Trumps

US President Donald Trump warned Nicolas Maduro to ‘not play tough’ and to step down on Monday, while the Venezuelan leader said Trump should focus on the issues in his own country. Trump told reporters the US will keep 1.9 million barrels of oil that were seized near Venezuela in December.

JOHANNESBURG — The U.S. government has signed health deals with at least nine African countries, part of its new approach to global health funding, with agreements that reflect the Trump administration’s interests and priorities and are geared toward providing less aid and more mutual benefits.

The agreements signed so far, with Kenya, Nigeria and Rwanda among others, are the first under the new global health framework, which makes aid dependent on negotiations between the recipient country and the U.S.

Some of the countries that have signed deals either have been hit by U.S. aid cuts or have separate agreements with the Trump administration to accept and host third-country deportees, although officials have denied any linkage.

The Trump administration says the new “America First” global health funding agreements are meant to increase self-sufficiency and eliminate what it says are ideology and waste from international assistance. The deals replace a patchwork of previous health agreements under the now-dismantled U.S. Agency for International Development.

U.S. aid cuts have crippled health systems across the developing world, including in Africa, where many countries relied on the funding for crucial programs, including those responding to outbreaks of disease.

The new approach to global health aligns with President Trump’s pattern of dealing with other nations transactionally, using direct talks with foreign governments to promote his agenda abroad. It builds on his sharp turn from traditional U.S. foreign assistance, which supporters say furthered American interests by stabilizing other countries and economies and building alliances.

A different strategy

The deals mark a sharp departure from how the U.S. has provided healthcare funding over the years and mirrors the Trump administration’s interests.

South Africa, which has lost most of its U.S. funding — including $400 million in annual support — due in part to its disputes with the U.S., has not signed a health deal, despite having one of the world’s highest HIV prevalence rates.

Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, reached a deal but with an emphasis on Christian-based health facilities, although it has a slight majority Muslim population. Rwanda and Uganda, which each have deportation deals with the U.S., have announced health pacts.

Cameroon, Eswatini, Lesotho, Liberia and Mozambique also are among those that have signed health deals with the U.S.

According to the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank, the deals “combine U.S. funding reductions, ambitious co-financing expectations, and a shift toward direct government-to-government assistance.”

The deals represent a reduction in total U.S. health spending for each country, the center said, with annual U.S. financial support down 49% compared with 2024.

A faith-based deal in Nigeria, a lifeline for several others

Under its deal, Nigeria, a major beneficiary of USAID funds, would get support that has a “strong emphasis” on Christian faith-based healthcare providers.

The U.S. provided approximately $2.3 billion in health assistance to Nigeria between 2021 and 2025, mostly through USAID, official data shows. The new five-year agreement will see U.S. support at over $2 billion, while Nigeria is expected to raise $2.9 billion to boost its healthcare programs.

The agreement “was negotiated in connection with reforms the Nigerian government has made to prioritize protecting Christian populations from violence and includes significant dedicated funding to support Christian healthcare facilities,” the State Department said in a statement.

The department said “the president and secretary of State retain the right to pause or terminate any programs which do not align with the national interest,” urging Nigeria to ensure “that it combats extremist religious violence against vulnerable Christian populations.”

For several other countries, the new deals could be a lifeline after U.S. aid cuts crippled their healthcare systems and left them racing to fill the gaps.

Under its deal, Mozambique will get U.S. support of over $1.8 billion for HIV and malaria programs. Lesotho, one of the poorest countries in the world, clinched a deal worth over $232 million.

In the tiny kingdom of Eswatini, the U.S. committed to provide up to $205 million to support public health data systems, disease surveillance and outbreak response, while the country agreed to increase domestic health expenditures by $37 million.

No deal for South Africa after disputes

South Africa is noticeably absent from the list of signatories following tensions with the Trump administration.

Trump has said he will cut all financial assistance to South Africa over his widely rejected claims that it is violently persecuting its Afrikaner white minority.

The dismantling of USAID resulted in the loss of over $436 million in yearly financing for HIV treatment and prevention in South Africa, putting the program and thousands of jobs in the healthcare industry at risk.

Health compacts with countries that signed deportation deals

At least four of the countries that have reached deals previously agreed to receive third-country deportees from the U.S., a controversial immigration policy that has been a trademark of the Trump administration.

The State Department has denied any linkage between the healthcare compacts and agreements regarding accepting third-country asylum seekers or third-country deportees from the United States. However, officials have said that political considerations unrelated to health issues may be part of the negotiations.

Rwanda, one of the countries with a deportation deal with the U.S., signed a $228-million health pact requiring the U.S. to support it with $158 million.

Uganda, another such country, signed a health deal worth nearly $2.3 billion in which the U.S. will provide up to $1.7 billion. Eswatini also has started receiving flights with deported prisoners from the United States.

Magome and Gumede write for the Associated Press. AP writers Evelyne Musambi in Nairobi, Kenya; Dyepkazah Shibayan in Abuja, Nigeria; Mark Banchereau in Dakar, Senegal; and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

COPENHAGEN — The leaders of Denmark and Greenland insisted Monday that the United States won’t take over Greenland and demanded respect for their territorial integrity after President Trump ‍announced the appointment of a ‌special envoy to the semiautonomous territory.

Trump’s announcement on Sunday that Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry would be the envoy prompted a new flare-up of tensions over Washington’s interest in the vast territory of Denmark, a NATO ally. Denmark’s foreign minister told Danish broadcasters that he would summon the U.S. ambassador to his ministry.

”We have said it before. Now, we say it again. National borders and the sovereignty of states are rooted in international law,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and her Greenlandic counterpart, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said in a joint statement. “They are fundamental principles. You cannot annex another country. Not even with an argument about international security.”

“Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders and the U.S. shall not take over Greenland,” they added in the statement emailed by Frederiksen’s office. “We expect respect for our joint territorial integrity.”

Trump called repeatedly during his presidential transition and the early months of his second term for U.S. jurisdiction over Greenland, and has not ruled out military force to take control of the mineral-rich, strategically located Arctic island. In March, Vice President JD Vance visited a remote U.S. military base in Greenland and accused Denmark of under-investing there.

The issue gradually drifted out of the headlines, but in August, Danish officials summoned the top U.S. diplomat in Copenhagen following a report that at least three people with connections to Trump had carried out covert influence operations in Greenland.

On Sunday, Trump announced Landry’s appointment, saying on social media that “Jeff understands how essential Greenland is to our National Security, and will strongly advance our Country’s Interests for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Allies, and indeed, the World.”

Landry wrote in a post on social media that “it’s an honor to serve you in this volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the U.S.”

Danish broadcasters TV2 and DR reported that in comments from the Faroe Islands on Monday, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said he summoned the U.S. ambassador in Copenhagen, Kenneth Howery, to his ministry.

Greenland’s prime minister wrote in a separate statement that Greenland had again woken up to a new announcement from the U.S. president, and that “it may sound significant. But it changes nothing for us here at home.”

Nielsen noted that Greenland has its own democracy and said that “we are happy to cooperate with other countries, including the United States, but this must always take place with respect for us and for our values and wishes.”

Earlier this month, the Danish Defense Intelligence Service said in an annual report that the U.S. is using its economic power to “assert its will” and threaten military force against friend and foe alike.

Denmark is a member of the European Union as well as NATO.

Anouar El Anouni, a spokesperson for the EU’s executive Commission, told reporters in Brussels on Monday that it wasn’t for him to comment on U.S. decisions. But he underlined the bloc’s position that “preserving the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark, its sovereignty and the inviolability of its borders is essential for the European Union.”

Moulson writes for the Associated Press.

After years of support from the United States for the Ukraine war to continue “as long as it takes”, the Trump administration is now pushing to end Europe’s war – quickly and imperfectly.

While details are still under negotiation, they include issues such as ensuring Ukraine never joins NATO and Russia’s control over about 20 percent of Ukraine.

To understand the implications for Europe, the US and their relations, host Steve Clemons speaks with Kurt Volker, Trump’s former special representative for Ukraine negotiations, and retired Colonel Heino Klinck, former director of US Army international affairs.

ALLENTOWN, Pa. — When Idalia Bisbal moved to this Pennsylvania city synonymous with America’s working class, she hoped for a cheaper, easier life than the one she was leaving behind in her hometown of New York City.

About three years later, she is deeply disappointed.

“It’s worse than ever,” said the 67-year-old retiree, who relies on Social Security, when asked about the economy. “The prices are high. Everything is going up. You can’t afford food because you can’t afford rent. Utilities are too high. Gas is too expensive. Everything is too expensive.”

Bisbal was sipping an afternoon coffee at the Hamilton Family Restaurant not long after Vice President JD Vance rallied Republicans in a nearby suburb. In the Trump administration’s second high-profile trip to Pennsylvania in a week, Vance acknowledged the affordability crisis, blamed it on the Biden administration and insisted better times were ahead. He later served food to men experiencing homelessness in Allentown.

The visit, on top of several recent speeches from President Trump, reflects an increasingly urgent White House effort to respond to the economic anxiety voiced by people across the country. Those worries are a vulnerability for Republicans in competitive congressional districts like the one that includes Allentown, which could decide control of the U.S. House in next year’s midterms.

But in confronting the challenge, there are risks of appearing out of touch.

Only 31% of U.S. adults now approve of how Trump is handling the economy, down from 40% in March, according to a poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Yet Trump has called affordability concerns a “hoax” and gave the economy under his administration a grade of “A+++++.” Vance reiterated that assessment during his rally, prompting Bisbal to scoff.

“In his world,” Bisbal, a self-described “straight-up Democrat,” responded. “In the rich man’s world. In our world, trust me, it’s not an ‘A.’ To me, it’s an ‘F,’ ‘F,’ ‘F,’ ‘F,’ ‘F,’ ‘F.’”

Agreement that prices are too high

With a population of roughly 125,000 people, Allentown anchors the Lehigh Valley, which is Pennsylvania’s third-largest metro area. In a dozen interviews last week with local officials, business leaders and residents of both parties, there was agreement on one thing: Prices are too high. Some pointed to gas prices while others said they felt the shock more at the grocery store or in their cost of healthcare or housing.

Few shared Trump’s unbridled boosterism about the economy.

Tony Iannelli, the president and CEO of the Greater Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce, called Trump’s grade a “stretch,” saying that “we have a strong economy but I think it’s not yet gone to the next stage of what I would call robust.”

Tom Groves, who started a health and benefits consulting firm more than two decades ago, said the economy was at a “B+,” as he blamed the Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, for contributing to higher health costs, and he noted stock and labor market volatility.

Joe Vichot, the chairman of the Lehigh County Republican Committee, referred to Trump’s grade as a “colloquialism.”

Far removed from Washington’s political theater, there was little consensus on who was responsible for the high prices or what should be done about it. There was, however, an acute sense of exhaustion at the seemingly endless political combat.

Pat Gallagher was finishing lunch a few booths down from Bisbal as she recalled meeting her late husband when they both worked at Bethlehem Steel, the manufacturing giant that closed in 2003.

Now retired, Gallagher too relies on Social Security benefits, and she lives with her daughter, which helps keep costs down. She said she noticed the rising price of groceries and was becoming exasperated with the political climate.

“I get so frustrated with hearing about the politics,” she said.

A front-row seat to politics

That feeling is understandable in a place that often gets a front-row seat to the national debate, whether it wants the view or not. Singer Billy Joel’s 1982 song “Allentown” helped elevate the city into the national consciousness, articulating simultaneous feelings of disillusionment and hope as factories closed.

In the decades since, Pennsylvania has become a must-win state in presidential politics and the backdrop for innumerable visits from candidates and the media. Trump and his Democratic rival in 2024, Kamala Harris, made several campaign swings through Allentown, with the then-vice president visiting the city on the eve of the election.

“Every race here, all the time,” Allentown’s mayor, Democrat Matt Tuerk, recalled of the frenzied race last year.

The pace of those visits — and the attention they garnered — has not faded from many minds. Some businesses and residents declined to talk last week when approached with questions about the economy or politics, recalling blowback from speaking in the past.

But as attention shifts to next year’s midterms, Allentown cannot escape its place as a political battleground.

Trump’s win last year helped lift other Republicans, such U.S. Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, to victory. Mackenzie, who unseated a three-term Democrat, is now one of the most vulnerable Republicans in Congress. To win again, he must turn out the Republicans who voted in 2024 — many of whom were likely more energized by Trump’s candidacy — while appealing to independents.

Mackenzie’s balancing act was on display when he spoke to the party faithful Tuesday, bemoaning the “failures of Bidenomics” before Vance took the stage at the rally. A day later, the congressman was back in Washington, where he joined three other House Republicans to rebel against the party’s leadership and force a vote on extending Obamacare subsidies that expire at the end of the year.

Vichot, the local GOP chairman, called Mackenzie an “underdog” in his reelection bid and said the healthcare move was a signal to voters that he is “compassionate for the people who need those services.”

A swing to Trump in 2024

Lehigh County, home to Allentown and the most populous county in the congressional district, swung toward Trump last year. Harris’ nearly 2.7-percentage-point win in the county was the tightest margin for a Democratic presidential candidate since 2004. But Democrats are feeling confident after a strong performance in this fall’s elections, when they handily won a race for county executive.

Retaking the congressional seat is now a top priority for Democrats. Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat who faces reelection next year and is a potential presidential contender in 2028, endorsed firefighter union head Bob Brooks last week in the May primary.

Democrats are just a few seats shy of regaining the House majority, and the first midterm after a presidential election historically favors the party that’s out of power. If the focus remains on the economy, Democrats are happy.

The Uline supplies distribution factory where Vance spoke, owned by a family that has made large donations to GOP causes, is a few miles from the Mack Trucks facility where staff was cut by about 200 employees this year. The company said that decision was driven in part by tariffs imposed by Trump. Shapiro eagerly pointed that out in responding to Vance’s visit.

But the image of Allentown as a purely manufacturing town is outdated. The downtown core is dotted by row homes, trendy hotels and a modern arena that is home to the Lehigh Valley Phantoms hockey team and hosts concerts by major artists. In recent years, Latinos have become a majority of the city’s population, driven by gains in the Puerto Rican, Mexican and Dominican communities.

“This is a place of rapid change,” said Tuerk, the city’s first Latino mayor. “It’s constantly changing ,and I think over the next three years until that next presidential election, we’re going to see a lot more change. It’s going to be an interesting ride.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — To tax tips or not? That is a question that will confront lawmakers in states across the U.S. as they convene for work next year.

The Trump administration is urging states to follow its lead by enacting a slew of new tax breaks for individuals and businesses, including deductions for tips and overtime wages, automobile loans and business equipment.

In some states, the new federal tax breaks will automatically apply to state income taxes unless legislatures opt out. But in many other states, where tax laws are written differently, the new tax breaks won’t appear on state tax forms unless legislatures opt in.

In states that don’t conform to the federal tax changes, workers who receive tips or overtime, for example, will pay no federal tax on those earnings but could still owe state taxes on them.

States that adopt all of Trump’s tax cuts could provide hundreds of millions of dollars in annual savings to certain residents and businesses. But that could financially strain states, which are being hit with higher costs because of new Medicaid and SNAP food aid requirements that also are included in the GOP’s big bill that Trump signed this summer.

Most states begin their annual legislative sessions in January. To retroactively change tax breaks for 2025, lawmakers would need to act quickly so tax forms could be updated before people begin filing. States also could apply the changes to their 2026 taxes, a decision requiring less haste.

So far, only a few states have taken votes on whether to adopt the tax breaks.

“States in general are approaching this skeptically,” said Carl Davis, research director at the nonprofit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Treasury presses states to act

The bill Trump signed July 4 contains about $4.5 trillion of federal tax cuts over 10 years.

It creates temporary tax deductions for tips, overtime and loan interest on new vehicles assembled in the U.S. It boosts a tax deduction for older adults. And it temporarily raises the cap on state and local tax deductions from $10,000 to $40,000, among other things. The law also provides numerous tax breaks to businesses, including the ability to immediately write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research.

Forty-one states levy individual income taxes on wages and salaries. Forty-four states charge corporate income taxes.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month called on those states “to immediately conform” to the federal tax cuts and accused some Democratic-led states that haven’t done so of engaging in “political obstructionism.” Though Bessent didn’t mention it, many Republican-led states also have not decided whether to implement the tax deductions.

“By denying their residents access to these important tax cuts, these governors and legislators are forcing hardworking Americans to shoulder higher state tax burdens, robbing them of the relief they deserve and exacerbating the financial squeeze on low- and middle-income households,” Bessent said.

Some tax analysts contend that there’s more for states to consider. The tax break on tips, for example, could apply to nearly 70 occupational fields under a proposed rule from the Internal Revenue Service. But that would still exclude numerous low-wage workers, said Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the nonprofit Tax Foundation.

“Lawmakers need to consider whether these are worth the cost,” Walczak said.

Tips and overtime tax breaks

Because of the way state tax laws are written, the federal tax breaks for tips and overtime wages would have carried over to just seven states: Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon and South Carolina. But Colorado opted out of the state tax break for overtime shortly before the federal law was enacted.

Michigan this fall became the first — and so far only — state to opt into the tax breaks for tips and overtime wages, effective in 2026. The overtime tax exemption is projected to cost the state nearly $113 million and the tips tax break about $45 million during its current budget year, according to the state treasury department.

Michigan lawmakers offset that by decoupling from five federal corporate tax changes the state’s treasury estimated would have reduced state tax revenues by $540 million this budget year.

Republican state Rep. Ann Bollin, chair of the Michigan House Appropriations Committee, said the state could not afford to embrace all the tax cuts while still investing in better roads, public safety and education.

“The best path forward is to have more money in people’s pockets and have less regulation — and this kind of moved in that direction,” she said.

Arizona could be among the next states to act. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs has called upon lawmakers to adopt the tax breaks for tips, overtime, seniors and vehicle loans, and follow the federal government by also increasing the state’s standard deduction for individual income taxpayers. Republican state House leaders said they stand ready to pass the tax cuts when their session begins Jan. 12.

Corporate tax breaks

In addition to Michigan, lawmakers in Delaware, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island have passed measures to block some or all of the corporate tax cuts from taking effect in their states.

A new Illinois law decoupling from a portion of the corporate tax changes could save the state nearly $250 million, said Democratic state Sen. Elgie Sims, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He said that could help ensure continued funding for schools, healthcare and other vital services.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, an outspoken Democratic opponent of Trump, also cited budget concerns for rejecting the corporate tax cut provision. He said states already stand to lose money because of other provisions in Trump’s big bill, such as a requirement to cover more of the costs of running the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP.

“The decoupling is an effort to try to hold back the onslaught from the federal government to make sure that we can support programs like the one we’re announcing today,” Pritzker told reporters at a December event publicizing a grant to address homelessness in central Illinois.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press. AP writer John O’Connor in Springfield, Ill., contributed to this report.

Relatives of the late President John F Kennedy slammed the centre’s board, saying the name cannot be changed under law.

Donald Trump’s name has been added to the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, just one day after his hand-picked board members controversially voted to rename the arts venue, the first time a national institution has been named after a sitting US president.

Workmen added metal lettering to the building’s exterior on Friday that declared, “The Donald J Trump and the John F Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”

“Today, we proudly unveil the updated exterior designation – honoring the leadership of President Donald J Trump and the enduring legacy of John F Kennedy,” the centre said on social media.

Family members of former President Kennedy, who was killed by an assassin’s bullet in 1963, as well as historians and Democratic lawmakers, have criticised the move, saying only an act of Congress could alter the name of the centre, which was designated as a living memorial to Kennedy a year after his assassination.

“The Kennedy Center was named by law. To change the name would require a revision of that 1964 law,” Ray Smock, a former House of Representatives historian, told the Associated Press (AP) news agency. “The Kennedy Center board is not a lawmaking entity. Congress makes laws,” Smock said.

The AP reports that the law naming the centre explicitly prohibits the board of trustees from making the centre into a memorial to anyone else, and from putting another person’s name on the building’s exterior.

Kerry Kennedy, a niece of former President Kennedy, said in a post on social media that she will remove Trump’s name herself when his term as president ends.

“Three years and one month from today, I’m going to grab a pickax and pull those letters off that building, but I’m going to need help holding the ladder. Are you in?” she wrote on X.

Naming a national institution after a sitting president is unprecedented in US history. Landmarks such as the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial and indeed, the Kennedy Center were all named after the deaths of the renowned US leaders.

Kennedy’s grandnephew, former Congressman Joe Kennedy III, also said the Kennedy Center, like the Lincoln Memorial, was a “living memorial to a fallen president” and cannot be renamed, “no matter what anyone says”.

Trump claimed on Thursday that he was “surprised” by the renaming of the Kennedy Center, even though he personally purged the centre’s previous board after calling it “too woke”.

He has also previously spoken about having his name added to the centre and appointed himself chairman of the centre’s board earlier this year.

Trump has sought to rein in the Kennedy Center since the start of his second term as part of an assault on cultural institutions that his administration has accused of being too left-wing.

Dec. 19 (UPI) — President Donald Trump‘s name was affixed Friday to The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., with one Kennedy family member threatening to chisel the change out.

Signage now reads: Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.” Workers added Trump’s name before one honoring the former president.

The change has drawn opposition, including members of the Kennedy family.

“Three years and one month from today, I’m going to grab a pickax and pull those letters off that building, but I’m going to need help holding the ladder,” Kerry Kennedy, the daughter of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, posted on X. “Are you in? Applying for my carpenter’s card today, so it’ll be a union job!!!”

On Thursday, Trump’s handpicked board of trustees voted to rename the building to also honor Trump. Eleven months ago, after he became president for the second time, he dismissed the entire board with new members and named himself chairman.

The name change requires a vote by U.S. Congress as mentioned in the U.S. Code that says no new “memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”

Trump also changed something else that requires congressional approval: the Defense Department to the War Department.

White House press secretary Karline Leavitt posted on X, the it was changed “because of the unbelievable work President Trump has done over the last year in saving the building.

“Not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation.”

Trump said he was “surprised and honored” by the news, though he hinted about the change while he emceed the Kennedy Center Honors earlier this month.

In August, he posted on Truth Social about new honorees: “GREAT Nominees for the TRUMP/KENNEDY CENTER, whoops, I mean, KENNEDY CENTER.”

Kerry Kennedy said Trump doesn’t represent the values of her uncle.

“President Kennedy proudly stood for justice, peace, equality, dignity, diversity, and compassion for those who suffer. President Trump stands in opposition to these values, and his name should not be placed alongside President Kennedy’s.”

Maria Shriver, the former President Kennedy’s niece and former first lady of California, wrote on X.: “It is beyond wild that he would think adding his name in front of President Kennedy’s name is acceptable. It is not. Next thing perhaps he will want to rename JFK Airport, rename the Lincoln Memorial, the Trump Lincoln Memorial. The Trump Jefferson Memorial. The Trump Smithsonian. The list goes on.”

Robert F. Kennedy’s grandson, former Rep. Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts, posted on X that the center is “a living memorial to a fallen president and named for President Kennedy by federal law. It can no sooner be renamed than can someone rename the Lincoln Memorial, no matter what anyone says.”

Six Democratic lawmakers, who serve as ex-officio members of the Kennedy Center board, said in a statement to CNBC: “Beyond using the Kennedy Center to reward his friends and political allies, President Trump is now attempting to affix his name to yet another public institution without legal authority. Federal law established the Center as a memorial to President Kennedy and prohibits changing its name without Congressional action.”

Congress’ two Democratic leaders, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, signed the statement.

Another ex-officio member of the board, a Republican, didn’t vote for the change. Sen. Shelly Moore Capito, R-W.V., told reporters at the Capitol on Thursday: “The Kennedy Center, in my view, is the Kennedy Center.”

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for President Trump urged a federal judge on Friday to rule that Trump is entitled to presidential immunity from civil claims that he instigated a mob’s attack on the U.S. Capitol to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta didn’t rule from the bench after hearing arguments from Trump attorneys and lawyers for Democratic members of Congress who sued the Republican president and allies over the Jan. 6. 2021, attack.

Trump spoke to a crowd of his supporters at the “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House before the mob’s attack disrupted the joint session of Congress for certifying Democratic President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

Trump’s attorneys argue that his conduct leading up to Jan. 6 and on the day of the riot is protected by presidential immunity because he was acting in his official capacity.

“The entire point of immunity is to give the president clarity to speak in the moment as the commander-in-chief,” Trump attorney Joshua Halpern told the judge.

The lawmakers’ lawyers argue Trump can’t prove he was acting entirely in his official capacity rather than as an office-seeking private individual. And the U.S. Supreme Court has held that office-seeking conduct falls outside the scope of presidential immunity, they contend.

“President Trump has the burden of proof here,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Joseph Sellers. “We submit that he hasn’t come anywhere close to satisfying that burden.”

At the end of Friday’s hearing, Mehta said the arguments gave him “a lot to think about” and he would rule “as soon as we can.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who chaired the House Homeland Security Committee, sued Trump, his personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani and members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers extremist groups over the Jan. 6 riot. Other Democratic members of Congress later joined the litigation.

The civil claims survived Trump’s sweeping act of clemency on the first day of his second term, when he pardoned, commuted prison sentences and ordered the dismissal of all 1,500-plus criminal cases stemming from the Capitol siege. Over 100 police officers were injured while defending the Capitol from rioters.

Halpern said immunity enables the president to act “boldly and fearlessly.”

“Immunity exists to protect the president’s prerogatives,” he said.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that the context and circumstances of the president’s remarks on Jan. 6 — not just the content of his words — are key to establishing whether he is immune from liability.

“You have to look at what happened leading up to January 6th,” Sellers said.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

The holidays have arrived once again. You know, that annual festival of goodwill, compulsory spending and the dawning realization that Santa and Satan are anagrams.

Even in the best of years, Americans stagger through this season feeling financially woozy. This year, however, the picture is bleaker. And a growing number of Americans are feeling Grinchy.

Unemployment is at a four-year high, with Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, declaring, “The U.S. economy is in a hiring recession.” And a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds that 70% of Americans say “the cost of living in the area where they live is not very affordable or not affordable at all.”

Is help on the way? Not likely. Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring, and — despite efforts to force a vote in the House — it’s highly likely that nothing will be done about this before the end of the year. This translates to ballooning health insurance bills for millions of Americans. I will be among those hit with a higher monthly premium, which gives me standing to complain.

President Trump, meanwhile, remains firmly committed to policies that will exacerbate the rising cost of getting by. Trump’s tariffs — unless blocked by the Supreme Court — will continue to raise prices. And when it comes to his immigration crackdown, Trump is apparently unmoved by the tiresome fact that when you “disappear” workers, prices tend to go up.

Taken together, the Trump agenda amounts to an ambitious effort to raise the cost of living without the benefit of improved living standards. But if your money comes from crypto or Wall Street investments, you’re doing better than ever!

For the rest of us, the only good news is this: Unlike every other Trump scandal, most voters actually seem to care about what’s happening to their pocketbooks.

Politico recently found that erstwhile Trump voters backed Democrats in the 2025 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia for the simple reason that things cost too much.

And Axios reports on a North Carolina focus group in which “11 of the 14 participants, all of whom backed Trump last November, said they now disapprove of his job performance. And 12 of the 14 say they’re more worried about the economy now than they were in January.”

Apparently, inflation is the ultimate reality check — which is horrible news for Republicans.

Trump’s great talent has always been the audacity to employ a “fake it ‘till you make it” con act to project just enough certainty to persuade the rest of us.

His latest (attempted) Jedi mind trick involves claiming prices are “coming down tremendously,” which is not supported by data or the lived experience of anyone who shops.

He also says inflation is “essentially gone,” which is true only if you define “gone” as “slowed its increase.”

Trump may dismiss the affordability crisis as a “hoax” and a “con job,” but voters persist in believing the grocery scanner.

In response, Trump has taken to warning us that falling prices could cause “deflation,” which he now says is even worse than inflation. He’s not wrong about the economic theory, but it hardly seems worth worrying about given that prices are not falling.

Apparently, economic subtlety is something you acquire only after winning the White House.

Naturally, Trump wants to blame Joe Biden, the guy who staggered out of office 11 months ago. And yes, pandemic disruptions and massive stimulus spending helped fuel inflation. But voters elected Trump to fix the problem, which he promised to do “on Day One.”

Lacking tangible results, Trump is reverting to what has always worked for him: the assumption that — if he confidently repeats it enough times — his version of reality will triumph over math.

The difficulty now is that positive thinking doesn’t swipe at the register.

You can lie about the size of your inauguration crowd — no normal person can measure it and nobody cares. But you cannot tell people standing in line at the grocery store that prices are falling when they are actively handing over more money.

Pretending everything is fine goes over even worse when a billionaire president throws Gatsby-themed parties, renovates the Lincoln Bedroom and builds a huge new ballroom at the White House. The optics are horrible, and there’s no doubt they are helping fuel the political backlash.

But the main problem is the main problem.

At the end of the day, the one thing voters really care about is their pocketbooks. No amount of spin or “manifesting” an alternate reality will change that.

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

Washington, DC – For the past two years, weekdays for Susanna have meant thumbing through picture books, organising cubby holes and leading classroom choruses of songs.

But her work as a pre-school teacher came to a screeching halt in October, when she found out her application to renew her work permit had been denied.

Susanna, who uses a pseudonym in this article for fear of reprisals, is one of the nearly 10 percent of teachers in the United States who are immigrants.

But while the US has increasingly looked abroad to fill teacher shortages, some foreign-born teachers say the deportation push under President Donald Trump has threatened their livelihoods — and risks traumatising their students.

Susanna, an asylum applicant who fled violence in Guatemala nearly a decade ago, said that losing her permit meant she had to stop working immediately.

She recalls breaking the news to her students, some of whom are only three years old. Many were too young to understand.

“In one week, I lost everything,” Susanna told Al Jazeera in Spanish. “When I told the kids goodbye, they asked me why, and I told them, ‘I can only tell you goodbye.’ There were kids that hugged me, and it hurt my heart a lot.”

Looking abroad for teachers

Estimates vary as to how many foreign-born teachers currently work in the US. But one 2019 report from George Mason University found that there were 857,200 immigrants among the country’s 8.1 million teachers, in roles ranging from pre-school to university.

For the 2023-2024 school year alone, the US government brought 6,716 full-time teachers to the country on temporary exchange visas to fill openings in pre-kindergarten, primary and secondary school education.

Many hailed from the Philippines, as well as countries like Jamaica, Spain and Colombia.

The uncertainty for immigrants under Trump’s second term, however, has proven disruptive to schools that rely heavily on foreign-born teachers.

That is the case for the pre-school where Susanna worked, CommuniKids, which offers language immersion programmes in Washington, DC.

Cofounder and president Raul Echevarría estimates that immigrants — both citizens and non-citizens working with legal authorisation — comprise about 90 percent of CommuniKids’s staff.

But Echevarría told Al Jazeera that the push to rescind legal pathways to immigration has jeopardised the employment of several faculty members.

Five other teachers at the school have seen their ability to work affected by changes to the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) programme.

All five, Echevarría explained, were originally from Venezuela. But in October, the Trump administration ended TPS status for more than 350,000 Venezuelan citizens, including the teachers at CommuniKids.

Their authorisation to work legally in the US will expire on October 2, 2026, according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services website.

“These teachers lost their ability to make a living,” Echevarria said, noting that his school requires educators with expertise in languages like Spanish, French and Mandarin.

‘Strong bonds’

For the schools themselves, the losses can be devastating. Every state in the US has reported teacher shortages to the federal government.

But advocates say the high stress and low pay of education make teachers difficult to recruit and keep.

That leads some states to look abroad for education workers. In North Carolina, for example, 1,063 foreign nationals worked full-time as grade-school teachers on temporary J-1 visas during the 2023-2024 school year.

The top destinations for such recruits were all southern states: North Carolina was followed by Florida with 996 teachers on J-1 visas, and Texas with 761.

But Echevarria said some of the biggest impacts of the deportation drive are felt by the students themselves.

“Our students develop strong bonds with their teachers, and all of a sudden, overnight, they lost their teachers,” said Echevarría.

“Their number one superpower”, he added, “is their ability to empathise and to create strong, effective bonds with people from any background”.

But when those bonds are broken, there can be mental health consequences and setbacks for educational achievement, particularly among younger children.

A 2024 study published by the American Educational Research Association found that, when teachers leave midyear, children’s language development takes a measurable hit.

In other words, the loss of a familiar teacher — someone who knows their routines, strengths and fears — can quietly stall a child’s progress. The consequences extend to a child’s sense of self and stability.

Mental health consequences

For parents like Michelle Howell, whose child attends CommuniKids, the loss of teachers has also made the classroom environment feel fragile.

“The teachers there aren’t just teachers for these young kids,” Howell said of CommuniKids. “They’re like extended family.

“They hug them, they hold them, they do the things a parent would do. When those people disappear, it’s not just hard for the kids. It’s hard for everyone.”

Howell, who is Chinese American, said the sudden disappearances reminded her of her own family’s history.

“I used to read about things like this happening in China, the place my family left to find safety,” she said. “It’s very disturbing to know that what we ran from back then is our reality now. People disappear.”

School psychologist Maria C, who asked to remain anonymous to protect her work in the Texas public school system, has noticed the children she works with struggling with instability caused by the deportation push.

The disappearance of a loved one or mentor — say, a favourite teacher — could flood a child’s body with cortisol, the hormone meant to protect them in moments of danger, she explained.

But when that stress becomes chronic, the same hormone starts to hurt more than it helps. It interferes with memory, attention and emotional regulation.

“For some, it looks like anxiety. For others, it’s depression or sudden outbursts,” Maria said. “They’re in fight-or-flight mode all day.”

She added that selective mutism, an anxiety disorder, is on the rise among the children she sees, who range in age from five to 12.

“It used to be rare, maybe one case per school,” she said. “Now I see it constantly. It’s a quiet symptom of fear.”

Preparing for the worst

Back at CommuniKids, Echevarría explained that he and other staff members have put together contingency plans, just in case immigration enforcement arrives at the pre-school.

The aim, he said, is to make both employees and students feel safer coming to class.

“We put those steps in writing because we wanted our staff to know they’re not alone,” he said. “We have attorneys on call. We’re partners with local police. But above all, our job is to protect our children.”

But as an added precaution, teachers are advised to carry their passports or work permits with them.

Even Echevarría, a US citizen born in Virginia, said he carries his passport wherever he goes. The fear of deportation has a way of lingering.

“I’m bilingual and of Hispanic descent,” he said. “Given how things are, I want to be able to prove I’m a citizen if anyone ever questions it.”

When word came of Rob Reiner’s senseless death, America fell into familiar rites of mourning and remembrance. A waterfall of tributes poured in from the twin worlds — Hollywood and politics — that the actor, director and liberal activist inhabited.

Through the shock and haze, before all but the sketchiest details were known, President Trump weighed in as well, driving by his diarrhetic compulsion to muse on just about every passing event, as though he was elected not to govern but to serve as America’s commentator in chief.

Trump’s response, fairly shimmying on Reiner’s grave as he wrongly attributed his death to an act of political vengeance, managed to plumb new depths of heartlessness and cruelty; more than a decade into his acrid emergence as a political force, the president still manages to stoop to surprise.

But as vile and tasteless as Trump’s self-pitying statement was — Reiner, he averred, was a victim of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and, essentially, got what he deserved — it also pointed out a singular truism of his vengeful residency in the Oval Office.

In recent decades, the nation has had a president who lied and deceived to cover up his personal vices. Another who plunged the country into a costly and needless war. A third whose willfulness and vanity led him to overstay his time, hurting his party and America as well.

Still, each acted as though he was a president of all the people, not just those who voted him into office, contributed lavishly to his campaign or blindly cheered his every move, however reckless or ill-considered.

As Trump has repeatedly made clear, he sees the world in black-and-white, red-versus-blue, us-versus-them.

There are the states he carried that deserve federal funding. The voters whose support entitles them to food aid and other benefits. The sycophants bestowed with medals and presidential commendations.

And then there are his critics and political opponents — those he proudly and admittedly hates — whose suffering and even demise he openly savors.

When Charlie Kirk was killed, Trump ordered flags be flown at half-staff. He flew to Arizona to headline his memorial service. His vice president, JD Vance, suggested people should be fired for showing any disrespect toward the late conservative provocateur.

By noteworthy contrast, when a gunman killed Minnesota’s Democratic former House speaker, Melissa Hortman, Trump couldn’t be bothered with even a simple act of grace. Asked if he’d called to offer his condolences to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a personal friend of Hortman, Trump responded, “Why waste time?”

This is not normal, much less humane.

This is not politics as usual, or someone rewarding allies and seeking to disadvantage the political opposition, as all presidents have done. This is the nation’s chief executive using the immense powers of his office and the world’s largest, most resonant megaphone to deliver retribution, ruin people’s lives, inflict misery — and revel in the pain.

There were the usual denunciations of Trump’s callous and contemptuous response to Reiner’s stabbing death.

“I’d expect to hear something like this from a drunk guy at a bar, not the president of the United States,” said Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who is retiring rather than seeking reelection in 2026. (Which may be why he was so candid and spoke so bracingly.)

But this time, the criticisms did not just come from the typical anti-Trump chorus, or heterodox Republicans like Bacon and MAGA-stalwart-turned-taunter Marjorie Taylor Greene. Even some of the president’s longest and loudest advocates felt compelled to speak out.

“This is a dreadful thing to say about a man who just got murdered by his troubled son,” British broadcaster Piers Morgan posted on X. “Delete it, Mr. President.”

More telling, though, was the response from the Republican Party’s leadership.

“I don’t have much more to say about it, other than it’s a tragedy, and my sympathies and prayers go out to the Reiner family and to their friends,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told CNN when asked about Trump’s response. House Speaker Mike Johnson responded in a similarly nonresponsive vein.

Clearly, the see-and-hear-no-evil impulse remains strong in the upper echelons of the GOP — at least until more election returns show the price Republicans are paying as Trump keeps putting personal vendettas ahead of voters’ personal finances.

One of the enduring reasons supporters say they back the president is Trump’s supposed honesty. (Never mind the many voluminously documented lies he has told on a near-constant basis.)

Honesty, in this sense, means saying things that a more temperate and careful politician would never utter, and it’s an odd thing to condone in the nation’s foremost leader. Those with even a modicum of caring and compassion, who would never tell a friend they’re ugly or call a neighbor stupid — and who expect the same respect and decency in return — routinely ignore or explain away such casual cruelty when it comes from this president.

Those who insist Trump can do no wrong, who defend his every foul utterance or engage in but-what-about relativism to minimize the import, need not remain in his constant thrall.

When Trump steps so egregiously over a line, when his malice is so extravagant and spitefulness so manifest — as it was when he mocked Reiner in death — then, even the most fervent of the president’s backers should call him out.

Do it, and reclaim a little piece of your humanity.

Months before his slaying, Rob Reiner talked about the power of forgiveness after the “horrific” assassination of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk.

“Horror. An absolute horror,” the director, actor and political activist said when asked about the shooting in a TV interview with Piers Morgan. “I unfortunately saw the video of it and it’s beyond belief what happened to him, and that should never happen to anybody. I don’t care what your political beliefs are. That’s not acceptable.”

Contrast that with President Trump’s reaction to the killing of Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, who on Sunday were found stabbed to death in their Brentwood home. Their son, Nick Reiner, has been arrested in connection with the slayings.

“Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS,” Trump said in a social media post.

“He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!”

How is that anyone’s initial reaction to a tragic slaying, let alone an official comment from a sitting U.S. president? That’s a rhetorical question, of course. It’s just another Monday at Trump’s White House.

I’d be screaming into the void if I were to use the rest of this column to argue that the president is not only off his rocker but also has tumbled down the stairs and is in the foyer, mumbling something about speedboats, piggies and ballrooms. In his race to the bottom, he’s broken through the floor. Now we’re in the Trump Upside Down, where empathy and decency are negative attributes.

Even Republican lawmakers were compelled to speak out against their feared leader. “This is a family tragedy, not about politics or political enemies,” said Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in response to Trump’s post.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) wrote on X, “Regardless of one’s political views, no one should be subjected to violence, let alone at the hands of their own son. It’s a horrible tragedy that should engender sympathy and compassion from everyone in our country, period.”

Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said it short and sweet to CNN’s Jake Tapper: “I’d expect to hear something like this from a drunk guy at a bar, not the President of the United States. Can the President be presidential?”

No, he cannot. When given the chance on Monday to appear leader-like during a White House news conference, Trump doubled down on his dislike for Reiner, saying he “wasn’t a fan” and that the director “was a deranged person.”

Translation: Reiner was a Trump critic and the president has skin so thin it’s practically rice paper at this point. But the filmmaker’s social conscience was evident in everything he did, starting with his role as “All in the Family’s” liberal, hippie son-in law to conservative crank Archie Bunker. It was the 1970s, and Meathead (a.k.a. Michael) consistently called out Archie’s racism, bigotry and sexism on the weekly sitcom. Archie’s rants are now the ugly stuff embraced by feckless politicians and attention-seeking influencers, but back then, his tirades against “queers” and “coloreds” represented old prejudices that needed to be shed if the country were to move forward. Show creator Norman Lear made the ugliness funny by using Meathead to expose Archie’s ignorance. Even back then, Reiner was poking the bear.

Reiner was a staunch critic of Trump and other leaders and movements that sought to curtail the freedoms that were previously believed to be enshrined in the Constitution — until MAGA began shredding them one by one. The comedian was an advocate for democratic ideals, Democratic candidates, same-sex marriage, early childhood education, and government transparency, spearheading California’s Proposition 10 (First 5) to fund early development programs via tobacco taxes. He also helped overturn Proposition 8, California’s brief ban on gay marriage.

Reiner’s understanding that it takes all kinds was evident in his work. He was a director with range, as they say in the industry, helming a string of films that became cultural touchstones, starting with 1984’s groundbreaking mockumentary “This Is Spinal Tap,” a satire that forever changed the language around heavy-metal decibel levels (“Crank it to 11!”). Then came 1986’s coming-of-age drama “Stand by Me,” 1989’s seminal romantic comedy “When Harry Met Sally…,” and the terrifying, psychological horror-thriller, 1990’s “Misery,” about an injured novelist held captive by his biggest fan.

Some of his films directly addressed the inequity and violence that Reiner fought so hard to correct in his lifetime. “Ghosts of Mississippi” explored the 1994 trial of Byron De La Beckwith, a white supremacist accused of the 1963 assassination of civil rights activist Medgar Evers. And Reiner’s 2017 drama “Shock and Awe” told the true story of a team of reporters who countered the Bush administration’s justification for invading Iraq in 2003 when they found evidence of falsified intelligence about weapons of mass destruction.

Though it was already acceptable to speak out against that Middle Eastern war, in the same week of the film’s release, he caught flak for signing a petition led by Palestinian director Annemarie Jacir condemning Trump’s 2017 decision formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Reiner, who was Jewish, told the National that Trump had “no concept of geopolitical events or how things are interconnected. There was no consideration that went into this decision, no outreach to allies in the Arab world, or even the non-Arab world to see what the impact of something like this is.”

Reiner saw tragedy and sadness in the death of Kirk because he was able to empathize with the loss of life, no matter the difference of opinion.

Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump’s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover of darkness early Sunday morning, ahead of an appellate court’s order to be gone by noon Monday.

Administration officials would not immediately confirm whether the troops had decamped. But video taken outside the Roybal Federal Building downtown just after midnight on Sunday and reviewed by The Times shows a large tactical truck and four white passenger vans leaving the facility, which has been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.

About 300 California troops remain under federal control, some 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of last week, court records show.

“There were more than usual, and all of them left — there was not a single one that stayed,” said protester Rosa Martinez, who has demonstrated outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday.

Troops were spotted briefly later that day, but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon, Martinez said.

The development that forced the troops to leave was part of a sprawling legal fight for control of federalized soldiers nationwide that remains ongoing.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday but softened an even more stringent edict from a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state’s forces. Trump federalized thousands of California National Guard troops in June troops to quell unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

“For the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “While this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction.”

The ruling Friday came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president one of his most sweeping second-term victories this summer, after it found that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

That precedent set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments that have since mushroomed across the country, circumscribing debate even in courts where it is not legally binding.

But the so-called Newsom standard — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit — has drawn intense scrutiny and increasingly public rebuke in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration argues it affords the administration new and greater powers.

In October, the 7th Circuit — the appellate court that covers Illinois — found the president’s claims had “insufficient evidence,” upholding a block on a troop deployment in and around Chicago.

“Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws,” the panel wrote.

That ruling is now under review at the Supreme Court.

In November, the 9th Circuit vacated its earlier decision allowing Trump’s Oregon federalization to go forward amid claims the Justice Department misrepresented important facts in its filings. That case is under review by a larger panel of the appellate division, with a decision expected early next year.

Despite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers have doubled down on their claims of near-total power, arguing that federalized troops remain under the president’s command in perpetuity, and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment.

When Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Department of Justice whether federalized troops could “stay called up forever” under the government’s reading of the statute at a hearing in October, the answer was an unequivocal yes.

“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.

For now, the fate of 300 federalized California soldiers remains in limbo, though troops are currently barred by court orders from deployment in California and Oregon.

Times staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

Hours after Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, were found dead in their home in what is shaping up to be a heartbreaking family tragedy, our president blamed Reiner for his own death.

“A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS,” President Trump wrote on his social media platform. “He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!”

Rest in peace, indeed.

It’s a message steeped in cruelty and delusion, unbelievable and despicable even by the low, buried-in-the-dirt bar by which we have collectively come to judge Trump. In a town — and a time — of selfishness and self-serving, Reiner was one of the good guys, always fighting, both through his films and his politics, to make the world kinder and closer. And yes, that meant fighting against Trump and his increasingly erratic and authoritarian rule.

For years, Reiner made the politics of inclusion and decency central to his life. He was a key player in overturning California’s ban on same-sex marriage and fought to expand early childhood education.

For the last few months, he was laser-focused on the upcoming midterms as the last and best chance of protecting American democracy — which clearly enraged Trump.

“Make no mistake, we have a year before this country becomes a full on autocracy,” Reiner told MSNBC host Ali Velshi in October. “People care about their pocketbook issues, the price of eggs. They care about their healthcare, and they should. Those are the things that directly affect them. But if they lose their democracy, all of these rights, the freedom of speech, the freedom to pray the way you want, the freedom to protest and not go to jail, not be sent out of the country with no due process, all these things will be taken away from them.”

The Reiners’ son, Nick Reiner, has been arrested on suspicion of murder. Nick Reiner has struggled with addiction, and been in and out of rehab. But Trump seems to be saying that if Nick is indeed the perpetrator, he acted for pro-Trump political reasons — which obviously is highly unlikely and, well, just a weird and unhinged thing to claim.

But also, deeply hypocritical.

It was only a few months ago, in September, that Charlie Kirk was killed and Trump and his MAGA regime went nuts over anyone who dared whisper a critical word about Kirk. Trump called it “sick” and “deranged” that anyone could celebrate Kirk’s death, and blamed the “radical left” for violence-inciting rhetoric.

Vice President JD Vance, channeling his inner Scarlett O’Hara, vowed “with God as my witness,” he would use the full power of the state to crack down on political “networks” deemed terrorist. In reality, he’s largely just using the state to target people who oppose Trump out loud.

And just in case you thought maybe, maybe our president somehow really does have the good of all Americans at heart, recall that in speaking of Kirk, Trump said that he had one point of disagreement. Kirk, he claimed, forgave him enemies.

“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” Trump said. “I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”

There’s a malevolence so deep in Trump’s post about Reiner that even Marjorie Taylor Greene objected. She was once Trump’s staunchest supporter before he called her a traitor, empowering his goon squad to terrorize her with death threats.

“This is a family tragedy, not about politics or political enemies,” Greene wrote on social media. “Many families deal with a family member with drug addiction and mental health issues. It’s incredibly difficult and should be met with empathy especially when it ends in murder.”

But Trump has made cruelty the point. His need to dehumanize everyone who opposes him, including Reiner and even Greene, is exactly what Reiner was warning us about.

Because when you allow people to be dehumanized, you stop caring about them — and Reiner was not about to let us stop caring.

He saw the world with an artist’s eye and awarrior’s heart, a mighty combination reflected in his films. He challenged us to believe in true love, to set aside our cynicism, to be both silly and brave, knowing both were crucial to a successful life.

This clarity from a man who commanded not just our attention and our respect, but our hearts, is what drove Trump crazy — and what made Reiner such a powerful threat to him. Republican or Democrat, his movies reminded us of what we hold in common.

But it might be Michael Douglas’ speech in 1995’s “The American President” that is most relevant in this moment. Douglas’ character, President Andrew Shepherd, says that “America is advanced citizenship. You’ve got to want it bad, because it’s going to put up a fight.”

Shepard’s rival, a man pursuing power over purpose, “is interested in two things and two things only — making you afraid of ‘it’ and telling you who’s to blame for ‘it.’ ”

Sound familiar?

That our president felt the need to trash Reiner before his body is even buried would be a badge of honor to Reiner, an acknowledgment that Reiner’s warnings carried weight, and that Reiner was a messenger to be reckoned with.

Reiner knew what advanced citizenship meant, and he wanted badly for democracy to survive.

If Trump’s eulogy sickens you the way it sickens me, then here’s what you can do about it: Vote in November in Reiner’s memory.

Your ballot is the rebuke Trump fears most.

And your vote is the most powerful way to honor a man who dedicated his life to reminding us that bravery is having the audacity to care.

This week is shaping up to be crucial for the European Union’s policy on Ukraine. EU foreign ministers met in Brussels on Monday; EU heads of state will gather on Thursday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is meeting United States envoy Steve Witkoff. At the top of the agenda is the peace plan put forward by US President Donald Trump and continuing funding for Ukraine’s war effort.

The European strategy so far has been to alter the US-proposed peace plan in such a way that it becomes completely unacceptable to Russia. This, as European leaders hope, will reinforce the core narrative emanating from their capitals over the past two months – that Russian President Vladimir Putin is just playing games and doesn’t really want peace.

The idea behind it is to try to sway Trump to their side and have him apply additional military and economic pressure on the Kremlin rather than pressing Ukraine into signing an unsavoury peace deal right away. But this effort could easily backfire.

The main practical issue with regards to Ukraine’s capacity to withstand Russian aggression during 2026 is who is going to fund its army as well as its state and social welfare system. Trump proudly states that the US is no longer financing Ukraine’s war effort because, in his parlance, it is “Biden’s war” – ie, his predecessor Joe Biden is to blame.

The burden of funding is now squarely on Europe – the EU and rich non-EU countries, such as the United Kingdom and Norway. The US keeps providing weapons to Ukraine, but these are being paid for with money from European coffers. US intelligence support, crucial in Ukraine’s war planning, is currently available to Kyiv for free.

European leaders have been vocal and aggressive throughout the year in rejecting any realistic compromise that could end the war. But even as 2025 is ending, there is no clarity as to how they are going to back up their jingoistic rhetoric with sufficient funding that would allow Ukraine not just to stay afloat but tip the balance in the conflict in its favour.

Their plan A is what they call the reparations loan. It envisages using the assets of the Russian Central Bank frozen by European banks to fund the Ukrainian defence. This means that rather than spending the money on actual reparations – as in Ukraine’s post-war restoration – it would be spent on the war itself.

The thinking behind this plan is that once Russia suffers a strategic defeat, it would retroactively agree to the confiscation rather than demand its money back, so European governments would not have to reach into their coffers to return the money to the Russians.

The obvious problem here is that exactly nobody – except war cheerleaders who have been promising Russia’s defeat for the past four years – believes this outcome is even remotely realistic. Belgium, which holds the bulk of these assets, is equally sceptical, which is why it opposes this plan. It has been joined by a growing number of EU states, including the Czech Republic and Italy.

The other big problem is that Trump’s peace plan has radically different designs for the assets in question. It envisages using them as actual reparations, as in spending them on restoring Ukraine’s economy. Most crucially, Moscow has on numerous occasions signalled that it agrees with this part of the plan. It considers the money lost and wants to make sure neighbouring Ukraine does not turn into a failed state.

This means that if the reparations loan plan goes ahead, it would undermine the most attractive provision of Trump’s plan. If this happens, the US and the EU may find themselves more at odds with each other than they already are, and that would hardly sway Trump.

His administration has indicated on a number of occasions that it could walk out of the peace process if it is derailed, which means ending any help to Ukraine, be it with weapons or intelligence.

The reparations loan plan also comes with an enormous risk for the European economy. The confiscation of Russian assets would discourage any central bank in the world from keeping its money in Europe, meaning the European banking system stands to lose.

More importantly, this move cannot guarantee that Ukraine would be able to stop Russia’s slow but steady advancement. Securing funding for another year under the current circumstances basically means that more Ukrainian lives and territory will be lost in 2026.

This money cannot in effect counter the biggest threat to Ukraine and its neighbours right now: that of Russia precipitating a humanitarian catastrophe that could spill over into the region by devastating Ukraine’s energy infrastructure this winter. The latest blackout in Odesa when the whole city was left without water and heating in the middle of winter is a dark prelude of things to come.

All this warrants the question of why European leaders are acting the way they are now. Could their irrational radicalism be explained by their extensive political investment in delusional outcomes of this war that they have been selling to voters for the past four years? Or are they engaging in incessant moral posturing so as to avoid being scapegoated for the real outcome of the war?

There is probably a bit of both. But there is perhaps also an even more sinister motive, recently expressed by Wolfgang Ischinger, chairman of the Munich Security Conference: the idea that “as long as this war is being fought, … Europe is safe because the Ukrainians have successfully tied down this mighty Russian army.” In other words, there are some within the European political elite who perceive ending the war as being against European interests.

But regardless of what those on top think or are motivated by, the war fatigue in Europe is real. The rise of pro-Russia far-right groups in Germany and elsewhere, capitalising on the ruling elites’ shining ineptitude in handling the conflict with Russia, is a clear sign of that.

If the reparations loan scheme does not pass this week, the EU would have to go to plan B, which envisages loaning money from the EU budget. That, of course, would be met with fierce opposition from the European public.

The failure to secure funding for Ukraine may be seen as an embarrassing failure in Europe, but it would make things easier for Zelenskyy. With his administration losing popularity amid continuing military upsets and a major corruption scandal, Ukraine’s president is well on his way to becoming the chief scapegoat in this debacle.

But no more funding from Europe would allow him to declare that the West has betrayed Ukraine and proceed with the inevitable: accepting an unsavoury peace largely on Russia’s terms.

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

United States President Donald Trump has eased sanctions on Belarus after it freed more than 100 political prisoners.

But stiff European sanctions remain in place against the close Russian ally.

Why has the US deal been struck now, and what is the reaction in Russia, Ukraine and the European Union?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya – Belarusian opposition leader

Franak Viacorka – non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council

Mark Episkopos – research fellow at Quincy Institute’s Eurasia programme

Andrey Kortunov – Russian foreign affairs analyst

US President Donald Trump is promoting his nation’s economic record, insisting prices are falling and investment is surging – but the data, and rising cost-of-living pressures, tell a different story. Jillian Wolf checks the facts.

Subscribe to our channel: http://bit.ly/AJSubscribe
Follow us on X : https://twitter.com/AJEnglish
Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera
Check our website: http://www.aljazeera.com/
Check out our Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/aljazeeraenglish/
Download AJE Mobile App: https://aje.io/AJEMobile

#aljazeera
#aljazeeraenglish
#aljazeeranewslive

The first National Security Strategy of the United States of America was released in 1950 under President Truman. It set firm strategic goals based on the containment doctrine to limit the influence of communist ideology in the global order. This first national security strategy marked the beginning of limited global policing in US geopolitics, but it was less pragmatic and more principled realism.  American interests became specific to liberal internationalism and focused only on areas facing the spread of the communist threat.

The Core Security Thinking of the US

The core security thinking of Americans was to preserve their sphere of influence from any adversarial influence or intervention, echoing the Monroe Doctrine. The initial period had this core, and the first national security strategy laid the groundwork for this security thinking. In 1988, the scope of core security thinking expanded, and elements of realism advanced further, with the US beginning to engage in deterrence calculations and global outreach to build collective military alliances against the Soviets. Most importantly, the strategy also focused on strengthening the economy. The core security thinking in the US’s national security strategy by the late 1980s began to realize that, while the Monroe Doctrine is important, US strategic interests must also require adopting flexibility in its confrontational approach, guided by liberal internationalism and the containment of communism.

Pragmatism and Realism

After the Soviet disintegration, US National Security Strategy focused on navigating a multipolar world by reinforcing the idea of collective security under the H.W. Bush Administration. The 1991 and 1993 US National Security strategies expanded on the concepts that started to emerge in the late 1980s—deterrence and engagement. In the 1990s, this strategy was continued through Powell’s four pillars: strong defense, forward presence, alliances, and coalition-building. The national security strategy designs suggest that elements of pragmatism and distinctions of pure realism gradually began to take center stage in the US national security approach.

Strategy in Crises

The National Security Strategy changed after 9/11, possibly in response to shifted security priorities. The previous approach of principled realism, which involved pragmatic and defensive tactics, now showed a slight shift, with the US’s national security strategy emphasizing more openly offensive realism and dogmatism. By the mid-2000s, the US had reactionary national security strategies, moving away from the approach that began to develop in the late 1980s. Key shifts in security strategies after 2001 included the doctrine of preemption and unilateral actions, but another significant change was a major shift in the collective engagement perspective, differing from earlier ideas of shared strategic responsibilities among allies.

After 9/11, the US called on allies, particularly in NATO, to bear a greater share of the burden for collective defense efforts, shifting away from reliance solely on the US. The core security thinking, rooted in peace through engagement, shifted during the 1990s toward peace through strength. Another aspect, after the Monroe Doctrine, peace through strength, gained a label of permanence in the US National Security Strategy, though its effectiveness and emphasis varied over time.

Trump’s National Security Strategy: Rebooting and Readjustments

Trump’s 2025 national security strategy resembles his 2017 National Security Strategy. The nationalist ideals of America First and the focus on economic engagement—which is the main security approach this time—are a mix of realizations and reactions. The first reaction to the current global situation is reasserting the Monroe Doctrine, dubbed “Trump Corollary,” and the second is showing the will for peace through strength by deterrence. Even if conflicts occur, the strategy emphasizes engaging in conflict with strategic skill to quickly win wars with little to no casualties. The realization part of the strategy is the US increasing its understanding of collective efforts and economic strength. The strategy highlights stronger partnerships with countries like India for the Indo-Pacific.

Reaction and Challenge

The realistic approach in this strategy is flexible realism, aiming not at domination but at maintaining a balance of power, while not fully adopting defensive realism. The United States has embraced both offensive and defensive realism. Over the past ten years, the US National Security Strategy under Obama, Trump 1.0, and Biden has incorporated elements of defensive realism along with principled realism, with the US gradually increasing its efforts to balance power through the promotion of liberal and pro-democratic values—examples include its Middle East policy and the revival of QUAD in 2017. However, a notable development in the 2025 strategy is the US’s willingness to undertake offensive actions to maximize security, such as Operation Midnight Hammer against Iran and expanding operations in Latin America against Venezuela. Another prominent aspect of this strategy is the US’s focus on Europe’s burden-sharing, attempting to lighten its responsibilities and emphasizing that Europe should stand on its own, while the US remains a facilitator in Europe’s development. However, it is no longer willing to assume a broader role—similar to sentiments after 9/11. This strategy likely reflects the challenges posed by a rising China, Russia’s multipolar approach, and increasing strategic competition in multilateral arenas. The Trump approach—as mentioned in the strategy—is not just a reboot of the US National Security strategy after the 2000s but with some realizations.

Realization

There is a growing realization, as highlighted earlier, that the US can no longer sustain a confrontational approach and aggressive, offensive realism. The Trump strategy for 2025 recognizes the need to incorporate elements from both the late Cold War and post-Cold War periods. The latter was characterized by defensive realism and principal realism features—approaches that the US emphasized during the Clinton years, when embracing multilateralism, economic diplomacy, and regional collective engagements became central to US national security strategy, paving the way for more pragmatic interventions. A similar recognition of Clinton’s policy of enlargement through engagement is reflected in Trump 2.0 National Security Strategy—Shifting from Aid to Trade with Africa, which exemplifies this focus on promoting economic diplomacy and broadening engagement.

The US National Security Strategy 2025 reflects the nation’s understanding of how to adapt its engagement with the global order while maintaining realism. This time, US security thinking appears to find a balance between engagement and deterrence, which in previous years often seemed to conflict.

Her brown face, green mantle and forgiving gaze is a mainstay of Southern California: In front yards. As murals. On decals flashing from car windows and bumpers. Sold at swap meets in the form of T-shirts, ponchos, statues, bags and so much more.

Tomorrow, it will be the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and She couldn’t come soon enough. 2025 will go down as one of the best and worst years ever to be a Catholic in the United States.

Members of my faith are in positions of power in this country like never before. Vice President JD Vance is a convert. A majority of the Supreme Court are practicing Catholics. Names of past Catholic diasporas like Kennedy, Bondi, Loeffler and Rubio dot Trump’s Cabinet. This week, he became the first president to formally recognize the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, a Catholic holy day celebrating Mary, the mother of Jesus.

“For nearly 250 years, Mary has played a distinct role in our great American story,” Trump declared, offering a brief Catholic history of the United States that would’ve made this country’s Puritan forefathers retch. He even shouted out Our Lady of Guadalupe’s feast day, commending the “steadfast devotion to Mary that originated in the heart of Mexico.”

It’s the second year in a row where Trump has wrapped himself in the Empress of the Americas. Last year, he shared Her famous image on social media on Sept. 8, when Catholics celebrate the birth of the Virgin Mary, with the caption “Happy birthday, Mary!”

I wish I could say Guadalupe is changing Trump’s shriveled excuse of a heart. But it’s impossible to reach that conclusion when so many Catholics in the U.S. face unholy persecution because of his deportation deluge.

A study released earlier this year by a coalition of evangelical and Catholic groups found that 61% of immigrants at risk of deportation in this country identify as Catholic, while nearly one-fifth of U.S. Catholics “would be impacted” by someone being deported. The latter figure is nearly three times the rate that evangelicals face and four times the rate of other Christian denominations.

Guadalupanos — people with a special devotion to Guadalupe, the overwhelming majority of whom are Latino — can’t even venerate Her in peace this year because of Trump.

The neighborhood house that I visit every year to pray the novena in honor of Guadalupe with others has seen way fewer people than last year. In Chicago, where immigration agents terrorized residents all fall, officials at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in suburban Des Plaines are seeing the same even as they adopt security measures to reassure attendees. Out in the Coachella Valley, a beloved pilgrimage in honor of la guadalupana held for more than 20 years was canceled, with organizers announcing on Facebook in Spanish that the faithful should instead do a “spiritual interior pilgrimage where our mother invites us to keep us united in a secure environment.”

Since July, San Bernardino diocese bishop Alberto Rojas has allowed Catholics to skip Mass because of all the raids in the Inland Empire. He was joined this week by Diocese of Baton Rouge Bishop Michael Duca as la migra now roams Louisiana. “We should be anticipating the joy of Christmas, surrounded by our family in celebration,” Duca wrote, “instead of the experience of anxiety and fear.”

The late Pope Francis meets with U.S. Vice President JD Vance and delegation during an audience at Casa Santa Marta on April 20 in Vatican City. A day later, Francis died at age 88.

(Vatican Pool / Getty Images)

That’s the sad irony of seeing Catholicism have such a prominent role in Trump’s second term. The main defamers of Catholics in the United States have been Protestants since the days of the founding fathers. They cast successive waves of immigrants — Irish, Italians, Poles, Mexicans, Vietnamese — as evil, stupid immigrants beholden to Rome. They wrongly predicted each group would ruin the American way of life.

Now that Catholics are at the top, they’re the ones pushing policies that persecute the new generation of immigrants, Catholic and not. They mock the exhortations of church leaders to follow the Bible’s many commands to protect the stranger, the meek, the least and the poor by arguing that deporting the undocumented is somehow righteous.

That’s why, as we end a terrible year and Trump vows to escalate his cruel anti-immigrant campaign in the next one, Catholics and non-Catholics alike need to remember who Our Lady of Guadalupe is like never before. She’s more than just an iconic image; this dark-skinned María stands against everything Trump and his brand of Catholicism preaches.

The faithful believe that Guadalupe appeared in 1531 near modern day Mexico City — not before the conquering Spanish priests who were destroying the old ways of the Aztecs and other Indigenous groups, but to the conquered who looked like her. The manuscript that shared her story with the world quoted her as promising to “hear all their cries … and remedy all their miseries, sorrows, and pains.”

Siding with the underdogs against the elites is why Mexicans carried Guadalupe’s banner in the War of Independence and during the Mexican Revolution. Why Cesar Chavez carried her during United Farm Workers marches and why generations of Chicano artists have reimagined la virgencita as everything from a bikini-clad model to a jogger — the more quotidian, the better.

It’s why there are 19 parishes, sanctuaries and missions named after her in the dioceses of Orange, Los Angeles and San Bernardino — by far the most of any saint, sacrament or Marian apparition in the Southland. It’s why the late Pope Francis regularly celebrated mass in honor of Guadalupe’s feast day at the Vatican and admonished those who wished to “gain ideological advantage over the mystery of Guadalupe” last year during a homily at St. Peter’s Basilica. Presiding over the service was Cardinal Robert Prevost, who is now Pope Leo XIV and whose devotion to Guadalupe is such that he was consecrated as a bishop 11 years ago this Dec. 12.

It’s why Guadalupe has emerged as a symbol against Trump’s deportation Leviathan.

Her message of hope for the poor over the privileged stands in contrast to the limousine Catholics who dominate Trumpland. They’re the ones that have successfully spent millions of dollars to move the church in the United States to the right (55% of Catholics chose Trump last year), repeatedly tried to torpedo the reforms of Pope Francis and are already souring on Pope Leo for describing Trump’s raids as “extremely disrespectful” to the dignity of migrants. They’re the ones who have expressed more outrage over the assassination of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk this fall than the suffering that millions of their fellow Catholics have endured all year under Trump.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, grant us the strength to fight back against the Herod of our time.