vote

TOPEKA, Kan. — Nancy Kassebaum Baker, a Kansas governor’s daughter who became the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate without following a spouse into office, has died. She was 94.

Kassebaum Baker died Friday of natural causes, according to her son, Bill Kassebaum.

“She loved Kansas. She loved people from Kansas and representing Kansas for 18 years in the U.S. Senate,” he told the Associated Press. “She was an independent-minded Republican who was willing to stand up for what she thought was right, even if that meant going against the party.”

She was elected to the Senate in 1978 and served three terms. Her modest demeanor endeared her to voters of all political stripes, though she shared the moderate, progressive Republican politics of her father, Gov. Alf Landon, the unsuccessful 1936 GOP nominee for president. Even after leaving the Senate early in 1997, she continued taking on public service roles.

She married former Sen. Howard Baker, a Tennessee Republican, in 1996. He died in 2014.

Kassebaum Baker was widely admired among Kansans generally. She could work with Senate colleagues of all political philosophies, and a 1996 health insurance law bore her name, along with that of liberal Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy.

Part of a dwindling GOP bloc

Her election to the Senate brought her immediate national attention. When she announced her retirement, she was among eight women senators and the only one to chair a Senate committee, the Labor and Human Resources panel.

She was also in a dwindling bloc of moderate to liberal Republicans, having supported, for example, a ban on assault weapons championed by President Clinton.

Yet she never polarized Kansas conservatives as some GOP moderates did. She connected with voters because she never seemed caught up in the trappings of power, and when she retired, she acknowledged, “I’d rather cuddle up and do needlepoint all day.”

She was born on July 29, 1932, as her father, an oilman from Independence, was running for the first of his two terms as Kansas governor. She earned a political science degree from the University of Kansas and a master’s degree in diplomatic history from the University of Michigan in the mid-1950s.

She was a radio station executive, spent a year in the 1970s on the staff of Sen. James Pearson (R-Kan.) and served on the school board in the Wichita suburb of Maize. She had four children with her first husband, Phil Kassebaum, including Bill, who served a term in the Kansas House of Representatives. The marriage ended in divorce in 1979.

A moderate who sought sensible solutions

When Kassebaum Baker decided to run for the Senate, she figured that “a woman with a background different from a man might be appealing” to people growing weary of politics. Pundits at the time estimated a Senate race would require the then-huge-for-Kansas sum of $1 million. In the first quarter of 1978, she spent less than $12,000 on her campaign, and saw herself “at the bottom of the totem pole.”

But nine candidates crowded the primary field, including three state senators and a prominent Wichita businessman. Kassebaum Baker won the GOP nomination with less than 31% of the vote.

Running as Nancy Landon Kassebaum, she won almost 54% of the vote that November against former two-term Democratic congressman Bill Roy.

Her moderate politics quickly came to the fore, when only months later, she refused to endorse an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget.

“We should be wary of the seemingly simple solution,” she said.

Her father, who would die at age 100 in 1987, still cast a long political shadow during her first years in office. Though Landon overwhelmingly lost the 1936 presidential race to Democratic incumbent Franklin D. Roosevelt, he later became an elder statesman for the Republican Party. A lecture series named for him at Kansas State University attracted presidents and foreign leaders.

Kassebaum Baker became even more popular in her time. She won reelection in 1984 with 76% of the vote and in 1990 with 74%.

But she frustrated conservative activists, despite her popularity. She said her vote in favor of the assault weapons ban inspired the angriest mail of her career.

A public servant to the end

She’d contemplated not seeking a third term, but Republican leaders had prevailed upon her to run one more time. In 1996, when she decided not to seek reelection, she said she would return to a ranch and 90-year-old farmhouse in Kansas’ scenic Flint Hills and babysit her grandchildren — she had seven, as well as two great-grandchildren.

When there briefly was talk of naming a new highway in Topeka after her, she said, “Oh, goodness. Absolutely not — no.”

She and Baker kept their romance low-key, and speculation about a possible marriage didn’t emerge until mid-1996, in a Washington Post story. They married that December.

It was the first time a man and a woman who had both served in the Senate had wed. Baker was elected to three terms, serving from 1967 to 1985 before becoming President Reagan’s chief of staff. His first wife, Joy, had died in 1993 after a long battle with cancer.

After the marriage, public service still beckoned, including as a member of a bipartisan commission on campaign finance reform under Clinton and on a British commission in Africa in 2004-05.

President George W. Bush named her husband ambassador to Japan in 2001, and she went with him for the four-year posting. Baker said she became an important figure in the Asian nation.

Before she left for Tokyo, she told a reporter she saw her stint in Japan as an adventure, but added, “All I can say is, I will miss the Kansas prairie.”

Not a fan of Trump

Later in life, Kassebaum Baker broke with the Republican Party as it became more conservative, endorsing Democratic candidates for Kansas governor and U.S. senator, including Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly both times — even though Kelly’s 2022 GOP opponent, then-state Atty. Gen. Derek Schmidt, had worked on her Senate staff.

In 2021, she supported the impeachment of President Trump for incitement of insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol that sought to keep him in power after he lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden.

“This just has gone too far,” she told Kansas City’s KMBC.

Hanna writes for the Associated Press.

Dhaka, Bangladesh – Bangladesh is holding its first contested presidential election in 35 years, with the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) candidate Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir pitted against former army officer Oli Ahmad, the nominee of the Jamaat-e-Islami-led 11-party opposition alliance.

A total of 349 members of parliament are eligible to vote in the parliamentary chamber between 08:00 GMT and 11:00 GMT on Thursday, with the result expected hours later, according to Bangladesh’s Election Commission.

The election was triggered by the resignation last month of Mohammed Shahabuddin, who was elected unopposed in 2023 as a nominee of ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League (AL) party. He quit halfway through his five-year term after serving through Hasina’s removal in August 2024, the Muhammad Yunus-led interim administration, and the BNP’s return to power in February.

Thursday’s vote will be the first contested presidential election since October 1991, when BNP candidate Abdur Rahman Biswas defeated AL nominee Badrul Haider Chowdhury by 172 votes to 92. Every presidential election since was uncontested.

The outcome, however, is widely seen as a foregone conclusion.

Of the 349 lawmakers eligible to vote, 247 belong to the BNP and 90 to the Jamaat-led opposition alliance, giving Alamgir a decisive numerical advantage.

Still, the vote carries symbolic significance for a country reshaping its institutions two years after the 2024 uprising that ended Hasina’s iron-fisted 15-year rule.

Who are the candidates?

Alamgir, 78, is one of the BNP’s most prominent leaders. He became the acting secretary-general in 2011 and was formally appointed to the post in 2016, emerging as one of the party’s principal public faces during its long years in opposition under Hasina.

After the BNP swept this year’s election, Alamgir became minister for local government, rural development and cooperatives.

At a BNP parliamentary party meeting on Wednesday, he thanked Prime Minister Tarique Rahman for nominating him and pledged not to compromise on Bangladesh’s independence and sovereignty. Rahman in turn urged BNP lawmakers to vote for Alamgir.

Alamgir’s opponent, retired Colonel Ahmad, 85, is a decorated veteran of Bangladesh’s 1971 Liberation War, chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), and a six-time member of parliament.

Once a close associate of former President Ziaur Rahman, the father of current Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, Ahmad joined the BNP in 1980 after leaving the army the year before. He served as communications minister under former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, and founded the LDP in 2006.

Ahmad’s nomination is politically striking: his main backer, the Jamaat, had opposed Bangladesh’s independence in 1971 and sided with Pakistan during the war, while Ahmad fought in the Liberation War.

Despite Ahmad’s slim chances of winning, the opposition alliance has hailed him as an experienced and broadly acceptable candidate, ensuring that the presidency will be decided through a vote and not remain uncontested.

Among Bangladeshis, views are divided over the two men’s political records.

For Anwarul Islam, a former Bangladesh Bank official, Alamgir stands out for his personal integrity.

“I visited Mirza Fakhrul’s constituency. People, irrespective of race or religion, have enormous affection for him,” Islam told Al Jazeera. “His integrity is rare among Bangladeshi politicians.”

Abdul Baten, a manager at a construction site in the capital Dhaka, said he preferred Ahmad.

“I would definitely prefer Oli because he is a seasoned politician,” Baten said. “His opponent, Fakhrul, and the BNP did not keep their promises on state reforms.”

Historic, but how important?

Bangladesh’s constitution makes the president the head of state, but grants the office little independent executive authority. Article 48(3) requires the president to act on the prime minister’s advice, except in appointing the prime minister and the chief justice.

Ali Riaz, a political scientist who served as co-chair of the National Consensus Commission on state reforms under the Yunus-led interim government, said the return of a contested election was welcome, but its practical significance should not be overstated.

“It’s good to see that someone who has been at the forefront of the democratic movement and fought against a fascist regime will be occupying the office of the president,” Riaz told Al Jazeera.

“However, the presidential election has very little significance due to the limited powers of the president.”

Riaz said the July National Charter on key reforms agreed by political parties after the 2024 uprising, and ratified through a referendum in this year’s election, proposed that the president be elected by members of both houses of parliament. The plan for an upper chamber of parliament, with significant powers over key constitutional and statutory bodies to balance power, has still not been implemented.

Riaz also questioned the significance of an open vote in which the governing party already has the numbers to win. “The election is more of a ritual than substantive in terms of governance and politics,” he said.

Questions over the process

For the families of more than 1,400 people killed by the security forces during the 2024 uprising, Shahabuddin’s departure and the election of a new president are overdue.

“It should have happened much earlier, but it is still good to see it happening now,” Sanjida Khan Deepti, mother of 17-year-old Shahriar Khan Anas who was killed during the uprising, told Al Jazeera.

But Deepti questioned whether MPs should be bound by their party’s choice.

“If an MP cannot vote for the person they believe is best for the country, then what is the point of holding a vote?” she said. “Our children gave their lives for democracy.”

The election has revived debates over whether Article 70 of the constitution – which can cost lawmakers their parliamentary seats for voting against their party – should apply to a presidential election.

For all its constitutional limitations and predictable arithmetic, Thursday’s vote will mark a rare moment in Bangladesh’s politics: for the first time in more than three decades, lawmakers will have two names on the ballot for the country’s next head of state.

In early results from the special election runoff to complete the congressional term of disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, state Sen. Aisha Wahab was in the lead late Tuesday by a narrow margin.

Wahab (D-Hayward) is competing against Melissa Hernandez, president of the Bay Area Rapid Transit Board and the former mayor of Dublin.

According to Associated Press results, Wahab had 51.0% of the vote to Hernandez’s 49.0% as of 10:11 p.m. with 62% of votes counted.

Swalwell’s District 14 seat has been vacant since he resigned in April amid sexual assault allegations, which he has repeatedly denied.

Wahab and Hernandez were the finalists in the June 16 special primary, in which the top two finishers regardless of party affiliation advanced to Tuesday’s special election.

The two also will compete, once again, in the fall in a slightly redrawn district for a full term that begins in January 2027.

Both versions of the district are contained entirely within Alameda County in the East Bay. The current district includes Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton and Union City, as well as parts of San Leandro, Fremont and Dublin.

The two candidates are both Democrats, but Wahab leans more progressive, while Hernandez is generally considered the more moderate candidate.

Earlier this summer, Wahab initially emerged as the clear front-runner. She placed first in both the June 16 special primary for the partial-term seat and the June 2 primary for the full-term seat — leading Hernandez by more than 20 percentage points in both races.

But the race became much more competitive after the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee funneled millions into campaign materials designed to defeat Wahab, who has publicly criticized Israel’s military actions in Gaza and called the humanitarian crisis there a genocide. Hernandez has said she supports Israel’s right to defend itself, but neither candidate has made the conflict a core part of their campaign.

United Democracy Project, a super political action committee backed by AIPAC, spent $1.2 million on the race in August in support of Hernandez and in opposition to Wahab, according to Federal Election Commission records. Another group, Bold America, which has received funding from United Democracy Project, has recently spent about $1.7 million supporting Hernandez.

In total, around $3.7 million in outside funding has been spent to promote Hernandez’s campaign since mid-July, compared to around $400,000 spent in support of Wahab’s campaign during the same time frame.

Over the course of the campaign, Hernandez has more than doubled Wahab’s fundraising and spending. However, both candidates ended July with roughly even amounts of cash in the bank.

Times staff writer Clara Harter contributed to this report.

In a push toward returning Anaheim to the name of his hometown Angels, Assemblyman Avelino Valencia (D-Anaheim) last March introduced what he called the “Home Run for Anaheim Act.”

Five months later, the bill has cleared both houses of the state legislature without a single vote against it. Gov. Gavin Newsom has two months to sign the bill into law, barring a veto that would be surprising because of the lack of opposition.

The bill does not mandate the Angels — playing under a Los Angeles name in Anaheim’s city-owned stadium — revert to the Anaheim Angels name.

However, at a time teams in all sports seek to boost profits by surrounding venues with shops, restaurants, hotels, and other attractions, the bill provides Anaheim with an inducement for the Angels: If the city obtains an exemption from a state law requiring affordable housing to be prioritized in any such development — potentially maximizing revenue for the team — then the team must be called the Anaheim Angels.

Angels owner Arte Moreno has twice reached deals with the city to develop the land, only to see the city walk away both times. In the last deal, he rejected the city’s request to rename the team the Anaheim Angels.

Moreno has shown no public interest in a third negotiation with the city, and the Angels’ current stadium lease extends through 2032, with the team having options to extend the lease through 2038.

By year’s end, the city has said it anticipates the release of a long-awaited property assessment, which is expected to show Angel Stadium needs hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrades to remain viable for the long-term. The city and team may not agree on who should pay for them, and real estate development around the stadium could be part of the solution for funding a new or renovated stadium.

Moreno turns 80 this week. Should he decide to sell the Angels, the city could use the exemption as leverage in discussions with a new owner. Any new owner could have leverage of his own: Once the Angel Stadium lease expires, the owner would be free to move out of Anaheim.

The bill required five votes between the Assembly and Senate. The final vote came on Monday on a consent calendar, the place for matters considered so routine that no legislator even wishes to discuss them.

The pro-Kremlin nationalist party Rodina accused Yabloko of receiving undeclared campaign support, notably from Western sources – an allegation Yabloko denied.

Russia‘s Supreme Court has barred the only officially registered party opposing Moscow’s war in Ukraine from running in next month’s parliamentary elections.

The court upheld a suit on Monday brought by the small pro-Kremlin nationalist party Rodina to annul the registration of Yabloko, stripping voters of the chance to express their discontent with the four-and-a-half-year conflict at the ballot box.

Last month, the Central Election Commission had initially allowed Yabloko on the ballot along with 10 other parties.

“The claims seeking to annul the registration of the federal list of candidates for the State Duma of the ninth convocation, nominated by the Yabloko political party, were granted,” Judge Vyacheslav Kirillov said.

Rodina alleged that Yabloko had received undeclared campaign support, including from Western sources, among other accusations.

During a day-long hearing, Yabloko leader Nikolai Rybakov said there was no evidence to support the allegations and described the case as an unconstitutional attack on freedom of thought by political opponents seeking to clear the field of rivals.

About 100 supporters, mostly young people, gathered outside the courthouse as police stood by, chanting “Shame! Shame!” after the ruling was delivered. Some carried apples to display their affiliation with Yabloko, which means “apple” in Russian.

Addressing them after the hearing, Rybakov said the party would appeal the decision.

“We have a long way ahead, and we have a big and important task: to stop deaths and bring the peace back,” he said. “Everything we do should be dedicated to that.”

With most of President Vladimir Putin’s opponents jailed, exiled or dead, Yabloko is the only liberal party still operating in Russia.

The party has received the backing of several exiled opposition figures, including Yulia Navalnaya, the widow of the late opposition leader Alexey Navalny. Both are listed as “extremists” in Russia.

A poll conducted earlier this year showed Yabloko at just three percent support – short of the five-percent threshold needed to enter Russia’s lower house.

With the Kremlin tightening its control over elections, Yabloko has failed to win seats in the State Duma since 2003.

Since then, every parliamentary vote has been won by the ruling United Russia party, which backs Putin.

Efforts to end the Ukraine war through diplomacy have so far failed, with Putin pushing hardline territorial demands to end the fighting and ruling out talks with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Independent polls show most Russians favour peace negotiations with Kyiv.

FLORENCE, S.C. — Few people have anything bad to say about Darline Graham, who was catapulted from obscurity last month when she was appointed to replace her late brother Lindsey Graham in the U.S. Senate.

“I think Darline’s wonderful,” said Kathy Bustos of Mount Pleasant after attending a Republican forum recently.

But that doesn’t mean Bustos wants to vote for her in the state’s special primary Tuesday.

“I think it’s a very nice gesture for her to have the rest of his term to complete, but I’m not sure that she’s really qualified or ready to be elected to the Senate,” she said.

It’s a common sentiment among Republican voters pondering an unexpected decision about replacing Lindsey Graham, who was nominated for a fifth term before he died last month from a tear in his aorta. Darline Graham was often by his side throughout his career, but she remains largely unknown in South Carolina’s clubby political circles.

President Trump has endorsed her, and she’s backed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is running television advertising to support her candidacy.

However, Graham has been largely absent from the campaign trail, spending most of her time in Washington as an interim senator. Her appointment to the role, instead of giving her a leg up over the competition, may ultimately hold her back by preventing her from getting to know voters during a weeks-long sprint to Tuesday.

A crowded field

She is up against several well-known Republicans, including Reps. Russell Fry and Ralph Norman, as well as former Gov. Mark Sanford. The crowded field makes a runoff more likely, and it would be held Aug. 25.

All of them spoke at a Friday meeting of the Fourth District Republican Club in Greenville, but Graham sent a video message, saying she was “in Washington working hard for you.” She promised to be “a great friend and ally” to Trump and that she wanted to “earn your vote.”

And at a candidates event in Florence on Saturday, where Graham spoke, some of her supporters said they backed the interim senator’s decision to stay in Washington, even if it meant not campaigning.

“She committed to not missing votes or not being there to push forward with those bills,” said Teresa Castrinos, who made the hours-long drive from Bluffton to see Graham. “I feel like she’s putting South Carolina first. She’s wanting to fulfill her time as a senator right now, so I really admire her for that.”

A low profile

While Lindsey Graham was single and well-known around the world, his sister lived a relatively quiet life with her husband and daughters in Lexington, S.C. She spent years in state government, working with people with disabilities and as an agency head of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind.

Before participating in Saturday’s event in Florence, her only public campaign event had been a candidates forum in Lexington. Charles Brentnell of Greenville County, who said he was still considering whom to vote for, liked her decision to stay in Washington when the Senate was in session.

“Let’s keep the Senate at the Senate instead of taking a month off for no good reason,” he said.

Appearing alongside other contenders Saturday, Graham apologized for reading from notes from a lectern, pointing to the Senate votes that kept her in Washington until just hours before she headed to meet voters in South Carolina.

“Yes, I have some notes. You know why? Because I haven’t slept in two days, so I’m going to keep my thoughts straight,” Graham said, adding that she opposed Senate recess but lost out to others who wanted to end votes and go home. “I wanted to stay there, and I wanted to get things done.”

Graham also participated in one of two televised debates, where she backed Trump’s plan to change filibuster rules to make it easier to pass the president’s bill for strict voter ID requirements.

While other candidates came to speak to the media gathered afterward, Graham skipped the session and merely gave a thumbs-up outside when asked how she felt the debate had gone.

In contrast to her loquacious late brother, Graham has not spoken with reporters in Capitol Hill hallways or fielded questions on the stump.

She’s spoken at length to Fox News personalities Sean Hannity and Trey Gowdy, both of whom eulogized Lindsey Graham at memorial services last month, and granted two interviews to local news outlets.

On Saturday, in her first gaggle with reporters, Graham addressed some of voters’ concerns, reiterating her commitment to do Senate work when the chamber is in session.

“I feel like my job is to be in D.C. working for everyone right now. I hate that I can’t be here. I want to be here,” she said. “That’s why I left and didn’t sleep at all last night, so I could attend today’s event.”

As to the skepticism in sending her to Washington for six years, Graham cited her state government experience, plus the last several weeks she’s had serving as interim senator.

“Trust me, I have learned a lot already, so I think I have experience,” she said.

A second debate took place while Graham was in Washington on Tuesday, a date her campaign pointed out had been scheduled despite the senator’s conflict.

Gigi Bray of Charleston said the idea of Darline Graham serving in the interim makes sense, but electing her to a full term does not.

“I think it’s a great honor for her to hold her brother’s spot till November, but it’s time for a change,” said Bray, who backs Sanford. “I don’t think she has a lot of government experience, and I think right now, with the state of our country, I think it’s very important that somebody has experience.”

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loyalty to Trump

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

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

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

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

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

Former prosecutor rises as Trump’s defender

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aug. 7 (UPI) — Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, on Friday became the second Republican senator to say she’ll vote against Todd Blanche’s nomination for U.S. attorney general, putting his confirmation further at risk.

Murkowski joins Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who said Tuesday that she’ll vote against Blanche’s nomination. Blanche, President Donald Trump‘s pick for the role, is now acting attorney general.

Murkowski questioned if Blanche, Trump’s former personal lawyer, would be an effective check against Trump if he’s confirmed as the leader of the U.S. Department of Justice.

In a social media post Friday, she listed various ways the Justice Department has been politicized and referred to the $1,776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund order that Blanche said he’s rescinded earlier this week.

“I am … keenly aware that the department’s nearly $2 billion dollar slush fund — which likely would have rewarded January 6 protestors — is only off the table because this nomination is pending and the Senate has leverage,” Murkowski wrote. “Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds.

“The country needs an attorney general who will check the worst impulses of this administration. I hope Mr. Blanche is able to achieve that, if confirmed, but I simply do not have confidence that will be the case.”

Collins also questioned Blanche’s independence and approval of the anti-weaponization fund — as well as its connected settlement agreement giving Trump and his family protection from tax investigations — in saying she will vote against the nomination.

Also, “more than 1,200 former Department of Justice employees have opposed his nomination, arguing that he has undermined the institution,” Collins said in her statement Tuesday. “For these reasons, I will vote against this nomination.”

With Murkowski and Collins voting against the nomination, Sen.Mitch McConnell still absent from the Senate and all Democrats saying they’ll vote against him, Blanche can’t lose any more votes and be confirmed.

It is uncertain how Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican and frequent Trump critic, will vote. Cassidy has so far declined to comment on the question.

Before Blanche rescinded the $1,776 billion fund order, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis and John Cornyn also said they’d vote against him. However, they reversed course on that Monday.

However, Trump said on social media Saturday — before Blanche issued his order on the fund – that if Blanche is not confirmed, he will remain acting attorney general and the fund “would immediately be back on the table,and I will get it done!”

Blanche has been in the acting attorney general role since Trump fired Pam Bondi in April.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s choice for attorney general is facing a tight vote for confirmation in a Republican-controlled Senate nearly halfway through his second term, reflecting mounting doubts about his leadership of the Justice Department as bipartisan concerns over the weaponization of justice intensify.

The confirmation of Todd Blanche hangs on the support of two Republicans who have repeatedly criticized Trump’s stewardship of the department, where Blanche has served as deputy and acting attorney general, roles he assumed after working as the president’s personal lawyer for nearly two years.

Republican senators resisted Trump’s approach to the Justice Department from the start of the presidential transition, rejecting his first choice to lead it, Matt Gaetz, amid concerns he would use the department to pursue political retribution. But after Gaetz withdrew, Trump’s replacement, Pam Bondi, won bipartisan confirmation with the support of the entire Republican caucus.

Blanche is already guaranteed a narrower margin, with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine announcing she will vote to reject his confirmation, and with Sen. Mitch McConnell absent for health reasons. Democrats are expected to be united in opposition against him.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a figure the president has referred to as a “terrible,” “Trump-deranged” “loser” who “should never be elected,” has refused to comment on her plans.

Her staff has said she is reviewing a commitment Blanche made in writing to formally rescind a controversial, $1.8-billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” announced in May to compensate Trump’s political allies, including those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Blanche also said he would limit immunity offered to Trump and his family for future tax audits, although his wording left the door open to negotiating a future deal along similar terms.

“I think certainly the fact that he has signed this order, basically disbanding [the Anti-Weaponization Fund] — that’s a pretty good step,” Murkowski said , adding that she would “like to find out a little bit more about the negotiations.”

Blanche has taken steps to curry Murkowski’s favor in recent months, visiting Alaska and announcing a $400-million settlement benefiting Alaska natives’ healthcare in July.

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the other uncommitted lawmaker in the chamber, said he had concerns that Blanche was still effectively working as Trump’s personal attorney under the guise of public service.

“I am very concerned about so-called lawfare — people being prosecuted not for a valid reason beyond somebody in high office being angry at them,” Cassidy said.

“So, I’ve not made a decision regarding Mr. Blanche,” he added. “I’ve got to be convinced that he is an attorney general who just happens to have once been President Trump’s personal attorney, as opposed to President Trump’s personal attorney who is now the attorney general. I think there’s a big difference between the two.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said that he was still working to secure the votes needed for Blanche’s confirmation.

“I’m hoping we’ll get there eventually,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

Blanche became the acting attorney general in April after Bondi was fired. Blanche had previously served as deputy attorney general and has been linked to some of the most controversial policies of the Trump administration.

His connection to the settlement between Trump and the Internal Revenue Service took center stage during his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Blanche said during the hearing that the controversial fund created as part of the IRS settlement was dead.

But Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina refused to vote for Blanche until he issued a more explicit order that killed the fund, which was designed to provide payouts to allies of Trump.

Cornyn and Tillis also demanded that the Justice Department provide constraints to tax audit immunity that was granted to Trump, two of his sons and their business as part of the lawsuit settlement.

The federal judge who presided over the IRS case blasted the proceedings and the agreement as “improper” saying that the two sides — Trump and the IRS — were not truly independent of each other.

The written assurances provided by Blanche were enough to win support from Cornyn and Tillis, though Democrats pointed out that they did not foreclose the possibility that a similar fund could be resurrected in the future.

“The president himself has largely telegraphed that’s his plan,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the committee, said Tuesday before the vote.

Blanche has been the face of the administration’s release of files related to deceased sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein. Bondi told the House Oversight Committee in May that Blanche had overseen the process, which included delays in the release of files and major redaction issues.

Blanche also faced criticism for a July 2025 prison interview he conducted with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of facilitating Epstein’s abuse.

Shortly after the interview, she was moved from her Florida prison to a low-security prison in Texas where she has reportedly gotten favorable treatment.

Aug. 4 (UPI) — Sen. Susan Collins said Tuesday that she will vote against Todd Blanche’s nomination for attorney general, further narrowing his path to confirmation.

“While I believe Mr. Blanche is a capable lawyer, the Department of Justice has become increasingly political. Mr. Blanche has taken several actions that have further eroded the department’s independence, and that is the basis for my vote to oppose his confirmation,” Collins, a Republican from Maine, said in a statement.

Collins cited Blanche’s handling of Trump’s anti-weaponization fund, his commitments to anti-abortion groups to restrict the mailing of abortion medication and the Justice Department’s failed attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers over a video encouraging active-duty service members to reject unlawful orders.

“For these reasons, I will vote against this nomination,” she said.

Trump tapped Blanche, the president’s former personal lawyer, to lead the Justice Department in June. He has served as acting attorney general since Trump fired Pam Bondi in April.

But his confirmation as attorney general has been anything but smooth.

Collins’ announcemeent came hours after Blanche’s nomination was advanced by the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it had stalled after two Republican senators — John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — said they would not vote in his favor without written, binding proof that a so-called anti-weaponization fund had been rescinded. Blanche provided that proof late Sunday.

With his nomination advanced to the full Senate, he will require a majority vote to approve confirmation. However, all 45 Democrats and both independents are expected to vote against him. With Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., still absent and Collins stating she will not support his nomination, Blanche can afford to lose the support of only one additional Republican.

Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, who had indicated he might not support Blanche, said Tuesday that, following “robust discussions” with the the acting attorney general, he would vote for him, leaving the votes of Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska unknown, neither of whom has commented.

Blanche has been criticized by Democrats, democracy advocates and legal experts for allegedly further politicizing the Justice Department and using the department to further Trump’s aims, including targeting the president’s perceived political opponents.

He approved the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund to distribute taxpayer money to those who claim to be victims of the Biden administration’s Justice Department, including those convicted on crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection of the Capitol.

The fund was part of a settlement reached to resolve a case Trump brought against the federal government seeking $10 billion in damages stemming from an Internal Revenue Service contractor leaking his tax returns to the press.

Democrats and even Republicans balked at the fund.

Also part of the deal was language protecting Trump, his two adult sons and the Trump Organization from certain audits.

Last month, more than 1,200 former DOJ employees spanning 14 administrations issued a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to Blanche’s nomination, arguing that the consequences of his politicization of the department leave “communities less safe, Americans’ rights less protected and our national security more vulnerable.”

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) warned Monday that the sex lives of at least two other lawmakers would be disclosed to the Senate Ethics Committee if the Senate subpoena for nearly five years of his personal diaries is enforced.

Packwood insisted that he is not trying to “blackmail” senators into voting to reject the unanimous demand of the ethics panel, which is conducting an inquiry into charges that Packwood repeatedly made unwanted sexual advances to women on his staff.

Rather, the Oregon lawmaker said, it is the Ethics Committee that wants entries from his diary concerning the longtime affair of another senator and an intimate relationship between a member of the House Democratic leadership and a Senate staff aide.

In his dealings with the committee, Packwood said, he concealed the name of the prominent Democrat by masking it with a piece of paper.

“The Ethics Committee lifted the piece of paper and saw the name and demanded that we produce that page in the diary,” Packwood said. “These were not threats by my lawyer, that if my diary is subpoenaed, that I will tell these things.”

Sources close to Packwood said he fears that some of his diary entries would become public through leaks to the media, even if the committee itself does not disclose them.

The committee said in a report to the Senate last Thursday that Packwood reneged on an agreement to allow a neutral third party to screen the diaries and exclude those parts covered by attorney-client or doctor-patient privileges or related to personal, private family matters.

It voted, 6 to 0, to issue a subpoena for Packwood’s diaries from 1989 to the present, concluding that “the documents in their entirety may be relevant and probative” in connection with its investigation of Packwood’s conduct.

Unless a compromise can be reached, the Senate is expected to vote shortly on whether to back up the Ethics Committee by authorizing it to seek a federal court order for the diaries or to uphold Packwood’s protests that his privacy is being invaded.

Packwood told the Senate that he has kept a personal diary for 25 years that now amounts to 8,200 single-spaced pages. He sets aside time early each morning to dictate his thoughts about events of the previous day, apparently covering both his personal life as well as his official duties.

Entries cover his “hopes and dreams and despair,” the 61-year-old Packwood said, including his discussions with former President Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal, as well as meetings with Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, on tax reform.

In addition, as Packwood’s attorney James F. Fitzpatrick said in a statement Friday, the diary also has information on the senator’s “private consensual personal relationships” with women who were not on his staff.

Senate records disclosed that Packwood has raised more than $280,000 for a legal defense fund since the Ethics Committee started its inquiry early this year, including a $10,000 donation from Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) and a $1,000 contribution from Sen. John H. Chafee (R-R.I.).

Lobbyists and other major campaign contributors have put up most of the money.

Packwood, accused by more than two dozen women of sexual harassment over the last two decades, also has been charged with using his Senate staff to try to silence his accusers by intimidation.

WASHINGTON — Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche cleared a critical hurdle Tuesday in his bid to be confirmed to the post after swaying Republican holdouts on a Senate committee to advance his nomination for a floor vote.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-10 along party lines in support of the nomination of President Trump’s former personal attorney, who has aggressively pushed the Republican administration’s priorities since taking over from Pam Bondi in April.

The vote followed a deal struck late Sunday between Blanche and two Republican senators who had been threatening to block his confirmation over the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service regarding the president’s leaked tax returns.

Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina had said they were withholding their support unless the Justice Department confirmed in writing that it was not moving forward with a $1.8 billion fund to compensate Trump allies who believe they were prosecuted for political purposes, which the administration had announced as part of the settlement.

After days of negotiations, Blanche issued an order Sunday evening confirming “beyond any doubt, that there is no Fund.”

Since the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS was announced, “No Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid,” the order said.

Cornyn and Tillis had also pressed for clarification on a separate part of the settlement that would grant Trump and members of his family immunity from tax audits.

Democrats complain about the fund

Under the deal, the Justice Department clarified in writing that the tax audit immunity agreement applies only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings. It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons, and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement.

Democrats say Blanche’s order doesn’t go far enough to prevent the Trump administration from reviving the fund after the acting attorney general’s confirmation and have called for legislation to permanently bar it. The order also doesn’t stop the administration from compensating Trump allies — including people who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — through a previously established process that allows people to file claims for damages if they believed they were wronged by the government.

The fund “can easily be revived with a new order from the Department of Justice 15 minutes after Mr. Blanche is confirmed as attorney general,” said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the committee.

Blanche’s independence has been called into question

Blanche has faced intense scrutiny regarding his ability to maintain independence from the White House, the Justice Department’s pursuit of the president’s political foes and the agency’s handling of files related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation.

But it was the settlement of Trump’s $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS that threatened to derail Blanche’s nomination, forcing a delay in the committee vote last week amid pressure from the two Republican senators, who are not returning to Capitol Hill after their terms end in January.

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the committee, said Tillis and Cornyn’s demands were “common sense.” Grassley said the senators’ concerns about the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and the IRS settlement were shared by many other lawmakers, including himself.

“I’m grateful that they as well as Mr. Blanche and the White House worked in good faith to solve them, formally rescinding the fund, clarifying the scope of the release of claims has put this issue to bed once and for all,” Grassley said.

Trump’s lawsuit has been sharply criticized because of the highly unusual way it was handled, with the president challenging an agency overseen by the executive branch he leads. A judge last month slammed the case as an improper exercise in self-dealing and referred one of Trump’s attorneys who filed it for potential disciplinary action.

Blanche was an important figure for Trump’s defense

Blanche, a former federal prosecutor and key member of Trump’s defense team as the Republican battled four indictments, arrived at the Justice Department last year as deputy attorney general. He was elevated to acting attorney general following Attorney General Pam Bondi’s failure to meet Trump’s demands to successfully prosecute his perceived political opponents.

While Blanche insisted he wasn’t auditioning for the permanent post, he moved swiftly to accelerate investigations into Trump foes and advance other White House priorities, drawing condemnation from critics who say he has not shed his title as Trump’s personal lawyer.

Shortly after Blanche took the top post, the Justice Department moved to indict longtime Trump adversary James Comey, the former FBI director, on charges of threatening the 47th president by posting a social media photograph of seashells in the numerical arrangement of “86 47.”

Comey’s lawyers have accused the Justice Department of misleading judges, submitting documents containing false statements and withholding key facts to bring what the defense described as a politically motivated prosecution.

Blanche separately appointed Joseph diGenova, an 81-year-old former Justice Department prosecutor from the Reagan administration, to oversee a Florida-based investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired over the last decade to undermine Trump.

Richer and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is pressuring his Democratic rival, Xavier Becerra, to participate in a series of debates in the weeks leading up the Nov. 3 election to determine California’s next governor.

In a video shared by his campaign Friday, Hilton listed six debate invitations he has received from cable broadcaster CNN and television news stations around the state, beginning in late September.

“I have accepted every single one of these debates,” said Hilton, standing behind a debate-style podium and gesturing at an empty one beside him with Becerra’s name on it . “This guy, Xavier Becerra, has not accepted any of them. That is completely outrageous. We have to have a debate in this governor’s race. So come on, Xavier.”

The video shows Hilton walk out of frame and return with a cardboard cutout of Becerra, which he plunks behind the second podium while urging the candidate to “man up and show up.”

Becerra’s campaign said he will debate Hilton and blasted the Republican for “chasing” publicity.

“Snowflake Steve is melting faster than he can plan another press conference. While he’s there chasing media and doing Donald Trump’s bidding, Xavier Becerra is building a coalition of Californians ready to elect a governor who won’t bring Trump’s chaos to their front door,” Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland said in a statement to The Times.

Hilton, a British immigrant who once advised a U.K. prime minister, is endorsed by President Donald Trump and finished second in the June open-party primary election with 24.6% of the vote.

Years of hosting a weekly show on Fox News has made Hilton comfortable on camera and the debate stage; he appeared at-ease during a series of debates earlier this year while lobbing attacks at his Democratic opponents and blaming the party for the state’s long list of problems.

Becerra served as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration. Before that, he spent four years battling the first Trump administration as California attorney general and more than two decades representing a Los Angeles congressional district.

The longtime Democratic politician became the come-from-behind winner of the primary, finishing with 28.1% of the vote after polling near the middle or bottom of a crowded field for months. His meteoric rise came after another front-runner, former Rep. Eric Swalwell, dropped out after a former staffer and other women accused him of sexual assault and misconduct.

Becerra has kept a relatively low profile since the election with few public appearances.

Hilton has held several campaign events in recent weeks to court independent and Latino voters. As a Trump-endorsed Republican, he faces a steep climb in California, where the president is deeply unpopular and a GOP candidate has not won a statewide election since 2006.

Last week he accused Democratic leaders of “abandoning” residents in Boyle Heights, where flies, rats and the stench of rotting food have lingered weeks after a frozen food warehouse was damaged by fire.

Hilton also recently took out full-page ads in The Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle to make the case to voters who dislike Trump but are dissatisfied with the status quo in California.

Deadly clashes reported in Pakistan-administered Kashmir amid first round of voting for regional elections on July 27.

Watchdogs have raised concerns over mounting reports of deadly clashes during regional elections in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, where a banned activist group has boycotted the vote and staged protests.

The clashes between police and protesters earlier this week killed more than 30 people in the region, according to the leaders of the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC).

In a video statement on Wednesday shared by Arab News Pakistan, JAAC committee member Sardar Umar Nazir claimed 20 of the group’s supporters had been killed during a march on Monday, when the first round of voting took place.

He listed reports of at least 10 other protesters being killed the following day in the towns of Rawalakot, Mirpur and elsewhere, including during sit-ins.

“Our demand was peaceful, it was peaceful, we tried to keep it non-violent and bullets were fired at it,” said Nazir in the video statement.

Pakistani authorities said a member of the security personnel was killed and five more were injured in clashes on Monday.

Rights group Amnesty International called the reports of lethal force against protesters in the area “disturbing” and urged an investigation.

Pear Pandya, a senior analyst at conflict monitor ACLED, said the violence in Pakistan-administered Kashmir “is bound to overshadow the legitimacy of the entire electoral exercise”.

Monday’s first-round vote – covering the districts of Mirpur, Kotli and Bhimber – will be followed by two more rounds on August 2 and August 10.

Pakistan’s primary governing party, ⁠the PML-N, won nine out of the 13 seats that were up for election on Monday.

No justification to ‘mete out violence’

JAAC was banned by the local government under “anti-terrorism laws” in June, causing deadly protests to erupt in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Banking, roads and internet services have largely been disrupted since then, hindering the flow of information.

Pakistani officials have justified the crackdown by alleging that armed and India-backed fighters joined the Kashmiri protesters. India has rejected similar accusations in the past.

Amnesty has called the ban on JAAC unlawful and said it does not provide justification for authorities to “mete out deadly violence against protesters”.

The rights group has also urged Pakistani authorities to ”restore all communications access and allow media and independent observers into the area”, its acting regional director for South Asia, Isabelle Lassee, said.

‘Controversial’ seats

One of JAAC’s central demands regarding the regional elections is the abolition of 12 assembly seats reserved for Kashmiri refugees.

JAAC supporters say the seats are used by major Pakistani political parties to tip the composition of the local parliament in their favour with those who mostly live outside the region.

To form a regional government, the PML-N would likely need the support of some of the 12 representatives, said Hasan Askari, ‌a political analyst.

“But when their government is dependent on those 12 controversial seats, how would it be able to find a solution for this issue?” Askari told the Reuters news agency.

Even among the candidates that did not boycott the vote on Monday, the results were contested. Parties accused each other of ballot ‌box ‌stealing and vote rigging.

Love Island’s 2026 summer of love has come to an end, with Julia and Lorenzo taking £50,000 home after the public voted them as the winners

Love Island‘s 2026 winners have been crowned. Lorenzo Alessi and Julia Majchrzak were voted the winners by the public, taking home £50,000 between the two of them. The final aired on Monday 27 July.

Julia and Lorenzo went up against Jasmine Muller and Kavan Murphy for the title and it was the former who took home the crown. It came after Simba Kudyiwa and Angelista Gunda bagged a third place finish.

The winners looked stunned after their name was called, but it was a well received decision from the live audience and former islanders alike, with Lorenzo being lofted up high by his villa pals.

But despite loud cheers from the crowd, not all fans online were impressed. One user on X fumed: “Such an awful love island uk finale. love island usa may have had awful production, people, and couples too but they went off with the final dates & the audience went off with crowning brinity the winners #loveislanduk #loveisland.”

Another added: “I already said what I said: the winners of love island uk this year are AWFUL. y’all just failed this season.” And a third said: “the final is the worst episode of Love Island, it’s always boring, they need a to rethink it and maybe go down a big brother route.”

Going into the final, there were four couples who could have taken the crown: Jasmine and Kavan, Lorenzo and Julia, Simba and Angelista and Yasmin Hadlow and Tommy Stagg. But a twist in the game meant Yasmin and Tommy were dumped before the show went live.

On Sunday night, after Mica Harris and Samraj Toor were axed by their series’ dumped Islanders, it was revealed that the pair would be allowed to pick another couple to leave with them.

Knowing what was at stake, Samraj vowed not to make his decision based on who he was friends with. As such, though many fans predicted that the couple’s arguments with Julia would mean she and Lorenzo would be dumped, it was Yasmin and Tommy who went instead.

The remaining couples were fairly strong. Simba and Angelista had mostly been together since Simba entered as a bombshell. Though he returned from Casa Amor with Mara, leaving Angelista single, he soon decided to get back with the OG Islander and won her over with a poem.

Meanwhile, Jasmine and Kavan have been together for weeks. Kavan also returned from Casa with a bombshell, Charleen Murphy, but he and Jasmine got back together as well, after Kavan saw just how hurt Jasmine was by his actions. Though some fans have been hoping she and Lorenzo, her original partner would get back together, and rumours of an ‘affair’ had swirled around the villa, former Islanders have said that Jasmine and Kavan are head over heels for each other.

Likewise, Sean Fitzgerald told Maya Jama on Aftersun that Julia and Lorenzo were well suited to each other. The two became a favourite to win after returning from Casa, not just because Lorenzo was a one of the public’s favourite boys, but because they felt Julia hadn’t been treated well by the other Islanders.

This came amid a feud with Lola Deal, who objected to how Julia flirted with Sean during Casa. Shortly afterwards, Julia and Lorenzo were voted favourite couple. They were given the opportunity to dump a couple, but Lola and Sean decided to volunteer to be dumped.

This was the 13th series of Love Island. Last year’s winners Toni Laites and Cach Mercer have since split, but have gone on to feature in other reality series. Toni has taken a role on new Love Island spin off The Debrief, providing commentary on the main show, while Cach will appear on Strictly Come Dancing later this year.

The show is expected to return in January for an All Stars addition, which could include some Islanders from this season. Earlier this summer, All Stars winners Tom Clare and Molly Smith married after meeting on series two of the spin off.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

July 23 (UPI) — A Senate committee delayed a vote on the Trump administration’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director nominee, Erica Schwartz, because enough members were not present.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was absent from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions meeting on Thursday because of a family emergency, which led committee chair Bill Cassidy, R-La., to postpone the vote, Politico reported.

Cassidy also said Thursday that he decided to vote for Schwartz because of a “good faith action” the CDC reportedly made to its website earlier in the day.

The action included changing language on its website about the lack of an association between vaccines and autism, which had been ordered changed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last year.

Cassidy asked detailed questions during her nomination hearing about vaccines and how the agency, which has had a full-time director for just one month since President Donald Trump re-entered the White House, would restore confidence in its public health mission, The Hill reported.

“I’m confident that she knows what she’s doing and will stand against those who do not,” Cassidy said during the meeting.

“If confirmed, I look forward to working with Dr. Schwartz to protect children’s health and regain trust in the CDC,” he said.

“There’s more to do to repair the damage that has been done to the U.S. public health response, but this is a start,” the Louisiana Republican added.

Even with Cassidy deciding to vote for Schwartz, Republicans on the committee would have needed a Democrat or Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who caucuses with the Democrats, to vote in favor.

Sanders ended that possibility when he expressed respect for Schwartz’s career but said that he was concerned she would not be able to hold off some of the controversial changes Kennedy has either proposed or forced on the agency.

“I will be voting against Dr. Schwartz because we need people in this country who are going to stand up, protect the American people and I don’t think you can see that right now with Secretary Kennedy in his position,” Sanders said.

The HELP committee’s next executive session is scheduled for July 30, which is also the next time it will consider nominations, making it the next opportunity for Schwartz’s nomination to come up for a vote.

The committee also put off a vote on Sean Kaufman, who is nominated to lead the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, because Republicans did not have enough votes to forward the nomination to the full Senate.

WASHINGTON — A Republican senator whose support will be necessary to advance Todd Blanche’s nomination for attorney general said Thursday that Blanche must meet with accusers of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to earn his vote.

Sen. Thom Tillis had indicated during Blanche’s confirmation hearing Wednesday that he was leaning toward backing the acting attorney general’s nomination. But after an Epstein accuser testified a day later, Tillis said he expects a meeting to occur before he’s “willing to vote out of this committee.”

Epstein’s case and the Justice Department’s handling of millions of files related to his sex trafficking investigation have been a persistent political headache for the Trump administration.

After missteps by then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi that enraged President Trump’s base, Blanche as deputy attorney general oversaw a massive review and release of millions of files related to the investigation into the disgraced financier with connections to wealthy and powerful people.

Shortly after Tillis’ remarks, Blanche arrived at a Senate office building, where Blanche told reporters he had hoped to meet with Epstein accusers but “it didn’t work out.” Blanche said they were trying to find another time later Thursday or another day to schedule the meeting.

“The Department of Justice will always meet with victims or their representatives, and if those victims or their representatives have evidence that anybody committed a crime — whether it has to do with Jeffrey Epstein or anybody else — we will of course move forward and investigate and prosecute,” Blanche said.

Without Tillis’ support, Blanche’s nomination won’t make it through the Senate Judiciary Committee, which questioned Blanche for hours on Wednesday about the Epstein files as well as the creation of a fund to compensate Trump’s allies, a tax immunity deal for the president and a slew of other issues.

Another Republican on the committee who says he has not made up his mind on whether to support Blanche, Sen. John Cornyn, conveyed concerns that the Trump administration has yet to commit in writing that the fund is dead and that it could therefore conceivably be resurrected.

One Epstein accuser, Dani Bensky, told lawmakers earlier Thursday that women harmed by Epstein repeatedly asked to meet with Blanche “through multiple channels and he never responded.”

“We deserve to be heard directly, not dismissed and ignored,” Bensky said.

Blanche has pushed back on suggestions that the Justice Department has been dismissive of the late financier’s accusers, saying Wednesday that officials have spoken with more than 30 representatives of the women over the course of its sweeping review of the files.

Blanche has also defended the department’s staggered release of the Epstein files, a process beset by problems, including redaction errors that left exposed nude photos showing the faces of potential victims.

Blanche said during his confirmation hearing Wednesday that he takes responsibility for mistakes that were made, but noted that department lawyers were given a “herculean task” to quickly review millions of files for release. Blanche said department lawyers took pains to protect the women involved, and quickly fixed any errors that were found.

“I am sorry that in about 1% of the documents, mistakes were made,” Blanche said Wednesday. “But what I will say on top of that is we put tons of resources to rectifying those mistakes immediately, including pulling down documents within minutes of being informed that there were mistakes.”

The political firestorm over the Epstein files dogged the Trump administration for much of last year, with lawmakers eventually passing a measure that compelled the release of a massive trove of documents in the government’s possession related to its investigation.

The Justice Department began releasing the documents in late December, which included photos, call logs, grand jury testimony and interview transcripts. The release did little to tamp down skepticism from conspiracy theorists and online sleuths, who have long pushed allegations of a government cover-up, without evidence.

Richer and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

PHOENIX — Election officials in Arizona’s most populous county reached an agreement this week on how to jointly oversee the vote, ending a prolonged legal battle.

Republican Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap sued the predominantly GOP board of supervisors in June 2025, alleging it illegally took control of certain aspects of election administration. The board called the lawsuit frivolous and said Heap was wasting taxpayer money.

They reached a settlement this week to resolve the lawsuit after mediated negotiations, and the board approved it.

“This deal gets us out of the courtroom,” board Chair Kate Brophy McGee, said after Tuesday’s vote. “I’m sick of drama. We are done with being on the front page going forward.”

Heap said his objective was simple: to ensure his office’s statutory responsibilities are carried out lawfully.

“I am pleased we have reached an agreement that, when implemented, will restore those responsibilities and establish a clear framework for administering elections moving forward,” Heap said in a statement jointly released with the board.

Under the agreement, an interim plan proposed by Heap and approved by the Arizona Supreme Court will govern the July 21 primary. Early voting began in late June.

Heap will oversee much of early voting, selection of ballot drop box locations and other duties. The board will handle other areas, including Election Day voting, ballot tabulation and voting location equipment maintenance. The board also will fund a new $15 million information technology system and related positions for the recorder.

Heap was backed in the lawsuit by America First Legal, a conservative public interest group founded by Stephen Miller, a deputy chief of staff in the White House. Heap had claimed the board transferred funding, IT staff and some key functions — including management of drop boxes and establishment of early voting sites — away from his office through an agreement negotiated with his predecessor.

Heap defeated incumbent recorder Stephen Richer, in a GOP primary, and won the 2024 general election.

The two were at odds over election administration in Maricopa County. In the past, Heap has stopped short of repeating false claims that the 2020 and 2022 elections were stolen. But he has said voters don’t trust the state’s voting system and that it is poorly run. Richer, also a Republican, relentlessly defended the legitimacy of the vote.

Supervisor Steve Gallardo, a Democrat, did not vote to approve the settlement and criticized Heap during Tuesday’s board meeting.

“Honestly, I don’t think he wants to have an election that is conducted transparent or even an election that’s not compromised,” Gallardo said. “Now, with this, he owns it.”

Kelety writes for the Associated Press.

TV station ownership groups may finally get their wish to own more outlets.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr announced Wednesday that the agency will vote next month to end the rule that allows companies to own no more than two TV stations in a single market. The cap also limits the national coverage of any station owner to 39% limit of the U.S.

Carr said the agency will consider a “case by case” review on station merger and acquisition deals that would result in exceeding the current limits. The commission, which has two Republicans and one Democrat, will vote on Aug. 6.

“Previously, the cap operated as a blanket prohibition on any and all deals that would combine stations in [excess] of the 39% limit — regardless of whether it was a good deal or bad deal for the country,” Carr wrote on the right-wing website Breitbart. “Our new proposal would allow the FCC to approve deals that exceed the 39% cap, but only if doing so would promote the public interest.”

TV station owners and its lobbying group the National Assn. of Broadcasters have been clamoring for a change in the rule, citing the changes in technology that have occurred since the ownership limit. The 39% threshold was set in 2004 when streaming video was still a nascent business.

The station groups say the ability of tech companies such as Google and Netflix to reach every consumer in the U.S. puts them at a disadvantage. At the same time, streaming now accounts for more than 40% of all viewing, according to Nielsen, pulling consumers away from traditional TV. TV stations are also seeing their share of carriage fees from cable and satellite companies shrink due to cord-cutting.

The station groups also argue that declining viewership and revenue make it more challenging to support multiple local TV.news operations in a single market.

But proposed changes to the cap limits have been met with push back from consumer groups and state government officials. They have said station consolidation will result in journalist layoffs and fewer voices for the communities they serve.

Earlier this year, a group of attorneys general filed suit to block Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2-billion acquisition of Tegna, arguing it violates a 112-year-old U.S. antitrust law by knocking out a major competitor. The deal would give Irving, Texas-based Nexstar control of 265 television stations across the country, up from 164. And, in dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple TV network affiliates.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley issued a preliminary injunction in April that forbids Nexstar — which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles — and Tegna, from combining operations. Nexstar is appealing.

Carr’s proposal would largely put the FCC in charge of picking winners and losers on a case-by-case basis.

When faced with a merger proposal, Carr said the commission would consider such issues as commitment to local journalism and “viewpoint diversity.”

Carr has made his name by threatening to pull the over-the-air broadcast licenses of TV stations that irritate President Trump with their coverage and commentary.

In April, the FCC called for an early review of the licenses for Disney’s eight broadcast TV stations, a day after Trump demanded that ABC fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

Carr also questioned whether ABC’s daytime show “The View,” where negative Trump commentary is rampant, should qualify as a bona fide news program that is exempt from giving equal time to qualified candidates.

Carr’s Breitbart column also reiterated his view that large media companies such as Disney and NBCUniversal parent Comcast hold too much sway over their affiliates.

“New York and Hollywood interests have steamrolled those local TV stations and the broader media market in recent years in ways that run directly counter to the regulatory framework that Congress and the FCC put in place,” he wrote. “Their national programs naturally reflect the values of the New York and Hollywood executives that produce them. This power imbalance has contributed to a steady decline in locally produced news — and with it, a weakening of the public’s trust in the media.”

How owning more stations would give groups leverage in their dealings with networks is unclear. The networks control the rights to the NFL — the No. 1 TV ratings attraction for broadcast television by a mile. Stations pay the networks compensation for those games, which they use when negotiating the carriage fees they receive from cable and satellite companies.

Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled Senate on Thursday narrowly approved President Reagan’s request for $100 million in aid to the Nicaraguan guerrillas–the first affirmative vote by Congress in three years on an aid package for the rebels that includes military assistance.

The 53-47 vote was a significant victory for the President, who conducted a tireless lobbying drive for his request and saw it narrowly rejected only a week ago by the Democratic-controlled House. The White House hopes that the Senate vote will help stimulate a reversal in the House, where the proposal will be reconsidered in mid-April.

Not since 1983, when Congress approved covert aid as part of the fiscal 1984 defense budget, has either chamber voted for military aid to the contras, as the rebels are called. Sentiment against such assistance rose sharply in early 1984 after it was learned that the CIA had secretly mined Nicaraguan harbors.

A Reassuring Signal

En route to his mountaintop retreat near Santa Barbara at the time of the vote, the President declared that the Senate action would “send a profoundly reassuring signal to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua and to Nicaragua’s threatened neighbors.”

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, hailed Thursday’s vote as a “good victory” for the President. “This is a very important issue for him–having spent two weeks turning heaven and earth to get this result,” he said.

But Democrats insisted that the narrow margin did not constitute an endorsement of Reagan’s Central American policy. “The vote was so close you can’t call it a victory for the Administration’s policy here in a body that his party controls,” Sen. Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.) said.

Eleven Senate Democrats voted with Reagan, but he lost 11 Republicans. Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) voted with the majority; Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) voted against the measure. Among the Democrats supporting Reagan was Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, who earlier had opposed contra aid and is believed to be preparing to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988.

Senate Democrats failed in their effort to withhold military aid for a brief period while forcing Reagan to seek bilateral negotiations with the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. A Democratic alternative authored by Sasser failed by a 67-33 vote, and another proposal by Cranston calling for bilateral talks was rejected, 66 to 34.

Warnings of Another Vietnam

Advocates of bilateral talks frequently warned that Reagan’s more belligerent approach was leading the nation into another Vietnam.

“It’s time to know where we are going in Central America before we find ourselves with U.S. troops on the battlefield and body bags coming home once again,” Sasser said. “We say negotiate first. This Administration owes that to the American people. This Administration owes that to our brave young men who will be called upon to fight and die in Nicaragua unless peace is achieved.”

Although the President was forced to make a few additional concessions to gain a majority, the package approved by the Senate was not significantly different from the compromise that Reagan offered voluntarily a week ago as an executive order in his unsuccessful effort to win House approval.

The measure would provide $25 million to the contras immediately and release $15 million every 90 days thereafter with the understanding that the President would search for a diplomatic solution during that period. With the first allotment of money, the contras would be permitted to buy surface-to-air missiles to use against Nicaraguan helicopters.

No offensive weapons for the contras would be funded until July 1, and then only after the President determines that the conflict cannot be solved by diplomacy. At least $30 million of the money would be used for humanitarian purposes, $3 million of it for human rights programs.

Direct Talks Not Required

Under the Senate plan, the President is not required to seek direct bilateral talks unless the Sandinistas are willing to negotiate with the contras as well–something the Nicaraguan government has declined to do. Reagan staunchly refused to agree to talks without contras involvement, even though it would have won him broad bipartisan support for the aid package.

Despite Reagan’s opposition, Lugar insisted that the Administration’s special envoy, Philip C. Habib, eventually would go to Managua seeking talks. But Democrats noted that Reagan never kept a pledge for bilateral negotiations that he made to the Senate in a letter last year to win approval of $27 million in humanitarian aid for the contras.

The rejected Democratic alternative proposed by Sasser would have withheld all military aid for six months to encourage negotiations. The President would have been required to enter into the talks if the Nicaraguans first agreed to a cease-fire.

Republicans said that Sasser’s proposal might have gained some GOP support if he had limited the waiting period to 90 days and provided some assistance for defensive weaponry during that period. “He went too far out to the left,” a top GOP aide said.

Cranston’s amendment would have withheld the money for only 90 days but, like Sasser’s proposal, it provided nothing but humanitarian aid during that period.

Amendments Defeated

The Senate also defeated amendments from the far left and far right. The vote was 74 to 24 against a proposal by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to eliminate all aid. A proposal by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.)–what he described as a “put up or shut up” provision–which would have released all aid on May 15 if the Sandinistas refused to adhere to democratic principles by then, was defeated by a 60-39 vote.

The only amendment that succeeded was one offered by Sen. Alan J. Dixon (D-Ill.) that would prohibit American trainers and advisers inside Nicaragua. It passed by voice vote.

Although the Administration seized upon the recent incursion of Nicaraguan troops into Honduras as evidence of the need for contras aid, Lugar insisted that the fighting along Nicaragua’s northern border had no impact on the outcome in the Senate. However, the Administration hopes that House Democrats will be swayed by the incursion.

Despite the narrow vote, it was apparent that the mood of Congress had changed significantly since last year when the President had to fight almost as hard to get congressional approval of $27 million in humanitarian aid for the contras. Many Democrats who opposed all aid last year voted for the Sasser proposal this time.

As a result, it was frequently compared during floor debate to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that opened the way for U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) predicted that the amount would continue to increase in the years ahead as it has since 1981 when the Administration first provided covert aid to the contras.

‘Tinkering With $100 Million’

“I don’t believe $100 million is going to do the trick, and I don’t think anybody does,” Bumpers said. “If Nicaragua represents a serious security threat to this hemisphere, why are we tinkering with $100 million?”

Wilson insisted that it was not a Gulf of Tonkin resolution for Central America. “We are asked not to send our sons, but to send a pittance,” the California Republican said.

But Sen. David Durenberger (R-Minn.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, which has access to Administration intelligence reports from Central America, charged that Reagan had overstated the threat posed by the Sandinistas.

As it did in the House last week, Reagan’s highly partisan campaign on behalf of his contras aid request succeeded only in angering many senators, who resented White House efforts to portray their opponents as supporters of the Marxist regime in Managua.

“No one is more anti-Communist than I am,” Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) said. “I deeply resent the President’s sickening display of neo-McCarthyism in this debate.”

Announcement comes days after Peru’s electoral agency certified right-wing Fujimori as winner in razor-thin race.

Left-wing candidate Roberto Sanchez has conceded to Keiko Fujimori in Peru’s presidential race, days after the electoral authority declared her the victor in last month’s run-off.

The statement on Monday caps an election season marred by logistical issues at polling sites, long vote counts and allegations of fraud.

Sanchez and his party said they “recognised ⁠⁠that the ⁠⁠National Elections Board had officially proclaimed the ⁠⁠electoral results”. Sanchez had said in June he would not recognise a Fujimori presidency and would instead launch “a movement of popular and patriotic resistance”.

Fujimori and Sanchez had progressed to the June 7 run-off after outpacing 33 other candidates in the April general election.

In the final vote count, certified by the National Jury of Elections (JNE) last week, Fujimori defeated Sanchez by a razor-thin margin, winning about 9,223,000 votes to 9,173,000 for Sanchez.

Sanchez, a member of Peru’s Congress, had fostered support among rural and indigenous Peruvians, following closely in the footsteps of former president Pedro Castillo, who was impeached and arrested in 2022 after attempting to dissolve Congress.

He even wore the same style of wide-brimmed straw hat, common in the northern Andean region, as Castillo on the campaign trail.

Among other platforms, he called for the overhaul of Peru’s constitution to grant greater recognition and autonomy to the country’s varied ethnic groups.

He had also called for state oversight of natural resources and for increased taxes on the highest earners.

As the run-off vote count stretched on for weeks, 57-year-old Sanchez repeatedly alleged voting irregularities and fraud. Election monitors countered the claims, saying no proof had emerged.

Fujimori ran on a tough-on-crime platform, but vowed to unite the country after her win.

She was among several right-wing candidates supported by the administration of US President Donald Trump, which has taken a militaristic approach to fighting organised crime in Latin America.

The 51-year-old is the daughter of former President Alberto Fujimori, who was jailed for human rights abuses before he died in 2024.

Peru has seen years of political churn, with Fujimori set to become Peru’s ninth president in 10 years when she takes office later this month.

She begins amid a period of government transformation, with the country set to reconstitute its legislature into two bodies, the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.

The Senate was dissolved in the 1990s by Fujimori’s father, creating a unicameral system that critics charged made impeaching a president too easy and common.

Daughter of former President Alberto Fujimori says country is closer to ‘order and hope’ after prolonged vote count.

Right-wing candidate Keiko Fujimori is ahead in Peru’s presidential race as the country’s electoral authorities concluded their tally of the vote count after a contentious run-off, which her leftist rival has refused to recognise.

Fujimori said on Monday that she would continue to wait for an official announcement from Peru’s National Jury of Elections (JNE) after the ONPE electoral authority finished a review of contested ballots.

“We are getting closer and closer to embarking on a path of order and hope for all Peruvians,” Fujimori said in a social media post.

Fujimori, the daughter of the late former President Alberto Fujimori – who was jailed for human rights abuses – has pledged to “unite the country” after the final tally showed her beating leftist rival Roberto Sanchez by 50.13 percent to his 49.86 percent, with 100 percent of the votes counted.

The JNE is scheduled to officially announce a winner on July 3, following a drawn-out vote count that has lasted for weeks.

But the results of the June 7 run-off are unlikely to bring an end to Peru’s years of political crisis, which have seen nine presidents take office in just 10 years before being voted out or removed from their post.

Sanchez has refused to recognise the results of the election, which he has said was marred by irregularities and fraud. He has not provided evidence for those claims, but has called for protests to “defend the vote” and said he will file a legal challenge to appeal the official proclamation.

Such claims have become common in Peru, whose political system has become increasingly chaotic amid declining voter trust in elections and government institutions in recent years.

Many voters expressed frustration after the first round of voting in April, when logistical issues delayed voting in parts of the capital, Lima.

Election monitors have cautioned that there was no evidence of widespread fraud but acknowledged voter frustrations.

Al Jazeera’s Mariana Sanchez, reporting from Peru’s capital Lima, said Fujimori has reacted to the result, saying she was very happy that the vote count has finished and would wait with “humility and prudence” until the official declaration of her victory.

“Keiko Fujimori is aware that she has just won by only 49,000 votes. She is not very popular in the country. She has lost three election bids,” Sanchez said.

Members of Fujimori’s party have said they now hope that her opponent, Roberto Sanchez, will recognise the results, she added.