vote

When Compton Unified School Board President Micah Ali checked his mailbox last week, he was in for a shock.

The school district has been making headlines as a state and national leader in student performance gains, and it has been upgrading and replacing its aging campuses to help advance that growth. Next week’s ballot includes a $360-million bond measure called CPT, which would keep that momentum going and replace badly dated Dominguez High School.

So when Ali opened a slate mailer titled “Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ Sample Ballot and Voter Recommendations,” he couldn’t believe her advice on Measure CPT.

Vote “no.”

Given Waters’ stature as a congressional representative for 35 years, Ali said, her slate mailers can swing outcomes.

“Yes, it does carry weight,” Ali said, and the thumbs-down recommendation “can literally cripple our ability to pass this bond.”

Ali was doubly surprised because the mailers went out to voters just a few weeks after Waters attended an unveiling ceremony for the new Compton High School campus. Compton High alums and hip-hop heavyweights Kendrick Lamar and Dr. Dre joined the celebration, and the latter was honored for his $10-million donation to the new performing arts center.

Lunch tables and a temporary cafeteria are set up outdoors at Dominguez High School because of a fire three years ago.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

A second district high school, Centennial, is being replaced with a modern campus, and district officials are hoping Measure CPT passes so Dominguez students aren’t left behind, but also because the district’s other schools would get multiple upgrades and repairs, from infrastructure to classrooms to athletic fields.

I met with Ali on Wednesday afternoon at Dominguez, along with Principal Caleb Oliver. The school turned 70 this year, and it shows. The grounds are scruffy, wiring and plumbing are outdated, the gymnasium air conditioning hasn’t worked in years. To walk the campus is to step back in time — to the Eisenhower administration.

While we were talking, Oliver called out to a senior named Angelina Ramirez, referring to her as a superstar student. I asked Angelina what kind of upgrades the campus could use.

Dominguez High School Principal Caleb Oliver.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

“Well, I like to use the cafeteria as an example,” she said, pointing to where it used to be.

What happened to it?

“It burned down,” she said. An electrical problem was the suspected cause, her principal added.

That was more than three years ago, and since 2023, the cafeteria has been an outdoor plaza.

“I feel like that’s affected students a lot,” Angelina said.

The big question, of course, is why Waters’ campaign committee — Citizens for Waters — recommended a no vote.

I’d like to tell you why it is that a rapper has written a $10-million check in support of Compton’s students while a congresswoman has told them to go fly a kite. But I’ve asked by phone, text and email, and I still don’t have an answer.

After contacting Citizens for Waters, which referred me to the congresswoman, I called her office and emailed her press office, which sent me this response at 7:43 p.m. Thursday:

“Per US House Ethics rules, we are unable to respond to your request.”

I don’t know what rules those are, but the rulebook needs some rewriting if a congresswoman can’t answer a simple question about why her campaign mailer recommends a no vote on a school bond measure.

“We have no idea, and we’re baffled,” Ali said. “Who would oppose the construction of a new school in a community like Compton?”

In the working-class community, the student population is roughly 84% Latino and 14% Black.

I suggested that Ali consider having students march over to Waters’ district office and ask for an explanation.

“We’d rather have these children’s butts in seats and learning,” Ali said, adding that “we need … to continue driving up these test scores.”

Compton school board candidate Tana McCoy talks to school board President Micah Ali about the mailer.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

It’s not as if there is no reasonable opposition to Measure CPT. These kinds of bonds cost taxpayers real money over the course of many years, and CPT would add about $60 per $100,000 of assessed property to annual tax bills.

That would hit working folks and retirees with an added tax burden of between a few hundred and several hundred dollars a year. And taxpayers have been paying off two previous school improvement bond issues, one passed in 2015 and one in 2022.

In addition to the financial burden, according to district parent Anthonia Limon, who wrote the statement against CPT for the L.A. County sample ballot, safety issues have undermined community trust in district leadership.

“Infrastructure alone does not create safe schools,” Limon wrote.

If Waters has similar concerns, that would be one thing. But to my knowledge, and to Ali’s, there has been no public explanation for recommending a no vote. And when you read the fine print on the slate mailer, which advises voters to “take Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ recommendations with you to vote,” it only raises more questions.

“This document was prepared by Citizens for Waters, not an official party organization. Appearance in this mailer does not necessarily imply endorsement of others appearing in this mailer nor does it imply endorsement of, or opposition to, any issues set forth in this mailer,” it says.

Huh?

Are they endorsements or aren’t they?

The Times reported in 2004 that the rep’s daughter, Karen Waters, “has charged candidates for spots on her mother’s ‘slate mailer,’ a sample ballot that many voters in South Los Angeles use to guide their choices.” Last year, the Waters campaign paid a $68,000 fine for campaign finance law violations following a Federal Election Commission investigation that involved Citizens for Waters.

Rep. Maxine Waters’ slate mailer.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Also in the fine print on the current mailer:

“Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure which is designated by” an asterisk.

So are these endorsements or paid advertisements? There’s an asterisk on nearly every endorsement in the mailer, from city council to governor to judgeships to Measure CPT. The way I read this is that various parties paid for endorsements, but the mailer does not reveal who paid, or how much they ponied up. Such mailers, by the way, are not uncommon in California, according to election law experts.

“I think this is misleading for voters,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school. Although he thinks the endorsements are a form of protected free speech, he said this “reflects a very deep problem in our elections with dark money, when we don’t know where the money is coming from.”

On Thursday, I visited Tana McCoy, a Compton High grad and retired city employee who is running for Compton Unified school board. She showed me the slate mailer delivered to her home, but said she’s going to vote yes on CPT despite Waters’ recommendation.

“Children need to feel good about their environment, because that’s all part of their mental health,” McCoy said.

At Dominguez, where graduates have a 96% college acceptance rate, according to district officials, junior Zaiden Ross gave me a tour that included a stop at a gymnasium fountain that he said hasn’t worked in years. Some fountains are dirty, he added, “and some of the pipes on campus produce water that has, like, extremely high amounts of lead and magnesium.”

Student Zaiden Ross demonstrates a nonworking sink in a bathroom on the campus of Dominguez High School in Compton.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Zaiden took me to a classroom to show me water samples he’s still testing. Then we visited the robotics classroom, where he turned on a faucet, and the flow was closer to the color of apple juice than water. The air conditioner was rattling, and teacher G.C. Esiobu, who runs the engineering and robotics club, said there had been an “emergency” fix for a busted system. Zaiden gave me a quick rundown of dated computers and other equipment students use to design drones and robots.

And yet despite all that, a display case was filled with trophies. At competitive meets, Esiobu said, “we have been winning with little or nothing.” With equipment upgrades, she added, “just imagine the level we will go.”

There’s still time, before Tuesday’s election, for Waters to visit Dominguez High and maybe get a tour from Zaiden and Esiobu.

If she does, she might rethink that endorsement.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Samsung Electronics Co.’s unionized workers voted to approve a wage agreement that includes a substantial bonus package for chip workers, the union said Wednesday, easing concerns over potential disruptions to the global supply chain.

In the six-day vote, 73.7 percent of the 62,616 members of the tech giant’s two largest unions approved the tentative deal. The agreement was finalized after a majority of eligible voters took part in the vote and a majority voted in favor of the proposal.

Later in the day, the two sides signed the wage agreement, with management pledging to strengthen the company’s global competitiveness.

“Starting with the conclusion of this wage agreement, labor and management will work together as one to strengthen our global competitiveness,” Yeo Myeong-gu, head of the company’s Device Solutions division’s People Team, said in a press release.

The labor union and management reached the agreement just an hour before an 18-day strike was set to begin at the world’s top memory chipmaker last Thursday.

Labor and management had been deadlocked since late last year over performance-based bonuses tied to earnings from the company’s artificial intelligence (AI)-related semiconductor business amid the ongoing global memory chip boom.

Under the deal, Samsung will allocate a special semiconductor performance bonus equivalent to 10.5 percent of business performance earnings, without a cap.

The special bonuses will be paid in company stock over at least 10 years, based on targets for the chip division to achieve more than 200 trillion won (US$132 billion) in annual operating profit from 2026 to 2028 and 100 trillion won from 2029 to 2035.

Of the total bonus pool, 40 percent will be allocated to the division as a whole, while 60 percent will be distributed to individual business units.

Based on forecasts that Samsung’s operating profit could reach 300 trillion won this year, the agreement could translate into bonus payouts of up to 600 million won for each of the 28,000 employees in the company’s profitable chip division.

Following the signing, the company announced it will create a 5 trillion-won fund over the next five years to invest in future talent development and build an ecosystem supporting its suppliers and underprivileged groups.

“Over the next five years, we will raise a total of 5 trillion won to invest in win-win cooperation and building a healthy ecosystem, as well as nurturing future talent,” according to the statement attributed by company executives.

The move is widely seen as an effort to counter criticism that the company has been distributing massive profits from the semiconductor supercycle as excessive employee bonuses.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

May 22 (Asia Today) — Samsung Electronics labor unions began voting Thursday on a tentative wage agreement, but sharp divisions between the company’s semiconductor and device divisions are emerging as a major source of tension.

Choi Seung-ho, chairman of the Samsung Electronics branch of the Korean Metal Workers’ Union-affiliated Samsung Group labor organization, said he would hand over 2026 negotiations to the remaining union leadership and seek a confidence vote if the agreement is rejected.

“The union must follow the will of its members,” Choi said. “I will not change my direction.”

Samsung Electronics unions began voting on the tentative agreement at 2:12 p.m. Thursday. The vote will continue through Tuesday.

Attention is focused on whether growing conflict between the semiconductor-focused Device Solutions division and the Device Experience division, which oversees consumer electronics and mobile businesses, could affect the outcome.

Under the tentative agreement, employees in the semiconductor division are expected to receive large performance bonuses. Workers in the nonmemory semiconductor business could receive about 200 million won ($146,000), while memory semiconductor employees could receive up to 600 million won ($437,000).

By contrast, DX division employees are expected to receive company stock worth about 6 million won ($4,400). Additional performance bonuses also appear uncertain due to weaker business results this year.

Labor groups with many DX employees, including the Donghaeng union and the Suwon branch of the National Samsung Electronics Union, strongly criticized the agreement as rushed and overly centered on memory chip workers.

The Donghaeng union also claimed its members were excluded from the vote, raising concerns about voting rights.

The umbrella union organization said voting rights apply only to union members listed as of 2 p.m. Wednesday within labor groups participating in the joint bargaining body.

Donghaeng union officials, however, said the umbrella union had previously told member unions by email that all voting rights would be respected before later reversing its position.

The Donghaeng union reportedly grew from about 2,600 members to 12,000 members, most believed to be from the DX division.

Some DX employees argue the semiconductor division’s current profits were made possible in part because DX business performance supported companywide investment during weaker periods for semiconductors.

Complaints have also continued during negotiations that discussions were centered on the semiconductor division rather than the DX business. Some workers have even filed a court injunction seeking to invalidate the bargaining process.

For the agreement to pass, more than half of eligible union members must participate and a majority of votes cast must support the deal.

Samsung Electronics employs about 77,300 workers in the semiconductor division and about 51,700 in the DX division. The umbrella union has about 57,290 members, while the National Samsung Electronics Union has about 8,176 members.

If the agreement is rejected, negotiations would resume and the possibility of a strike could increase.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260522010006743

May 21 (UPI) — House Republicans abruptly pulled legislation to curb President Donald Trump‘s ability to continue the war with Iran on Thursday amid Democratic accusations that GOP leaders shelved the measure over fears it would pass.

House Concurrent Resolution 86 was listed on House Majority Leader Steve Scalise‘s schedule for possible consideration on Thursday but no vote was held before the House left Washington.

The resolution was delayed until after the lower chamber returns from recess on June 2, leaving Democrats fuming.

“Are we not voting on it because the American people are sick and tired of this illegal war that is costing tens of billions of dollars, gas prices are through the roof, people can’t afford their groceries? Is that why you’re pulling it?” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., asked on the House floor as cheers and boos erupted behind him.

“You guys don’t have the guts … to vote on this.”

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., directs Trump to remove U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran unless authorized by Congress.

Democrats put the measure forward amid a larger congressional push aimed at reining in Trump’s ability to go to war in the Middle East. Democrats in the Senate on Tuesday advanced similar legislation in the eighth vote they have forced on the matter since the war began Feb. 28.

While Democrats have said the war is illegal without congressional authorization, Trump and his Republican Party argue the effort is moot, claiming the war ended with a fragile cease-fire announced last month.

The Senate measure advanced with support from a handful of Republicans who have split from their party on the issue as the war has continued. In the House, where the GOP also holds a narrow majority, defections were anticipated. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky has supported previous similar measures.

“Let’s be clear: Republicans pulled this vote because they knew they were going to lose it,” Meeks, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement after the House recessed.

“They know this war is a political and strategic disaster. They know that as Americans head into Memorial Day weekend paying over [$]4.50 a gallon at the pump, they cannot go home and explain they voted to keep this war going. So, instead of casting that vote, they ran from it.”

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., accused House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and House Republicans of abdicating their responsibility by postponing the vote.

“This is a new low,” he said in a social media post.

“This is a disservice to the American people and the troops being put in harm’s way.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., lambasted Trump for starting the war without articulating its objectives and exit strategy and without garnering public support or congressional approval for it.

“Even as we prepare to recognize our nation’s fallen heroes on Memorial Day, House Republicans refuse to show up and be accountable to the brave service members that have been recklessly put in harm’s way,” he said in a statement.

“The American people will remember in November.”

“Survivor 50” castaway Joe Hunter has made it to the final tribal council of the grueling competition show twice, but walked away with slim to none when it came to jury votes.

On Wednesday night, four-time “Survivor” player Aubry Bracco was crowned sole survivor and won the not $1-million but $2-million prize (thanks to a twist that involved a coin toss and MrBeast), and Jonathan Young came in second. Hunter, a firefighter and fan favorite, lost on an 8-3-0 vote.

According to Hunter, jury members had made up their minds before the remaining three castaways even had a shot to sweeten their chances at the final tribal council.

“I sit down in that chair for final Tribal, right? I’m thinking alright, here we go,” Hunter told “Entertainment Weekly.” “Right away, the second before any word was said, I went, ‘Oh, that one hates me, this one hates me, hate me, hate me, hate me.’ And I thought, ‘There’s zero chance.’”

Hunter was somewhat optimistic leading up to the tribal council and said that he thought some of the jury members had come with an open mind. “I’ll give credit to Emily, Rick Devens, Christian, Dee,” he said.

“I just felt it was very transparent based on the questions and responses that, before this thing started, I think it was a wrap.”

During the series finale, “Survivor” legend Cirie Fields put Hunter on blast, saying that castaways felt like they had to babysit him and jokingly calling it the “Joetation” when it was a player’s turn to sway Hunter to vote alongside them.

Hunter chalked up the babysitting remark to his own naivete when it came to being vulnerable with other players he thought were his friends on the island. “I just put that vulnerability in the wrong hands,” he told the outlet. “That’s really what it is. And that’s part of the game.”

Hunter also spoke with “Entertainment Tonight” and admitted that yes, he’d blocked a select few “Survivor” players on social media. “So, 751 players,” Hunter said, “yeah, there’s two.

“I’ll tell you this, each one of them is not random,” he said. “Actually, there’s three. It is not random. … All of which I would love to talk to and solve it, and have tried.”

Last week, former “Survivor” players Kelley Wentworth, who’s been a castaway three times, Savannah Louie, who won Season 49 and was on the same tribe as Hunter in Season 50, and Tiffany Ervin, who competed on Seasons 46 and 50, all said they’d been blocked by Hunter.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s grip on his party slipped on Thursday as anger boiled over among Senate Republicans about a growing list of issues.

In a striking display of defiance, GOP senators abruptly derailed plans to vote on legislation to fund Trump’s immigration crackdown amid deep disagreements over security funding for a White House ballroom and a $1.8-billion fund to pay people who claim to have been politically persecuted.

The discontent had been building for weeks. Many senators had grown frustrated over Trump’s decision to endorse candidates running against longtime Republican incumbents.

Others, worried about rising costs as a result from the war in Iran, had aired concerns ahead of the midterm elections. But the breaking point came when the Justice Department, with little warning, pushed to create what it termed the “anti-weaponization fund.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) acknowledged the concerns over the fund Thursday after a reportedly contentious private meeting about it between Senate Republicans and acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. He also conceded midterm politics had added to the tension.

“It’s hard to divorce anything that happens here from what’s happening in the political atmosphere around us,” Thune told reporters. “You can’t disconnect those things.”

A day earlier, Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who lost his primary race on Saturday to a Trump-backed challenger, expressed strong disagreement with the creation of the fund, which would be controlled by appointees without congressional oversight.

“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the president and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability,” Cassidy wrote on X. “If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also had harsh criticism for the fund.

“So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick,” he said in a statement.

The discord was striking, partly because Republicans have largely steered clear of checking the president’s power, and Congress has been largely sidelined under the second Trump administration on the war in Iran and other issues.

“I don’t think the Republicans had any choice but to pull the plug until we come back in June, because they’re facing a bit of a mutiny within their conference,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Times, saying he had heard that the meeting between Blanche and Republicans “didn’t go well.”

As tension simmered on the background, Trump seemed unbothered by the group of Republicans’ public rebellion against his agenda. When asked whether he was losing control of the Senate, he said he didn’t know.

“I only do what is right,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.

However, he expressed annoyance at lawmakers who would not support $1 billion in federal funding for security costs related to the ballroom project. He said the structure is being privately funded by him and other “great patriots.”

“We are making a gift to the United States,” Trump said. “This is being made as a gift from me and other people that are great patriots and spent a lot of money. We are building what will be the finest ballroom anywhere in the world.”

The $1 billion for security funding would be “very much a good expenditure,” he said. If Congress does not sign off on the money, Trump said the “White House won’t be a very secure place.”

Trump did not immediately comment on Thursday about the Senate’s delaying of the funding bill. The White House declined to comment on the matter.

Trump’s second-term actions have frequently tested the loyalty of Republican lawmakers, who have largely stayed in line. The settlement fund, with its ethical questions, appears to have crossed a line for some senators in a party that has traditionally opposed wasting taxpayer funds.

The money comes from the judgment fund, which is a Congress-approved ongoing appropriation that allows the Justice Department to settle cases and make payments.

Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump, told reporters at the White House that the $1.8-billion settlement was “just a small measure of the justice” that many people are owed after being targeted by the federal government. Miller declined to say whether the White House was reaching out to senators to ease concerns about the fund.

Republicans in Congress decried the use of similar third-party settlements during the Obama administration, with House lawmakers repeatedly passing a bill aimed at stopping settlement slush funds, noted Molly Nixon, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Though the Trump administration’s plan is novel because the settlement money isn’t going to a third party, the general concept has been offensive to Republicans in the past; the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee termed it an abuse in 2017.

“If you’re taking a consistent view, you’d be at least equally as opposed to this settlement,” Nixon said of Republican lawmakers.

That could be driving some of the opposition now, along with concerns about who is going to get the money and whether it could be distributed to people who wouldn’t have been able to make a successful case before a court of law, Nixon said.

“The fund is going to plaintiffs who were victims of lawfare or weaponization. … Those are pretty ambiguous terms. They’re sort of in the eye of the beholder,” Nixon said. “It’s pretty easy to see how this could very easily become a quiet political claims process.”

Police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot have already filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the creation of the fund, arguing in part that it would compensate extremist convicted of committing violent crimes.

“The fund’s mere existence sends a clear and chilling message: those who enact violence in President Trump’s name will not just avoid punishment, they will be rewarded with riches,” the lawsuit says.

When Trump returned to office in January 2025, one of his first acts was pardoning or commuting the prison sentences of the 1,500 people who were charged in connection with the attack. Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday did not rule out that settlement money could go to those rioters, saying the money would be given out on a “case-by-case basis.”

Thune told reporters on Thursday that the Justice Department would have to come up with some guardrails to ease concerns among senators.

“We need to get some clarity,” he said.

Though the number of Republicans angry with Trump is significant enough to make or break legislation, the caucus appeared far from falling apart.

Senate Republicans blocked an attempt by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) on Thursday to pass a bill to prohibit federal funds from reaching Jan. 6 rioters, an attempt to prevent the fund from being used to compensate them.

“I’m encouraged hearing some of my Republican colleagues agreeing with me,” Padilla said on the Senate floor. “Let’s stand up for congressional oversight as a unified Senate.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) objected to Padilla’s bill, later writing on X: “PROUD to object today to Senator Padilla’s RIDICULOUS bill and stand up for ALL FREEDOM-LOVING AMERICANS.”

Schiff, who is working on an amendment that would target the fund, said other Republican colleagues he spoke to Wednesday evening were unhappy with the position Trump has put them in. He said Trump’s actions have helped underscore Democrats’ arguments against his party.

“All [it’s] doing is helping us make the case that the Republicans couldn’t care less about people’s cost of living … that there’s plenty of money for golden ballrooms for the president, there’s plenty of money for the president’s cronies, but there’s no money for the average family,” Schiff said.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans appeared increasingly unlikely to meet their self-imposed deadline for passing a roughly $70-billion immigration enforcement bill this week as disputes over security funding for the White House and the Trump administration’s $1.8-trillion settlement fund effectively derailed progress.

Republicans were already expected to abandon $1 billion in security money for the White House complex and President Trump’s ballroom amid backlash from members of their own party. But then questions about the settlement fund added to some of the senator’s concerns. They are questioning who would get the money.

Republican senators met with acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on Thursday as they worked to finalize the bill’s text and whether to put parameters on the settlement, which was designed to compensate Trump’s allies who believe they have been politically persecuted. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that senators had questions and wanted to know “how we might make sure that it’s fenced in appropriately.”

But senators who emerged from the meeting were tight-lipped and indicated that lawmakers would not hold a vote on the package before leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break, risking failure to meet Trump’s June 1 deadline.

Asked about a vote this week, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) responded, “I don’t even know.” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) was more blunt: “We’re going home,” he said.

The last-minute scramble comes as Democrats have criticized Republicans for trying to fund Trump’s ballroom when voters are concerned about basic affordability issues — and as some GOP lawmakers have grown increasingly frustrated with Trump. Several GOP senators have spoken out against the settlement, which was announced this week, and many were upset by the president’s endorsement Tuesday of Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton in the party primary runoff next week against Sen. John Cornyn.

Asked Thursday at the White House if he was losing control of the Senate, Trump replied: “I don’t know, I really don’t know. I can tell you — I only do what’s right.”

Possible parameters on Trump’s settlement fund

The “anti-weaponization” fund, part of a settlement that resolves Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns, unexpectedly became one of the main complications in the bill. Democrats said they would force votes to block it or place restrictions on it.

Democrats have an opening because Republicans are trying to pass the immigration enforcement bill through a complicated budget process that requires a long series of amendment votes. Democrats are considering multiple amendments, potentially to block that new fund outright or to ban any payments to Trump supporters who harmed law enforcement officers in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Presenting a united front, Democrats from both the House and Senate rallied on the Capitol steps Thursday to show their opposition. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the amendment process “will give Republicans countless chances to do the right thing.”

He added that if they declined to make changes, it would show voters that “Ballroom Republicans are not working for you, they are busy fighting for Trump.”

Those amendments, along with others, could pass as a growing number of Republicans have voiced reservations about the fund. So Republicans are now discussing their own last-minute additions to head that off, potentially placing some parameters on the settlement and who could receive compensation, according to two people with knowledge of the private discussions who requested anonymity to discuss them.

It was unclear how any Senate changes would be received in the House. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Wednesday that the House will pass the bill “whatever form it takes.”

Tensions rise between Senate and White House

As Republicans challenged the settlement and parts of his agenda, Trump unloaded on the Senate in a social media post on Wednesday.

He urged Republicans to fire the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, who said over the weekend that parts of the $1-billion security proposal cannot remain in the ICE and Border Patrol bill. Trump also renewed his long-standing calls for the Senate to pass the SAVE Act, a Republican bill that would require all voters to prove U.S. citizenship, and to end the Senate filibuster.

Republicans need to “get smart and tough,” Trump said, or “you’ll all be looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible!”

While they have been loyal to Trump on most issues, Senate Republicans have resisted his repeated calls — even in his first term — to kill the filibuster, which triggers a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

Hanging over the growing GOP rift is Trump’s surprise endorsement of Paxton. That intervention has Republican senators privately fuming that it could cost them their majority in November as they view the incumbent, Cornyn, as the better candidate in the November general election.

Secret Service request falters

Under the Secret Service’s request, about $220 million would fund security improvements related to the ballroom. The rest would go for a new screening center for visitors, training and other security measures.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said the effort to add the security package to the bill was a “bad idea.” The bill should not have included the other security improvements, he said, “because it’s just giving everybody the ‘billion-dollar ballroom.’”

Several other Republicans in the House and Senate have questioned the request, and senators left a briefing with the director of the Secret Service last week saying they needed a lot more information.

People “can’t afford groceries and gasoline and healthcare, and we’re going to do a billion dollars for a ballroom?” asked Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who lost reelection in his GOP primary on Saturday after Trump endorsed one of his opponents.

Left in the bill is the money for ICE and Border Patrol, which Democrats have blocked for months in protest of the administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown.

Democrats demanded changes for the agencies, but negotiations with the White House yielded little progress. So Republicans are using the complicated budget maneuver called reconciliation — the same process that allowed them to pass Trump’s tax and spending cuts bill last year — to fund the agencies through the end of Trump’s term with a simple majority and no Democratic votes.

Still, passage requires sign-off from the parliamentarian and unity from Republicans.

Jalonick, Freking and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writers Collin Binkley, Lisa Mascaro and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

As plenty of Californians remain undecided about the gubernatorial primary’s unsettled Democratic field, some are waiting to cast their ballots, creating the potential for a slower vote count or a longer wait to find out the winners.

Though the landscape could change quickly if Democrats coalesce around a single candidate within the next several days — signs of which were emerging this week — for now, many Democratic-leaning voters appear to be waiting for new developments before making their final decisions, political analysts say.

“This has been a roller coaster of a race, and I think voters are waiting to see when the ride is going to end and cast a vote at that time,” said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic strategist.

A larger-than-usual number of people casting mail ballots on or close to election day could extend the ballot-counting process, said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation. County election officials said they were prepared for that possibility. Early returns so far haven’t made it clear whether most voters will wait longer than usual to cast ballots.

Mike Sanchez, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles County registrar, said the county was “fully prepared” for the possibility of receiving “a significant number” of ballots returned close to or on election day, June 2.

“It is not uncommon in primary elections, particularly those with a large number of contests and candidates, for some voters to take additional time to review their ballots and hold onto them longer before returning them,” he said.

Californians who want to vote on or close to election day can vote in person or use a mail-ballot return option that doesn’t rely on the U.S. Postal Service to help speed the process and avoid the risk of a mail ballot arriving late, election officials said.

Hesitation by Democratic-leaning voters reflects the toll of a historically uncertain primary race for governor. The contest has been marked by the unusual lack of a clear Democratic front-runner and the party’s failure to line up behind a single candidate after former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out in April.

Early concerns within the party that a split Democratic electorate could put two Republicans on the November ballot under the state’s top-two primary system also heightened the sense of stakes among left-leaning voters.

Those factors, combined with a large slate of candidates, voter confusion about how candidates’ platforms differ and a desire to choose the person “most likely to win” have made Democratic-leaning voters uncertain, said Christian Grose, director of the USC Democracy and Fair Elections Lab.

“There’s a little bit of, whoever’s in the lead some Democrats are choosing to vote for … but people don’t know who that person is,” Grose said, noting that “some of that [could start] to go away” as the race tightens.

An indication that Democrats are starting to consolidate around Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, came Tuesday in a new survey released by the California Democratic Party. It showed Becerra with support from 21% of respondents, followed by billionaire Tom Steyer with 15%.

Republican-leaning voters appear to favor Steve Hilton, who had support from 22% of survey respondents. Republican Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff, had 10%. Under California’s primary system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of party.

Tallies from a handful of counties showed varying early turnout so far.

In San Francisco, a relatively small number of ballots have been returned, indicating that voters may be waiting, Michelle Parker, president of the city’s elections commission, said Tuesday. If people vote by mail close to election day — rather than voting in person or using a drop box — it could affect the speed of vote-counting, a possibility the city’s election staff is prepared for, she said.

“We’ll see how quickly they come in, but knowing what the news has been like and watching what the dynamic has been like across the state, I’m not surprised people are waiting,” Parker said, referring to the governor’s race.

In San Bernardino County, 5.6% of mail ballots had been returned as of Tuesday, a rate comparable with previous elections, Registrar of Voters Joani Finwall said. Election officials “strongly encourage” voters to cast ballots early using drop boxes or early voting locations, Finwall said.

In Orange County, by contrast, data so far indicate that voters are not waiting, the Registrar of Voters office said. More than 129,000 vote-by-mail ballots had been returned by the end of the day Monday, more than had been returned by the same time in the 2024 and 2022 primaries. Of those, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats had voted.

If a large number of voters were to wait until June 2 to cast a mail ballot, the county would be able to efficiently process them, said Registrar of Voters Bob Page, noting that 90% of the county’s early vote-by-mail ballots were included in election night results in the 2024 presidential primary.

Voters should be prepared for the possibility that the gubernatorial results aren’t determined on election night, Grose said. One candidate could appear to be in the lead on election night and another could overtake them once all ballots are counted.

State election officials warned this month that some social media posts urging Democrats to vote “late” could be misinformation. Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office said it would look into such posts, one of which falsely attributed the message to historian Heather Cox Richardson.

Mail ballots must be postmarked on or before election day and arrive within seven days after the election; otherwise, they are considered late and not counted.

Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, acknowledged chatter around people holding onto their ballots but said the survey released Tuesday indicated voters are “beginning to move towards specific candidates.”

Even as Becerra and, to a lesser extent, Steyer rose in popularity, other Democrats saw support in the single digits in the poll, including former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, San José Mayor Matt Mahan and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

“This race isn’t over; we’ve certainly seen a lot of twists and turns to this point, but you do see some clear consolidation taking place for both Democrats and Republicans,” Hicks said on a call with reporters. “I’m not concerned about California Democrats having their voices heard.”

Still, the race’s surprises have taken a toll on voters, Grose said: Swalwell’s exit under a cloud of sexual assault allegations, along with a guilty plea to federal corruption charges by Becerra’s former longtime advisor, two videos that raised questions about the temperament of Porter and a lack of disclosure by influencers being paid to promote Steyer.

“There is some uncertainty among Democrats about, ‘Is there one more shoe to drop for someone?” Grose said. “That’s one reason people are holding onto their ballots.”

Voters who want to cast ballots later than May 26 should return their mail ballots at a voting site, county election office or drop box, rather than via the Postal Service, by 8 p.m. on June 2 or should vote in person, recommended Alexander, of the California Voter Foundation.

Because mail ballots require election officials to conduct signature verification, they take longer to count than in-person ballots. In addition, recent changes at the U.S. Postal Service have slowed mail service, creating a higher potential for mailed ballots to arrive late.

Alexander also urged voters to take advantage of Saturday in-person voting, available at county election offices statewide the weekend before election day, and other early voting options.

“I am very sympathetic with voters who want to take their time to make their decision in this very fluid election,” she said. “The important thing is to have a plan.”

California is facing a major vote in the days ahead — and no, it’s not who will be the next governor.

Regulators at the California Air Resources Board are set to decide on May 28 whether to approve the latest blueprint for limits on greenhouse gas emissions from major polluters through 2045, a program known as cap-and-invest. The update to the state’s signature climate program has Sacramento in a tizzy and seemingly no one is pleased with the proposal on the table.

California is one of a handful of states, and the first, to have an an enforceable annual limit on the emissions that change the climate.

After a January draft was criticized by both industry and lawmakers over concerns that capping emissions too much and too quickly would drive up already soaring energy costs, CARB went back to the drawing board and came up with the latest iteration, unveiled in April. But opponents now say the plan kowtows to oil and gas interests who are lobbying hard for concessions, citing an already unstable state and international energy market.

The program works by setting a limit on the greenhouse gases that industries can emit in California. Companies must obtain credits, or allowances, for every ton they release, with the total number of allowances declining over time, consistent with what scientists say actually addresses climate change. The auctions for unused allowances generate billions of dollars in revenue for the state each year that fund clean energy, clean water and other key climate programs.

This year’s original draft sought to remove 118 million allowances from the market by 2030, which it identified as the minimum that must be retired to meet the state’s ambitious climate goals. But the April revision upends that, instead creating a new pool of 118 million “compliance instruments” — defined as allowances or offset credits — above the cap that companies can earn if they invest in decarbonization projects.

Critics argue this first-of-its-kind mechanism, called the Manufacturing Decarbonization Incentive, effectively dismantles the program.

“The whole goal of the cap is to lower emissions over time,” said Mary Creasman, chief executive of the nonprofit California Environmental Voters. “To then allow pollution above the cap is kind of blowing up the program.”

CARB maintains that this change still cuts the emissions coming from California, because the new instruments enter the market only “if they’re applied for, are approved, and deliver verified greenhouse gas emissions reductions.” And the proposal still results in an 11% cap decline year over year through 2030, and 7% from 2031 to 2045, said spokeswoman Lindsay Buckley.

The move would also significantly reduce cap-and-invest’s revenue, according to an analysis from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. It found that the new plan would result in a loss of $2 billion, or roughly 50% less money per year for the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, than it has received through the program in recent years.

Many of the lawmakers who voted to reauthorize the program last year are also concerned. Nearly 30 Democrats signed a recent letter urging the air board to “push back on pressure from an oil industry that is making hundreds of billions in wartime profits.”

The fossil fuel industry has indeed lobbied heavily against requirements that it pollute less, spending a record $10.3 million in the first quarter of this year to influence state policy around cap-and-invest and other climate and energy issues, state records show. Among them are the Western States Petroleum Assn., Chevron and Phillips 66, which have argued that lowering the pollution cap will drive up gasoline prices and push more refineries out of the state.

But even they are not thrilled with the latest iteration of the cap-and-invest plan.

“We need to continue to be competitive with other refineries throughout the world, and while there are some very short-term changes within the [revised package], it still doesn’t have the long-term certainty that will drive investment,” said Jodie Muller, WSPA’s chief executive. Muller said she’d like to see the new decarbonization incentive program extended beyond 2030 and eligibility expanded to include additional activities, such as refinery maintenance programs.

“It’s important that we get this right,” she said.

More California climate news

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently unveiled his revised $350-billion budget proposal, which came with an unexpected $16.8-billion increase in tax revenue largely attributed to the success of artificial intelligence companies. Among the plan’s big wins and losses are boosted funding for public schools and higher health premiums for undocumented immigrants.

On the environment, the plan broadly maintains funding and policy support for climate commitments, such as a $200-million incentive program for passenger electric vehicles designed to make up for federal tax credits canceled by the Trump administration. It also includes a new $100-million disaster rebuilding fund to help wildfire survivors rebuild their homes.

But the plan does not include major new spending on the environment, in part due to the ongoing restructuring of cap-and-invest, the state’s main climate funding source. Some environmental groups said the revised budget doesn’t do enough to support California’s clean energy transition or hold oil and gas companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis.

Katelyn Roedner Sutter of the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund urged lawmakers to prioritize proven climate investments in the final budget agreement, such as virtual power plants and incentives for zero-emission delivery trucks. “The actions we take over the next decade are vital to preventing the worst possible scenarios for our kids’ future,” she said.

A few more things

Speaking of the governor’s race, California Resources Corp., one of the state’s top oil producers, just made a hefty $500,000 contribution to an independent campaign committee supporting leading Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, Politico reported. Becerra has already been criticized for accepting a $39,200 donation from Chevron, while opponents Tom Steyer and Katie Porter have both pledged not to accept contributions from fossil fuel companies.

Fervo Energy, a Houston-based geothermal developer with a major Google project in Utah, raised $1.89 billion in an initial public offering this month. The company’s $7.7-billion valuation signals growing investor appetite for energy companies amid soaring demand for electricity fueled by the growth of AI, the Wall Street Journal said. Geothermal technology taps into pockets of steam and hot water rising from the center of the earth, which is then used to spin turbines to generate power.

Los Angeles is gearing up for its role as a host city of the 2026 World Cup, which will be held in 16 stadiums across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico beginning in mid-June. But experts told my colleague Blanca Begert that the tournament’s expansion will make it “the most emissions-intensive World Cup that we’ve ever seen,” in part because fans and players will have to traverse the three countries to watch the games. Jet exhaust is a major contributor to climate change, representing 3% to 4% of all warming. It is the second of our stories examining the environmental implications of the coming World Cup.

The Sports Report Hall of Fame, NFL edition

Those of you who read the Dodgers Dugout newsletter know that for the last few years, we have done a Dodgers Dugout Hall of Fame, asking readers to vote for former Dodgers who they believe should be in this more fan-oriented Hall of Fame. Clayton Kershaw was the most recent inductee, bringing the total to 17 Hall of Famers.

Which got me thinking (always a dangerous thing), what if we had a Sports Report Hall of Fame, as selected by the readers?

The way it works: Each Thursday over the next few weeks, you will see a list of candidates. A different category each week.

This week, the category is L.A. Rams/Chargers/Raiders. You can vote for up to eight players. You don’t have to vote for eight, you can vote for any number up to and including eight. Your vote should depend on what the person did on and off the field only as a member of the L.A. Rams, Chargers or Raiders. The rest of his career doesn’t count. And remember this is a Los Angeles-based Hall of Fame, so there might be some people considerably worthy of being in the Sports Report Hall of Fame who fall short of the actual Hall of Fame for their sport.

Whoever is named on at least 75% of the ballots will be elected. The five people receiving the fewest votes will be dropped from future ballots for at least the next two years. A person must be retired to appear on the ballot. And since this is L.A. based, people who spent the majority of their career with the St. Louis Rams or San Diego Chargers or Oakland/Vegas Raiders aren’t eligible. Sorry, Kurt Warner.

How do you vote? For this week’s ballot, click here. Results will be announced soon after balloting in all caregories has concluded.

I’m sure there’s a person or two you think should have been on the ballot. Send that player’s name to me and they might be included in next year’s ballot.

So, without further ado, here is the ballot of the Rams/Chargers/Raiders category

Marcus Allen—We are only counting his time with the Raiders here. He will also appear on the USC ballot. A key member of the L.A. Raiders Super Bowl team and a great running back.

Al Davis—Former owner of the Raiders.

Eric Dickerson—Greatest running back in Rams history. Set the season rushing yards record.

Aaron Donald—One of the greatest defensive players in history, leading L.A. Rams to only Super Bowl win. Retired in his prime.

Tom Fears—Split end for the Rams from 1948-1956. First Mexican-born player to be selected in the NFL draft. Integral part of the Rams’ first NFL championship since moving to L.A. Once had the season receptions record for the NFL.

Tom Flores—Coached the L.A. Raiders to their only Super Bowl title. Was 56-32 with the L.A. Raiders.

Georgia Frontiere—One of the only female majority owners in NFL history. Moved the Rams to St. Louis.

Mike Haynes—One of the greatest cornerbacks of all time, starred in the L.A. Raiders’ Super Bowl victory with one interception, two pass breakups and one tackle.

Elroy “Crazylegs” Hirsch—Great receiver, set the then-NFL record with 1,495 receiving yards in 1951, when the Rams won the NFL title. Later was Rams GM and drafted Roman Gabriel, Deacon Jones and Merlin Olsen.

Deacon Jones—Greatest defensive player in NFL history? Finished with an unofficial 173.5 sacks which would still be third all-time.

Chuck Knox—Coached the Rams to five straight NFC West titles, but could never reach the Super Bowl. Resigned after the fifth straight division title season. Came back to coach again from 1992-94 but wasn’t as successful.

Howie Long—Was with the team during their entire tenure in L.A. Defensive end was a key member of L.A. Raiders’ Super Bowl title team.

Merlin Olsen—Don’t let his acting career as Jonathan Garvey and Father Murphy fool you, Olsen was a valued member of the “Fearsome Foursome.” Olsen played for the Rams from 1962 to 1976. He missed only two games in his 15-season career, was named the NFL’s Rookie of the Year in 1962 and was first-team All-Pro in 1964, and 1966 through 1970.

Jim Plunkett—In 1983, Plunkett went from backup to starting quarterback and led the Raiders to a Super Bowl victory. He and Eli Manning are the only eligible quarterbacks with two Super Bowl wins as a starter not to be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Carroll Rosenbloom—Longtime Rams owner. Team won seven straight NFL West titles while he was owner. Moved the team from L.A. to Anaheim, though the move didn’t happen until after his death in 1979.

Jackie Slater—Played his entire 20-season career with the Rams, 19 of those seasons in L.A. He was considered one of the most consistent members of the best offensive line in the NFL and was recognized for his “work ethic and leadership skills” when he was inducted to the Hall of Fame. Named offensive lineman of the year four times.

Norm Van Brocklin—Platooned at quarterback with Bob Waterfield in the early 1950s. The 1950 Rams averaged 38.8 per game, which is still a record. Van Brocklin and Waterfield finished 1–2 in passer rating as well. They were co-quarterback on the 1951 NFL title team as well. In the opening game of the 1951 season, Waterfield was injured, and Van Brocklin passed for an NFL record 554 yards, which is still the NFL record, 75 years later.

Bob Waterfield—You can read Van Brocklin’s note and apply it to Waterfield as well. Except, Waterfield also played defense and had 20 interceptions with the Rams. He also was a kicker, with 315 extra points and 60 field goals and averaged 42.4 yards as a punter. Other than that, he didn’t do much.

Jack Youngblood—Played in the Super Bowl with a broken leg. Holds Rams records for: most consecutive games played (201); most career sacks in the playoffs (8 1/2); most playoff starts (17); most career safeties (two); second in career sacks (151 1/2); second in most career blocked kicks (eight).

To vote, click here. You can vote for up to eight. Those named on at least 75% of ballots are elected.

I have reopened balloting for the other two categories we have presented so far.

To vote in the baseball ballot, click here.

To vote in the basketball ballot, click here.

Until next time…

That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at houston.mitchell@latimes.com. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.

SUSPICIOUS Katy Price fans claim to have spotted her missing hubby “active” on social media, despite him being AWOL for nearly a week.

Lee Andrews lost contact with his distraught wife last week, after sending her a late night text claiming he’d been arrested and taken to a hostile “black site”.

But minutes later, he backtracked, alleging he’d in fact been “kidnapped”, bundled into the back of a van and taken to an ominous detention facility.

Katie shared the couple’s bewildering WhatsApp exchange with The Sun in a frantic bid to track down the Dubai-based businessman.

The Criminal Investigation Department confirmed that no one by Lee’s name had been detained.

The sketchy self-proclaimed millionaire is reportedly banned from leaving the country, after serving time at Dubai’s Al-Awir Prison for alleged financial fraud last October. 

Read more Showbiz

TRUTH ABOUT LEE

Katie Price’s conman hubby EXPOSED as Sun’s Clemmie catches him red-handed

‘I’M IN A VAN!’

Katie Price reveals final texts sent by conman hubby as he was ‘arrested’

With fans already suspicious of Lee’s whereabouts and a dodgy track record, what should the star believe?

Have your say in our exclusive poll.

Love to debate? Join Sun Club for just £1.99 a month for the boldest opinion on the issues shaping Britain.

May 20 (UPI) — In its eighth war powers resolution vote since the United States went to war with Iran, the U.S. Senate has advanced legislation seeking to curb President Donald Trump‘s ability to engage in conflict with Tehran.

Senate Democrats have repeatedly used War Power Resolution privileges to force votes on ending Trump’s use of military force in the Middle Eastern country without congressional approval and have vowed to continue to do so for as long as necessary.

In its eighth vote on the resolution Tuesday, Democrats were able to court enough Republican votes to advanced the measure in a 50-47 result, with three lawmakers not voting.

The Democratic victory is largely procedural, as it discharges the resolution from committee for floor consideration, limited debate and a final vote on whether to send it to the House for consideration.

The Democrats have slowly cobbled together a handful of Republican votes as the war and its effects on the economy drag on.

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana cast the deciding vote to push the legislation over the threshold on Tuesday, days after thee 15-year-veteran lost the Republican primary to Rep. Julia Letlow, whom Trump endorsed in turning against Cassidy for voting to convict him during his second impeachment trial in 2021.

“While I support the administration’s efforts to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, the White House and Pentagon have left Congress in the dark on Operation Epic Fury,” he said in a social media statement, referring to the Defense Department name for its military operation against Iran.

“In Louisiana, I’ve heard from people, including President Trump’s supporters, who are concerned about this war. Until the administration provides clarity, no congressional authorization or extension can be justified.”

Since the war began on Feb. 28 with the joint U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran, Democrats have been accusing the Trump administration of waging an unlawful war, stating the Constitution mandates that only Congress can authorize such military force.

The president is required to end the use of U.S. forces after 60 days unless Congress authorizes the action or extends the deadline, which was May 1.

Trump argues the resolution effort is moot, stating the conflict is over, and pointing to the fragile cease-fire announced in April.

The cease-fire “gives you additional time,” he told reporters earlier this month, describing the Democrats behind the legislative effort as “not patriotic people.”

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the sponsor of Tuesday’s bill, said he was grateful that “enough of my colleagues stood up for the Constitution and listened to their constituents.”

“President Trump’s deeply unpopular war of choice in Iran has imposed a tremendous cost on the American people — including deaths and injuries of our service members and soaring gas prices,” he said in a statement.

The vote, he continued, sends “a strong message” to the Trump administration “that the American people aren’t interested in more war in the Middle East.”

The other three Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution were Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania has been the lone Democrat to consistently vote with the Republicans on this war powers measure.

WASHINGTON — The Senate advanced legislation Tuesday that seeks to force President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Iran war, as a growing number of Republicans defied the president’s wishes.

Since Trump ordered the attack on Iran at the end of February, Democrats have forced repeated votes on war powers resolutions that would require him to either gain congressional approval for the war or withdraw troops. Republicans had been able to muster the votes to reject those proposals, but Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy — fresh off a primary election loss in which Trump endorsed his opponent — switched sides to deliver a crucial vote to pass the legislation.

The 50-47 vote tally demonstrated the small but crucial number of Republicans voting to halt the war with Iran. The legislation will get a vote on final passage, but the timing was not immediately clear.

Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska had all previously voted for similar war powers resolutions and did so again Tuesday. Cassidy voted for the legislation for the first time.

After his primary election loss last week, Cassidy returned to Washington saying that he was proud of his work to uphold the Constitution and would carefully consider how he would vote on several priorities of the Trump administration.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Voters on Tuesday approved Proposition 64, making California the most populous state in the nation to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

The approval of the ballot measure creates the largest market for marijuana products in the U.S. It comes six years after California voters narrowly rejected a similar measure. Activists said passage would be an important moment in a fight for marijuana legalization across the U.S.

“We are very excited that citizens of California voted to end the failed policy of marijuana prohibition,” said Nate Bradley, executive director of the California Cannabis Industry Assn. “Proposition 64 will allow California to take its rightful place as the center of cannabis innovation, research and development.”

Discouraged law enforcement officials said they will closely monitor implementation of the ballot measure.

“We are, of course, disappointed that the self-serving moneyed interests behind this marijuana business plan prevailed at the cost of public health, safety, and the wellbeing of our communities,” said Chief Ken Corney, president of the California Police Chiefs Assn.

Live updates from the day after the 2016 election »

“We will take a thorough look at the flaws in Proposition 64 that will negatively impact public health and safety, such as the initiative’s substandard advertising restrictions and lack of prosecutorial tools for driving under the influence of marijuana, and begin to develop legislative solutions,” Corney added.

Proposition 64 would allow Californians who are 21 and older to possess, transport, buy and use up to an ounce of cannabis for recreational purposes and allow individuals to grow as many as six plants. The measure would also allow retail sales of marijuana and impose a 15% tax.

Although the measure’s passage would immediately allow adults to possess and grow marijuana, there may not be places to legally purchase it for some time.

The measure only allows non-medical marijuana to be sold by state licensed businesses, and it gives the state until Jan. 1, 2018, to begin issuing sales licenses for recreational retailers.

With financial support from former Facebook President Sean Parker and New York hedge fund billionaire George Soros, the campaign was able to raise close to $16 million, about 10 times the money brought in by the opposition.

“It’s disappointing that big marijuana and their millions of out-of-state dollars were able to influence the outcome of these elections,” said former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, an advisor to the opposition group SAM Action. “We will continue to hold this industry accountable, and raise the serious public health and safety issues that will certainly come in the wake of legalization.”

However, Lynne Lyman, of the pro-legalization Drug Policy Alliance, said the ballot measure in California is the “gold standard” for other states should legalize pot.

California voters reject measure to repeal death penalty, approve plan to expedite it »

“The new law focuses on undoing the most egregious harms of marijuana prohibition, which have disproportionately impacted communities of color,” she said, adding it will be “protecting youth by preventing access to marijuana

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom was a leading voice for the campaign, arguing that the national “war on drugs” has failed while disproportionately hurting minority residents and wasting law enforcement resources.

California had led the way 20 years ago by legalizing medical marijuana use in the state.

“I think it’s the beginning of the end of the war on marijuana United States,” Newsom said in an interview Tuesday night. “I think it will have repercussions internationally, particularly in Mexico and Latin America. And there are a million people who tomorrow can begin the process of clearing their records.”

Proposition 64 was opposed by most major law enforcement groups, including the California Assn. of Highway Patrolmen, the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California and the California Police Chiefs Assn.

Opponents cited problems including teen drug abuse and impaired driving experienced where recreational use was previously legalized: Colorado, Alaska, Oregon and Washington.

ALSO

Florida to become first Southern state with a full-scale medical marijuana program

Legalized pot scores big as voters decide on state ballot measures, including the death penalty and minimum wage

Before Proposition 64, simple possession of marijuana was already decriminalized

Notwithstanding the California Republican party’s well-intentioned anointment of Sen. Pete Wilson as its gubernatorial nominee, it is no secret that he continues to have an uncomfortable relationship with the conservative wing that dominates it.

As we move closer toward the general election, conservatives across the state, and particularly in vote-rich Orange County, are now asking the question, “What would a Gov. Wilson offer to conservatives?” Some have already answered that question, and for them, the answer is: not much.

This could spell disaster in November, especially if the slickly packaged former mayor of San Francisco, Dianne Feinstein, wins the Democratic Party nomination over liberal Establishment candidate Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp.

Last March, the California Republican Assembly, the largest volunteer, grass-roots Republican organization in the state, adopted a vote of no-confidence in the senator. Pro-life and pro-family organizations–an integral part of winning Republican coalitions–are openly hostile to his candidacy. The conservative Young Americans for Freedom has already gone on record against him. In a futile but symbolic gesture, YAF even put up one of its own, Jeff Greene, to challenge the senator in the June primary.

So far, these are but chinks in the formidable Wilson campaign armor. Though most state conservative leaders are publicly backing Wilson, many are clearly wondering what happened to the Reagan Revolution in California. How is it that the one-time, anti-Reagan moderate mayor from San Diego might now become head of the party in the very state that produced “The Gipper”? (This frustration explains, in part, the enthusiasm among conservatives for the “renegade” primary campaign of “charter” Reaganite Bay Buchanan for state treasurer against the incumbent, Tom Hayes, who was appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian.)

Conservative Republicans have always been suspicious of the “progressive” mayor of San Diego. To begin with, they have never quite forgiven then-Mayor Wilson for campaigning for President Ford against favorite son Ronald Reagan in the 1976 New Hampshire presidential primary. These suspicions contributed to Wilson coming in a poor fourth in the Republican primary for governor two years later. By 1982 he learned a lesson. He then campaigned in the U.S. Senate Republican primary against several Ronald Reagan conservatives, including Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr. and Robert K. Dornan. While Goldwater was preoccupied with trading off his father’s name and latecomer Dornan was in search of campaign funds, Wilson preemptively blitzed the airwaves with commercials tightly wrapping himself around support for President Reagan. Fellow candidate and “first daughter” Maureen Reagan was particularly galled. So were others. But it worked, and Wilson won what was clearly the make-or-break election of his statewide political future.

Once in the Senate, Pete Wilson went on to very smartly, and sincerely, carry the banner of many issues important to conservatives. From his berth on the Senate Armed Services Committee he defended the Reagan military buildup, railed against the Soviet threat and became an ardent spokesman for the Strategic Defense Initiative. He helped protect California’s defense industry, the Long Beach Naval Shipyard and even got Mayor Feinstein to support home-porting the nuclear-powered battleship Missouri in liberal San Francisco. Wilson strongly backed the freedom fighters in Nicaragua and Afghanistan and was up front in his defense of Oliver L. North.

Occasionally, but never reliably, Wilson has voted with conservatives on key social and family-oriented issues. For these things and more, Wilson avoided a primary challenge from the right and deservedly received virtually unqualified conservative support for his 1988 reelection.

The problem now facing gubernatorial candidate Pete Wilson is that those defense and foreign policy issues so essential to his overall appeal to conservatives are no longer available to balance out his generally moderate-to-liberal campaign positions on many social, domestic and environmental issues. Unfortunately, the messages from his campaign and the press seem only to highlight the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-prayer in school, anti-growth, higher transportation taxes, costly mass transit, and other big-government elements of his platform (including the creation of another costly government Cabinet department to deal with the environment).

As a result, his yeoman efforts on behalf of the speedy-trial initiative seem pale. To many conservatives, the Pete Wilson of 1990 sounds a lot like the Pete Wilson of 1978.

Unlike Sen. Wilson’s 1982 race against Jerry Brown or his 1988 reelection against Leo T. McCarthy, this year every conservative vote will matter–a lot. So, too, will the crossover votes of conservative Democrats who today keep many Republicans in office. We cannot afford to have any one of them sit at home or cast a protest vote for a third-party candidate.

What is of added danger to Wilson is that conservative Democrats are being told that Feinstein is a candidate they can finally support. Who’s kidding whom? A conservative Democrat mayor from San Francisco is about as believable as Dana Rohrabacher being appointed head of the National Endowment for the Arts. Yet the liberal Southern California media persist in mislabeling the Lady from Babylon by the Bay largely because of her “traitorous” support for the death penalty. Look for a finely tuned “come home” message from the Feinstein campaign to conservative Democrats in November.

When the media are not calling her a conservative, they frequently remark that on substantive issues there is little difference between Feinstein and Wilson. Strike another blow to a proven Republican campaign axiom: Fail to differentiate yourself from your Democrat opponent and you lose.

Wilson’s recent campaign commercials do not help. He emphasizes his environmental record, support for mass transit and the need to control those nasty developers. At best it seems an ill-timed ad for the primary season. At worst it emphasizes management, not leadership, and is not conservative on either count. Better he should first shore up his traditional Republican credentials.

The senator should probably not count on the evils of a Democratic-controlled reapportionment process to give him an added loyalty boost, either. Voters have shown either an inability to understand the issue or often view it in partisan terms. But if a state commission on reapportionment is created by the voters on June 5, the argument that a Republican governor is needed to keep the Democrat Legislature honest will be moot.

Finally, the precedent exists for an electorally significant percentage of the conservative vote to be cast in protest for a third-party candidate. That occurred in the Zschau-Cranston race. Despite a strong Republican Party sales effort aimed at ensuring conservative backing for the former moderate Rep. Ed Zschau, including four trips to California by President Reagan (two in Orange County alone), the word went out to the fall-on-your-sword conservatives to cast a protest vote for the pro-life American Independent Party candidate Ed Vallen. Vallen received nearly double the normal statewide and Orange County AIP vote that year (1.5%). Zschau lost to Alan Cranston by only 1.4%. While there are important differences between the seasoned Wilson with proven statewide electability and newcomer Zschau, the point is that a small electoral shift could prove fatal to him in a close race.

Despite what some political pollsters and self-appointed media opinion makers would have us believe, the successful Reagan electoral coalition has not dispersed. Nor have their beliefs in traditional family values, small government, low taxes, free enterprise and equal opportunity for that chance at the American dream taken a back seat to child care, global warming and acid rain.

Pete Wilson, known for waging smart, well-financed campaigns, has some reassuring to do on the right. To win in November, he has to count on every conservative vote in Orange County–and it is not clear yet that he is going to get them.

President Trump succeeded in his effort to defeat Sen. Bill Cassidy in Louisiana’s Republican primary, a signal of the enduring strength of the president’s hold on his party despite an unpopular war and soaring gas prices.

Cassidy was one of seven Republican senators in 2021 who voted to convict Trump on the impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection on Jan. 6 that year. He placed last in a three-way race Saturday against U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow, who was endorsed by Trump, and state Treasurer John Fleming.

“His disloyalty to the man who got him elected is now a part of legend, and it’s nice to see that his political career is OVER!” Trump said of Cassidy on social media late Saturday.

With 92.3% of ballots tallied, Letlow had 44.8% of the vote and Fleming had 28.3%. Cassidy trailed with 24.7%.

Letlow and Fleming will advance to a runoff next month. Whoever wins that contest is virtually assured victory in November in deep-red Louisiana. In his last reelection in 2020, just months before his vote to convict Trump, Cassidy won 59% of the vote.

In a primary season where Trump is crusading to vanquish members of his party with whom he’s been at odds, the Louisiana race comes just days before the president tries to oust another Republican foe, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. But Trump has opted so far to stay out of a hard-fought Texas GOP runoff later this month between incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, a traditional conservative, and state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, who is more politically aligned with the president’s MAGA movement.

Massie, who faces a primary that has become the most expensive of its kind, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that’s he’s confident he will prevail Tuesday despite a string of social media insults from the president and fundraising by Trump allies such as billionaires Miriam Adelson and Paul Singer.

“I think it’s going to help my fundraising,” Massie said. “People don’t like this.”

With state polls showing Massie with a slight lead, the congressman said, “that’s why the president is losing sleep and tweeting about me.”

Trump’s success in defeating Cassidy left the Louisiana senator defiant: “Let me just set the record straight. Our country is not about one individual, it is about the welfare of all Americans and it is about our Constitution.”

“If someone doesn’t understand that and attempts to control others through using the levers of power, they’re about serving themselves, they’re not about serving us,” he added.

Trump has attacked Cassidy for his 2021 vote and his opposition to some aspects of his agenda, particularly vaccine and other health policies pushed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. During Kennedy’s Senate confirmation hearings last year, Cassidy, who is a doctor, expressed deep skepticism about the nominee’s anti-vaccine views, but ultimately voted to confirm him.

Trump recently blamed Cassidy for thwarting the nomination of wellness influencer Casey Means as surgeon general. Means is a longtime ally of Kennedy’s, and Cassidy had also questioned her stance on vaccinations.

On Saturday morning, Trump continued his attacks, calling Cassidy a “a disloyal disaster” on social media. He later congratulated Letlow on her first-place finish.

In his concession speech, Cassidy said: “I find that people of character and integrity don’t spend their time attacking people on the internet.”

Despite the president’s opposition to his candidacy, Cassidy had run ads featuring images of Trump, praising top White House issues that the senator had supported including the president’s massive tax package enacted last year, while casting Letlow as insufficiently conservative.

The outcome also notches a high-profile win for Kennedy’s political operation, which supported Letlow and opposed Cassidy in the race. The two men have repeatedly clashed over nominations and the department’s changes to vaccine policy. With certainty of his departure when his term ends in January, Cassidy could make the health secretary’s job even more difficult as he finishes out his term with an eye to his legacy and priorities.

Cassidy’s departure will also leave a leadership vacuum for the GOP atop the Senate Health Committee next year. The panel oversees health agencies and confirmations for key leadership positions at the agencies, and Cassidy brought his medical expertise to the role. He has built a reputation as a healthcare policy wonk willing to work across the aisle.

Only two other Republican senators who broke with Trump in his 2021 impeachment trial, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, remain in the Senate. Collins, who represents a state Trump lost in 2024, has largely avoided the president’s wrath while she fights for her political life in one of the most competitive races of the midterms. Murkowski won reelection in 2022.

“You can disagree with President Trump, but if you try to destroy him you’re going to lose because this is the party of Donald Trump,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“There’s no room in this party to destroy his agenda or to destroy him or his family as a Republican,” Graham said. “It’s just a reality.”

Cohrs Zhang writes for Bloomberg. Bloomberg writers Tony Czuczka and Se Young Lee contributed to this report.

THE glitter has settled, the nerve-shredding votes are in, and Europe has crowned its brand-new pop royalty for 2026.

In a night packed with spectacular high notes, outrageous outfits, and the usual dose of nail-biting voting drama, one country managed to come out on top.

Whether your favourite act walked away with the grand prize or suffered the absolute dread of the infamous ‘nul points’ the night has not been short of entertainment.

Here is everything you need to know about who won Eurovision, how they managed to pull off the ultimate musical heist, and where the world’s biggest party is heading next year!

Who won Eurovision 2026?

Lifting the iconic glass microphone trophy for 2026 was Bulgaria.

The country came through at the last moment to smash its competitors out of the water on 516 points.

After hearing the result, Dara performed her song Bangaranga for a second time before lifting the iconic glass trophy.

It’s also the first time Bulgaria has ever won the contest.

The UK suffered yet another crushing defeat in tonight’s grand final as Look Mum No ­Computer’s Sam Battle sadly didn’t do enough to win over the voters.

He ended up with just one point from the jury and zero points from the public, placing him in the bottom spot.

Here is the breakdown of tonight’s votes in full:

JURY VOTES

• Bulgaria: 204
• Australia: 165
• Denmark: 165
• France: 144
• Finland: 141
• Italy: 134
• Poland: 133
• Israel: 123
• Norway: 115
• Czechia: 104
• Malta: 81
• Greece: 73
• Romania: 64
• Albania: 60
• Ukraine: 54
• Croatia: 53
• Moldova: 43
• Cyprus: 41
• Serbia: 38
• Belgium: 36
• Sweden: 35
• Germany: 12
• Lithuania: 10
• United Kingdom: 1
• Austria: 1

AUDIENCE VOTES

• Bulgaria: 312
• Romania: 232
• Israel: 220
• Moldova: 183
• Ukraine: 167
• Greece: 147
• Italy: 147
• Finland: 138
• Australia: 122
• Albania: 85
• Denmark: 78
• Croatia: 71
• Serbia: 52
• Cyprus: 34
• Norway: 19
• Poland: 17
• Sweden: 16
• France: 14
• Lithuania: 12
• Czechia: 9
• Malta: 8
• Austria: 5
• United Kingdom: 0
• Germany: 0
• Belgium: 0

FINAL RESULTS IN FULL

• Bulgaria: 516
• Israel: 343
• Romania: 296
• Australia: 287
• Italy: 281
• Finland: 279
• Denmark: 243
• Moldova: 226
• Ukraine: 221
• Greece: 220
• France: 158
• Poland: 150
• Albania: 145
• Norway: 134
• Croatia: 124
• Czechia: 113
• Serbia: 90
• Malta: 89
• Cyprus: 75
• Sweden: 51
• Belgium: 36
• Lithuania: 22
• Germany: 12
• Austria: 6
• United Kingdom: 1

How was the winner decided?

Countries are unable to vote for themselves, but may vote for countries they consider friends.

This may be because the countries are close geographically, or if the nations have historical links, which could be culturally or in political terms.

The contest has been eager to avoid links to politics, with a view to avoiding bias.

The votes are split between public votes and national juries, often with celebrities from the various countries appearing to confirm where the juries have given their points.

RuPaul’s Drag Race UK and Strictly star, La Voix, announced the UK’s results.

Who will host Eurovision in 2027?

The victorious nation is handed the honour of hosting the following year’s competition.

That means, thanks to Dara’s success this year, Bulgaria will have the chance to welcome all the other competing countries in 2027.

AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Supreme Court on Friday refused to declare that Democratic lawmakers who briefly fled the state in 2025 to block a vote on new congressional voting maps pushed by President Trump had vacated their office.

The all-Republican court dealt a blow to Gov. Greg Abbott and state Republicans in their efforts to severely punish the more than 50 Democrats who bolted for New York, Illinois and Massachusetts in a bid to stop a vote on the maps during a special session. State Republicans had sought their arrest and threatened fines to bring them back to the state Capitol.

Abbott had argued in a lawsuit filed directly to the state’s highest civil court that state Rep. Gene Wu, the leader of the House Democratic caucus, and others had effectively abandoned their office.

Wu had argued that he was not abandoning his office in the quorum break, but was exercising a right to dissent.

In denying Abbott’s request, the court opinion written by Justice James Blacklock noted that the Republican-majority Legislature had adequately resolved the problem itself through measures such as fines against the missing lawmakers, and that they eventually returned on their own within a few weeks.

“In the end, a quorum was restored in two weeks’ time, without judicial intervention, by the interplay of political and practical forces,” Blacklock wrote.

“Courts have uniformly recognized that it is not their role to resolve disputes between the other two branches that those branches can resolve for themselves,” the opinion said.

If the issue rises again and the Legislature cannot effectively compel lawmakers to return, the court may someday consider whether the courts should step in, the opinion said.

“When Greg Abbott threatened to arrest and expel us for denying him a quorum, we told him he should ‘come and take it.’ He tried!” Wu said in a statement Friday. “Abbott was wrong, weak, and after all his bluster, he couldn’t come and take a damn thing.”

Wu and the other lawmakers eventually returned to Texas, and the new map was passed and signed into law by Abbott.

Wu had argued that because he had returned to the Capitol and the map was eventually signed into law, there was no longer any reason for the court to weigh in.

“Their return is robust proof that they never intended to abandon their offices,” Wu argued in legal briefs. “Despite the overheated rhetoric, this quorum break was always understood to be temporary.”

The Texas walkout intensified into a high-stakes national drama as Trump urged Texas and other GOP-controlled states to redraw their congressional districts to help Republicans maintain control of the U.S. House. The Texas map effort set off a wave of similar efforts across several states as governors from both parties pledged to redraw maps with the goal of giving their political candidates a leg up in the 2026 midterm elections.

The state constitution requires that at least 100 of the 150 House members be present to conduct business, and the quorum break effectively shut down a special legislative session Abbott had called to address redistricting and other issues, including aid to communities hit by the devastating July Fourth floods that killed more than 100 people.

In 2021, the court ruled that the Texas Constitution enables the possibility of a quorum break but also allows for consequences to bring members back.

Last year’s Democratic walkout was the third since 2003, when lawmakers bolted to stop a vote on a redistricting bill. They did it again in 2021 over an elections bill. In both cases, they were temporary victories as Democrats eventually returned and the Republican majority in the Legislature ultimately passed both measures into law.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an antiabortion challenge to federal regulations that permit sending pills through the mail once a patient has consulted a doctor online.

The justices granted an emergency appeal from the makers of mifepristone and set aside an order from a U.S. appeals court in Louisiana that would have made it illegal to send or receive the medication by mail.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.

“The court’s unreasoned order granting stays in this case is remarkable,” Alito wrote. “What is at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which restored the right of each State to decide how to regulate abortions within its borders.”

The decision is a setback for abortion opponents, including Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill, who sued and argued that her state’s ban on abortion has been thwarted by abortion pills sent by mail.

Thursday’s order preserves access to the medication under the current rules, but it is not a final decision.

The case will now return to the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans for further review.

“Today’s ruling buys time, but no peace of mind,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Mifepristone access remains highly at risk as this case moves forward and the Trump administration conducts a politically motivated review of this pill with the hardly disguised aim of making it harder to get.”

National Right to Life expressed deep disappointment.

“Women facing unexpected pregnancies deserve real medical care and support, not a one-size-fits-all mail-order abortion system that minimizes risks and leaves women isolated during medical emergencies,” said Carol Tobias, the group’s president.

The legal dispute has put the Trump administration in a politically awkward spot.

Critics of abortion, including Republican attorneys general from 23 states, argued that the regulations adopted during the Biden administration have thwarted their state laws and allowed patients to obtain medication from doctors in California and New York.

But the Trump administration has shown no urgency to change the regulations that allow for dispensing the pills by mail.

Alito, who spoke at the 5th Circuit a week ago, said he agreed with the state’s argument.

“Louisiana’s efforts have been thwarted by certain medical providers, private organizations, and States that abhor laws like Louisiana’s and seek to undermine their enforcement,” he wrote. “These medical providers and private organizations have developed an operation enabling women in Louisiana and other States that restrict abortions to place an online order for a pill called mifepristone that induces abortion.”

Thomas said abortion is a crime in Louisiana.

The makers of the abortion pills have no grounds to sue “based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise. They cannot, in any legally relevant sense, be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult for them to commit crimes.”

But most of the court’s conservatives refused to go along, even though they had voted to overturn the constitutional right to abortion.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett refused to block the current regulations on a fast-track appeal.

Two years ago, the court handed down a similar decision involving abortion pills and the 5th Circuit Court.

The justices overturned a 5th Circuit ruling on the grounds that the antiabortion doctors who sued had no standing because they did not prescribe or use the medication.

In 2000, the FDA approved the use of mifepristone as safe and effective for ending an early pregnancy or treating a miscarriage. It is used in combination with a second drug misoprostol, which induces cramping.

Since 2016, the FDA has relaxed regulations on its use. They include a requirement that women obtain the pills directly from a doctor or a medical clinic. However, it was understood the medication would be taken later at home.

The agency temporarily suspended this rule in 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, then lifted it entirely in 2023.

Medication abortions now account for almost two-thirds of abortions in the United States, and telehealth is used in 27% of abortions nationwide. Last year, in response to abortion opponents, the Trump administration agreed to review the safety record of mifepristone.

“Mifepristone is one of the safest and most well-studied drugs on the market,” said Dr. Camille A. Clare, president of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. “The FDA removed the in-person dispensing requirement after careful evaluation of the data because mifepristone is safe and effective even when distributed by mail.”

But the Louisiana attorney general decided to sue in federal court without waiting for the FDA.

She argued that the mailing of abortion medication, which was approved under the Biden administration, was undermining her state’s strict ban on abortions.

A federal judge in Louisiana said the state appeared to have a strong claim, but he decided not to rule on it until the FDA completed its review.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals responded a few days later by ruling the FDA erred by relaxing its regulations to allow for dispensing the pills by mail. The three-judge panel then put its ruling into effect immediately on May 1.

Abortion law experts called out the decision as extreme and unusual.

“To our knowledge, no court has ever ordered the FDA to reimpose on a drug a safety rule the agency has thoroughly studied and deemed unnecessary,” said Melissa Goodman, executive director of UCLA’s Center for Reproductive Health, Law and Policy.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Wednesday again blocked Democratic legislation that would halt President Trump’s war with Iran, but the number of GOP senators voting against the war grew.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against the war for the first time since it began at the end of February. Two other Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky, also voted against the war, as they had done previously.

The war powers legislation ultimately failed to advance 49-50, with Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania the only Democrat to oppose it, yet the close tally reflected growing unease with Trump’s war. Several other Republican senators have signaled they want Congress to weigh in on the direction of the conflict.

“There will be a day — and it might be soon, I believe — where this Senate will say to the president, ‘Stop this war,’” Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has spearheaded his party’s tactic of forcing repeated votes on the war, said before the vote.

Even if it passes the Senate, a war powers resolution would have a slim chance of passing the House and would also certainly be vetoed by Trump. But Democrats say the votes are about building political pressure on the president either to withdraw from the conflict or seek congressional authorization to wage the war.

Trump officials downplay role for Congress

The White House, meanwhile, has asserted that it does not need congressional authorization for the war and has circumvented legal requirements to gain approval from Congress to continue the military campaign. It claims that it has “terminated” hostilities with Iran because the U.S. has entered a ceasefire.

That posture has created tension between the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House because presidents under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 are required to obtain authorization from Congress after 60 days of engaging in a conflict.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers this week that the U.S. could start attacking Iran again without the White House seeking congressional approval. He told Murkowski during a hearing on Tuesday that the Trump administration believes it has “all the authorities necessary.”

Murkowski voiced skepticism about that argument. She pointed to the troops and war ships deployed to the region, saying, “It doesn’t appear that hostilities have ended.”

GOP leaders back the war, but unease grows

Republican leadership has continued to back the war with Iran, arguing that the stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz that has blocked most commercial shipping puts more economic pressure on Iran than it does on the U.S.

“Iran’s economy is on life support. Its leadership is eliminated,” said Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2 Republican in leadership, during a floor speech Wednesday.

He also argued that the Democratic effort on the war is all about undermining Trump. Forcing the issue just as he arrived in China for a summit would “pull out the rug from under him,” Barrasso said.

Still, Republicans are also growing uneasy about the high gas prices, especially as the November elections draw near.

Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, said Wednesday he’d prefer that the two branches of government work out the constitutional issues instead of a congressional war powers vote or a potential challenge in court.

The two sides should sit down together and say “we have shared constitutional responsibilities,” Rounds said.

Democrats plan to keep forcing weekly votes on war powers resolutions and are looking ahead to put limitations on Trump during the debate over annual legislation that authorizes and funds the military.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat who sponsored Wednesday’s resolution, told reporters that he believes there is an “erosion of support, erosion of enthusiasm, an increase in skepticism” about the war from Republicans.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

A Republican senator who broke from his party to vote in favour of convicting US President Donald Trump in impeachment proceedings during his first term is facing a bruising primary challenge in his home state of Louisiana.

Bill Cassidy’s primary race on Thursday has been seen as a barometer of Trump’s continued hold over the Republican Party. Even as polls have shown the president’s approval tanking, early primary votes have shown the continued weight his endorsement carries.

Trump has backed US Representative Julia Letlow in the Senate race. State Treasurer John Fleming is also running. The winner of the Republican primary is all-but-assured to win in the general election in the deep-red state.

Cassidy had joined seven Republicans in the Senate in voting to convict Trump of “incitement of insurrection”, following his campaign to overturn the 2020 election results and his supporters’ storming of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

“Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person. I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty,” Cassidy said in a statement at the time.

Despite the handful of Republican defections, the chamber fell far short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump of the charges, of which he was acquitted.

Initially viewed as politically toxic after leaving office in 2021, Trump mounted a stunning comeback in the years that followed, reshaping the Republican Party in his likeness.

That included the ascension of many lawmakers who endorsed Trump’s claims that the 2020 vote was stolen, for which he has provided no evidence.

Currently, most other Republican senators who voted to convict Trump alongside Cassidy have been ousted or chosen to leave office.

Among the group, only Republican centrists Susan Collins from Maine, who continues to be seen as a bulwark against Democratic challengers in her home state, and Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, who saw off a Trump-backed challenger in 2022, have escaped major intra-party fallout for their votes.

Letlow, an academic administrator who entered office in 2021, has also seized on Cassidy’s 2021 vote, saying in her campaign launch video that residents of Louisiana “shouldn’t have to wonder how our senator will vote when the pressure is on”.

A fine line

Cassidy, a physician, has walked a fine line during Trump’s second term, regularly touting the administration’s policy initiatives and appearing alongside Trump at the White House several times for healthcare-focused events and bill signings.

Still, Cassidy has had some high-profile clashes with the Trump administration. During Robert F Kennedy Jr‘s confirmation hearing to become health and human services secretary, Cassidy sparred with Kennedy over his vaccine scepticism.

“I am a doctor who has seen people die from vaccine-preventable diseases, and when I see outbreaks numbered in the thousands, and people dying once more from vaccine-preventable diseases, particularly children, it seems more than tragic,” he said during the hearing.

Cassidy later cast the deciding vote to confirm Kennedy after receiving assurances that he would not change federal vaccine recommendations. The HHS under Kennedy has since changed those recommendations.

In April of this year, Trump accused Cassidy of tanking his nominee for surgeon-general, Casey Means, who had come under fire for her vaccine scepticism and unproven wellness theories.

Trump decried what he called Cassidy’s “intransigence and political games”. In a subsequent post, he said hopefully Republicans “will be voting Bill Cassidy OUT OF OFFICE in the upcoming Republican Primary!”

Cassidy, in turn, has claimed opponent Letlow does not have conservative bona fides.

He has highlighted her past support of education diversity initiatives, which she has since disavowed, as well as her past attendance at the 2023 United Nations climate change conference.

Trump’s sway?

Trump carried Louisiana in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections with about 58 percent of the vote, and in 2024 with 60 percent.

Heading into the primary vote, the president’s overall national approval rating has tanked, hitting a record low of 34 percent at the end of April. That has come amid widespread discontent over the US-Israel war on Iran and its economic toll.

Trump has maintained strong support among Republicans, but has notably seen dipping support among independents.

Polls have shown Cassidy trailing behind both Letlow and Fleming. If no candidate wins an outright majority, the race will move to a run-off on June 27.

Thursday’s race takes place amid an ongoing national battle over congressional redistricting.

While Louisiana’s US House of Representatives primary was also scheduled for Thursday, Governor Jeff Landry has temporarily suspended the vote.

That after the US Supreme Court struck down a major provision of the Voting Rights Act, paving the way for the state’s Republican-controlled legislature to redraw its congressional map to do away with one of two Black-majority districts.

Civil rights groups have filed a lawsuit alleging the suspension violates both the US and the state’s constitutions.

EUROVISION fever is back in full effect as the 70th Song Contest kicks off at Vienna’s Wiener Stadthalle tonight.

The first semi-final will see 15 countries battle it out for 10 spots the Grand Final.

Can I vote in the Eurovision semi-final tonight?

In short – no.

Aside from enjoying the show, UK viewers are unable to take part in tonight’s Eurovision semi-final.

This is because we have been drawn into the second semi-final on Thursday May 14, 2026.

Eurovision rules state that you can only vote in the semi-final in which your country is performing.

FLYING THE FLAG

Where UK Eurovision stars are now, from £67k fraud case to phone shop staff

NUL POINTS?

UK dealt brutal blow days before Eurovision final as favourites to win revealed

That means Brits will have to wait until Thursday to vote, when viewers can have their say alongside France and host nation Austria, as well as the 15 competing nations.

How do you vote in the Eurovision semi-final?

UK viewers will be able to vote on Thursday.

Don’t worry, as full instructions will flash up on screen during the BBC broadcast.

The official website explains: “If you’re in a participating country, you can vote by phone or SMS.

“The instructions you will need will be on the screen during the broadcast, and you can also find them at esc.vote.

“Voting opens after the last song has been performed. You can vote up to 10 times, and you’ll have around 18 minutes to do so. Use your power wisely.”

You cannot vote for the UK’s own entry, in line with long-standing Eurovision rules designed to prevent home-nation advantage.

Why does the UK only take part in one semi-final?

The UK is a member of the Eurovision Big Five alongside France, Germany, Italy and Spain, all of whom automatically qualify for the Grand Final.

These nations are are the biggest financial contributors to the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) – the organisation that runs Eurovision.

That pre-qualified status means the UK does not have to fight its way through the semi-finals, but is instead allocated to broadcast and vote in one of the two semis.

For 2026, Germany and Italy were drawn into the first semi-final, while the UK and France will join Austria in the second.

Spain has, however, pulled out of the contest entirely in protest of Israel’s participation amid the Gaza war, alongside Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Slovenia.

When are the two Eurovision 2026 semi-finals?

The Eurovision 2026 semi-finals will take place ahead of Saturday’s showpiece, with 30 of the 35 nations battling it out for 20 Grand Final spots.

Both start at 8pm and are live on BBC One and iPlayer, with the first on tonight – Tuesday, May 12 – and the second following on Thursday, May 14.

Rylan and Angela Scanlon will be providing commentary from the Wiener Stadthalle during both semis.

The order for the first semi-final is as follows:

• Moldova – Satoshi, Viva, Moldova!
• Sweden – Felicia, My System
• Croatia – Lelek, Andromeda
• Greece – Akylas, Ferto
• Portugal – Bandidos do Cante, Rosa
• Georgia – Bzikebi, On Replay
• Italy (non-competing) – Sal Da Vinci, Per sempre sì
• Finland – Linda Lampenius and Pete Parkkonen, Liekinheitin
• Montenegro – Tamara Živković, Nova zora
• Estonia – Vanilla Ninja, Too Epic to Be True
• Israel – Noam Bettan, Michelle
• Germany (non-competing) – Sarah Engels, Fire
• Belgium – Essyla, Dancing on the Ice
• Lithuania – Lion Ceccah, Sólo quiero más
• San Marino – Senhit, Superstar (featuring Boy George)
• Poland – Alicja, Pray
• Serbia – Lavina, Kraj mene

While the schedule for the second semi-final is:

• Bulgaria – Dara, Bangaranga
• Azerbaijan – JIVA, Just Go
• Romania – Alexandra Căpitănescu, Choke Me
• Luxembourg – Eva Marija, Mother Nature
• Czechia – Daniel Žižka, Crossroads
• France (non-competing) – Monroe, Regarde !
• Armenia – Simón, Paloma Rumba
• Switzerland – Veronica Fusaro, Alice
• Cyprus – Antigoni, Jalla
• Austria (non-competing) – Cosmó, Tanzschein
• Latvia – Atvara, Ēnā
• Denmark – Søren Torpegaard Lund, Før vi går hjem
• Australia – Delta Goodrem, Eclipse
• Ukraine – Leléka, Ridnym
• United Kingdom (non-competing) – Look Mum No Computer, Eins, Zwei, Drei
• Albania – Alis, Nân
• Malta – Aidan, Bella
• Norway – Jonas Lovv, Ya Ya Ya