the Nov. 3 runoff were held behind closed doors, followed by an online vote now under way. But the debate has been playing out publicly on a somewhat obscure platform: Geese magazine, which bills itself as “a daily review of American Communism.”

Contributors to that online publication — which declares on its website “We answer to no one” — have been going back and forth for weeks over whether the DSA should endorse Raman, a DSA member herself, in her campaign to unseat Mayor Karen Bass.

Things got rolling on Aug. 11, when Geese posted a 4,400-word essay supporting a DSA endorsement of Raman, arguing that such a move could “open the floodgates for socialism in Los Angeles.”

The four writers, DSA-LA members themselves, conceded that Raman is “no Zohran” — a reference to New York City’s charismatic DSA mayor, Zohran Mamdami. They acknowledged that she’s had a sometimes turbulent relationship with the group, which endorsed her council campaigns in 2020 and 2024 but also censured her at one point, in part because she accepted an endorsement from a pro-Israel group.

Still, the essayists praised her work on homelessness and tenant protections. And they commended her for seeking greater cooperation with the organization in recent months, hiring DSA-LA members to lead her campaign.

“What this signals is that with a DSA-LA endorsement, we may anticipate more constructive collaboration with the Nithya campaign going forward,” the group wrote.

Not so fast, argued another group of Geese contributors. On Monday, those five writers — also DSA-LA members — panned the idea of an endorsement, saying Raman hasn’t earned it.

These writers assailed Raman for voting to confirm former Sheriff Jim McDonnell as Los Angeles police chief and for seeking a rewrite of Measure ULA, the so-called mansion tax, which she views as an impediment to housing production. The authors also portrayed her as woefully out of touch with the DSA on Israel’s war in Gaza.

“If we endorse Raman, a candidate who lacks the inspirational leadership and collaborative political relationship that forms the foundation of a strong DSA endorsement, we risk spending the next four years managing the consequences; explaining, defending, and organizing around the shortcomings of a mayor who was never meaningfully accountable to our democratic socialist movement in the first place,” the group wrote.

Two days later, third Geese essay showed up, arguing that Raman is “the nerd that can dig our city out of this crisis.” That piece sought to rebut some of the criticism contained in the previous essay, while conceding that Raman can be “overly fixated on details, slightly thin-skinned, obtuse, and argumentative.”

“But let’s not forget that Nithya also has a long list of positive attributes as well: she is an exceptional administrator — reducing homelessness in her district by 49% through careful service provision,” the group wrote, anointing her as “Our Pothole Populist.”

A fourth piece, also pro-Raman, posted Friday. Meanwhile, Bass has not emerged unscathed during the back-and-forth.

Geese’s contributors criticized Bass for refusing to let City Controller Kenneth Mejia audit her Inside Safe homelessness program, saying she showed a “disregard for democratic processes.” They assailed her over her handling of the Palisades fire, the Lineage fire, police spending and other issues.

The pro-Raman rebuttal piece had some of the harshest language, accusing Bass, who made many trips to Cuba earlier in her life, of being “puppeted by business interests, landlords, the more reactionary segment of labor, and a smattering of liberal NGOs.”

Bass has not sought the DSA’s backing, either in the primary or the runoff. But she does have endorsements from the council’s other three DSA members.

Raman needs to win 60% of the vote to secure the endorsement. More than 6,000 chapter members have received emails with online ballots.

Monday is the last day to vote.

Tracking Traci Park

City Councilmember Traci Park represents a Westside district that runs along the coast. But that didn’t stop her from heading to Sherman Oaks for the raucous Aug. 19 mayoral debate.

Her appearance in the audience immediately sparked questions. Was she trying to make a decision on whether to weigh in on the mayor’s race?

After all, Park is the only council member who has not publicly picked a horse. Thirteen of the council’s 15 members have come out for Bass. (Raman also endorsed Bass at one point, but then jumped into the race at the last minute.)

Park has made clear she is no political ally of Raman, diverging on such issues as the city’s anti-encampment law. Still, an endorsement of Bass could pose risks.

Park represents the Pacific Palisades, where residents have sharply criticized Bass over her handling of the Palisades fire, which destroyed thousands of homes and left 12 people dead.

On Friday, Park declined to say whether she plans to endorse, saying she simply wanted to “hear what both candidates have to say.”

“It was a mayoral debate. I’m a City Council member, taxpayer, and resident,” she said in a statement. “The progress we’ve made on the Westside is at stake.”

Back to school for Mazariegos

It’s supposed to be a little like traffic school — but instead of learning to drive more safely, you learn to run a by-the-book political campaign.

Community organizer Estuardo Mazariegos, who is running to replace City Councilmember Curren Price in a South Los Angeles district, is now enrolled. He agreed to take a seven module, roughly three-hour class on the state’s campaign finance laws to resolve a complaint filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission, said Jesse Alson-Milkman, a strategist for the campaign.

That complaint accused Mazariegos of failing to pay for community space during at least six “postcarding party” events held by his council campaign at Mercado La Paloma. The complaint was filed by Josh Rothstein, a member of the Mid City West Neighborhood Council, who says he submitted the paperwork in his own capacity.

Mazariegos is on leave as co-director of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, which hosts its corporate office at Mercado La Paloma. That facility charges for certain types of meeting space, yet Mazariegos’ spending report initially showed no payments or in-kind donations for such costs, Rothstein said.

Alson-Milkman said five of the postcarding events were held at the market’s public dining area, so no payment or in-kind donation was needed.

The campaign did have a sixth event where it rented a room for two and a half hours, Alson-Milkman said. But the invoice for $137.50 was lost, he said, delaying payment for months.

The FPPC concluded the violation can be remedied without an enforcement action or financial penalty by having Mazariegos take a Political Reform Education Program, or PREP class, Alson-Milkman said.

The class was created by the FPPC to help candidates who commit minor violations to avoid getting “a mark on their record” — or a financial penalty.

State of play

— CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS: We’ve told you in recent weeks about issues surrounding the Homeless Count: the failure to count a 600-bed homeless shelter in 2024 and 2025, which may have skewed this year’s numbers, and the wildly diverging numbers in Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson’s South L.A. district. On Wednesday, the council instructed the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority to report back on some of the discrepancies.

— VENDORS VEXED: Bass has ordered the LAPD to stop issuing criminal citations to street vendors and remove any that were erroneously issued. The mayor’s office took that step after learning that citations were being incorrectly handed to vendors in MacArthur Park, a situation reported by LA Public Press. The street vending issue has been a flashpoint in the mayor’s race in recent weeks.

— UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: With the mayor’s race heating up, Raman’s record on homelessness has come under fresh scrutiny, particularly her time overseeing the council’s housing and homelessness committee. Raman has touted her work in identifying less expensive strategies for tackling the crisis. Critics say her tenure as chair hasn’t adequately met the moment.

— AUDITING THE GAMES: Mejia, the city controller, called on LA28, the committee organizing the 2028 Summer Olympic Games, to turn over reports on its finances. Mejia said the private committee has fully complied with only two out of nine requirements of its contract with the city. The controller issued his statement on the same day that several lawmakers called on Trump to provide much-needed transportation funding for the event.

— NO IFS, AND OR PHENIBUTS: The City Council instructed the city attorney to regulate phenibut, a drug that’s available at gas stations and being abused as a nervous system depressant. The regulations would include warning labels, a prohibition on sales to people under 21 and a ban on sales near schools and daycare centers.

— WHISTLE BLOWER SPEAKS: The police officer who recorded his colleagues making racist remarks told The Times that the LAPD “ruined my life.” Council members had been planning to formally condemn Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman over his filing of 16 felony counts against Officer Daniel Flores. But they shelved that plan on Tuesday after those charges were reduced to misdemeanors.

— PROGRAMMING NOTE: Our newsletter will be going dark for the Labor Day holiday weekend. We’ll see you again on Sept. 12.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature homelessness program went to the Westside, focusing on an area around Venice Boulevard and Glendon Avenue, which is represented by Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky.
• On the docket next week: As we mentioned previously, the DSA will wrap up its endorsement vote in the mayor’s race.

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.

If you want proof of the widening chasm between the Trump administration and Latinos, look no further than California state Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares and White House spokesperson Lauren Bis’ reaction to the same anti-Latino image.

Posted on the White House’s social media accounts this week, it’s a take on the logo for the beloved 1990s PBS cartoon “The Magic School Bus.” Same cheery font, same yellow bus blasting through the cosmos, same depiction of wacky teacher Ms. Frizzle and her cute chameleon sidekick Liz. But instead of a bunch of happy kids off to another adventure, the passengers are five handcuffed, brown-skinned, mustachioed men looking downward and dejected, all identical save for the colors of their T-shirts.

Bracketing this soulless scene are the words “The Magic Deportation Bus” — get it? Har har! The White House released the illustration to accompany an Aug. 24 Fox News headline gushing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had arrested a “jaw-dropping number” of undocumented immigrants in the D.C. area over the last two weeks.

The post was the latest in a flood of racist, anti-immigrant images that the Trump administration has shared. But this one was so bad that it even offended Martinez Valladares, a Republican whose district stretches from the Grapevine to Victorville.

“Enforcing immigration law and securing the border isn’t anti-Latino. But this image wasn’t necessary or helpful,” she told me. “We can strongly support border security while expecting our government to communicate those policies without reducing a community to a stereotype. Being tough on illegal immigration doesn’t require turning Latinos into a caricature.”

Suzette Martinez Valladares, then a Republican assembly member and now a state senator, is pictured in 2022.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Martinez Valladares isn’t any random Trump supporter. She’s co-chair of the California Hispanic Caucus, which represents the state’s GOP Latino legislators and was founded after a record number of them — nine — were elected in 2024. The group’s creation reflected the tsunami of Latino support for Trump that helped sweep him into the Oval Office for a second round and upended political thinking about America’s largest minority.

Such a critique from a politician of Martinez Valladares’ stature should set off fire alarms in the Oval Office as the midterms loom and the GOP needs Trump’s Latino supporters to hold the party line, right?

Nope!

When I asked the White House whether the “Magic Deportation Bus” was anti-Latino, spokesperson Bis whined in a statement that my query was “more race baiting by the media who are just mad the White House’s social media content is driving conversations with the American people about deporting illegal aliens. Is the L.A. Times really suggesting there has never been a deportation flight of just Guatemalans?”

Who’s doing the race baiting?

Nothing in the gross graphic suggests that Guatemala is the final destination for Migra Ms. Frizzle and her detainees. The men’s appearance is the only indication that they’re Latino — just the type of racial profiling that Trump’s immigration goons swear they don’t engage in, despite ample video and audio evidence to the contrary. While Latinos have long made up the majority of deportees, to portray the bus passengers as interchangeable clones who “look” Latino is as dehumanizing as you can get — but that’s par for MAGA.

Not only that, but the Fox News story that went with the icky illo said that ICE’s D.C. operation nabbed Jamaicans, Hondurans and Salvadorans, in addition to Guatemalans.

Trump and his minions famously never apologize, doubling down on their pendejadas when confronted with facts. Well, if Republicans wants any chance of holding on to Congress in the midterms and winning other key races, they need to beg Latinos for forgiveness, now that Trump has upended the lives of brown-skinned people, immigrants and U.S.-born alike.

A 1949 photo of undocumented immigrants boarding a bus for deportation to Mexico.

(Los Angeles Times)

Nearly half of Latinos voted for Trump two years ago, the best result ever for a Republican presidential candidate. Poll after poll released this year, each more dire for Trump than the last, show that those days are as distant a memory as affordable groceries. His approval ratings — and GOP hopes for the midterms — will continue to wither until he spends more time fixing the stagnant economy, ending the quagmire in Iran and stopping the deportation deluge.

To maintain his grip on power, Trump needs to inspire Latinos to stand by him, vote for his agenda and urge others to follow along. Instead, he faces frustrated supporters like David Hernandez, founder and chair of the Los Angeles County Hispanic Republican Club and host of the club’s weekly talk radio show.

Hernandez said he’s seen the perils of “unchecked” immigration at overcrowded hospitals and clinics. He also feels that in the race for California governor, Republican Steve Hilton’s attacks on Democrat Xavier Becerra’s alleged mishandling of migrant children while Health and Human Services secretary for the Biden administration will stay on the “front burner.”

The “Magic Deportation Bus” does nothing to highlight these issues, Hernandez said, describing it as “an immature cartoon failing to make any valid point.” Worse, the Navy veteran argues, it suggests that immigration agents plan to snatch children from schools.

“There is nothing funny about the issue,” Hernandez added, “that warrants this type of frivolous portrayal.”

I ran Hernandez’s and Martinez Valladares’ thoughts by Bis, noting their GOP bona fides without identifying them by name.

“Take a ride on The Magic School Bus to your home country!” the White House spokesperson began. Only her heart knows whether the line was a callback to the offending social media post or a not-nice suggestion that I self-deport to wherever the hell she thinks I was born (I’m a native Anaheimer, by the way).

Bis went on to repeat her previous line that the Trump administration is just seeking to “innovate” conversations with Americans and that “our efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens are no exception to this.”

Way to listen to the concerns of the front-line soldiers your boss so desperately needs this November, Lauren!

Spending more time crafting weak-salsa anti-Latino jokes than improving the lives of Latinos — that’s the racist swamp the president and his team happily fester in.

But there’s one thing their putrid parody of “The Magic School Bus” got right.

Ms. Frizzle often shrank her steel steed and its occupants to microscopic sizes so they could explore places they’d never seen. That sure sounds like the historic collapse that Trump is experiencing with Latinos, no?

To use Ms. Frizzle’s catchphrase: Bus, do your stuff.

Aug. 28 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday said his administration had reached a deal with Venezuela to secure a stake in more than 65 billion barrels of the country’s oil reserves.

In an evening social media post, Trump called the move “the biggest oil deal in world history,” and said it would come at no cost to American taxpayers.

“This Historic Transaction MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves, greatly increases our Oil Supply, and will substantially lower Gas Prices for all Americans, long into the future, while helping to continue to set Venezuela on a course toward Tremendous Success and Great Prosperity,” the president wrote on Truth Social.

Trump has been eyeing oil reserves in Venezuela since he ordered the military in January to seize former President Nicolas Maduro.

The president said his administration and Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodriguez, reached the deal in a partnership with private businesses.

Inventory of the United States’ strategic oil reserve hit a four-decade low this month, following supply disruption caused by the war with Iran, CNBC reported.

Venezuela has the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves.

The United States could take over as many as 17 oil fields in the South American country, though many lack any infrastructure and could cost billions to develop, the Washington Post reported.

“I think oil companies in the end will be pretty hesitant,” Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin American Energy Program at Rice University, told the newspaper.

State Secretary Marco Rubio, who was involved in the negotiations, said the deal would bring $100 billion in private investment to Venezuela.

“This deal is a huge win for both the American and Venezuelan people,” Rubio said in a statement on X. “It demonstrates how President Trump’s bold foreign policy is driving America First wins: securing stable reserves and low-cost oil in our Hemisphere and lowering gas prices here at home.”

WASHINGTON — A new National Park Service report backs President Trump’s proposed arch, despite what it says are adverse effects to the sightline between a host of landmarks in Washington, including the Washington Monument and Lincoln and Jefferson memorials.

The report released Friday says the 250-foot-tall arch is likely to disrupt the historically significant layout of dozens of sites near its planned location adjacent to Memorial Bridge.

Many of Washington’s monuments, buildings and sites have been carefully planned over decades to reflect significant moments in the nation’s history and to evoke symbolism through sightlines that connect them to other sites. The arch will disturb the sightline between more landmarks than anticipated, the report said.

But the Park Service report says “the same characteristics that make Memorial Circle sensitive from a preservation perspective are also the characteristics that make it the historically appropriate location for the undertaking.”

The project’s effects cannot be “fully avoided without either relocating the Arch away from the historically identified site or eliminating the principal commemorative feature, both of which would fail to meet the undertaking’s purpose and need,” the report said.

“For this reason, alternative locations outside Memorial Circle are not reasonable avoidance alternatives,” the report said.

The 133-page report by the Park Service supports Trump’s plans for the controversial arch and could play an important role in bolstering the administration’s case in its fight against a legal challenge filed by three veterans and a group of historians.

The proposed towering arch, which last month received initial approval from a key federal commission, would impact the “integrity” of dozens of historic properties because it would change “character-defining visual and spatial relationships” between them.

One of the most obvious elements the report cited is that the arch would break alignment between the Lincoln Memorial, Memorial Bridge and Arlington House that was formerly Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee’s home. That alignment was “intended to physically and symbolically unite North and South through a coordinated monumental composition extending across the Potomac River,” the report said.

The Lincoln Memorial Arlington House connection was one of dozens of historic sites and structures listed as being impacted directly by the proposed structure. It added that the National Mall, the U.S. Capitol, Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, Georgetown Historic District, Old Naval Observatory, Key Bridge, National Cathedral and other sites also would be affected.

Nicolas Sansone, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group representing the plaintiffs, said the report again “confirms what we’ve been saying all along: the project will have an enormous impact and transform that National Mall.”

The report underscores the legal challengers’ claim that a project of this size and importance “is a decision for Congress to make” and should not be rushed through by executive decree, Sansone said.

Daly writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 28 (UPI) — The leader of the Seneca Nation on Friday called on President Donald Trump to reverse his decision to rename Lake Ontario as Lake America.

Trump on Thursday signed an executive order renaming the body of water amid a trade dispute with Canada.

J. Conrad Sence, president of Seneca Nation, said, “The president cannot assert ownership over our culture or erase it through irresponsible political action.”

“His order should be rescinded and the name Lake Ontario should be left as it is, reflective of the Seneca people, other Haudenosaunee nations and all Indigenous people surrounding the lake,” Seneca said in a statement shared with WIVB.

“To us, Lake Ontario is not a political pawn,” he added. “It does not separate the countries of the United States and Canada. It is all Indigenous land, which has been occupied by Indigenous people since time immemorial.”

Jérôme Marty, executive director at the International Association for Great Lakes Research, said the lake was named by indigenous people.

“They gave the name of Lake Ontario, and then this name was then used to give the name of the province of Ontario, so it’s certainly not the province of Ontario that gave the name of the Lake Ontario, but it’s the opposite,” Marty told WIVB. “It’s prior to Canada, the creation of the United States, it’s been there for a really, really long time.”

Conrad told WGRZ the people of the region will continue to call it Lake Ontario, and urged others to do the same.

In a statement, a White House spokesperson pushed back against the criticism.

“As the president said yesterday, the majority of the great lake’s volume sits in United States territory,” the spokesperson told WIVB. “Thanks to President Trump’s bold action, its name will now reflect its place in America and her heritage.”

Lake Ontario is called sga:nyodai:yoh in the Seneca language, meaning “beautiful lake,” WGRZ reported.

Trump has also changed the name of Alaska’s Mount Denali, an indigenous name, to Mount McKinley after the 25th president of the United States.

He also renamed the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America.

US president says deal secures majority US control of more than 65 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in Venezuela.

The United States has struck a deal with Caracas that would give them control of some 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s proven oil reserves, President Donald Trump has announced, while reviving the OPEC nation’s battered energy industry.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said the “historic transaction more than doubles American oil reserves” and “will substantially lower gas prices for all Americans”.

“At my direction, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, working closely with Highly Respected Interim President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, and, through a partnership with private business, have secured majority US control of more than 65 BILLION BARRELS of proven Oil Reserves in Venezuela, at no cost to the American Taxpayer,” Trump wrote.

Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez welcomed the deal, which is expected to bring about $209bn to the state’s treasury.

The announcement followed weeks of negotiations over an agreement that would give American companies long-term access to a group of Venezuelan oilfields and guarantee the resulting crude supply to the US.

Venezuelan officials are preparing to sign agreements next week granting new oil exploration and production rights to a number of companies, particularly US firms.

Sources previously told Reuters news agency that a lease model was under consideration, with fields potentially auctioned to US producers, but the arrangement could face legal and constitutional challenges in Venezuela, where the state retains control over core oil industry activities.

The new deal would represent a dramatic expansion of Washington’s role in Venezuela’s oil industry as the Trump administration seeks to revive the country’s production and secure more crude for US refineries. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but produces only 1.25 million barrels per day, far below its potential after years of underinvestment, mismanagement and sanctions.

Trump did not disclose the structure of the agreement, the fields or companies involved, nor how the US would exercise majority control over the reserves.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the agreement as a win for both countries, saying on X that it would secure stable, low-cost oil for the US and help lower petrol prices.

For Venezuela, Rubio said the deal would bring nearly $100bn in private investment, support thousands of high-paying jobs and help rebuild the country’s economy.

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Friday once again spurned President Trump’s effort to erase his hush money conviction, rejecting the president’s bid to move the state court case to federal court and have it dismissed on presidential immunity grounds.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein reiterated his earlier finding against Trump, saying that the reasons Trump cited for renewing his request were “neither new nor legally sufficient.”

The judge added: “He has failed to show good cause and diligence.”

It is the third time Hellerstein has blocked Trump from having the U.S. District Court in Manhattan seize control of the case from the New York court where he was tried and convicted.

And, like before, Trump will appeal, according to a spokesperson for his legal team who called Hellerstein’s ruling “baseless and lawless.”

“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be removed to federal court, and immediately overturned and dismissed,” a statement issued on behalf of the legal team said. “President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn.”

The guilty verdict, reached in May 2024 while Trump was between terms, made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. Trump is also challenging his conviction through the state court appellate process, which is pending.

Hellerstein’s decision came after a federal appeals court last year ordered him to reconsider his prior denial. The judge previewed his ruling during oral arguments in February, slamming Trump’s lawyers for legal maneuvers that amounted to taking “two bites at the apple.”

State prosecutors did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case centered on a payment to Stormy Daniels

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose claim of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier had threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge, which left his conviction intact but spared him any punishment. He had long denied Daniels’ claim and said he did nothing wrong. He has sought to get the conviction overturned both by attempting to move the case to federal court and through the appeals process in state court, which is pending.

Hellerstein rejected Trump’s requests to move the case twice before. The first was after Trump’s March 2023 indictment. The second was after Trump’s trial, as his lawyers sought to nix his conviction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling that presidents and ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for official acts and prosecutors can’t use official acts as evidence that unofficial actions were illegal.

Trump appealed Hellerstein’s post-trial ruling and, last November, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the judge to reconsider his decision, finding that he had failed to consider “important issues relevant” to the president’s request to move the case.

A three-judge appellate panel said it expressed no view on how he should rule but instructed Hellerstein to closely review evidence that Trump claimed was related to official acts and whether Trump could argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties.

The judges also instructed Hellerstein to determine if Trump had “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court and whether the case can even be moved to federal court now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.

The judge questioned the Trump legal team’s strategy

During oral arguments in February, Hellerstein took issue with the Trump legal team’s decision-making after the Supreme Court ruling.

Instead of immediately seeking to move the case to federal court, he noted, Trump’s lawyers first asked the trial judge in state court, Juan Merchan, to throw out the verdict on immunity grounds. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. has ruled that exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown.

Trump, a Republican, did not attend the arguments.

Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision and that Trump’s legal team was crunched for time after the high court’s ruling because his sentencing was scheduled for just 10 days later.

Trump’s lawyers did not ask Hellerstein to intervene until nearly two months later, while their request to Merchan was still pending. The judge called that a “strategic decision” and suggested that by going to the state court first, Trump’s lawyers cost him the right to pursue remedies in federal court.

“No, your honor,” Wall replied. “It is what any sensible litigant would do” in that situation.

“Not so,” Hellerstein replied.

“That is a decision on your part,” the judge added. “You didn’t have to do that. You could have come right to the federal court. Just by filing a notice of removal, there would be no sentencing.”

Trump’s lawyers “made a choice,” Hellerstein said, “and you sought two bites at the apple.”

In his written ruling Friday, Hellerstein said Trump was asking for a “‘second bite at the apple,’ a result the law disfavors.”

The judge added that “Trump’s delay in filing for removal constitutes a ‘quintessential strategic decision,’ and the ‘fact that he later came to view that decision as a poor one is not sufficient, by itself, to establish cause.’”

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday said the U.S. has entered an agreement with Venezuela to take control of 65 billion barrels of the South American country’s oil reserves.

Trump in a social media post announced the agreement he said was negotiated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodríguez.

“The United States of America has just entered into an Agreement with the Country of Venezuela on, THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY!” Trump wrote.

The Venezuelan government’s press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The announcement of the deal comes nearly nine months after the U.S. military at Trump’s direction carried out an operation to capture Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro and spirit him to the United States to face federal narcoterrorism and drug trafficking charges.

Trump faces mounting pressure to address high gas prices as the war in Iran on Friday reached a six-month milestone with no conclusion in sight. The U.S. has tapped its strategic petroleum reserves, which in early August fell below 300 million barrels, down by more than 100 million barrels since the start of 2026.

The U.S.-Israel war against Iran has led to a dramatic slowdown of Gulf oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz, which about 20% of the world petroleum passed through prior to the conflict.

The average price of gas in the U.S. stood at about $4.09 a gallon on Friday, according to AAA. The average price was $3.21 at the same time last year.

Trump in his social media post Friday evening alluded to the Venezuela deal being part of a private partnership. The White House did not immediately reply to a request for comment about the private sector partners involved in the deal, and details on how the arrangement would work were not provided.

Persuading big American oil companies to return the region could face headwinds given and decades of badly damaged infrastructure.

Days after the ouster of Maduro, Trump gathered oil executives at the White House and called on them to rush back into Venezuela. Executives expressed interest in the opportunity but there was also a measure of caution given their past experience in the country.

Darren Woods, CEO of ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, said at that moment he saw the country as “un-investable.”

But Trump has insisted that his administration has brought a measure of stability to Venezuela.

He has argued that Venezuela stole U.S. oil when former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s moved decades ago to nationalize hundreds of foreign-owned assets, including those owned by American oil companies.

Rodríguez, in one of her early moves after taking power, signed a law that opens the nation’s oil sector to privatization and reversed a bedrock tenet of the self-proclaimed socialist movement that had ruled the country for more than two decades.

Rubio said on X that the agreement would usher in $100 billion in private investment into Venezuela and lead to lower gas prices in the United States.

“This deal is a huge win for both the American and Venezuelan people,” Rubio posted.

Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves in the world, with an estimated 303 billion barrels of crude oil in the ground. That’s about 17% of the world’s supply, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Madhani and Binkley write for the Associated Press. Regina Garcia Cano in Caracas contributed to this report.

The Trump administration is considering trading a parcel of Yosemite National Park to a private commercial developer, according to administration officials, members of Congress and documents reviewed by The Times.

The proposed deal would allow the developer to build a road connecting adjacent property it already owns in the Stanislaus National Forest to a service road within Yosemite, providing any future development on that property with unique access to the famed public wilderness, documents show.

According to a Friday report by the news outlet NOTUS, Trump administration officials have been quietly pressuring the National Park Service to approve the deal for the land despite such pressure being highly unusual and previous proposals for the land being repeatedly denied under the Bush and Obama administrations and in court.

The Department of the Interior, which includes the National Park Service, acknowledged in a statement to The Times on Friday that a land deal is under consideration, but denied any inappropriate influence from the White House.

It said negotiations for the land will comply with all federal rules for federal lands, and that “no final decisions have been made.”

An attorney for the private developer said the deal has nothing to do with politics and is in fact an “environmentally friendly” solution, in that it would dramatically cut down on the amount of driving the future upscale development’s residents would have to do to access the park.

President Trump speaks to astronauts aboard the International Space Station as he visits NASA’s Mission Control Center on Aug. in Houston, Texas.

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

Congressional Democrats — including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff of California — are trying to block the deal, after being informed of it earlier this year by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The fund was created by Congress in 1964 to safeguard natural areas and public lands, and often works to acquire lands to add to national parks.

A fact sheet on the project reviewed by The Times identified the parcel by a former name, the “Hazel Green Ranch,” and said the landowner is seeking to acquire an “interest” in land within the park in order to build a new road connecting “a planned commercial development” to Big Oak Flat Road, an existing federally owned road that “provides access to the park and is a major route to Yosemite Valley.”

The fact sheet said the National Park Service does not have the authority to grant that interest, but has been working with the landowner to facilitate an “exchange” of the land for some other, unidentified parcel of land that is beneficial to the U.S., as allowed under law for federal land swaps.

The project has been identified to lawmakers, without explanation, as a “priority.” Both Padilla and Schiff have objected to it, and Padilla’s office said it is working with Senate Appropriations Committee staff to block the deal.

“The Land and Water Conservation Fund exists to acquire land and interests in land in order to safeguard natural areas, water resources, and cultural heritage — and to provide recreation opportunities for all Americans,” Padilla said in a statement to The Times. “Projects should be chosen on merit, not on an applicant’s connections to high-ranking Trump administration officials.”

Schiff, in his own statement, said Yosemite is “one of California’s natural wonders, and must be protected from further development.”

He said the Trump administration “appears hellbent on moving forward in the face of opposition from the public, Congress and the courts,” and that “the only thing the administration cares about is whether there is money involved.”

The company behind the private development is Nevada-based real estate developer and investment firm Kingsbarn Realty Capital. According to Federal Election Commission records, Kingsbarn CEO Jeff Pori is a donor to Trump, the Republican National Committee and other Republican groups.

Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton, represents Kingsbarn, and said the notion the project is moving forward due to Trump administration pressure and Pori’s political contributions despite being environmentally detrimental is false.

He said Kingsbarn wants to build “upscale, single-family houses” on its property, but hasn’t so far because residents would have to drive 28 miles using current roads to reach the park.

To cut that distance down and make the development more feasible, it asked the National Park Service to purchase an 11-mile strip of land within Yosemite to build a shorter, more direct access road, Davis said.

The Park Service responded by saying the company could not purchase park land directly, but could purchase other nearby land of equal or greater value, and then swap it for the park land, Davis said.

It is now working with the Interior Department to identify such land, and is “very close” to doing so, Davis said — calling it a “pro environmental solution” that follows federal law and has “nothing to do” with Pori’s politics.

The White House referred questions about the proposed deal to the Interior Department.

In its statement to The Times, the Interior Department said the NOTUS story “relies on anonymous allegations to manufacture a political narrative that simply is not true. There has been no political pressure to reach a predetermined outcome, and claims suggesting the Department is secretly working to hand over National Park Service land to a private developer are false.”

If a proposal does advance, the statement said, the department will follow established procedures with “transparency and public involvement consistent with federal law. Anonymous speculation does not change those facts.”

The department did not respond to a request for more details as to the proposal.

The land in question represents a tiny portion of the sprawling Yosemite National Park, which is nearly 750,000 acres in total — or roughly the size of Rhode Island. Still, slicing off any piece of the California wilderness — considered a crown jewel in the national park system — runs counter to promises from Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

“My Administration is committed to protecting every acre of our lands and preserving the cleanest air and water in the world,” Trump said in a presidential message on Monday.

Ceding federal lands is also anathema to land preservation groups, which expressed dismay at the idea that any piece of Yosemite might be lost, no matter how small.

Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, said that the NOTUS reporting was “consistent” with what his organization has been hearing “for several months” — and would be inconsistent with public desires for national park lands.

“The American people have consistently said that our public lands, especially our national parks, are not for sale,” he said. “If Secretary Burgum spent more time listening to Americans instead of indulging President Trump’s whims on the National Mall, he’d understand what a terrible idea this is.”

Jayson O’Neill, a spokesman for the group Save Our Parks, said the proposed deal as described by NOTUS represented the latest attempt by the Trump administration and Burgum to gut the Park Service and “then quietly cede treasured park land to private developers, thinking nobody’s watching.”

“National parks belong to the American people, not monied developers who are part of Trump’s donor class,” O’Neill said.

Mark Rose, senior Sierra Nevada program manager for the National Parks Conservation Assn., slammed the proposed land swap as a “secretive, backroom deal” and “an attack on the American people that own this national park.”

He said Yosemite is already facing overcrowding due to “run-away lodging” development outside its borders and the Trump administration’s decision to do away with the park’s reservation system, and a new development would “exacerbate the chaos.”

“The National Park Service needs to get back to prioritizing conservation, not helping bulldoze land, cut down towering trees and construct a luxury development that will harm Yosemite’s wildlife and increase wildfire risks,” Rose said.

Aug. 28 (UPI) — President Donald Trump plans to observe the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., instead of at Ground Zero in New York City, those familiar with the details told media outlets Friday.

People briefed on the details told CNN, The New York Times and The Hill that Trump plans to give remarks at the Pentagon, one of the sites of the terror attacks.

Those familiar with the plans said the president chose the Pentagon because he wants to deliver remarks on the anniversary, and politicians aren’t allowed to give remarks at the New York City site. The National September 11 Memorial and Museum has blocked politicians from speaking at the location since 2012 in an effort to be nonpartisan.

Officials said Vice President JD Vance plans to attend the New York City anniversary event.

“As a proud New Yorker, President Trump has spoken about his own experiences watching the horrific events of September 11, 2001,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in a statement.

“On the 25th anniversary of this tragic day, the president will remember those who were killed at the hands of evil terrorists, honor their loved ones, and pay tribute to the brave first responders who put their lives on the line to rescue their fellow Americans.”

Trump also marked the anniversary of the terror attacks at the Pentagon last year. He visited Ground Zero in 2024 and previously gave remarks at the Flight 93 National Memorial in Shanksville, Pa.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche’s fidelity to President Trump nearly cost him his confirmation. Now comes Blanche’s real test.

Trump’s former personal attorney has stepped into the commanding role facing a challenge that other leaders of the Republican president’s Department of Justice could not overcome: threading the needle between Trump’s boundary-busting demands and a prosecutor’s duty to uphold the rule of law. At the same time, Blanche must try to stabilize a workforce shaken by an exodus of experienced lawyers and an erosion of trust in the judicial branch.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Associated Press during a trip to Puerto Rico this week, Blanche promised to lead the department with integrity, dismissing concerns from critics who say his actions so far — including an indictment against longtime Trump foe and former FBI Director James Comey — call into question whether Blanche is still functioning as Trump’s personal lawyer.

A slew of ongoing politically charged investigations under Blanche’s watch could force him to choose between his long-standing loyalty to the president and the foundational principles of the Cabinet agency he leads. At stake is the fate of a department already reeling under a president who has made clear his desire for retribution over the criminal scrutiny he faced.

“My integrity, my commitment to the rule of law is the same today that it was the day I graduated,” Blanche told the AP when asked where he would draw the line on requests from the White House. “I would never do anything unethical or improper or violate my oath, no matter the circumstances.”

Critics disagree.

As acting attorney general, Blanche came under fire from lawmakers, including many Republicans, for signing off on a $1.8 billion fund meant to compensate Trump’s allies who believed they were politically prosecuted. He also greenlit a deal that granted Trump, the Trump Organization, and two of his sons immunity from tax audits. Those moves, unusual steps aimed at granting the president and his allies far-reaching benefits, put Blanche’s confirmation at risk, prompting key senators to express concern.

Blanche, like Trump’s other attorneys general, walks a tightrope

In the AP interview, Blanche addressed criticism of the department under his leadership, his priorities as attorney general and losses the administration has had in high-profile cases. He also depicted the Justice Department as an institution whose independence had eroded long ago — a characterization at odds with decades of fierce autonomy that challenged the highest echelons of power in Washington and beyond.

Blanche, a former federal prosecutor in New York, is walking the same tightrope as Trump’s three other Senate-confirmed attorneys general. They found their pledges to uphold the rule of law and the department’s ethical norms at odds with the president’s demands to bend the institution to his will.

During Trump’s first term, one attorney general infuriated Trump over his withdrawal from an investigation into Trump’s winning White House campaign and was forced out. Another submitted his resignation weeks after breaking with Trump over Trump’s false claims of election fraud. Blanche’s immediate predecessor, Pam Bondi, was ousted in April after failing to deliver successful prosecutions against the president’s political enemies.

Blanche’s narrow confirmation this month over opposition from two Republican senators underscored growing concerns about the dismantling of the Justice Department’s long-standing tradition of independence from the White House, which is meant to protect the impartiality of politically sensitive investigations and prosecutions.

Concerns that the Justice Department is being weaponized

Blanche bristles at the suggestion that the Justice Department should be independent of the president and he has made clear his view that the executive has both the power and the right to shape and control the law enforcement agency.

He has staunchly defended the integrity of cases the administration has brought against the president’s perceived political opponents, often pointing to his own experience representing Trump in criminal cases brought by Democratic President Joe Biden’s Justice Department. Blanche and the president have characterized those cases as politically motivated.

“I think attorneys general and others have said, ‘Oh, we’re independent.’ I don’t think that’s actually true,” Blanche told the AP.

Blanche claimed the Justice Department was not truly independent when he was a federal prosecutor or during the Biden administration. But that characterization ignores the fact that under Biden, the Justice Department investigated Biden himself over his handling of classified documents and secured felony charges in two separate cases against his son Hunter before Biden pardoned him.

The two criminal cases filed by special counsel Jack Smith against Trump were based on allegations, supported by long-running investigations, that Trump had classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and obstructed government efforts to get them back, and conspired to overturn the 2020 election.

Growing distrust of the Justice Department among judges

Blanche has sought to highlight the administration’s focus on tackling illegal immigration, violent crime and drug-trafficking cartels, spotlighting cases such as the takedown of a Puerto Rican gang that he announced during his visit to the U.S. island territory.

But Blanche’s policy priorities are often overshadowed by a growing number of investigations that have drawn criticism that the department is being used as a weapon in the president’s campaign of retribution.

Blanche’s supporters have argued that the close relationship he developed with Trump while serving as his criminal defense lawyer can make him more effective at pushing back on or explaining the legal constraints of the president’s demands. Others wonder whether he will fare any better than Bondi up against the same skeptical court system, and factual and legal hurdles, that impeded efforts to deliver the sought-after results.

Blanche is also confronting growing distrust of the Justice Department among judges, who in multiple cases have accused government lawyers of withholding information or misleading courts. Courts in some cases have quashed subpoenas or ordered the review of grand jury transcripts, and the criminal cases against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were dismissed after a judge found the prosecutor who brought them was illegally appointed.

But Blanche played down concerns that the erosion of judicial trust could impede his efforts to advance his agenda.

“The isolated incidents that make the news are not reflective of the way the bench feels in my view, or the way prosecutors are doing their job around the country,” Blanche said.

Richer writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

PHOENIX — The Trump administration has begun work on a project to build a stretch of border wall in southern Arizona along part of a Native American tribe’s reservation, pushing ahead with one of its signature projects despite protests from the tribe.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection says the area is a dangerous smuggling route and that building the wall will close a longstanding security gap. But members of the Tohono O’odham Nation, whose membership spans both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, have accused the administration of trespassing and say the construction will damage land sacred to the tribe.

The wall segment is part of a $46 billion effort by the Trump administration to fill the border with 30-foot steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers, and technology designed to stop undocumented immigration and smuggling.

But as building efforts have ramped up, the administration has run into opposition from landowners, environmental groups, and Native American tribes who say construction is violating property rights and desecrating sacred Indigenous sites.

The Tohono O’odham Nation said in a statement Tuesday that about 20 Customs and Border Protection officers, working with contractors, went onto the tribe’s land early that morning to begin construction.

Drone videos published by nation officials show roughly 14 vehicles and an industrial drill at one of the sites.

A federal judge permitted the government to move forward with construction earlier this month, but the tribe says the contractors are violating tribal codes and trespassing to access the border wall site.

The Tohono O’odham Nation, which has 37,000 members including thousands who live in Mexico, sued the federal government in June in an attempt to block construction of the border wall. The tribe argued that the wall would cause “significant devastation” on the reservation, including the destruction of mountain peaks sacred to the tribe, and would alter boundaries of their nation.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled in favor of the government, noting that the border wall would be built on a 60-foot wide buffer zone of federally owned land called the Roosevelt Reservation.

“Defendants have not yet articulated plans to construct outside the Roosevelt Reservation,” the judge wrote in his opinion.

The Tohono O’odham Nation said that even if construction were contained to the Roosevelt Reservation, driving onto tribal land to access the area still constitutes trespassing.

“The contractors, who are on the Nation illegally, were accompanied by agents as they worked on three separate locations near the border with drill trucks to conduct soil sampling and other activities,” tribal officials said in a statement.

The CBP agents were masked, armed, and set up a vehicle blockade to stop tribal police from removing the contractors, according to Tohono O’odham officials. The nation had set up “No Trespassing” signs before Tuesday.

So far, no physical confrontations between police or members of the Tohono O’odham Nation have been reported.

CBP defended the need for the wall in a statement Tuesday, saying the desert spanning the Tohono O’odham Nation is a corridor for drug smuggling.

“The project will close one of the most dangerous smuggling and trafficking corridors on the Southwest border: remote desert that has facilitated decades of drug loads, migrant deaths, and cartel activity,” said CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott.

Tribal officials said they’re exploring further legal actions in an effort to remove contractors.

SLSCO Ltd., the Texas-based construction company building the section in Arizona, has secured over $390 million in funding from the Department of Homeland Security to build the border wall since 2023.

Schuettler writes for the Associated Press.

Two of the highest-ranking law enforcement officials in California are publicly sparring over the integrity of state elections, trading barbs on social media that highlight the fierce partisan divide on the issue heading into the November midterms.

In a post to X on Wednesday, First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, accused California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the state’s highest-ranking law enforcement official, of fighting to “preserve non-citizens’ access to mail ballots” and “shield fraudsters and illegals from accountability.”

On Thursday, Bonta fired back, accusing Essayli of being “more interested in currying favor with a desperate wannabe dictator” — a reference to President Trump — “than upholding the law himself.”

Bonta and Essayli’s back-and-forth followed an announcement from Bonta that California and 24 other Democratic-led states were suing to block the U.S. Postal Service from implementing new nationwide rules on mail ballots that were developed at Trump’s behest.

Late Thursday, a federal judge sided with the states, issuing a temporary restraining order halting the implementation of those rules as the litigation continues. An appeal is likely.

Such a public and personal rift between Bonta and Essayli is highly unusual and has broader implications, given the California Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles coordinate on statewide law enforcement initiatives and traditionally maintain a cordial relationship.

They have worked together in recent years to target Los Angeles street gangs trafficking guns and drugs statewide, as well as international drug syndicates trafficking fentanyl and other narcotics through L.A.

The U.S. Justice Department at times finds itself on the opposing side of litigation involving local or state law enforcement partners, including in cases in which it investigates local police departments for civil rights violations and forces them into consent decrees, as it has done with the Los Angeles Police Department.

However, it is extremely rare for U.S. attorneys and top state law enforcement officials to engage in direct attacks on each other’s integrity — or the integrity of state voting processes, which both are tasked with defending. Federal prosecutors in particular have historically sought to avoid the appearance of political partisanship and rarely taken aim at elected officials over policy matters.

That tradition certainly has faltered under Trump, who has filled the Justice Department with outspoken loyalists who make no secret of their allegiance to him. And Essayli, the administration’s embattled appointee to lead one of the largest federal prosecutor’s offices in the country, has been no exception.

Essayli did not respond to a request for comment on the public exchange Thursday.

A spokesperson for Bonta’s office, which has sued this Trump administration more than 85 times, said in a statement that office staff regularly work with the U.S. Justice Department and federal prosecutors to keep Californians safe, and that work won’t stop “just because some are dead set on politicizing our work and theirs.”

At a news conference this week touting major crime declines in the state, Bonta said partnerships with both local and federal law enforcement remain a vital part of public safety in the state.

“That remains the secret sauce — the magic — when it comes to making our communities more safe. Working together, collaborating, sharing intel and resources and teaming up,” he said. “That remains a priority and is behind a lot of our success.”

Still, the new Postal Service rules sparked a clash. The rules require states to submit lists of eligible voters to the Postal Service and to use new ballot envelopes with digital bar codes that would allow the Postal Service to identify and reject ballots that don’t match those lists. Trump requested the changes as part of a broader executive order in March to combat what he claims is widespread voter fraud across the country and particularly in big blue states such as California.

Independent election experts say there is zero evidence of such problems existing in significant numbers. The Trump administration has said that is because states are keeping voter rolls secret and refusing to cooperate with federal efforts to vet them for noncitizens and other ineligible voters.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a separate lower court ruling blocking the Postal Service changes, on the grounds that they had yet to be implemented and had not yet caused any harm to the states challenging them. The high court made clear, however, that it was not weighing in on the substance or merits of the rules themselves.

Essayli has long made allegations of voter fraud in California, and lawyers in his office were involved in an unsuccessful lawsuit in which the Justice Department sought California’s unredacted voter rolls. After the Supreme Court issued its ruling, and Gov. Gavin Newsom pledged the state would sue again, Essayli responded to defend the administration’s efforts.

“These measures wouldn’t be necessary if states like California didn’t allow non-citizens to easily register to vote and get mail ballots,” he wrote. “We are actively identifying ineligible citizens on California’s dirty voter rolls and will soon announce criminal arrests related to our election fraud investigation.”

Essayli’s office did not respond to a request for information on those alleged arrests or its broader investigation.

Then, on Wednesday, Bonta, who is seeking reelection in November, announced the latest lawsuit challenging the merits of the Postal Service rules, which he noted had been formally issued last week. He called the rules “an unlawful overreach that shows just how far President Trump will go to control elections,” and the state’s lawsuit an effort to “protect election integrity.”

Essayli soon replied, writing, “What election integrity? You’re fighting to preserve non-citizens’ access to mail ballots. I’ve never seen a state AG fight this hard to shield fraudsters and illegals from accountability. Imagine if he used his efforts to protect citizens.”

On Thursday morning, Bonta replied. “Simply untrue. We’re fighting to uphold the constitution and protect California’s right to administer our own elections,” he wrote.

“If you’re really concerned with election integrity, might I suggest starting with Donald Trump who: asked for 10,000+ votes from election officials in Georgia, fueled January 6, seized ballots, and issued two blatantly unlawful elections executive orders,” Bonta said.

After he lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and asked him to “find 11,780 votes” for Trump to swing the state from Biden to him.

A later congressional investigation found that Trump provoked his supporters into attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in an attempt to prevent the certification of Biden’s win. This January, the FBI raided and seized ballots from an election center in Fulton County, Ga. — a focus of Trump’s 2020 election denial.

“Trump has repeatedly shown he’ll stop at nothing to interfere in our elections. He’s repeatedly broken the law, so we’ve repeatedly taken him to court,” Bonta continued in his post. “Unfortunately, it appears that the First Assistant is more interested in currying favor with a desperate wannabe dictator than upholding the law himself.”

In agreeing late Thursday to halt the Postal Service rules, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote that the court did not have “any evidence regarding fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting” before it, and that the Postal Service’s “interest in correcting an unsubstantiated problem through likely unconstitutional means is dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement of citizens who need access to mail ballots in order to vote.”

Bonta, back on X, praised the ruling, writing, “President Trump must keep his hands off our elections.”

WASHINGTON — For the last six months, President Trump has attempted to control the narrative of the Iran war.

As days, weeks and months passed, he repeatedly said that an agreement to end the conflict was close at hand and that Iran was already defeated. Between fraught negotiations, Trump has gone from conciliatory to antagonistic, characterizing Iran’s new leadership as more “rational” than their predecessors, only to later call them “sick individuals.”

There have even been times the commander in chief contradicted himself and his own Cabinet in the same week — and sometimes, the same day.

Friday marks the sixth month of the war launched by the U.S. and Israel. Among U.S. forces, there have been at least 18 killed and 758 wounded, according to Pentagon data. The Human Rights Activists News Agency puts the death toll in Iran at 3,636. In Lebanon, officials, say more than 4,300 have died. The Israeli military reported 72 deaths, and at least 50 civilians have died, according to news reports.

Here is a recap of notable comments Trump made in public remarks and on social media during half a year of war:

What he said: “The United States military has undertaken a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests.”

In announcing the start of Operation Epic Fury from the White House, Trump called Iran the world’s No. 1 state sponsor of terror and recalled actions by Iran or its proxies, such as the hostage crisis of 1979 and the bombing of a Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 that left 241 dead.

The goals of the operation, Trump said, were to destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its naval capabilities and missile industry and to ensure that Iranian proxies — including Hezbollah and Hamas — were thwarted. He implored Iranian citizens to rise up against the government.

Women carry the casket of a teacher from Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School toward the cemetery in Minab, Iran, on March 30. The teacher was among those killed in a missile strike on Feb. 28, the first day of the war on Iran.

(Zohreh Saberi / For The Times)

What happened: That morning the U.S. and Israel conducted airstrikes on Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as well as other key military and government figures. According to Iran’s Red Crescent, 24 of Iran’s 32 provinces were hit in the first day of bombings, with more than 200 deaths and 700 injuries reported. Iranian officials said that at least 120 students and 26 teachers died in a missile strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab.

Iran retaliated by launching missiles at Israel and U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps also warned ships to not travel through the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway for 20% of the world’s oil and energy supplies.

What he said: “We grieve for the true American patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, even as we continue the righteous mission for which they gave their lives. Sadly, there will likely be more.”

Trump announced that at least three service members were killed in an Iranian attack, the first U.S. casualties in the war.

In an interview with the New York Times, Trump was asked how long the U.S. and Israel could sustain its offensive in Iran. “It won’t be difficult,” he replied. “We have tremendous amounts of ammunition. You know, we have ammunition stored all over the world in different countries.”

What happened: An Iranian one-way drone attack was launched against the industrial Port Shuaiba in Kuwait, where American soldiers set up an operations center after abandoning the larger Camp Arifjan military installation.

What he said: “We projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.”

At a Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House, Trump assessed the progress of the attacks on Iran, saying the U.S. was “already substantially ahead of our time projections.”

Retired Command Sgt. Maj. Terry P. Richardson is presented the Medal of Honor by President Trump on March 2, the same day Trump said progress in the war on Iran was exceeding projections. ..

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

What happened: The conflict expanded, with Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon launching drones against Israel.

Israel’s counter-strike would ultimately decapitate Hezbollah leadership, but strikes between the two forces would continue through the first week of war.

U.S. Central Command increased the number of U.S. troop deaths in the Kuwait strike to six from three.

What he said: “The war itself is going unbelievably. It’s as good as it can be.”

He said that the U.S. “wiped out” the Iranian navy, air force, drone manufacturing capabilities and “every form of leadership you can have,” adding that he was interested in being a part of the selection of Iran’s new leader.

He also said that he believed the strike on the Minab school was a misdirected missile launched by Iran. He offered no evidence.

The family of 8-year-old Reza Habashian, a second-grader killed in the strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School, observes the Persian New Year at his graveside in Minab, Iran, on March 20.

(Zohreh Saberi / For The Times)

What happened: Iranian drone and missile strikes on gulf neighbors continued.

The day after Trump said Iranians had no existing leadership prospects, Mojtaba Khamenei, one of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s sons, would become the new supreme leader.

U.S. officials familiar with the preliminary findings of an investigation into the Minab school strikes leaked information to the New York Times that indicated the U.S. had bombed the school as a result of a “targeting mistake.”

What he said: “Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today. They’ve been killing innocent people all over the world for 47 years, and now I, as the 47th President of the United States of America, am killing them. What a great honor it is to do so!”

In a Fox News radio interview with Brian Kilmeade, Trump said that an uprising by Iranian civilians appeared likely. “It’ll happen, but it probably will be, maybe not immediately,” he said.

What happened: Iran and Hezbollah continued joint attacks against Israel, while Israel continued its own large-scale strikes on Beirut and Tehran.

On March 13, a U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker — a refueling and airlift plane — crashed over Western Iraq without being attacked, resulting in the death of six more U.S. service members, Central Command announced. The U.S. death toll increased to 13.

What he said: “I think we won. All they’re doing is clogging up the Strait [of Hormuz], but from a military standpoint, they’re finished.”

Lightning streaks across the sky over an oil tanker on March 21 at Sultan Qaboos Port in Muscat, Oman.

(Elke Scholiers / Getty Images)

That same afternoon, in a post on his social media website, Trump said the U.S. was considering “winding down” military efforts in Iran.

What happened: The Pentagon said in a statement that it would send three warships and roughly 2,500 Marines to the Middle East for “routine training.”

What he said: “I am pleased to report that the United States of America and the country Iran have had, over the last two days, very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East.”

Trump also postponed military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure after threatening to do so if Iran did not open access to the Strait of Hormuz.

What happened: Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker, responded to Trump’s claims in a post on X. “No negotiations have been held with the U.S.,” Qalibaf wrote, adding that he believed the U.S. was using the prospect of an accord to ease strain on financial and oil markets.

What he said: “The United States of America is in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei, addressing journalists in Tehran on March 30, said a truce plan proposed by the United States contained “very excessive, unrealistic and unreasonable” demands.

(Shadati / Xinhua / Getty Images)

While saying in a social media post that progress had been made, Trump leveled additional threats if a pact wasn’t reached shortly. “We will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island,” he wrote.

What happened: Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei once again rejected that direct talks with the U.S. had taken place, describing the proposed terms as “unrealistic, unreasonable and excessive.”

What he said: “We’re gonna hit them hard over the next two to three weeks. We’re gonna bring them back to the stone ages, where they belong.”

In an address to the nation, Trump also denied that a change of governments was ever a goal in attacking Iran.

What happened: Thousands more U.S. troops arrived in the Middle East amid continuous back-and-forth strikes. Iran hit an oil tanker off Qatar’s coast and fired missiles and drones at Jordan, which were intercepted. Israel carried out strikes on a Beirut neighborhood.

What he said: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”

Vice President JD Vance holds a cellphone up to a microphone while on a call with President Trump at an event on April 7..

(Jonathan Ernst / Pool Photo)

What happened: Trump’s post about a whole civilization dying went live around 5 a.m., but later in the day the U.S. and Iran announced a two-week truce. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said in a statement that the truce did not “signify the termination of the war.”

What he said: “Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz.”

What happened: U.S. Central Command announced that the blockade of Iranian ports began at 10 a.m. Eastern. Central Command said the blockade would be “enforced impartially against vessels of all nations” entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas.

People pass in front of a pro-government political mural in Tehran on April 12.

(Majid Saeedi / Getty Images)

What he said: “I think it’s close to over, yeah. I view it as very close to being over.”

Trump’s comment to Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo on “Mornings with Maria” came two days after he announced the blockade of Iranian ports.

What happened: Though the ceasefire continued to hold, Iran officials had not relented on their right to enrich uranium, to maintain conventional defensive capabilities and to police traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

What he said: “I didn’t guarantee no war. Why would I have built the strongest military in the world?”

In an interview with Kristen Welker of NBC on the 100th day of the conflict, Trump claimed that he had never promised during his campaign that he would not engage in new wars in the Middle East.

President Trump sits for an interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker.

(Adam Bettcher / NBC / Getty Images)

What happened: On multiple occasions during his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump suggested that he wouldn’t start new “endless wars.”

In a social media post in late June 2024, he framed the election as a choice between “peace and prosperity or war and no war.”

What he said: “It’s a memorandum of understanding, and if I don’t like it, we’ll go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head.”

Trump spoke the same day he signed a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding with Iran to cease hostilities for 60 days. Trump put his signature to the memorandum while attending a dinner with French President Emmanuel Macron in Versailles.

French First Lady Brigitte Macron, President Emmanuel Macron and President Trump meet at the Palace of Versailles in France on June 17.

(Mustafa Yalcin / Anadolu / Getty Images)

What happened: The document set out a series of conditions, including the release billions of dollars in Iranian assets that were frozen and restricted by the United States “upon the implementation” of the memorandum.

Some issues, such as the future of Iran’s nuclear program, were set aside for negotiations down the road.

The White Housed pushed back on bipartisan criticism of the deal, arguing its concessions were contingent on Iran’s conduct.

What he said: “There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”

President Trump boards Air Force One on Aug. 9 at Morristown Airport in Morristown, N.J.

(Eric Lee / Getty Images)

What happened: Trump’s social media post came as Iran and the U.S. continued to carry out strikes in the Middle East despite the memorandum. CENTCOM announced that military surveillance, air defense sites and drone storage facilities were struck after an Iranian attack on a container ship, the Ever Lovely.

What he said: “Iran has been very, very badly damaged. They’ve lost everything, almost, militarily. … They’ve got very little left; They’ve got some missiles; They’ve got some drones; They’ve got some manufacturing ability, not much; We control the Strait.”

People gather July 19 on a bridge rendered unusable in a U.S. airstrike in Iran’s Hormozgan province. Iranian authorities said the United States carried out attacks on 95 locations in Iran over the previous 10 days.

(Amir Hossein Khorgooei / Anadolu / Getty Images)

What happened: According to a CENTCOM press release, the U.S. completed 13 nights of consecutive strikes against Iran by July 23, adding to an earlier announcement that Iran had attacked more than 30 commercial vehicles in the previous three months of conflict.

What he said: “I think it’s going to end really soon.”

Trump made the comment in the Oval Office while back-and-forth strikes — primarily over control of the Strait of Hormuz — continued.

What happened: According to a report by NPR, Iran’s parliament aimed to block U.S. and Israeli access to the Strait of Hormuz, despite Trump’s assertion that the waterway was under his control.

What he said: “We are only semi-negotiating with them. We are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money.”

Trump’s comments reflected how U.S. officials sought to readjust wartime strategy after multiple rounds of failed negotiations. Trump told Axios that he would not proceed with expanded strikes against Iran, as the U.S. was “low-keying” its approach to the conflict.

What happened: As the war approached its six-month mark, both sides mostly ceased military attacks, but shifted to economic pressure.

“ANY country that allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports, or government entities to provide any type of lifeline to Iran will itself face TREMENDOUS Economic Consequences,” Trump wrote in an Aug. 19 post, threatening “ECONOMIC D-DAY” if Iran did not comply with his demands.

According to Reuters, Qalibaf, the Iranian parliament speaker, said that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed until military threats ceased and sanctions on Iran were lifted.

What he said: “IRAN IS COMPLETELY COLLAPSING!!!”

What happened: In a post on X three days before Trump’s “completely collapsing” post, the hard-line leader of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council had noted economic sanctions placed on Iran by previous presidents, including Obama and Biden, and said they had all failed.

“We have seen this movie before,” he wrote. “Same bull. Different bullies.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and other officials attend an event at the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in Tehran on Aug. 23.

(Anadolu / Getty Images)

BETHLEHEM, Pa. — Mike Gibbons sat out the presidential election two years ago, frustrated that Democrat Kamala Harris did not take a stronger stand against Israel’s war in Gaza and unable to bring himself to cast a vote for Republican Donald Trump.

That is not his plan this year.

The 33-year-old restaurant server in this eastern Pennsylvania town that once housed one of the world’s largest steelmakers is eager to vote for any Democrat he can in November. As the war with Iran that Trump initially said would last weeks surpasses six months on Friday, Gibbons is feeling the fallout every time he fills his tank at nearly $1 per gallon more than last year.

“The price of gas affects the price of everything and the price of everything’s up and my pay hasn’t gone up,” he said. “I’m doing blue no matter who this time.”

The Iran war has reshaped the rapidly approaching midterm elections, undermining Trump’s campaign pledge to steer clear of foreign conflicts and challenging Republicans who would rather focus on their tax cuts as they cling to narrow majorities in Congress.

While the president’s supporters are undeterred, the war’s unpopularity and economic ripple effects could tilt the scales in tightly contested U.S. House districts like the one in Bethlehem, where Republican Rep. Ryan Mackenzie is one of this year’s most vulnerable incumbents.

Midterm elections are always difficult for the party in power in Washington. But interviews with voters around the country show how a war that Trump expected to end with a swift victory could undermine the final years of his presidency.

Many U.S. adults say the war has not been worth fighting

About two-thirds of U.S. adults say the war with Iran has not been worth fighting, according to a July poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. That includes the vast majority of Democrats and independents, as well as more than one-third of Republicans.

Although Trump has long criticized Iran’s leadership, he did little to prepare Americans or allies for such a lengthy conflict. Republican President George W. Bush, for instance, spent more than a year making a case for launching a war in Iraq through speeches and attempts to build an international coalition. Trump did none of that.

Trump has refused to acknowledge the war’s cost, saying this month he would “never apologize” for higher prices stemming from it and insisting he did “the right thing” to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. His administration announced new sanctions this week in an attempt to further isolate Tehran.

In Congress, Republicans have shifted from initially cheerleading Trump’s moves in Iran to expressing concern about the toll of the war. But the party has largely unified to block measures that would curb Trump’s war powers and leaders have shown no interest in cutting off money for the war, preferring to portray Democrats as extremists who cannot be trusted to govern.

Democrats who were blamed just two years ago for presiding over high prices see an opportunity to turn the issue back on their opponents. As part of his comeback U.S. Senate bid in Ohio, Sherrod Brown released an ad this week filmed at a gas station as he said “the cost of gas is out of control and we’re the ones paying for it.”

Speaking to a group of older adults recently in a Republican-dominated swath of western Maryland, Democratic U.S. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks blamed higher prices on the war. Heading into November, she encouraged fellow Democrats to stay focused on the war’s impact and what it says about Trump’s leadership.

“We ought to be saying what is obvious, which is our country is heading in the wrong direction,” she said in an interview.

That resonates with voters such as Brandon Bane, a fast-food worker in Bakersfield, California, where Republican Rep. David Valadao is also in a competitive congressional race. Bane, who described himself as a political independent, said he often has to balance paying rent and groceries, noting high gas prices have only added to the challenge.

“It hasn’t been worth it at all,” he said of the war, adding that he plans to vote for Valadao’s challenger, Democrat Randy Villegas.

Melissa Wegman, a Democratic retiree who is also from Bakersfield, said she was shocked when the pump recently whirled to $128 to fill the tank on her SUV.

“I have to manage a budget,” she said.

Some voters are sticking with Republicans

But there is a risk, too, that the war does not provide Democrats with the political boost they are expecting.

While there is plenty of frustration about prices, there are also voters willing to make adjustments without blaming Republicans. Many remain aligned with Trump and are not interested in seeing Democrats return to power.

North Carolina is a top pickup opportunity for Democrats hoping to flip a U.S. Senate seat. But at the State Farmers Market in Raleigh, North Carolina, Lucienda Lowe of Sugarloaf Orchards said her faith in Trump is solid.

“There has to be a reason why they’re over there,” she said. “They wouldn’t be over there doing that if there wasn’t something more going on than what we’re seeing.”

She has not raised her prices on apples even as fuel and fertilizer costs soar. Her family has been farming since 1846 so she feels resilient to weather the next rough patch and tells others to do the same.

“Suck it up, buttercup,” she said.

Similarly in Iowa, where Democrats are bullish on their prospects of flipping everything from a U.S. Senate seat and the governor’s mansion to several U.S. House races, Larry Cole said higher gas prices as a result of the war are just the “nature of the beast.”

The 66-year-old Republican service manager from Perry, Iowa, said he will back Republicans in this midterm elections and does not want to see Democrats gain control in either chamber. He said Trump has taken action that other presidents were not willing to do to keep Iran in check.

Trump “hit them where they need to be hit,” Cole said.

Mark Duffy, 65, of Scottsdale, Arizona, said he did not expect the Iran war to go on as long as it has, but it has not had material effects on his life.

“I didn’t think it would go this long,” said Duffy, who retired a year ago from his career selling electronic components. “I don’t think anybody did, but now the next wave is the economic sanctions, so we’ll see if that works and maybe that is a way for other people to join.”

For others, the war has only reinforced a sense that neither political party is responsive to the needs of voters.

As he left a tattoo parlor in Ashland, Virginia, 26-year-old Evan Mise said he feels the increase in gas prices and worries about whether his mom will be able to retire or whether he will someday be able to.

But he had not decided whether to support Democrats or Republicans in November.

“I feel like our government is pretty corrupt through and through,” he said. “It’s kind of just a sit-back-and-watch thing. And I think my generation especially feels helpless.”

Catalini and Sloan write for the Associated Press. Sloan reported from Washington. AP writers Allen G. Breed in Raleigh, N.C., Michael R. Blood in Bakersfield, Sarah Rankin in Ashland, Va., Jonathan J. Cooper in Scottsdale, Ariz., and Hannah Fingerhut in Des Moines, Iowa, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday he is renaming Lake Ontario to be known as “Lake America” in the United States as he exacerbates his trade war with Canada.

The Republican president signed an executive order directing the Interior Department to update the lake’s name in the U.S. geographic naming service. Trump cannot force Canada to follow his preferred naming convention, however.

Trump has been floating the idea of the name change in recent days as the U.S. announced it was imposing 50% tariffs on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods over the weekend after talks between the countries broke down. Trump has been needling America’s northern neighbor since he returned to the White House last year, suggesting the ally with whom the U.S. once had warm relations instead should be absorbed as the 51st state.

Canada responded to Trump’s import taxes this week by imposing retaliatory tariffs on $20 billion worth of American goods, including steel, dairy products, appliances and farm equipment.

Trump, who signed the order as he was sitting at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, had a large sign behind him propped on a stand with a map of the Great Lakes. Over Lake Ontario, in big red letters, the map read “Lake America.”

On the other side of the president was another map with the words, “MAKING THE GREAT LAKES EVEN GREATER.”

The lake is one of multiple Great Lakes that the U.S. and Canada share borders along.

The office of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

There is no single international body that determines names of international bodies of water, and Trump has wide latitude over how the U.S. government recognizes geographic places and landmarks.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who has traded insults with Trump, this week brushed aside the prospect of Trump changing the lake’s name as “a lot of rhetoric.”

The name Lake Ontario comes from the Huron Indigenous people’s word “oniatarí:io,” that means “lake of shining waters.” The province of Ontario, founded in 1867, took its name from the lake.

Trump said that while his action was not meant to send any particular geopolitical message, “Canada’s been ripping us off for a long time” on trade and military issues.

“They wanted to be treated like a state and they’re not a state,” the president said. “We just can’t do that anymore.”

“We love the people of Canada,” Trump added. “I don’t think their representatives do an appropriate job. Maybe they’ll change. I really don’t know. It doesn’t make much difference.”

The move is reminiscent of his move last year to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”

Trump scribbled his name with a Sharpie pen on the executive order, then held it up for the cameras, offering, “And we filed all the necessary papers, documents, everything else.”

“We’ve notified all of the various people that we have to notify. So, we’ve done everything that you have to do,” he said. “And this is official, effective immediately.”

The executive order Trump signed shows that the changes, in fact, are supposed to be made within 30 days.

He also suggested his push to rename bodies of water may not be finished.

“So, if you think about it, we have a gulf and we have a lake. Now, all we need is an ocean,” Trump said. “So maybe we’ll have to change the name of the Atlantic and or the Pacific. Maybe we’ll change them.”

Price and Weissert write for the Associated Press. AP writer Rob Gillies in Toronto contributed to this report.

The venue’s board of directors, stacked with supporters of the president, voted to add his name again despite past ruling.

A United States judge has questioned why the Kennedy Center is rushing to restore President Donald Trump’s name to the performing arts venue after it was ordered removed in a previous ruling.

US District Court Judge Christopher Cooper asked Trump administration lawyer Bradley Mayers on Thursday why the venue has said it must begin adding the president’s name back to the building by September 8.

“What’s magic about that date?” Cooper asked.

Mayers stated that the date is aligned with a vote by the centre’s board — composed of members selected by Trump, who then installed him as the head — earlier this month.

“That’s all fine and good,” Cooper responded. “What does that have to do with what Congress intended in these statutes? That’s really what’s before me.”

The legal saga around Trump’s effort to inscribe his name on the building of the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC, is one of several examples of the president’s desire to reshape the landscape of the national capital.

In addition to changes to the performing arts centre, Trump has demolished the East Wing of the White House and sought to replace it with an enormous ballroom.

He also has pushed forward with plans for an enormous triumphal arch to be erected in a traffic circle not far from the historic Arlington National Cemetery.

The president and his allies have faced numerous legal challenges to those efforts, with critics arguing that the projects require congressional approval.

Previously, in May, Cooper found that the addition of Trump’s name to the building was illegal and that Congress alone could rebrand the building.

He also struck down an attempt to close the building for two years. The board had described the effort as necessary to maintain the building, but critics saw the closure as retaliation against the backlash to the renaming effort.

Earlier this month, however, the Trump-aligned board renewed the push to add his name back to the facade, by adding the inscription, “Restored and Renovated By President Donald J Trump”.

The vote also called for the plaza in front of the venue to also be renamed after Trump.

On Tuesday, administration officials threatened to demolish the Kennedy Centre if the renovations do not go through. They warned the performing arts centre would become “decrepit” without the board’s interventions.

In Thursday’s hearing, however, Cooper rejected the idea that court orders were standing in the way of any repairs.

“No one is stopping the center from doing any necessary repairs,” Cooper said. “The notion that continued judicial involvement is standing in the way of accomplishing necessary repairs is not quite fair.”

The lawsuit against the board’s changes to the Kennedy Center was brought by Representative Joyce Beatty, a Kennedy Center trustee who represents the state of Ohio in Congress.

Lawyers for Beatty said on Thursday that they view the board’s recent actions “as outright defiance” against the court.

The Kennedy Center was named by Congress as a living memorial to John F Kennedy, the 35th US president who helped fundraise for its establishment. He was assassinated in 1963. Under the law, no other national memorial to Kennedy is allowed in Washington, DC.