Trumps

Oct. 29 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate on Tuesday night passed legislation terminating the national emergency declaration to impose duties on Brazilian imports, dealing a blow to President Donald Trump‘s use of the punitive economic measures to penalize the South American country for prosecuting his ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro.

The Senate voted 52-48 in favor of S.J. Res. 18, with five Republicans — Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul, also of Kentucky — joining their Democratic colleagues in ending the emergency and, consequently, the tariffs.

The bipartisan bill was introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Paul.

Speaking from the floor prior to the vote Tuesday, Paul criticized the tariffs as a tax being levied against the people of the United States — taxes, which fall under the purview of the House of Representatives, not that of the executive branch.

“The Senate is compelled to act because one person in our country wishes to raise taxes without the approval of the Senate, without the approval of the House, without the approval of the Constitution,” he said, referring to Trump.

“The idea that one person can raise taxes is contrary to our founding principles.”

Tariffs have been a central mechanism of Trump’s trade and foreign policy, using them to right what he sees as improper trade relations as well as to penalize nations he feels are doing him and the United States wrong.

Starting in April, Trump imposed a 10% baseline tariff on nearly every country under a national emergency declaration, the legality of which is being challenged in court. In late July, Trump imposed an additional 40% tariff on Brazil via an executive order under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Trump had threatened Brazil with tariffs over how Bolsonaro “has been treated.”

Bolsonaro was being prosecuted at the time the tariffs were imposed for attempting a coup following his 2022 election loss to current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. In September, he was sentenced to 27 years in prison.

In his floor speech Tuesday, Kaine asked what threat to the U.S. economy, national security or foreign policy did Brazil pose to the United States to necessitate the national emergency.

“We have a trade surplus with Brazil: $7 billion a year in goods, $23 billion a year in services,” he said. “This president has said their prosecution of a disgraced politician is a national emergency for the United States? How could that be? Mr. President, if this is a national emergency, any president of any party could say that anything is a national emergency for the United States.”

A federal judge Tuesday ruled that Acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli is not lawfully serving in that role, but declined to dismiss criminal indictments that were challenged by defense attorneys.

Senior Judge J. Michael Seabright from the District of Hawaii was brought in to oversee the case after federal judges in Los Angeles recused themselves. In his ruling, Seabright said Essayli “unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney” but can remain in charge under a different title.

Seabright said Essayli “remains the First Assistant United States Attorney” and can “perform the functions and duties of that office.”

Essayli, a former Riverside County assemblyman, was appointed as the region’s interim top federal prosecutor by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in April.

The top prosecutors in charge of U.S. Attorney’s offices are supposed to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate or a panel of federal judges, but the Trump administration has circumvented the normal process in order to allow Essayli and others to remain on the job without facing a vote.

Essayli’s temporary appointment was set to expire in late July, but the White House never moved to nominate him to a permanent role, instead opting to use an unprecedented legal maneuver to shift his title to “acting,” extending his term for an additional nine months.

Challenges to Essayli’s appointment have been brought in at least three criminal cases, with defense lawyers arguing that charges brought under his watch are invalid. The federal public defender’s office in Los Angeles asked the judge to disqualify Essayli from participating in and supervising criminal prosecutions in the district.

The U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Seabright’s ruling comes amid similar challenges across the country to the Trump administration’s tactics for installing loyalists who wield the power to bring criminal charges and sue on the government’s behalf.

A federal judge in August determined Alina Habba has been illegally occupying the U.S. attorney post in New Jersey, although that order was put on hold pending appeal. Last month a federal judge disqualified Nevada’s top federal prosecutor, Sigal Chattah, from several cases, concluding she “is not validly serving as acting U.S. attorney.” Chattah’s disqualification also is paused while the Department of Justice appeals the decision.

James Comey, the former FBI director charged with lying to Congress, cited the Nevada and New Jersey cases in a recent filing and is now challenging the legality of Trump’s appointment of Lindsey Halligan as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan was appointed after his predecessor, also a Trump appointee, refused to seek charges against Comey.

Since taking office, Essayli has doggedly pursued President Trump’s agenda, championing hard-line immigration enforcement in Southern California, often using the president’s language at news conferences. Essayli’s tenure has sparked discord in the office, with dozens of career DOJ prosecutors quitting.

The judge’s ruling Tuesday conceded arguments from the Justice Department that Essayli would continue leading the U.S. Attorney’s office in L.A. regardless of how the judged decided on the challenge to his status.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Alexander P. Robbins said that because Essayli also has been designated as first assistant U.S. attorney, he would retain his authority even if stripped of the “acting” title.

Bondi in July also appointed him as a “special attorney.” Robbins told the judge that “there’s no developed challenge to Mr. Essayli’s appointment as a special attorney or his designation as a first assistant.”

The prosecutor told the judge the government believes Essayli’s term will end Feb. 24 and that afterward the role of acting U.S. attorney will remain vacant.

Robbins argued in a court filing that the court shouldn’t order Essayli “to remove the prosecutorial and supervisory hats that many others in this Office wear, sowing chaos and confusion into the internal workings of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the largest district in the country.”

When asked by a Times reporter last month about the motion to disqualify him, Essayli said “the president won the election.”

“The American people provided him a mandate to run the executive branch, including the U.S. attorney’s office, and I look forward to serving at the pleasure of the president,” he said during a news conference.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s anti-Trump, anti-Texas congressional redistricting gamble seems about to pay off.

Newsom’s bet on Proposition 50 is looking like a winner, although we won’t really know until the vote count is released starting election night Nov. 4.

Insiders closely watching the high-stakes campaign would be shocked if Republicans pulled an upset and defeated the Democrats’ retaliatory response to red state gerrymandering.

They talk mostly about the expected size of victory, not whether it will win. The hedged consensus is that it’ll be by a modest margin, not a blowout.

Any size victory would help Newsom promote himself nationally as the Democrat whom party activists anxiously seek to aggressively fight Trumpism. It could energize grassroots progressives to back the Californian in early 2028 presidential primaries.

Propositions 50’s defeat, however, could be a devastating blow to Newsom’s presidential aspirations. If Californians wouldn’t follow him, why should other people?

Private and independent polls have shown Proposition 50 being supported by a small majority of registered voters. Not enough for an early victory dance. But the opposition is nowhere close to a majority. A lot of people have been undecided. They may not even bother to vote in a special election with only one state measure on the ballot.

As of last week, the return of mail-in ballots was running about the same as in last year’s presidential election at the same point — very unusual.

A slightly higher percentage of Democrats were casting ballots than GOP registrants. This is particularly significant in a state where 45% of voters are Democrats and only 25% are Republicans. The GOP needs a humungous turnout to beat Democrats on almost anything.

You can credit President Trump’s antics for riling up Democrats to vote early.

One practical importance of early Democratic voting is that the “yes” side doesn’t need to spend more money appealing to people who have already mailed in their ballots.

“It’s a bird in the hand kind of thing,” says Paul Mitchell, the Democrats’ chief data processor and principal drawer of the gerrymandered congressional maps up for approval in Proposition 50.

Mitchell believes the large recent weekend turnouts in California of “No Kings” protesters are indicative of the anti-Trump outrage that is generating Democratic enthusiasm for Proposition 50.

Republican consultant Rob Stutzman thinks that Proposition 50 could have been beaten with enough money. But not nearly enough showed up. Potential donors probably concluded it was a lost cause, he says. Don’t waste the cash.

It takes ridiculous amounts of money to win a competitive statewide race in California, with 23 million diverse voters scattered over hundreds of miles and several costly media markets.

Democrats, with their unmatched California power, have raised well over $100 million from unions, billionaire Democratic donors and other political investors.

Billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer put up $12 million. There are rumors he’s tempted to run for governor.

Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso is thinking very seriously about entering the 2026 gubernatorial race. He just paid for 100,000 pro-50 mail pieces in L.A. County, aimed at those least likely to vote.

One problem for the opposition is that it never unified behind a main anti-50 message. It ranged from “reject Newsom’s power grab” to “win one for Trump” and a purist lecture about retaining California’s current congressional districts drawn by a voter-created good government citizens’ commission.

The basic pro-50 message is simply, as Steyer says in his TV ad: “Stick it to Trump.”

This contest at its core is about which party controls Congress after next year’s midterm elections — or whether Republicans and Democrats at least share power. It’s about whether there’ll be a Congress with some gumption to confront a power-mad, egotistical president.

The fight started when Trump banged on Texas to redraw — gerrymander — its congressional districts to potentially gain five more Republican seats in the House of Representatives. Democrats need only a slight pickup to capture House control — and in an off-year election, the non-presidential party tends to acquire many.

Texas obediently obliged the nervous Trump, and other red states also have.

Newsom responded by urging the California Legislature to redraw this state’s maps to potentially gain five Democratic seats, neutralizing Texas’ underhanded move. The lawmakers quickly did. But in California, voter approval is needed to temporarily shelve the independent commission’s work. That’s what Proposition 50 does.

It also would boost Newsom’s standing among party activists across America.

“He’s been trying to claim the national leadership on anti-Trump. This is a chance for him to show he can deliver,” says UC Berkeley political scientist Eric Schickler. “There’s a sense the party doesn’t know how to fight back.

“On the flip side, if he were unable to persuade California voters to go along with him, it would be a hard sell to show Democrats nationally he’s the best person to take on Republicans.”

“It’s a gamble,” says UC San Diego political science professor Thad Kousser. “If 50 wins, he’s a person who can effectively fight back against Donald Trump. If it loses, he has no hope of winning on the national level.”

But veteran political consultant Mike Murphy — a former Republican who switched to independent — thinks Newsom could survive voters’ rejection of Proposition 50.

“It would take some of the shine off him. But he’d still be a contender. It wouldn’t knock him out. The worst you could say was that he lost 50 but was fighting the good fight.

“If 50 wins, Gavin might have a good future as a riverboat gambler if he puts all the chips in.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Pelosi faces challenges as age becomes unavoidable tension point for Democrats
The TK: Justice Department says it will monitor California poll sites amid Prop. 50 voting
The L.A. Times Special: She was highly qualified to be California governor. Why did her campaign fizzle?

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

For most of President Trump’s second term, Republicans have bent to his will. But in two Midwestern states, Trump’s plan to maintain control of the U.S. House in next year’s election by having Republicans redraw congressional districts has hit a roadblock.

Despite weeks of campaigning by the White House, Republicans in Indiana and Kansas say their party doesn’t have enough votes to pass new, more GOP-friendly maps. It’s made the two states outliers in the rush to redistrict — places where Republican-majority legislatures are unwilling or unable to heed Trump’s call and help preserve the party’s control on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers in the two states still may be persuaded, and the White House push, which has included an Oval Office meeting for Indiana lawmakers and two trips to Indianapolis by Vice President JD Vance, is expected to continue. But for now, it’s a rare setback for the president and his efforts to maintain a compliant GOP-held Congress after the 2026 midterms.

Typically, states redraw the boundaries of their congressional districts every 10 years, based on census data. But because midterm elections typically tend to favor the party not in power — and the GOP holds a razor-thin majority in the House — Trump is pressuring Republicans to devise new maps that favor their candidates.

Democrats need to gain only three seats to flip House control, and the fight has become a bruising back-and-forth.

With new maps of their own, multiple Democratic states including California are moving to counter any gains made by Republicans. The latest, Virginia, is expected to take up the issue in a special session starting Monday.

Opposition to gerrymandering has long been a liberal cause, but Democratic states are now calling for redistricting in response to Trump’s latest effort, which they characterize as an unprecedented power grab.

Indiana

Indiana, whose U.S. House delegation has seven Republicans and two Democrats, was one of the first states on which the Trump administration focused its redistricting efforts this summer.

But a spokesperson for state Senate Leader Rodric Bray’s office said Thursday that the chamber lacks the votes to redraw Indiana’s congressional districts. With only 10 Democrats in the 50-member Senate, that means more than a dozen of the 40 Republicans oppose the idea.

Bray’s office did not respond to requests for an interview.

The holdouts may come from a few schools of thought. New political lines, if poorly executed, could make solidly Republican districts more competitive. Others say they believe it is simply wrong to stack the deck.

“We are being asked to create a new culture in which it would be normal for a political party to select new voters, not once a decade — but any time it fears the consequences of an approaching election,” state Sen. Spencer Deery, a Republican, said in a statement in August.

Deery’s office did not respond to a request for an interview and said the statement stands.

A common GOP argument in favor of new maps is that Democratic-run states such as Massachusetts have no Republican representatives, while Illinois has used redistricting for partisan advantage — a process known as gerrymandering.

“For decades, Democrat states have gerrymandered in the dark of the night,” Republican state Sen. Chris Garten said on social media. “We can no longer sit idly by as our country is stolen from us.”

Republican Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith, who would vote to break a tie in the state Senate if needed, recently called on lawmakers to forge ahead with redistricting and criticized the holdouts as not sufficiently conservative.

“For years, it has been said accurately that the Indiana Senate is where conservative ideas from the House go to die,” Beckwith said in a social media post.

Indiana is staunchly conservative, but its Republicans tend to foster a deliberate temperance. And the state voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

“Hoosiers, it’s very tough to to predict us, other than to say we’re very cautious,” former GOP state lawmaker Mike Murphy said. “We’re not into trends.”

The party divide reflects a certain independent streak held by voters in Indiana and Kansas and a willingness by some to break ranks.

Writing in the Washington Post last week, former Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, urged Indiana lawmakers to resist the push to gerrymander. “Someone has to lead in climbing out of the mudhole,” he said.

“Hoosiers, like most Americans, place a high value on fairness and react badly to its naked violation,” he wrote.

Kansas

In Kansas, Republican legislative leaders are trying to bypass the Democratic governor and force a special session for only the second time in the state’s 164-year history. Gov. Laura Kelly opposes mid-decade redistricting and has suggested it could be unconstitutional.

The Kansas Constitution allows GOP lawmakers to force a special session with a petition signed by two-thirds of both chambers — also the supermajorities needed to override Kelly’s expected veto of a new map. Republicans hold four more seats than the two-thirds majority in both the state Senate and House. In either, a defection of five Republicans would sink the effort.

Weeks after state Senate President Ty Masterson announced the push for a special session, GOP leaders were struggling to get the last few signatures needed.

Among the holdouts is Rep. Mark Schreiber, who represents a district southwest of Topeka. He told the Associated Press that he “did not sign a petition to call a special session, and I have no plans to sign one.” Schreiber said he believes redistricting should be used only to reflect shifts in population after the once-every-10-year census.

“Redistricting by either party in midcycle should not be done,” he said.

Republicans would probably target U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids, the Democrat representing the mostly Kansas City-area 3rd Congressional District, which includes Johnson County, the state’s most populous. The suburban county accounts for more than 85% of the vote and has trended to the left since 2016.

Kansas has a sizable number of moderate Republicans, and 29% of the state’s 2 million voters are registered as politically unaffiliated. Both groups are prominent in Johnson County.

Republican legislators previously tried to hurt Davids’ chances of reelection when redrawing the district, but she won in 2022 and 2024 by more than 10 percentage points.

“They tried it once and couldn’t get it done,” said Jack Shearer, an 82-year-old registered Republican from suburban Kansas City.

But a mid-decade redistricting has support among some Republicans in the county. State Sen. Doug Shane, whose district includes part of the county, said he believes his constituents would be amenable to splitting it.

“Splitting counties is not unprecedented and occurs in a number of congressional districts around the country,” he said in an email.

Volmert and Hanna write for the Associated Press. Volmert reported from Lansing, Mich., and Hanna from Topeka, Kan. AP writer Heather Hollingsworth in Lenexa, Kan., contributed to this report.

Hundreds gather to express opposition to US president’s attendance at ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – Hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters have held demonstrations opposing United States President Donald Trump’s visit to Malaysia for the ASEAN summit.

Protesters gathered in Kuala Lumpur’s Independence Square and the Ampang Park area of the city in separate demonstrations on Sunday morning and evening to oppose Trump’s support for Israel’s war on Gaza.

Trump was in Kuala Lumpur to attend the 47th ASEAN summit, where he oversaw the signing of a ceasefire deal between Cambodia and Thailand and announced a number of trade deals.

In Independence Square, protesters wearing keffiyehs braved the midday sun while chanting “Free, Free Palestine”.

Asma Hanim Mahoud said she had travelled 300km (185 miles) from the state of Kelantan in northeast Malaysia to attend the protest and another demonstration on Friday in front of the US embassy.

“People who have a conscience know that Trump is a genocide enabler. Without him, Israel cannot kill all the children and people in Gaza,” she told Al Jazeera.

“It’s not rocket science.”

Mahoud was dismayed that the morning protest had been moved by authorities from Ampang Park, close to the venue of the ASEAN summit, where protests earlier in the week had taken place.

Police said they had expected between 1,000 and 1,500 protesters at the anti-Trump rally on Sunday, according to Malaysia’s Bernama news agency.

The turnout, while much lower, drew from a diverse swath of Malaysian society.

Choo Chon Kai, a leader of the Socialist Party of Malaysia, said he was attending the rally to protest US foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere.

“This is a solidarity rally against US imperialism, as well as solidarity with the people of Palestine and people all over the world who are victims of US imperialism,” Choo told Al Jazeera.

Choo also said he was disappointed the protest had been moved from the vicinity of the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, where Trump and other leaders gathered for the summit.

Protesters later gathered at Ampang Park, the original gathering site for the protest, in the evening to demonstrate against the US president’s visit.

“We just want to make a point that we are against the US policies, but unfortunately, our police have been very hostile to the protest and even shut down the area where we were going to protest,” Choo said.

Kuala Lumpur resident Mursihidah, who asked to be referred to by one name, said she and her husband had been attending pro-Palestine demonstrations since 2023.

Mursihidah said protesters should no longer have to take to the streets after more than two years of war.

Israel and Hamas signed a ceasefire agreement earlier this month – an agreement also overseen by Trump – but violence has continued, with each side accusing the other of breaching the truce.

“I honestly don’t know why we’re still doing this,” she told Al Jazeera.

“This shouldn’t be happening, but somebody has to be their voice. We have to be their voice because they don’t have a voice.”

US president begins trip to Malaysia, Japan and South Korea, with international trade and China on the agenda.

The United States has carried out strikes near Venezuela that President Donald Trump says are targeting drug gangs.

That is disputed, but the major military mobilisation has brought the issue of narcotics front and centre.

How bad is the problem in the country, and what’s Trump’s strategy?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Sanho Tree – Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and director of the Drug Policy Project

Carrie Sheffield – Senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum

Ernesto Castaneda – Director of the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University

United States President Donald Trump has begun construction of a $300m ballroom on the site of what was the White House’s East Wing.

The construction, which began on Monday, is the first major structural change to the complex since 1948. It involves tearing down the existing East Wing, which had housed the first lady’s offices and was used for ceremonies.

The work is being funded via private donations from individuals, corporations and tech companies, including Google and Amazon, raising uncomfortable questions about the level of access this might give donors to the most powerful man in the country.

A pledge form seen by CBS News indicated that donors may qualify for “recognition” of their contributions. Further details of this have not emerged, however.

How much will the new ballroom cost?

The estimated cost of building Trump’s ornate, 8,360sq-metre (90,0000sq-ft) ballroom, which he says will accommodate 999 people, has varied since plans were announced earlier this year.

In a statement made in August, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt indicated the cost would be about $200m. However, this week, Trump raised that to $300m.

Construction began during a US government shutdown and, therefore, without the approval of the National Capital Planning Commission, the federal agency responsible for overseeing these operations, which is closed.

Who is funding the ballroom?

On Monday, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “For more than 150 years, every President has dreamt about having a Ballroom at the White House to accommodate people for grand parties, State Visits, etc. I am honored to be the first President to finally get this much-needed project underway – with zero cost to the American Taxpayer!”

He added that he himself will also be contributing to the bill: “The White House Ballroom is being privately funded by many generous Patriots, Great American Companies, and, yours truly.”

However, it seems that at least some of the donations are being made as part of deals struck with Trump over other issues.

YouTube will pay $22m towards the ballroom construction as part of a legal settlement with Trump pertaining to a lawsuit he brought in 2021 over the suspension of his account after the Capitol riot that year when his supporters stormed the seat of Congress on January 6 in a bid to prevent the transfer of the presidency to Joe Biden. YouTube and Google have the same parent company, Alphabet.

The White House did not disclose how much donors would contribute. Other prominent donors – some of which have had recent legal wrangles in the US – were on a list the White House provided to the media. They include:

Amazon

Last month, the Federal Trade Commission reached a settlement with Amazon over allegations that the multinational tech company founded by Jeff Bezos had enrolled millions of consumers to its streaming platform, Prime, without their consent and made it difficult to cancel the subscriptions.

Under the settlement, Amazon will pay $2.5bn in penalties and refunds, fix its subscription process and undergo compliance monitoring.

Apple

US-based multinational Apple – which produces the iPhone, iPad and MacBook – is headed by CEO Tim Cook.

On Tuesday, Apple asked a US appeals court to overturn a federal judge’s ruling in April that prevents it from collecting commissions on certain app purchases.

Coinbase

Coinbase is the largest US cryptocurrency exchange. It is led by CEO Brian Armstrong.

On September 30, a US federal judge ruled that shareholders could pursue a narrowed lawsuit accusing the company of hiding key business risks, including the risk of a lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the risk of losing assets in bankruptcy.

Google

Last month, the US Department of Justice won a major antitrust case against Google. A federal court ruled that the tech giant illegally monopolised online search and search advertising.

Lockheed Martin

Aerospace and defence manufacturer Lockheed Martin is headed by President and CEO Jim Taiclet.

In February, Lockheed Martin agreed to pay $29.74m to resolve federal allegations that the company had overcharged the US government by submitting inflated cost data for contracts of F-35 fighter jets from 2013 to 2015.

Microsoft

The CEO of the tech group is Satya Nadella, who earned a record $96.5m in fiscal year 2025.

Lutnick family

The Lutnick family is associated with businessman Howard Lutnick, who is also Trump’s commerce secretary.

Lutnick is the CEO of the investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald. His company Cantor Gaming has previously been accused of repeatedly violating state and federal laws, Politico reported in February.

Winklevoss twins

Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss are listed as separate donors.

The brothers are US investors and entrepreneurs, known for cofounding the cryptocurrency exchange Gemini and Winklevoss Capital.

Last month, the SEC agreed to settle a lawsuit over Gemini’s unregistered cryptocurrency-lending programme offered to retail investors.

Who else is on the list?

Other companies, conglomerates and individuals on the list include:

• Altria Group
• Booz Allen Hamilton
• Caterpillar
• Comcast
• J Pepe and Emilia Fanjul
• Hard Rock International
• HP
• Meta Platforms
• Micron Technology
• NextEra Energy
• Palantir Technologies
• Ripple
• Reynolds American
• T-Mobile
• Tether America
• Union Pacific
• Adelson Family Foundation
• Stefan E Brodie
• Betty Wold Johnson Foundation
• Charles and Marissa Cascarilla
• Edward and Shari Glazer
• Harold Hamm
• Benjamin Leon Jr
• Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Foundation
• Stephen A Schwarzman
• Konstantin Sokolov
• Kelly Loeffler and Jeff Sprecher
• Paolo Tiramani

Is the private funding of Trump’s ballroom ethical?

Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein told Al Jazeera that the private funding violates the Anti-Deficiency Act.

The Anti-Deficiency Act is a US federal law that decrees the executive branch of government cannot accept goods or services from private parties to conduct official government functions unless Congress has specifically signed off on the funds.

The act protects the “congressional power of the purse”, Fein said.

“Think of this analogy: Congress refuses to fund a wall with Mexico. Could Trump go ahead and build the wall Congress refused to fund with money provided by Elon Musk or other billionaire pals of Trump?”

Fein added: “Trump is completely transactional. Funders of the ballroom will be rewarded with regulatory favours or appointments or given pardons for federal crimes.”

Donald Trump’s effort to overcome his deep unpopularity among female voters was dealt a setback Friday as decades-old domestic violence allegations surfaced against Stephen K. Bannon, the controversial new chief executive of his campaign.

In January 1996, according to a police report, Bannon grabbed his wife’s wrist and neck, then smashed a phone when she tried to call 911 from their Santa Monica home. Police photographed “red marks on her left wrist and the right side of her neck,” the report said.

Years earlier, three or four other arguments also “became physical,” Bannon’s wife, Mary Louise Piccard, told police. The couple divorced soon after the 1996 altercation.

Bannon was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, battery and witness intimidation, and the Los Angeles Municipal Court issued a domestic violence protective order against him, according to a statement Santa Monica city officials issued Friday. Bannon pleaded not guilty, records show.

The case was dismissed when Piccard did not show up for trial in August 1996, according to the statement. Politico and the New York Post first reported on the case Thursday.

Details of the case emerged just hours after Trump’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, faulted him for hiring Bannon last week in the latest shake-up of his campaign’s high command.

Clinton portrayed Bannon as a right-wing extremist who promoted racist, “anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-women” ideas as chairman of the Breitbart News Network website.

Bannon, 62, took a leave from Breitbart last week to serve as CEO of the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign. The Trump campaign did not respond to inquiries about the police report.

Alexandra Preate, Bannon’s spokeswoman at Breitbart, declined to comment on the specific allegations, apart from noting that the charges were dismissed.

“He has a great relationship with his ex-wife,” she said.

The abuse allegations against Bannon surfaced as Clinton and her allies have been highlighting Trump’s history of making derogatory remarks about women. Clinton led Trump among female voters 58-35% in a Washington Post/ABC News poll at the beginning of August, and 60% of those polled overall said they saw Trump as biased against both women and minorities,

In March, police filed a battery charge against a previous Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, after he yanked and bruised the arm of Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields at a Trump event in Florida. Prosecutors declined to prosecute the case.

If Trump had vetted Bannon before hiring him, his ex-wife’s accusations should have been disqualifying, said Katie Packer, who was deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign and led an effort to block Trump from getting the GOP nomination.

“Given the questions that women already have about how Trump views women and how he has treated women historically, elevating someone like this to such a high position only reinforces the idea that Trump doesn’t respect and value women,” Packer said.

Charlie Black, a Republican strategist who has informally advised the Trump campaign, said the allegations against Bannon fell into a “gray area” because the charges were dropped. But “of course it’s an issue,” he added, “because he’s in a position of CEO of the campaign.”

Piccard, who was Bannon’s second wife, did not respond to a phone message seeking comment.

She and Bannon, a former investment banker, were married in April 1995, three days before their twin daughters were born. Shortly before 9 a.m. on New Year’s Day 1996, police received a 911 call from their home in Santa Monica, but the line went dead. The police report gave this account:

An officer went to the front door and was greeted by Piccard, who appeared “very upset.” She burst into tears and took several minutes to calm down.

Bannon had slept on the living-room couch the night before, and he “got upset” in the morning when Piccard made noise while feeding the twin babies. When Bannon started to leave, she asked for a credit card for groceries, but he refused and went to his car, Piccard told police.

She followed him outside, told him she wanted a divorce and said he should move out. He laughed at her and told him he would never leave, according to Piccard. She said she spat at him when he was sitting in the driver’s seat of his car.

“He pulled her down, as if he was trying to pull [her] into the car, over the door,” the report said. Bannon grabbed her neck, pulling her toward the car again, and she struck him in the face and ran back into the house. She told Bannon she was dialing 911, and he “jumped over her and the twins to grab the phone.”

“Once he got the phone, he threw it across the room,” the report said. “After this, Mr. Bannon left the house.”

Piccard, whose name was blacked out in the police report, “found the phone in several pieces and could not use it.”

“She complained of soreness to her neck,” the officer wrote in the police report. “I saw red marks on her left wrist and the right side of her neck.”

Court papers in the divorce and child custody proceedings show Bannon was living primarily in Tucson at the time, to work on Biosphere 2, a desert refuge enclosed in a glass dome for research.

Piccard won custody of the twins in the divorce. During Bannon’s visit with the babies about nine months after the incident, in September 1996, he spanked one of them, Piccard wrote in child custody court papers. The twins were 17 months old at the time.

“I restrained him and told him that it was not acceptable to hit our daughter (he believes in corporal punishment),” Piccard wrote. Bannon “screamed at me” and “stormed out of the house.”

In March 1997, Piccard wrote that she only wanted to restrict Bannon’s visits with the children to neutral sites because he “has been verbally abusive to me in front of the girls and I do not feel safe meeting him” elsewhere.

[email protected]

Twitter: @finneganLAT

Hillary Clinton is exploring the outer limits of fundraising like no presidential nominee ever has

Donald Trump’s shifting talk on immigration shows his struggle to reach beyond his core supporters

Can Donald Trump really round up and deport 11 million people?

UPDATES:

5:55 p.m.: This article was updated with a statement from Santa Monica officials detailing the charges against Bannon.

This article was originally published at 4 p.m.

Washington has announced new sanctions against Russia’s two largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, in an effort to pressure Moscow to agree to a peace deal in Ukraine. This marks the first time the current Trump administration has imposed direct sanctions on Russia.

Speaking alongside Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office on Wednesday, US President Donald Trump said he hoped the sanctions would not need to be in place for long, but expressed growing frustration with stalled truce negotiations.

“Every time I speak to Vladimir [Putin], I have good conversations and then they don’t go anywhere. They just don’t go anywhere,” Trump said, shortly after a planned in-person meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in Budapest was cancelled.

Trump’s move is designed to cut off vital oil revenues, which help fund Russia’s ongoing war efforts. Earlier on Wednesday, Russia unleashed a new bombardment on Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, killing at least seven people, including children.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the new sanctions were necessary because of “Putin’s refusal to end this senseless war”. He said that Rosneft and Lukoil fund the Kremlin’s “war machine”.

How have Rosneft and Lukoil been sanctioned?

The new measures will freeze assets owned by Rosneft and Lukoil in the US, and bar US entities from engaging in business with them. Thirty subsidiaries owned by Rosneft and Lukoil have also been sanctioned.

Rosneft, which is controlled by the Kremlin, is Russia’s second-largest company in terms of revenue, behind natural gas giant Gazprom. Lukoil is Russia’s third-largest company and its biggest non-state enterprise.

Between them, the two groups export 3.1 million barrels of oil per day, or 70 percent of Russia’s overseas crude oil sales. Rosneft alone is responsible for nearly half of Russia’s oil production, which in all makes up 6 percent of global output.

In recent years, both companies have been hit by rolling European sanctions and reduced oil prices. In September, Rosneft reported a 68 percent year-on-year drop in net income for the first half of 2025. Lukoil posted an almost 27 percent fall in profits for 2024.

Meanwhile, last week, the United Kingdom unveiled sanctions on the two oil majors. Elsewhere, the European Union looks set to announce its 19th package of penalties on Moscow later today, including a ban on imports of Russian liquefied natural gas.

How much impact will these sanctions have?

In 2022, Russian oil groups (including Rosneft and Lukoil) were able to offset some of the effects of sanctions by pivoting exports from Europe to Asia, and also using a “shadow fleet” of hard-to-detect tankers with no ties to Western financial or insurance groups.

China and India quickly replaced the EU as Russia’s biggest oil consumers. Last year, China imported a record 109 million tonnes of Russian crude, representing almost 20 percent of its total energy imports. India imported 88 million tonnes of Russian oil in 2024.

In both cases, these are orders of magnitude higher than before 2022, when Western countries started to tighten their sanctions regime on Russia. At the end of 2021, China imported roughly 79.6 million tonnes of Russian crude. India imported just 0.42 million tonnes.

Trump has repeatedly urged Beijing and New Delhi to halt Russian energy purchases. In August, he levied an additional 25 percent trade tariff on India because of its continued purchase of discounted Russian oil. He has so far demurred from a similar move against China.

However, Trump’s new sanctions are likely to place pressure on foreign financial groups which do business with Rosneft and Lukoil, including the banking intermediaries which facilitate sales of Russian oil in China and India.

“Engaging in certain transactions involving the persons designated today may risk the imposition of secondary sanctions on participating foreign financial institutions,” the US Treasury Department’s press release on Wednesday’s sanctions says.

As a result, the new restrictions may force buyers to shift to alternative suppliers or pay higher prices. Though India and China may not be the direct targets of these latest restrictions, their oil supply chains and trading costs are likely to come under increased pressure.

“The big thing here is the secondary sanctions,” Felipe Pohlmann Gonzaga, a Switzerland-based commodity trader, told Al Jazeera. “Any bank that facilitates Russian oil sales and with exposure to the US financial system could be subject.”

However, he added, “I don’t think this will be the driver in ending the war, as Russia will continue selling oil. There are always people out there willing to take the risk to beat sanctions.

“These latest restrictions will make Chinese and Indian players more reluctant to buy Russian oil – many won’t want to lose access to the American financial system. [But] it won’t stop it completely.”

According to Bloomberg, several senior refinery executives in India – who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue – said the restrictions would make it impossible for oil purchases to continue.

On Wednesday, Trump said that he would raise concerns about China’s continued purchases of Russian oil during his talk with President Xi Jinping at the 2025 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea next week.

Have oil prices been affected?

Oil prices rallied after Trump announced US sanctions. Brent – the international crude oil benchmark – rose nearly 4 percent to $65 a barrel on Thursday. The US Benchmark, West Texas Intermediate, jumped more than 5 percent to nearly $60 per barrel.

Pohlmann Gonzaga, however, predicted that the “market will correct from this 5 percent over-jump. You have to recall that sentiment in energy markets is still negative due to the gloomy [global] economic backdrop.”

Three of the country’s most powerful judges met in Pasadena on Wednesday for a rare conclave that could rewrite the legal framework for President Trump’s expansive deployment of troops to cities across the United States.

The move to flood Los Angeles with thousands of federalized soldiers over the objection of state and local leaders shocked the country back in June. Five months later, such military interventions have become almost routine.

But whether the deployments can expand — and how long they can continue — relies on a novel reading of an obscure subsection of the U.S. code that determines the president’s ability to dispatch the National Guard and federal service members. That code has been under heated debate in courts across the country.

Virtually all of those cases have turned on the 9th Circuit’s decision in June. The judges found that the law in question requires “a great level of deference” to the president to decide when protest flashes into rebellion, and whether boots on the ground are warranted in response.

On Wednesday, the same three judge panel — Jennifer Sung of Portland, Eric D. Miller of Seattle and Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu — took the rare move of reviewing it, signaling a willingness to dramatically rewrite the terms of engagement that have underpinned Trump’s deployments.

“I guess the question is, why is a couple of hundred people engaging in disorderly conduct and throwing things at a building over the course of two days of comparable severity to a rebellion?” said Miller, who was appointed to the bench in Trump’s first term. “Violence is used to thwart the enforcement of federal law all the time. This happens every day.”

The question he posed has riven the judicial system, splitting district judges from appellate panels and the Pacific Coast from the Midwest. Some of Trump’s judicial appointees have broken sharply with their colleagues on the matter, including on the 9th Circuit. Miller and Bennett appear at odds with Ryan D. Nelson and Bridget S. Bade, who expanded on the court’s June ruling in a decision Monday that allowed federalized troops to deploy in Oregon.

Most agreethat the statute itself is esoteric, vague and untested. Unlike the Insurrection Act, which generations of presidents have used to quell spasms of violent domestic unrest, the law Trump invoked has almost no historical footprint, and little precedent to define it.

“It’s only been used once in the history of our country since it was enacted 122 years ago,” California Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt told the court Wednesday.

Attorneys from both sides have turned to legal dictionaries to define the word “rebellion” in their favor, because the statute itself offers no clues.

“Defendants have not put forward a credible understanding of the term ‘rebellion’ in this litigation,” Harbourt told the panel Wednesday. “We’re continuing to see defendants rely on this interpretation across the country and we’re concerned that the breadth of the definition the government has relied on … includes any form of resistance.”

The wiggle room has left courts to lock horns over the most basic facts before them — including whether what the president claims must be provably true.

In the Oregon case, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland, another Trump appointee, called the president’s assertions about a rebellion there “untethered to the facts.”

But a separate 9th Circuit panel overruled her, finding the law “does not limit the facts and circumstances that the President may consider” when deciding whether to use soldiers domestically.

“The President has the authority to identify and weigh the relevant facts,” the court wrote in its Monday decision.

Nelson went further, calling the president’s decision “absolute.”

Upon further review, Sung signaled a shift to the opposite interpretation.

“The court says when the statute gives a discretionary power, that is based on certain facts,” she said. “I don’t see the court saying that the underlying decision of whether the factual basis exists is inherently discretionary.”

That sounded much more like the Midwest’s 7th Circuit decision in the Chicago case, which found that nothing in the statute “makes the President the sole judge of whether these preconditions exist.”

“Political opposition is not rebellion,” the 7th Circuit judges wrote. “A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protestors advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the U.S. government, use civil disobedience as a form of protest, or exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms as the law currently allows.”

The Trump administration’s appeal of that decision is currently before the Supreme Court on the emergency docket.

But experts said even a high court ruling in that case may not dictate what can happen in California — or in New York, for that matter. Even if the justices ruled against the administration, Trump could choose to invoke the Insurrection Act or another law to justify his next moves, an option that he and other officials have repeatedly floated in recent weeks.

The administration has signaled its desire to expand on the power it already enjoys, telling the court Wednesday there was no limit to where troops could be deployed or how long they could remain in the president’s service once he had taken control of them.

“Would it be your view that no matter how much conditions on the ground changed, there would be no ability of the district court or review — in a month, six months, a year, five years — to review whether the conditions still support [deployment]?” Bennett asked.

“Yes,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.

Bennett pressed the point, asking whether under the current law the militia George Washington federalized to put down the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 could “stay called up forever” — a position the government again affirmed.

“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” McArthur said. “The president’s determination of whether the exigency has arisen, that decision is vested in his sole and exclusive discretion.”

WASHINGTON — The White House started tearing down part of the East Wing, the traditional base of operations for the first lady, to build President Trump’s $250-million ballroom despite lacking approval for construction from the federal agency that oversees such projects.

Dramatic photos of the demolition work that began Monday showed construction equipment tearing into the East Wing façade and windows and other building parts in tatters on the ground. Some reporters watched from a park near the Treasury Department, which is next to the East Wing.

On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the plan now called for the demolition of the entire East Wing and that the tear-down should be completed by Sunday. Citing a source, The Times said it marks an escalation over earlier plans for the ballroom.

Trump announced the start of construction in a social media post and referenced the work while hosting 2025 college baseball champs Louisiana State University and LSU-Shreveport in the East Room. He noted the work was happening “right behind us.”

“We have a lot of construction going on, which you might hear periodically,” he said, adding, “It just started today.”

The White House has moved ahead with the massive construction project despite not yet having sign-off from the National Capital Planning Commission, which approves construction work and major renovations to government buildings in the Washington area.

Its chairman, Will Scharf, who is also the White House staff secretary and one of Trump’s top aides, said at the commission’s September meeting that the agency does not have jurisdiction over demolition or site preparation work for buildings on federal property.

“What we deal with is essentially construction, vertical build,” Scharf said last month.

It was unclear whether the White House had submitted the ballroom plans for the agency’s review and approval. The White House did not respond to a request for comment and the commission’s offices are closed because of the government shutdown.

The Republican president had said in July when the project was announced that the ballroom would not interfere with the mansion itself.

“It’ll be near it but not touching it and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of,” he said of the White House.

The East Wing houses several offices, including those of the first lady. It was built in 1902 and and has been renovated over the years, with a second story added in 1942, according to the White House.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said those East Wing offices will be temporarily relocated during construction and that wing of the building will be modernized and renovated.

“Nothing will be torn down,” Leavitt said when she announced the project in July.

Trump insists that presidents have desired such a ballroom for 150 years and that he’s adding the massive 90,000-square-foot, glass-walled space because the East Room, which is the largest room in the White House with an approximately 200-person capacity, is too small. He also has said he does not like the idea of hosting kings, queens, presidents and prime ministers in pavilions on the South Lawn.

Trump said in the social media announcement that the project would be completed “with zero cost to the American Taxpayer! The White House Ballroom is being privately funded by many generous Patriots, Great American Companies, and, yours truly.”

The ballroom will be the biggest structural change to the Executive Mansion since the addition in 1948 of the Truman Balcony overlooking the South Lawn, even dwarfing the residence itself.

At a dinner he hosted last week for some of the wealthy business executives who are donating money toward the construction cost, Trump said the project had grown in size and now will accommodate 999 people. The capacity was 650 seated people at the July announcement.

The White House has said it will disclose information on who has contributed money to build the ballroom, but has yet to do so.

Trump also said at last week’s event that the head of Carrier Global Corp., a leading manufacturer of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, had offered to donate the air-conditioning system for the ballroom.

Carrier confirmed to the Associated Press on Monday that it had done so. A cost estimate was not immediately available.

“Carrier is honored to provide the new iconic ballroom at the White House with a world-class, energy-efficient HVAC system, bringing comfort to distinguished guests and dignitaries in this historic setting for years to come,” the company said in an emailed statement.

The clearing of trees on the south grounds and other site preparation work for the construction started in September. Plans call for the ballroom to be ready before Trump’s term ends in January 2029.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

MEXICO CITY — The small Central American nation of Belize has signed a “safe third country” agreement with the United States, the two sides said on Monday, as the Trump administration seeks to ramp up deportations and dissuade migration north.

What the agreement entails wasn’t immediately clear, but it comes as President Trump has increasingly pressured countries in Latin America and Africa to help him carry out his immigration agenda.

The deal appears to be similar to one with Paraguay announced by the U.S. State Department in August that included a “safe third country” agreement in which asylum seekers currently in the U.S. could pursue protections in the South American nation.

In Trump’s first term, the U.S. signed several such agreements that would instead have asylum seekers request protections in other nations, like Guatemala, before proceeding north. The policy was criticized as a roundabout way to make it harder for migrants to seek asylum in the U.S. and was later rolled back by the Biden administration.

Earlier this year, Panama and Costa Rica also accepted U.S. flights of hundreds of deportees from Asian countries – without calling the deals “safe third country” agreements – and thrusting the migrants into a sort of international limbo. The U.S. has also signed agreements, such as deportation agreements, with war-torn South Sudan, Eswatini and Rwanda.

The Belize government said in a statement on Monday that it “retains an absolute veto over transfers, with restrictions on nationalities, a cap on transferees, and comprehensive security screenings.”

The government of the largely rural nation wedged between Mexico and Guatemala reiterated its “commitment to international law and humanitarian principles while ensuring strong national safeguards.” No one deemed to be a public safety threat would be allowed to enter the country, it said.

On Monday, the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs thanked Belize in a post on X, calling the agreement “an important milestone in ending illegal immigration, shutting down abuse of our nation’s asylum system, and reinforcing our shared commitment to tackling challenges in our hemisphere together.”

The decision prompted fierce criticism from politicians in Belize, who railed against the agreement, calling it a “decision of profound national consequence” announced with little government transparency. The agreement must be ratified by Belize’s Senate to take effect.

“This agreement, by its very nature, could reshape Belize’s immigration and asylum systems, impose new financial burdens on taxpayers, and raise serious questions about national sovereignty and security,” Tracy Taegar Panton, an opposition leader in Belize’s parliament, wrote on social media.

She noted fierce criticisms of human rights violations resulting from similar policies carried out by both the U.S. and Europe.

“Belize is a compassionate and law-abiding nation. We believe in humanitarian principles. But compassion must never be confused with compliance at any cost. Belize cannot and must not be used as a dumping ground for individuals other countries refuse to accept,” she wrote.

Janetsky writes for the Associated Press.

An estimated 7 million Americans turned out Saturday to peacefully protest against the breakdown of our checks-and-balances democracy into a Trump-driven autocracy, rife with grift but light on civil rights.

Trump’s response? An AI video of himself wearing a crown inside a fighter plane, dumping what appears to be feces on these very protesters. In a later interview, he called participants of the “No Kings” events “whacked out” and “not representative of this country.”

I’m beginning to fear he’s right. What if the majority of Americans really do believe this sort of behavior by our president, or by anyone really, is acceptable? Even funny? A recent Economist/YouGov poll found that 81% of Republicans approve of the way Trump is handling his job. Seriously, the vast majority of Republicans are just fine with Trump’s policies and behavior.

According to MAGA, non-MAGA people are just too uptight these days.

Vice Troll JD Vance has become a relentless force for not just defending the most base and cruel of behaviors, but celebrating them. House Speaker Mike Johnson has made the spineless, limp justification of these behaviors an art form.

Between the two approaches to groveling to Trump’s ego and mendacity is everything you need to know about the future of the Republican Party. It will stop at nothing to debase and dehumanize any opposition — openly acknowledging that it dreams of burying in excrement even those who peacefully object.

Not even singer Kenny Loggins is safe. His “Top Gun” hit “Danger Zone” was used in the video. When he objected with a statement of unity, saying, “Too many people are trying to tear us apart, and we need to find new ways to come together. We’re all Americans, and we’re all patriotic. There is no ‘us and them’,” the White House responded with … a dismissive meme, clearly the new norm when responding to critics.

It may seem obvious, and even old news that this administration lacks accountability. But the use of memes and AI videos as communication, devoid of truth or consequence, adds a new level of danger to the disconnect.

These non-replies not only remove reality from the equation, but remove the need for an actual response — creating a ruling class that does not feel any obligation to explain or defend its actions to the ruled.

Politico published a story last week detailing the racist, misogynistic and hate-filled back-and-forth of an official, party-sanctioned “young Republican” group. Since most of our current politicians are part of the gerontocracy, that young is relative — these are adults, in their 20s and 30s — and they are considered the next generation of party leaders, in a party that has already skewed so far right that it defends secret police.

Here’s a sample.

Bobby Walker, the former vice chair of the New York State Young Republicans, called rape “epic,” according to Politico.

Another member of the chat called Black Americans “watermelon people.”

“Great. I love Hitler,” wrote another when told delegates would vote for the most far-right candidate.

There was also gas chamber “humor” in there and one straight up, “I’m ready to watch people burn now,” from a woman in the conversation, Anne KayKaty, New York’s Young Republican’s national committee member, according to the Hill.

Group members engaged in slurs against South Asians, another popular target of the far right these days. There’s an entire vein of racism devoted to the idea that Indians smell bad, in case you were unaware.

Speaking of a woman mistakenly believed to be South Asian, one group member — Vermont state Sen. Samuel Douglass, wrote: “She just didn’t bathe often.”

While some in the Republican party have denounced, albeit half-heartedly, the comments, others, including Vance, have gone on the attack. Vance, whose wife is Indian, claims everyone is making a big deal out of nothing.

“But the reality is that kids do stupid things. Especially young boys, they tell edgy, offensive jokes. Like, that’s what kids do,” Vance said. “And I really don’t want us to grow up in a country where a kid telling a stupid joke — telling a very offensive, stupid joke — is cause to ruin their lives.”

Not to be outdone, Johnson responded to the poop jet video by somehow insinuating there is an elevated meaning to it.

“The president was using social media to make a point,” Johnson said, calling it “satire.”

Satire is meant to embarrass and humiliate, to call out through humor the indefensible. I’ll buy the first part of that. Trump meant to embarrass and humiliate. But protesting, of course, is anything but indefensible and the use of feces as a weapon is a way of degrading those “No Kings” participants so that Trump doesn’t have to answer to their anger — no different than degrading Black people and women in that group chat.

Those 7 million Americans who demonstrated on Saturday simply do not matter to Trump, or to Republicans. Not their healthcare, not their ability to pay the bills, not their worry that a country they love is turning in to one where their leader literally illustrates that he can defecate on them.

But not everyone can be king.

While the young Republicans believe they shared in their leader’s immunity, it turns out they don’t. That Vermont state senator? He resigned after the Republican governor put on pressure.

Maybe 7 million Americans angry at Trump can’t convince him to change his ways, but enough outraged Vermont voters can make change in their corner of the country.

Which is why the one thing Trump does fear is the midterms, when voters get to shape our own little corners of America — and by extension, whether Trump gets to keep using his throne.

LAS VEGAS — Aaron Mahan is a lifelong Republican who twice voted for Donald Trump.

He had high hopes putting a businessman in the White House and, although he found the president’s monster ego grating, Mahan voted for his reelection. Mostly, he said, out of party loyalty.

By 2024, however, he’d had enough.

“I just saw more of the bad qualities, more of the ego,” said Mahan, who’s worked for decades as a food server on and off the Las Vegas Strip. “And I felt like he was at least partially running to stay out of jail.”

Mahan couldn’t bring himself to support Kamala Harris. He’s never backed a Democrat for president. So when illness overtook him on election day, it was a good excuse to stay in bed and not vote.

He’s no Trump hater, Mahan said. “I don’t think he’s evil.” Rather, the 52-year-old calls himself “a Trump realist,” seeing the good and the bad.

Here’s Mahan’s reality: A big drop in pay. Depletion of his emergency savings. Stress every time he pulls into a gas station or visits the supermarket.

Mahan used to blithely toss things in his grocery cart. “Now,” he said, “you have to look at prices, because everything is more expensive.”

In short, he’s living through the worst combination of inflation and economic malaise he’s experienced since he began waiting tables after finishing high school.

Views of the 47th president, from the ground up

Las Vegas lives on tourism, the industry irrigated by rivers of disposable income. The decline of both has resulted in a painful downturn that hurts all the more after the pent-up demand and go-go years following the crippling COVID-19 shutdown.

Over the last 12 months, the number of visitors has dropped significantly and those who do come to Las Vegas are spending less. Passenger arrivals at Harry Reid International Airport, a short hop from the Strip, have declined and room nights, a measure of hotel occupancy, have also fallen.

Mahan, who works at the Virgin resort casino just off the Strip, blames the slowdown in large part on Trump’s failure to tame inflation, his tariffs and pugnacious immigration and foreign policies that have antagonized people — and prospective visitors — around the world.

“His general attitude is, ‘I’m going to do what I’m going to do, and you’re going to like it or leave it.’ And they’re leaving it,” Mahan said. “The Canadians aren’t coming. The Mexicans aren’t coming. The Europeans aren’t coming in the way they did. But also the people from Southern California aren’t coming the way they did either.”

Mahan has a way of describing the buckling blow to Las Vegas’ economy. He calls it “the Trump slump.”

::

Mahan was an Air Force brat who lived throughout the United States and, for a time, in England before his father retired from the military and started looking for a place to settle.

Mahan’s mother grew up in Sacramento and liked the mountains that ring Las Vegas. They reminded her of the Sierra Nevada. Mahan’s father had worked intermittently as a bartender. It was a skill of great utility in Nevada’s expansive hospitality industry.

So the desert metropolis it was.

Mahan was 15 when his family landed. After high school, he attended college for a time and started working in the coffee shop at the Barbary Coast hotel and casino. He then moved on to the upscale Gourmet Room. The money was good; Mahan had found his career.

From there he moved to Circus Circus and then, in 2005, the Hard Rock hotel and casino, where he’s been ever since. (In 2018, Virgin Hotels purchased the Hard Rock.)

Mahan, who’s single with no kids, learned to roll with the vicissitudes of the hospitality business. “As a food server, there’s always going to be slowdowns and takeoffs,” he said over lunch at a dim sum restaurant in a Las Vegas strip mall.

Mahan socked money away during the summer months and hunkered down in the slow times, before things started picking up around the New Year. He weathered the Great Recession, from 2007 to 2009, when Nevada led the nation in foreclosures, bankruptcies soared and tumbleweeds blew through Las Vegas’ many overbuilt, financially underwater subdivisions.

This economy feels worse.

Over the last 12 months, Las Vegas has drawn fewer visitors and those who have come are spending less.

(David Becker / For The Times)

With tourism off, the hotel where Mahan works changed from a full-service coffee shop to a limited-hour buffet. So he’s no longer waiting tables. Instead, he mans a to-go window, making drinks and handing food to guests, which brings him a lot less in tips. He estimates his income has fallen $2,000 a month.

But it’s not just that his paychecks have grown considerably skinnier. They don’t go nearly as far.

Gasoline. Eggs. Meat. “Everything,” Mahan said, “is costing more.”

An admitted soda addict, he used to guzzle Dr Pepper. “You’d get three bottles for four bucks,” Mahan said. “Now they’re $3 each.”

He’s cut back as a result.

Worse, his air conditioner broke last month and the $14,000 that Mahan spent replacing it — along with a costly filter he needs for allergies — pretty much wiped out his emergency fund.

It feels as though Mahan is just barely getting by and he’s not at all optimistic things will improve anytime soon.

“I’m looking forward,” he said, to the day Trump leaves office.

::

Mahan considers himself fairly apolitical. He’d rather knock a tennis ball around than debate the latest goings-on in Washington.

He likes some of the things Trump has accomplished, such as securing the border with Mexico — though Mahan is not a fan of the zealous immigration raids scooping up landscapers and tamale vendors.

He’s glad about the no-tax-on-tips provision in the massive legislative package passed last spring, though, “I’m still being taxed at the same rate and there’s no extra money coming in right now.” He’s waiting to see what happens when he files his tax return next year.

He’s not counting on much. “I’m never convinced of anything,” Mahan said. “Until I see it.”

Something else is poking around the back of his mind.

Mahan is a shop steward with the Culinary Union, the powerhouse labor organization that’s helped make Las Vegas one of the few places in the country where a waiter, such as Mahan, can earn enough to buy a home in an upscale suburb like nearby Henderson. (He points out that he made the purchase in 2012 and probably couldn’t afford it in today’s economy.)

Mahan worries that once Trump is done targeting immigrants, federal workers and Democratic-run cities, he’ll come after organized labor, undermining one of the foundational building blocks that helped him climb into the middle class.

“He is a businessman and most businesspeople don’t like dealing with unions,” Mahan said.

There are a few bright spots in Las Vegas’ economic picture. Convention bookings are up slightly for the year, and look to be strengthening. Gaming revenues have increased year-over-year. The workforce is still growing.

“This community’s streets are not littered with people that have been laid off,” said Jeremy Aguero, a principal analyst with Applied Analysis, a firm that provides economic and fiscal policy counsel in Las Vegas.

“The layoff trends, unemployment insurance, they’ve edged up,” Aguero said. “But they’re certainly not wildly elevated in comparison to other periods of instability.”

That, however, offers small solace for Mahan as he makes drinks, hands over takeout food and carefully watches his wallet.

If he knew then what he knows now, what would the Aaron of 2016 — the one so full of hope for a Trump presidency — say to the Aaron of today?

Mahan paused, his chopsticks hovering over a custard dumpling.

“Prepare,” he said, “for a bumpy ride.”

Maria worked cleaning schools in Florida for $13 an hour. Every two weeks, she’d get a $900 paycheck from her employer, a contractor. Not much — but enough to cover rent in the house that she and her 11-year-old son share with five families, plus electricity, a cellphone and groceries.

In August, it all ended.

When she showed up at the job one morning, her boss told her that she couldn’t work there anymore. The Trump administration had terminated the Biden administration’s humanitarian parole program, which provided legal work permits for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans like Maria.

“I feel desperate,’’ said Maria, 48, who requested anonymity to talk about her ordeal because she fears being detained and deported. “I don’t have any money to buy anything. I have $5 in my account. I’m left with nothing.’’

President Trump’s sweeping crackdown on immigration is throwing foreigners like Maria out of work and shaking the American economy and job market. And it’s happening at a time when hiring is already deteriorating amid uncertainty over Trump’s tariffs and other trade policies.

Immigrants do jobs — cleaning houses, picking tomatoes, painting fences — that most native-born Americans won’t, and for less money. But they also bring the technical skills and entrepreneurial energy that have helped make the United States the world’s economic superpower.

Trump is attacking immigration at both ends of the spectrum, deporting low-wage laborers and discouraging skilled foreigners from bringing their talents to the United States.

And he is targeting an influx of foreign workers that eased labor shortages and upward pressure on wages and prices at a time when most economists thought that taming inflation would require sky-high interest rates and a recession — a fate the United States escaped in 2023 and 2024.

“Immigrants are good for the economy,’’ said Lee Branstetter, an economist at Carnegie-Mellon University. “Because we had a lot of immigration over the past five years, an inflationary surge was not as bad as many people expected.”

More workers filling more jobs and spending more money has also helped drive economic growth and create still more job openings. Economists worry that Trump’s deportations and limits on even legal immigration will do the reverse.

In a July report, researchers Wendy Edelberg and Tara Watson of the centrist Brookings Institution and Stan Veuger of the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute calculated that the loss of foreign workers will mean that monthly U.S. job growth “could be near zero or negative in the next few years.’’

Hiring has already slowed significantly, averaging a meager 29,000 a month from June through August. (The September jobs report has been delayed by the ongoing shutdown of the federal government.) During the post-pandemic hiring boom of 2021-23, by contrast, employers added a stunning 400,000 jobs a month.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, citing fallout from Trump’s immigration and trade policies, downgraded its forecast for U.S. economic growth this year to 1.4% from the 1.9% it had previously expected and from 2.5% in 2024.

‘We need these people’

Goodwin Living, an Alexandria, Va., nonprofit that provides senior housing, healthcare and hospice services, had to lay off four employees from Haiti after the Trump administration terminated their work permits. The Haitians had been allowed to work under a humanitarian parole program and had earned promotions at Goodwin.

“That was a very, very difficult day for us,” Chief Executive Rob Liebreich said. “It was really unfortunate to have to say goodbye to them, and we’re still struggling to fill those roles.’’

Liebreich is worried that 60 additional immigrant workers could lose their temporary legal right to live and work in the United States. “We need all those hands,’’ he said. “We need all these people.”

Goodwin Living has 1,500 employees, 60% of them from foreign countries. It has struggled to find enough nurses, therapists and maintenance staff. Trump’s immigration crackdown, Liebreich said, is “making it harder.’’

The ICE crackdown

Trump’s immigration ambitions, intended to turn back what he calls an “invasion’’ at America’s southern border and secure jobs for U.S.-born workers, were once viewed with skepticism because of the money and economic disruption required to reach his goal of deporting 1 million people a year. But legislation that Trump signed into law July 4 — and which Republicans named the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — suddenly made his plans plausible.

The law pours $150 billion into immigration enforcement, setting aside $46.5 billion to hire 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and $45 billion to increase the capacity of immigrant detention centers.

And his empowered ICE agents have shown a willingness to move fast and break things — even when their aggression conflicts with other administration goals.

Last month, immigration authorities raided a Hyundai battery plant in Georgia, detained 300 South Korean workers and showed video of some of them shackled in chains. They’d been working to get the plant up and running, bringing expertise in battery technology and Hyundai procedures that local American workers didn’t have.

The incident enraged the South Koreans and ran counter to Trump’s push to lure foreign manufacturers to invest in America. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung warned that the country’s other companies might be reluctant about betting on America if their workers couldn’t get visas promptly and risked getting detained.

Sending Medicaid recipients to the fields

America’s farmers are among the president’s most dependable supporters.

But John Boyd Jr., who farms 1,300 acres of soybeans, wheat and corn in southern Virginia, said that the immigration raids — and the threat of them — are hurting farmers already contending with low crop prices, high costs and fallout from Trump’s trade war with China, which has stopped buying U.S. soybeans and sorghum.

“You’ve got ICE out here, herding these people up,’’ said Boyd, founder of the National Black Farmers Assn. “[Trump] says they’re murderers and thieves and drug dealers, all this stuff. But these are people who are in this country doing hard work that many Americans don’t want to do.’’

Boyd scoffed at Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ suggestion in July that U.S.-born Medicaid recipients could head to the fields to meet work requirements imposed as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. “People in the city aren’t coming back to the farm to do this kind of work,’’ he said. “It takes a certain type of person to bend over in 100-degree heat.’’

The Trump administration admits that the immigration crackdown is causing labor shortages on the farm that could translate into higher prices at the supermarket.

“The near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens combined with the lack of an available legal workforce results in significant disruptions to production costs and [threatens] the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers,’’ the Labor Department said in an Oct. 2 filing to the Federal Register.

‘You’re not welcome here’

Jed Kolko of the Peterson Institute for International Economics said that job growth is slowing in businesses that rely on immigrants. Construction companies, for instance, have shed 10,000 jobs since May.

“Those are the short-term effects,’’ said Kolko, a Commerce Department official in the Biden administration. “The longer-term effects are more serious because immigrants traditionally have contributed more than their share of patents, innovation, productivity.’’

Especially worrisome to many economists was Trump’s sudden announcement last month that he was raising the fee on H-1B visas, meant to lure hard-to-find skilled foreign workers to the United States, from as little as $215 to $100,000.

“A $100,000 visa fee is not just a bureaucratic cost — it’s a signal,” said Dany Bahar, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. “It tells global talent: You are not welcome here.”

Some are already packing up.

In Washington, D.C., one H-1B visa holder, a Harvard graduate from India who works for a nonprofit helping Africa’s poor, said Trump’s signal to employers is clear: Think twice about hiring H-1B visa holders.

The man, who requested anonymity, is already preparing paperwork to move to the United Kingdom.

“The damage is already done, unfortunately,’’ he said.

Associated Press writers Wiseman and Salomon reported from Washington and Miami, respectively. AP writers Fu Ting and Christopher Rugaber in Washington contributed to this report.

Oct. 18 (UPI) — Several million people plan to participate Saturday in more than 2,500 “No Kings” rallies throughout the United States in what organizers are billing as the largest single-day protest in modern history.

The first “No Kings’ events, in opposition to President Donald Trump, was on June 14, when there were more than 2,000 events drawing more than 5 million people. A military parade in Washington, D.C., also took place that day.

“I think what you’ll see on No Kings II in October is a boisterous, joyful crowd expressing their political opinions in a peaceful, joyous way,” Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin told USA Today. “People with dogs, people with kids, people with funny signs, music, dancing, laughing, community building, and a sense of collective effervescence that comes when you gather with a lot of people with a shared purpose.”

The events are being run by a coalition of organizations that also include the American Civil Liberties Union.

“No thrones. No crowns. No Kings,” states the “No Kings’ website, which lists event locations. “Millions of us are rising again to show the world: America has no kings, and the power belongs to the people.”

The first events are scheduled for 11 a.m. EDT, including a march in New York City. One in Washington is set for noon and in Chicago at 1 p.m. EDT. Hours later, events will take place in western time zones.

Events also occurred in Europe, including outside the U.S. embassy in Berlin, Germany.

Britannica lists the largest single-day protest in the United States as occurring on April 22, 1970, drawing an estimated 20 million on the first Earth Day. Hands Across America drew 5 million to 7 million on May 25, 1986, with the first “No Kings” listed as third. The Women’s March, one day after Trump first became president on Jan. 21, 2017, drew an estimated 4.6 million.

Nonprofit organizer Indivisible Project said the protests will be “nonviolent action” with people trained in safety and de-escalation.

The Department of Homeland Security has warned law enforcement agencies across the country about the potential for certain events to become violent. According to an intelligence report obtained by CNN, police should look out for demonstrators “with a history of exploiting lawful protests to engage in violence” and attendees with who are perceived to have had paramilitary-like training.

Some state leaders are calling up additional law enforcement.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin said he’s activated the National Guard to support police “to help keep Virginians safe.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, wrote on X on Thursday, that he “directed the Dept. of Public Safety and National Guard to surge forces into Austin” ahead of the rallies.

“Texas will NOT tolerate chaos. Anyone destroying property or committing acts of violence will be swiftly arrested,” Abbott wrote.

Republican leaders describe the protests are a series of”Hate America” rallies.

“And I encourage you to watch — we call it the ‘Hate America Rally’ that will happen Saturday,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Wednesday. “Let’s see who shows up for that. I bet you see pro-Hamas supporters. I bet you see Antifa types. I bet you see the Marxists in full display, the people who don’t want to stand and defend the foundational truths of this republic.”

“The truth is — what Democrats really want is something Republicans can’t give them. And that is the approval of their far-left base,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Wednesday.

Organizers say the Republican stance will backfire.

“I think, if anything, it will increase turnout,” Deirdre Schifeling, chief political and advocacy officer of the ACLU, told ABC News. “I think Americans can really see through these sad attempts to distract attention from the failure of these Republican Congress people and Republican Trump administration to actually address what most Americans want and need from their government.”

Trump, who is spending the weekend at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., said in a Fox Business Network interview that aired Friday: “You know, they’re saying. They’re referring to me as a king. I’m not.”

During Trump’s 11th visit to his county of residence since he became president again, events are planned in Palm Beach Gardens, West Palm Beach, Lake Worth Beach and Boca Raton.

A June rally was at the Meyer Amphitheater in downtown West Palm Beach.

The events are coming on the 18th day of the U.S. government shutdown. Senators on Thursday failed for the 10th time to resolve the impasse in votes on Thursday.

“We’ll be in the streets for immigrant families under attack and for voters who are being silenced,” the Progressive Change Campaign Committee wrote in an email obtained by ABC News. “For communities being terrorized by militarized policing. For families who are about to lose their health insurance. And for every single person whose rights are threatened by this administration’s cruelty.”

The political action committee said celebrities will include Jane Fonda, Kerry Washington, John Legend, Alan Cumming and John Leguizamo.

The protests are occurring amid a backdrop of immigration enforcement and a crackdown on crime.

Trump ordered National Guard deployments to Illinois; Memphis, Tenn.; Portland, Ore.; and Washington, D.C. In June, the guard and Marines were deployed to Los Angeles amid protests.

SAN FRANCISCO — About 24 hours after President Trump declared San Francisco such a crime-ridden “mess” that he was recommending federal forces be sent to restore order, Manit Limlamai, 43, and Kai Saetern, 32, rolled their eyes at the suggestion.

The pair — both in the software industry — were with friends Thursday in Dolores Park, a vibrant green space with sweeping views of downtown, playing volleyball under a blue sky and shining autumn sun. All around them, people sat on benches with books, flew kites, played with dogs or otherwise lounged away the afternoon on blankets in the grass.

Both Limlamai and Saetern said San Francisco of course has issues, and some rougher neighborhoods — but that’s any city.

“I’ve lived here for 10 years and I haven’t felt unsafe, and I’ve lived all over the city,” Saetern said. “Every city has its problems, and I don’t think San Francisco is any different,” but “it’s not a hellscape,” said Limlamai, who has been in the city since 2021.

Both said Trump’s suggestion that he might send in troops was more alarming than reassuring — especially, Limlamai said, on top of his recent remark that American cities should serve as “training grounds” for U.S. military forces.

“I don’t think that’s appropriate at all,” he said. “The military is not trained to do what needs to be done in these cities.”

Across San Francisco, residents, visitors and prominent local leaders expressed similar ideas — if not much sharper condemnation of any troop deployment. None shied away from the fact that San Francisco has problems, especially with homelessness. Several also mentioned a creeping urban decay, and that the city needs a bit of a polish.

But federal troops? That was a hard no.

A range of people on Market Street in downtown San Francisco on Thursday.

“It’s just more of [Trump’s] insanity,” said Peter Hill, 81, as he played chess in a slightly edgier park near City Hall. Hill said using troops domestically was a fascist power play, and “a bad thing for the entire country.”

“It’s fascism,” agreed local activist Wendy Aragon, who was hailing a cab nearby. Her Latino family has been in the country for generations, she said, but she now fears speaking Spanish on the street given that immigration agents have admitted targeting people who look or sound Latino, and troops in the city would only exacerbate those fears. “My community is under attack right now.”

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said troop deployments to the city were “completely unnecessary” and “typical Trump: petty, vindictive retaliation.”

“He wants to attack anyone who he perceives as an enemy, and that includes cities, and so he started with L.A. and Southern California because of its large immigrant community, and then he proceeded to cities with large Black populations like Chicago, and now he’s moving on to cities that are just perceived as very lefty like Portland and now San Francisco,” Wiener said.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, defended such deployments and noted crime reductions in cities, including Washington, D.C., and Memphis, where local officials — including D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat — have embraced them.

“America’s once great cities have descended into chaos and crime as a result of Democrat policies that put criminals first and law-abiding citizens last. Making America Safe Again — especially crime-ridden cities — was a key campaign promise from the President that the American people elected him to fulfill,” Jackson said. “San Francisco Democrats should look at the tremendous results in DC and Memphis and listen to fellow Democrat Mayor Bowser and welcome the President in to clean up their city.”

A police officer shuts the door to his car after a person was allegedly caught carrying a knife near a sign promoting an AI-powered museum exhibit in downtown San Francisco.

A presidential ‘passion’

San Francisco — a bastion of liberal politics that overwhelmingly voted against Trump in the last election — has been derided by the conservative right for generations as a great American jewel lost to destructive progressive policies.

With its tech-heavy economy and downtown core hit hard by the pandemic and the nation’s shift toward remote work, the city has had a particularly rough go in recent years, which only exacerbated its image as a city in decline. That it produced some of Trump’s most prominent political opponents — including Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris — has only made it more of a punching bag.

In August, Trump suggested San Francisco needed federal intervention. “You look at what the Democrats have done to San Francisco — they’ve destroyed it,” he said in the Oval Office. “We’ll clean that one up, too.”

Then, earlier this month, to the chagrin of liberal leaders across the city, Marc Benioff, the billionaire Salesforce founder and Time magazine owner who has long been a booster of San Francisco, said in an interview with the New York Times that he supported Trump and welcomed Guard troops in the city.

“We don’t have enough cops, so if they can be cops, I’m all for it,” Benioff said, just as his company was preparing to open its annual Dreamforce convention in the city, complete with hundreds of private security officers.

The U.S. Constitution generally precludes military forces from serving in police roles in the U.S.

On Friday, Benioff reversed himself and apologized for his earlier stance. “Having listened closely to my fellow San Franciscans and our local officials, and after the largest and safest Dreamforce in our history, I do not believe the National Guard is needed to address safety in San Francisco,” he wrote on X.

He also apologized for “the concern” his earlier support for troops in the city had caused, and praised San Francisco’s new mayor, Daniel Lurie, for bringing crime down.

Billionaire Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, also called for federal intervention in the city, writing on his X platform that downtown San Francisco is “a drug zombie apocalypse” and that federal intervention was “the only solution at this point.”

Trump made his latest remarks bashing San Francisco on Wednesday, again from the Oval Office.

Trump said it was “one of our great cities 10 years ago, 15 years ago,” but “now it’s a mess” — and that he was recommending federal forces move into the city to make it safer. “I’m gonna be strongly recommending — at the request of government officials, which is always nice — that you start looking at San Francisco,” he said to leading members of his law enforcement team.

Trump did not specify exactly what sort of deployment he meant, or which kinds of federal forces might be involved. He also didn’t say which local officials had allegedly requested help — a claim Wiener called a lie.

“Every American deserves to live in a community where they’re not afraid of being mugged, murdered, robbed, raped, assaulted or shot, and that’s exactly what our administration is working to deliver,” Trump said, before adding that sending federal forces into American cities had become “a passion” of his.

Kai Saetern, 32, was playing volleyball in Dolores Park on Thursday. Saetern said he has never felt unsafe living in neighborhoods all over the city for the last 10 years.

Crime is down citywide

The responses from San Francisco, both to Benioff and Trump, came swiftly, ranging from calm discouragement to full-blown outrage.

Lurie did not respond directly, but his office pointed reporters to his recent statements that crime is down 30% citywide, homicides are at a 70-year low, car break-ins are at a 22-year low and tent encampments are at their lowest number on record.

“We have a lot of work to do,” Lurie said. “But I trust our local law enforcement.”

San Francisco Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins was much more fiery, writing online that Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had turned “so-called public safety and immigration enforcement into a form of government sponsored violence against U.S. citizens, families, and ethnic groups,” and that she stood ready to prosecute federal officers if they harm city residents.

Attendees exit the Dreamforce convention downtown on Thursday in San Francisco.

“If you come to San Francisco and illegally harass our residents … I will not hesitate to do my job and hold you accountable just like I do other violators of the law every single day,” she said.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) — whose seat Wiener is reportedly going to seek — said the city “does not want or need Donald Trump’s chaos” and will continue to increase public safety locally and “without the interference of a President seeking headlines.”

Newsom said the use of federal troops in American cities is a “clear violation” of federal law, and that the state was prepared to challenge any such deployment to San Francisco in court, just as it challenged such deployments in Los Angeles earlier this year.

The federal appellate court that oversees California and much of the American West has so far allowed troops to remain in L.A., but is set to continue hearing arguments in the L.A. case soon.

Trump had used anti-immigration enforcement protests in L.A. as a justification to send troops there. In San Francisco, Newsom said, he lacks any justification or “pretext” whatsoever.

“There’s no existing protest at a federal building. There’s no operation that’s being impeded. I guess it’s just a ‘training ground’ for the President of United States,” Newsom said. “It is grossly illegal, it’s immoral, it’s rather delusional.”

Nancy DeStefanis, 76, a longtime labor and environmental activist who was at San Francisco City Hall on Thursday to complain about Golden Gate Park being shut to regular visitors for paid events, was similarly derisive of troops entering the city.

“As far as I’m concerned, and I think most San Franciscans are concerned, we don’t want troops here. We don’t need them,” she said.

Passengers walk past a cracked window from the Civic Center BART station in downtown San Francisco.

‘An image I don’t want to see’

Not far away, throngs of people wearing Dreamforce lanyards streamed in and out of the Moscone Center, heading back and forth to nearby Market Street and pouring into restaurants, coffee shops and take-out joints. The city’s problems — including homelessness and associated grittiness — were apparent at the corners of the crowds, even as chipper convention ambassadors and security officers moved would-be stragglers along.

Not everyone was keen to be identified discussing Trump or safety in the city, with some citing business reasons and others a fear of Trump retaliating against them. But lots of people had opinions.

Sanjiv, a self-described “techie” in his mid-50s, said he preferred to use only his first name because, although he is a U.S. citizen now, he emigrated from India and didn’t want to stick his neck out by publicly criticizing Trump.

He called homelessness a “rampant problem” in San Francisco, but less so than in the past — and hardly something that would justify sending in military troops.

“It’s absolutely ridiculous,” he said. “It’s not like the city’s under siege.”

Claire Roeland, 30, from Austin, Texas, said she has visited San Francisco a handful of times in recent years and had “mixed” experiences. She has family who live in surrounding neighborhoods and find it completely safe, she said, but when she’s in town it’s “predominantly in the business district” — where it’s hard not to be disheartened by the obvious suffering of people with addiction and mental illness and the grime that has accumulated in the emptied-out core.

“There’s a lot of unfortunate urban decay happening, and that makes you feel more unsafe than you actually are,” she said, but there isn’t “any realistic need to send in federal troops.”

She said she doesn’t know what troops would do other than confront homeless people, and “that’s an image I don’t want to see.”

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to uphold his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago.

His lawyers filed an emergency appeal urging the court to set aside rulings of judges in Chicago and hold that National Guard troops are needed to protect U.S. immigration agents from hostile protesters.

The case escalates the clash between Trump and Democratic state officials over immigration enforcement and raises again the question of using military-style force in American cities. Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly gone to the Supreme Court and won quick rulings when lower-court judges have blocked his actions.

Federal law authorizes the president to call into service the National Guard if he cannot “execute the laws of the United States” or faces “a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority” of the U.S. government.

“Both conditions are satisfied here,” Trump’s lawyer said.

Judges in Chicago came to the opposite conclusion. U.S. District Judge April Perry saw no “danger of rebellion” and said the laws were being enforced. She accused Trump’s lawyers of exaggerating claims of violence and equating “protests with riots.”

She handed down a restraining order on Oct. 9, and the 7th Circuit Court agreed to keep it in force.

But Trump’s lawyers insisted that protesters and demonstrators were targeting U.S. immigration agents and preventing them from doing their work.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law, the President lawfully determines that he is unable to enforce the laws of the United States with the regular forces and calls up the National Guard to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in a 40-page appeal.

He argued that historically the president has had the full authority to decide on whether to call up the militia. Judges may not second-guess the president’s decision, he said.

“Any such review [by judges] must be highly deferential, as the 9th Circuit has concluded in the Newsom litigation,” referring to the ruling that upheld Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles.

Trump’s lawyer said the troop deployment to Los Angeles had succeeded in reducing violence.

“Notwithstanding the Governor of California’s claim that deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles would ‘escalat[e]’ the ongoing violence that California itself had failed to prevent … the President’s action had the opposite, intended effect. In the face of federal military force, violence in Los Angeles decreased and the situation substantially improved,” he told the court.

But in recent weeks, “Chicago has been the site of organized and often violent protests directed at ICE officers and other federal personnel engaged in the execution of federal immigration laws,” he wrote. “On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protesters. … Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them.”

“More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement” at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations, he wrote.

Officials in Illinois blamed aggressive enforcement actions of ICE agents for triggering the protests.

Sauer also urged the court to hand down an immediate order that would freeze Perry’s rulings.

The court asked for a response from Illinois officials by Monday.

Oct. 17 (UPI) — The University of Pennsylvania and the University of Southern California have rejected the Trump administration’s offer of priority access to federal funds in exchange for adopting government-mandated reforms.

With the rejections of Penn and USC on Thursday, four of the nine universities the Department of Education asked to sign on to its 10-part “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” have so far declined.

In a letter addressed to the Penn community on Thursday, the school’s president, Larry Jameson, informed the Department of Education that Penn “respectfully” declined to sign the compact.

“At Penn, we are committed to merit-based achievement and accountability. The long-standing partnerships between American higher education and the federal government has greatly benefited society and our nation. Shared goals and investment in talent and ideas will turn possibility into progress,” Jameson said.

Beong-Soo Kim, interim president at USC, also told his community Thursday that they had informed the Department of Education that they wouldn’t be signing the compact.

Included in the statement was the letter he sent to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, which said that while they will not sign on to the compact, it raises issues “worthy of a broader national conversation to which USC would be eager to contribute its insights and expertise.”

“We are concerned that even though the compact would be voluntary, tying research benefits to it would, over time, undermine the same values of free inquiry and academic excellence that the compact seeks to promote.”

Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has targeted dozens of universities, particularly so-called elite institutions, with executive orders, lawsuits, reallocations of resources and threats over a range of allegations, from anti-Semitism to the adoption of diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Critics have accused Trump of trying to coerce schools under threat of stringent punishments — from losing their accreditation to paying hefty fines sometimes in excess of $1 billion — to adopt his far-right policies.

The compact announced Oct. 1 demands reforms to hiring practices and student grading and includes a pledge to prohibit transgender women from using women’s changing rooms.

It also requires the creation of a “vibrant marketplace of ideas,” a tuition freeze for five years and a cap on international enrollment, among other reforms.

After Penn announced its decision, the state’s governor, Josh Shapiro, commended the school for maintaining its independence “in the face of the Trump administration’s attempts to dictate what private colleges and universities teach and use the long arm of the federal government to censor ideas with which they disagree.”

“The Trump administration’s dangerous demands would limit freedom of speech, the freedom to learn and the freedom to engage in constructive debate and dialogue on campuses across the country,” he said in a statement.

“I am in full support of the university’s decision and appreciate the leadership and courage demonstrated by President Jameson and Board Chair [Ramanan] Raghavendran.”

Brown University refused to sign the compact on Wednesday and MIT late last week.