trump

Sept. 3 (UPI) — Sen. Thom Tillis has called on President Donald Trump to fire Pete Hegseth as secretary of Defense following a series of high-profile exits and firings of senior Pentagon officials in recent months.

Tillis’ comments on Wednesday are the strongest yet from a Republican politician amid mounting GOP criticism of Hegseth’s leadership of the Department of Defense, and came two days after Army Secretary Dan Driscoll resigned following months of reported of clashes with Hegseth.

“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country. He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force,” Tillis said on X.

“I urge the president to find a new leader at the Pentagon who will retain and empower our military talent rather than diminish it.”

Hegseth, a former Army National Guard major who took office with less senior government and military leadership experience than any other secretary of Defense, has overseen a sweeping overhaul of the department, which has seen nearly two dozen generals, admirals and senior civilian defense officials resign, retire early or be fired. Several have left following reported clashes with Hegseth.

Critics have accused the former Fox News host of politicizing the traditionally nonpartisan position, highlighting his purge of senior leadership and his effort to eliminate policies he has characterized as “woke.”

In his statement, Tillis, who served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, thanked Driscoll for his leadership and praised him and Gen. Randy George, who stepped down at Hegseth’s request in April, for having initiated “a transformative period of innovation in how we array our forces and equip our soldiers.”

“If we had a @SecWar who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement,” he said. “Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks.”

Hegseth faced strong criticism from Democrats over his lack of experience and alleged issues with alcohol and high-profile allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse, but there has been a growing chorus of Republicans who have voiced concerns since the U.S. war with Iran began on Feb. 28.

A former Trump supporter whom Trump endorsement ahead of his successful 2020 re-election bid, Tillis became a target of the president after saying he could not support his so-called One Big Beautiful spending and tax cut bill. In June 2025, Tillis announced he would not seek another term.

“My Senate colleague Thom Tillis is right,” Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said in response to the Republican’s statement.

“Pete Hegseth has long passed his expiration date as SecDef. He needs to go.”

United States President Donald Trump has threatened more attacks on Iran, warning that Washington could hit Iran “anytime we want”, as the death toll from the latest US strikes climbed to 18, with at least 108 others wounded.

Trump’s threat on Wednesday came after the US and Iran exchanged their biggest barrage since July. The US military struck cities and areas along Iran’s southern coast, near the blockaded Strait of Hormuz, including a wedding party in the city of Kuhestak.

Iran retaliated with attacks on US bases across the Middle East, including Bahrain, Iraq and Jordan.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said, “We hit them very hard last night” and that the strikes “took out all of the new equipment that they tried to build along the Strait of Hormuz”.

“It was a very heavy attack last night. And we’re prepared to do another one. And anytime we want,” he said.

Iranian officials said at least 18 people were killed in the US strikes.

The victims included two children, according to Mohammad-Reza Zafarghandi, Iran’s health minister. One of them was a four-year-old who was killed in the strike on the wedding party in Kuhestak in Sirik county.

At least four people were killed in that strike.

Esmaeil Baghaei, the spokesman for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, described the Kuhestak attack as a “war crime” and hit back at US claims that it does not target civilians.

“The reality is so horrifying that even American propaganda has never dared make the claim [the US military] is making today. Sirik is not a story. The civilians are real. The victims are real”, Baghaei wrote on X.

Iranian media said the funeral for the four Kuhestak victims will be held on Thursday.

‘Uncomfortable strategic position’

The six-month war has led to a spike in oil prices, roiled the global economy and posed increasing political problems for Trump’s Republican Party ahead of November midterm elections in the US.

Only 31 percent of Americans approve of the war, while some 63 percent disapprove, according to a poll by the Reuters news agency and the Ipsos polling firm in August. Voters are particularly unhappy about high gas prices. Since the fighting resumed this weekend, the price of Brent crude oil, the international standard, has climbed to about $95, up more than 30 percent from the start of the war.

Trump’s approval rating has also fallen from 40 percent to 33 percent since the conflict began, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling.

On Wednesday, Trump said he did not think the renewed military campaign ⁠would last long. He also reiterated his position that the upcoming elections were not a factor in his Iran strategy.

“Number one, I’m not running. My party is running, and I’m going to help my party,” he told reporters in the Oval Office. “But I think my party respects the fact that we’re not allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Iran has denied seeking a nuclear weapon.

Tariq Khan, a retired Pakistani lieutenant-general and former commander of the Pakistan Army’s Frontier Corps, said the US “now finds itself in an increasingly uncomfortable strategic position in the Iran war”.

“The US has not succeeded in restoring the maritime environment that existed before the war, and is now expending military resources to deal with a problem the war itself helped create,” he told Al Jazeera, referring to Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

The strait was a free-flowing international waterway carrying roughly one-fifth of the world’s traded oil before the war. Tehran shut the waterway in response to the US and Israeli strikes on February 18 that began the war. Despite repeated US claims that the strait remains open, only a handful of vessels now pass through each day, and Iran continues to target ships attempting the crossing.

On Wednesday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said two oil tankers had struck mines and were disabled while attempting an unauthorised transit. Separately, Saudi shipping firm Bahri reported that two Filipino sailors were killed in an attack on their vessel earlier in the week.

Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), which Tehran set up to police the Strait of Hormuz, added 11 more ships to its blacklist for alleged “noncompliance” this week, on top of the 45 blacklisted last week. The PGSA said the vessels will face fines, seizures or confiscation unless they submit required documentation to Iran before attempting to cross the strait.

Strait of Hormuz

At the same time, the US has intensified an economic isolation campaign against Iran, threatening to slap countries that ‌trade with Tehran with massive sanctions, while also maintaining its own blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump on Wednesday continued to insist that Washington was in control of the strait, saying US forces were helping bring “lots of boats out every day with millions of barrels of oil”.

“We are, for the most part, doing it without trouble. Every once in a while they shoot a drone, and we knock it down. We have control, very strong control,” he said.

On Tuesday, he had claimed the US Navy was helping escort some 30 ships out of the strait every day. Before the war, some 130 ships transited the waterway daily.

Khan, the former Pakistani general, said Iran understands it cannot defeat the US conventionally and is seeking to make the war costly for Trump.

“If Trump escalates, Iran can portray America as being drawn deeper into another Middle Eastern war; if he restrains himself, Tehran can claim that American military superiority cannot compel Iran to surrender,” he said.

“Iran does not need a battlefield victory; it needs to remain standing, keep the economic disruption alive, and make the war politically costly for the US. Tehran has to make American victory increasingly unaffordable – militarily, economically and electorally.”

Senator Thom Tillis accuses Pentagon chief of ‘inept mismanagement’ as US military is strained by war on Iran.

United States Senator Thom Tillis has called on President Donald Trump to fire Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth for creating a “leadership void” within the military amid the ongoing war with Iran.

In a social media post on Wednesday, Tillis contrasted Hegseth unfavourably with former Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who submitted his resignation on Monday amid reported disagreements with the Pentagon chief.

“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country. He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force,” the North Carolina senator wrote.

“I urge the President to find a new leader at the Pentagon who will retain and empower our military talent rather than diminish it.”

Tillis is a member of Trump’s Republican Party. But in recent years, he has become an increasingly vocal critic from within the party over policies he fears harm democracy.

In June 2025, amid criticism from Trump, Tillis announced he would not be seeking re-election in November’s congressional midterm polls. His term ends in January.

Early in Trump’s second term as president, Tillis was among the senators who voted to confirm Hegseth, a military veteran and former TV host, despite criticisms of his conduct towards women and his past work.

Tillis only confirmed his vote in favour of Hegseth at the last minute, appearing to share some of the concerns being debated in the Senate.

Since taking office as defence secretary, Hegseth has pursued controversial changes to the Pentagon, including attempts to limit journalistic access to the Defence Department.

He has also undertaken a wide-ranging effort to root out what he calls “wokeness” from the military.

That effort has reportedly included firing top military leaders, blocking promotions, removing transgender service members and reviewing admissions standards for top military academies.

In Wednesday’s post, Tillis pointed to some of those efforts, questioning why Hegseth appeared fixated on culture war issues rather than modernising the military.

He pointed to evolving forms of warfare in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and in the US-Israeli war against Iran.

“Our understanding and assumptions of warfare are being challenged in places like Ukraine and Iran, and Dan [Driscoll] understands the old way of doing business no longer applies,” said Tillis.

The senator then proceeded to imply that Driscoll’s departure was a direct result of Hegseth’s mismanagement.

“If we had a Secretary of Defense who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement. Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks,” Tillis added.

Hegseth has faced growing scrutiny in recent months as the US struggles to achieve its goals in the war on Iran, launched on February 28. The war hit its six-month mark last week with no end in sight.

Media reports indicate that the war has left the Pentagon struggling with shrinking munitions stockpiles that could hinder the US military in future actions.

The war has also taken a toll on the popularity of the Trump administration, which has seen approval numbers sink ahead of the November congressional election.

Since the war began, fuel prices have skyrocketed, and the conflict has spread across the Middle East.

More than two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the administration’s handling of the war, according to a University of Massachusetts poll released on August 31.

BOSTON — Climate change has been the backdrop to Charles Hughes’ entire life, from kindergarten lessons about disappearing habitats to wildfire smoke billowing through the air he breathed while growing up in Colorado. But now that he’s a college student in Massachusetts, he said global warming is rarely a top issue.

“Honestly, it doesn’t come up as much,” said Hughes, who chairs the state’s chapter of the College Democrats.

What a difference six years makes.

During President Trump’s first term and especially during the Democratic primaries to determine who would run against him in 2020, Democrats spoke constantly about climate change. They used it to rally young voters such as Hughes, fueling protests and sweeping demands to remake the economy with proposals like the Green New Deal.

But there has been a national shift in the conversation that is sharp enough for some researchers to coin the term “climate hushing” to describe it. The Searchlight Institute, a Democratic think tank, urged the party to stop mentioning climate change because it is not a priority for voters. The Sunrise Movement, a left-wing group that pushed global warming as a top issue for young people, switched its mission last fall to a broader mandate of fighting the Republican president.

The shift was encapsulated by the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts on Tuesday as the incumbent, Ed Markey, 80, fended off a challenge from U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, 47. Markey still talked about sponsoring the Green New Deal, but focused more on other issues to burnish his left-wing bona fides and prove to voters that he is not too old for the job.

It was the latest example of how climate change has been eclipsed by issues such as affordability, U.S. support for Israel and, above all, how to confront Trump.

“Six years ago, Green New Deal was every phrase out of Ed Markey’s mouth every chance he got,” said Mary Anne Marsh, a veteran Democratic strategist in Massachusetts. That wasn’t the case this cycle. “It’s about who’s best to fight. Period, full stop. Everything falls under that.”

‘People are increasingly freaked out about other issues’

Even if the political discussion on climate change has quieted, the planet has not. Scientists say there is an increasing chance that by the end of the year, 2026 could be the hottest year on record, or at least come close. A strengthening El Nino is forecast to be off the charts, spiking global temperatures.

Some advocates expect the issue to return to center stage if Democrats retake the U.S. House in November and climate-sparked disasters dominate the winter.

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a prominent Democratic voice on climate change, said in an interview that ignoring the issue is a major strategic “blunder.”

“Climate change has moved from the science department into the economics department,” he said. “It’s now battering people’s home insurance, property values, pocketbook concerns. So I think it’s a very powerful argument.”

Trump has falsely claimed climate change is “a hoax,” and his administration has undone policies one by one that would make it less damaging in the future.

The Sunrise Movement, founded in 2017 to mobilize young voters over climate issues, announced in October that it was shifting to a broader fight against “fascism.” The group’s executive director, Aru Shiney-Ajay, said that was a prescient move because of reports that federal agents infiltrated protest meetings during Trump’s immigration raids in Minneapolis.

“We just live in a significantly more authoritarian country. Because of that, a lot of the Democratic primaries are about more existential questions,” Shiney-Ajay, whose network generally backs left-wing Democrats, said in an interview. “It has felt less like people care less about climate and more like people are increasingly freaked out about other issues.”

About 6 in 10 Democrats say climate change is “a very big problem” for the country, according to a Pew Research Center poll from April. That is roughly the same as in 2016. Still, climate has often taken a back seat to other issues in Democratic voters’ priorities, such as inflation, healthcare affordability and the role of money in politics.

Affordability concerns have dominated the political debate this year.

McKenzie Wilson of Blue Rose Research, a Democratic data firm, said voters have called for sweeping changes in response to economic discontent, demonstrating a level of anger not seen in years.

“In that kind of environment it’s hard to think about long-term, existential problems,” Wilson said. “If we don’t talk and focus our attention on the number one thing the electorate wants to talk about, as we saw in 2024, we’re not going to be connecting with the electorate.”

‘Don’t say climate change’

That view was summed up by the Searchlight Institute, a Democratic think tank that last year released a provocative suggestion: “The First Rule About Solving Climate Change: Don’t Say Climate Change.”

It contended that voters saw it as such an intimidating, complex issue that Democrats were more likely to win by focusing on other subjects — thus enabling them to regain power and tackle the crisis that they were not talking about.

Leah Stokes, a political scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara and author of “The Carbon Wave,” a book about Democratic President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda, said it was “galling” when politicians made the issue less of a priority.

“The climate crisis is accelerating and we can’t really not talk about it for like a decade, because the planet will be even more on fire if we do that,” she said.

Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, agreed with those concerns.

“What happens over the course of the next decade will profoundly shape the habitability of the planet for literally thousands of years to come,” he said.

Some are making climate an affordability issue

Climate has come up as part of the national backlash to data centers, but it is only one part of the conversation about the projects’ impact. Many climate advocates are adjusting how they talk about the issue, stressing how green energy can lower prices and ease insurance costs.

“What we’re seeing right now is, whether you’re advocating for healthcare reform or climate action or some niche tech issue, everything is filtered through some cost frame,” said Jared Leopold, a veteran Democratic strategist who has long focused on climate change.

That is how the Green New Deal came up at a recent debate between Markey and Moulton, when a voter asked how each candidate would reduce energy prices. Notably, the questioner asked about increasing nuclear or gas generation, not clean energy, to deal with cost. Markey turned the opportunity into a slam against the president.

“There was a plan in place in order to have a strong, clean affordable energy future for our commonwealth,” Markey said, “and Trump attacked it.”

Tatishe Nteta, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said that is how Markey has used climate change this election — to signal his willingness to fight Trump as well as his alliance with the left flank of the Democratic Party, which has run up a series of primary wins this year. But other issues have become even more useful in doing that.

“The definition in where you’re at in terms of a progressive candidate and a progressive elected official is your viewpoint on Israel,” Nteta said. “You’re not hearing this in most races, that I’m the candidate who’s going to protect and save our planet.”

Massachusetts’ summer has been the hottest that Eileen Cefail can recall in the 30 years she has worked in the Roofers Local 33 office. “The roofers are tough as nails, and they work so hard, and their work is so grueling,” she said. “This heat has been horrendous for them.”

Cefail is backing Markey in the primary, but climate, she said, was not the main reason.

“He’s always been a union guy,” Cefail said. “He’s just for the labor.”

Riccardi, McDermott and Willingham write for the Associated Press. Riccardi reported from Denver and McDermott from Providence, R.I. Associated Press writer Linley Sanders in Washington contributed to this report.

United States President Donald Trump’s face has officially found its way onto the country’s currency.

On Tuesday at 12pm Eastern Time (16:00 GMT), the US Mint began circulating – and selling – a “once-in-a-generation” $1 coin bearing Trump’s likeness to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary.

The gold-coloured coins feature Trump’s portrait on one side, alongside inscriptions of “LIBERTY” and “IN GOD WE TRUST”. On the reverse is an illustration of the US presidential seal with “250” inscribed on its shield.

The US Mint says the coins “capture the spirit, pride, and legacy of a nation approaching its landmark anniversary”.

It’s the first time in nearly 100 years that a living person has been featured on US currency, drawing a heavy dose of criticism, since such honours are largely reserved for long-dead dignitaries.

How did this $1 coin come to be? Here’s what you need to know:

Why is this being done?

Since Trump returned to the White House last year, the administration has taken steps to put his name or image on an array of buildings and items, including the Kennedy Center, the US Institute of Peace, National Parks passes, a limited-edition passport and a $1m “gold card” visa that was announced last year.

The Trump administration has tied some of those efforts to celebrations of the country’s semiquincentennial, the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

On July 15, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent first announced the coin in a post on social media. Bessent said the coin “celebrates the strength of American values, and the promise of a nation dedicated to preserving freedom for all”.

The Trump administration has also pointed to another anniversary coin as a precedent for the Trump-branded $1 piece.

In 1926, for the 150th anniversary of the country, the US Mint struck a coin featuring side-by-side portraits of George Washington and Calvin Coolidge, a president who was in office at the time.

But critics have pointed out that the 1926 coin was commemorative and not intended for circulation as currency.

Are there other proposals for Trump-themed currency?

In May, Bessent also said preparations were under way to print a new $250 banknote featuring Trump’s face.

Bessent added that the Trump administration was seeking congressional approval for the new bill.

How much are the new coins?

Despite the coin being valued at $1, consumers can purchase a 25-coin roll for $61 or a 100-coin bag for $154.50 — a significant mark-up.

While the coins are being sold at a premium, the US Mint emphasises they are not solely decorative.

They are valid currency and can be used to make everyday purchases, just like a $1 bill.

Is it legal?

US federal law states: “Only the portrait of a deceased individual may appear on United States currency and securities.”

Congress passed that law in 1866 after a Department of the Treasury official, Spencer M Clark, put his own face on a note valued at five cents, angering lawmakers.

However, during his first term, Trump signed legislation known as the Circulating Collection Coin Redesign Act of 2020 (CCRA), which gave the Treasury the authority to mint $1 coins “with designs emblematic of the United States semiquincentennial”.

That law prohibits the portrait of “any person, living or dead” on the reverse side of those coins. However, Trump’s image on the new $1 coin appears on the obverse — the front of the coin — meaning it likely complies with the law.

What opposition does this face?

Late last year, Democratic Senators Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Jeff Merkley of Oregon introduced legislation that would block Trump from placing his face on the coin.

“While monarchs put their faces on coins, America has never had and never will have a king,” Cortez Masto said. “Our legislation would codify this country’s long-standing tradition of not putting living Presidents on American coins. Congress must pass it without delay.” Their bill did not become law.

The Treasury Department and US Mint did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Sept. 2 (UPI) — Patagonia, an outdoor apparel company, announced Wednesday it sued the Trump administration for cuts dramatically shrinking the size of Bears Ears National Monument in Utah.

This is the second time Patagonia has sued the administration, the company said. In 2017, during Trump’s first term, it became the first company to sue a sitting president over public land after the president issued orders shrinking Bears Ears by 85% and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, also in Utah, by nearly half.

The case was not decided by the time of the 2020 election, and President Joe Biden restored both monuments to their original size in 2021.

On July 13, Trump issued orders to shrink them again — Bears Ears by about 91% this time and Grand Staircase-Escalante by about 90%. This amounts to nearly 3 million acres of land that will lose monument-related protections, the company said in a press release.

“Slashing Bears Ears and dismantling the Bears Ears commission is a betrayal of Tribal sovereignty and needlessly throws away years of effort to create the first Tribal co-management structure of a national monument in U.S. history,” Ryan Gellert, Patagonia CEO, said in a statement. “Patagonia worked with the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, scientists, conservation groups, outdoor industry advocates and more to establish the monument in 2016, and we are committed to defending it today and into the future.”

President Barack Obama designated the Bears Ears monument in late 2016, following a proposal by five Tribal entities: the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation and the Pueblo of Zuni. A coalition of these groups co-manages the monument with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Patagonia says the U.S. Antiquities Act gives presidents the power to designate national monuments but not to undo them. However, the Trump administration, as well as others including Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, say the monuments violate that act, which they say limits the designation to the smallest parcel of land necessary for the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.

The Trump administration argued that term “objects of historic or scientific interest” in the Antiquities Act has been stretched to include landscapes and biodiversity — and should not.

When signing the new orders in July, Trump criticized the size of the monuments, claiming that the public cannot hunt, fish or “virtually not even walk” on the land. However, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management explicitly say people can hike, hunt and fish in both monuments, as well as take part in other forms of outdoor recreation.

The Center for Western Priorities said in July that Trump’s orders could open the land for sale or lease oil, gas, mining or logging companies within 60 days.

Vice President JD Vance said in a podcast released Tuesday that if a 2024 assassination attempt had killed Donald Trump, he would have always wondered if it was part of a conspiracy and might not have accepted even another Republican as the next president.

Vance made the statement during a conversation with Christian podcaster Bryce Crawford. The vice president, who recently released a book detailing his own journey to Catholicism, also defended President Trump for posting an image of himself as Jesus and mused about whether artificial intelligence was a sign of the end times.

The conversation kicked off with a discussion of faith and the rush to scientifically explain away events that may be divinely touched. Vance cited the July 2024 assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, during which a bullet nicked Trump’s ear and a supporter was killed.

Trump has long talked about his survival as divinely guided, a theme Vance took up. The vice president said that if the bullet had killed Trump, “we would have had real civil strife in a way that I don’t know that the country could have ever come back from.”

Vance said many Trump supporters would have assumed a conspiracy had robbed them of their chosen president, and he said he would have also had those thoughts “in the back of my mind.”

“I would have assumed very dark forces had taken out Donald Trump, right as he was about to come back into the White House,” Vance said. “There would have just been an illegitimacy to our entire political system.”

Most of the hour-and-ten-minute conversation was an amiable chat about faith, Vance’s own spiritual journey, his Easter meeting with Pope Francis the day before the pontiff’s death last year, and human frailty and fallibility. But it occasionally touched on darker themes.

Crawford asked Vance whether, as vice president, he had ever been in a room that was “spiritually dark.”

“I’ve been in meetings with world leaders where various issues are being discussed, and somebody will say something or somebody will make an observation and I’ll feel some darkness about it, it sets off every spiritual alarm bell in my body,” Vance said. He added he also felt “a very dark spiritual energy” in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, probably because of the carnage at the Civil War battlefield.

Vance cites AI during a discussion about ‘end times’

Crawford also asked Vance about his interest in the “end times,” which the vice president laughingly said had been more of an obsession in youth during the late 1990s, when people were abuzz about the possibility with the coming millennium. A chortling Vance recounted a story of a friend who was obsessed that the world would end in late 2007 and ran up major credit card debt.

“There are, like, things about the world that make me feel, like, not shocked if the Antichrist was walking among us, but, again I try not to focus too much on it,” Vance said. He cited “IT companies” and the use of artificial intelligence as a substitute for human interaction.

“I think that’s kind of satanic,” Crawford said when Vance recounted the story of one acquaintance using AI as a marriage counselor.

“Yeah, when you completely divorce the human from the social element that God made us for, OK that’s very, that’s very bad,” Vance said.

Crawford asked Vance about Trump’s post on social media of an AI-generated image of himself as Jesus earlier this year, which Crawford said offended him. Trump initially contended he thought the image was of him as a doctor, then took down the post amid widespread criticism from even some of his own backers.

Vance defended the president. “He did not mean to, like, mock or mimic God, that’s just not who he is,” Vance said, adding that the president often tries to keep things light and constantly makes jokes. “He’s a bit of a ballbuster, for those of us who work with him, and he just likes to have a good time. And I think that if people appreciated that, they would recognize, he’s not trying to offend people, he’s trying to keep things light.”

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

The $1 coin designed to celebrate America’s 250th birthday and seemingly President Trump, whose face gazes from one side of the gold finish, will go on sale Wednesday, according the U.S. Mint.

The coin’s design — Trump’s visage as “heads” and the Great Seal of the United States as “tails” — was given the stamp of approval this year by the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, whose members Trump appointed. In past comments, the president said that the idea to stamp his face on a coin was “very unusual” but that he was “honored by it.”

The president’s second term has come with several such brandings, or attempts at them that have become tangled up in lawsuits. That includes moves to put Trump’s name on the Kennedy Center, as well as the U.S. Institute for Peace, as Trump works to leave his stamp on history and Washington, D.C.

The coins, which can be used as legal tender, stirred some criticism particularly because of federal law that bars the depiction of a living president on U.S. currency. But in some circumstances, the treasury secretary does have authority to authorize the minting and issuance of special coins.

The coins were struck to “honor 250 years of great American heritage,” the U.S. Mint wrote on its website. In an arc above Trump’s face is written “LIBERTY,” and below is “1776 — 2026.” On the flip side is the Great Seal of the United States, with the bald eagle gripping arrows in one claw and an olive branch in the other. In a banner clutched in its beak is written “E PLURIBUS UNUM,” Latin for “out of many, one”

A roll of 25 coins will cost $61, and a bag of 100 will cost $154.50, and the U.S. Mint said they randomly hid some special-issue coins among the rolls and bags. Those will be marked “July 4th,” because they were stuck on that day, the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Households are limited to only two orders, the U.S. Mint wrote, but that cap will lift at 2 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday.

Bedayn writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 2 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has nominated Hung Cao to be secretary of the Navy amid an ongoing shakeup of the U.S. military.

Trump announced his nomination of Cao for a position he has held on an interim basis for months on his Truth Social media platform Tuesday, calling him “a true WARRIOR.”

“We need Patriots like Hung leading our Navy and Marine Corps, and I can think of no one better than him to make sure our Great Navy and Marine Corps remain the FIERCEST and BEST Force the World has ever seen,” the commander in chief said.

“The Senate needs to confirm this Warfighter, ASAP, so he can continue the fantastic work he has been doing over the past 4 months.”

Cao has served as acting secretary of the Navy since April when his predecessor, John Phelan, was reportedly forced to leave the position over clashes with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg and Cao.

The announcement comes as there has been a high turnover rate in U.S. military leadership during Trump’s second administration, with high-ranking officers resigning, quitting or purged. On Monday, it was reported that Army Secretary Dan Driscoll resigned following months of clashes with Hegseth.

Cao in a statement late Tuesday thanked Trump for the nomination, saying “it’s an honor of a lifetime to lead the great warriors of the Navy and Marine Crops team.”

“I’m grateful for your leadership and support as we continue to get after shipbuilding and ensure the defense of the homeland.”

If confirmed by the Senate, Cao, as secretary, will oversee the entire Navy from recruiting to equipping and mobilizing as well as be in charge of construction, outfitting and repairing naval ships, equipment and facilities, among other responsibilities.

“Congrats to Hung Cao on being nominated as our nation’s next @SECNAV,” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said online.

“I know you will work hard to support our incredible Sailors and Marines.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday urged Congress to approve federal tax incentives aimed at reviving American film and television productions, saying Hollywood has been hollowed out by productions moving to Canada and other countries.

In a social media post, Trump said he met with actor Jon Voight, whom he has designated as “Hollywood Ambassador,” and concluded there is “no incentive” to work in Hollywood anymore and that it is “hurting California very badly.”

“Jon, and many others in the Industry, are suggesting we do Federal Tax Incentives in order to Make our Movie and Television Production Business GREAT AGAIN, Perhaps GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!,” Trump said wrote on Truth Social.

Trump said meetings are already being set up to talk to lawmakers from both parties, noting that he wants to the discussions to be bipartisan, “especially since so much money is being lost in California, and other largely Blue States.”

“I am going to suggest that Republicans and Democrats get together, and immediately craft Legislation to save the Movie, Television and Entertainment Business in America,” he said.

There are few details about what these incentives would look like at this time, but Trump said “the amount of money spent” on tax breaks will be made up “tenfold by the money pouring into the Treasury’s coffers.”

Charles Rivkin, chairman and chief executive of the Motion Picture Assn., applauded Trump’s announcement, and, in a statement, added that “for over a century, American studios, casts, and crews have produced the films and series that the world wants to see.”

“A federal incentive,” Rivkin added, “would be a landmark step toward bringing more production to local communities in all 50 states, strengthening our nation’s economy, and making our country a more competitive place to produce, create, and tell great stories.”

Trump’s push comes as production has continued to shift overseas. Last year, 45% of all U.S. films and scripted television shows were shot internationally, up from about 33% in 2022, an issue that has worried California lawmakers such as Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

California and other states have bolstered their production incentive programs, but Schiff has said in the past that it is not enough. He, too, has made the case for a federal tax credit.

“State programs cannot simply substitute for the kind of global, federal and competitive tax incentives that are needed to bring production back to American soil and stop its offshoring,” Schiff said at an event in March. “The urgency could not be greater.”

Trump has previously floated more aggressive measures, including a threat to impose tariffs on foreign-made films, but that idea did not gain traction.

US says its forces ‘successfully’ completed a wave of strikes against Iranian targets, accusing the IRGC of attempted attacks on shipping and US service members.

Tina Peters, who served prison time for tampering with voting machines on behalf of the MAGA movement, has declined a job offer helping to oversee elections in a conservative Northern California county.

“She declined the offer because she’s running around the country right now trying to secure the elections,” Clint Curtis, the Shasta County registrar of voters, said in an interview Tuesday. “Shasta County lost out.”

Last month, Curtis set off alarm bells across California by telling reporters he planned to hire Peters, a former county clerk in Colorado who was released early from prison this summer amid a pressure campaign by President Trump.

Curtis, himself a longtime election denier, told The Times he had planned to hire Peters as a consultant “to assist with supervision of the November election.”

Peters’ attorney, Peter Ticktin, said in an interview Tuesday that she had given serious consideration to the job offer but that he had not discussed it with her in recent days. It would “not have been a full-time position,” because she is so busy, he said.

“There’s far more for her to do than get tied up in one county,” Ticktin said. “At this point, she is an American icon. I mean, think about it: How many people meet with the president of the United States in the Oval Office?”

In California, talk of hiring Peters drew swift condemnation from Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic lawmakers who vowed to fight her employment.

The public observation area installed at the Shasta County elections office in Redding by Clint Curtis, the registrar of voters.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

On Monday, Newsom wrote in a sarcastic post on X: “A convicted MAGA election tamperer working in an elections office. What could possibly go wrong?”

He added, in all caps: “TINA, NOT IN CALIFORNIA! ELECTION DENIER FELONS NOT WELCOME HERE!!!”

In a separate social media post, the governor’s press office called the job offer “a disgrace” and said Newsom had directed corrections officials to “make every effort” to reject transfer of her parole supervision into the state.

Peters is not supposed to leave Colorado without permission from her parole officer, although she did visit Trump at the White House.

Curtis called the governor “crazy” and said he was amused that Newsom — who has advocated for prison reform and rehabilitation for criminals — was focused on Peters’ felony conviction.

“California is kind of a second-chance state,” Curtis said. “Except for Tina Peters. No second chance for her in Shasta County.”

Peters, the former clerk in Mesa County, Colo., was convicted in 2024 and sentenced to nine years behind bars for breaching her county’s voting machines as part of a scheme to show that the 2020 election was rigged against Trump, a claim that has been repeatedly debunked in court.

She was found guilty of helping an associate of MAGA conspiracy theorist and MyPillow founder Mike Lindell gain unauthorized access to Mesa County’s Dominion election equipment in 2021 and make copies of its hard drive before and after a software upgrade.

After months of haranguing from Trump, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, commuted Peters’ sentence. She was released in June after serving less than a quarter of the nine years.

In interviews with right-wing media, Curtis said Peters essentially would do the job of assistant registrar but would be brought on as a consultant to get around the county’s slow hiring process.

Brent Turner, the Shasta County assistant registrar, said his job was not open because he had not quit. He told The Times on Tuesday that he was happy Peters had declined his boss’ offer.

Shasta County Registrar Clint Curtis stands in the election counting area on Feb. 25 in Redding.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

“I’m glad that Gavin is paying attention,” said Turner, a Democrat from San Francisco and a longtime election reform activist who has pushed for non-proprietary open-source voting systems with software code that can be examined by anyone.

Curtis handpicked Turner as his assistant last year.

Last month, Curtis told the hosts of “Jefferson State of Mine,” a radio show by leaders of the State of Jefferson secession movement, that Turner “got sick on me” and that he was hoping his assistant would “just, like, retire on June 2 and go away and let me fill [the position], but he didn’t.”

Turner, who is on medical leave, said he had not given Curtis permission to speak publicly about his health and that he had not spoken to his boss since Curtis began talking about hiring Peters.

“It’s been aggravating and unfortunate,” Turner said. “But we’re undaunted, as election officials and workers. And the fact is, there’s work to be done now, so the sooner we put this behind us, the better.”

Curtis was appointed by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors last year after two previous registrars resigned. He will be out of office in January after losing the June primary to Joanna Francescut, a longtime assistant registrar whom he had fired.

Curtis has sequestered primary ballots in a room in the elections office in Redding, sealing the doors with locks and duct tape and telling reporters that the ballots did not look, feel or smell right.

Both Curtis and county officials — who have condemned his actions — have asked the FBI and other authorities to investigate.

TORONTO — Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told the Trump administration Tuesday to “stop doing memes, stop throwing shade and stop trying to be tough,” as he pushed back against a fresh wave of attacks from Washington.

Carney said U.S.-Canada trade talks could resume if Washington became serious about negotiations, but he also accused the United States of pursuing terms that he said could leave Canadian industries “gradually wound down in Canada and wiped out.”

“When the Americans stop doing memes, stop throwing shade and stop trying to be tough, and start being serious about having those discussions, we can have those discussions,” Carney said. “It’s not constructive, but that’s their democracy.”

His comments came after a new barrage from Washington since trade talks collapsed Aug. 21, including Trump’s move to rename Lake Ontario “Lake America” and social media posts taunting Canada. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also said Canada could not go “tit for tat” with a U.S. economy 13 times larger, while U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth mocked female Canadian cadets online.

Hegseth on Monday posted an image from a cadet training center in British Columbia showing two young women in uniform, adding “this is real” alongside a Canadian flag. Carney called the post “beneath their office.”

The Pentagon stood by it Tuesday, with deputy press secretary Jacob Bliss saying, “The X post speaks for itself.”

Carney said the U.S. approach in the talks would have left Canadian industries effectively as subsidiaries of American companies or imposed terms under which they would be “gradually wound down in Canada and wiped out.”

“We’re not going to — of course, we’re not going to accept those terms,” Carney said.

Carney said Washington sought an “uncompetitive” deal for key industries, including autos, while pushing changes affecting French-language and cultural protections. He said any of those issues was enough to block an agreement.

Carney said Washington also sought limits on Canada’s future trade deals. “Canada is a sovereign state. We will strike free trade deals with the countries we wish to strike free trade deals,” he said.

Carney was also buoyed by Monday’s Liberal sweep of three special elections, including a decisive win in Chicoutimi-Le Fjord, Quebec, where the Conservatives fell to third place.

The victories brought the Liberals to 173 seats in the 343-seat House of Commons and reinforced Carney’s position as he confronts Trump over trade and Canadian sovereignty.

Nelson Wiseman, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto, said Trump’s annexation threats carry particular weight in Quebec. “Quebecers have the most to lose in an apocalyptic scenario where the U.S. absorbs Canada, and the status of the French language disappears,” he said.

U.S.-Canada trade talks collapsed after the two sides failed to reach a deal, and Trump imposed 50% tariffs on roughly $20 billion in Canadian goods. Canada responded with plans for tariffs on U.S. products.

Trump has repeatedly talked about making Canada the 51st state.

Gillies writes for the Associated Press.

The U.S. Postal Service is poised to launch a hastily built, error-riddled computer system that could jeopardize the process of mail voting relied upon by one-third of all voters, according to a whistleblower statement released Tuesday by Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal.

The effort is part of the implementation of President Trump’s executive order limiting mail voting and has been temporarily halted by a federal judge. The ruling is being appealed by the administration and the directive may ultimately end up back before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The disclosure from the unidentified whistleblower contends that the Postal Service has been scrambling to try to build a complex system that would normally take a year or more in only three months, sometimes in defiance of the judge’s orders halting work. The goal is to have it ready for use in the midterm elections.

The disclosure contends that, due to the new procedures, a single scanning error in a batch of tens of thousands of ballot envelopes could prevent any from reaching voters. It details a system that election officials have already warned could not be implemented before the first mail ballots begin going out Friday in North Carolina.

“The Postal Service has designed a system to disenfranchise millions of Americans,” Blumenthal told reporters in advance of releasing the whistleblower information. “This administration seems hell-bent on changing the framework on casting ballots in this country clearly for political reasons.”

Executive order is subject to furious court action with midterms nearing

Trump’s executive order, signed in March, directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to develop state citizenship lists and then required the Postal Service to send mail ballots only to voters who are on such a list. Ballot envelopes would have to comply with new Postal Service rules and include bar codes.

The online portal that is the subject of the whistleblower complaint is intended for states to deliver their lists of verified voters to the Postal Service.

The Postal Service did not comment on Monday night. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. The White House has called the mail voting provisions “commonsense measures” necessary to combat fraud.

Trump has long opposed voting by mail, even though he has repeatedly used the method to cast his own ballot. He falsely blamed mail voting for his 2020 election loss and has spent years spreading conspiracy theories about it. A report by the Brookings Institution published in 2025 found that mail voting fraud occurred in only about four cases out of every 10 million mail ballots cast.

Since returning to office, Trump has said Republicans should be “taking over” vote counting in Democratic areas and launched a sweeping attempt to reinvestigate the 2020 election, despite a mountain of evidence that he lost fairly to Democrat Joe Biden.

Until Trump came out against mail voting in 2020, the system was used equally by both parties. Since then, it has become more common among Democratic voters. More than 29% of all voters in 2024 cast their ballots through the mail.

After Trump issued his executive order, Democrats and civil rights groups sued and eventually won a ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani in Boston barring implementation of the system before the November midterms. But without ruling on the legality of Trump’s order, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority last week found that was premature and overruled Talwani, momentarily clearing the way for its implementation.

On the night of Aug. 21, the Postal Service released a final rule outlining how it would implement the order.

It said it would only send mail ballots for states that got approval for the design of their envelopes and submitted a list of voters receiving them through the still-not-active online portal. That rule gave plaintiffs a chance to sue again, and Talwani on Thursday night issued a 14-day restraining order against implementation of the measure.

Whistleblower complaint says portal development is rushed and sloppy

The letter from Blumenthal and an accompanying summary of the whistleblower’s statements says the Postal Service began work on the portal on June 15 and stopped on June 25 after Talwani’s initial order. Then on July 29, the Postal Service restarted the work. That was when the administration appealed the judge’s order to the Supreme Court. The high court did not strike Talwani’s injunction down until Aug. 24.

Talwani last week found the Postal Service violated her order by continuing to work on the final rule, but she imposed no sanctions on the government. On Monday, she issued a ruling refusing to lift the restraining order that also said the Postal Service could continue work on its portal, as long as it wasn’t forcing states to use it.

In its summary of the whistleblower’s statement, the group Whistleblower Aid says the hurried construction of the portal, with a goal of being active on Tuesday, meant it did not undergo full testing.

“The apparently sloppy and rushed manner in which the Federal Ballot Mail Portal and supporting IT systems are being built poses significant risk,” the group wrote. “Potentially millions of American voters may not receive their mail-in ballot this election cycle in a timely manner, or at all.”

The statement also says the Postal Service is implementing a “zero percent” rule in which any errors in any mail ballots sent out by an election office could lead to all of them being discarded — even if it’s simply one problem amid tens of thousands of legitimate ballots.

The rule requires ballots to be handled in a physical post office by an election official. Those will then be scanned to ensure they match the voter database. During three layers of checks, a single apparent error could cause the whole batch to be rejected, the statement says.

Blumenthal said he has “a very strong hope and some faith that our system of justice will strike down this unconstitutional and unconscionable rule.” But, he added, if it somehow goes into effect for the midterms, he would not advise voting by mail.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this story.

WASHINGTON — Trump administration officials announced that they had invoked executive authority to shut down 110 commercial driving schools that they said are connected to more than 5,000 truck drivers who failed English language proficiency tests.

During a news conference Monday in Detroit, leaders of the departments of Transportation and Homeland Security singled out California as the biggest problem state.

The federal officials were joined by Marcus Coleman and his 7-year-old daughter Dalilah, who in 2024 was critically injured when the driver of an 18-wheeler — an immigrant from India — crashed into their vehicle in the Mojave Desert.

“By far, the worst abusers are in California under [Gov.] Gavin Newsom’s leadership,” said Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin.

“A lot of the licenses unlawfully issued come from California, New York, a lot from Illinois,” added Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. “We see a lot of the violations when trucks are pulled over in the Midwest because they travel through the Midwest, and so though a license might be issued unlawfully in California, that driver doesn’t stay in California.”

The emergency school closures were part of a federal partnership to crack down on fraud and illegal practices in the commercial trucking industry. Mullin and Duffy did not say how many of the closures are in California.

Federal officials are also launching a nationwide audit of third-party testers who are authorized by states to verify commercial driver’s license applicants’ skills.

Homeland Security investigators, meanwhile, were conducting a coordinated sweep Monday of more than 200 training schools in 23 states.

Investigators with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have also issued notices seeking to shut down another 160 training schools where they said they found unlicensed instructors, missing documentation and inadequate space for drivers to learn necessary maneuvers.

Federal officials said that drivers certified by those schools were linked to 239 commercial motor vehicle-related deaths.

The Trump administration has revoked the commercial licenses of more than 28,000 drivers over English language proficiency failures since June 2025.

On Monday, Derek Barrs, administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, cited Platinum Plus Truck Driving School in Fresno, which certified 36 drivers who were later cited for English language proficiency violations.

“One of these trainees killed someone in Oklahoma that should have never been on the roadway,” he said.

At another school in California, Barrs said, operators said their classroom was the back end of an open semi-trailer, and their primary instructor was out of the country.

The Transportation Department didn’t respond to a request from The Times asking how many of the 110 trucker schools were in California. But the agency told Fox News that 11 are in California, 10 in Florida, 13 in Pennsylvania and 13 in Texas, with smaller numbers in other states.

The announcements follow a longstanding effort by the Trump administration to target immigrant commercial truck drivers — especially those from California.

Soon after returning to the White House, President Trump signed an executive order requiring commercial truck drivers to prove they are proficient in English. In early August, the Motor Carrier Safety Administration moved to codify those language requirements through the federal rulemaking process.

Deadly accidents in Florida and San Bernardino County last year brought scrutiny to Sikh Punjabi truck drivers, who make up an estimated 20% of the U.S. trucking workforce.

New federal guidelines this year began limiting commercial driver’s licenses to certain visa holders and requiring states to verify an applicant’s immigration status through a federal portal. Federal officials also ordered California’s Department of Motor Vehicles to cancel about 13,000 licenses due to a clerical error that allowed them to remain valid past a work permit’s expiration date.

The federal government withheld $160 million in transportation funding after California delayed revoking the licenses.

Most states have allowed immigrants who have legal work authorization — including visa holders, asylum seekers and recipients of Temporary Protected Status — to drive commercial vehicles.

Critics of the rule say the Trump administration hasn’t provided data to back up its claims that foreign commercial drivers pose a particular safety threat.

In 2024, about 5,200 large trucks were involved in fatal crashes, a 3% decrease from 2023 but a 30% increase in the last 10 years, according to the National Safety Council.

Immigrant rights groups say the new rules exacerbate a truck driver shortage and inflame anti-immigrant bias by perpetuating the myth that all such drivers are unqualified. They say many affected drivers are legally authorized to work and have strong safety records.

The Asian Law Caucus and Sikh Coalition sued California’s DMV on behalf of drivers who faced cancellation of their licenses.

In March, an Alameda County judge declined to halt the cancellations but required the DMV to establish a process so they could reapply. The DMV also found that some 7,000 cancellations had been issued in error.

Also Monday, U.S. Border Patrol announced that it had arrested 95 truck drivers who are in the country illegally and possessed state-issued commercial driver’s licenses, including 76 with California licenses.

President Trump lashed out Sunday at NBC’s “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker, calling on the Federal Communications Commission to punish her over comments she made about the president’s record in endorsing primary candidates.

“Kristen Welker, the Unpopular ‘Hostess’ of the once great Meet the Press, now considered Meet the Fake Press, just stated that Donald Trump has ‘mixed results’ on his Endorsements of Candidates, when the recent WINS of Darline Graham and Mike Mazzei, stand at 100% for the U.S. Senate, and 98% for the U.S. House, recently and over the longterm,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump actually endorsed Mazzei in the Oklahoma governor’s race, not a congressional seat.

“How can anyone be allowed to say this, working for freely given Public Airwaves?” Trump added. “Because of this purposeful inaccuracy, she will be reported to the FCC for rebuke or punishment.”

Welker was previewing Sunday’s edition of “Meet the Press” on NBC’s Washington station WRC when she made the remarks about Trump’s endorsements.

“He’s going to loom large over these midterms,” Welker said. “There’s no doubt about that. He, of course, has endorsed a slate of candidates in the primaries. He’s had some mixed results, but most recently, his pick of Senator Darline Graham, of course, the sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, was successful in her primary battle, so now she takes on Dr. Annie Andrews in South Carolina.”

In a statement, NBC News expressed its support for Welker. “Kristen is one of the best in the business and we stand by her,” a representative said in a statement.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has shown a willingness to use his agency’s levers to go after broadcast media outlets Trump deems unfriendly. In April, he called for an early review of the TV station licenses held by ABC, claiming the company’s diversity and inclusion policies are in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.

ABC has filed a lawsuit against the FCC to block the review, saying it was motivated by Trump’s animus toward the late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.

Going after Welker for an anodyne analysis that did not match the president’s perception of his endorsement results would be a stretch, according to the FCC’s own guidelines.

“The FCC’s authority to take action on complaints about the accuracy or bias of news networks, stations, reporters or commentators in how they cover — or sometimes opt to not cover — events is narrow,” according to the FCC website. “The agency is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press.”

Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic member of the FCC, said Trump’s comments are dangerous and also demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the agency’s role.

“As I’ve said many times, the FCC has no authority to punish journalists this administration doesn’t like,” Gomez wrote on the social platform X. “These threats to press freedom are dangerous. They undermine the foundation of our democracy, and they have no place in it.”

Trump is clearly sensitive about critiques of his endorsement powers. On Friday, Bill Maher did a lengthy segment on his show “Real Time,” apologizing to the president for having said “almost none” of his endorsed candidates are winning their primaries. Maher noted that out of 260 candidates endorsed by Trump, only nine have lost. Maher noted that many of those candidates were heavy favorites to win but agreed that his statement was not accurate.

Maher also gave a strong indication that Trump had texted him to express his unhappiness over his comments.

But “Real Time” is on cable and streaming where the FCC has no say on programming content. The agency regulates broadcast channels that are delivered over the public airwaves.

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to finish building his new White House ballroom with mostly private money and without approval from Congress.

By a 5-4 vote. the justices granted an emergency appeal from Trump and his lawyers on Monday and set aside a judge’s order that would stop the construction.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented, along with the court’s three liberals.

The outcome turned on standing.

The conservative majoritysaid the National Trust for Historic Preservation and its members were not personally injured by the White House ballroom project and therefore, did not have to standing to sue Trump or the National Park Service.

They also said Trump and his appointees had stressed the new ballroom was needed for national security and said the lower courts judges should not have interfered.

The decision in effect gives a green light to Trump’s go-it-alone approach which is in keeping with his history as a hotel builder. He believed the White House needed a grand ballroom that could seat hundreds of dignitaries. And he ordered the East Wing torn down in October to make room of his larger ballroom.

He also said most of the project would be paid for by $400 million in private donations.

But the Constitution gave Congress the power to manage property belonging to the United States. A 1912 law says new buildings “shall not erected…on public grounds within the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.”

Trump chose to ignore the law and did not seek approval from Congress which is led by Republicans.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued in December, contending Trump was a “temporary tenant, not the owner” of the White House.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled Trump had no authority to build a new ballroom on the White House grounds without the approval of Congress, and he ordered a halt to the above-ground construction.

The D.C. Circuit Court affirmed his decision by a 2-1 vote.
“Congress has not ceded unfettered authority to the Executive Branch to dramatically redesign, reshape, and reconstruct the White House—the People’s House—to fit a particular President’s desires,” wrote Judge Patricia Millett for the appeals court.

Trump’s lawyers sent a fast-track appeal to the Supreme Court on Aug. 14.

The court’s majority allowed Trump to fend off the legal challenge by concluding the historic preservationists could not show they were harmed by a huge new ballroom that may dwarf the historic Executive Mansion.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has frequently suggested he wants to seek a third term, posting about mounting another campaign, donning 2028 caps and discussing ways to make it happen — even as he’s acknowledged the Constitution prohibits it.

But lately, Trump has begun showing signs that even he doesn’t really believe another run will happen.

During recent speeches, the Republican president has begun describing life after the White House when his term ends in January 2029, predicting he’ll be at home and agonizing as his successor claims credit for his accomplishments.

“Your next president is going to say, ‘What a great job I did,’ ” Trump told an event on Long Island, N.Y., this month. “He’ll be sitting around, watching television. A real stiff. Unless you vote Republican, of course.”

A sitting president talking about becoming a former one is always politically fraught. But with midterm elections now just nine weeks away, Trump is approaching the point of his presidency where there will be more and more reminders that his power will soon wane.

Being willing to say he’s contemplating a White House without him marks a notable shift for Trump. Going back to his first term and from virtually the moment he won a second, he’s left the door open to staying put for more than eight years.

“He is all over the place,” said Brian Kalt, a Michigan State University constitutional law professor. “And what that does is, it allows him to point to his own words to support any number of mutually exclusive things.”

Trump can say, “ ’Oh, yeah, I made it clear that I wasn’t gonna run,’ ” Kalt said. “Or, if he decides that he will, he could say, ’Well, you know, I never said I wouldn’t.’ ”

Trump suggests his post-presidency may make him cry

The White House dismissed suggestions that Trump’s thoughts are increasingly turning to the clock running out on his presidency — and the legacy he’ll leave behind. Spokesperson Olivia Wales said he “is fighting every day” to deliver on promises to reduce violent crime, crack down on the U.S.-Mexico border and lower prescription drug prices.

“The only legacy President Trump is concerned with is making America greater than ever before,” Wales said.

Still, hinting at how he’ll be remembered is something Trump is suddenly talking about a lot.

During a recent Pennsylvania rally, he said, “Whoever the next president is, he’s going to be talking about what a brilliant president he is. And I’ll be home. And I’ll be saying, ’That son of a gun,’ because we did the job.”

A week later in Georgia, Trump was predicting that once his presidency was over, “I’ll be sitting home.”

“I may be crying,” the president added, arguing that Democrats could retake the Senate and scrap filibuster rules, making it easier to move their key legislation.

Then, in Michigan, Trump injected some doubt into whether he was ready to hand over the Oval Office and move back to Florida.

“In two and a half years, you may have a different president — may,” he said, emphasizing the “may.”

“I’ll be sitting home. I’ll be reading the papers. I’ll be watching television,” Trump said, before swiping at his predecessor, President Biden. “And I’ll be having some guy — like last time, a real idiot — stand up and say, ‘We are doing record business.’ ”

Mixed Trump signals are still most common

But even as he’s begun to suggest he’ll be leaving the presidency, Trump has also continued to tease a 2028 reelection run.

Addressing the rescheduled White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner last month, Trump joked, “Just like my presidency, the second time is always better” and that “the third time will be better yet. I’m only kidding.” He later wore a 2028 campaign cap to finish the speech.

The Constitution’s 22nd Amendment says no one can be elected president more than twice. It was ratified in 1951, six years after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt died, months into his fourth term. Until Roosevelt, no other president had defied the tradition of stepping down after two terms that George Washington started.

Still, Trump had only been back in the White House for a couple of months when he told NBC News, “There are methods which you could” use to seek a third term.

He acknowledged that one method was to be the running mate to Vice President JD Vance in 2028 — then have Vance step aside if the pair won.

“There are others, too,” Trump said then, alluding to more options. He later told Time magazine, “There are some loopholes,” while also saying he didn’t believe in using them.

The president has since often used his social media posts to promote “Trump 2028” logos featuring his slogan “Make America Great Again.”

But Trump has also at times seemed definitive about the ban on him making another run, acknowledging recently to reporters: “I’d love to run, but the law is very strong.”

Kalt wrote about a two-term president possibly getting back to office by running for vice president in “constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies.”

“People do tend to find, in Trump’s words, whatever it is that they want to hear,” he said.

Trump may be fighting the ‘lame duck’ factor

Second-term presidents typically see their power and influence wane during their last two years, particularly if their party suffers big midterm defeats. But Trump’s comments could also be a sign he’s thinking about cementing his legacy, a stage that many of his predecessors also reached.

“They all, particularly as they cross the midpoint of their second term, start thinking about legacy,” said Paul Begala, a former adviser to President Clinton.

“They all banish the word. I know Clinton and Bush, they said, ’Can’t use the L-word.’ But they do,” Begala said, referring to his old boss Clinton and to President George W. Bush. “They all think about it. And the staff thinks about it and the Cabinet thinks about it.”

In his last two years of office, Clinton threw himself into trying to broker a Middle East peace agreement. Bush used the slogan “sprint to the finish” during his presidency’s final year in 2008, and Biden adopted a “run through the tape” ethos after abandoning his reelection bid.

Trump has leaned into molding the White House and Greater Washington in his own image, harkening back to his days as a real estate developer in 1970s and 1980s New York.

He’s ordered up a towering arch near the Lincoln Memorial and restored city fountains, while constructing a Rose Garden patio area and helipad on the White House lawn and adding scores of gilded touches to the building’s stately interior and exterior.

And then, there’s the massive ballroom that Trump has crews rushing to finish in the face of legal challenges — a project the president says will only be completed late in 2028, shortly before he leaves office.

“It’s not for me, ‘cause I’m going to be here a very short period of time” when the work is finished, Trump recently told reporters in the Oval Office. “I’ll be there for four, five, six months. This is for future presidents.”

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

Late on Friday night, Donald Trump announced what he called “the biggest oil deal in world history.” Under the terms described publicly so far, the US would obtain a controlling interest in a new venture involving 17 Venezuelan oil fields containing more than 65 billion barrels of proven reserves, with an effective 55 percent share of production and preferential access to crude at cost. The Trump administration says the arrangement could mobilize around $100 billion in private investment and eventually generate more than $200 billion in Venezuelan tax revenues. Much about the deal, including its precise legal structure, remains unclear.

There is nothing inherently objectionable about American companies making money from Venezuelan oil. Venezuela desperately needs foreign capital, technology and markets. PDVSA cannot rebuild the industry on its own, and reconnecting Venezuela to the American energy system would be preferable to another generation of dependence on Russia, China or Iran. 

The problem is not that Washington wants investment. The problem is that it seems determined to make that investment possible without first solving the political and institutional problem that made Venezuela uninvestable in the first place.

Recalculating

The original expectation after Nicolás Maduro’s removal seemed straightforward enough. American oil majors would pour tens of billions of dollars into the country and restore production. Nine days after Maduro was captured, Trump gathered oil executives at the White House and invited them back to Venezuela. ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods responded with an inconvenient assessment: under the existing legal and commercial conditions, the country remained “uninvestable.” ConocoPhillips was interested but similarly cautious. Chevron, which never fully left, has continued expanding and is now preparing another significant restructuring of its Venezuelan operations. So far, the broad stampede of supermajors Washington appeared to expect has not come.

So Washington widened the search. Delcy Rodríguez traveled to India in June to court energy investment and deepen ties with Reliance and other Indian companies, in a trip conducted with remarkably explicit American encouragement. India had once again become a major buyer of Venezuelan crude, and Asian capital offered another potential source of the money Venezuela needed.

Under the conditions we have been apprised of so far, it is difficult to imagine a future democratic Venezuelan government simply accepting an arrangement of this magnitude as a fait accompli.

At the same time came operators with a different tolerance for Venezuelan risk. Hunt Overseas Oil and Crossover Energy signed preliminary agreements to develop projects in the Orinoco Belt. Smaller American firms have explored opportunities that Exxon and Conoco have so far declined to pursue. SLB, an oilfield-services company rather than a producer, has now been brought in to reconstruct and analyze PDVSA’s degraded reservoir data, the sort of basic technical infrastructure that should tell us something about how much of an oil industry still needs to be rebuilt.

And then there are the intermediaries. Bloomberg recently reported that Alejandro Betancourt, who rose spectacularly during the Chávez years, emerged as an important facilitator for Washington’s effort to bring smaller American companies into Venezuela. His usefulness is not difficult to understand. Companies entering a market where formal institutions remain weak need people who know the terrain, the networks, the officials and the informal rules through which business actually gets done. 

Betancourt has denied past allegations of wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime, but his return as an influential gatekeeper hardly advertises the arrival of a transparent, rules-based Venezuelan economy.

Now comes the ultimate recalculation. If investors are still reluctant to absorb Venezuelan political risk, the US government may absorb some of it itself.

Risk instead of certainty

That is what makes Friday’s announcement so revealing. Washington began the year with the proposition that political change would make Venezuela attractive to capital. Now, the Trump government appears increasingly willing to create more and more elaborate mechanisms to insulate investors from risk rather than address the conditions that make the country risky in the first place. At every stage, it has changed the investor, the financing, the intermediary or the allocation of risk. The one variable it has been remarkably reluctant to change is the Venezuelan government.

There is also the small matter of Venezuelan law.

The Constitution establishes that hydrocarbon deposits belong to the Republic and are inalienable. It also requires National Assembly approval for public-interest contracts involving foreign states, foreign official entities, or companies not domiciled in Venezuela. Delcy’s reform of the hydrocarbons law has undeniably widened the space for private operators, granting companies much greater control over production and commercialization. But nothing disclosed so far explains how an arrangement giving the US government a controlling economic position over 17 fields, reportedly with rights potentially stretching for a quarter of a century, has obtained the constitutional authorization necessary to bind Venezuela over anything resembling that period. Reuters itself notes that the legal and financial structure remains unclear and that the proposal faces constitutional questions.

Delcy’s strategy is to survive Trump himself, so that the next American administration treats her as the person guaranteeing oil production, investment contracts and political stability.

Perhaps those questions will eventually receive convincing answers. Perhaps the current National Assembly will be asked to provide whatever approvals the agreement requires. But under the conditions we have been apprised of so far, it is difficult to imagine a future democratic Venezuelan government simply accepting an arrangement of this magnitude as a fait accompli. At a minimum, it would have every reason to subject the contracts to comprehensive legal review and democratic ratification; significant portions could well have to be renegotiated.

That produces a remarkable contradiction. An agreement supposedly designed to provide investors with certainty may create its own enormous source of political risk. 

A future government could inherit century-long commitments negotiated by an unelected predecessor whose authority it contests, with the US itself financially invested in preserving those commitments. Venezuela’s first genuinely democratic administration would then begin its life choosing between endorsing decisions it never authorized or entering an immediate dispute with Washington.

There is a perfectly respectable argument for what the Trump administration is attempting. Venezuela cannot place reconstruction on hold indefinitely while it builds pristine institutions. Oil infrastructure continues to deteriorate. Investment can create jobs, revenue, and constituencies interested in stability. Delcy controls the ministries, PDVSA, much of the security apparatus and the bureaucracy; somebody has to sign the contracts today. Connecting Venezuelan economic interests to American companies could itself help pull the country away from the geopolitical networks that sustained Maduro.

But that argument confuses the need to restart the economy with the need to give an interim government the power to determine its structure for generations.

Washington could have pursued investment while limiting the duration of interim arrangements, requiring future democratic ratification for the largest commitments, creating sunset clauses, tying concessions to institutional milestones or ensuring that Venezuela’s democratic forces had genuine ownership of the framework. Democratic legitimacy is not an obstacle to investment certainty. Properly understood, it is one of its foundations.

The US seems unwilling to own the fact that no amount of financial engineering, political brokerage or well-connected intermediaries can substitute for a democratic government.

Instead, the emerging arrangement gives Delcy Rodríguez an increasingly powerful incentive to make herself indispensable. The more American capital, energy security and political prestige become attached to agreements signed under her government, the more valuable continuity becomes. Delcy’s obvious strategy is no longer merely to survive the transition. It is to survive Trump himself, so that the next American administration treats her not as the temporary caretaker Washington inherited in January but as the person guaranteeing oil production, investment contracts and political stability.

Unreliable partners

There have been meaningful changes since Maduro’s removal. More than a thousand political prisoners have reportedly been released. The government and representatives of the opposition have reached an agreement to renew the Supreme Court. But if the objective on January 3 was a genuine democratic transition, it is increasingly difficult to argue that Venezuela has moved very far from square one. Delcy still governs without democratic legitimacy. Much of the chavista State remains intact. María Corina Machado remains outside the country and outside the US-backed negotiating mechanism. Even senators from both parties in Washington have begun pressing the administration for a clearer path toward elections.

If anyone in Washington believes that another legally dubious agreement negotiated with the cronies who continue to usurp the Venezuelan State—particularly through figures like Alejandro Betancourt, now being mentioned as a facilitator for oil investment—will inspire substantially more confidence than anything Washington has tried since that glorious January 3 night, then they have learned remarkably little about the problem they inherited. Washington took responsibility for managing Venezuela’s transition that night. Eight months later, it still seems unwilling to own the central fact that no amount of financial engineering, political brokerage or well-connected intermediaries can substitute for a Venezuelan government with democratic and legal legitimacy.

There is a broader cost to that refusal. Machado is not merely another Venezuelan politician Washington happens to dislike. She is one of Latin America’s most recognizable democratic figures, with an audience extending across the region’s Right, democratic center and beyond. The administration’s repeated willingness to sideline her while embracing Rodríguez is therefore being watched outside Venezuela too.

If billions begin flowing through institutions and business networks that have never been subjected to democratic accountability, Washington may discover that it has helped recapitalize the very system it intended to replace.

It is particularly telling to see rightwing figures such as Emmanuel Rincón, Orlando Avendaño and Hermann Tertsch—voices that have spent much of the past eight months looking for the glass-half-full interpretation of Washington’s most questionable decisions—struggling to interpret the latest developments as anything other than the US installing a friendlier face atop the chavista state.

That matters for American power. The Trump administration has never pretended that its diplomacy would be delicate. Allies understand pressure, bargaining and the occasional arm-twist. But there is a difference between being a demanding partner and being an unreliable one. Latin American political leaders who have aligned themselves with Washington against authoritarian movements would be perfectly rational to study Venezuela and conclude that the US remains an excellent partner for a business transaction while being considerably less dependable as the guarantor of a political project.

Oil production can rise without democracy. Private investment can coexist with authoritarianism. Venezuela can become much more capitalist without becoming substantially more free. If billions begin flowing through institutions and business networks that have never been subjected to democratic accountability, Washington may discover that it has helped recapitalize the very system it intended to replace.

Chavismo spent a quarter century destroying the institutional ecosystem in which long-term investment could survive. Changing an oil law does not rebuild it. Removing Maduro did not rebuild it. Finding more adventurous investors will not rebuild it either.

Democratic legitimacy is not the prize Venezuela receives at the end of a successful transition. It is part of the infrastructure required for the transition to succeed.

WASHINGTON — In firing up a trade war with Canada, President Trump turned to a 96-year-old statute so obscure that many trade lawyers didn’t even know it was still on the books.

Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on Aug. 24 to slap a 50% tax on $20 billion worth of Canadian imports. The move prompted dollar-for-dollar retaliation from Ottawa and strained already-tense relations between the neighbors and longtime allies.

The president’s Section 338 tariff authority has never been used, let alone tested in court. “This law is literally a blank canvas because it’s never been litigated,’’ said Ryan Majerus, a partner at law firm King & Spalding and a former U.S. trade official.

So it’s unclear whether Trump’s latest Canada tariffs could survive a legal challenge, and some lawyers argue that the Depression-era law has been rendered obsolete by more recent trade laws.

Trump raises Section 338 from the dead

To sanction Canada allegedly for discriminating against U.S. dairy, auto and alcoholic beverage exports this summer, the Trump administration reached back to the Great Depression.

The 1930 tariff legislation is known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act after its congressional sponsors. With the U.S. and world economies in collapse, Congress raised tariffs on hundreds of imports in an attempt to protect American farmers and manufacturers.

The tariffs are notorious among economists and historians for shutting down world commerce and making the Great Depression worse. (Trump, who proudly calls himself “Tariff Man,” has a different view, arguing that the Smoot-Hawley levies simply came too late to rescue the American economy.)

In addition to raising tariffs themselves, lawmakers in 1930 gave the president new power to impose them himself: Section 338 authorizes presidential tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that have discriminated against U.S. businesses.

Before Trump, no president had actually used the statute.

“Until Trump’s second term, few trade lawyers were aware that Section 338 remained on the books or understood what it did,” legal scholars Peter Harrell and Jennifer Hillman of Georgetown University wrote this month in the libertarian magazine Reason.

Harrell and Hillman cite State Department records to show that the U.S. considered using Section 338 in trade disputes — against Spain in 1932 and against newly communist China in 1949 — but never did. After the Depression, U.S. policy focused more on using negotiations — rather than sanctions — to open foreign markets.

So Section 338 sat moldering in the law books.

Other laws take hold

As the years went by, the United States passed new trade laws. Some of them ceded to the president tariff power, which the Constitution originally granted to Congress. But the new laws also limited the president’s authority to certain circumstances — including dealing with national security threats and foreign currency crises — and required the government to carry out investigations and meet other procedural requirements beforehand.

“There is a very strong argument that [Section 338] was superseded,” said Sara Albrecht, chief executive of the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian advocacy group that represented businesses that successfully challenged the earlier Trump tariffs with the Supreme Court.

If Congress wanted the president to retain Section 338 power, Albrecht asks, why did lawmakers pass the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allowed for national security tariffs? And the Trade Act of 1974, which gives the president power to go after other countries’ unfair trade practices?

Battling over Canada’s dairy market

Legal experts see other weaknesses in the Section 338 tariffs.

Harrell and Hillman, for instance, write in Reason that Section 338 authorizes only tariffs that “offset” the harm that a foreign country’s trade practices do to American companies. But in targeting Canada, they note, the Trump administration made no attempt to calculate the dollar amount of damage arising from discrimination against U.S. farmers, automakers and marketers of alcoholic beverages. And the U.S. went after Canadian imports unconnected to those trouble spots, including hockey sticks and cement.

Harrell and Hillman also say that Canada’s protection of its dairy market does not single out U.S. farmers for discrimination; the rules apply to many other Canadian trading partners as well.

Moreover, the United States agreed to the Canadian system — in which Canada imposes stiff tariffs on dairy imports that exceed a quota — in a North America trade pact Trump himself negotiated with Canada and Mexico in his first term. Harrell and Hillman write that it is “incongruous, to say the least, for the United States to denounce as discriminatory the very terms it agreed to.”

But John Veroneau, former general counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative, said the Section 338 tariffs are straightforward: They are justified when another country discriminates against U.S. imports by taxing them more than it taxes imports from other countries.

And in a “perverse irony,” Veroneau said, Canada did just that when it responded to tariffs Trump imposed on Canadian products last year with its own retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports. “Courts will rightly feel obliged in the face of any challenge [to decide]: Are the statutory requirements met or are they not met, however ludicrous the broader context might be,” said Veroneau, adjunct professor at the University of Maine School of Law.

Plaintiffs are so far hard to find

Trump’s other tools to impose his protectionist agenda already have floundered in court. The Supreme Court in February threw out his boldest gambit: invoking a 1977 national security law to hit almost every country on Earth last year with double-digit tariffs.

When Trump tried to replace the revenue lost to the Supreme Court defeat with a new set of tariffs, a specialized trade court in New York rejected those too — though the government was allowed to continue collecting the import taxes while the case works its way through the court system.

No one has filed a lawsuit challenging the Section 338 tariffs. The Liberty Justice Center has been looking for businesses willing to sue the government over the levies.

“I haven’t had a lot of response from plaintiffs,” Albrecht said. “Anytime you want to sue the government, it’s a hard proposition.” The Section 338 tariffs on Canada are also far smaller — just 5% of Canadian imports — than Trump’s 2025 worldwide tariffs, meaning that fewer companies have to pay them and can claim to have been injured by them.

There’s also a chance, Albrecht said, that the two countries will resume the talks they broke off Aug. 21 and reach a compromise to end a standoff neither country wants. “I’m hopeful that somebody blinks, that they come to some agreement and it all goes away,” she said.