trump

Progressive candidates for governor in Wisconsin and U.S. Senate in Minnesota are making their final pushes ahead of Tuesday’s election, increasing the pressure on a Democratic establishment that has spent the year on its heels.

The primaries come a week after Abdul El-Sayed narrowly defeated Rep. Haley Stevens in Michigan’s divisive and costly U.S. Senate primary. El-Sayed’s victory has energized the left while stoking fears among Democratic Party leaders that the shift to the left, particularly in battleground states like Michigan and Wisconsin, will make it more difficult to win in November.

Wisconsin’s chaotic primary pits progressive against governor’s pick

In Wisconsin, democratic socialist Francesca Hong is trying to win a four-way Democratic primary for governor where her top opponent has been endorsed by popular Gov. Tony Evers, who isn’t seeking a third term.

Evers got behind Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley on July 18, the same day Crowley reentered the race after dropping out 10 days earlier. Crowley rejoined after the candidate he backed, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, ended her candidacy amid a campaign finance scandal.

Evers and Crowley were crisscrossing the state together in the last days before final ballots are cast Tuesday.

Evers and more establishment Democrats were hoping to finally coalesce around Crowley in the final days of the chaotic primary that saw two other candidates drop out, most notably former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes on July 29.

Barnes and Rodriguez, who were both seen as potential front-runners, remain on the ballot and absentee votes already cast for them can’t be undone.

Republicans are spending to influence the Democratic primary

Republicans are putting money behind Hong, thinking she will be the better matchup for Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany in November. The Republican Governors Association has spent nearly $3.6 million through its Right Direction Wisconsin PAC on ads contrasting Hong with President Donald Trump and playing up her liberal policies.

Crowley and other Democrats argue the ads are meant to bolster Hong’s standing in the primary because Republicans see her as the easier opponent.

Evers projected confidence at a rally that attracted hundreds of people in Hong’s hometown of Madison on Sunday night, saying Crowley was the best chance Democrats had to defeat Tiffany.

“We’re going to win this thing,” Evers said, telling the Crowley supporters that Tiffany would be “the worst governor in the history of Wisconsin.”

“If Tom Tiffany wins in November that will be like electing Donald Trump as governor of the state of Wisconsin,” he said.

Crowley urged Democrats to come together after the primary to beat Tiffany.

“Our ultimate goal is to make sure we don’t have a MAGA extremist occupying the governor’s office,” Crowley said.

Tiffany, one of the most conservative members of Congress, is endorsed by Trump.

The president called Hong a communist in remarks on Wednesday, where he mentioned a 2020 social media post by Hong calling for Thanksgiving to be canceled. Asked about the post this week, Hong reversed herself and said that Thanksgiving was her favorite holiday.

Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 and 2024, and Republicans have held majorities in both chambers of the Legislature since 2011. Holding onto the governor’s office is key to Wisconsin Democrats’ effort to gain full control of state government for the first time in 16 years.

In the race to replace Tiffany, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s son-in-law Michael Alfonso is in a five-person Republican primary. Alfonso, who is trying to represent Duffy’s old congressional district, has Trump’s endorsement.

Minnesota primary comes in wake of immigration enforcement surge

In neighboring Minnesota, voters are choosing between moderate U.S. Rep. Angie Craig and progressive Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan in a Democratic U.S. Senate primary that’s playing out in the aftermath of Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement surge in the state.

The race has been shaped by the killing of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, confrontations that were caught on camera and fueled a backlash to Trump’s immigration policies.

Both Craig and Flanagan spent the weekend traversing the Twin Cities metro area.

In a driveway in suburban Eagan on Sunday, Craig spoke to the angst among Democratic primary voters who feel that Washington isn’t working for them. Members of Congress need to stop trading stocks and becoming lobbyists when they leave office, she said, and the U.S. needs to restrict the flood of corporate campaign spending.

“But the only way we pass any of the progressive policies that all of us here support is by winning elections and taking damn majorities,” she said.

Unlike in Wisconsin, where the incumbent governor has endorsed a candidate in the race to succeed him, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has not gotten involved in the Senate primary. But his wife, Gwen Walz, has endorsed Craig and campaigned with her on Sunday.

Flanagan campaigned Saturday with U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, who helped her make the case that Washington needs a shake-up to root out the deep-pocketed forces propping up a broken status quo.

“It is big corporations, it’s special interests who are putting their thumb on the scale in our elections across the country,” Flanagan said. “And it’s not just Republicans. It’s Democrats, too.”

The race has been one of the most expensive Minnesota has seen, with millions of dollars backing both candidates, but disproportionately falling in Craig’s favor.

Whoever wins the primary will be the front-runner to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Tina Smith in November. Minnesota voters haven’t elected a Republican to a statewide office since 2006.

Mike Lindell, the founder of MyPillow, is a top Republican candidate in the governor’s race. He’s endorsed by Trump, and he was a prominent promoter of falsehoods about election fraud. U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar is in a six-person primary on the Democratic side.

Democratic struggles also on display in other states’ primaries Tuesday

Two veteran Democratic incumbents in Connecticut face challenges from the left.

Moderate Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont is running for a third term but faces progressive state Rep. Josh Elliott. The Democratic nominee will face Republican state Sen. Ryan Fazio in November.

Longtime Democratic U.S. Rep. John Larson, 78, is running for a 15th term and his age and health have been major issues in the four-person race.

Former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin narrowly won the party’s endorsement at its state convention in May. Other candidates are Hartford Board of Education member Ruth Fortune and state Rep. Jillian Gilchrest.

In Vermont, two Democrats are running in for a chance to take on Republican Gov. Phil Scott.

Former child advocacy organization CEO Aly Richards boasts endorsements from former Democratic Govs. Howard Dean and Madeleine Kunin. She faces economist Amanda Janoo.

Bauer and Cooper write for the Associated Press.

President Trump signaled he’s prepared to let economic pressure on Iran build rather than launch fresh military strikes to force a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, even as the Islamic Republic reiterated that the conditions still aren’t in place to allow free passage through the key waterway.

“We are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money,” Trump told Axios in an interview on Sunday, saying that a US naval blockade of the country was deepening its financial woes. “We are low-keying it.”

The president’s comments mark a shift from his repeated threats to escalate the bombing campaign against Iran and come amid lingering talks between Tehran and Oman to reopen Hormuz. Iran has said it’s nearing a deal, while laying out a list of demands for Washington to meet before shipping can resume — including the lifting of sanctions.

“As long as hostile actions continue, the conditions for ensuring the safety of this waterway are not in place,” Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei told reporters on Monday. “Its reopening is contingent on the US ceasing its illegal actions, lifting the siege and compensating for damages.”

Brent crude rose 1% on Monday to over $84 a barrel, extending a rally of more than 5% over the previous three sessions. The contract is still down since the start of the month.

The Islamic Republic’s economy has taken a hammering from the war, with much of its industrial capacity destroyed, crude exports severely curtailed by a US blockade and central bank data showing year-on-year inflation recently reaching 77%.

The currency, meanwhile, has fallen more than 10% from its prewar level, adding to the economic pressure on Iranians. A depreciation of the rial sparked violent nationwide protests that peaked early this year, leading to a crackdown by authorities that left thousands dead. There have been no signs of the anti-government demonstrations resuming.

Iran reemphasized its determination to continue wielding control over Hormuz in the face of US opposition by naming hard-line former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Mohsen Rezaee to its top security post over the weekend. An advocate for full Iranian control over the waterway, he served as military adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei and will now head the Supreme National Security Council, which coordinates decisions on the war and negotiations to end it.

Rezaee replaces Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, a fellow hard-liner who accepted a new position as political adviser to the supreme leader. The appointments were reported by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency late Sunday.

Over the weekend, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said a pact with Oman to establish a shipping route through the strait was “very close,” without providing details on the substance. He ruled out direct talks with the US for now, but said the two sides are exchanging messages through intermediaries.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas transited before the war, has become a key sticking point in the negotiations to bring a lasting end to the fighting that began when the US and Israel staged airstrikes on Iran on Feb. 28. Trump has demanded free passage for months.

Tehran’s demands for a full reopening include the US lifting its naval blockade on Iranian ports, the release of frozen assets and compensation for war damage. It has also called for a permanent end to attacks on groups it backs in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Gaza. It’s unclear how strictly Iran will stick to the list of conditions.

Some of the demands will be difficult for the US to meet alone. In Gaza, a proposal by US-backed mediators to disarm Iran-backed Hamas and push Israeli army out of the Palestinian enclave was rejected by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday.

In Yemen, clashes between the Iran-backed Houthi rebels and forces from the internationally recognized government supported by neighboring Saudi Arabia, have escalated. The Houthis claimed to have struck Saudi Aramco’s Jazan refinery on Sunday, while Saudi authorities reported a fire that was quickly extinguished, with no injuries.

The incident would mark at least the second blaze at the 400,000 barrel-a-day complex in a month. Satellite images in late July showed a tank fire following another claimed Houthi attack.

Sykes writes for Bloomberg.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says she is freezing her eggs as she decides her next political moves ahead of the 2028 presidential election campaign.

“This is a choice that I am making to feel more in control of my life,” Ocasio-Cortez, 36, said on Instagram about her decision regarding her reproductive options.

The New York congresswoman, a leading figure of Democrats’ progressive left flank, did not say explicitly whether she plans to have children. She said in her social media posts that she was taking a “political risk” in talking so personally about her potential family plans.

She said later on ABC “This Week” on Sunday that she has not ruled out running for president or for the U.S. Senate seat held by Democrats’ floor leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, in 2028. She explained that she wants to normalize conversations about what women face in their professional and personal lives, while also highlighting the policies of President Donald Trump’s administration.

“In this political environment, where this administration is denying reproductive care to women across the country, from abortion rights to the ability to carry out a healthy pregnancy, I think it’s important for us as leaders to have these conversations,” she said.

Trump’s administration opposes abortion rights, and the Republican president’s first-term appointees to the Supreme Court provided the margins in the 2022 ruling that struck down the Roe v. Wade decision that had established a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

Separately, however, Trump in 2025 signed an executive order designed to lower the costs of in vitro fertilization.

Ocasio-Cortez sponsored a Democratic bill in 2022, when the party controlled the House, to codify abortion rights into federal law after the Supreme Court’s abortion decision.

As part of her weekend announcement, Ocasio-Cortez noted that women — in politics and other fields — face different standards and scrutiny about their family status.

“Men run for office, or frankly they interview for jobs, and people don’t think in the back of their minds, ‘OK, this guy’s running for office, how old is he? Oh, well, is he going to want to start a family?’” she said.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Trump’s latest Gaza roadmap hinges on two deeply contested conditions: Hamas must disarm, while Israel must withdraw from the territory. Hamas has endorsed the roadmap in principle, but Israel has rejected the idea of withdrawing before Hamas’s weapons are fully dismantled.

The plan, announced by U.S. President Donald Trump on July 30, seeks to revive the 2025 ceasefire framework after months of negotiations. It proposes an immediate halt to military operations, the creation of a Palestinian technocratic administration, Israeli withdrawal in phases and the deployment of an international stabilization force.

At the centre of the dispute is the sequencing of disarmament and withdrawal. Israel insists that its forces will not leave Gaza until Hamas and other armed groups have surrendered their weapons. Hamas, meanwhile, says it is committed only to the original roadmap, which provides for negotiations on a timetable for disarmament rather than requiring immediate surrender.

Under the proposed framework, Israel would withdraw sector by sector as areas are verified to be free of usable weapons. A new Palestinian administrative body would oversee the storage and decommissioning of heavy weapons, military production facilities, weapons depots and tunnels.

The plan also envisages an International Stabilization Force deploying to areas vacated by Israeli troops. The force would help maintain security, train Palestinian police and facilitate humanitarian assistance. Morocco and Uganda have so far pledged troops, while Kosovo, Albania and Kazakhstan have offered military planners and medical personnel.

A fragile situation on the ground

Despite the October 2025 ceasefire, Israeli forces continue to control large parts of Gaza and have conducted strikes against what they describe as militant threats. Gaza health authorities say more than 1,200 Palestinians have been killed since the truce, most of them civilians.

Israel says its military operations are necessary to prevent attacks and target militants involved in the October 2023 Hamas assault that triggered the war.

The situation has left much of Gaza’s population concentrated in a small coastal area, with widespread destruction and severe humanitarian needs. Any international stabilization force would therefore face the enormous challenge of establishing security while supporting reconstruction.

Israel and Hamas remain divided

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Trump’s proposal is unacceptable in its current form and reiterated that Israel will not complete its withdrawal until Hamas is disarmed.

Hamas has accepted the roadmap but objected to subsequent statements suggesting that it must surrender even light weapons before Israeli forces withdraw. The group argues that the original agreement allows negotiations over how and when disarmament would take place.

Trump’s plan therefore faces a fundamental contradiction: Israel wants disarmament before withdrawal, while Hamas expects withdrawal to proceed alongside a phased disarmament process.

The proposed sector-by-sector approach could provide a possible compromise. Under this model, Israel would withdraw from each area once its weapons have been secured and rendered unusable.

But with neither side willing to concede on the central sequencing issue, the success of Trump’s plan will ultimately depend on whether Washington can bridge the gap between Hamas’s demand for Israeli withdrawal and Israel’s demand for complete disarmament.

Analysis

The central problem with Trump’s roadmap is not the absence of a ceasefire framework, but the lack of agreement over who moves first. Hamas appears willing to discuss disarmament as part of a broader political settlement, while Israel insists that its forces cannot withdraw until Hamas is fully disarmed. That sequencing creates a fundamental deadlock: Hamas has little incentive to surrender its principal source of leverage before securing Israeli withdrawal, while Israel is unwilling to withdraw while Hamas retains military capabilities.

The proposed sector-by-sector approach could offer a potential compromise. If weapons are progressively removed from designated areas and Israeli forces withdraw in parallel, both sides would have a mechanism to demonstrate compliance without requiring either to make a complete concession at the outset. However, this would require an effective international monitoring mechanism and credible guarantees, neither of which has yet been fully established.

The International Stabilization Force could therefore become the most important element of the roadmap. Its credibility will depend not only on how many countries contribute troops, but also on whether those forces can operate independently, secure areas after Israeli withdrawal and help establish a functioning Palestinian security structure.

More broadly, the plan exposes the limits of treating disarmament as a purely military issue. Hamas’s weapons are tied to the wider political question of Gaza’s future governance and Palestinian statehood. Without a credible political pathway, disarmament could be viewed by Hamas as surrender rather than part of a negotiated settlement.

Trump’s proposal therefore represents a possible framework for ending the conflict, but not yet a guaranteed path to peace. Its success will depend on resolving the sequencing dispute, establishing credible security guarantees and answering the larger question of who ultimately governs Gaza. The real test is whether Washington can turn competing Israeli and Hamas demands into a phased bargain that neither side sees as capitulation.

With information from Reuters.

The former Trump lawyer, who worked on the presidential immunity case and oversaw approval of the president’s disputed White House ballroom project, will replace David Warrington on September 1.

United States President Donald Trump has named White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf as his next White House counsel, elevating a longtime legal ally to one of the administration’s most important legal positions months before November’s midterm elections.

The former Trump lawyer, who worked on the presidential immunity case and later oversaw approval of the president’s disputed White House ballroom project, will replace David Warrington on September 1, with Warrington leaving the administration for the private sector. Scharf will also hold the title of assistant to the president, moving from a role overseeing the administrative work of the Oval Office to serving as the White House’s top lawyer.

Trump praised Scharf on Truth Social as “Tough, Strong, and Smart” and pointed to his background as a federal prosecutor and his work representing Trump in several legal cases.

From Trump’s legal team to the White House

Scharf joined Trump’s legal team in 2023 and worked on the federal election interference case brought by former Special Counsel Jack Smith. He was part of the team when the case reached the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in 2024 that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

Scharf’s ties to Trump stretch further back. During the president’s first term, Scharf worked on the confirmation of federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, according to The Associated Press news agency.

After Trump returned to office in January 2025, Scharf became White House staff secretary, managing documents reaching the president and regularly appearing alongside him during executive-order signings. The role has placed Scharf close to the process through which many of Trump’s major policy decisions have been implemented.

Scharf’s role in the ballroom controversy

Scharf has also been closely involved in one of the Trump administration’s most controversial projects.

Trump appointed Scharf chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission in July 2025. The commission later approved Trump’s $400m White House ballroom, planned on the site of the demolished East Wing.

The project has become part of a wider legal argument over the limits of presidential authority. The AFP news agency reported on Saturday that a federal appeals court upheld an order stopping aboveground construction, ruling that such a major alteration to the White House requires explicit congressional approval. Trump said he would take the case to the Supreme Court.

Scharf had previously maintained that the planning commission had authority over construction but not the demolition that preceded it.

A sensitive moment for the White House

The White House counsel advises the presidency on legal and constitutional issues, reviews legislation and executive actions, and helps coordinate the administration’s response to lawsuits and congressional investigations.

Scharf takes over at a particularly sensitive time. Democrats have pledged to investigate Trump and his administration if they gain control of Congress in November’s midterm elections, according to AP.

His appointment also continues a pattern of Trump elevating lawyers who previously represented him. Todd Blanche, who defended Trump in his criminal cases, was confirmed as attorney general on Saturday. D John Sauer, who argued Trump’s presidential immunity case before the Supreme Court, was appointed solicitor general, while former Trump lawyer Emil Bove was initially given a senior Justice Department post before being confirmed to a federal appeals court.

Aug. 9 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Sunday announced that Staff Secretary Will Scharf will be his new White House counsel, promoting another former personal lawyer within his administration.

Scharf, who was on Trump’s legal team in the presidential immunity case before the Supreme Court, will assume his new position Sept. 1, Trump said in a social media statement, replacing David Warrington, himself a former personal lawyer for Trump, who is returning to private practice.

“Will has done an amazing job in his current role as White House Staff secretary and has also served as Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission. I know him well!” Trump said.

“Will is tough, strong and smart! He also loves our Country, and respects the Law. Will Scharf will do a great job as White House Counsel!”

As staff secretary, Scharf oversees the everyday paperwork, presidential actions, speeches, correspondence and press releases of the president, and is frequently at Trump’s side during signing ceremonies where he is seen handing him executive orders.

As the new White House counsel, Scharf will be in charge of advising Trump and White House staff on legal issues, including the interpretation of laws and their intersection with policies.

Scharf has also been serving as chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, which approved Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom. On Friday, a federal appeals court ruled the ballroom unlawful and ordered its construction to stop, though the ruling was stayed for 14 days to give the White House time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The announcement also comes a day after the U.S. Senate confirmed Todd Blanche, another former personal lawyer for Trump, as attorney general, replacing Pam Bondi, whom Trump fired in April.

At least seven lawyers who represented Trump personally or served on his legal teams now hold positions in his administration, including Blanche, Warrington, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon and Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

Scharf was a member of the legal team that successfully argued before the Supreme Court that presidents enjoy broad immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office as part of the federal election interference case brought against Trump by the Justice Department under the Biden administraiton.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) says F-16 fighter jets intercepted two civilian aircraft that entered restricted airspace over Bedminster, New Jersey, where US President Donald Trump was watching a tournament at his golf course.

World number one Judd Trump lost to Thailand’s Noppon Saengkham, while Shaun Murphy set a new scoring record and Ronnie O’Sullivan made a winning start to his campaign on day two of the China Open.

Trump could lose his world number one ranking before the end of the month after a 6-3 loss to Saengkham, ranked 45th in the world.

In round two, the Thai player will face seven-time world champion O’Sullivan, who made a century break and four further breaks over 60 as he recovered from losing the opening two frames to beat Wales’ Jackson Page 6-2.

The China Open is the first main ranking tournament of the 2026-27 season and former world champion Murphy made some snooker history in his 6-0 victory over fellow Englishman Matthew Selt.

Murphy, who lost 18-17 in the World Championship final to China’s Wu Yize in May, made breaks of 18, 61, 132, 103, 139, 113 and 41 in frame six, before playing safe for a record total of 607 unanswered points before Selt potted a ball.

His tally surpassed the previous record of 556, set by O’Sullivan during a 6-0 win over Ricky Walden at the 2014 Masters.

Murphy, who turns 44 on Monday, told the World Snooker Tour (WST) website: “I can’t believe it, I’m over the moon.

“I knew I was close – at the interval I didn’t want to go looking on any websites to check what the record was. If you find yourself in the bubble and in the flow, you just want to stay in it.

“It was a delight to play for a great crowd out there and put on a good show. I haven’t set that many records throughout my career and I am sure someone will go out and beat this one at some stage. But to be part of snooker history in this way is a great thrill.”

As well as setting a new record for most points without reply, Murphy also equalled the record for the most consecutive centuries with four, something he has now done twice. Northern Ireland’s Mark Allen and Australia’s Neil Robertson are the others to have achieved that feat.

Murphy’s incredible day could have got better in frame five as he was on course for a maximum 147, only for the run to end at 113 as he missed the 15th black.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is once again under attack from the United States. The reason behind Washington’s efforts to dismantle the institution is simple: an insistence that the US enjoys wholesale impunity.

In numerous contexts, there are credible allegations of US citizens being involved in international crimes. If the US weren’t exposed to accountability for its atrocities, it wouldn’t be seeking to destroy the court.

Now it’s the time for the ICC’s backers to stand up.

US aggression towards the ICC is nothing new. The US has been seeking to subvert the work of the court since before it was even a fixture of the global arena. Since the presidency of George W Bush, Republicans in particular have been obsessed with the court and its operations. From former national security adviser John Bolton to former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Republican officials have been fixated on the ICC even though it has never actually issued a warrant for any American citizen.

Ironically, the efforts of US officials to condemn the ICC have bestowed prestige and legitimacy upon the institution. To those across the globe who believe that the ICC is feckless in the face of US imperial ambitions, tantrums from successive Republican administrations are a powerful antidote. In a nutshell, the greater Washington’s hysteria over the ICC, the more powerful and persuasive the court appears to those who believe the US is not above the law.

The disdain from political quarters and any commitment to undermine the institution is a feature, not a bug, of international relations – and it always has been. Yet this time feels different. The US sanctions against the ICC’s staff and threats to sanction the court as a whole as well as to dismantle it “brick by brick”, per Rubio, smack of escalation and pose an existential threat to the ICC.

The only thing that can save the court is its members. If they fail to do so, it will not be President Donald Trump who kills the ICC, but their indifference.

The smattering of primarily European and South American expressions of support for the ICC is good. But it is not enough. There are concrete actions that states can take to not only defend the court but also to strengthen it.

First, members of the ICC should double down on cooperating with the court. They should reiterate that they support every situation currently under investigation and they will offer tangible cooperation in terms of evidence and any enforcement of arrest warrants issued by the institution. If they have already done so, they should do it again.

Second, the court’s backers should encourage more states to join the ICC. This is particularly important given the recent withdrawals of Venezuela and Chad from the court – both of which left after being asked to do so by Washington. If the Trump administration is seeking to damage the court by diminishing its membership, states supportive of the institution should respond in kind with a campaign to rally other states to join.

Many states have considered joining the ICC but have not committed to do so. Now is the time to convince them. Lebanon, for example, has toyed with becoming an ICC member state, which would give the court jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed by Israeli officials and Hezbollah commanders.

As it stands, Beirut has decided not to join the court, but states could be clear that they support it doing so. They could, for example, articulate how joining the ICC could offer Lebanon yet another multilateral venue to withstand pressure from external parties like the US and demonstrate to Lebanese civilians that the rule of law matters. More generally, ICC member states could do more to link bilateral and multilateral trade and economic negotiations with efforts to encourage states to join the court.

Third, states should offer additional financial backing to the ICC. Some say the court’s budget is too big for what it has accomplished. For 2026, it was about $210m – almost a fifth of the daily cost the US is paying to carry out the war in Iran. This is for a court that is seeking to hold perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide accountable in Ukraine, Palestine and Darfur.

Money speaks louder than words. Offering additional and flexible funding to the ICC would be a way to say: This is our court, and we will do whatever is necessary to ensure its operations have the resources they need.

Fourth, states must properly protect ICC staff sanctioned by the US. In August last year, numerous judges at the court were targeted with sanctions for doing nothing more than their part in impartially applying the law to hold perpetrators of atrocities accountable. As a result, they can’t use banks, book hotels or pay for a meal with their credit cards.

The European Union and Canada each have laws on their books that could block the impact of US sanctions on judges. Yet inexplicably, the EU has not invoked its Blocking Statute, and Canada has refused to invoke the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, leaving their citizens working at the ICC to twist in the wind.

Additionally and inexplicably, neither the EU nor Canada has backed the legal suit by some of the judges to challenge the sanctions in US courts.

Trying to get the US under Trump to stop attacking the ICC is like trying to nail pudding to the wall: It’s not going to happen. But that does not justify the dithering of the court’s purported supporters.

The US assault against the court is calculated to silence ICC supporters and isolate them from the institution. Why? Because the US knows its siege on the court cannot alone ruin the institution. To succeed, it needs others to abandon the ICC.

Instead, states should take the opportunity offered by these unprecedented times to back the ICC in unprecedented ways. However imperfect it is, the court is the only permanent institution capable of holding the world’s worst perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide to account.

For its flaws, the court should be reformed, not destroyed to allow those very perpetrators off the hook. Maintaining support for the ICC in the face of Trump’s attacks is about more than protecting the court – it’s about drawing a line and pronouncing that no one, no matter how powerful, is above the law.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed Todd Blanche as attorney general in a vote early Saturday, cementing the command of President Trump’s former personal lawyer at a Department of Justice that Trump has sought to bend to his will.

The Republican-led Senate voted 50 to 49 to make Blanche the second confirmed attorney general since Trump returned to the White House last year with a stated desire to use the law enforcement agency to investigate his political enemies. While Blanche has already been leading the department in an acting capacity, his confirmation could free him to pursue the administration’s agenda even more aggressively.

Blanche said on social media that he was “deeply honored by the trust and confidence President Trump has placed in me,” adding that he was “grateful” to senators for working late to confirm him.

The vote followed a tumultuous confirmation fight that exposed deep concerns — from some Republicans as well as Democrats — about installing Trump’s close ally atop a Justice Department that historically prided itself on its independence from the White House.

In the end, Blanche was confirmed by the narrowest of margins, opposed by two Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — and by every Democrat.

The path to confirmation for Blanche was unusually rocky, due in large part to Republican concerns about a controversial settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS.

Under pressure, Blanche publicly promised in writing that the department would abandon Trump’s proposed $1.8-billion compensation fund for the president’s allies, including those who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and rein in another piece of the settlement designed to shield Trump and his family from IRS tax audits.

His appeals were enough to win over Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, the decisive vote who threw his support behind Blanche on Friday morning. Cassidy said no other nominee may be able to run the department better under Trump and suggested Blanche’s role as Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer can make him more effective at resisting the Republican president’s demands.

“This is not a referendum on President Trump. It is a decision regarding Mr. Blanche in very specific circumstances,” said Cassidy, who lost his primary this year to a Trump-backed challenger.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said confirming Blanche would be a “serious mistake.” He begged his colleagues not to be on the “wrong side” of history.

“If there is ever a moment in history when we need an attorney general above reproach, who is clearly dedicated to ending corruption, even at the highest level of our government, it’s right now,” Durbin said.

Loyalty to Trump

The vote capped off a bruising confirmation fight, with Blanche’s loyalty to Trump at the center of the stalemate.

Blanche was elevated to the top Justice Department post in an acting capacity after Trump fired Pam Bondi in April. Blanche moved swiftly to advance the president’s interests, accelerating investigations into Trump’s perceived foes and announcing the settlement that created the $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization fund” to compensate Trump allies who feel mistreated by the criminal justice system and provided the president and his family members with immunity from tax audits.

The controversial settlement threatened to torpedo Blanche’s nomination until he formally rescinded the fund in writing under pressure from Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The deal reached between the senators and the department unlocked a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which advanced Blanche’s nomination earlier this week.

Even after the deal, Blanche faced opposition from some Republican senators concerned with the settlement fund and the tax audit immunity.

Murkowski announced early Friday that she would join Collins in opposing Blanche’s nomination, saying the country needs an attorney general “who will check the worst impulses of this administration.”

Former prosecutor rises as Trump’s defender

A former federal prosecutor in New York, Blanche rose to public prominence as a lead attorney on Trump’s defense team, including during Trump’s hush money trial in New York in which he was found guilty of felony fraud.

He also defended Trump against criminal charges in the two federal cases brought by the Biden administration’s Department of Justice, related to Trump’s attempts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election and his hoarding of classified documents at his home in Florida. Both cases were dropped after Trump won reelection in 2024, and despite the seriousness of the charges, Blanche said that experience provided him a firsthand look at what he claims was the weaponization of the criminal justice system against Trump.

Blanche entered the Justice Department last year as deputy attorney general under Bondi, overseeing the agency’s day-to-day operations and serving as the public face for high-profile and controversial matters, like the release of millions of investigative files related to disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Democrats have accused Blanche of prioritizing his loyalty to Trump above all else through investigations against perceived Trump foes such as former FBI Director James Comey and a radical reshaping of the department. Under Bondi and Blanche’s leadership, the department has lost thousands of employees through firings, resignations or voluntary departures.

Blanche’s supporters say his experience as a federal prosecutor and the trust he earned from Trump in the courtroom make him better equipped than Bondi to explain to the White House the legal constraints of its demands. Republicans have also touted his efforts to bring down violent crime, tackle illegal immigration and combat violent cartels and drug trafficking.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, gave a full-throated endorsement of Blanche ahead of voting, saying he’s led the Justice Department with distinction. “Mr. Blanche is the right choice,” said Grassley (R-Iowa).

It is unclear whether Blanche will fare any better in delivering on Trump’s desire for retribution than Bondi, whom Trump fired amid resistance from judges, grand jurors and the department’s own workforce as prosecutors sought to establish criminal conduct by one Trump foe after another.

Shortly after Blanche took the top post, the Justice Department moved to indict Comey on charges of threatening the 47th president by posting a social media photograph of seashells in the numerical arrangement of “86 47.” Comey’s lawyers are pressing to have the case dismissed, accusing the department of misleading judges, submitting documents containing false statements and withholding key facts.

Blanche has also appointed Joseph DiGenova, a former Justice Department prosecutor from the Reagan administration, to oversee a Florida-based investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired over the last decade to undermine Trump. But it remains uncertain whether that inquiry will result in any criminal charges.

Durkin Richer and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writers Bill Barrow in Atlanta and Kevin Freking and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.

During the Los Angeles mayoral primary, Spencer Pratt put out a video saying he was living in a trailer on the burned-out lot where his Pacific Palisades home once stood — a claim that was soon debunked by TMZ, which reported that he was actually staying at the Hotel Bel-Air.

While Pratt’s mayoral bid has come to a close, his campaign’s final spending on luxury hotels — including the Hotel Bel-Air — is now coming to light.

Pratt spent just under $71,000 on hotels for himself, his campaign staff and his fundraising operation, mostly at the Hotel Bel-Air and the Four Seasons Hotel in New York, according to recently released campaign finance filings in the mayoral race.

The former reality TV star has a history of lavish spending on hotels, according to his memoir, “The Guy You Loved to Hate,” where he recounts staying at the Four Seasons in Costa Rica for a month in 2010. He said the hotel stay was “bleeding him dry.”

The tens of thousands of dollars Pratt’s campaign spent on hotels represent just a fraction of the more than $3 million Pratt’s campaign spent overall, including hundreds of thousands to campaign strategy firms and more than $200,000 to the company Black Llama Inc. for billboards. Pratt had AI-designed billboards placed across the city.

Pratt also spent more than $180,000 on private security firm Delta Special Operations Corp., almost entirely in the final month before the June 3 primary.

Delta Special Operations charges $650 per day to provide a single security officer in Los Angeles, but also offers a higher level of “executive protection.” Pratt has said he faced threats during his candidacy.

Pratt placed third in the primary, behind Councilmember Nithya Raman and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who will square off in the Nov. 3 general election. Raman’s campaign reported spending about $1,000 on security, while Bass has security provided by the city.

Building out her support

Raman secured what could be one of her most significant endorsements of the entire election cycle this week, pulling in the support of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters.

The endorsement from the carpenters union marks a sharp turn for the labor group, which backed Bass in 2022. The union committed more than $2 million to independent expenditure groups supporting Bass’ candidacy in 2022, paying for television ads that ran in advance of the general election.

During the primary, Raman and independent group supporting her focused on ads on social media and streaming platforms, which are cheaper than traditional television ads.

“We will be matching the same energy and we’ll have same type of commitment as when we endorsed Bass. We don’t plan on holding back,” said Pete Rodriguez, the second general vice president of the international union.

Rodriguez said the union would spend significantly to support Raman, though he did not give a figure.

Bass has dominated labor endorsements throughout the campaign. She has secured more than two dozen endorsements from influential labor unions including the Police Protective League, which represents rank and file police officers in the LAPD, and SEIU 721, which represents public sector workers at the airport and in street services, among other departments. She also has the backing of the powerful Los Angeles Federation of Labor, a coalition of unions (Bass calls its leader, Yvonne Wheeler, “The Beyoncé of Labor”).

“Workers are overwhelmingly behind Karen Bass … because she delivers real results,” said the mayor’s campaign spokesperson, Alex Stack. “Results like building more affordable housing immediately to drive down rents, mortgages, and the cost of housing.”

Rodriguez said one major issue that caused the carpenters union to break with Bass was the mayor’s failure to include higher labor standards in the codified version of Executive Directive 1, which fast-tracked some affordable housing applications.

That law was passed by the council and Raman voted in favor of the law that codified the mayor’s directive.

Raman told The Times in a statement that she stood by her vote, but that she appreciated the union’s ability to work with legislators to enact legislation that “combines density with higher labor standards.”

The DSA endorsement …

Raman could get another key and much-discussed endorsement later this month.

The Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America is once again considering endorsing her for mayor. The endorsement would bring doorknockers for Raman and could bring more national attention to the race.

An internal petition shared with The Times is circulating in the group and needs just 50 signatures by Aug. 8 in order for the consideration of Raman to go to a vote. Raman would then need 60% of the vote at an Aug. 22 chapter meeting in order to win the endorsement.

“Nithya Raman is running an insurgent left-wing campaign for the mayor’s office against Karen Bass and L.A.’s unpopular status quo Democratic establishment,” the petition reads. “Will an insurgent Left seize control of our city government to build a Los Angeles for its working class? Or will the establishment fend off this insurgency and deepen its power?”

After jumping into the race on the last possible day in February, Raman was not endorsed by the left-wing organization in the primary. The group instead “recommended” her — a status that means the DSA wouldn’t actively campaign on her behalf but urged voters to cast their ballots for Raman.

Raman was endorsed by the group in both her council campaigns, but her late entry came after DSA had made its endorsements.

The group considered reopening its endorsement process for either Raman or Rae Huang — who like Raman is a member of the DSA — but ultimately decided to focus on other down ballot races in the primary.

DSA-LA declined to say whether the petition had gained the requisite number of signatures for a vote.

State of play

— LINEAGE LEGISLATION: Los Angeles city and county officials unveiled a slate of measures aimed at speeding recovery, increasing corporate accountability and expanding financial assistance for residents and businesses affected by the June fire at the Lineage cold food storage facility.

— PRICED OUT: Councilmember Curren Price’s motion to get his perjury and embezzlement case dropped was denied Friday by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge. Price’s lawyers maintain that he did not knowingly vote on city contracts for real estate developers that contracted with his wife. The judge argued there was “ample evidence, albeit circumstantial, that this was a scheme and not just happenstance.” The outgoing council member’s next court date is set for October.

— E-BIKES UNDER FIRE: The council’s Rules Committee passed a motion Tuesday that asks the city’s Department of Transportation to come up with ways to regulate e-bikes, including who can ride them and how. The measure next goes to the ways to regulate e-bikesPublic Safety Committee, then the full City Council.

— A NEW ERA: For the first time since 1963, Council District 9 in South Los Angeles will soon have a non-Black representative in the City Council. Estuardo Mazariegos and Jose Ugarte, who are facing each other in the Nov. 3 election to represent parts of downtown and South Los Angeles, are both immigrants from Latin America who arrived undocumented as children.

— OFF THE RAILS: Homelessness on Metro’s rail and bus system has dropped by 57% since 2024, the agency said this week.

— A ROSE AND A THORN: The Rose Bowl Aquatics Center will close April 1, and not be returned to its regular users until the fall of 2028, after the conclusion of the Olympic Games. The announcement came after The Times reported on the impending shutdown.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program went to the intersection of Alameda Street and E. 223rd Street in City Councilmember Tim McOsker’s district where it brought 22 people indoors.
• On the docket next week: The City Council will vote on whether to execute the Enhanced City Resources Master Agreement for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

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.

Aug. 7 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday urged U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to reinstall charges against several people accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Pirro, a long-time Trump ally, has been in hot water with the president since admitting last week that damage to the pool was due to a “botched installation and not vandalism.”

On Friday, Trump said Pirro should “re-visit her hastily made decision.”

“Now that people are able to see it up close, they are reporting pure VANDALISM at The Reflecting Pool,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

A D.C. judge on Thursday dismissed the case against the most prominent of the defendants, Olympian David Hearn, 67, who faced 10 years in prison on a felony charge.

Defense attorneys have requested the dismissal of misdemeanor charges against three other people accused of vandalism.

Hearn and the other defendants were indicted on accusations that they purposefully ripped up pieces of the recently-installed blue sealant from the pool’s bottom.

But in court filings, Pirro’s office said she had been misled by the Interior Department into believing they had caused “nearly all of the damage” to the pool.

“I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on the Reflecting Pool,” Trump posted on Truth Social the following day. “I don’t know what she was thinking?”

Renovating the reflecting pool cost the government nearly $15 million in a no-bid contract.

In court filings, Pirro said the “botched” renovation “was the result of a flawed installation by the contractor, Atlantic Industrial Coatings, and the rush to complete the project prior to events associated with the America 250 celebration.”

“Davey Hearn is innocent and today’s dismissal reflects that simple fact,” the Olympian’s lawyers said in a statement on Thursday.

“But this case never should’ve been brought in the first place,” they added. “The Department of Justice’s decision to seek an indictment was a miscarriage of justice.”

The National Enquirer’s parent company paid a Manhattan doorman $30,000 for a story it never published alleging that Donald Trump secretly fathered a child, according to news reports.

Former doorman Dino Sajudin told the story to the National Enquirer in late 2015, when Trump was the top contender for the Republican presidential nomination, the Associated Press and the New Yorker reported early Thursday.

Sajudin, who worked at Trump World Tower near the United Nations headquarters, told the National Enquirer that he’d heard from co-workers that Trump had “knocked up” one of his employees, who gave birth to a girl, according to documents posted on the website of Radar Online, a sister publication of the National Enquirer.

The supermarket tabloid requested a polygraph exam, and the examiner concluded that Sajudin was telling the truth about hearing the story, the documents say.

Four unnamed National Enquirer employees told AP that top editors, despite the polygraph results, ordered them to stop reporting the story.

Sajudin signed a contract with the tabloid’s parent company, American Media Inc., led by President Trump’s close friend David Pecker. Sajudin, who received the $30,000 in return for giving American Media exclusive rights to the story, agreed to pay a $1-million penalty if he failed to keep quiet, according to the AP and the New Yorker.

“I can confirm that while working at Trump World Tower, I was instructed not to criticize President Trump’s former housekeeper due to a prior relationship she had with President Trump which produced a child,” Sajudin told CNN on Thursday.

It is the second known case of American Media spending money in a way that protected Trump from a potentially harmful story during the 2016 presidential race — a practice known in the tabloid gossip world as “catch and kill.”

Days after Trump won his party’s presidential nomination, American Media paid former Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 for exclusive rights to her story of a nine-month affair with Trump, but never published it.

McDougal is suing to void the deal, alleging that her attorney was secretly colluding with Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

Trump lawyer Michael Cohen is prized for his loyalty — and willingness to attack the president’s rivals »

The FBI raided Cohen’s office, home and hotel room this week under search warrants reportedly seeking records on McDougal’s nondisclosure deal with American Media.

The search warrant also reportedly sought records on a separate confidentiality agreement that Cohen reached in October 2016 with porn star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. He set up a shell company that paid Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about Trump’s alleged 2006 sexual encounter with her.

It’s unclear what crimes federal authorities suspect were committed. But McDougal’s lawsuit charges that American Media’s $150,000 payment to her was an illegal secret donation that federal election law required the Trump campaign to publicly disclose.

Common Cause, a nonpartisan ethics group, has filed complaints with the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission alleging that the payments to McDougal and Daniels were illegal campaign contributions.

On Thursday, Common Cause submitted new complaints alleging the payment to Sajudin, too, was an unlawful attempt to influence the 2016 election by protecting Trump’s candidacy from bad publicity.

“Secret payments to hide affairs may have been commonplace in the president’s previous life as a tabloid figure, but when he became a candidate for the presidency, any new payments to safeguard his candidacy became violations of federal law,” said Paul S. Ryan, the vice president for policy and litigation at Common Cause.

Cohen acknowledged that he discussed Sajudin’s story with the National Enquirer when it was reporting on the allegations, but denied knowing in advance that the tabloid paid the former doorman $30,000, the AP reported.

Neither the AP nor the New Yorker named the woman who was alleged to have had Trump’s child about 30 years ago.

The documents posted by Radar Online indicate that the National Enquirer found in late 2015 that the woman was then living in Queens, and her daughter in Northern California.

Radar Online reported that despite the polygraph results, National Enquirer editors concluded after four weeks of investigating, that Sajudin’s story was false.

“When we realized we would be unable to publish, and other media outlets approached the source about his tale, we released Sajudin from the exclusivity clause that had accompanied his $30,000 payment, freeing him to tell his story to whomever he wanted,” Dylan Howard, the chief content officer at American Media, told Radar Online.

American Media, or AMI, led by longtime Trump friend Pecker, released a statement denying that Cohen or Trump had anything to do with its decision “not to pursue a story about a ‘love child’ that it determined was not credible.”

“The suggestion that David Pecker has ever used company funds to ‘shut down’ this or any investigation is not true,” the statement said. “In addition, AMI and Mr. Pecker emphatically deny any suggestion that there might have been be any ‘partnership’ created which might influence any business ties in regard to AMI. These claims are reckless, unsubstantiated, and false.”

The statement also quoted Howard defending the decision to not publish a story.

“Paying for information has long been a practice of The National Enquirer and to suggest that it has only paid for, and not run, stories about any particular person is absurd,” he said.

The former National Enquirer employees told the AP that the tabloid failed to pursue its standard reporting practices for proving paternity, such as exhaustive stakeouts.

In 2007, when the National Enquirer disclosed that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had fathered a child with a mistress, it did so in part by rummaging through a dumpster for material to use in a DNA test. Months later, Edwards admitted the story was true.

Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina, was tried on federal charges of using campaign money to hide the pregnant mistress from voters during the campaign. The case ended in an acquittal on one charge and a mistrial on five others.

michael.finnegan@latimes.com

Twitter: @finneganLAT

UPDATES:

6 p.m.: This article was updated with a statement from American Media Inc.

1:30 p.m.: This article was updated with Sajudin’s statement to CNN and background on John Edwards.

12:20 p.m.: This article was updated with new Common Cause complaint.

This article was originally published at 10:55 a.m.

The US president has clashed with Federal Reserve members over his bid to rapidly slash interest rates despite inflation.

The White House has revived its efforts to remove Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a governor at the Federal Reserve, the United States’ central bank.

On Friday, media reports emerged that the administration of President Donald Trump had sent Cook a letter threatening her position at the Federal Reserve.

“You are hereby provided notice that the President is considering removing you from your position,” the letter read.

Signed by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, the letter gave Cook a deadline of three weeks to respond to unproven allegations that she had committed mortgage fraud.

It also warned that the crime she was accused of was punishable by up to 30 years in prison. Her conduct, the letter added, constituted negligence that calls into question her trustworthiness as a Federal Reserve governor.

Trump first unveiled the claims against Cook in August 2025, in a push to fire her from her role.

No other president since the central bank’s founding in 1913 has sought to oust a Federal Reserve governor.

The central bank has historically been insulated from political pressure, and under the law, Federal Reserve governors can only be removed by the president “for cause”. A full term runs 14 years.

Such laws aim is to shield the central bank from making economic decisions based on political pressures.

But Trump has undertaken an aggressive campaign to slash interest rates, which are elevated as a means of combatting inflation.

He has also sought to rid the federal government of appointees aligned with his Democratic predecessors. Cook was nominated in 2022 under President Democrat Joe Biden, Trump’s two-time election rival.

Trump’s claims against Cook centre on the idea that she listed two homes as her primary residence: one in Georgia and the other in Michigan. That could have made her eligible for favourable mortgage rates.

But there is no conclusive evidence so far that Cook sought to deceive lenders, making a successful fraud prosecution unlikely.

In June, a US Supreme Court ruling also blocked Trump’s attempt to fire her, though it did clear the way for the president to fire the heads of other independent agencies.

The letter sent to Cook this week was dated August 5. That same day, Cook spoke at an economic luncheon in Alaska, saying inflation is “too high” and indicating that she is “prepared to act” by raising interest rates, a position shared by others at the Federal Reserve.

Trump has long sparred with the Federal Reserve over interest rates, repeatedly threatening to fire former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for refusing to bow to his demands.

Kevin Warsh, a Trump appointee, took over Powell’s position as chair in May. He has yet to deliver Trump’s wished-for rate cuts, amid stubborn inflation.

“We should have the lowest interest rate in the world,” Trump said after last week’s decision by the Federal Reserve to hold interest rates steady for the fifth consecutive time.

In a statement, Cook’s legal team said “there is no valid cause” for removing her from her position.

“As we did before, we will challenge this latest pretext and preserve her position and the historic role of the Fed,” lawyer Abbe D Lowell said.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, said Friday he will vote to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, likely delivering the decisive vote needed to push President Trump’s embattled nominee to oversee the Justice Department.

Cassidy, who had expressed reservations about Blanche’s nomination, had been the last undecided Senate Republican, and his support all but locks in the 50 votes Blanche needs to be confirmed after two other GOP moderates — Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — said they would vote no. All Senate Democrats are expected to oppose the nomination.

Speaking from the Senate floor, Cassidy acknowledged Blanche was an imperfect pick, but that he had come to the conclusion that he would be better positioned to lead the Justice Department than another candidate, in part because he “knows the law.”

“Mr. Blanche is not perfect and he will tell you this,” Cassidy said. “But the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general, who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”

Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid to a Trump-backed challenger, said he is aware his decision will come with criticism, but said: “What’s new?” He then appeared to become emotional, as he assured his constituents that he worked “hard to understand the issue and make the right decision.”

The Louisiana lawmaker’s decision puts Blanche’s turbulent nomination process back on course. His path to confirmation was complicated over his involvement in a settlement agreement that included the creation of a nearly $1.8-billion so-called anti-weaponization fund that would have been used to pay Trump allies, including Jan. 6 rioters.

In an order issued Sunday night, Blanche declared the settlement dead. It was seen as an effort to appease GOP senators who threatened to block his confirmation. Despite the promise to terminate the settlement, Murkowski said she was worried the Trump administration could proceed with the proposed compensation fund, noting that the Senate only had leverage over the fund because Blanche’s nomination is pending.

“Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds,” she said.

The Justice Department also clarified in writing that a tax audit immunity agreement, which was part of the settlement agreement Blanche negotiated, would apply only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings.

It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement. The fund and the immunity were the result of the settlement reached after Trump, two of his sons and their businesses sued the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of tax documents.

Lawmakers and legal experts have questioned the lawfulness of the tax protections for Trump. A federal judge who oversaw the IRS case has described Trump’s lawsuit as an improper exercise in self-dealing, and on Thursday the union representing IRS workers asked another judge to block the immunity agreement.

Trump has continued to support the idea of the fund and told reporters this week that he would still like to compensate Jan. 6 rioters, who he said have been “hurt so badly.”

Asked about Trump’s continued support for the fund on Tuesday, the day the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Blanche’s nomination, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said “there’s nothing we could do” to change Trump’s mind on it.

“Well, there’s nothing we could do to rein in the president when he said he likes the fund and he wishes it still exists. But the fact of the matter is it’s dead, and that’s all we could do under these circumstances,” Cornyn said.

When Cassidy announced his decision, Blanche was in Colombia, leading a U.S. presidential delegation to the inauguration of the country’s new president, Abelardo de la Espriella. As of Friday afternoon, he had not commented on the developments in Capitol Hill.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, posted on social media a news article with only its headline: “Todd Blanche wins votes for Senate confirmation.”

This article includes reporting from the Associated Press.

President Donald Trump has reportedly ordered contractors to rip up work on his planned White House South Lawn helipad and start over again. Nearly a month ago, Trump announced with great fanfare that he was building a granite helipad to protect the South Lawn from the intense exhaust heat and rotor wash generated by the new VH-92A Patriot helicopter that will shuttle him, the vice president, their families, and their closest advisors around, both at home and abroad. As we noted at the time, based on satellite imagery of the White House and from far closer to the ground, the helipad was already deep into construction. 

The $5 million to $6 million construction cost, Trump proclaimed in June, is being paid for by Sikorsky, the Lockheed Martin subsidiary that makes the VH-92A. It is unclear whether the company will be charged any additional costs or if the timeline for completion will change. We reached out to Lockheed Martin, Sikorsky, and Clark Construction, which is performing the work, for details. Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky referred us to the White House. Clark Construction did not immediately respond.

Photographs obtained by The Washington Post on Tuesday “show how contractors have taken apart their work, including a 100-foot-wide granite presidential seal that was beginning to take shape last week,” the paper pointed out. 

Trump ordered the helipad redo because he was “frustrated with its appearance and questioning whether the slope of the White House lawn needs to be changed,” the newspaper reported, citing two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss his private comments.

Construction crews have been working around-the-clock on the project in order to complete it before Chinese President Xi Jinping visits in late September, The Washington Post reported last month.  

A major issue is that the White House’s South Lawn, where the helipad is being built, “slants downward,” the newspaper explained. “Trump has expressed a desire for a landing pad that sits level with the horizon, prompting contractors to disassemble their work and consider whether to start by changing the lawn itself, the people said.”

Federal recommendations state that helipads should be flat for safety but do not need to be perfectly horizontal, to ensure water runoff. 

“The South Lawn, used for decades by helicopters that transport the president, slopes downward about 20 degrees in some places, the White House has previously said,” according to the Post. “That exceeds the recommended slant for helipads. The area chosen for the new helipad is flatter than other places.”

“For years, the White House has desperately needed a proper helipad on White House grounds that will allow the President to land safely and also protect the beautiful South Lawn grass from the fierce exhaust fumes of the incredible Marine One,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle told us. “Thanks to President Trump, the White House has never looked better, and it will only continue to get better under his leadership.” 

“We continue to make improvements and adjust accordingly as part of the ongoing project to best match the needs of the White House,” a White House official added, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the matter.

As we noted earlier in this story, the whole project now being fixed was in itself a fix for a long-standing problem.

“For 50 years we’ve been landing helicopters on grass,” Trump told reporters at the White House in June while announcing the helipad construction. “The grass is wet, soggy, and our other Marine Ones are about 40 years old.”

Aging VH-3Ds currently used for the mission are set to be retired completely sometime this year. However, the Marines expect to keep flying their VH-60Ns through at least 2030 because of their particular ability to operate in hot and/or high-altitude environments. 

The VH-92As “are about two and a half times more powerful than the old ones,” the American leader explained. “And when you land on the grass, it’s not that the grass gets discolored, it gets ripped out.”

The problems of downforce and heat generation, as we reported on for years, led to delays in the operational deployment of the VH-92A.

“This was a little bit of a planning mistake,” Trump explained. “So they landed the helicopter, and half of the grass was sitting in front of the Oval Office front door. The rest, it was scattered all over.”

The grass was also singed, Trump added.

“Everybody said, ‘well, we’ll keep using the old helicopters when we have to land at the White House, and for everything else we use the new helicopters.’ That’s a pretty expensive deal, you wouldn’t do that for your company.” 

Upon learning that Sikorsky was footing the bill, Trump said he decided to go for granite.

“Let’s do a beauty, let’s not just do a piece of concrete and paint it white,” he proclaimed. “This one is a beauty. It’s got the seal of the White House, it’s beautiful, the eagle, and it’s carved out of granite stone by some of the most talented people you’ll ever meet. And you’re landing on granite, which is the strongest stone that we can like.”

Trump suggested that when the helipad isn’t being used for Marine One, it can be used for events or even press conferences. The president also stated that once the helipad is finished, “we’ll be able to finally retire 45-year-old helicopters.”

The helipad work isn’t the only construction project taking place on the White House grounds. Trump has also ordered the construction of a new fortress-like ballroom, which you can read more about here, among many other smaller projects.

In the meantime, Trump is using the Ellipse — a park south of the White House — as a temporary landing zone for Marine One.

Trump takes off in Marine One from the Ellipse as White House helipad construction continues

He did so again today as he flew to Joint Base Andrews, before departing for the West Coast, first for a fundraising event for the RNC in Los Angeles, and then to Nevada for an event to be held tomorrow, where he is expected to deliver remarks on the economy. 

How much longer this workaround will be needed isn’t clear. However, having to redo work on the White House helipad could mean that the first ‘White Top’ helicopter to land there will be pushed farther to the right of whatever timeline the White House had in mind.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

President Trump targeted birthright citizenship again Thursday by signing a pair of executive orders purporting to narrow it — including by cracking down on “birth tourism” and limiting which children born to immigrants in the U.S. qualify.

The new orders follow a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that rejected an attempt by Trump to end birthright citizenship outright.

During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump called that decision by the high court “very unfair” and said the new orders were an attempt to end birthright citizenship by other means.

“Our country suffers because of it, and we’re ending it a different way,” he said.

Trump promised “big crackdowns” on birth tourism, or the practice of pregnant foreign mothers coming to the United States, or foreign fathers using surrogates already in the U.S., specifically to ensure their children receive U.S. citizenship.

Trump said an entire industry has been built up around the practice, turning birthright citizenship into “a joke.”

“Wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. It’s a disgrace,” he said. “They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen.”

The orders were immediately criticized by proponents of birthright citizenship as an indefensible attempt by the president and his administration to make an end run around the Supreme Court’s clear finding that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution cannot be undone by the president.

The amendment reads in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In an apparent response to the president’s new orders, California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted that exact language to the social media platform X. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) also responded on the platform, writing, “Trump doesn’t understand the Constitution — but the 14th Amendment’s promise of birthright citizenship and equality speaks for itself.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that Trump’s “continued crusade to end birthright citizenship is blatantly illegal,” that Democrats would challenge the orders, and that the president had “set himself up for yet another loss in the courts.”

“If you are born in America, you are American — period. The Constitution says it and the Supreme Court has affirmed it,” Schumer said.

A spokesperson for California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which successfully sued alongside other Democrat-led states to block Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, said attorneys there were reviewing the latest orders late Thursday.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which also sued to block the first order, denounced the new orders — and predicted they, too, would fall.

“The Supreme Court already decided this issue: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution. No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution,” Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. “Any executive order that tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one.”

Trump’s order on birth tourism defines the practice as “the entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil,” or “any effort by any foreign national to facilitate” such entry.

It orders the Homeland Security and State departments to ramp up controls to block such entries, including through the denial or revocation of visas and other travel authorizations for individuals suspecting of participating in such efforts.

“Foreign nationals seeking temporary admission into the United States must adhere to the purposes for which the Congress has authorized their temporary admission, and cannot be permitted to circumvent the immigration laws in an attempt to vest themselves and their children with lasting benefits that are irreconcilable with their nonimmigrant status,” the order reads.

The order purporting to limit which children born in the U.S. are eligible for birthright citizenship describes “certain categories of children” who it says “do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court.”

It orders U.S. agencies not to provide citizenship documents to any child whose parents are not citizens if either of their parents is a foreign government employee, ambassador or a member of a foreign terrorist organization; was “engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship” for them or to ensure their mother was in the U.S. when she gave birth to them; or had paid for a surrogate in the U.S. to give birth to them.

Echoing arguments made before the Supreme Court in defense of Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, Trump and other White House officials claimed on Thursday that birthright citizenship was only ever intended for the children of slaves.

“This was done right after the Civil War. This was for the babies of slaves,” Trump said.

Others have said that argument “disregards the historical record” — which clearly shows lawmakers understood that the amendment’s language was much broader than that.

White House officials said the orders would prevent a large number of children from receiving birthright citizenship, hailing it as momentous.

“It ends what has been one of the gravest and most egregious abuses of the American system, and it keeps American citizenship safe,” said Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top advisors on immigration.

Asked if the new orders would withstand judicial scrutiny, Trump predicted they would, before directing the question to White House staff secretary Will Scharf.

“What we’re doing is taking legally validated means that are clearly within our disposal and targeting them square on to this birth tourism industry,” Scharf said. “There’s absolutely nothing in here that runs afoul of any of the Supreme Court’s opinions on the subject.”

Vice President JD Vance also hailed the move.

“Our immigration system has been exploited by those who treat citizenship as a commercial transaction, not a sacred bond. President Trump is taking bold steps to combat birth tourism and restore our sovereignty. A serious nation owes its citizens nothing less,” he wrote on X.

In its 6-3 decision in June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship outright, finding that the 14th Amendment — with very few exceptions — provided a right to children born in the U.S. that could not be undone by the president.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for the court. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts in full, with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurring with the outcome based on separate federal law. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The ruling was a major defeat for Trump, and was cheered by immigrant rights advocates, including many in California, as the final say on the matter — though Trump signaled almost immediately that the fight wasn’t over.

US President Donald Trump expects the conflict with Iran to end “pretty soon”, while Tehran reports that an agreement with Oman to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is “on the verge of being finalised” following a route agreement between both nations.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is trying again to limit the number of people born in the country who can become American citizens, in a sign that even after his first attempt at limiting birthright citizenship was rejected by the Supreme Court, he’s ready to renew his efforts.

The president said he was signing two executive actions on immigration, including one limiting the number of people eligible for citizenship after being born in the United States. The written executive order released Thursday was narrower in scope than the previous one shot down by the Supreme Court and appeared to focus on restricting automatic citizenship to specific categories of people, including children born to adults with connections to foreign embassies or organizations as well as anyone considered an “alien enemy” of the United States.

It also aimed to restrict birthright citizenship to anyone whose parents “engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship.”

A second order seeks to curb what Trump called “birth tourism” by increasing restrictions on visitors to the U.S. who want to obtain visas to give birth while in the country.

Trump said he thought his latest actions would be constitutional.

“I thought we were going to win it at the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, we had a bad decision, very unfair decision. Our country suffers because of it and we’re ending it a different way,” Trump said.

In June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s previous efforts to declare that children born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily aren’t American citizens, and upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship.

On the first day of Trump’s second term, he signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, which allows anyone born in the United States to automatically become an American citizen.

Trump’s administration immediately was sued by opponents who said the executive order went against the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, which makes anyone born in the country a citizen, with very limited exceptions.

The executive order was blocked by several lower courts and never took effect.

In June, the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s order by a 6-3 vote. But the vote was too close for many immigration advocates and legal observers who felt the legal question of birthright citizenship was a long-settled issue.

Weissert and Santana write for the Associated Press.

Aug. 6 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump is again aiming to limit birthright citizenship, just over a month after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right.

Trump on Thursday signed two executive orders, with one expanding who would not be guaranteed citizenship automatically, including “alien enemies of the United States, members of foreign terrorist organizations and large categories of people who lobby and act on behalf of foreign governments,” The Hill quoted officials as saying.

The second order would ban “birth tourism,” which occurs when a traveler enters another country to give birth there to ensure automatic citizenship. The practice is already illegal since it involves fraudulently obtaining a visa.

Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, which was adopted following the Civil War. With limited exceptions, it makes anyone born on U.S. soil a citizen.

Four exceptions to the 14th Amendment have been recognized by courts over the years, including children born in the U.S. to foreign sovereigns and diplomats, those born on foreign ships, and children of Native American tribes. However, Native Americans have been guaranteed citizenship since 1924.

Trump, on his first day in office of this second term, signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship, but it never took effect after several lower courts blocked it. The Supreme Court on June 30 ruled 6-3 against the order.

Trump told reporters Thursday that birthright citizenship was intended for “the babies of slaves.”

“What’s happening now are people are building businesses around it; wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship,” he continued. “That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. It’s a disgrace. They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let that happen.”

Trump’s latest effort to limit birthright citizenship comes after Supreme Court ruled against his initial push to reinterpret the constitutional right.

United States President Donald Trump has signed two executive orders seeking to limit birthright citizenship, weeks after the Supreme Court upheld the practice as protected under the Constitution.

The orders signed on Thursday were far more narrow than Trump’s previous attempt to restrict the practice, which confers citizenship to nearly all children born on US soil.

One of the orders seeks to expand a narrow exception to birthright citizenship, which bars US citizenship from being conferred to the babies of foreign diplomats or invading forces.

The second order calls on the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security to halt so-called “birth tourism”, the practice of mothers travelling to the US for the sole purpose of giving birth.

Like Trump’s earlier attempt, the new executive orders are expected to face legal challenges.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump denounced the Supreme Court for making a “very unfortunate decision” in striking down his initial effort to limit birthright citizenship.

“They’ve taken birthright citizenship and they’ve made a joke out of it,” said Trump, adding that his administration is “making adjustments” to its approach.

On January 20, 2025 — the first day of his second term — Trump had signed an executive order seeking to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to tighten the category of people who qualified for birthright citizenship.

That order argued that the children born to immigrants on temporary visas or without documentation were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US — and therefore could not  be automatically granted citizenship.

But in June, the US Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s “attempts to narrow” birthright citizenship were unlawful, citing the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause.

“If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design,” the majority opinion said.

Trump has made a hardline approach to immigration a centre-piece of his political career. However, the Supreme Court ruling represented one of the largest legal setbacks of his second term.

Despite a conservative supermajority on the nine-judge panel, six justices voted against Trump’s effort to transform who is eligible for birthright citizenship.

The crux of the administration’s argument was that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply only to the children born to newly freed slaves and had been misinterpreted since its ratification in 1868.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, wrote that there was “scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view”.

“The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,” he wrote. “We keep that promise today.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly pushed back on reports of shortages of both offensive and defensive weapons.

United States President Donald Trump has vowed to hunt down “leakers” after several news reports detailing a dangerous depletion of munitions stockpiles amid the US-Israeli war on Iran.

While several reports had previously documented munitions depletions since the war began on February 28, the latest reports painted a more dire picture.

Reuters news agency and CBS News reported that the military had burned through nearly all of its offensive Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMSs) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSMs), which experts said could require relying on more perilous close-range and aerial attacks in the event of a renewed escalation.

A CNN report showing low levels of Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors has caused greater concern, with experts noting there is no viable short-term alternative to the air defence missiles. Replenishments of pre-war stockpiles are expected to take years.

Still, Trump on Thursday again denied that the US faced any strategic disadvantage when it came to weapons stores after five months of war.

“The US has massive amounts of ‘munitions,’ especially of certain types,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account.

He added that “large amounts are being manufactured and shipped to the U.S. as needed” and that defence contractors are “building the largest number of plants and factories in our country’s history”.

“The ‘leakers’ of these treasonous statements are being hunted down. Long-term jail sentences will be sought!”

The US president did not provide further details on the claims, although experts have warned that even with an influx of funding, it will likely take at least three years to restore Patriot and THAAD interceptors to pre-war levels.

Only Japan and Germany currently have licences to produce Patriot interceptors. No other country produces THAAD interceptors.

CNN’s report, released on Tuesday, said that the US military had depleted 80 percent of the THAAD interceptors it had prior to the war and about half of its Patriot interceptors. Sources described the levels as “dangerously low”.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth described the information as “not true”.

Separately, the Washington, DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on July 27 calculated that, as of that date, the military had just more than a third of its Patriot interceptors left and about half of its THAAD interceptors.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Wednesday, one of the authors of that analysis, retired US Marine Corps colonel Mark Cancian, said current levels of interceptors are already hurting US deterrence capabilities against military powers like China.

A shortage of interceptors has also reportedly led to the military taking a more judicious approach to missile interceptions, increasing the likelihood of miscalculations, he noted. The killing of three US soldiers in an Iranian strike on a military base in Jordan on July 17 has further underscored those concerns.

“We don’t have that many left, and there are no good substitutes,” Cancian said of the interceptors. “If we run out of Patriots, then the missiles get through.”

Despite the latest rhetoric, the Washington Post on Thursday reported that Trump confronted Hegseth during a cabinet meeting at Camp David last week, accusing the Pentagon chief of misleading him on munitions shortages.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt dismissed the report as “100 percent fake news”.