trump

Al Jazeera’s Rosalind Jordan and Almigdad Alruhaid report on the latest developments after US President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s response to the US peace proposal, as negotiations increasingly focus on sanctions, ceasefire guarantees, and control of the Strait of Hormuz.

US president says Tehran’s response to US peace proposal ‘unacceptable’, as the Iranian military warns it is ready if war resumes.

Official says US president will likely ‘apply pressure’ on China over Beijing’s purchase of Iranian oil amid war.

Donald Trump is set to arrive in Beijing on Wednesday evening to discuss the Iran war and other issues with his Chinese counterpart President Xi Jinping.

White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said an opening ceremony and meeting will be on Thursday morning, and the trip will conclude on Friday. The US plans to host the Chinese leader during a reciprocal visit later this year.

Kelly said that this week’s trip would be of “tremendous symbolic significance” and focus on “rebalancing the relationship with China and prioritising reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence”.

Trump’s visit, initially scheduled for earlier this year but postponed in March due to the US-Israel war on Iran, comes as the US president struggles to contain the fallout from the war, both at home and abroad.

A senior administration official told news outlets in an anonymous briefing on Sunday that Trump could “apply pressure” to China on Iran in areas such as oil sales and Tehran’s purchase of potential dual-role military-civilian goods.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week accused China of “funding” Iran.

“Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, and China has been buying 90 percent of their energy, so they are funding the largest state sponsor of terrorism,” Bessent told Fox News.

Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to US-Israeli attacks, restricting passage through a key artery of global energy transport.

China has said that it wants to see the war end and hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arraghchi last week. At the same time, Beijing has refused to recognise Washington’s “unilateral” sanctions on Iran’s oil sector.

Disruptions stemming from the war have disrupted the global economy, with Asian states that depend on imports from the Middle East especially hard hit.

Trump could also bring up China’s support for Russia during the talks, along with trade and rare earth minerals, a vital resource for the US tech sector. Business executives from aerospace manufacturer Boeing and a handful of agricultural companies are set to travel with the US delegation.

The anonymous administration official said that no change was expected regarding the US stance on Taiwan, a main sticking point in relations between Washington and Beijing. China considers the self-ruling island a part of its territory, but the US has deep security and economic commitments to Taiwan.

The National Science Foundation suspended at least 18 research grants to UC Berkeley last month despite a court injunction restricting such suspensions, according to an attorney representing university scientists in a class-action lawsuit.

The NSF declined to comment on the suspensions.

The grants include at least one that the NSF had previously canceled and was compelled by a federal court order to restore, for a series of mixed-reality exhibits at the Lawrence Hall of Science showcasing Indigenous Ohlone knowledge about the natural world, said one of the project’s leaders, Jedda Foreman.

Foreman, an associate director at the Lawrence Hall of Science, said another researcher on her team received an email from UC Berkeley’s vice chancellor of research, Katherine Yelick, notifying them that the National Science Foundation had suspended the $1.4-million grant. Foreman said she viewed the email, which said the university had received a letter from the NSF raising concerns about “foreign funding.” The email did not provide a copy of the letter or explain further, she said.

Foreman said the Lawrence Hall of Science had not received any foreign funding for the project.

“The grantees were given near-zero information about what was problematic in the execution of their grant,” said Claudia Polsky, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law who is representing Foreman and other researchers in a suit they filed last year contesting a previous round of grant cancellations by the Trump administration.

Polsky said her legal team was seeking more information about the 18 suspensions, but was concerned that the freezing of Foreman’s grant may violate a court order a federal judge issued in that case restoring the defunded projects.

UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof said in a statement that the university “is engaged with the government on matters pertaining to research grants, and remains committed to compliance with all federal laws, rules and regulations.”

He declined to comment on the types of grants affected, the amount of funds at stake, or the potential effect on the campus.

One of the Lawrence Hall of Science exhibits, which were co-designed with Ohlone youth, is scheduled to open Sunday, with another set for the fall of 2028. Researchers also are studying whether participating in creating exhibits sparks more interest in science among Indigenous young people and makes them more likely to pursue STEM careers.

“We’re doing a lot of hoping and finger-crossing that something works out,” Foreman said. “It was such a powerful project and we really want to be able to share what we’ve learned.”

National Science Foundation turmoil

The University of California received $525 million in National Science Foundation grants in the 2024-25 budget year. But that funding source has become increasingly volatile under the Trump administration as the federal agency has terminated nearly 2,000 grants nationwide that it said did not align with its priorities — including those focusing on diversity, equity and inclusion — and has been slower to approve and disburse new awards.

In late April, President Trump fired all 22 members of the independent board of scientists that oversaw the NSF. He is also proposing to cut the agency’s budget by more than half in 2027, though Congress rejected a similar plan last year.

Other federal agencies also terminated research grants en masse last year. Some of the cancellations have been reversed by the courts.

UC researchers are contesting grant reversals by the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health, Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency and National Endowment for the Humanities in the class-action lawsuit, filed last year. The University of California is not a party to the suit.

Last June, the researchers won a key legal victory when U.S. District Judge Rita Lin issued a preliminary injunction restoring grants canceled by the NSF, EPA and NEH — including for the Ohlone-focused exhibits co-led by Foreman, one of six named plaintiffs in the case. The judge barred the agencies from revoking funds using form letters that didn’t include an explanation specific to the grant at stake, or because of Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.

Judge Lin stepped in again after the NSF froze hundreds of grants to UCLA in August, amid attempts by the Trump administration to secure a $1-billion settlement from the university over allegations of campus antisemitism. Indefinitely suspending a grant was the same as terminating it, Lin said in a ruling requiring the agency to reinstate the funds.

Polsky said last month’s suspension of Foreman’s grant raised concerns that the Trump administration was seeking a way around those orders. “It seems to us like something that should not have been canceled on the merits and raises suspicion that this was just a different way to cancel the grant,” she said.

UC looks to state for alternative funding

The University of California is ramping up efforts to find alternative funding for its multibillion-dollar research enterprise as federal support becomes less reliable. On Monday, UC President James Milliken spoke alongside state Sen. Scott Wiener and United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain at a Sacramento rally in support of state legislation to create a $23-billion fund for scientific research.

If successful, the bill will place a bond measure on the November ballot. Money from the bond would go toward research in wildfire and pandemic preparedness, new medical treatments and other areas, with revenue from inventions shared with the state. The state Assembly’s appropriations committee is set to consider the bill Thursday.

“If the federal government is going to continue to attempt to reduce funding for the research that has been so important to UC — that saves lives, that drives the economy — then the state of California, I hope, will be able to step up,” Milliken said at a meeting of the university’s Board of Regents on Wednesday.

UC Provost Katherine Newman told the regents she has been meeting with leaders of the Russell Group, a consortium of the United Kingdom’s top universities, to discuss collaborating on research in climate change, clean energy and public health — all areas that have seen federal funding threatened under the current administration.

Mello writes for Berkeleyside, which originally published this story. It was distributed through a partnership with the Associated Press.

May 10 (UPI) — Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Sunday the Trump administration is “open” to the possibility of suspending the federal tax on gasoline sales as prices spike amid the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.

Wright said during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press he and Trump are “open to all ideas” to lower energy prices, including following the lead of some U.S. states in temporarily shelving taxes on gas at the pump amid the price surge.

“All measures that can be taken to lower the price at the pump and lower the prices for Americans, this administration is in support of,” he said. “We are constantly looking for different ideas.”

Citing previous measures such as releasing oil from the U.S. strategic petroleum reserves and “revising federal regulations on summer gasoline blends to make it easier for American refineries to produce more gasoline,” Wright said the suspension of the 18-cents-per-gallon federal tax on gas is also on the table.

“We are working every day to offset this rise in prices because of a critical conflict in Iran to drive prices down, and we’re open to all such ideas,” he said.

Wright’s comments came as the average national price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline stood at $4.52 per gallon as of Sunday, according to the Automobile Association of America.

U.S. drivers have seen sharp increases in pump prices in recent weeks after Iran blocked the vital Strait of Hormuz waterway connecting Persian Gulf oil and natural gas producers with world markets.

The move came in retaliation to a wave U.S.-Israeli bombing attacks on Iran beginning Feb. 28, which Washington and Tel Aviv claim were necessary to prevent the imminent development of a nuclear weapon by Iran’s rulers.

The price of regular gas last week surged 25 cents for the second consecutive week to $4.55 — $1.40 higher than they were a year ago and marking their highest level since 2022, the AAA reported.

Crude oil prices have dipped below $100 per barrel while a fragile cease-fire between the United States and Iran has been in place and negotiations to reopen the Strait have been ongoing. But with global oil supplies tightening, upwards pressure on pump prices continues.

In a separate appearance on CBS News’ Face the Nation on Sunday, Wright refused to predict were gas prices were heading.

“I don’t know the future of gas prices,” he said while admitting that “gasoline and diesel prices are up, and they will remain up while this conflict’s in place, and then they will come back down.

“And, ultimately, they’ll come back down lower than they were before.”

President Donald Trump has warned that the United States will target any Iranian trying to reach the country’s highly enriched uranium, saying that the nuclear material is under constant surveillance by the US military.

In an interview with the syndicated TV show Full Measure that aired on Sunday, Trump appeared to play down the significance of the uranium, which is believed to be buried under the rubble of nuclear facilities, remaining in Iran for now.

“We’ll get that at some point, whenever we want. We have it surveilled,” Trump said.

“I did a thing called Space Force, and they are watching. If somebody walked in, they can tell you his name, his address, the number of his badge … If anybody got near the place, we will know about it, and we’ll blow them up.”

Iran’s highly enriched uranium is one of the major sticking points between Washington and Tehran in ceasefire negotiations to end the 10-week US-Israel war on Iran.

The US wants Iran to transfer the uranium outside the country and completely shut down its nuclear programme, but Tehran has stressed that it will not give up its right to a domestic enrichment programme.

Several international media reports have said that the uranium remains under nuclear sites that the US bombed in June 2025, but Tehran has not confirmed the location of the nuclear material.

Last month, Trump announced that Iran had agreed to allow Washington to retrieve the uranium and bring it to the US – claims that Tehran quickly dismissed.

Trump told Reuters on April 17 that the US would work with Iran “at a nice leisurely pace, and go down and start excavating with big machinery” to retrieve the uranium stockpile at the sites.

“We’ll bring ⁠it back to the United States,” he added.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei denied Trump’s claim. “Enriched uranium is as sacred to us as Iranian soil and will not be transferred anywhere under any circumstances,” he said.

Iran is estimated to have more than 400kg (882lb) of uranium enriched at 60 percent purity.

Uranium enrichment is a complex process of isolating and garnering the most radioactive variety – isotope – of the element to produce nuclear fuel.

When enriched to around 90 percent purity, uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons.

In 2015, Iran agreed to a multilateral deal that saw Tehran scale back its nuclear programme and cap its uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent under strict international supervision in exchange for lifting sanctions against its economy.

Trump nixed that agreement – known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – and started reimposing sanctions on Iran.

In response, Tehran – which denies seeking a nuclear weapon – began to advance its enrichment programme well beyond the limits set by the JCPOA.

Trump has argued that the ongoing conflict with Iran aims to prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

Asked about the rising oil prices due to the war, Trump said: “We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon because they’re crazy.”

The average price of one gallon (3.8 litres) of petrol or gasoline in the US has risen to more than $4.50 due to supply issues linked to the Iranian blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, fuelling inflation. It was less than $3 before the war.

Despite the truce that came into effect last month, skirmishes have erupted in the Gulf over the past week as the US continues to enforce a siege on Iranian ports amid Tehran’s Hormuz blockade.

Iranian state-affiliated news outlets reported on Sunday that Iran has delivered its response to the latest US proposal to end the war to Pakistan, which is mediating the talks.

But Trump said the war is not over while reiterating his claim that Iran has been “defeated”.

“They are defeated, but that doesn’t mean they’re done,” the US president said. “We could go in for two more weeks and do every single target. We have certain targets that we wanted, and we’ve done probably 70 percent of them, but we have other targets that we could conceivably hit.”

TAIPEI, Taiwan — A resolute Secretary of State Marco Rubio took to the White House lectern Tuesday and declared the United States, under President Trump’s leadership, had launched a bold new operation to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, based on the principle that international waterways must remain free.

An hour later, Trump walked it all back, ending the complex military endeavor after less than a day.

It was just the latest evidence to America’s allies that the word of the U.S. government is subject entirely to the president’s whims. And such is the worry fueling concerns in Taipei ahead of Trump’s state visit to China this week.

Privately, senior administration officials have assured Taiwanese leadership ahead of the trip that Trump has no intention of changing long-standing U.S. policy on the island, two sources familiar with the discussions said — a stance of “strategic ambiguity” that has avoided any declarative statements on Taiwanese independence since it was coined by Henry Kissinger 55 years ago.

A White House official was definitive that U.S. policy toward Taiwan “remains the same as the first Trump administration.”

“The U.S. One China policy, as our cross-strait policies are collectively known, is based on the Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-PRC Joint Communiques and the Six Assurances to Taiwan,” the official said. “There is no change to our policy with respect to Taiwan.”

But Chinese officials told The Times that their president, Xi Jinping, intends to raise the matter as a top priority, knowing that only one person — Trump himself — speaks for the administration today.

Whether Xi can leverage the intimacy of a private audience to shift Trump’s stance, potentially linking it to other U.S. objectives, is the source of significant concern here.

Taiwanese officials fear even the most subtle rhetorical change in policy from Trump could imperil a delicate status quo that has held, to its benefit, for decades. They have similarly sought assurances that the administration will follow through on a pending U.S. arms sale worth over $10 billion, which received approval from Taiwan’s legislature on Friday.

“The most serious scenario would be if President Trump were to make an impromptu statement, such as, ‘I oppose Taiwanese independence,’ particularly if he were to link this to trade, the Iran issue, or a summit agreement,” said Chienyu Shih, of the Institute for National Defense and Security Research in Taiwan. “This would constitute a rhetorical concession of substantial significance to Beijing.”

Rubio told reporters at his news conference Tuesday — with a similar confidence he expressed on the Iran file — that China understands Washington’s long-standing position on the island.

“I’m sure Taiwan will be a topic of conversation. It always is. The Chinese understand our position on that topic — we understand theirs,” Rubio said.

“I think both countries understand that it is in neither one of our interests to see anything destabilizing happen in that part of the world,” he added. “We don’t need any destabilizing events to occur with regards to Taiwan, or anywhere in the Indo-Pacific. And that’s to the mutual benefit of both the United States and the Chinese.”

Trump has suggested a willingness to shift U.S. policy on Taiwan before.

During his initial campaign for the presidency in 2016, Trump openly questioned the One China policy, drawing ire from Beijing for suggesting he might endorse Taiwanese independence. He accepted a call from Taiwan’s president after his victory and would later support significant arms sales to Taipei.

And yet, at a 2017 meeting with Xi, Trump vacillated, telling the Chinese leader he could “deal with” the Taiwan issue in “a matter of months,” according to the Wall Street Journal. The Chinese were reportedly so flabbergasted by the comment that they dismissed it as rhetorical flourish.

“There is concern that the conversation between the two leaders could veer into sensitive territory on the topic of Taiwan,” said Brian Hart, deputy director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “but there are many in the administration who would still appreciate the importance of general continuity in U.S. policy.”

U.S. support for Taiwan’s democratic movement used to be a matter of principle. Today, Washington sees it as a matter of national security. Over 60% of semiconductors are produced in Taiwan, including 90% of the world’s most advanced chips. And it is viewed as the clasp of the first island chain guarding against Chinese maritime expansion.

A robust debate between Taiwan’s Cabinet and the opposition in parliament ended Friday not over whether to accept U.S. defense equipment, but over how much to spend. The Legislative Yuan approved $24 billion in purchases — including a defense package passed by Congress in December and the pending arms sale — falling short of Taipei’s $40-billion proposal.

Anticipation for the president’s state visit is high here in the capital city, where local news is filled with questions over the influence Trump’s war in Iran might have on his appetite for supporting Taiwan.

Chinese defense analysts have seen the war as a sign of U.S. weakness. But Taiwanese defense experts have taken away a different lesson: cheap equipment from a lesser military, such as dumb mines thrown in a strait, may just be enough to paralyze a superpower.

The latest U.S. National Security Strategy, released by the Trump administration in December, emphasized the importance of support for Taiwan and the status quo.

But the Taiwanese took note that the strategy also called for an end to forever wars in the Middle East, offering little preview of the president’s sudden strategic pivot on Iran in February, launching a war few saw coming.

What Trump chooses to say in China “might be difficult to predict,” said Jyh-Shyang Sheu, a scholar of Chinese politics and military capabilities based in Taiwan.

But “in Taipei, we are still focusing on the U.S. policy,” he added, “more focusing on what he does instead of what he says.”

One member calls for a Presidential Medal of Freedom for a baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Another calls for court interventions by the Department of Justice on behalf of Amish parents fighting New York vaccine requirements and Catholic nuns challenging that state’s requirement that they accommodate hospice patients’ gender identities.

And the chair of the Religious Liberty Commission is calling for a federal hotline with this automated recording: “There is no separation of church and state.”

These are just some of the recommendations that members of the advisory panel formed by President Trump last year want to see included in the commission’s final report.

That report is still in the works, but commissioners had an opportunity to describe their wish lists during their most recent meeting in April. There was little dissent as the commissioners, most drawn from Trump’s base of conservative Christian supporters, covered the items they want in the report.

Their ideas reflect the prevailing perspectives on the definition of religious liberty among many conservative Catholic and evangelical activists: increasing avenues for religious expression in public schools, expanding opportunities for faith-based organizations to receive public money, and allowing for religious-based exemptions in areas ranging from labor law to classroom lessons to healthcare mandates.

Such views have also been reflected in Supreme Court decisions issued in recent years by its conservative majority.

Commission’s views criticized

Critics of the commission say it embodies a one-sided perspective of Trump’s supporters and is threatening a well-established constitutional separation of church and state.

A lawsuit by a progressive interreligious coalition argues that the commission fails to comply with federal law requiring advisory panels to feature diverse members and viewpoints.

The lawsuit echoes criticism that most commissioners are conservative Christian clerics and commentators; one is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi. The coalition says members have asserted that America is specifically a Judeo-Christian or Christian nation and notes that most commission meetings took place at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, an institution with Christian leadership.

The Republican administration is asking a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit. The government is citing legal technicalities and contending that the law does not define how a commission should be fairly balanced or whose viewpoints should be represented.

Another entity created by Trump — the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias — issued a report saying Christians faced discrimination under the administration of President Biden in areas such as education, tax law and prosecution of antiabortion protesters. Progressive groups said that report failed to document systemic discrimination, focused on causes favored by conservative Christians and amounted to advocacy rather than an investigation.

In a further interlocking of Trump-related initiatives, several members of the Religious Liberty Commission are scheduled to take part in a May 17 prayer event marking the country’s upcoming 250th birthday. Several also participated in a recent Bible-reading marathon staged largely at the Museum of the Bible.

Harmony and tension

The commission has mostly featured agreement among members, with one dramatic exception. One commissioner, Carrie Prejean Boller, was ousted in February after a contentious hearing on antisemitism.

Commission Chair Dan Patrick said Prejean Boller sought to “hijack” the hearing, in which she had sharp exchanges with witnesses about the definition of antisemitism and defended commentator Candace Owens, denying her record of antisemitic statements. Prejean Boller, a Catholic, contended that she was wrongly ousted for expressing her beliefs.

In other hearings, witnesses described how they defied workplace regulations that they said conflicted with their conservative religious values on gender, abortion, COVID-19 vaccines and more. Some said they were prevented, at least temporarily, from displaying a religious symbol at work or trying to sing a Christian song at a school talent show.

At the hearing devoted to antisemitism, Jewish witnesses spoke of being harassed and threatened at campus pro-Palestinian protests against Israel. The commission has also heard from Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and other witnesses.

Even so, critics said the commission mostly focused on conservative Christian and right-leaning political grievances.

The Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, president of the progressive Interfaith Alliance, one of the groups suing over the commission’s composition, said the panel’s omissions are as significant as what it focuses on.

He said the commission has failed adequately to address such issues as anti-Muslim efforts in Texas and elsewhere, and also the rise of antisemitism on the right, not just the left.

Separation of church and state

Raushenbush said he is especially worried about the commission chair’s challenging the very notion of church-state separation.

Patrick, a Republican who is the Texas lieutenant governor, repeatedly denounced a concept that is embedded in Supreme Court precedent.

“We need to say there is no separation of church and state,” Patrick said at the April meeting. “That’s a lie.” He suggested printing “a million bumper stickers” to that effect.

No one at the commission meeting disagreed.

Trump made similar comments at a prayer event at the White House in 2025. “They say separation between church and state,” he said. “I said, all right, let’s forget about that for one time.”

While the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, 20th century decisions by the Supreme Court cited Thomas Jefferson’s description of the 1st Amendment as creating “a wall of separation between church and state.” The court applied the 1st Amendment’s prohibition of any church “establishment” to the states in addition to the federal government, citing the 14th Amendment’s ban on states denying citizens’ rights.

Courts have since wrestled with how to balance freedom of religion and freedom from government-sponsored religion.

Schools, vaccines and workplaces

Patrick has advocated for prayer and Ten Commandments postings in public schools.

“I don’t have any malice towards anyone that doesn’t believe in any type of faith,” Patrick told fellow commissioners. “That’s fine. That’s what America is about. But these organizations that are pushed by some ideology and pushed by someone’s bank account who wants to remove God from our country? We need to push back.”

On other issues, various commissioners called for requiring schools and workplaces to post notices of the rights of religious expression and exemptions.

Some called for restoring full pay and pension benefits for military service members who were discharged for refusing COVID-19 vaccines.

Bishop Robert Barron of the Catholic Diocese of Winona-Rochester, Minn., called for allowing religious groups such as Catholic Charities to receive federal money without compromising on traditional church teachings about the family.

He also said Catholic immigrants in detention should have humane treatment and access to sacraments and that immigration agents should not disrupt worship services in enforcement actions. The administration last year eliminated a policy against immigration enforcement in sanctuaries, which other religious leaders said should not occur at any time.

Kelly Shackelford, president and chief executive officer of the legal organization First Liberty Institute, called for new requirements that governments pay all legal bills if they lose a religious liberty case. He said many individuals lack the money to challenge the government in court.

“That would be a huge shifting of power in favor of citizens,” he said.

Smith writes for the Associated Press.

The White House’s newly released strategy for tackling the nation’s drug and addiction crisis calls for a number of ambitious public health approaches that some experts say are laudable but will be hampered by the administration’s own actions.

The sweeping 195-page National Drug Control Strategy, published May 4, advocates for making access to treatment easier than getting drugs, preventing young people from developing addictions in the first place, increasing support for people in recovery, and reducing overdose deaths.

Those broad goals are widely supported by public health researchers, addiction treatment clinicians, and recovery advocates.

But accomplishing such goals will be difficult in the face of the administration’s mass layoffs of federal employees, cancellation of research and community grants, attacks on organizations and practices that serve people who use drugs, and cuts to Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people that is the largest payer for addiction and mental healthcare nationwide.

Many components of the National Drug Control Strategy are “things that we would agree with and that we fully support,” said Libby Jones, who leads overdose prevention efforts at the Global Health Advocacy Incubator, a public health advocacy group.

But there are “disconnects in what the strategy says is important and then what they’re actually going to fund,” she said of the Trump administration. “Those inconsistencies feel particularly loud in this strategy.”

The White House’s National Drug Control Strategy, released every two years, is a touchstone document meant to lay out the federal government’s coordinated approach to what in recent decades has been one of the country’s defining problems.

Since 2000, more than 1.1 million people have died of drug overdoses. Although deaths have decreased recently, the numbers remain elevated compared with earlier decades, and research suggests overdose death rates among Black Americans and Native Americans are disproportionately high.

The strategy document published this week is the first of President Trump’s current term. In keeping with the administration’s approach to addiction issues, it places heavy emphasis on law enforcement efforts to reduce the supply of illicit drugs. The document repeatedly refers to the ongoing “war” against “foreign terrorist organizations” — the Trump administration’s term for drug cartels — and touts increased enforcement at U.S. borders.

It also outlines plans to implement artificial intelligence technologies to screen for illicit drugs brought into the country and wastewater testing to detect illegal drug use nationwide.

The second half of the strategy focuses on reducing the demand for drugs through public health prevention efforts, addiction treatment, and support for people in recovery. It promotes the role of religion in recovery and calls for the widespread use of overdose reversal medications, such as naloxone.

In a news release, the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy called the document a “roadmap” that will “continue dismantling the drug supply and defeating the scourge of illicit drugs in our country.”

The Trump administration did not respond to requests for comment about how the strategy aligns with its other actions.

In December, Trump signed a reauthorization of the SUPPORT Act, which continues several grants related to treatment and recovery and the requirement for Medicaid to cover all FDA-approved medications for opioid use disorder. In January, he announced the Great American Recovery Initiative, including a $100-million investment to address homelessness, opioid addiction, and public safety.

However, few details have been provided about the initiative, and in January, about a month after the SUPPORT Act passed, billions of dollars in addiction-related grants were abruptly terminated and reinstated within a frantic 24-hour period.

That “whiplash” left “a sense of instability and uncertainty in the field,” said Yngvild Olsen, a national adviser with the Manatt Health consultancy. She led substance use treatment policy at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or SAMHSA, under the Biden administration and left about six months into Trump’s second term.

That insecurity was exacerbated by the president’s 2027 budget request, which proposes cuts to several addiction and mental health programs and the consolidation of key federal agencies working on those matters. Jones’ group and nearly 100 others in the field have signed a letter asking Congress to reject the proposals, as it did with similar requests last year.

The national drug strategy adds new, potentially contradictory information to this confusing landscape.

Increasing Access to Treatment

One of the most significant public health goals in the strategy, mentioned at least half a dozen times, is to make it easier to get treatment than it is to buy illegal drugs.

National data underscores the necessity: More than 80% of Americans who need substance use treatment don’t receive it.

The administration’s actions on health insurance may make it difficult to improve that statistic.

Medicaid is the main source of healthcare coverage for adults with opioid use disorder. When implemented, the Medicaid work requirements in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act are projected to strip that coverage from about 1.6 million people with substance use disorders.

The last time Medicaid rolls were purged — after COVID-era protections expired — many people who had been receiving medication treatment for opioid addiction stopped it and fewer people started treatment, according to a study published last year.

Olsen, who is also an addiction medicine doctor, said she loves the strategy’s emphasis on making treatment readily available to anyone who wants it. But she said that’s “hard to really imagine when now people may have to pay for it themselves because they may be losing their Medicaid insurance coverage.”

One analysis estimated the upcoming Medicaid changes could lead 156,000 people to lose access to medications for opioid use disorder and result in more than 1,000 additional fatal overdoses per year.

People with private insurance may be affected too.

The Trump administration has refused to enforce Biden-era regulations aimed at bolstering mental health parity, the idea that insurers must cover mental illness and addiction treatment comparably to physical treatments. And recently, the administration said it would redo those regulations altogether, raising fears that addiction treatment could become increasingly unaffordable.

The administration did not respond to specific questions about how it reconciles its actions on Medicaid and parity with the goal of increasing treatment.

Prioritizing Prevention

The strategy highlights preventing addictions before they begin as one of the keys to reducing demand for drugs. It calls for “promoting a drug-free America as the social norm” and implementing school and community-based programs that are backed by science.

“Investing in primary prevention, before drug use starts, saves lives and resources,” it says, citing several studies about the cost-effectiveness of such programs.

Yet, the president’s budget proposes cuts to these types of programs, and federal layoffs have decimated the agencies that would implement such work.

The White House’s most recent budget request proposes cutting roughly $220 million from SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention and nearly $40 million from the Drug-Free Communities program.

Since the new administration started, SAMHSA has lost about half of its staff, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is down about a quarter.

“It’s not clear to me that they’re really going to be able to have the funds or the people to be able to carry that out,” Olsen said of the strategy’s prevention goals.

Another wrinkle appears in the strategy’s discussion of marijuana. The document points to marijuana use as one of the drivers of increasing drug use disorders and reports that “convergent evidence from multiple sources” suggests cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis. It calls for developing new tools to treat marijuana withdrawal and addiction.

However, just two weeks ago, the White House moved to reclassify medical marijuana to a lower tier of scheduled substances and is moving to hold a hearing to do the same for marijuana broadly.

“The administration, on the one hand, is moving in a direction of liberalizing access to cannabis,” Jones said, “but at the same time, in the strategy, it talks about the dangers of doing so.”

“There’s a disconnect there that just makes you question: Which one do you believe?” she added.

The administration did not respond to specific questions about its marijuana policies.

Stopping Overdose Deaths

One of the more surprising elements of the National Drug Control Strategy comes in the last paragraph of the final chapter. It focuses on public drug-checking programs, which often involve using test strips to help people who use drugs determine whether there are more-dangerous substances, such as fentanyl or xylazine, in the batch they bought. That helps them determine whether or how to safely use those drugs.

“Rapid test strips and similar technologies that detect fentanyl and other drugs are an important tool that should be legal,” the strategy document says.

However, SAMHSA announced in a recent letter that it would no longer pay for test strips, as part of the Trump administration’s “clear shift away from harm reduction and practices that facilitate illicit drug use.”

The administration has similarly attacked harm reduction programs in an executive order and its budget requests. It did not respond to specific questions about how this position interacts with the drug control strategy.

Regina LaBelle, a Georgetown University professor who served as acting director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, wrote about the contradiction in a blog post: “It is the height of rhetoric over reality to champion a tool while simultaneously cutting off the funding used to acquire it.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

When political commentator Ana Navarro recently arrived at Mercado Little Spain, the José Andrés-owned food hall downstairs from CNN’s New York studios, a seat was ready for her constant companion, a rust-colored miniature poodle named ChaCha.

“I am her service human because I’m servicing her all day,” Navarro said of the well-behaved pooch who has been by her side since the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown.

As Navarro and a reporter order tapas dishes for the next two hours, patrons at nearby tables raise their cellphone cameras. Andrés’ daughter Carlota stops by and gives an update on her father, a Navarro pal. Later, a Spanish-speaking young woman comes over and thanks Navarro, a political exile from Nicaragua, for defending immigrants amid the aggressive deportation efforts of the Trump administration.

In a fragmented media world where critical mass is becoming harder to attain, Navarro has become one of media’s most recognizable political talking heads thanks to her two high-profile TV roles.

She is a co-host of ABC’s “The View,” the No. 1-rated daytime talk show that has become a target in Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s efforts to discipline President Trump’s broadcast media critics. She is also a regular panelist on CNN’s roundtable program “NewsNight with Abby Phillip,” which extends its reach far beyond its modest ratings through frequent viral clips on social media.

In February, Navarro, 54, joined the growing list of media personalities who have launched a digital platform to reach consumers no longer watching traditional TV with a weekly podcast for iHeart called “Bleep! With Ana Navarro.”

Navarro is her uncut self on “Bleep!” She interviews guests but can also go into a 30-plus minute monologue without a script when she records at iHeart’s midtown Manhattan studios, where ChaCha looks on from a cushy pillow.

Navarro delivers her arguments against the Trump administration as if she’s schmoozing with friends across a kitchen table. She always appears calm but as the podcast title suggests, she serves up a few four-letter words she doesn’t use on TV.

“Bleep!” gives Navarro her own platform at a time when the legacy media networks she works at are under pressure. Upheaval is expected at CNN if parent company Warner Bros. Discovery becomes a part of Paramount and its Trump-friendly owners David and Larry Ellison.

Carr recently called for an early review of ABC’s TV station licenses. He said its related to an investigation into parent company Disney’s diversity practices but it comes amid the administration’s criticism of the network’s Trump coverage, which has included “The View.”

Ana Navarro on the set of ABC’s “The View.”

(Lou Rocco (ABC))

Navarro was pulled into the fray last year when she was approached by Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Iger at ABC’s upfront advertiser presentation in New York. The huddle led to reports that they discussed the anti-Trump commentary on “The View.”

“We had an honest conversation but I’m not going to tell you what it was,” she said. “Nobody is muscling us. All I’ve got to do is show up and do the same thing that I’ve always done, which is be as truthful, and authentic and informed.”

(On Friday, ABC filed a petition with the FCC over the agency’s recent scrutiny of “The View,” and whether the program qualifies for an exemption from seldom enforced equal time rules for political candidates. The network accused the FCC of actions violating its 1st Amendment right to free speech.)

Navarro has been pounding at Trump for so long, it’s hard to remember that her rise as a TV pundit began 14 years ago when she was a loyal conservative Republican. Jeff Zucker, who ran CNN from 2012 to 2022, said her personal evolution sets her apart from other pundits.

“She’s funny, insightful, knows how to turn a phrase and she’s gone on a political journey,” Zucker said in a recent interview. “So she understands the entire political spectrum as well as anyone.”

Navarro was eight years old in 1980 when her family fled Nicaragua and sought political asylum in the U.S. after the socialist Sandinista National Liberation Front took power. Her father stayed behind to fight with the anti-communist rebel Contras in the country’s civil war.

“Reagan was taking on the Sandinistas when Bernie Sanders wasn’t,” she said.

She was granted amnesty and became a U.S. citizen under the immigration reform bill signed by President Reagan in 1986.

Growing up in Miami, Navarro was part of the enclave of Latinos whose political perspectives were shaped by having fled Fidel’s Castro’s Cuba and other communist regimes in Latin America. She became a political operative in Republican politics, starting in local Miami races and eventually served as national Hispanic chair for 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain. Her Cuban-born husband, Al Cardenas, was on Reagan’s transition team and once led the Republican Party in Florida.

Navarro watched in dismay in 2015 when Trump came down the escalator of the midtown Manhattan skyscraper that bears his name to announce he was seeking the Republican presidential nomination. “Calling Mexicans rapists and criminals — that just hurt my heart,” she said.

When Trump mocked a disabled journalist during a campaign rally, Navarro was reminded of family struggles with one of her older brothers, who has non-verbal autism and is self-injurious. “That brought back so much outrage and anger,” she said. “For me that was a line I could never forgive.”

But being an anti-Trump Republican has become a lonelier job in recent years as the party establishment’s support solidified behind Trump during the historically successful campaign in 2024 that returned him to the White House. For Navarro, it has meant the end of many long-standing relationships.

“I’ve lost some very close friends over Donald Trump,” she said. “And I’ve had to make peace with that. They feel that I’ve betrayed the Republican Party. Some of them think I’m an opportunist, doing this for today.”

One of those friends is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who she’s known her entire adult life. Navarro still has his cell number in her contacts, but it’s been awhile since she’s called. She still respects Rubio‘s credentials in foreign policy but doesn’t see herself ever supporting him if he runs for president.

“Unless he was running against Satan incarnate, no, I would not go over to him,” she said.

Navarro keeps her cool on “NewsNight,” which occasionally erupts into bedlam when guests clash with Scott Jennings, the show’s resident MAGA Republican. But she misses the days of sparring with Democratic operative Donna Brazile when they were on opposing sides on CNN’s Washington set, and then went out for oysters and wine at Old Ebbitt Grill afterward.

“It’s a completely different world than it was,” Navarro said.

The highly self-confident Navarro has always spoken her mind, encouraged by her father and the Sacred Heart nuns who operated her private school in Miami where she still resides. “Those nuns could run Fortune 500 companies,” she said.

She is not afraid to draw on her own painful, personal experiences to deliver a point. Another older brother died of a heart attack at age 38. Her cousin’s son was a fatality at the 2016 Pulse night club shooting in Orlando, Fla.

“I refuse to live in hopelessness and trauma,” she said. “The things I’ve gone through have shaped me into who I am and made me resilient and empathetic. One of the reasons I abhor Donald Trump is because he completely lacks empathy.”

Where Navarro often separates herself from most Democrats is foreign policy. When Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro was ousted and arrested by U.S. forces, Navarro, on holiday in Madrid, joined exiles from the country as they celebrated in Puerta del Sol.

Navarro expects to have the same reaction if Trump makes good on his threats to end Cuba’s communist regime.

“I will go out there with my metal pan and my metal spoon and I will bang the drums in joy,” she said.

May 8 (UPI) — Russia and Ukraine on Friday confirmed a three-day cease-fire and prisoner swap, which they said was agreed to after their leaders spoke with U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump announced in a post on Truth Social that the countries agreed to pause the conflict Saturday through Monday, and for both country to swap 1,000 prisoners each that have been captured during the four-year war.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed the agreement in a post on X, and said that he has instructed his team to “promptly prepare everything necessary for the exchange.”

Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov also confirmed the deal, saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin found it acceptable and that Russia “welcomes” it, Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency reported.

The deal comes less than a day before Russia celebrates Victory Day, its annual commemoration of the allied powers victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.

“This request was made directly by me, and I very much appreciate its agreement by President Vladimir Putin and President Volodymir Zelenskyy,” Trump said in the post, referring to calls he placed to both leaders and which they confirmed.

“Hopefully, [the cease-fire] is the beginning of the end of a very long, deadly, hard fought War,” Trump said. “Talks are continuing on ending this Major Conflict, the biggest since World War II, and we are getting closer and closer every day.”

The cease-fire in the biggest land war in Europe since World War II will include “a suspension of all kinetic activity,” as well as countries returning 1,000 prisoners each to one another.

Zelensky said there had been appeals and signals about a potential cease-fire to start on Saturday because of Victory Day, which motivated it to negotiate the pause and pursue the return of Ukrainians held during the war.

“An additional argument for Ukraine in determining our position has always been the resolution of one of the key humanitarian issues of this war — namely, the release of prisoners of war,” he said. “Red Square is less important to us than the lives of Ukrainian prisoners who can be brought home.”

Ushakov said that Trump, during the call with Putin, emphasized that Russia and the United States were allies during World War II, pointing to Victory Day as a potential date to start a cease-fire.

“An agreement on this matter was reached during our telephone contacts with the U.S. administration,” Ushakov said. “In turn, U.S. representatives were in contact with Kyiv.”

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

L.A. voters finally got a chance this week to see how the leading candidates for mayor behave onstage with each other, and they didn’t disappoint.

The back-to-back debates offered plenty of cutting moments as Mayor Karen Bass, Councilmember Nithya Raman and reality television star Spencer Pratt faced off against each other.

But the two showdowns also served up a few surprises. Here are three that were noteworthy:

Raman and a campaign pledge

Bass went mano-a-mano with Raman on Tuesday for 90 minutes in the drab settings of the Sherman Oaks Adult Center.

Technically it was Raman’s home turf, since the facility is located in her Hollywood Hills district. But the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn., the event’s host, wasn’t an especially friendly audience — in part because of their diverging views on real estate development.

Raman soldiered on, telling the audience about her big promise of the day: If elected, she would cut the number of homeless encampments across the city in half by the 2028 Olympic Games.

Then she went further, saying she would remove every encampment by the end of 2030, the conclusion of her hoped-for first term as mayor.

Raman has spent much of the campaign talking up her record on homelessness in her district, which stretches from Silver Lake to Reseda, pointing to a 54% reduction in the number of tents and encampments over three years. She’s been contrasting that work with Bass’ Inside Safe program, which secured a 17.5% reduction over two years citywide.

“I don’t think anybody in Los Angeles right now can say that we are satisfied with spending extraordinary amounts of money and getting only incremental progress,” Raman said the following night, at a debate sponsored by NBC4 and Telemundo 52 at the Skirball Cultural Center.

As part of her pitch, Raman unveiled a four-part strategy to get the city’s nearly 27,000 “unsheltered” homeless residents indoors.

Still, her pledge drew criticism from Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who has emerged as a Bass supporter in recent days. Rodriguez said Raman has been in office since 2020, spending half that time in charge of the committee that oversees homelessness, and is only offering a comprehensive encampment strategy weeks before the election.

“What’s stopped her for the last six years?” Rodriguez asked in a text message.

Bass and needle exchange

On Wednesday, Bass and Raman joined Pratt for the one-hour televised debate at Skirball. Pratt spent much of the night promising to rid the streets of drug addicts, whom he regularly refers to as “zombies” on social media.

“When you get rid of all the drug addicts on the street, the police won’t be responding to the drug addicts all day long,” he said.

Echoing that theme, NBC4’s Colleen Williams told the three candidates that Norm Langer of Langer’s Delicatessen wants the city to end its needle “giveaway program.”

Williams asked the three candidates if they would do as Langer requested. Raman said no. Pratt said yes.

Bass, after a brief pause, also said yes. That was something of a surprise, since the city’s Department on Disability delivers those types of services as part of its HIV/AIDS prevention services, collecting dirty syringes and offering clean ones to drug users.

The mayor’s budget calls for nearly $1.2 million in the coming fiscal year for overdose prevention and syringe exchange services, City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo said in an email.

Bass spokesperson Paige Sterling said the mayor’s office is now “actively reviewing these programs.”

“Needle exchange programs like this are not designed to end people’s addictions, and we should be doing everything we can to end drug use in our parks — especially given the increased use of deadly drugs like Fentanyl,” she said in a text message.

Langer said needle giveaways should not be in or near “sensitive sites” like parks and schools, including MacArthur Park.

Officials in Los Angeles County’s Department of Public Health said so-called harm reduction programs, including the distribution of Narcan and syringes, help save lives and improve public health, reducing the number of overdose deaths and the transmission of HIV and viral hepatitis.

Pratt was in fact kinda chummy with Bass

He calls Bass trash on social media — at least in Spanish. He reposted an AI video that portrays her as the Joker. He blasted her as “an incredible liar” during Wednesday’s debate.

Yet the evidence is clear: Pratt, the former star of MTV’s “The Hills,” did get friendly with Bass for a few moments during his hour onstage with her.

At one point, Pratt praised Bass for working to fund the Los Angeles Police Department, saying her efforts were “important, actually.” At another point, he flagged for the moderators that Bass was trying to rebut some of Raman’s remarks.

“Mayor Bass would like to respond,” Pratt nudged them.

“Thank you,” Bass replied.

Team Raman has been trying to make the case that Bass has been going easy on Pratt, as part of a larger strategy to ensure that she faces him in the top-two Nov. 3 runoff. During the debate, Raman accused the two of teaming up to attack her, saying they were afraid of facing her in Round 2.

Pratt pushed back on the idea, saying he considers Bass to be the more formidable opponent. “You think it’s easier to run against the incumbent mayor with all the unions [endorsing her], or a random council member who’s been a failure for six years?” he said.

Halfway through the debate, Bass tried to reply to another Raman remark, and Pratt stepped in again to assist.

“See how nice they are being to each other?” Raman said.

State of play

— DOUBLE NO-SHOW: Bass won’t be returning to the debate stage next week, skipping a candidate forum scheduled for Wednesday on Fox11. Pratt also is not attending, according to organizers. That leaves City Councilmember Nithya Raman, tech entrepreneur Adam Miller and community organizer Rae Huang. Bass spokesperson Alex Stack said the mayor will be in Sacramento that day lobbying for state funding.

The main organizers of the event — the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs and the League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles — issued a statement calling Bass’ withdrawal from the debate “disappointing.” “Public forums such as this are a cornerstone of democratic accountability,” the groups said.

— TICKING TIMEBOMB: Szabo, the city administrative officer, issued a grim warning this week about the proposal heading to the November ballot that would repeal the city’s business tax, depriving the city of about $860 million per year. Szabo said the measure, backed by a coalition of business leaders, would lead to “an immediate and lasting contraction of public services” and “fundamentally undermine” the city’s ability to host the 2028 Olympic Games.

— THREE MORE STOPS: Metro’s D Line subway extension finally opened Friday, offering three additional stations along Wilshire Boulevard. The line’s westernmost point is now the La Cienega Boulevard station.

— MAD FOR MCKINNEY: L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman and the union that represents rank-and-file police officers endorsed prosecutor John McKinney, dealing a fresh setback to the reelection campaign of City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto. The police union withdrew its endorsement of Feldstein Soto last month, citing her handling of a data breach dealing in part with police lawsuits.

— AIRBNB’S BIG BUCKS: Meanwhile, a campaign committee sponsored by Airbnb just put $1.5 million in an independent expenditure committee backing McKinney, according to a new filing with the secretary of state. Michael Trujillo, political strategist for Feldstein Soto, responded on X:
“Hydee Feldstein Soto SUED AIRBNB for GOUGING LA FIRE SURVIVORS and now they are crying with this IE in support of their hand picked puppet.”

— ROOTING FOR RAMAN: She didn’t get Democratic Socialists of America to reopen its endorsement process for the mayoral primary election. But Raman got something else: a recommendation in DSA’s newly released voter guide.

The group’s L.A. chapter said a vote for Raman would ensure that “a left candidate with a proven track record of delivering for working class Angelenos” makes it into the top two against Bass. The DSA also issued a caveat, saying in boldface that its “recommendation” is “not an endorsement” — and therefore will not cause the group to expend any resources on her behalf.

— THEN THERE’S THIS: The centrist 501(c)4 nonprofit group Thrive LA took a sharply different approach, issuing a voter guide that — wait for it — endorses both Bass and Pratt in the primary. Why? The group doesn’t want Raman, arguing she would bring “higher taxes, more regulation, less housing production, and an ideological approach to governance.”

— STOPPING TRAFFIC STOPS: The City Council took a step toward imposing new restrictions on “pretextual” traffic stops this week, asking the Los Angeles Police Commission to adopt new guidelines similar to San Francisco, which bars officers from pulling drivers over for broken taillights and other minor equipment violations, unless there is a safety threat.

— NOHO TRAGEDY: A jury found Thursday that an LAPD officer was not liable for the death of a 14-year-old girl who was killed by a bullet fired by the officer as he pursued a suspect in a Burlington department store. The family of Valentina Orellana-Peralta filed a lawsuit contending that the officer should have slowed down and deferred to other officers at the scene who had already determined that the suspect wasn’t armed with a gun.

— MEA CULPA: We made a mistake in last week’s newsletter, incorrectly reporting that Councilmember Traci Park voted against L.A.’s “sanctuary city” ordinance. Although Park was highly critical of the ordinance after it passed, she was absent from the council’s vote.

— THEY’RE HERE: Our voters guides have arrived, giving you the rundown on who’s running for what in a whole bunch of races. Take a look!

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to address homelessness revisted a long list of spots that have been targeted by the program previously.
• On the docket next week: As we mentioned earlier, the next televised forum is set for Wednesday, with the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs, the League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles and Fox11 hosting.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

May 8 (UPI) — President Donald Trump intends to fire Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary because he is frustrated with the agency.

Trump signed off on the decision to replace Makary as he has clashed with Trump, officials in the Department of Health and Human Services and other officials in the administration, multiple reports said on Friday.

The reports — from NBC News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post — all were attributed to Trump administration sources who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the issue.

Makary, a former surgeon at Johns Hopkins, was confirmed to run the FDA in March 2025 on a vote the included two Democratic members of the Senate voting yes.

His nomination carried some controversy because, like several other Trump cabinet members and nominees, is a former Fox News contributor who preferred that society develop natural immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19 instead of the CDC’s preferred method of using vaccine-induced immunity during the pandemic.

The reports suggest that Makary has struggled to run the FDA as long-time staff have left the agency and a range of healthcare, pharmaceutical and advocacy groups have been highly critical of its actions.

The Department of Health and Human Services and Makary have not commented on the reports, and sources for all four news organizations noted that the plan could change if Trump changes his mind.

May 8 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday delivered a Mother’s Day address as he hosted Gold Star Mothers and Angel Mothers in the White House Rose Garden.

Starting with his own mother, Trump thanked mothers across the country in a 20-minute speech that included specific thanks for mothers in the audience and those who work for his administration.

“I want to thank every single mother here this afternoon and all across our nation for your work,” Trump said.

“Every single day, America’s moms are raising — really — raising the future of our country … You have the most important job there is in America or any place else, and you’re doing an incredible job,” he said.

During the speech, Trump honored the mothers of children who died in crimes linked to illegal immigrants, whom he has dubbed Angel Mothers, noting that he hoped to prevent their ranks from growing due to “open borders” and what his administration has in pursuit of that goal.

The president honored Gold Star Mothers — the mothers of members of the military who have been killed in action — some of whom in attendance lost children during the war in Afghanistan.

Questioning whether “time heals all wounds,” Trump said that “our hearts are out to you on Mother’s Day.”

He also spoke about legislative and executive actions his administration has meant to benefit mothers and families.

“We’re honored to be joined by many strong and truly heroic moms who have stood up for their children,” he said, wishing them a Mother’s Day “filled with love and gratitude and joy.”

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Truce will also include swap of 1,000 prisoners of war from each country, US president says.

⁠United States ⁠President Donald Trump ⁠says ‌there will be a three-day ceasefire in ⁠the war between ⁠Russia and ⁠Ukraine.

Posting on Truth Social on Friday, the US leader said the truce would last from ⁠Saturday to Monday.

“I am pleased to announce that there will be a THREE DAY CEASEFIRE (May 9th, 10th, and 11th) in the War between Russia and Ukraine,” Trump posted.

“The Celebration in Russia is for Victory Day but, likewise, in Ukraine, because they were also a big part and factor of World War II. This Ceasefire will include a suspension of all kinetic activity, and also a prison swap of 1,000 prisoners from each Country,” he added.

Russia had previously announced a two-day unilateral ceasefire to mark its May 9 World War II Victory Day on Saturday.

Ukraine previously stated that it too had offered a truce but that this had been ignored by Moscow.

“This request was made directly by me,” Trump said on Friday, thanking his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy for agreeing to it.

“Talks are continuing” on ending the war, Trump said, adding that “we are getting closer and closer every day”.

“Hopefully, it is the beginning of the end of a very long, deadly, and hard fought War.”

More to come…

Two press freedom groups that own shares in Paramount Skydance are demanding to see the company’s books and internal documents, citing allegations that the company’s leaders may have promised favors to the White House to win approval for Paramount’s deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.

The letter, sent Thursday to Paramount chief legal officer Makan Delrahim, says that media reports alleging that Paramount owner David Ellison and others promised favors to the Trump administration “create credible concern that Paramount leadership has offered, solicited, or effectuated a corrupt exchange,” which the groups argue would “constitute a breach of fiduciary duties” and open the company up to a “range of potential civil and criminal penalties.”

The letter cites Delaware law that allows stockholders to inspect the company’s books and records “for any proper purpose.”

Paramount declined to comment on the letter.

Among the issues raised in the letter are promises reportedly made by David Ellison and his father, Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison, that they would make “sweeping” changes at the news network CNN, which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.

The Ellison family acquired Paramount, which includes CBS and the storied Melrose Avenue film studio, last summer.

The letter cites changes implemented in CBS since their acquisition, including their decision to end late night television house Stephen Colbert’s show days after he characterized a settlement Paramount reached with Trump as a “big fat bribe.”

Under Ellison’s ownership, the letter says, numerous high-profile reporters have left the network and its ratings have dropped to “historic lows.”

Larry Ellison, who is backing the financing of Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner, reportedly told White House officials that Paramount would “implement the CBS playbook” at CNN if the merger is approved, and remove anchors and commentators at the cable news network that Trump doesn’t like, according to the letter.

The effort comes just two weeks after Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders overwhelmingly approved the proposed merger. Investors have supported the Larry Ellison family takeover, which would become the biggest Hollywood merger in nearly a decade. The deal would pay Warner stockholders $31 per share — four times the stock price a year ago.

The letter was written on behalf of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which develops secure communication tools for journalists and tracks violations of press freedom, and Reporters Without Borders, which tracks press freedom globally.

The organizations are being represented by former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, who established the Public Integrity Project this year to challenged alleged government corruption, as well as Delaware attorney Ronald Poliquin.

The missive, which could be a precursor to a lawsuit, opens another avenue of attack against the controversial $111-billion deal, which would transform the smaller Paramount into an industry titan.

With Warner Bros. Discovery, the Ellisons would also control HBO, TBS and the vast film and TV library of Warner Bros., which includes the Harry Potter, DC Comics, and Scooby-Doo, in addition to CNN.

Paramount, led 43-year-old David Ellison, wants to finalize its Warner Bros. takeover by the end of September. President Trump favors the deal; he has long agitated for changes at CNN.

But the proposed merger would saddle the combined company with $79 billion in debt, stoking fears that Paramount would be forced to make steep cost cuts to juggle such a large debt load.

Politicians, unions and progressive groups separately have pressed California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to scrutinize the proposed merger, hoping that he brings an antitrust lawsuit in an attempt to upend the deal.

More than 4,000 film industry workers, including Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston, Ted Danson, J.J. Abrams, Jane Fonda and Kristen Stewart, have signed an open letter imploring Bonta and other regulators to block the merger. The group lamented the proposed tie-up, saying it “would reduce the number of major U.S. film studios to just four.”

Opponents fear the consolidation would lead to massive layoffs and diminish the quality of programming that Warner Bros., CNN and HBO are known for.

Hollywood has sustained thousands of layoffs over the last seven years since Walt Disney Co. swallowed Fox’s entertainment assets in another huge merger. In addition, the film production economy hasn’t recovered from shutdowns during the 2023 labor strikes. An estimated 42,000 entertainment industry jobs were lost from 2022 and 2024.

On Thursday, 34 California Democrats in Congress also sent a letter to Bonta, encouraging him to look closely at the merger.

The deal is expected to become one of the largest leveraged buyouts ever.

Ballou, who is working with the press freedom groups, previously served as a Justice Department special counsel with expertise in private equity transactions.

He resigned from the Justice Department in January 2025 when Trump returned to office. In his book, “Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America,” Ballou examined large leveraged buyouts and found that many of which resulted in bankruptcies.

May 8 (UPI) — President Donald Trump threatened to raise tariffs to “much higher levels” on the European Union if it doesn’t agree to a trade deal by July 4.

“I had a great call with The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. We discussed many topics, including that we are completely united that Iran can never have a Nuclear Weapon. We agreed that a regime that kills its own people cannot control a bomb that can kill millions. I’ve been waiting patiently for the EU to fulfill their side of the Historic Trade Deal we agreed in Turnberry, Scotland, the largest Trade Deal, ever! A promise was made that the EU would deliver their side of the Deal and, as per Agreement, cut their Tariffs to ZERO! I agreed to give her until our Country’s 250th Birthday or, unfortunately, their Tariffs would immediately jump to much higher levels,” the president said Thursday afternoon on Truth Social.

The threat came after The EU has struggled to agree on the terms of the Turnberry Accord, which was for the United States to lower tariffs on EU products and for the EU to remove tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and invest billions in U.S. industries, including energy.

Von Der Leyen said on X that the bloc is still committed to the deal.

“I had a very good call with @POTUS. We discussed the situation in the Middle East and our close coordination with regional partners. We are united that Iran must never possess a nuclear weapon. Recent events have clearly shown that the risks to regional stability and global security are too great.

“We also discussed the EU-U.S. trade deal. We remain fully committed, on both sides, to its implementation. Good progress is being made towards tariff reduction by early July.”

Last week, Trump threatened to raise tariffs on European autos to 25%. It’s unclear if his renewed threat is specifically for vehicles or if it encompasses all EU exports.

Complicating matters is that Trump’s current method of levying tariffs was blocked Thursday by the U.S. Court of International Trade.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the administration’s tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Trump then added a 10% across-the-board tariff and then later upped it to 15%.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in an interview with Politico Thursday that the EU is moving slowly.

“With the tariffs, they’ve at least started a process. They’re working it through,” Greer said. “It’s a pain. I understand it’s slow. We’re not patient. But there are other things where they haven’t even started a process.”

“We’re 95% compliant for nine months … and they’ve been 0% compliant during that time. What am I supposed to do?” he said.

FIFA have come in for criticism for the inflated prices of tickets at World Cup 2026 in US, Canada and Mexico.

President Donald Trump is the latest person to ‌take a shot at the sky-high World Cup ticket prices, saying he would not pay $1,000 to watch the United States ⁠play against Paraguay on ⁠June 12 in Los Angeles.

Trump said he was unaware of the prices football fans are being asked to pay to watch a group-play match at the World Cup.

“I did not know that number,” ⁠Trump told The New York Post. “I would certainly like to be there, but I wouldn’t pay it either, to be honest with you.”

Earlier this week, FIFA President Gianni Infantino defended the cost of seats for the World Cup, saying ⁠they were in line with prices for major US sporting events.

“We have 25% of the group stage tickets which can be bought for less than $300,” Infantino said. “You cannot go to watch in the US a college game, not even speaking about a top professional game of a certain level, for less than $300. And this is the World Cup.”

The average cost of a ‌ticket for the World Cup final on July 19 in East Rutherford, New Jersey, is $13,000, according to reports. It was $1,600 for the 2022 final in Qatar.

Trump is worried the pricing will shut out working-class Americans from being able to attend a game.

“If people from Queens and Brooklyn and all of the people that love Donald Trump can’t go, I would be disappointed, but, you know, at the same time, it’s an amazing success,” he said of the World Cup that he helped land for the US during his first term as president. “I would like to be able to ⁠have the people that voted for me to be able to go.”

FIFA also released some ⁠tickets on Thursday, which gives fans a chance at first-come first-serve tickets.

According to TicketData.com, the current average price for Group Stage games is $567, down from $684 14 days ago and $720 from 30 days ago.

Field Level Media took a quick look Wednesday on the Ticketmaster website for the June 19 group-stage ⁠match between the US and Australia in Seattle, and that search did not display any bargains.

The lowest price for two tickets early Wednesday evening was a resale pair ⁠for $2,725.10, which broke down to $2,290 for the tickets and $435.10 in service fees. However, ⁠a new search 30 minutes later showed the total price climbing to $2,770.90 for seats high in the upper deck along the sideline at Lumen Field. For fans more familiar with football than futbol, they could be considered on the 25-yard line.

On Thursday afternoon, a newly listed pair of resale tickets ‌was the lowest offering – two for $2,553.10. Those tickets were in the upper deck around the football end line and NFL end zone.

On its own marketplace, FIFA takes a 15% purchase fee from the buyer of a resold ticket and a ‌15% ‌free from the seller.

TicketData.com said the cheapest available ticket has dropped in price for 87 of the 91 matches in the US and Canada over the past 14 days.

The World Cup will be played at 16 sites in the United States (11), Mexico (three) and Canada (two).

With President Trump continuing to tank in the polls, the parlor game we know as “2028 Republican primary speculation” is back in full swing among the chattering classes.

Vice President JD Vance — who would normally be considered the heir apparent, and who just happened to make a campaign stop in Iowa recently — now finds his “America First” brand positioning complicated by Trump’s Iran misadventure. So much for an easy glide path to the nomination.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio would seem to benefit from Vance’s stumbles, but in a political moment that fetishizes “authenticity,” Rubio risks coming across like a man who irons his blue jeans. Add to that his reputation as a foreign policy hawk in a party that increasingly wants out of “forever wars,” and he’d be the ideal presidential candidate for … 2004.

All of which has opened the door to more imaginative speculation. “If Pat Buchanan and Roger Ailes had a baby,” former “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd recently quipped, “it would be Tucker Carlson.”

Ailes, of course, was the media-savvy evil genius who took Fox News to No. 1. And while “Pitchfork Pat’s” populist presidential campaigns weren’t ultimately victorious, he is credited with paving the way for Trump’s eventual 2016 victory.

As this comparison suggests, Carlson could make a formidable Republican presidential candidate. The hitch? Carlson and Trump have recently been trading blows, which is not where any potential Republican candidate wants to be.

For all of his polling woes, Trump still enjoys an 85% approval rating among Republicans, according to the recent Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll. And his recent defeat of Indiana Republican legislators who dared defy him over gerrymandering only underscores the point: Trump’s grip on the Republican Party remains firm.

Even if you dismiss talk of a third Trump term as overwrought constitutional fan fiction, it’s hard to imagine a Republican nominee emerging without Trump’s blessing — let alone in defiance of it.

Which brings us to the latest theory making the rounds: Trump isn’t going to pass this torch to anyone lacking the proper surname.

In this telling, Vance is the loyal, if naive, assistant manager waiting for the boss to retire and hand him the keys to the office — only to discover it’s a family business and the ne’er-do-well son has just pulled into the parking lot in a Ferrari.

Enter Donald Trump Jr., whose chief qualification is name recognition so strong it could probably win a Republican primary on its own.

Add to that daddy’s endorsement, and as the Bulwark’s Jonathan V. Last has noted about Vance and Rubio, “Challenging Don Jr. would turn them into enemies of the people.”

But that doesn’t mean this is a slam dunk for Junior.

As British-American journalist Sarah Baxter recently wrote, “like Logan Roy, the patriarch in the television drama Succession, Trump loves playing his children off against each other. He thinks it instills a healthy killer instinct in his privileged offspring.”

This is to say that Junior isn’t the only potential heir lurking in the wings.

Last year, for example, Eric Trump told a journalist: “I think I could do it. And by the way, I think other members of our family could do it too.”

Which brings us to the wildest speculation of all: Ivanka Trump.

Now, to be sure, Ivanka has kept a polite distance from politics (and her father) in recent years, and she doesn’t exactly electrify the MAGA faithful. But she was always her father’s favorite, and her aforementioned liabilities could be overcome with a sufficiently enthusiastic paternal endorsement.

And once she became the standard bearer, Ivanka could market herself as both continuity and “change” — a neat trick, if she can pull it off.

In that sense Republicans could keep the Trump brand while offering a kinder, gentler, fresher face — all while making GOP history with a female presidential nominee.

This, of course, raises the question: Why would Ivanka — or any of the Trumps — want to be part of a political dynasty?

Among the many reasons, the Trump family is raking in cash. Lots of it. And as long as the next president could conceivably be a family member — a possibility that remains operable even if a Trump family member were to lose the general election in 2028 — the spigot will remain on.

That’s one of the reasons that, although Vance would normally be Trump’s obvious successor, the smart money might actually be to bet on someone with the last name “Trump.”

Now, if this dynastic denouement sounds far-fetched, of course it is. But so was electing a thrice-married casino magnate to the presidency in 2016. And so reelecting him in 2024.

We’re living in an era when the seemingly improbable isn’t just possible — it might even be likely.

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

US President Donald Trump says the ceasefire with Iran is still in effect, despite American and Iranian forces trading fire in the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday. Trump threatened pain for Tehran unless it signs a truce quickly.