wont

When Maduro was taken and arrested on January 3rd, many Venezuelans brought out the good stuff. The old bottle of rum or whiskey they’d been saving for a special occasion, believing the incursion would inevitably lead to the return of liberty in Venezuela. Nine months later, the “transition” has not been what most Venezuelans wanted. Hundreds of political prisoners were released, but that is not enough. A few laws are being reformed, but not the institutions that carry them out. Delcy remains in power despite no lawful statute allowing it nor any sort of popular mandate for her to be the head of the Venezuelan State. 

Many who brought out the good whiskey have soured on the transition, or at the very least lost their shiny optimism. But the mistake was not just to believe in a future that now seems a bit naive, but to yearn for the return of a past which was the precursor to our current tragic state.

The quest for a more liberal society

Yes, we were better off before the 2000s, but we’ve never had a truly free society without clientelism or corruption. Chavismo may have perfected the art of corruption in Venezuela, but they certainly did not invent it. Venezuela, since its inception, has not been able to ameliorate the very Latin American issue of inequalities of power. We tend to forget about the problem during oil bonanzas. Everyone is doing better, right? Why worry? Then the oil price inevitably falls, the party stops, the lights turn on and we see the naked truth that we are in a horrible state of disrepair.

Many say that the Venezuelan problem is economic (lack of diversification or investment in non-oil industries), political (once high polarization and weak rule of law), or even cultural (a tendency towards el guiso). But within these lies a deeper philosophical issue: for a society that claims to love liberty and our libertadores as much as we do, we don’t actually understand what it takes to create a liberal society. 

This is hardly a Venezuela-specific issue, but we are a unique case in that so much of our self-perception is based on the idea of a people who achieved freedom from the yoke of Spanish tyranny, only to then continue to liberate other countries in South America, making Simón Bolívar the most famous person in the history of the continent.

What room is there to become “more liberal” once all citizens are recognized by the law and there is universal suffrage? 

To understand what it means to be a liberal society, perhaps it would be best to understand what it means to be a more liberal society. When the classical liberal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries took place, it was the divine right of kings that fell. The power was taken from an individual and shared amongst parliaments, which were at the time controlled almost exclusively by rich landowners (including our own first few republics). Still, this was unquestionably a redistribution of power from the individual to the few. It took a long time, but eventually this distribution of power from the one to the few became a distribution of power from the few to the many. Nowadays, democratic societies are expected to allow every single citizen to vote, but this is a reality that is younger than the oldest person alive today. When English supercentenarian Ethel Caterham in the UK was born in 1909, her mother would not have been allowed to vote.

Liberal societies today hardly even question the idea that all people should be equal in respect to the law and that we ought to have a voice in the decisions of our country through voting. So what room is there to become “more liberal” once all citizens are recognized by the law and there is universal suffrage? 

It’s true that the distribution of power in liberal countries these days is much improved when compared to 100 years ago, but is it better than 50 years ago? The laws may say that all people are equal, but systems don’t seem to provide that result. Even in societies where they have nominally distributed power amongst all citizens, the power has not been really distributed amongst them nearly as well. Throughout the current Trump presidency, there have been a string of pardons for white-collar criminals who have paid patronage to Trump and his family, including the former president of Honduras convicted of drug trafficking, or a Venezuelan oligarch indicted for allegedly bribing a Puerto Rico governor.

This is a clear example of a two-tiered justice system in which if you put the right money in the right pockets, you get preferential treatment.

A post-WW2 recipe?

I use these examples to show that although there is nothing ontologically wrong with wealth inequality, especially if the rich earned that money honestly, in practice inequality in resources leads to inequality in power and inevitably abuse of that power. This is the state of Venezuela now, but it was also the state of Venezuela long before Chávez caught a whiff of power and what ultimately led a majority of voters to choose a murderer and traitor over the “democracy” that was in place. 

The issue, after nearly three decades of chavismo, is that although they entered power on the basis of railing against resource and power inequalities, in the time since they’ve been in charge they’ve done nothing to ameliorate those same inequalities. The people in government have simply taken the seats of the previously corrupt politicians and become even more clientelist, leading to greater inequalities in power and resources than ever before (on top of just a generally poorer country).

The vast majority of Venezuelans can clearly see what chavismo is now, even many who used to vote for it. And though we are still not through with it, we ought to give serious consideration to what we want to replace it with. Do we want a return to bipartidismo and clientelism with high inequality? Just hoping that the price of oil rises so we can keep our population happy whilst oligarchs accrue more and more power? Or do we actually want to achieve the liberty we say we value so much?

We can imitate post-WWII States who decreased inequalities by taxing the incomes of extremely wealthy people at extremely high rates whilst maintaining a belief in free markets, property and the rule of law.

When we get rid of chavismo, we will have an even greater challenge ahead. We’ll have the challenge of rebuilding a country destroyed by decades of mismanagement, a country filled with people who have gotten their wealth by enchufándose into a corrupt system that has oppressed the voice of its people. And we’ll have to decide how we want to go about bringing back liberty. I suggest we act like the previous liberal revolutions we venerate, and distribute more power from the few to the many.

So what is the solution to power inequalities and resource inequalities?

Thankfully, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. We can copy the policies of post-WWII countries (US, Japan, France, UK, Germany, etc) who decreased inequalities in their countries by taxing the incomes of extremely wealthy people at extremely high rates whilst maintaining a belief in free markets, property and the rule of law. This has the added benefit of diversifying government incomes away from just oil revenue or sales taxes, which are regressive and hurt consumers and small businesses (I could go on and on about the economic benefits, but I’ll stick to the institutional ones here). I specify the post-WWII liberal societies here and not the communist ones, because although communist countries seek to ameliorate resource inequalities they end up increasing power inequalities which lead to just as much abuse, if not even more than hyper-capitalistic oligarchic societies.

But before we can consider which policies we ought to copy from which societies, we must adopt the attitudes and political beliefs which made those policies implementable in the first place.

The world, not just Venezuela, is at a crossroads between greater authoritarianism or greater liberalism. If we are leaders of liberalism in our continent, as we have historically perceived ourselves to be, then we ought to understand the nature of liberalism and how we ought to achieve it. If we do not have a vision of how to recreate our institutions and our general idea of what a liberal society even is, then we will surely return to the sad state we are in right now, even after we get rid of the kleptocrats sitting in Miraflores.

The solution is simple, but it’s not easy. Entrenched interests are just that; entrenched. But if the people of the country yearn for liberty and we manage to understand what it takes to attain it, then it can be done through hard work and dedication, as ultimately all worthwhile goals are achieved.

WASHINGTON — Former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, who brought two federal indictments against President Trump, told lawmakers on Tuesday that he “will not be silenced by continued threats of prosecution” from the Trump administration and that he believes the rule of law is being threatened like never before.

Smith also told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he stands behind the criminal cases he brought against Trump, a Republican, and that he and his team acted without regard to politics.

“I made those decisions without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,” Smith said. “Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation. If asked whether to prosecute a former president today based on the same facts, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat.”

Republicans sought to cast the prosecution as a political fishing expedition, accusing Smith of bending ordinary procedures in an overzealous pursuit of the president.

“The Smith election case ultimately wasn’t just about Trump,” said Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the chairman of the committee. “It was about partisan agents and prosecutors mapping out the Republican apparatus.”

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the committee, accused Republicans of spreading “baseless conspiracy theories” about Smith’s investigations as part of an effort to “whitewash” the history of Trump’s 2020 election loss and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack by a mob of Trump’s supporters on the U.S. Capitol.

“President Trump demonstrated a wanton disdain for the laws of the United States, the will of the people and our national security,” Durbin said. “The aspersions cast on Mr. Smith, nonstop, are petty, personal and political. They are nothing but a smoke screen to distract from the president’s own clear, unlawful conduct.”

The hearing is expected to focus on subpoenas for phone records

Even as Smith defends his investigations, he is expected to be pressed anew by Republican senators about his team’s access to the phone records of GOP lawmakers as prosecutors investigated Trump’s efforts to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

In previous testimony, Smith has stood behind subpoenas that prosecutors issued for the phone records of Republican members of Congress who were in touch with Trump when violent supporters of the president rioted inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He has said that such subpoenas are a “common practice” in investigations and were necessary in this instance to understand the “scope of the conspiracy” between Trump and his Republican allies.

Nonetheless, the revelation that Smith’s team secretly obtained the phone records during his investigation has animated some Republican lawmakers, who point to it as proof of overreach by the Biden administration Justice Department and a hard-charging prosecutor.

In July, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, referred Smith to the Justice Department for potential prosecution on allegations that he lied at a previous hearing about his collection of the records — something Smith’s attorneys have vigorously disputed.

“I stand by my testimony before the House of Representatives,” Smith said. “I will not be silenced by the continued threats of prosecution from the president or others.”

Grassley, the Senate committee chairman, first disclosed last year that Smith’s prosecutors had obtained what’s known as “toll records” — data that reveals the date, length and time of phone calls between two parties but not the content of the communications.

Smith has repeatedly justified the move as necessary to document any contact that Trump or surrogates may have had with lawmakers on Jan. 6, 2021, as the president beseeched his supporters to halt the certification of the election results.

“My office didn’t spy on anyone,” Smith said during a hearing in January.

Smith is the subject of a criminal referral from Republicans

Smith was appointed in 2022 by then-Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland to take over investigations into Trump’s efforts to reverse his election loss and Trump’s retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. Both investigations resulted in felony indictments, but Smith abandoned the cases after Trump won back the White House in 2024, citing longstanding Justice Department opinions that say sitting presidents cannot be federally indicted.

Smith has remained a top target of retribution for Trump and his administration, which last year announced that it would revoke the security clearances of the lawyers representing the former special counsel. The Office of Special Counsel, an independent watchdog agency responsible for enforcing a law against partisan political activity by federal employees, also announced last year an investigation into Smith.

Jordan’s referral to the Justice Department centers on a December 2025 exchange in which Smith was asked about subpoenas that prosecutors had issued for the toll records.

Smith said the records he requested did not include the content of the communications. But Jordan maintains that answer was misleading in light of records released by Grassley showing that Smith had obtained the contents of 44 lawmakers’ text messages in a separate subpoena to the National Archives and Records Administration that sought the communications of various Trump advisers and aides.

In response, Smith’s lawyers called his answers “unimpeachably truthful” and noted that he was responding to questions explicitly about toll records, which did not include the contents of any text messages.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

A controversial pass-interference call cost the Rams dearly in their defeat by the Denver Broncos, but coach Sean McVay said Monday that neither he nor the team would play the victim card.

With just over a minute left in the game, Rams cornerback Josh Wallace battled with Broncos receiver Pat Bryant before intercepting a Bo Nix pass at the Rams’ seven-yard line. Had the play stood, it would have preserved a second consecutive Rams victory.

But officials cited Wallace for pass interference, giving the Broncos another set of downs. Nix eventually scored a touchdown to give the Broncos a 30-26 lead and an eventual victory that dropped the Rams to 1-2.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Gary Klein breaks down what went wrong for the Rams in a 30-26 loss to the Denver Broncos on Sunday night.

“I’m not going to play the victim card,” McVay said during a videoconference with reporters. “Doesn’t really matter. It is what it is. That was the call that was made, and there was a lot of opportunities that we had to be able to close the door on that game. … I wouldn’t have any additional coaching points for how Josh plays through the cycle of the snap.

“But I’m not going to make excuses either and we’re not going to play the victim card.”

Rams cornerback Trent McDuffie reviewed the play “over and over.”

“I told Josh, ‘Hey, nothing you can do. Refs got to call their calls. We can’t control that,’” McDuffie said. “But, I mean, looking back at it, I don’t know what they saw but I thought it was a great play. Got the interception for us.

“But like I said, whatever the refs saw they saw and threw the flag and ain’t much we can do about it, so it’s really just on to the next week.”

The Rams play the Eagles on Sunday in Philadelphia.

They will probably do so without cornerback Jaylen Watson, who left against the Broncos after suffering a dislocated right shoulder.

Watson will not be placed on injured reserve, McVay said, “but will probably be out for this week. We’ll see if we can kind of get him strengthened and harness it. It’s something that he’s dealt with before.”

Tight end Terrance Ferguson sustained an ankle sprain and is probably out against the Eagles. Tight end Colby Parkinson’s (shoulder) status will be evaluated this week.

Receiver Puka Nacua, who has been sidelined the last two games because of a hip injury, went through a lengthy on-field workout before the game against the Broncos.

Will he play against the Eagles?

”I’m hopeful,” McVay said, adding, “We’ll continue to see, but if he is able to progress the way that we hope there’s optimism that he’ll be able to play this week.”

McVay apologized for taking only a few questions during a postgame news conference after the defeat by the Broncos.

“I understand my role and responsibility is to be able to talk whether it’s after a win or whether we don’t get the results that we want,” McVay said, adding that the brevity resulted from a mix-up in timing. “There was a pause in any sort of questions and obviously an emotional game and so that was kind of what led to that.

“But if there was any misinterpretation, do apologize for that.”

The U.S. Navy’s schedule for getting USS Connecticut, one of its prized Seawolf class nuclear attack submarines, back into service has slipped into next summer. The boat suffered severe damage, especially to its bow, in a collision with an underwater seamount in the South China Sea in 2021. The service had previously hoped that repairs would be finished before the end of this year, and planning is also now underway for the submarine’s retirement in 2031. This would mean it could serve for just four years before being pulled from service once and for all.

“USS Connecticut (SSN 22) is currently undergoing a complex Extended Docking Selected Restricted Availability (EDSRA) at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility. Current work consists of structural and systems restoration and required lifecycle maintenance,” a Navy official told TWZ today. “The Navy’s target completion date for the availability is the summer of 2027. PSNS & IMF is dedicated to executing this work with the highest standards of safety, technical accuracy, and craftsmanship to ensure the ship returns to the fleet ready to take its place at the tip of the spear in defense of our nation’s interests.”

USS Connecticut is the second of just three Seawolf class submarines commissioned between 1997 and 2005, the others being USS Seawolf and USS Jimmy Carter. The Jimmy Carter, which came last, is a one-of-a-kind subvariant of the design that is optimized for underwater espionage missions. However, the Seawolf and Connecticut also feature advanced capabilities compared to other submarines in the Navy’s inventory today, and the service utilizes all three for a variety of specialized tasks, for which they are in very high demand.

After USS Connecticut hit the seamount in October 2021, the submarine first limped to Guam, and then made its way to San Diego in southern California. From there, it headed north to the Puget Sound area, where it has been ever since. The Navy’s investigation into the incident put heavy emphasis on how a weak command environment and lax attitudes toward the performance of key tasks had put the submarine on a path to the accident, as you can read more about in detail here.

The EDSRA formally began in February 2023. At that time, the Navy projected that the repairs would be completed in September 2025. By July 2023, the schedule had already shifted to early 2026, according to Naval News. In July 2025, the service confirmed to TWZ that the timeline had moved again to the right, to late 2026.

The exact reasons for the delays are unclear. TWZ has stressed the particular complexities of major repairs to any of the Navy’s trio of Seawolf class submarines in our past reporting on Connecticut. As we wrote in 2023 around the start of the EDSRA:

“As for the USS Connecticut, as the images show, her state remains relatively the same, at least in terms of what is visible, compared to when she arrived over a year and a half ago. Her sonar dome is still missing and, clearly, the boat has been idle for some time, with huge sections of its anechoic coating missing from its sail.”

“Major repairs to the submarine’s bow, sonar, and other underside structure components will be challenging as the Seawolf class is long out of production. On top of that, just three boats were ever built, with one being a heavily modified sub-type in its own right, the highly secretive USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23). In the past, similar damage has been fixed by leveraging spare parts and entire sections of decommissioned submarines of the same class. That simply is not an option in this case.”

The Navy’s 2025 Fiscal Year budget proposal highlighted exactly these broader issues in seeking funds for spare bow domes “for use in the event replacement is required,” separate from the incident with the USS Connecticut. The original sustainment strategy for the Seawolf class did not include these items, which have a “three plus year lead time” to produce.

With the EDRSA, the Navy is also taking the opportunity to conduct a deep overhaul of USS Connecticut, which could include the integration of various upgrades. The Navy’s budget documents have long highlighted efforts to modernize key systems on all three Seawolf class submarines, some of which were first designed in the 1970s.

How much the repairs and accompanying overhaul will cost is also not clear. In 2021, Congress approved $40 million for “emergency repairs” for Connecticut and an additional $10 million for a new bow dome, but the full price tag is expected to be far steeper. The Seawolf class submarines were extremely expensive to procure in the first place, costing approximately $3.1 billion apiece in 1983, or some $10.6 billion in 2026 dollars. This was due in large part to the truncated order, from 29 down to three, as a result of post-Cold War drawdowns.

Depending on when repairs to the USS Connecticut are actually finished, the Navy could find itself for at least a time with just one Seawolf class submarine in active service. USS Seawolf is currently scheduled to start a routine maintenance availability next May, which will then run through February 2030, per Navy budget documents. As mentioned, the Navy is now also planning to inactivate USS Connecticut in 2031, making it the first Seawolf class submarine to be retired, per its most recent annual shipbuilding plan.

The service still has plans to acquire a new class of attack submarines, which has been discussed in the past as something closer to a true successor to the Seawolf class than the Virginia class boats being procured now. However, these new submarines, currently referred to as SSN(X), are not expected to arrive until the mid-2040s at the earliest. Between now and then, the Navy is set to acquire a one-of-a-kind seabed warfare version of the Virginia, which could well take over for the USS Jimmy Carter, as you can read more about here. In August, the service announced that stretched Block IV and V Virginia class submarines with Virginia Payload Modules (VPM) will now be categorized as guided-missile types (SSGN), as well.

When it comes to USS Connecticut, the Navy remains committed to getting the highly capable submarine back to the fleet after being sidelined for nearly five years now. At the same time, the boat has now already entered the twilight of its career, with just four years of active service life left if the current repair schedule holds.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser and Noah Goldberg, giving you the latest on city and county government.

It’s one of the most exacting tasks to face a left-leaning candidate running for office in L.A.: filling out the Democratic Socialists of America’s questionnaire.

During the candidate endorsement process, the DSA’s L.A. chapter issues a lengthy form that ends with a spate of yes or no questions, mainly around hot-button topics: Do you support Medicare for All? Do you favor the policies of the Green New Deal? Would you put a halt to police exchange programs with Israel?

When filling out the form, mayoral candidate Nithya Raman voiced support for all three. But unlike some DSA-endorsed candidates, the council member declined to give a yes or no answer on an assortment of other topics, opting for longer explanations.

Raman, a DSA member, declined to check either box when asked if she would work as mayor to repeal a law prohibiting homeless encampments near schools. She did the same on whether to divert funds from law enforcement into other public services.

She also declined to say yes or no on removing police from K-12 schools, and on banning the use of facial recognition and other surveillance technologies.

The answers offer the latest sign that Raman has been proceeding with caution on some of the DSA’s litmus test issues. Raman, who tweeted “defund the police” six years ago, said in February that the ranks of the Los Angeles Police Department should not get any smaller.

Appearing Wednesday in Pico-Union, she said she was proud to have the DSA as part of her coalition but also described herself as politically independent.

“I’ve made sure that the decisions that I’m making, the votes that I’m taking, are ones that are based on an understanding of how these policies are actually going to improve the lives of Angelenos,” said Raman, who received the DSA endorsement earlier this month.

Mayor Karen Bass, Raman’s opponent, did not seek the endorsement, saying she was not aligned with some of the group’s positions.

Raman’s questionnaire stands in contrast with those of some of her DSA colleagues.

Hugo Soto-Martínez answered nearly every yes-no question posed by the DSA during his first run for City Council in 2022. Ysabel Jurado did the same during her successful council campaign two years later.

So what were Raman’s longer answers? On homeless encampments, she wrote that she has repeatedly voted against increasing the number of locations where tents are prohibited — and doesn’t want to saddle homeless people with criminal records that could stifle their ability to find permanent housing.

Regarding cuts to the LAPD, Raman said she would expand the city’s network of unarmed crisis response teams, ensuring that “trained professionals” — not police officers — respond to mental health and substance use calls.

On campus police, Raman said schools “should never default to armed officers for discipline or student well being.” And on facial recognition software, Raman said she would prohibit surveillance technologies that lack “clear evidence of need and completely enforceable safeguards for civil rights and privacy.”

“I will also require real oversight and consent before the city deploys any of it,” she wrote.

Raman even declined to say yes or no when asked if she wants noncitizens to vote in local elections. But she explained in writing that she voted earlier this year to put a proposal from Soto-Martínez on the ballot that would give the council the ability to enact noncitizen voting for city and school board elections.

The council later dropped that measure.

Picking apart the Paramount deal

Raman and Bass weighed in recently on the deal struck by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison on the studio’s merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

Both mayoral candidates said Paramount should be held accountable for the promises contained in the settlement, which requires the company to distribute 30 films per year in theaters for the first two years after the merger, then 32 films per year for the next three years.

Of the two, Raman sounded more dismayed by the deal.

“There was a better outcome than this,” Raman told reporters at a recent news conference. “But this is the outcome that we have, and now it’s incumbent upon us to fight for the best results for workers here.”

For much of this year, Bass and Raman voiced concern that the merger would trigger mass layoffs within the film and television industries. But last month, Bass began calling for the two parties to engage with each other in good faith, saying too many productions had come to a standstill, putting people out of work.

“The prolonged uncertainty around this decision has already led to job losses and left workers wondering what it would mean for their futures,” Bass said in a statement this week.

The settlement alleviated the anxiety felt by some at City Hall that Paramount might follow through on its threat to leave California.

Bass’ stance aligned her more with IATSE, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, whose leaders voiced their own concerns about uncertainty while appearing with the mayor at City Hall last month.

Raman was more in sync with Writers Guild of America West, which denounced Bass for pressing Bonta to seek a resolution, saying “industry workers deserve a mayor who believes in upholding the law.”

Bass’ campaign is supported by IATSE Local 33 and the California IATSE Council, which said earlier this year that the mayor has “done more to bring our jobs back to Los Angeles than anyone in city government.”

On Thursday, the Writers Guild endorsed Raman, saying she is a “true pro-labor candidate who walks the walk.”

State of play

— POLLING PRESSURE: A new poll put Raman decisively in the lead in the mayor’s race, showing her with a double-digit advantage over Bass. The findings will ramp up the pressure on Bass and her allies to go sharply negative against Raman while courting the huge number of voters who say they are still undecided.

— MAKING THEIR CASE: Bass and Raman sat down with The Times for two separate, wide-ranging interviews, discussing issues like homelessness, the Palisades fire and the biggest mistakes they’ve made in office.

— PEOPLE MOVER POSTPONED: The opening date of the People Mover train being built at Los Angeles International Airport has been delayed yet again, with contractors now aiming for early January. The 2.25-mile automated train, which has been over budget for years, was originally supposed to open three years ago.

— EXECUTIVE ORDER: Bass ordered a review of the LAPD’s dealings with mentally ill people this week, saying the training that police officers are receiving is “woefully inadequate.” The mayor said she was particularly troubled by a July 29 incident in which police fatally shot a man who approached them with an aluminum bat.

— HURDLES TO HOUSING: Why has housing production been lagging in L.A.? Real estate developers pointed to a list of reasons, including high interest rates, pandemic-era policies like rent freezes and Measure ULA, the voter-approved tax on high-end property sales.

— TRUMP REBUFFED: An appeals court blocked the Trump administration from stopping the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority from applying for millions of dollars in federal funding. The agency had applied on behalf of homeless service organizations from across the county.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to address homelessness went to the area around 11th and Irolo streets, a location represented by Councilmember Heather Hutt.
• On the docket next week: Bass and Raman are slated to appear Tuesday at the Skirball Cultural Center for the 2026 Jewish Los Angeles Mayoral Forum. The event is hosted by the Jewish Federation Los Angeles, the Skirball Cultural Center, ADL Los Angeles and other groups.

Stay in touch

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

SCARBOROUGH Spa Cliff Lift was closed with immediate effect last month – with fears it might never reopen.

The funicular is the oldest of its kind in the country and has been described as a ‘landmark’ for the town.

The Scarborough Spa Cliff Lift closed to visitors on August 21 due to safety fears.

Later today, the lift’s closure and its future will be discussed at a council meeting.

What is set to be spoken about is the funicular’s closure as well as its repair requirements and predicted timescale for the lift’s reopening.

However, the North Yorkshire Council has yet to announce an opening date and is still reviewing the findings of a specialist report.

BE-LEAF IT

Perfect autumn attractions from £1.95 per kid from pumpkin patches to waterparks

DIG IN

Best UK garden centres with arcades, FREE soft play, fairgrounds… & even a beach

Another assessment that examined the tracks and carriages said that the lift operates in a “challenging coastal environment, where salt-laden air, high winds and severe weather can accelerate wear and corrosion”.

The cliff lift is the oldest of its kind in the country, first opening in 1875.

Originally, it was used to transport passengers between the hotels on the Esplanade and the spa.

It was powered by water and gas engines until the 1950s when it was converted to run on electricity.

Council leader Carl Les, said: “The lift is an important part of Scarborough’s history and identity, and we recognise the affection people have for this landmark attraction.”

Last year when the attraction turned 150-years-old, live performances and exhibitions were held in the town to celebrate its anniversary.

There are roughly 12 funicular’s left in the UK with fewer that still function.

The Saltburn Tramway, which shut back in January 2026, reopened earlier this month.

And another one that’s set to open next year after a 10-year-closure is Folkestone’s Leas Lift which was forced to close in 2017.

Sept. 22, 2026 3:42 PM PT

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in a custody dispute over a 5-week-old child who was born in Texas after a surrogate refused a California couple’s wishes to have an abortion.

Justice Elena Kagan denied the request from McKenna West, who was seeking conservatorship over a baby boy she gave birth to in Dallas.

The brief order did not detail the legal reasoning, as is typical in emergency appeals. The decision came from Kagan because she handles appeals of cases out of California.

West had previously been rejected by other courts in her efforts to have a say in the treatment of the child, who was born with a life-threatening heart condition. She gave birth to the boy in Dallas, where most abortions are banned, after she refused the couple’s wishes to end the pregnancy.

West had asked the Supreme Court to halt a California court order that recognizes Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar as the parents of the child whom she calls Gabriel and they call Rumi.

Lawyers for the couple had urged the court to reject the request, questioning what an intervention would do for medical decision-making at an already chaotic time. They also accused West of overstating the prognosis for children born with the heart condition.

“Such chaos would be devastating for Respondents and, most importantly, their child,” the couple told the court.

The legal battle over surrogacy and abortion has attracted the attention and support of Republican officeholders and anti-abortion groups. West has said she believes the couple will not provide life-saving care, citing their request for an abortion at 23 weeks. Gilkar and Ahmed have denied those claims.

The boy was born Aug. 12 with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a life-threatening condition that prevents normal blood flow to the organ. He underwent surgery soon after he was born. The couple’s attorney said in August that the newborn had been in critical condition and appeared to be “suffering from potential complications.”

Without treatment, children affected by the heart defect can die within days or weeks. Surgical repairs are not necessarily cures, and additional surgeries or heart transplants may be needed, according to the CDC.

Wilder and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

TWO major tech outage have caused hundreds of flight cancellations and delays across the UK this month – yet Brits will struggle to get any compensation, according to experts.

Earlier this month a major Air Traffic Control failure in the UK resulted in thousands of flights cancelled across the globe.

And another failure yesterday caused more than 200 flight cancellations and widespread delays.

With the two incidents less than two weeks apart, many travellers have been left out of pocket.

Travellers are now wondering if they can claim compensation back for their delayed or cancelled flight.

Unfortunately, it’s bad news – the NATS issue was classed as an “extraordinary circumstance” which means travellers are not entitled to cash compensation.

Read more on travel inspo

GO ON

All the little-known websites for cheap or FREE tickets to gigs, theatre & festivals

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

The Civil Aviation Authority said that passengers are “unlikely to be entitled to compensation”.

The maximum compensation you can get is for long-haul flights which are delayed four hours or more, which would be £520.

This is only for when the problems are caused by the airline, directly, however.

Lisa Minot, Head of Travel previously said: “Airlines are only required to give you compensation if the delay or cancellation is the airline’s fault, as in a technical failure on a plane or issues with crew.

“In this situation, where ATC is the reason for the chaos, there is unfortunately no compensation due.”

But one thing you should note is that airlines have a duty of care.

This means that when you flight is delayed, they must provide you with food, drink and accommodation.

Sometimes the airline might provide you with a voucher, but if this isn’t provided you can keep your receipts to claim back any expenses.

Often airlines will automatically book you accommodation, but you may also be asked to book accommodation yourself through its website or a dedicated app.

Travellers are advised to always check with airport staff though before booking any hotel yourself.

And make sure to keep your receipts for your hotel as well, to claim back your costs.

Don’t book anything lavish though – airlines will usually only cover a hotel at a reasonable price.

Airlines will usually have a dedicated expenses claims page for you to fill out on its website.

The CAA also recommends asking for an itemised receipt to show what you purchased and how much was spent on each thing.

Lisa added: “Check your insurance policy to see if you have any redress if you have incurred additional costs like missing a concert or unable to pick up car hire. You may be able to claim for that.

“Generally for delays, if an airline looks after you or provides you with food and drink or hotels, you cannot claim for the same costs against your travel insurance.”

Trump has wanted a foothold in Greenland for some time, as a strategic battle unfolds for supremacy in a warming Arctic.

Denmark has hailed a “binding” deal by United States President Donald Trump to give Washington “permanent control” over Greenland’s security and bar Russian and Chinese military bases from the Arctic territory.

But Denmark and Greenland – an autonomous Danish territory – said on Saturday that any deal with the US would not compromise Greenland’s sovereignty, and the two countries would sign the agreement next week at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

“A long period of uncertainty will hopefully be replaced by a binding agreement that strengthens security in the Arctic and North Atlantic, and thereby our shared security within NATO and Europe – while respecting the [Danish] Kingdom’s red lines,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said in a social media post.

Since returning to the White House in January 2025, Trump has repeatedly insisted that Washington needed to control Greenland for strategic reasons, alarming NATO ally Denmark and sparking fierce pushback from the alliance.

Key details of the agreement ⁠have not been made public, including the scale of the US military presence in the self-governing Danish territory and whether any formal power over foreign policy and resources would be ceded to Washington.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said the agreement “recognises Greenland’s interests” and is “to the benefit of us all”.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said it is “great for NATO and Europe”, as it “strengthens our common security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic Area”.

‘I have mixed feelings’

But in Greenland’s capital Nuuk, residents had mixed feelings.

“I don’t know exactly what the agreement is or what has been signed. But whenever the US and Trump are mentioned, I have mixed feelings. I’m not entirely comfortable with how much attention Greenland has right now,” Soren Kreutzmann, a 29-year-old hairdresser, told the AFP news agency.

“We hope the leaders have made a good agreement, because our country needs to be protected, both from the air and sea. Denmark had not given that enough attention for many years,” said Bibbi Kleist Jepsen, a 64-year-old educator.

Trump, who had previously said the US needs “ownership” of Greenland, announced that Washington would immediately start building up a large military presence in the territory.

“From now on, no US adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval”, he said.

Trump has repeatedly warned of Russia and China trying to establish a foothold in Greenland as a strategic battle unfolds for supremacy in the warming Arctic region. The State Department left no doubt that they would not be allowed to do so.

“This agreement guarantees that China and Russia cannot have a base in Greenland, they cannot send troops to Greenland and the necessary mechanisms are in place to prevent investment in sensitive sectors,” a State Department official said.

Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Air Force are once again discussing new-build F-16s. The development comes as the service grapples with a fighter fleet that is simultaneously aging, shrinking, ballooning in sustainment cost and being called upon to do more. This also comes at a time when the Air Force is now investing heavily in the F-15EX, another fourth-generation type it hadn’t bought for many years after committing to an all stealth future fighter fleet in the 2000s.

According to Aviation Week, the company has proposed an aircraft called the F-16G, an enhanced derivative of the F-16 Block 70. The proposed configuration reportedly incorporates conformal fuel tanks, 600-gallon wing tanks, an infrared search-and-track (IRST) system, a Sniper targeting pod, and a drag chute. All of these features have appeared on previous F-16s in one form or another. Lockheed is positioning the new version as a potential replacement for USAF F-16 units whose existing aircraft are approaching the end of their useful lives.

The Air Force, for its part, says that it has not yet settled on either the requirements or the options for addressing the problem. As it stands, the service has not committed to buying any new F-16s. The proposal is nevertheless notable because it follows an earlier round of discussions in which the Air Force was already examining whether a new-build F-16 could help address the growing fighter gap.

In December 2025, Inside Defense reported that the Air Force had reached out to Lockheed Martin about pricing for Block 70 F-16s — the current export standard. The conversations were described as exploratory, with no firm procurement plan, but the reporting established that the idea had moved beyond a purely theoretical discussion. One congressional aide told the publication that officials were looking at ways to “plug their holes” as part of their future force-structure planning.

A new Viper variant based on the Block 70 would be cheaper than replacing an aging F-16 with an F-35, while allowing the Air Force to retain much of the infrastructure, training, and experience associated with the existing aircraft. This is a major advantage as the F-35’s unique infrastructure and support requirements are a costly addition to the aircraft’s base price tag. An even bigger factor is unrelated to acquisition and bed-down costs: a Block 70 is far cheaper to sustain and operate over its service life than an F-35, a difference that compounds significantly across a fleet. 

The idea of a new Viper buy had already reached the highest levels of Air Force leadership several months earlier.

In May 2025, Sen. Tom Cotton asked then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin about the possibility of buying a U.S.-configured “Block 80” F-16 if Congress provided additional funding. Allvin did not endorse the proposal, but he did not dismiss it either, saying he needed to examine the time required to adapt the Block 70 design, where a U.S. aircraft could fit into Lockheed Martin’s production line, and what the industrial base could support. He also noted that the existing Block 70/72 line was already heavily occupied by foreign military sales.

At the same hearing, Allvin acknowledged the broader force-structure logic, saying the Air Force needed both the high-end capabilities required for an Indo-Pacific fight and other fighters that “may not need to be as sophisticated as our fifth-generation, sixth-generation.” He also emphasized that the first increment of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) was intended to augment rather than replace crewed fighters like the F-16.

Taken together, the developments show that the concept has remained alive through the Air Force’s evolving force-structure debate.

The Numbers Game

At first glance, the idea of buying new F-16s for the Air Force in the late 2020s might seem puzzling. The F-16 entered U.S. service in the 1970s, and the Air Force stopped buying new examples for itself more than 20 years ago. The established plan has been to replace the legacy F-16 fleet with the F-35A. For a long time, the service’s stated ambition was ultimately an all-stealth tactical fighter force — but that vision has already largely melted away as budget, operational and industrial-capacity realities have set in.

Today, the fighter fleet is still far older on average than it needs to be and legacy fourth generation types, minus a handful of new F-15EXs, are now well over 20-years old at the youngest. The oldest of these aircraft are increasingly challenging and costly to support. Meanwhile, the F-35 has had its fair share of successes and challenges, but replacing all of the USAF’s oldest fighters with JSFs in a timely and efficient manner, and operating those aircraft over future decades, looks increasingly problematic. The F-47 is also on the horizon, but that aircraft fits a different capability set more aligned with the F-22 than the F-16 and will come at a much higher cost than any fighter currently being procured.

Above all else, the problem is that the Air Force’s fighter challenge is one of numbers.

The service’s 2025 long-term fighter force-structure assessment concluded that it needed 1,558 combat-coded manned fighters by 2035 to reach what it considers a low-risk operational posture. The Air Force had only 1,098 fighters in its inventory as of May 2026, below the statutory minimum of 1,145.

At the same time, the service is trying to retire old aircraft, expand F-35A procurement, introduce the F-47, acquire additional F-15EXs, and field large numbers of CCAs. Those programs address different requirements, but they all compete for money, industrial capacity, personnel, and infrastructure.

For the Air Force, the question has not simply been whether the F-16 remains militarily useful, but also whether the aircraft provides a possible answer to a capacity shortfall, while also dealing with delays in F-35 deliveries, and the retirement of the A-10, blowing another hole in the inventory. Meanwhile, some older F-16s that had been expected to leave the fleet are instead receiving upgrades, including a new radar and electronic warfare suite, to keep them flying longer.

That creates a difficult transition period. The Air Force wants to retire aging fighters, but it also needs to keep enough aircraft available while their replacements arrive. The F-16 keeps reappearing because it offers a way of addressing at least part of that problem with a very well known commodity and without requiring every legacy fighter to be replaced by an F-35 or F-15EX.

The Production Line Matters

There is another reason the F-16 procurement idea refuses to disappear: Lockheed Martin already has an F-16 production line operating in the United States.

The Greenville, South Carolina, facility was established to produce Block 70/72 aircraft for foreign customers and is now the world’s only F-16 production facility. The Air Force helped establish the line as part of its broader effort to sustain the F-16 industrial base through foreign military sales. The line moved there after the massive Lockheed Martin plant at Fort Worth, Texas — where the F-16 had been built for decades — transitioned fully over to F-35 production.

So, buying new F-16s would not require reviving a dormant production line or spinning up an entirely new aircraft program. The basic manufacturing infrastructure already exists, and the additional work required for a U.S.-specific aircraft may end up being minimal — potentially amounting to little more than taking an existing Block 70 and tweaking it, rather than a large-scale new engineering, testing, and weapons-integration effort.

The Air Force has been aware of that possibility for years. In 2021, then-Air Force Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Will Roper argued that the service should consider the new F-16 production line as part of its capacity solution. Roper specifically pointed to the upgraded capabilities available from the South Carolina production line.

However, Greenville is not an empty production line waiting for a U.S. customer. Lockheed Martin’s F-16 facility already has a substantial Block 70/72 backlog for foreign operators, with the company reporting more than 100 aircraft in the queue and continued potential for additional international orders. It’s also unclear how much the facility could realistically be expanded, since it was designed around a relatively more modest foreign military sales production volume rather than the kind of surge a large U.S. order could require. Still, the USAF could step in and buy up open slots, which would also ensure the line stays open for the foreseeable future, which has major strategic and industrial protection benefits.

That brings us back to Gen. Allvin’s question in May 2025 about where a U.S. aircraft could fit on the production line. Even if the Air Force decided to buy the jets, it would have to compete for production capacity with an established international order book while developing whatever U.S.-specific configuration, testing, and integration work it requires.

This Is Not Your Dad’s F-16

The proposed F-16G is also significant because it is not simply another upgraded F-16C/D like the USAF already has.

Lockheed’s proposed configuration reportedly would add conformal fuel tanks and 600-gallon wing tanks, along with an IRST, and the latest Sniper targeting pod, as well as a drag chute. All of these systems are already fielded and available today rather than requiring new development.

Those additions point toward an aircraft intended to provide even more basing flexibility, range, persistence, weapons and sensing capability than the current F-16, which had already grown into a medium-weight fighter years ago. That is relevant to how such an aircraft might actually fit into the future Air Force.

A contemporary F-16 is already a very different proposition from the aircraft that entered U.S. service decades ago. Modern AESA radars, electronic warfare systems, digital architecture, datalinks, advanced cockpit interfaces and weapons have substantially expanded its capabilities. The proposed F-16G would push that evolution further, but, like the F-15EX, it would still occupy a different part of the spectrum from the F-35 and whatever eventually emerges from the F-47 program.

That distinction could be useful in a larger force. An F-35 provides capabilities, particularly its combination of stealth and advanced sensor fusion, that an F-16 can never reproduce. But the Air Force does not conduct every mission in the most heavily defended portion of an adversary’s airspace. Homeland defense, training, defensive counter-air, a range of strike missions, and operations in permissive or partially contested environments don’t necessarily require the same characteristics as a penetration mission against an integrated air defense network. In a major conflict, no fighter will fight alone, either. Far from it. Operation Midnight Hammer, the B-2 strikes against Iran’s nuclear program, provides a salient example here, with F-16s flying deep into the country along with F-22s and F-35s, to clear the way for the B-2 strike force. By now, the Air Force is well-versed in leveraging the total-force fourth-and-fifth-generation mix, and it has discovered that they complement each other in unique ways that can be an advantage, not just compensation for lack of capability.

As far as the drag chute, that is a highly relevant addition to the USAF’s F-16 capability set. The chute would allow for the F-16 to better execute Agile Combat Employment (ACE), which includes operating from austere airfields within the enemy’s weapons engagement zone. The F-16 can get off the runway pretty quick, but landing is a different story. The chute can help greatly in this regard.

There is no question that an F-16 is not a replacement for an F-35. But it could help the Air Force better allocate its limited inventory of increasingly expensive fifth-generation and future sixth-generation aircraft while also maintaining a much larger overall fighter fleet.

CCA Changes the Calculus for Fourth-Gen Jets

One factor that is easy to overlook is Collaborative Combat Aircraft. CCAs are not just a complement to fifth- and sixth-generation fighters, they can also breathe new relevance into fourth-generation types like the F-16. Pairing stealthy, and even optionally expendable CCAs with a fighter like the F-16G could substantially boost its survivability and lethality by pushing sensing, shooting, and some of the risk forward onto uncrewed platforms, extending the F-16’s combat relevance even into higher-end scenarios where it would otherwise be at a disadvantage. In that sense, CCA may end up being arguably as relevant to fourth-generation aircraft as it is to fifth-generation ones.

In other words, CCAs are a positive factor in the F-16G’s business case.

While the F-22 and F-35 are slated to get CCAs first, the F-16G can be built ready to interoperate with them, which could be a massive force multiplier to what would be the most affordable crewed tactical asset in the inventory. CCAs can eventually be used to also help augment F-16Gs operating in a homeland defense mission and other more mundane roles as well.

The Guard Argument

New Block 70s could make particular sense for the Air National Guard.

The Guard continues to operate F-16s in large numbers, meaning that its personnel, facilities, simulators, and maintenance infrastructure are already built around the aircraft. A new-build F-16 could therefore replace an aging F-16 without requiring the same organizational transition associated with converting a unit to an entirely different fighter, and especially a highly complex fifth-generation type with all its unique support requirements.

That has financial implications beyond the aircraft itself. Replacing an existing F-16 squadron with Block 70s would reduce construction costs and training requirements because much of the existing infrastructure and expertise could be retained.

The Air Force would still have to pay for the aircraft and sustainment, but it would not be starting from scratch in terms of operating infrastructure, while the modernized fourth-generation capabilities of an F-16G would still mark a step forward for the Guard over its older F-16s.

It’s worth noting there has also been discussion of replacing more aging F-16s with additional F-15EXs instead. That path, however, is more expensive on both the acquisition and operating-cost side, and it would still require units to convert to a different airframe rather than simply recapitalizing in place.

Viper Refreshed

A new F-16 offers a fresh and highly mature airframe — one with a full service-life ahead of it, on the order of 12,000 flight hours without the need for structural upgrades — double that of the original F-16. This is compared to existing F-16s in the inventory with the decades of wear and fatigue already accumulated on them, with structural upgrades keeping them in the air. That difference in remaining structural life is arguably the single biggest advantage a new-build aircraft has compared with extending an existing one.

Dumping more money into existing F-16s is becoming questionable. Service life extensions and technical upgrades can only go so far and supporting these jets is becoming harder as parts dry up and suppliers who made them are long gone. A new airframe would give the Guard many decades of highly efficient service and the piece of mind for future force planning that goes with it.

Also, just like F-15EX, the development of the Block 70 F-16 has already been paid for largely by foreign customers over many years. It is as off-the-shelf of a solution as it gets and that is a very attractive proposition to an air arm trying to balance its books.

Above all, F-16 sustainment and operating costs run far below the F-35’s — a gap that already holds true even with older F-16s, and one that would widen further with new-build jets.

The Argument Against Simply Buying More F-35s

One seemingly obvious alternative would be to accelerate F-35A procurement. But the F-35 is not simply another fighter that can be substituted one-for-one whenever an F-16 reaches the end of its service life. That would also be difficult to do in practice. F-35A production is effectively capped and there are dense order books, and the well-documented troubles with the Block 4 upgrade are a huge factor pushing the Air Force to look at alternatives like the F-16G in the first place.

The Air Force’s current force-structure plans call for significantly more fighters overall, while the service is simultaneously pursuing F-35As, F-15EXs, and the F-47.

Among the reasons why a modernized F-16 might be considered alongside those programs are concerns not only about the cost of those aircraft, but also about the timing of F-35 deliveries, something that has been disrupted by well-publicized problems with Joint Strike Fighter upgrades. At the same time, keeping older F-16s active through upgrades is an increasingly unattractive way of managing the shortfall.

The issue is therefore less about choosing the F-16 instead of the F-35 than about deciding whether the Air Force should use both aircraft for different portions of the force structure.

The service is already doing something along these lines with the F-15EX. It has accepted that a modernized fourth-generation aircraft can have a role alongside the F-35 and the F-22, rather than requiring every new fighter to be stealthy.

A new F-16 would extend that logic to a lower-cost segment of the fleet, potentially allowing the Air Force to use F-35s where their particular capabilities are most valuable while maintaining additional capacity with a less expensive aircraft.

What Could Happen Next?

Even if Air Force leaders conclude that the F-16G makes operational sense, Congress would still have to decide whether it is worth funding.

The December 2025 reporting identified the central problem: lawmakers would want the service to demonstrate that buying new aircraft is preferable to continuing to upgrade the F-16s it already owns. They would also have to weigh the proposal against the F-35 and CCA programs.

If an existing F-16 can be kept operational with a relatively inexpensive upgrade, a new aircraft has to justify its acquisition cost and the additional long-term sustainment burden. But if maintaining an increasingly old F-16 fleet doesn’t save large sums of money over the long haul, the new Block 70 variant begins to look more compelling.

There remains a substantial gap between Lockheed Martin pitching the F-16G and the Air Force actually buying it. The service told TWZ that it is “in the initial phases of analyzing options for the next Future Years Defense Program.” The Air Force spokesperson added: “At this stage, we have neither defined the precise mission requirements nor the spectrum of options that could fill it.”

That is consistent with the status described by Inside Defense nine months earlier. At the time, the Air Force had no plans to procure Block 70s, and the discussions with Lockheed were described as exploratory. Even if senior officials ultimately favored the aircraft, Inside Defense reported that the program could not appear in the Future Years Defense Program until at least fiscal 2028 because the FY2027 budget process was already too far along.

The F-16G therefore remains a proposal rather than a program. But the persistence of the idea is itself significant. It should be noted that the F-15EX buy emerged out of very similar machinations, with the benefits proving to be undeniable.

The new proposal would let some Guard and Reserve units swap their F-16s for vastly improved F-16s — the same logic that drove the F-15EX buy — while also keeping the Greenville line hot, which is a significant benefit in its own right. And it accomplishes both in the most efficient way possible: not just in acquisition cost, but in sustainment cost, which is really the more problematic burden of the two. In the end, this points to another glaring reality check for the all-stealth-force concept, a vision the Air Force has effectively already abandoned.

The Air Force has spent years describing the F-35 as the replacement for its F-16 fleet, yet it now has to contend with aging F-16s, delayed or constrained fighter production, a larger stated requirement for total fighter capacity, and the lengthy transition toward the F-47 and uncrewed combat aircraft. In that environment, a new-build F-16 provides an option that sits between extending legacy aircraft and buying the most sophisticated — and expensive — fighters available.

Regardless, there are so many priorities facing the force right now, buying new F-16s will be a challenge at every turn, but that doesn’t mean it won’t become too compelling of a proposition to accept. Still, many will argue that every dollar should be invested in higher-end fighter and uncrewed platforms that are more survivable against America’s primary pacing threat, China. That country is rapidly evolving its own air arm with stealth fighters and advanced uncrewed aircraft. Stepping back to the F-16 while facing down such a threat can appear to be counterproductive when taken at face value. At the same time, the F-16 is already slated to stay in the inventory by the hundreds for decades to come, which does take some of the bite out of that argument.

In the end, it is remarkable that the F-16 was supposed to have left the U.S. fighter equation years ago. Instead, every time the Air Force looks closely at the gap between the fighter force it has and the force it says it needs, the aircraft somehow finds a way back into the conversation.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

BRITISH Airways has confirmed one of its routes won’t start up again until next winter at the earliest, due to the Iran conflict.

It first suspended flights to the destination in February of this year.

British Airways has confirmed the suspension of its flights to Abu Dhabi won’t lift until winter 2027 at the earliest.

The airline cited the Middle East conflict and ‘airspace instability’ as the reason for its continued delay.

Talking to Simple Flying, a BA spokesperson said: “Due to the ongoing situation in the Middle East, we have made further changes to our flying schedule to provide greater clarity for our customers.

“We’re keeping the situation under constant review and are directly in touch with affected customers to offer them a range of options. (…) Our flights to Abu Dhabi are scheduled to resume in Winter 2027/2028.”

DIVE IN

Rainproof UK autumn holiday parks from £8pp a night – Center Parcs dupes and more

TOP MARKS

Cheap all inclusive hotels with brilliant Tripadvisor ratings – from £299pp

However, Simple Flying noted that Abu Dhabi appears to have been removed from BA’s long-haul plans for 2027 altogether.

Currently for those wanting to travel to Abu Dhabi with BA, they will have to book a flight from Heathrow to Doha, then switch to another airline like Qatar Airways to continue their journey.

The indirect route takes around 11 hours rather than seven.

But there are two routes back on the cards this year with British Airways – the first is to Dubai.

The airline will resume flights to Dubai from November 3.

These will initially operate once a day during the winter season before increasing two services each day during the summer season.

Flights to Amman will also restart on November 3 after being suspended in March.

WASHINGTON — Gov. Gavin Newsom said he would not run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028 if Kamala Harris does so, appearing to offer deference to the former vice president ahead of a race that could draw a historically crowded field of candidates.

“I wouldn’t run if she ran,” Newsom told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview posted Monday. “Why would I? I wouldn’t do that to her. … I wouldn’t do it to you, I wouldn’t waste everyone’s time.”

Newsom appeared to acknowledge a desire to avoid the possibly messy fight for California backers that could ensue if both were to run, saying there would be “pure crossover” between Harris’ supporters and his.

The governor’s effective yield to Harris diminishes the possibility of a showdown between two of California’s most powerful political figures in an election whose stakes are viewed by the Democratic Party as existential. The possibility of Harris making a second attempt at the presidency after her loss to President Trump in 2024 has hung as the biggest question over the potential Democratic field.

Both Newsom and Harris have acknowledged they are considering presidential bids in 2028, but Harris has closely held her intentions. She said last week that she had not decided whether to run, telling former soccer player Megan Rapinoe in a podcast interview that she was focused on working full time to help Democrats win the midterms.

A spokesperson for Harris declined to comment. Representatives for Newsom did not immediately respond to a request Monday afternoon.

Harris has appeared as the party front-runner in multiple polls about 2028, including one in July that showed her beating Newsom by double digits. But questions have continually circulated within the party about whether voters who are scarred from the party’s 2024 loss would be enthusiastic about a Harris run.

Several California donors told The Times in May that they did not plan to support Harris or did not want to discuss a possible bid by her; in a few corners, more enthusiasm came through for Newsom.

The dynamics around the 2028 Democratic primary continue to evolve as party hopefuls jockey for the spotlight, and they shifted notably with the selection of South Carolina as the party’s first primary state. That choice could give Harris a boost if South Carolina’s Black voters move in her favor.

Harris and Newsom came up in politics in the same era and have never before run in an election against each other, operating their political careers largely in parallel rather than in competition. In February, Newsom said on CNN that he had “never gotten in the way of her ambition” and he didn’t “imagine I would in the future,” saying “fate” would determine whether they ran against each other.

Newsom swung through South Carolina this month, the type of move generally interpreted as laying the groundwork for a presidential bid. In the CNN interview, Newsom noted that he did not know whether Harris would run and agreed it was a “pretty good case” to make when Tapper raised the argument that Harris had had her chance at the presidency and Newsom had not yet.

The governor suggested that a fight between him and Harris would split their supporters’ vote in a way that would be “a gift from God for everybody else” in the race, saying “it services no greater good” for both of them to run. He also nodded to their overlapping political circles.

“I know her base of supporters, I know her friends. The [Venn] diagram on that is just pure crossover,” Newsom said. “I wouldn’t do that.”

The interview was filmed in Montana, where Newsom’s in-laws own a ranch, as Newsom and Tapper fly-fished together. The full segment was set to air Tuesday.

Newsom said that in order to decide to run, a candidate needs to be able to “meet the moment.”

“You gotta be honest with yourself,” he said. “Do you represent the zeitgeist of the moment or are you wasting everybody’s time?”

Experienced host Emma Willis knows what to expect in some ways and just wants to bring ‘joy’ to Strictly viewers in the same way Tess and Claudia did

Defiant Emma Willis says she knows the new Strictly Come Dancing series will bring her and the other new hosts lots of abuse and criticism – but she won’t engage with it. Emma, former Strictly professional dancer Johannes Radebe, 39, and comedian Josh Widdicombe, 43, will take over later this month from long-time hosts Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman, who stepped down last year.

Emma is used to comparisons with other hosts having fronted Big Brother after Davina McCall and Brian Dowling. But she vowed to ignore the haters and just wants to try to enjoy the experience. She said: “I’m ready for the comparisons. I am ready for the negative opinions that can come with these things. Those things I don’t engage with or read, and there are always positives as well.

“At the end of the day, I feel like it’s really simple, right? We we work in this industry, and we’ve been given the opportunity to work on a phenomenal show that is really well loved by the public and also by ourselves. We we aren’t reinventing the wheel, and we’re not rocket scientists.

“We’re working on an entertainment show about dancing that is meant to hopefully bring joy to everybody watching it. So hopefully we can be a small part of that joy and have a really lovely time doing it.”

She added: “There’s obviously a kind of fear that comes with it because of the enormity of it, and you have nerves about being good enough to kind of do the job and step into the role.”

The trio were a surprise choice to make up the presenting team and they admitted they were also a bit shocked to be picked. They gave the impression they were unsure if they were in pole position to get the jobs, saying their final audition was the “very last of the callbacks on a Friday afternoon”. They had also been told it would be a pair presenting and so Josh presumed it was “two weirdos against each other” and he was being pitched head-to-head with Johannes, only to end up working with him and more established host Emma.

Comedian Josh also said that while they would not “reinvent the show”, they would “be ourselves and our personalities will be there”. He added on taking the job: “It’s like you only get one opportunity at this career. We’re incredibly blessed that we’ve got where we are in our careers, and just why not?”

Johannes was initially nervous but after speaking with his agent was more confident. “If anybody was afforded this opportunity amongst my peers[dancers], any one of them would jump at it.”

Emma turned 50 in March, but rather than seeing that milestone as a time to reflect or slow down, is arguably enjoying her most successful stage of her career. She said: “I think maybe there’s more of a reframe needs to be had around 50 and as you’re getting older, you should slow down or change or maybe not do as much. I feel more invigorated at 50, I’m more like I’m more sure of myself. I know what I want to do. I’m not going to apologise for myself and my successes like I’ve done for the last 25 years.

“I’m not about to step down and slow down for anything. So I say, bring it on. You know, life is short. So take these opportunities when they they come your way, because at some point they’ll stop.”

* Strictly Come Dancing will return on Sunday September 19 to BBC One and iPlayer.

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

ABC comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico won’t air on broadcast television amid the network’s high-stakes skirmish with the Federal Communications Commission.

Kimmel, during his Wednesday night monologue, said his talk with the 37-year-old Texas Democrat would instead stream on his show’s YouTube channel — depriving ABC viewers and TV stations of a potentially newsworthy interview with Talarico, who has been surging in the polls.

The Texas race is shaping up as a key contest in what could help decide control of the U.S. Senate in the mid-term elections.

Talarico is running against Texas Republican Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, who has been endorsed by President Trump.

Kimmel alluded to the Walt Disney Co. network’s ongoing dispute with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr as the reason for the switch. This spring, Carr’s Media Bureau ordered ABC to submit to an early review of its TV station licenses for Disney’s eight owned stations. The FCC launched the review a day after President Trump demanded Kimmel be fired after First Lady Melania Trump became upset over a joke the comedian told on his program, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”

ABC has since sued the FCC, alleging Trump’s disdain for Kimmel and other ABC programs has fueled the FCC’s heavy-handed approach to the network, in violation of its 1st Amendment rights.

Kimmel pointed to the “unusual circumstances” in his monologue.

“For the whole 20-plus years of our show, in fact, I’ve been interviewing Americans who are running for office with no problem at all, just like [David] Letterman did, [Jay] Leno did, Arsenio [Hall], etc. etc.,” Kimmel said. “I’ve interviewed a lot of political candidates — from Hilary Clinton to Ted Cruz to Donald Trump.”

But, Kimmel said that in the current climate, airing the Talarico interview on the public airwaves carried too much risk.

“Out of consideration for our local stations, especially our ABC affiliates in Texas who would have to deal with this nonsense,” the ABC interview, which was scheduled for Thursday, would instead play on YouTube, he said.

ABC declined to comment. An FCC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The issue surfaced nearly one year after a major dust-up when ABC temporarily benched Kimmel after comments he made on his show over the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. During that episode, Carr seemed to threaten Disney by saying that Kimmel should be punished.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways … to take action … on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC.”

Two station groups removed Kimmel’s show, but ABC eventually stood by the comedian returning him to his perch the following week.

The Disney-owned station licenses were not set to expire for several years when the FCC demanded that Disney defend its stewardship of the outlets. The license for Disney’s KABC-TV Channel 7 in Los Angeles extends to 2030 but it is now being challenged.

The Burbank giant has asked a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order and injunction to halt the FCC’s early station review.

ABC also is defending against an FCC probe into whether its daytime talk show, “The View,” should be entitled to an exemption from the so-called equal-time rule for political candidates who appear as guests.

Carr has challenged the status of “The View,” arguing that the topical chat show is not a bona fide news program and, thus, should not be entitled to the exemption.

The same issue tripped up former CBS late night comedian Stephen Colbert who interviewed Talarico in February — before his program, “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, was canceled.

At the time, Colbert told viewers CBS lawyers forbid him from airing a Talarico interview on his program due to the FCC’s increased scrutiny of exemptions to the equal-time rule, an allegation that CBS disputed.

But Colbert’s interview played on the program’s YouTube channel — not the CBS network.

The FCC has said it was investigating ABC stations over whether the company’s diversity and inclusion policies are in violation of the Communications Act of 1934 and the agency’s rules, including its “prohibition on unlawful discrimination.”

Last week, the FCC asked a federal judge in Washington to dismiss ABC’s 1st Amendment lawsuit, calling Disney’s challenge to the early review “meritless” because the commission hasn’t made a decision on whether to escalate the matter or rescind Disney’s station licenses.

Kimmel ended his monologue, saying he was grateful for the YouTube channel “because in the America we live in right now, that is the best that we can do until November.”

TRAVEL chaos caused by a major tech outage across all UK airports earlier this week has left thousands stranded – with many left out of pocket when booking back up flights and hotels.

An Air Traffic Control failure in the UK on Tuesday saw thousands of flights cancelled, resulting in travel chaos across the globe.

Many have since been asking if they can claim compensation back, with flights both delayed and cancelled for days.

However, as the NATS issue was classed as an “extraordinary circumstance” travellers are not entitled to cash compensation.

The maximum compensation you can get is for long-haul flights which are delayed four hours or more, which would be £520.

This is only for when the problems are the caused by the airline, directly, however.

Read more on travel inspo

GO ON

All the little-known websites for cheap or FREE tickets to gigs, theatre & festivals

ALL IN

I found the best value all inclusive London hotel… just £55pp with free food & booze

Lisa Minot, Head of Travel said: “Airlines are only required to give you compensation if the delay or cancellation is the airline’s fault, as in a technical failure on a plane or issues with crew.

“In this situation, where ATC is the reason for the chaos, there is unfortunately no compensation due.”

Yet, airlines do have a duty of care, so you can recoup some of your costs.

When affected by flight delays, airlines must provide travellers with food and drink as well as accommodation.

‘Care’ you should receive includes food and drink, two phone calls, accommodation and transport between the airport and where you are staying.

Usually, an airline will provide you with a voucher to get food or drink, however if a voucher isn’t provided, make sure you keep your receipts to claim back expenses incurred.

While an airline might automatically book your accommodation when your flight is delayed or cancelled, sometimes you might be asked to book it yourself via its website or a dedicated app.

Although, it is advised to always ask airport staff before booking a hotel yourself.

If you pay for your own hotel, you must make sure to keep all your receipts so you can claim back your costs.

Airlines will cover a hotel with a reasonable price though, so don’t go booking a five-star stay.

Then head to your airline’s website and find their expenses claims page and fill out the form with the relevant details.

The CAA also recommends asking for an itemised receipt to show what you purchased and how much was spent on each thing.

Lisa added: “Check your insurance policy to see if you have any redress if you have incurred additional costs like missing a concert or unable to pick up car hire. You may be able to claim for that.

“Generally for delays, if an airline looks after you or provides you with food and drink or hotels, you cannot claim for the same costs against your travel insurance.”

Trump also said further negotiations with Iran could possibly happen, “but it’s not something we’re looking at”.

The US president initially predicted the war, which is now in its seventh month, would last only a matter of weeks. The conflict, and its knock-on effects on everything from fuel to groceries, has led to a steep decline in his approval ratings – and pressure from those within his party, including devout supporters, to quickly end the war.

Midterm elections will be held on 3 November, and Republicans are in danger of losing their control on Congress.

At the convention, Trump sought to energise the party ahead of November. Historically, a sitting president’s party tends to lose seats in Congress in the midterm elections.

Fighting in the Middle East has intensified in recent days, as oil facilities throughout the region come under attack, driving up the global price of fuel and any item that requires shipping.

The price of oil hit $100 a barrel on Wednesday for the first time since July. Similarly, earlier this week the price of US diesel hit an all-time-high, which is likely to cause a ripple effect on prices across the US.

On Wednesday, the US military said it had attacked five oil tanker ships with ties to Iran. Tehran, in response, launched attacks on two US Navy destroyers and eight oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, causing “heavy damage” to the vessels, according to Iranian state media.

A day earlier, the Iran-linked Houthis in Yemen launched a wave of attacks in Saudi Arabia, sparking fires at oil facilities.

The fighting, which began again recently after a 60-day ceasefire between the US and Iran formally expired last month, has also raised predictions that the rising fuel costs could lead to higher interest rates in the US.

A MUCH-LOVED ride has closed at Disneyland Paris ahead of a huge makeover.

Crush’s Coaster at Disney Adventure World is now closed until summer 2027 as it undergoes its biggest upgrade in 20 years.

The coaster, which takes riders through the East Australian Current, will have technical elements replaced as well as sections of the track.

In the second phase of the refurbishment, the coaster will be tested to ensure it functions properly before reopening.

Of course, the upgrade will refresh the ride’s show elements as well, such as repainting and repairs.

Crush’s Coaster was last closed in 2015 for six months but this project will be the biggest in the ride’s history.

Read more on travel inspo

GO ON

All the little-known websites for cheap or FREE tickets to gigs, theatre & festivals

TRAVEL TIP

The £2.99 SIM hack that can save Brits HUNDREDS abroad

Many people have taken to social media to express their excitement about the upgrade: “I’m happy about the refurb but I’ve booked for November. Massively underrated ride.”

Another person added: “Glad to see this happening.”

There are a number of other closures taking place at the theme park including Peter Pan’s flight, which is closed until September 19.

Pirate’s Beach is currently closed and will be until October 23 for a safety inspection as well as replacement of the ground padding.

Mad Hatter’s Tea Cups will be closed between September 21 and October 2 to repaint the floor.

La Tanière du Dragon will close on October 5 until the middle of the month for servicing.

As Shohei Ohtani strode up to the plate Monday, Michael Bublé’s voice crooned over the Dodger Stadium speakers as always. But after four games out of the lineup, the song seemed to be asking fans to believe:

“I’m feeling … good.”

Ohtani at least looked more comfortable in the batter’s box than he did Wednesday, when pain in his biceps had him shaking his right arm. But his performance at the plate still remains in a slump — he went 0 for 3 with a walk in the Dodgers’ 6-3 win over the Cincinnati Reds.

“It’s hard to really feel 100% at any time in the season,” Ohtani said through interpreter Will Ireton. “So I wouldn’t say I’m there.”

Roberts will continue to closely monitor Ohtani, saying he’ll see how the superstar designated hitter feels Tuesday before finalizing any decisions about playing time.

The Dodgers and Ohtani have all but ruled out his return to the mound this season.

“Disappointing,” Ohtani said. “But I want to make sure that when I look back at this season, that I used this as an experience, a learning experience and make sure that I use that as something to improve upon for next season.”

Roberts said he hoped Ohtani could improve his offensive production by not pitching.

“That’s one part of the thought, to sort of take the pitching off of his plate and really try to let him lock in on being a hitter and get on track,” Roberts said. “Because the last couple of weeks he just hasn’t been himself in the box.”

In the six games before Roberts sat Ohtani because of health concerns, he only had two hits.

“I’m confident that my overall performance should be better moving forward,” Ohtani said. “I think the thing that I was more focused on was making sure that the pitching wouldn’t cause the worst scenario, which was for me to not be able to play at all.”

Teoscar Hernández is showered with sunflower seeds after hitting a three-run home run in the sixth inning Monday against the Reds.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Ohtani flew out in his first at-bat, and then struck out on a Chase Burns slider below the zone. He struck out again against Brandon Williamson to end the fifth before reaching base in the seventh on a walk.

“It was certainly good to get him back out there, but there was certainly nothing to kind of write home about,” Roberts said. “I think the main thing is that there was nothing alarming from the at-bats. To take four days off, to come out of it feeling good, I think that’s a win in itself.”

The Dodgers (87-57) caught a break with Burns — considered a top-five National League Cy Young candidate — since the Reds (69-75) had him on a pitch limit in an effort to manage his workload.

Burns held the Dodgers hitless through three innings, striking out Ohtani as his last act before handing duties to the bullpen.

Dodgers starter Emmet Sheehan, recalled on Monday as the Dodgers optioned right-hander Bobby Miller, gave up a home run to Elly De La Cruz in the first before outdueling the Reds’ bullpen. He gave up three hits, one run and struck out 10 over 5⅔ innings.

Sheehan will remain in the rotation and is scheduled to start Sunday in Miami, Roberts said.

Against Williamson in the fifth inning, Teoscar Hernández lined a leadoff single into left field. After Alex Call was hit in the right foot with a pitch, Miguel Rojas chopped a grounder to Reds third baseman Ke’Bryan Hayes, whose errant throw allowed two runs to score as Rojas dashed to third.

The next inning, Hernández punctuated his recent hot streak by lining a three-run homer into the Dodgers’ bullpen — with the highest exit velocity (112.6 mph) of any ball he’s put in play since 2024, according to Statcast.

Dodgers pitcher Emmet Sheehan delivers during the third inning against the Reds on Monday.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Though Dodgers relievers Seth Halvorsen and Jack Dreyer each gave up a run, the Dodgers tacked on insurance in the eighth inning with a bases-loaded sacrifice fly from pinch-hitting Will Smith. And the team extended its winning streak to five games.

Ohtani didn’t play a part in any of the Dodgers’ scoring, but at least he was back in the batter’s box.

“It felt like, ‘long time no see,’” he said.

The Rams will depart for Australia on Tuesday night for their season opener against the San Francisco 49ers.

Will star defensive lineman Aaron Donald be with them?

“Feeling good, feeling really good,” Donald said Monday. “Come up with a game plan and see.”

But could he say for certain he will make the trip?

“I’m feeling really good. Feeling great,” he said. “Come up with a game plan and see what’s going on but I’m telling ya, I feel great.”

Donald, 35, returned from a two-year retirement to join a Rams team that is favored to win Super Bowl LXI. But the three-time NFL defensive player of the year has gone through only one 11-on-11 practice.

2026 NFL season preview

He did that on Sunday, but did not practice Monday. Donald said he did a cardio workout as part of a scheduled day off.

“I’m 35,” he said, chuckling. “You don’t play football in two years, you got to be smart. Even if I feel good, you still gotta be smart.”

Coach Sean McVay has said that Donald’s situation would be evaluated daily.

Rams defensive coordinator Chris Shula, asked if a decision had been made regarding whether Donald would play against the 49ers, said “everything’s” day by day.

“We’re ready for him if he does, ready for him if he doesn’t,” Shula said, “and we’ll have a plan for however many plays he feels like he can go and we’ll go from there.”

Donald said his ramp-up has gone better than he anticipated.

“Thought I’d be a lot more rusty,” he said, adding that things were “clicking.”

Donald said that during his first full practice, he settled in after a few plays. He is not where he wants to be, “but pretty pretty damn good, if you ask me, to not play football in two years to be moving how I’m moving.”

Donald came back, in part, to team with edge rusher Myles Garrett, a two-time NFL defensive player of the year. They have been in meetings and walkthroughs together, and now have practiced.

“It was good to be on the grass with him and do some stuff, and get a feel,” Donald said. “Because the chemistry of playing with each other, kind of learning how each other rush, how each other play, not just Myles just the whole front. … It’s exciting.”

Donald said he was ready for whatever role he fills, and that he was not going to worry about playing 60 or 70 snaps.

“There’s no pressure on me. I can just go out there play free, play ball, let the game come to me,” Donald said. “Play with the guys around me. Help them, they help me.”

Donald, an eight-time All-Pro, has 111 career sacks.

Star receiver Davante Adams is happy that he returned to join the Rams.

“Nobody knows exactly what he’s going to do statistically, if he’s going to be exactly what he was,” Adams said. “But … I know the type of person that he is and I know the way he’s going to work and I know the way he looks right now.

“It looks like it’s going to be a familiar picture for us all out there.”

Puka Nacua ready for opener

Star receiver Puka Nacua said he was happy to be participating in full-team drills after being sidelined for a few weeks because of a psoas injury sustained during a joint practice with the Dallas Cowboys a few days after the end of training camp.

The NFL has been investigating an incident that led to Nacua being the defendant in a civil lawsuit. If the league determines that Nacua violated the NFL’s personal conduct policy, he could be suspended.

But the league has not taken action, and McVay said he expected Nacua to play against the 49ers.

Did the possibility of a suspension before the season weigh heavily on Nacua?

“Definitely feeling emotion of some of the things that, just trying to handle that in the ways that I can and what’s in my control,” he said. “But also having a realistic understanding of the consequences of some of the things that I put myself in this offseason.

“But I feel like I’ve been able to feel grounded and feel present when I step out there on the football field. That’s been one of the positive things, of every time I step on that football field, never taking that moment for granted.”

A few weeks ago, non-chavista politician Antonio Ecarri and American economist Steve Hanke managed to unearth one of Venezuela’s longstanding and unsettling debates: whether the country’s economy should be formally dollarized. After decades of economic hardship brought by repeated devaluations, hyperinflation and scarcity, the country’s monetary regime is heavily fragmented. 

De facto dollarization rules most of the transactions, while the bolívar, crypto stablecoins, euros and the currencies of neighboring countries split the rest of the monetary market share used to maneuver through Venezuela’s complex economy. With the US pushing for the country’s economic stabilization to increase trust in foreign investors, the fragmented monetary ecosystem can be detrimental to the process made so far.

Venezuela’s economic outlook has improved after Maduro’s capture and since the US took control over Delcy’s decisions. Mainly because of a sharp recovery of oil exports to the US recovered sharply; by April, these were up 192% from their 2025 average. The energy sector is spearheading the recovery while attempting to partially compensate for the devastation caused by the twin earthquakes. GDP growth projections for Venezuela are forecasted at 5.8%, almost four times the country’s 2025 growth (1.5%). Yet the threat of inflation and instability compounds investors’ worries about entering the country. After repeated announcements by the interim regime promising to close the exchange gap and tackle inflation, their actions show otherwise.

Delcy continues to erode the bolívar by stimulating the money printer needed to feed chavismo’s patronage system. Exchange rate controls, which have long incentivized corruption and inflation, are still there. On the dollar side, credit loans and transactions remain “officially” forbidden, creating an artificial tax on USD transactions and fear amongst businesses who can be punished for their use.

Eliminating inflation would require abolishing all existing exchange rates and creating a new one based on an agreed technocratic approach.

The result of this unaddressed monetary disaster has been a persistent rise in inflation, which increased by 6.1% in July, bringing year-on-year inflation to 576% and 2026 cumulative inflation to 175.5%.

This is not the first time the call for dollarization has been in the spotlight in Venezuela. Nonetheless, US control over the country’s economy may increase the possibility of it becoming a reality. While dollarizing might be an effective measure to rapidly generate trust and reduce inflation, it raises important questions about its implementation under the interim regime and the future of Venezuela’s monetary sovereignty. Similar to Trump’s oil deal or the post-earthquake reconstruction, all discussions and actions are taking place behind the scenes, sidelining the very population that will have to deal with its consequences. 

The US dollar is not the solution

Discussions regarding dollarization have primarily focused on three benefits: eliminating inflation, forcing fiscal discipline, and eradicating corruption. However, as long as those managing the dollarization process are the same ones who have guided Venezuela to the worst economic crisis in the region’s history, the result might be equally as bad but with a different set of consequences. 

Hanke asserts that no preexisting institutional, fiscal or political conditions are necessary for dollarization to be successful. However, this process requires the willingness of all three areas to move forward. Eliminating inflation would require abolishing all existing exchange rates and creating a new one based on an agreed technocratic approach. Currently, there is no incentive for anyone in the interim regime’s leadership to converge the exchange rates.

A struggling or failed dollarization plan could further erode trust while leaving the country even more vulnerable to external shocks.

The exchange rate differentials have not been an economic policy mistake overlooked by chavismo. These have been an integral part of chavismo’s strategy to undermine and replace old political elites with select, loyal ones. Long ago, they became crucial to maintain the status quo. There are no signs in favour of change in this area, as economist Juan Comella argued in May. Doing so would compromise the structure that keeps her in power.

A struggling or failed dollarization plan—which forces the government to take on further debt, experience severe cash shortages and fundamentally depend on its commodity exports—could further erode trust while leaving the country even more vulnerable to external shocks, such as a sudden plunge in oil prices. The neoliberal constraints posed by dollarization, like an extremely limited Central Bank to aid the government, will not fix decades of institutional erosion, but only try to avoid it while possibly unleashing a fresh round of obstacles that menace an already fragile economic recovery.

The bolívar is not the problem

Decades of monetary policy failures made the population skeptical of the bolívar. For long enough, the system and institutions have incentivised and even rewarded the wrong people to take advantage of its vulnerabilities at the expense of the population and evading any personal consequences.

It is certainly not the paper where the bolívar is printed the element that corrupts people or destroys the economy: it is the system behind it. It is not far-fetched to think of a plan that grants the Venezuelan Central Bank complete independence, empowering the correct people to safeguard the economy from the risks of inflation while maintaining government spending in line and preparing for external shocks.

Relinquishing our monetary sovereignty would be a mistake in a world where governments actively participate and spend to tackle modern challenges, including AI and natural disaster relief. China’s rise as a global power has been, in part, a consequence of decades of industrial policy under intense government intervention. The US and EU have started to catch up in recent years. The US has done so with the CHIPS and Inflation Reduction Act under Biden and, most recently, with the Trump administration imposing protectionist tariffs and taking equity stakes in major companies with the aim of safeguarding US interests in key sectors. The EU aims to increase competitiveness under the Clean Industrial Deal and the Industrial Accelerator Act. If Venezuelan leaders seek to move past the country’s commodity dependence, climb up in the global value chain, become competitive and diversify the economy, industrial policy will be crucial. Dollarization would compromise those goals.

Starting a dollarization process under chavista rule is similar to entrusting the reconstruction of Venezuela’s oil sector to a businessman who contributed to the destruction of the country’s electricity grid.

Foreign investment will be the driver of short- and medium-term recovery and growth for Venezuela. However, industrial policy will be crucial to guide the long-term objectives of the country. For this, Venezuela needs the bolívar, even if it’s in an open and competitive currency market where the people decide which currency earns their trust.

The Ecarri-Hanke duo surprised public opinion not only because of their proposal but also because of the odd pairing. Ecarri represents the efforts of Venezuelan politicians with limited legitimacy to enter the spheres of influence in Washington, and also chavismo’s ability to neutralize them. Hanke only views Venezuela as part of a larger plan to promote and deepen the use of the dollar internationally, in a global context that increasingly mistrusts the US currency and is hedging against it.

Ecarri is the result of a system that empowers the wrong people. Hanke represents the oversight of the reality on the ground and the impact Venezuelans will have to absorb. Both display the same shortcomings of Venezuela’s monetary institutions over the past decades. Their proposal simply tries to hide the sun with one finger instead of addressing the historical root causes of Venezuela’s monetary instability.

Starting a dollarization process under chavista rule is similar to entrusting the reconstruction of Venezuela’s oil sector to a businessman who contributed to the destruction of the country’s electricity grid. Policy should depart from both trauma-instilled calls for complete dollarization and a patriotic defense of the bolívar. Instead, it should focus on economic stability and our capacity to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

Reporting from Brisbane, Calif. — Just beyond San Francisco’s city limits lies 640 acres of land that could help solve some of California’s biggest problems.

A developer wants to build 4,400 new homes there — one of the largest projects recently proposed in one of the country’s most unaffordable regions. The development would overlook a railway that drops riders into the heart of San Francisco in 15 minutes, reducing the need for cars and cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that come from them.

State and regional leaders have endorsed the project. But its fate rests with Brisbane, a city of 4,700 people that annexed the property 55 years ago. And no one, not even the developer, thinks Brisbane’s residents will approve all 4,400 homes.

“Unfortunately, we believe that their ceiling is going to be below that,” said Jonathan Scharfman, the general manager for the developer, Universal Paragon Corp.

The project, Brisbane Baylands, reveals how few incentives local governments have to accept large developments — even as the state is pushing to lower housing costs and funnel growth toward existing cities and nearby mass transit to combat climate change. Brisbane residents are wary of a project that could triple the city’s population. Under California’s tax system, Brisbane also earns more money if it rejects the current plan in favor of potential alternatives with more hotel rooms and space for businesses — but no homes.

The Bay Area’s dire need for housing makes the debate over the Baylands project “particularly painful,” said Ben Metcalf, director of the state Department of Housing and Community Development.

“It is frustrating that as a state and as a constellation of local jurisdictions we are constantly making decisions that aren’t the best for alleviating poverty, housing affordability, furthering our state’s economy or meeting our climate change goals,” Metcalf said.

For their part, some Brisbane residents feel besieged by pressure from housing activists, business groups, state lawmakers, San Francisco politicians, newspaper editorials and others beyond the city’s boundaries. An old rail yard and garbage dump contaminated the land, and opponents contend they want to protect anyone who might decide to live there even after regulators approve a cleanup. More than that, Brisbane residents say, outsiders don’t understand how much the Baylands project would upend their community.

“We’re a small town,” City Councilman W. Clarke Conway said at a meeting on the project last fall, “and we’re a small town by choice.”

Bill Dettmer, left, speaks with a group of men who regularly meet and discuss local politics and civic issues at Madhouse Coffee in Brisbane, Calif. Dettmer thinks a developer should be allowed to build housing on an old rail yard in the city.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

Brisbane’s main drag is Visitacion Avenue. It slopes upward for five blocks, starting at a city park and continuing through mom-and-pop shops, cafes and restaurants. The rest of Brisbane comprises office parks, a strip mall and mostly single-family homes built throughout the town’s hills.

“This is the land that time forgot,” said Greg Lee, 55, an electrical engineer who has lived in the city for more than two decades.

San Bruno Mountain, which rises a quarter-mile into the sky, is Brisbane’s landmark, and residents have fought to preserve it. In the 1960s, they blocked a developer from leveling the mountaintop and building enough new homes for 70,000 people. In 1980, after years of battling another massive project on the mountain, residents received a last-minute reprieve from the federal government, which declared San Bruno a critical habitat for the endangered callippe silverspot butterfly.

Anti-development fervor has continued. About a decade ago, a city councilman suggested sidestepping a state housing law that requires cities to plan for growth by zoning for homes where nothing would ever get built — the bottom of Brisbane’s lagoon.

Residents’ efforts to protect Brisbane’s small-town feel make large changes hard to accept, said Paul Bouscal, 58, a San Francisco water department employee who has lived in the area since 1982.

The Baylands, he said, plays on fears of Brisbane getting big.

“For our town to grow like that, it would be too much, too fast,” Bouscal said.

It might be easier for residents and elected officials to welcome growth if the city received more tax dollars for doing so. But the opposite is true.

Because of tax limits established in 1978 by Proposition 13, local governments generally receive more revenue from sales and hotel room taxes than property taxes. Proposition 13 limited property tax rates to 1% of a home’s taxable value and restricted how quickly that taxable value could increase after a purchase.

Last year, Brisbane hired a consultant who found that the city would net $1 million a year in tax revenue by approving the Baylands. But if the city instead approved a project with lots more commercial space, a larger hotel and no housing, Brisbane would gain $9 million annually — an amount equivalent to more than half the city’s current day-to-day operating budget.

Developers are always going to face opposition because of residents’ concerns about their communities changing, said Mark Stivers, a longtime state housing policy staffer. But the tax system is another big reason the state has a housing shortage, he said.

“I’d like to think if just the fiscal incentives were reversed, if a city could make as much money off housing as they could retail, we’d be having a very different conversation in California,” Stivers said.

Jonathan Scharfman, general manager of Universal Paragon Corp., describes the area where his company hopes to build a 4,400-unit housing development.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

Debate over the Baylands has divided the town and dominated Brisbane politics for at least a decade. More than half of Brisbane residents said in a 2015 city-sponsored poll that they were OK with some housing on the Baylands site. But just 3% backed a project of more than 4,000 homes such as the developer is proposing.

Bill Dettmer, 63, spent a recent morning at Madhouse Coffee, one of the city’s main gathering spots, trying to convince skeptical neighbors that the city should support the housing. Dettmer moved to Brisbane 50 years ago and does maintenance work in the city.

“I see a lot of stuff,” Dettmer said. “I see beds in garages. You have to increase the [housing] supply. If you really want to help out people, let them live in dignity. It just seems like a no-brainer.”

Many local opponents cite the land’s history — not hostility to growth — for why they’re against the project. San Francisco used to dump its garbage on the site, and a railroad company repaired its trains there. Longtime residents remember watching tires burn.

Scharfman, the developer’s general manager, said Universal Paragon Corp. will clean up the land and won’t begin building until all environmental agencies responsible say it’s safe. He likened the process to how an old rail yard at San Francisco’s Mission Bay was cleaned up and now has thousands of homes.

Still, some Brisbane residents say they don’t trust regulators will get it right, because what’s known about the toxicity of chemicals can change over time. Even though they won’t live in the Baylands, opponents believe they have a responsibility to shield those who might.

“Why do we have a seat belt law? Why do we have a helmet law? They’re anti-stupidity laws to protect the general population,” said Michele Salmon, 63, who was born and raised in Brisbane.

Salmon said she understood housing problems were real and lamented the lack of space to accommodate a growing population.

“I do feel sorry that the younger generation is not going to get to live the life that we did,” she said. “But it’s a different time.”

State and regional officials have few tools to push Brisbane. Every eight years, the state tells every city and county to plan for the construction of a certain number of new homes to accommodate planned population growth. Between 2007 and 2014, Brisbane’s goal was 401 houses. Developers built a little more than a third of that target, but the city faces no consequences for the lack of home building.

Similarly, regional agencies such as the Assn. of Bay Area Governments have to plan for urban growth as part of the the state’s climate change efforts. California won’t meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, regulators have said, without a significant reduction in driving fueled by more people walking, biking and using mass transit. The Baylands project and its 4,400 homes next to a Caltrain station are written into the region’s climate change proposal, but that means nothing for the project’s actual approval.

“This is a plan, an expectation of how we could grow,” said Leah Zippert, an Assn. of Bay Area Governments spokeswoman. “It is not a mandate to build. It’s not a mandate to do anything.”

The Brisbane City Council plans to make a key decision on the Baylands this summer, including whether it supports any housing on the site. But the council expects to put that proposal on the ballot next year. Brisbane’s residents will be the ones with the last word.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

@dillonliam

ALSO

Gov. Jerry Brown says the state’s housing crisis is his next priority, but reaching a deal won’t be easy

California lawmakers have tried for 50 years to fix the state’s housing crisis. Here’s why they’ve failed

California won’t meet its climate change goals without a lot more housing density in its cities

Updates on California politics