Trump

The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has announced it will not release inflation information for the month of October, citing the consequences of the recent government shutdown.

On Friday, the bureau updated its website to say that certain October data would not be available, even now that government funding has been restored and normal operations have resumed.

“BLS could not collect October 2025 reference period survey data due to a lapse in appropriations,” it wrote in a statement. “BLS is unable to retroactively collect these data.”

The cancelled data includes the Consumer Price Index (CPI) — a report that is commonly used to calculate inflation by measuring the changing costs of retail items — and the Real Earnings summary, which tracks wages among US workers.

For some of the reports, including the Consumer Price Index, the bureau said it would use “nonsurvey data sources” to make calculations that would be included in a future report for the month of November.

The November Consumer Price Index will also be published later than anticipated, on December 18.

The most recent government shutdown was the longest in US history, spanning nearly 43 days.

It began on October 1, after the US Congress missed a September 30 deadline to pass legislation to keep the government funded.

Republicans had hoped to push through a continuing resolution that made no changes to current spending levels. But Democrats had baulked at the prospect, arguing that recent restrictions to government programmes had put healthcare out of reach for some US citizens.

They also warned that insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act are set to expire by the end of the year. Without an extension to those subsidies, they said that insurance premiums for many Americans will spike.

Republicans rejected the prospect of negotiating the issue until after their continuing resolution was passed. Democrats, meanwhile, feared that, if they passed the continuing resolution without changes, there would be no further opportunity to address healthcare spending before the end of the year.

The two parties hit an impasse as a result. Non-essential government functions were halted during the shutdown, and many federal employees were furloughed.

Only on November 10 did a breakthrough begin to emerge. Late that night, seven Democrats and one independent broke from their caucus to side with Republicans and pass a budget bill to fund the government through January 30.

The bill was then approved by the House of Representatives on November 12, by a vote of 222 to 209. President Donald Trump signed the legislation into law that very same day.

Trump had openly sought to leverage the shutdown to eliminate federal programmes he saw as benefitting Democratic strongholds.

He also attempted to blame the political left for the lapse in government services, though he acknowledged public frustration with Republicans after Democrats won key elections in November.

“If you read the pollsters, the shutdown was a big factor, negative for the Republicans,” he told a breakfast for Republican senators on November 5. “That was a big factor.”

The Trump administration had warned as early as October that the month’s consumer price data would be negatively affected as a result of the shutdown.

In a White House statement, Trump officials touted Trump’s economic record while slamming a potential lapse in the government’s collection of data. Once again, they angled the blame for any slowed economic growth at the Democrats.

“Unfortunately, the Democrat Shutdown risks grinding that progress to a halt,” the statement said.

“Because surveyors cannot deploy to the field, the White House has learned there will likely NOT be an inflation release next month for the first time in history — depriving policymakers and markets of critical data and risking economic calamity.”

September’s Consumer Price Index, the most recent available, showed that inflation across all retail items rose about 3 percent over the previous 12-month period.

For food alone, inflation for that period was estimated at 3.1 percent.

Nov. 21 (UPI) — The United States has sanctioned dozens of individuals, entities, vessels and aircraft accused of participating in Iran’s oil-shipping networks, as the Trump administration continues to squeeze the Islamic nation with its reinstated maximum pressure campaign.

The State Department said Thursday it was adding 17 names of companies people and vessels to its sanctions list, while the Treasury said it was adding 41.

“The United States remains committed to disrupting the illicit funding streams that finance all aspects of Iran’s malign activities,” State Department spokesman Thomas Pigott said in a statement.

“As long as Iran devotes revenue to funding attacks against the United States and our allies, supporting terrorism around the world and pursuing other destabilizing actions, we will use all the tools at our disposal to hold the regime accountable.”

In February, President Donald Trump reinstated his maximum pressure campaign of sanctions and other punitive economic measures against Iran from his first administration to force Iran to return to the negotiating table on a new deal aimed at preventing Tehran from securing a nuclear weapon.

Since reinstating the policy, Trump has repeatedly imposed sanctions targeting Iran, specifically its illicit oil trade, which funds its military forces.

The Treasury said it was sanctioning an additional six vessels of Tehran’s shadow fleet of oil tankers that export energy products. It also blacklisted Mahan Air, which works closely with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force, the Iranian military’s specialized elite unit that oversees international operations and funds proxy militias, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

The State Department said its sanctioned targets were located in several countries, including India, panama and the Seychelles, among others.

The sanctions freeze all property of the named companies and individuals in the United States and bar U.S. persons from doing business with them.

“Today’s action continues Treasury’s campaign to cut off funding for the Iranian regime’s development of nuclear weapons and support of terrorist proxies,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.

“Disrupting the Iranian regime’s revenue is critical to helping curb its nuclear ambitions.”

President Trump’s tight grip on the GOP, long assumed to be an inevitable feature of American life (like gravity or the McRib’s seasonal return), has started to loosen.

Republicans are now openly defying him. The man who once ruled the GOP like a casino boss can’t even strong-arm Indiana Republicans into gerrymandering themselves properly.

This sort of resistance didn’t emerge overnight. It fermented like prison wine or bad ideas in a faculty lounge. First came the Iran bombing: an early shock that suggested “America First” might also mean “Israel First,” at least to the populist-nationalist camp inside the GOP.

Then came the effort to muffle the Jeffrey Epstein files, a notion so foreign to MAGA’s ethos that the subsequent drama, according to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), “ripped MAGA apart.”

Greene also expressed concern that the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies are set to lapse, and that Republicans have no plan to fix the imminent premium spikes — an occurrence that threatens to alienate the very working-class voters that MAGA now insists it represents.

All the while, another MAGA soap opera was churning. Tucker Carlson decided to “platform” white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, leading to an outcry of criticism that prompted the Heritage Foundation’s president to defend them (sparking another Republican “civil war” subplot).

The common thread in these stories is the sense that Trump’s days are numbered. The question of “Who gets MAGA when Dad can no longer operate the remote?” has become unavoidable.

True, pundits have been prematurely writing Trump’s political obituary since he first came down that escalator. But it feels different this time. The question is why.

There are likely numerous reasons, but I’ve zeroed in on the five that I think are the most important.

The first, and most obvious, reason is that Trump is now a lame duck, and everyone knows it.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) made the logic explicit when, during the Epstein-file fight, he warned his colleagues: “Donald Trump can protect you in red districts right now … but by 2030, he’s not going to be president, and you will have voted to protect pedophiles if you don’t vote to release those files.”

Once politicians and influencers start imagining their post-Trump resumes, his spell over them shatters. This probably explains why Trump has dangled the idea of an unconstitutional third term.

The second reason we are seeing Trump’s grip weaken is that, frankly, Trump’s not popular. In fact, according to a new Reuters poll, his approval rating is just 38%.

This rating plummets when it comes to the issues that divide Republicans. For example, according to that same survey, a mere 20% of American adults — including just 44% of Republicans — approve of Trump’s handling of the Epstein files.

The third reason is that Trump is increasingly isolated from the constituency that once fine-tuned his political instincts.

The Trump of 2016-2020 essentially crowdsourced his political instincts at rallies, where he learned to read the room like a comedian. Now he’s physically isolated and increasingly out of touch with his base. His inner circle consists of ideologues and billionaires — people who don’t worry about the price of milk.

So when Trump insists the economy is thriving, as he hosts Gatsby-themed soirees and tears down the East Wing of the White House to build a new ballroom, populists look up from their grocery bills, spy Trump on TV meeting with the Saudi crown prince, and are suddenly flooded with buyer’s remorse. This creates an opening, and the movement’s would-be heirs can sense it.

Of course, Trump could conceivably adjust his policies and rhetoric in an effort to restore his populist appeal.

But the fourth reason for Trump’s loss of power within the GOP concerns his mortality: Trump is the oldest person to win the presidency in U.S. history. He has had two “annual” physicals this calendar year — including an MRI no one will adequately explain (this is not part of a routine physical).

This brings us to the fifth and final reason the cracks are starting to show: Trump’s 2024 coalition was always like a game of Jenga.

It was a convenient alliance of disparate factions and individuals whose interests converged because Trump’s charisma (and lack of a coherent political worldview) was like the glue holding incompatible pieces together. But as that binding force weakens, the contradictions become clear, and open warfare is inevitable.

For years now, Trump imposed peace the way an aging rock frontman keeps peace within a band. But once that star starts forgetting lyrics or showing up late, his bandmates start imagining solo careers.

We’re watching MAGA realize that the Trump era is ending, and that the next battle is about what — or who — will fill the vacuum when he’s gone.

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

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has announced new oil drilling off the California and Florida coasts for the first time in decades, advancing a project that critics say could harm coastal communities and ecosystems, as Trump seeks to expand US oil production.

The White House announced the news on Thursday.

The oil industry has been seeking access to new offshore areas, including Southern California and off the coast of Florida, as a way to boost US energy security and jobs.

What’s in the plan?

The administration’s plan proposes six offshore lease sales through 2030 in areas along the California coast.

It also calls for new drilling off the coast of Florida in areas at least 160km (100 miles) from that state’s shore. The area targeted for leasing is adjacent to an area in the Central Gulf of Mexico that already contains thousands of wells and hundreds of drilling platforms.

The five-year plan also would compel more than 20 lease sales off the coast of Alaska, including a newly designated area known as the High Arctic, more than 320km (200 miles) offshore in the Arctic Ocean.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in announcing the sales that it would take years for the oil from those parcels to get to market.

“By moving forward with the development of a robust, forward-thinking leasing plan, we are ensuring that America’s offshore industry stays strong, our workers stay employed, and our nation remains energy dominant for decades to come,” Burgum said in a statement.

The American Petroleum Institute said in response that the announced plan was a “historic step” towards unleashing vast offshore resources. Industry groups have pointed to California’s history as an oil-producing state and say it already has infrastructure to support more production.

Political pushback

Leaders in both California and Florida have pushed back on the deal.

Last week, Florida Republican Senator Ashley Moody and Rick Scott co-sponsored a bill to maintain a moratorium on offshore drilling in the state that Trump signed in his first term.

“As Floridians, we know how vital our beautiful beaches and coastal waters are to our state’s economy, environment and way of life,” Scott said in a statement. “I will always work to keep Florida’s shores pristine and protect our natural treasures for generations to come.”

A spokesman for California Governor Gavin Newsom said Trump officials had not formally shared the plan, but said “expensive and riskier offshore drilling would put our communities at risk and undermine the economic stability of our coastal economies”.

California has been a leader in restricting offshore oil drilling since the infamous 1969 Santa Barbara spill that helped launch the modern environmental movement. While there have been no new federal leases offered since the mid-1980s, drilling from existing platforms continues.

Newsom expressed support for greater offshore controls after a 2021 spill off Huntington Beach and has backed a congressional effort to ban new offshore drilling on the West Coast.

A Texas-based company, with support from the Trump administration, is seeking to restart production in waters off Santa Barbara damaged by a 2015 oil spill. The administration has hailed the plan by Houston-based Sable Offshore Corp as the kind of project Trump wants to increase US energy production as the federal government removes regulatory barriers.

The announcement comes as Governor Newsom attended the COP30 climate conference in Brazil.

“He [Trump] intentionally aligned that to the opening of COP,” Newsom said.

Even before it was released, the offshore drilling plan met strong opposition from Newsom, a Democrat who is eyeing a 2028 presidential run and has emerged as a leading Trump critic.

Newsom pronounced the idea “dead on arrival” in a social media post. The proposal is also likely to draw bipartisan opposition in Florida. Tourism and access to clean beaches are key parts of the economy in both states.

Democratic lawmakers, including California Senator Alex Padilla and Representative Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, warned that opening vast coastlines to new offshore drilling would hurt coastal economies, jeopardise national security, ravage coastal ecosystems, and put the health and safety of millions of people at risk.

“With this draft plan, Donald Trump and his Administration are trying to destroy one of the most valuable, most protected coastlines in the world and hand it over to the fossil fuel industry,” Padilla and Huffman said in a joint statement.

The federal government has not allowed drilling in federal waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which includes offshore Florida and part of offshore Alabama, since 1995, because of concerns about oil spills. California has some offshore oil rigs, but there has been no new leasing in federal waters since the mid-1980s.

Since taking office for a second time in January, Trump has systematically reversed former President Joe Biden’s focus on slowing climate change to pursue what the Republican calls US “energy dominance” in the global market.

Trump, who recently called climate change “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,” created a National Energy Dominance Council and directed it to move quickly to drive up already record-high US energy production, particularly fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas.

Meanwhile, Trump’s administration has blocked renewable energy sources such as offshore wind and cancelled billions of dollars in grants that supported hundreds of clean energy projects across the country.

San Francisco Bay Area Democrat Eric Swalwell, a nettlesome foil and frequent target of President Trump and Republicans, on Thursday announced his bid for California governor.

The congressman declared his bid during an appearance on the ABC late-night show hosted by Jimmy Kimmel, adding a little Hollywood flourish to a crowded, somewhat sleepy race filled with candidates looking for ways to catch fire in the 2026 election.

Voter interest in the race remains relatively moribund, especially after two of California’s most prominent Democrats — former Vice President Kamala Harris and current U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla — opted to skip the race after months of speculation. About 44% of registered voters said in late October that they had not picked a preferred candidate to lead California, which is the most populous state in the union and has the fourth-largest economy in the world.

The lack of a blockbuster candidate in the race, however, continues to entice others to jump in. Earlier this week, billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer announced his bid, and other well-known Democrats are exploring a possible run.

Swalwell, a 45-year-old former Republican and former prosecutor who unsuccessfully ran for president in 2020, said his decision was driven by the serious problems facing California and the threats posed to the state and nation with Trump in the White House.

“People are scared and prices are high, and I see the next governor of California having two jobs — one to keep the worst president ever out of our homes, streets and lives,” Swalwell said in an interview with The Times. “The second job is to bring what I call a new California, and that’s especially and most poignantly on housing and affordability in a state where we have the highest unemployment rate in the country, and the average age for a first-time homebuyer is 40 years old, and so we need to bring that down.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom cannot run for reelection because of term limits, and he is currently weighing a 2028 presidential bid.

None of the candidates in the race, including Swalwell, possess the statewide notoriety, success or fundraising prowess of California’s most recent governors: Newsom, California political icon Jerry Brown and movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“If you look at the past three governors, they’ve all had personalities,” said Jim DeBoo, Newsom’s former chief of staff, at a political conference at USC on Tuesday. “When you’re looking at the field right now, most people don’t know” much about the candidates in the crowded race despite their political bona fides.

Nearly a dozen prominent Democrats and Republicans are running for governor next year, including: former Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond; former Controller Betty Yee and conservative commentator Steve Hilton. And speculation continues to swirl about billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta possibly entering the race.

On Thursday, Thurmond proposed a tax on the wealthy to fund education, healthcare, firefighting and construction. The proposal was seen in part as a subtle dig at Steyer and Caruso, both of whom have used their wealth to fund previous runs for office.

“The naysayers say California’s ultra wealthy already pay enough, and that taxing billionaires will stifle innovation and force companies to leave our state,” he said in an online video. “I don’t buy it.”

Steyer painted his decision to leave the hedge fund he created in California as an example of his desire to give back to the state’s residents in an ad that will begin airing on Friday.

“It’s really goddamn simple. Tackle the cost-of-living crises or get the hell out of the way. Californians are the hardest-working people in the country. But the question is who’s getting the benefit of this,” he says in the ad, arguing that he took on corporations that refused to pay state taxes as well as oil and tobacco companies. “Let’s get down to brass tacks: It’s too expensive to live here.”

Porter also went after Steyer, another sign that the intensity of the race is heating up as the June primary fast approaches.

“A new billionaire in our race claims he’ll fight the very industries he got rich helping grow — fossil fuel companies, tobacco and private immigration detention facilities — at great cost to Californians,” she wrote on X on Wednesday.

The former congresswoman was the subject of recent attacks from Democratic rivals in the governor’s race after videos emerged of her scolding a reporter and swearing at an aide. Yee said she should drop out of the race and Villaraigosa blistered her in ads.

Villaraigosa also attacked Becerra for his connection to the scandal that rocked Sacramento last week, involving money from one of his campaign accounts being funneled to his former chief of staff while Becerra served in the Biden administration.

“We don’t have a strong or robust opposition party in California, so you end up like seeing a lot of this action on the dance floor in the primary, obviously, between Democrats, which is going to be interesting,” said Elizabeth Ashford, who worked for Schwarzenegger, Brown and Harris and currently advises Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. “There’s obviously a lot of longtime relationships and longtime loyalties and interactions between these folks. And so what’s going to happen? Big question mark.”

The ability to protect California from Trump’s policies and political vindictiveness and deal with the state’s affordability, housing and homelessness crisis will be pivotal to Swalwell’s potential path to the governor’s mansion. His choice to announce his decision on Kimmel’s show was telling — the host’s show was briefly suspended by Walt Disney-owned ABC under pressure from Trump after Kimmel made comments about the shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Kimmel thanked Swalwell for his support during that period, which included the congressman handing out pro-Kimmel merchandise to his colleagues in Washington, D.C., before the two discussed the future of the state.

“I love California, it’s the greatest country in the world. Country,” Swalwell said. “But that’s why it pisses me off to see Californians running through the fields where they work from ICE agents or troops in our streets. It’s horrifying. Cancer research being canceled. It’s awful to look at. And our state, this great state, needs a fighter and a protector, someone who will bring prices down, lift wages up.”

There is a history of Californians announcing campaigns on late-night television. Schwarzenegger launched his 2003 gubernatorial bid on “The Tonight Show,” hosted by Jay Leno; Swalwell announced his unsuccessful presidential bid on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Swalwell said, he traveled to nearly 40 countries, and he would try to leverage the relationships he formed by creating an ambassador program to find global research money for California given the cuts the Trump administration has made to cancer research and other programs.

The congressman is perhaps best known for criticizing Trump on cable news programs. But he’s faced ample attacks as well.

In 2020, Swalwell came under scrutiny because of his association with Chinese spy Fang Fang, who raised money for his congressional campaign. He cut off ties with her in 2015 after intelligence officials briefed him and other members of Congress about Chinese efforts to infiltrate the legislative body. He was not accused of impropriety.

He is also being investigated by the Department of Justice over mortgage fraud allegations, which he dismissed as retribution for him being a full-throated critic of Trump.

Swalwell served on the City Council of the East Bay city of Dublin before being elected to Congress in 2012 by defeating Rep. Pete Stark, a fellow Democrat.

An Iowa native, Swalwell grew up in Dublin, which he said was “a town of low-income expectations” that was smeared as “Scrublin” at the time. He said that after graduating from law school, he served on the local planning commission that helped transform Dublin. The town increased housing, attracted Fortune 500 employers, exponentially improved the number of students going to college and leveraged developers to improve schools, resources for senior citizens, and police and fire services.

“We have a Whole Foods, which no one can afford to shop at,” he said.

The Trump administration filed a federal suit Thursday against California and its public university systems, alleging its practice of offering in-state college tuition rates to undocumented immigrants who graduate from California high schools is illegal.

The suit, which named Gov. Gavin Newsom, state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the UC Board of Regents, the Cal State University Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors for the California Community Colleges, also seeks to end some provisions in the California Dream Act, which in part allows students who lack documentation to apply for state-funded financial aid.

“California is illegally discriminating against American students and families by offering exclusive tuition benefits for non-citizens,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement. “This marks our third lawsuit against California in one week — we will continue bringing litigation against California until the state ceases its flagrant disregard for federal law.”

Higher education and state officials were not immediately available to comment.

The tuition suit targets Assembly Bill 540, which passed with bipartisan support in 2001 and offers in-state tuition rates to undocumented students who completed high school in California. The law also offers in-state tuition to U.S. citizens who graduated from California schools but moved out of the state before enrolling in college.

Between 2,000 and 4,000 students attending the University of California — with its total enrollment of nearly 296,000 — are estimated to be undocumented. Across California State University campuses, there are about 9,500 immigrants without documentation enrolled out of 461,000 students. The state’s biggest undocumented group, estimated to be 70,000, are community college students.

The Trump administration’s challenge to California’s tuition statute focuses on a 1996 federal law that says people in the U.S. without legal permission should “not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state … for any post-secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

Scholars have debated whether that law affects California’s tuition practices since AB 540 applies to citizens and noncitizens alike.

Thursday’s complaint was filed in Eastern District of California, and it follows similar actions the Trump administration has taken against Texas, Kentucky, Illinois, Oklahoma and Minnesota.

US president’s controversial deployment of soldiers to US cities has raised alarm and a series of legal challenges.

A United States federal judge has said the Trump administration must pause its deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, DC, a setback for the president’s push to send the military into cities across the country.

US District Judge Jia Cobb temporarily suspended the deployment in a ruling on Thursday, responding to a lawsuit filed by city officials who said Trump had usurped policing powers and was using the military for domestic law enforcement.

The federal government has unique powers in Washington, DC. But the Trump administration has taken the controversial step to deploy soldiers in a growing list of Democrat-led cities, despite frequent protests from state and local officials and a lack of any emergency conditions.

Cobb, who said in her decision that the president cannot deploy soldiers for “whatever reason” he wants, gave the Trump administration 21 days to appeal the order before it goes into effect.

Lawyers for the government slammed the lawsuit that challenged the military deployment as a “frivolous stunt”.

“There is no sensible reason for an injunction unwinding this arrangement now, particularly since the District’s claims have no merit,” Department of Justice lawyers wrote.

Trump has also deployed troops to cities such as Los Angeles, California; Portland, Oregon; and Chicago, Illinois, in what he depicts as an effort to tackle crime and round up undocumented immigrants.

Residents and civil liberties groups have documented aggressive raids and what they say are widespread rights violations and racial profiling by federal agents during those crackdowns, in which US citizens have sometimes been swept up.

Trump has threatened to imprison local and state officials who criticise his deployment of the military.

A legal challenge filed in September by Washington, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb said that US democracy would “never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand”.

Trump ordered the first deployment in August, involving about 2,300 National Guard members from various states and hundreds of federal agents from various agencies.

LA28, the committee behind the Olympic Games coming to Los Angeles, quietly added to its roster of directors some high-profile Republicans with ties to President Trump.

The 35-member volunteer board of directors now includes notable Republican political figures Kevin McCarthy, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, and Reince Priebus, who was Trump’s chief of staff during his first term. Before his role in the White House, Priebus served as the longtime chair of the Republican National Committee.

Diane Hendricks, a major GOP donor who has given millions to Trump’s campaigns, and Patrick Dumont, who owns the Dallas Mavericks and is the son-in-law of another major Trump donor, were also added to the board. Ken Moelis, an investment banker who worked with Trump in the 1990s and predicted the businessman would win the presidency in 2016, is also listed as a board member.

The Trump-adjacent inflow to the board of directors, first reported by Politico, is the latest sign of the president’s involvement in the major Los Angeles event.

It is not clear why the decision was made to expand the board of directors and how the individuals were selected. A spokesperson for LA28 did not immediately respond to The Times’ questions Thursday about the move.

Kevin McCarthy

(Associated Press)

Los Angeles business consultant Denita Willoughby and philanthropist Maria Hummer-Tuttle are also newly listed as board members.

“We are thrilled to welcome this accomplished group to the LA28 Board who will help create an unforgettable Games for athletes and fans alike,” Casey Wasserman, the chair of the 2028 L.A. Olympics organizing committee, wrote in a statement.

Wasserman could not immediately be reached by The Times for further comment.

Although past presidents have taken a largely ceremonial role in Olympics that have been held on U.S. soil, there are signs that Trump is seeking a more active role in the Games, which will occur in his final year as president.

In August, he signed an executive order naming him chair of a White House task force on the 2028 Games in Los Angeles. The president views the Games as “a premier opportunity to showcase American exceptionalism,” according to a White House statement. Trump, the administration said, “is taking every opportunity to showcase American greatness on the world stage.”

Trump at the time noted that he’d be willing to send the military back to Los Angeles to protect the Games. In June, he sent the National Guard and U.S. Marines to the city amid escalating immigration enforcement actions, prompting pushback from Mayor Karen Bass.

Wasserman attended the signing at the White House in August and thanked Trump for “leaning in” to planning for the Olympics, which he said is akin to hosting seven Super Bowls a day for 30 days.

“You’ve been supportive and helpful every step of the way,” Wasserman told the president at the time. “With the creation of this task force, we’ve unlocked the opportunity to level up our planning and deliver the largest and, yes, greatest Games for our nation, ever.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Thursday said he believed Democratic lawmakers who publicly urged active service members to “refuse illegal orders” amounted to seditious behavior, which he said should be punishable by death.

“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand — We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET,” Trump said in a social media post.

Trump went on to amplify more than a dozen social media posts from other people, who in reaction to Trump’s post called for the Democrats to be arrested, charged and in one instance hanged. Trump then continued: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

The president’s remarks were in reaction to a joint video released by six Democrat lawmakers in which they urged military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders.”

The Democratic lawmakers who released the video — Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Michigan Sen. Alyssa Slotkin, Pennsylvania Rep. Chris Deluzio, New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, Pennsylvania Rep. Chrissy Houlahan and Colorado Rep. Jason Crow — served in the military or as intelligence officers.

They did not specify which orders they were referring to. But they said the Trump administration was “pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professional against American citizens” and that threats to the Constitution were coming “from right here at home.”

The video, which was posted on Tuesday, quickly drew criticism from Republicans, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who characterized it as “Stage 4 [Trump Derangement Syndrome].” But Trump, who first reacted to the video on Thursday, saw the video as more than partisan speech.

“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???” Trump said in another post.

When asked Thursday if the president wanted to execute members of Congress, as suggested in one of his social media posts, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said “no.”

But, Leavitt said, the president does want to see them be “held accountable.”

“That is a very, very dangerous message and it is perhaps punishable by law,” Leavitt said. “I’ll leave that to the Department of justice and the Department of War to decide.”

What the law says

Under a federal law known as “seditious conspiracy,” it is a crime for two or more individuals to “conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States” or to “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States” by force.

A seditious conspiracy charge is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Federal courts and legal scholars have long emphasized that seditious conspiracy charges apply only to coordinated efforts to use force against the government, rather than political dissent.

The last time federal prosecutors pursued seditious conspiracy charges was in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other charges for plotting to prevent by force the transfer of presidential power to Joe Biden.

Among the convicted individuals was former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, whose 22-year sentence was the stiffest of any of the Jan. 6 rioters. Trump pardoned him earlier this year.

Hours after the president’s posts, the six Democratic lawmakers issued a joint statement, calling on Americans to “unite and condemn the President’s calls for our murder and political violence.”

“What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law,” the lawmakers said in a statement posted to X. “Our service members should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders.”

Democratic leaders in Washington and across the country denounced Trump’s post.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a statement with other Democratic leaders that Trump’s comments were “disgusting and dangerous death threats against members of Congress.” They added that they had been in contact with U.S. Capitol Police to ensure the safety of the Democrat lawmakers and their families.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom reacted to the posts by saying Trump “is sick in the head” for calling for the death of Democratic lawmakers.

Nov. 20 (UPI) — A federal judge ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump‘s deployment of 2,000 National Guard soldiers to Washington was illegal, saying the president lacks the authority to dispatch troops “for the deterrence of crime.”

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb said that while Trump is the commander in chief, federal laws constrain his power to federalize and deploy those troops, particularly in Washington, which Congress controls.

“The Court rejects the Defendant’s fly-by assertion of constitutional power, finding that such a broad reading of the President’s Article II authority would erase Congress’ role in governing the District and its National Guard,” Cobb wrote in her 61-page ruling.

Cobb also said that Trump also lacked authority to deploy out-of-state National Guard troops to Washington to assist in law enforcement.

Cobb’s ruling will not take effect until Dec. 11, giving the Trump administration time to appeal. The Supreme Court is on the verge of issuing its own ruling on the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago. Federal appeals courts are also considering National Guard troop deployments to Portland, Ore., and Los Angeles.

Trump has justified his troop deployments by claiming, without evidence, that large-scale violence and chaos demands the presence of national troops to protect federal functions. State and local leaders, as well as municipal law enforcement officers, have said they don’t need federal help to protect their cities.

WASHINGTON — Washington National Cathedral on Thursday hosts a bipartisan show of respect and remembrance for Dick Cheney, the consequential and polarizing vice president who in later years became an acidic scold of fellow Republican President Trump.

Trump, who has been publicly silent about Cheney’s death Nov. 3, was not invited to the 11 a.m. memorial service.

Two ex-presidents are coming: Republican George W. Bush, who is to eulogize the man who served him as vice president, and Democrat Joe Biden, who once called Cheney “the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history” but now honors his commitment to his family and to his values.

Daughter Liz Cheney, a former high-ranking House member whose Republican political career was shredded by Trump’s MAGA movement, will join Bush in addressing the gathering at the grand church known as “a spiritual home for the nation.”

Others delivering tributes include Cheney’s longtime cardiologist, Jonathan Reiner; former NBC News correspondent Pete Williams, who was Cheney’s spokesman at the Pentagon; and the former vice president’s grandchildren. Hundreds of guests are expected.

Cheney had lived with heart disease for decades and, after the Bush administration, with a heart transplant. He died at age 84 from complications of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease, his family said.

The White House lowered its flags to half-staff after Cheney’s death, as it said the law calls for, but Trump did not issue the presidential proclamation that often accompanies the death of notable figures, nor has he commented publicly on his passing.

The deeply conservative Cheney’s influence in the Bush administration was legendary and, to his critics, tragic.

He advocated for the U.S. invasion of Iraq on the basis of what proved to be faulty intelligence and consistently defended the extraordinary tools of surveillance, detention and inquisition employed in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Bush credited him with helping to keep the country safe and stable in a perilous time.

After the 2020 election won by Biden, Liz Cheney served as vice chair of the Democratic-led special House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. She accused Trump of summoning the violent mob and plunging the nation into “a moment of maximum danger.”

For that, she was stripped of her Republican leadership position and ultimately defeated in a 2022 Republican primary in Wyoming. In a campaign TV ad made for his daughter, Dick Cheney branded Trump a “coward” who “tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him.”

Last year, it did not sit well with Trump when Cheney said he would vote for Democrat Kamala Harris in the presidential election.

Trump told Arab and Muslim voters that Cheney’s support for Harris should give them pause, because he “killed more Arabs than any human being on Earth. He pushed Bush, and they went into the Middle East.”

Woodward writes for the Associated Press.

In October of 2018, U.S.-based journalist and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered inside Saudi Arabia’s embassy in Istanbul, Turkey. The CIA concluded that the assassination was carried out by Saudi operatives, on order of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The prince denied the accusations, although other U.S. intelligence agencies later made the same formal assessment.

Tuesday, President Trump showered the Saudi leader with praise during his first invitation to the White House since the killing. “We’ve been really good friends for a long period of time,” said Trump. “We’ve always been on the same side of every issue.”

Clearly. Their shared disdain — and fear — of a free press was evident, from downplaying the killing of Khashoggi to snapping at ABC News reporter Mary Bruce when she asked about his murder.

“You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that,” Trump said, then he proceeded to debase a journalist who wasn’t there to report on the event because he’d been silenced, forever. Referring to Khashoggi, he said, “A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about. Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen.”

Mohammed bin Salman, left, and Jamal Khashoggi.

(Associated Press / Tribune News Service)

Fender-benders happen. Spilled milk happens. But the orchestrated assassination of a journalist by a regime that he covers is not one of those “things” that just happen. It’s an orchestrated hit meant to silence critics, control the narrative and bury whatever corruption, human rights abuses or malfeasance that a healthy free press is meant to expose.

Bruce did what a competent reporter is supposed to do. She deviated from Tuesday’s up-with-Saudi-Arabia! agenda to ask the hard questions of powerful men not used to being questioned about anything, let alone murder. The meeting was meant to highlight the oil-rich country’s investment in the U.S. economy, and at Trump’s prompting, Prince Mohammed said those investments could total $1 trillion.

Prince Mohammed addressed the death of Khashoggi by saying his country hopes to do better in the future, whatever that means. “It’s painful and it’s a huge mistake, and we are doing our best that this doesn’t happen again.”

And just in case the two men hadn’t made clear how little they cared about the slain journalist, and how much they disdain the news media, Trump drove those points home when he referred to Bruce’s query as “a horrible, insubordinate, and just a terrible question.” He suggesting that ABC should lose its broadcasting license.

Trump confirmed Tuesday that he intends to sell “top of the line” F-35 stealth fighter jets to Riyadh. It’s worth noting that the team of 15 Saudi agents allegedly involved in Khashoggi’s murder flew to Istanbul on government aircraft. The reporter was lured to the Saudi embassy to pick up documents that were needed for his planned marriage to a Turkish woman.

The prince knew nothing about it, said Trump on Tuesday, despite the findings of a 2021 report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that cited “the direct involvement of a key adviser and members of Mohammad bin Salman’s protective detail.” It concluded that it was “highly unlikely that Saudi officials would have carried out an operation of this nature without the Crown Prince’s authorization.”

To no one’s surprise, the Saudi government had tried to dodge the issue before claiming Khashoggi had been killed by rogue officials, insisting that the slaying and dismemberment was not premeditated. They offered no explanation of how a bonesaw just happened to be available inside the embassy.

President Trump shakes hands with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House in 2018.

(MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Five men were sentenced to death, but one of Khashoggi’s sons later announced that the family had forgiven the killers, which, in accordance with Islamic law, spared them from execution.

The president’s castigation of ABC’s Bruce was the second time in a week that he has ripped into a female journalist when she asked a “tough” question (i.e. anything Newsmax won’t ask). Trump was speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One last Friday when Bloomberg News’ Catherine Lucey asked him follow-up question about the Epstein files. The president replied, “Quiet. Quiet, piggy.”

Trump’s contempt for the press was clear, but so was something else he shares with the crown prince, Hungary’s Victor Orban and Vladimir Putin: The president doesn’t just hate the press. He fears it.

Nov. 20 (UPI) — The Trump administration announced that it plans to roll back protection for some animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act, changes that officials say will make the law less confusing.

The U.S. Department of the Interior proposed four rules under the act that it says will strengthen U.S. energy independence, improve regulatory predictability and ensure federal actions align with “the best reading of the law.”

“This administration is restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent, protecting species through clear, consistent and lawful standards that also respect the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources,” Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said Wednesday in a press release.

The four proposed rule changes affect how endangered species are determined, listed and delisted; change the definitions for phrasing that describes the effects of a species being listed; eliminate the “blanket rule” in favor of requiring species-specific rules; and clarify how economic, national security and other impacts are weighed when deciding whether to list a species under the act.

In all four cases, the department is rolling back changes made under the Biden Administration to broaden the species that can be protected under the act. The Biden era changes were a restoration of changes made during the first Trump administration.

Although the changes are meant to simplify complying with the act, critics have challenged the changes are not about protecting animals to prevent them from going extinct.

“This isn’t about protecting endangered species,” Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The Hill.

“This is about the biggest companies in the country wanting to drill for oil and dig coal, even if it causes wildlife like the polar bear and other iconic species to go extinct,” she said.

The proposed rules have been published in the Federal Register and are open for public comment for 30 days starting on Nov. 21.

United States President Donald Trump has distanced himself from disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, saying the former friends had severed ties more than a decade before his 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges.

But one Democrat is using newly released documents from Epstein’s estate to assert that the two remained friends after Trump first became president in 2016.

Representative Sean Casten, a Democrat from Illinois, highlighted one email exchange and said in a November 12 post on X: “Trump spent his first Thanksgiving after getting elected President with Jeffrey Epstein. 2017.”

Trump spent his first Thanksgiving after getting elected President with Jeffrey Epstein. 2017. pic.twitter.com/1CU51k8yl4

— Sean Casten (@SeanCasten) November 13, 2025

He attached an image of emails dated November 23, 2017 – Thanksgiving Day – between Epstein and NEXT Management Cofounder Faith Kates, which read:

Epstein: hope today is fun for you.

Kates: Fun!!! When are you back in NYC?

Epstein: all next week

Kates: Ok dylan will want to see you I always want to see you. Where are you having thanksgiving?

Epstein: eva

Faith Kates: That means glenn check out his red hair!!!

Epstein: berries color for holiday

Kates: He’s such a snooze who else is down there?

Epstein: david fizel. hanson. trump

Kates: Have fun!!!

Casten has not responded to a request for comment. “Those emails prove literally nothing,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in an email.

News reports, photos, videos and White House releases show Trump spent that 2017 Thanksgiving in Mar-a-Lago. PolitiFact, however, did not find any proof that he met Epstein that day.

There are different accounts of when Trump and Epstein had their falling out, with periods ranging from 2004 to 2007. The Miami Herald reported that Trump barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago in October 2007, a decade before the Thanksgiving Day in question.

In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges of soliciting prostitution and soliciting prostitution from a minor.

Two of the three people Epstein mentioned in his 2017 email as being “down there” are people who had property in South Florida at the time. It is unclear who he was referring to when he mentioned “Hanson”. It is possible Epstein was not foretelling a specific Thanksgiving Day plan but answering another New Yorker’s question about who among the people in their social circle would also be in the Florida area during that period.

Trump arrived in West Palm Beach, Florida, on November 21, 2017, and stayed there for several days, according to the president’s public schedules documented in Roll Call’s FactBase.

On Thanksgiving morning, he spoke to members of the military via video conference and visited coastguard members at the Lake Worth Inlet Station in Riviera Beach, Florida. The White House published transcripts of Trump’s remarks to both groups. Trump also issued a Thanksgiving message to the country and went to the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach.

Photographers for The Associated Press news agency, The Palm Beach Post and Getty Images, among others, captured photos of Trump’s activities.

A CNN report said Trump held an “opulent” dinner at the Mar-a-Lago members-only club. PolitiFact did not find reports listing who was in attendance, but the White House told CNN the first family would be having “a nice Thanksgiving dinner with all the family”.

Trump was also active on social media. In a November 22, 2017, post on X, then known as Twitter, he said he “will be having meetings and working the phones from the Winter White House in Florida [Mar-a-Lago]”. He did not specify whom he would be meeting. On Thanksgiving morning, he said in part: “HAPPY THANKSGIVING, your Country is starting to do really well.”

HAPPY THANKSGIVING, your Country is starting to do really well. Jobs coming back, highest Stock Market EVER, Military getting really strong, we will build the WALL, V.A. taking care of our Vets, great Supreme Court Justice, RECORD CUT IN REGS, lowest unemployment in 17 years….!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 23, 2017

Trump left Mar-a-Lago and returned to the White House on November 26, 2017, the Sunday after Thanksgiving.

WASHINGTON — Republicans won a significant political victory this month when moderate Senate Democrats joined them to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, relenting from a showdown over the rising costs of healthcare.

But the fight is already back on, with mere weeks to spare before the Trump administration faces a potential uproar from the public over the expiration of Affordable Care Act tax credits on New Year’s Day, when premium costs will skyrocket.

The fast-approaching deadline, coupled with stinging defeats in elections earlier this month driven by voter concerns over affordability, has prompted a series of crisis meetings in the West Wing over a path forward on Capitol Hill.

The White House response that emerged this week is a political Hail Mary for an increasingly divided party entering an election year: a second megabill, deploying the parliamentary tool of reconciliation, addressing not just healthcare costs but Trump’s tariff policies under intense scrutiny at the Supreme Court.

“We’re going to have the healthcare conversation. We’re going to put some legislation forward,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair said Tuesday, addressing a breakfast event hosted by Bloomberg Government, as House Republican leaders pitched the plan to their members in a closed-door meeting.

“The president probably would like to go bigger than the Hill has the appetite for,” Blair added, “so we’ll have to see how that, you know, works out.”

New plan, last minute

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise presented the plan to skeptical Republican lawmakers on Tuesday, arguing an extension of tax credits for what he called the “Unaffordable Care Act” — even if they are renegotiated on Republican terms — would only mask the problem of rising premium costs, ultimately burdening the taxpayer.

Trump sent a message to the caucus ahead of their meeting on Tuesday morning with a post on Truth Social, emphatic in all caps.

“THE ONLY HEALTHCARE I WILL SUPPORT OR APPROVE IS SENDING THE MONEY DIRECTLY BACK TO THE PEOPLE, WITH NOTHING GOING TO THE BIG, FAT, RICH INSURANCE COMPANIES, WHO HAVE MADE $TRILLIONS, AND RIPPED OFF AMERICA LONG ENOUGH,” Trump wrote. “THE PEOPLE WILL BE ALLOWED TO NEGOTIATE AND BUY THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, INSURANCE. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!”

“Congress, do not waste your time and energy on anything else,” Trump added. “This is the only way to have great Healthcare in America!!! GET IT DONE, NOW.”

Yet the plan is causing anxiety across a wide ideological range of Republican lawmakers, including moderates in vulnerable races entering next year’s midterm elections as well as those from deep red districts whose constituents rely on the Affordable Care Act, more widely known as Obamacare.

Nearly six in 10 Americans who use the ACA marketplace live in Republican districts, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Enrollment is highest across the South, where districts across Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida consistently see more than 10% of their residents relying on the program.

Going for broke with reconciliation

Trump’s proposal would do away with the tax credits, potentially overhauling health savings accounts that would encourage Americans to save on their own and choose their healthcare plan.

But it’s unclear whether such a dramatic, last-minute change in the healthcare system, still in draft form, would garner enough Republican support to pass the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) can only afford to lose two Republicans on party-line votes.

The bill would come in a perilous political environment for Republican lawmakers, who one year ago faced a tie with Democrats on a generic ballot, according to an NPR/PBS News/Marist poll. In the group’s latest poll, Democrats are up by 14 points.

Even if Trump’s proposal were to secure House support, the Trump administration’s plan to pursue a bill through reconciliation in the Senate — which allows the upper chamber to pass legislation with a simple majority, instead of 60 votes — could face significant hurdles.

Senate parliamentary rules only allow reconciliation to be used for legislation that directly changes federal spending, revenues, or the debt limit. That could encompass an overhaul to health savings accounts, and potentially to codify Trump’s tariff policies, which have been approved through reconciliation in years past. But the fine print would be up to the discretion of the parliamentarian, whose cuts to tangential policy provisions could upend delicate negotiations.

Reconciliation was used in Trump’s last major push to repeal Obamacare, in 2017, when the late Sen. John McCain (R-Az.) surprised the nation with a thumbs-down vote on the measure.

That bill, McCain argued, would have repealed the healthcare of millions without a plan to replace it.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Could Trump destroy the Epstein files?
The deep dive: A bombshell federal fraud case exploded inside Gov. Newsom’s powerful political orbit
The L.A. Times Special: This Arizona town is an unexpected magnet for Californians: ‘We do it our way’

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — National Public Radio will receive approximately $36 million in grant money to operate the nation’s public radio interconnection system under the terms of a court settlement with the federal government’s steward of funding for public broadcasting stations.

The settlement, announced Monday, partially resolves a legal dispute in which NPR accused the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of bowing to pressure from President Trump to cut off its funding.

On March 25, Trump said at a news conference that he would “love to” defund NPR and PBS because he believes they are biased in favor of Democrats.

NPR accused the CPB of violating its 1st Amendment free speech rights when it moved to cut off its access to grant money appropriated by Congress. NPR also claims Trump, a Republican, wants to punish it for the content of its journalism.

On April 2, the CPB’s board initially approved a three-year, roughly $36-million extension of a grant for NPR to operate the “interconnection” satellite system for public radio. NPR has been operating and managing the Public Radio Satellite System since 1985.

But corporation officials reversed course and announced that the federal funds would go to an entity called Public Media Infrastructure. NPR claimed the CPB was under mounting pressure from the Trump administration when the agency redirected the money to PMI, a media coalition that didn’t exist and wasn’t statutorily authorized to receive the funds.

CPB attorneys denied that the agency retaliated against NPR to appease Trump. They had argued that NPR’s claims are factually and legally meritless.

On May 1, Trump issued an executive order that called for federal agencies to stop funding for NPR and PBS. The settlement doesn’t end a lawsuit in which NPR seeks to block any implementation or enforcement of Trump’s executive order. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss is scheduled to preside over another hearing for the case on Dec. 4.

The settlement says NPR and CPB agree that the executive order is unconstitutional and that CPB won’t enforce it unless a court orders it to do so.

NPR, meanwhile, agreed to drop its request for a court order blocking CPB from disbursing funds to PMI under a separate grant agreement.

Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO, said the settlement is “a victory for editorial independence and a step toward upholding the 1st Amendment rights of NPR and the public media system.”

Patricia Harrison, the corporation’s CEO, said CPB is pleased that the litigation is over “and that our investment in the future through PMI marks an exciting new era for public media.”

On Aug. 1, CPB announced it would take steps toward closing itself down after being defunded by Congress.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 20 (UPI) — President Donald Trump announced he will meet New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani in the Oval Office on Friday.

Trump made the announcement on his social media platform Truth Social on Wednesday.

“Communist Mayor of New York City, Zohran ‘Kwame’ Mamdani, has asked for a meeting. We have agreed that this meeting will take place at the Oval Office on Friday, November 21st,” Trump said in the brief statement.

Mamdani was elected mayor Nov. 4, besting former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, historically a Democrat who ran as an independent with Trump’s endorsement, after losing the Democratic nomination to Mamdani.

Trump has been a vocal critic of Mamdani, and warned ahead of the election that if Mamdani won he would throttle federal funding to the city, calling him a “Communist Lunatic” who is “going to have problems with Washington like no Mayor in the history of our once great city.”

Trump also threatened to arrest Mamdani if he interfered with his federal immigration crackdown in New York City.

During the campaign, Mamdani positioned himself as someone who would stand up to Trump. A self-described social democrat, Mamdani has warned Trump against threatening to impose punitive measures against the city.

In his victory speech, Mamdani addressed Trump directly: “Hear me, President Trump, when I say this: To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us.”

Mamdani spokesperson Dora Pekec confirmed in a statement that the meeting had been scheduled.

“As is customary for an incoming mayoral administration, the Mayor-elect plans to meet with the President in Washington to discuss public safety, economic security and the affordability agenda that over 1 million New Yorkers voted for just two weeks ago,” Pekec said.

In a Wednesday night interview with MS NOW, Mamdani said they did “reach out” to the White House to speak with Trump about fulfilling the campaign pledges he made to New Yorkers.

“I want to just speak plainly to the president about what it means to actually stand up for new Yorkers and the way in which New Yorkers are struggling to afford this city,” he said.

On Sunday, Trump told reporters that the White House was working on arranging a meeting with Mamdani.

“We’ll work something out,” Trump said. “We want to see everything work out well for New York.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday night signed into law legislation demanding that the Justice Department release all documents related to its investigation into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

With little fanfare, the president announced the action in a lengthy social media post that attacked Democrats who have been linked to the late financier, a line of attack that he has often deployed while ignoring his and other Republicans’ ties to the scandal.

“Perhaps the truth about these Democrats and their associations with Jeffrey Epstein, will soon be revealed, but I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!” Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.

Now the focus turns to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, whom the legislation compels to make available “all unclassified records, documents, communications and investigative materials” in the Department of Justice’s possession no later than 30 days after the legislation becoming law.

The action on the bill marks a dramatic shift for Trump, who worked for months to thwart release of the Epstein files — until Sunday, when he reversed course under pressure from his party and called on Republican lawmakers to back the measure. Within days, the Senate and House overwhelmingly voted for the bill and sent it to Trump’s desk.

Although Trump has now signed the bill into law, his resistance to releasing the files has led to skepticism among some lawmakers on Capitol Hill who question whether the Justice Department may try to conceal information.

“The real test will be, will the Department of Justice release the files or will it all remain tied up in investigations?” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said at a news conference Tuesday before the House and Senate passed the bill. Greene was among a small group of GOP defectors who joined Democrats in forcing the legislation to the floor over Trump’s objections.

The legislation prohibits the attorney general from withholding, delaying or redacting the publication of “any record, document, communication, or investigative material on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

Carve-outs in the bill could allow Trump and Bondi to withhold documents that include identifying information of victims or depictions of child sexual abuse materials.

The law also would allow them to conceal information that would “jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary.”

Trump directed the Justice Department last week to investigate Epstein’s links with major banks and several prominent Democrats, including former President Clinton.

Bondi abided, and appointed a top federal prosecutor to pursue the investigation with “urgency and integrity.” In July, the Justice Department determined after an extensive review that there was not enough evidence that “could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties” in the Epstein case.

At a news conference Wednesday, Bondi said the department had opened another case into Epstein after “new information” emerged.

Bondi did not say how the new investigation could affect the release of the files.

Asked if the Epstein documents would be released within 30 days, as the law states, Bondi said her department would “follow the law.”

“We will continue to follow the law with maximum transparency while protecting victims,” Bondi said.

United States President Donald Trump has announced that he has signed a bill ordering the full release of files related to the late sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump made the announcement on social media late on Wednesday.

“Perhaps the truth about these Democrats, and their associations with Jeffrey Epstein, will soon be revealed, because I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The legislation compels the US Justice Department to release all documents related to Epstein, who died in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges, within 30 days.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi had earlier told a news conference that the administration would “follow the law and encourage maximum transparency” in the case.

More to follow…