ReportWire

Tag: president

  • Opinion | Trump’s New World Order

    Walter Russell Mead is the Ravenel B. Curry III Distinguished Fellow in Strategy and Statesmanship at Hudson Institute, the Global View Columnist at The Wall Street Journal and the Alexander Hamilton Professor of Strategy and Statecraft with the Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida.

     

    He is also a member of Aspen Institute Italy and board member of Aspenia. Before joining Hudson, Mr. Mead was a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations as the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy. He has authored numerous books, including the widely-recognized Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (Alfred A. Knopf, 2004). Mr. Mead’s most recent book is entitled The Arc of A Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People.

    Walter Russell Mead

    Source link

  • What’s on the ballot in the first general election since Donald Trump became president

    One year after Donald Trump retook the White House and set into motion a dramatic expansion of executive power, the Republican president figures prominently in state and local elections being held Tuesday. Video above: House Speaker Mike Johnson talks about potential impact of Tuesday’s elections on the government shutdownThe results of those contests — the first general election of Trump’s second term — will be heralded by the victors as either a major repudiation or resounding stamp of approval of his second-term agenda. That’s especially true in high-profile races for Virginia and New Jersey governor, New York City mayor, and a California proposition to redraw its congressional district boundaries. More than half of the states will hold contests on Tuesday. Here’s a look at some of the major statewide and local races on the ballot: In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli are the nominees to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy. Sherrill is a four-term U.S. representative and former Navy helicopter pilot. Ciattarelli is a former state Assemblyman backed by Trump. In 2021, Ciattarelli came within about 3 percentage points of toppling Murphy.In Virginia, Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and Democratic former U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger look to replace term-limited Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin. While Spanberger has made some efforts to focus on topics other than Trump in stump speeches, the president remained a major topic of conversation throughout the campaign, from comments Earle-Sears made about him in 2022 to some of his more polarizing policies, such as the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill tax and spending cut measure and the widespread dismissal of federal workers, many of whom live in northern Virginia.Trump was scheduled to participate in telephone rallies for the candidates on Monday night. As the only gubernatorial races held in the year following a presidential election, the contests have long served as the first major test of voter sentiment toward the party holding the White House. In every race for governor since 1973, one or both states have elected a governor from a party different than that of the sitting president. The race to lead the nation’s largest city features Democratic state legislator Zohran Mamdani, independent candidate and former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa.Mamdani’s comfortable victory over Cuomo in the June primary generated excitement from the party’s more progressive wing and apprehension among the party establishment. Party leaders like Gov. Kathy Hochul and U.S. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries eventually endorsed the self-described democratic socialist months after he won the nomination.The winner will replace outgoing Mayor Eric Adams, who initially sought renomination as a Democrat. After losing the primary, Adams opted to run as an independent, but dropped out of the race in September and eventually endorsed Cuomo. In February, the Trump Justice Department asked a court to drop corruption charges against Adams because the case impeded Trump’s “immigration objectives.” Trump later said he’d like to see both Adams and Sliwa drop out of the race in an effort to defeat Mamdani. California voters will decide a statewide ballot measure that would enact a new congressional map that could flip as many as five Republican-held U.S. House seats to Democratic control. Proposition 50, championed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, is in response to a new Texas map that state Republicans enacted in August as part of Trump’s efforts to keep the U.S. House under Republican control in the 2026 midterms. The Texas plan, which could help Republicans flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats, has sparked an escalating gerrymandering arms race among states to pass new maps outside of the regular once-a-decade schedule. Control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be at stake when voters cast Yes or No votes on whether to retain three justices from the high court’s 5-2 Democratic majority. Partisan control of the court could have major implications for the 2028 presidential race, since justices might be asked to rule on election disputes, as they did in 2020. Spending on Tuesday’s contests is on track to exceed $15 million as Republicans have campaigned to end the majority and Democrats have responded. If all three justices are ousted, a deadlock in the confirmation process to replace them could result in a court tied at 2-2. An election to fill any vacant seats for full 10-year terms would be held in 2027. Virginia attorney generalRepublican incumbent Jason Miyares seeks a second term against Democrat Jay Jones. Much of the fall campaign has focused on text messages suggesting violence against political rivals that Jones sent in 2022.Texas-18 Sixteen candidates hope to fill a vacant congressional seat previously held by the late Democratic U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner.State legislaturesControl of the Minnesota Senate and Virginia House of Delegates is at stake, while New Jersey Democrats defend their 52-28 General Assembly majority.Ballot measuresMaine voters will decide statewide questions on voting and a “red flag” law aimed at preventing gun violence. Texas’ 17 ballot measures include constitutional amendments on parental rights and limiting voting to U.S. citizens. Colorado and Washington also have statewide measures on the ballot.Mayors Detroit, Pittsburgh, Jersey City and Buffalo will elect new mayors, while incumbents in Atlanta, Minneapolis and Cincinnati seek another term.

    One year after Donald Trump retook the White House and set into motion a dramatic expansion of executive power, the Republican president figures prominently in state and local elections being held Tuesday.

    Video above: House Speaker Mike Johnson talks about potential impact of Tuesday’s elections on the government shutdown

    The results of those contests — the first general election of Trump’s second term — will be heralded by the victors as either a major repudiation or resounding stamp of approval of his second-term agenda. That’s especially true in high-profile races for Virginia and New Jersey governor, New York City mayor, and a California proposition to redraw its congressional district boundaries.

    More than half of the states will hold contests on Tuesday. Here’s a look at some of the major statewide and local races on the ballot:

    In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli are the nominees to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy. Sherrill is a four-term U.S. representative and former Navy helicopter pilot. Ciattarelli is a former state Assemblyman backed by Trump. In 2021, Ciattarelli came within about 3 percentage points of toppling Murphy.

    In Virginia, Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and Democratic former U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger look to replace term-limited Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin. While Spanberger has made some efforts to focus on topics other than Trump in stump speeches, the president remained a major topic of conversation throughout the campaign, from comments Earle-Sears made about him in 2022 to some of his more polarizing policies, such as the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill tax and spending cut measure and the widespread dismissal of federal workers, many of whom live in northern Virginia.

    Trump was scheduled to participate in telephone rallies for the candidates on Monday night.

    As the only gubernatorial races held in the year following a presidential election, the contests have long served as the first major test of voter sentiment toward the party holding the White House. In every race for governor since 1973, one or both states have elected a governor from a party different than that of the sitting president.

    The race to lead the nation’s largest city features Democratic state legislator Zohran Mamdani, independent candidate and former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

    Mamdani’s comfortable victory over Cuomo in the June primary generated excitement from the party’s more progressive wing and apprehension among the party establishment. Party leaders like Gov. Kathy Hochul and U.S. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries eventually endorsed the self-described democratic socialist months after he won the nomination.

    The winner will replace outgoing Mayor Eric Adams, who initially sought renomination as a Democrat. After losing the primary, Adams opted to run as an independent, but dropped out of the race in September and eventually endorsed Cuomo. In February, the Trump Justice Department asked a court to drop corruption charges against Adams because the case impeded Trump’s “immigration objectives.” Trump later said he’d like to see both Adams and Sliwa drop out of the race in an effort to defeat Mamdani.

    California voters will decide a statewide ballot measure that would enact a new congressional map that could flip as many as five Republican-held U.S. House seats to Democratic control.

    Proposition 50, championed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, is in response to a new Texas map that state Republicans enacted in August as part of Trump’s efforts to keep the U.S. House under Republican control in the 2026 midterms. The Texas plan, which could help Republicans flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats, has sparked an escalating gerrymandering arms race among states to pass new maps outside of the regular once-a-decade schedule.

    Control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be at stake when voters cast Yes or No votes on whether to retain three justices from the high court’s 5-2 Democratic majority.

    Partisan control of the court could have major implications for the 2028 presidential race, since justices might be asked to rule on election disputes, as they did in 2020. Spending on Tuesday’s contests is on track to exceed $15 million as Republicans have campaigned to end the majority and Democrats have responded.

    If all three justices are ousted, a deadlock in the confirmation process to replace them could result in a court tied at 2-2. An election to fill any vacant seats for full 10-year terms would be held in 2027.

    Virginia attorney general

    Republican incumbent Jason Miyares seeks a second term against Democrat Jay Jones. Much of the fall campaign has focused on text messages suggesting violence against political rivals that Jones sent in 2022.

    Texas-18

    Sixteen candidates hope to fill a vacant congressional seat previously held by the late Democratic U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner.

    State legislatures

    Control of the Minnesota Senate and Virginia House of Delegates is at stake, while New Jersey Democrats defend their 52-28 General Assembly majority.

    Ballot measures

    Maine voters will decide statewide questions on voting and a “red flag” law aimed at preventing gun violence. Texas’ 17 ballot measures include constitutional amendments on parental rights and limiting voting to U.S. citizens. Colorado and Washington also have statewide measures on the ballot.

    Mayors

    Detroit, Pittsburgh, Jersey City and Buffalo will elect new mayors, while incumbents in Atlanta, Minneapolis and Cincinnati seek another term.

    Source link

  • Obama offers support to Mamdani: report

    Former President Barack Obama told Zohran Mamdani that he was invested in the New York mayoral candidate’s success during a phone call Saturday, according to a report from The New York Times.

    Obama called Mamdani and they spoke for about 30 minutes, two people who were either on the call or were briefed about it told the outlet.

    Mamdani is leading in the polls over his rivals, former New York governor and independent candidate Andrew Cuomo, and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

    During the call, Obama praised Mamdani’s campaign and offered to be a “sounding board” for the Democratic candidate. The pair also discussed Mamdani’s affordability agenda as well as hiring a new administration, according to the report.

    Newsweek has reached out to Mamdani’s press team and the Obama Foundation on behalf of the former president for comment via email on Saturday. 

    This is a breaking news story. Updates to come.

    Source link

  • President Trump reveals renovated Lincoln Bedroom bathroom as his White House remodel continues

    President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that he has renovated the Lincoln Bedroom bathroom, sharing before and after images on social media as he continues to put his touch on the White House.“I renovated the Lincoln Bathroom in the White House. It was renovated in the 1940s in an Art Deco green tile style, which was totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era,” Trump said on Truth Social. “I did it in black and white polished Statuary marble. This was very appropriate for the time of Abraham Lincoln and, in fact, could be the marble that was originally there!”In the video player above: See before and after images posted to social media by President TrumpThe president posted about the renovations aboard Air Force One en route to Florida, where he will spend the weekend. The post comes as the government remains shut down, and the Trump administration says it will not tap into emergency funds to fund SNAP food assistance benefits through the month of November.Shortly after, Trump posted more images of the bathroom, showing gold detailing on the faucet and shower handle, as well as other fixtures. A plush white robe with the presidential seal also hangs on a golden hook.The president discussed the changes he was making to the bathroom earlier this month during a dinner at the White House, saying in part that the old style of the bathroom “was not exactly Abe Lincoln.”“We have little things like at the Lincoln Bedroom. The bathroom was done by the Truman family and you know, long time ago. And it’s done in a green tile, and it’s done in a style that was not exactly Abe Lincoln,” the president said.“It’s actually Art Deco. And Art Deco doesn’t go with, you know, 1850 and Civil Wars…But what does do is statuary marble. So I ripped it apart and we built a bathroom. It’s absolutely gorgeous and totally in keeping with that time because the Lincoln bedroom is, uh, so incredible, for those of you that have seen it,” he added.Trump on Friday also gave a status update on a separate construction project he’s overseeing at the Kennedy Center, which he said he “just inspected.”“The exterior columns, which were in serious danger of corrosion if something weren’t done, are completed, and look magnificent in White Enamel — Like a different place! Marble is being done, stages are being renovated, new seats, new chairs, and new fabrics will soon be installed, and magnificent high-end carpeting throughout the building. It is happening faster than anticipated, one of my trademarks,” Trump said.“We are bringing this building back to life. It was dead as a doornail, but it will soon be beautiful again!” he added.The moves are part of Trump’s effort to put his stamp on the White House – which has seen a slew of changes since he took office – and the greater DC area.So far, the renovations include paving over the grass in the historic Rose Garden, demolishing the East Wing to make way for a new ballroom and adorning the Oval Office with gold.Trump often says the White House needed a new ballroom to host world leaders, to avoid situations where they are outside and a temporary tent has to be used when it rains. And he frequently remarked that the Rose Garden paving was necessary because women in high heels would sink into the grass during events. It now has a touch of Mar-a-Lago with the same white and yellow umbrellas at tables on the patio.His redecoration of the Oval Office to his liking, as presidents do when they take office, has tripled the number of paintings on the walls with gold just about everywhere. Trump also installed portraits of every president framed in gold on the West Colonnade – except for former President Joe Biden, who is instead represented by his autopen signature – and large floor-to-ceiling mirrors, which the press can see when they are escorted into the Oval Office.In addition to those changes, Trump plans to build a new arch monument in DC in honor of the country’s 250th anniversary.As he pushes forward with his plans to leave his mark on the White House and the nation’s capital, Trump this week fired the members of the Commission of Fine Arts. The independent federal agency is charged with advising the president, Congress, and the city of Washington, DC, on “matters of design and aesthetics.” The president has also installed allies on the National Capital Planning Commission, which will be tasked with approving plans for the new ballroom on White House grounds.

    President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that he has renovated the Lincoln Bedroom bathroom, sharing before and after images on social media as he continues to put his touch on the White House.

    “I renovated the Lincoln Bathroom in the White House. It was renovated in the 1940s in an Art Deco green tile style, which was totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era,” Trump said on Truth Social. “I did it in black and white polished Statuary marble. This was very appropriate for the time of Abraham Lincoln and, in fact, could be the marble that was originally there!”

    In the video player above: See before and after images posted to social media by President Trump

    The president posted about the renovations aboard Air Force One en route to Florida, where he will spend the weekend. The post comes as the government remains shut down, and the Trump administration says it will not tap into emergency funds to fund SNAP food assistance benefits through the month of November.

    Shortly after, Trump posted more images of the bathroom, showing gold detailing on the faucet and shower handle, as well as other fixtures. A plush white robe with the presidential seal also hangs on a golden hook.

    The president discussed the changes he was making to the bathroom earlier this month during a dinner at the White House, saying in part that the old style of the bathroom “was not exactly Abe Lincoln.”

    “We have little things like at the Lincoln Bedroom. The bathroom was done by the Truman family and you know, long time ago. And it’s done in a green tile, and it’s done in a style that was not exactly Abe Lincoln,” the president said.

    “It’s actually Art Deco. And Art Deco doesn’t go with, you know, 1850 and Civil Wars…But what does do is statuary marble. So I ripped it apart and we built a bathroom. It’s absolutely gorgeous and totally in keeping with that time because the Lincoln bedroom is, uh, so incredible, for those of you that have seen it,” he added.

    Trump on Friday also gave a status update on a separate construction project he’s overseeing at the Kennedy Center, which he said he “just inspected.”

    “The exterior columns, which were in serious danger of corrosion if something weren’t done, are completed, and look magnificent in White Enamel — Like a different place! Marble is being done, stages are being renovated, new seats, new chairs, and new fabrics will soon be installed, and magnificent high-end carpeting throughout the building. It is happening faster than anticipated, one of my trademarks,” Trump said.

    “We are bringing this building back to life. It was dead as a doornail, but it will soon be beautiful again!” he added.

    The moves are part of Trump’s effort to put his stamp on the White House – which has seen a slew of changes since he took office – and the greater DC area.

    So far, the renovations include paving over the grass in the historic Rose Garden, demolishing the East Wing to make way for a new ballroom and adorning the Oval Office with gold.

    Trump often says the White House needed a new ballroom to host world leaders, to avoid situations where they are outside and a temporary tent has to be used when it rains. And he frequently remarked that the Rose Garden paving was necessary because women in high heels would sink into the grass during events. It now has a touch of Mar-a-Lago with the same white and yellow umbrellas at tables on the patio.

    His redecoration of the Oval Office to his liking, as presidents do when they take office, has tripled the number of paintings on the walls with gold just about everywhere. Trump also installed portraits of every president framed in gold on the West Colonnade – except for former President Joe Biden, who is instead represented by his autopen signature – and large floor-to-ceiling mirrors, which the press can see when they are escorted into the Oval Office.

    In addition to those changes, Trump plans to build a new arch monument in DC in honor of the country’s 250th anniversary.

    As he pushes forward with his plans to leave his mark on the White House and the nation’s capital, Trump this week fired the members of the Commission of Fine Arts. The independent federal agency is charged with advising the president, Congress, and the city of Washington, DC, on “matters of design and aesthetics.” The president has also installed allies on the National Capital Planning Commission, which will be tasked with approving plans for the new ballroom on White House grounds.

    Source link

  • How Trump pressures the world into burning more oil and gas

    The world was on the brink of a climate milestone: adopting a global carbon tax for the shipping industry. Countries had spent years crafting the plan, hoping to throttle planet-warming pollution from cargo vessels. They had every reason to think the measure would pass when the International Maritime Organization met in mid-October.

    Enter Donald Trump. After returning to the White House for a second term, the president and his top officials undertook a monthslong campaign to defeat the initiative. The U.S. threatened tariffs, levies and visa restrictions to get its way. A battery of American diplomats and Cabinet secretaries met with various nations to twist arms, according to a senior U.S. State Department official, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. Nations were also warned of other potential consequences if they backed the tax on shipping emissions, including imposing sanctions on individuals and blocking ships from U.S. ports.

    Under that Trump-led pressure — or intimidation, as some describe it — some countries started to waver. Ultimately, a bloc including the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Iran voted to adjourn the meeting for a year, killing any chance of the charge being adopted anytime soon.

    The U.S. “bullied otherwise supportive or neutral countries into turning against” the net-zero plan for shipping, says Faïg Abbasov, a director at the European advocacy group Transport & Environment. With its intense lobbying at the International Maritime Organization, the Trump administration was “waging war against multilateralism, UN diplomacy and climate diplomacy.”

    At first glance, it might look like the U.S. has exited the climate fight. The president is once again pulling the country out of the Paris Agreement, and he may not send an official U.S. delegation to next month’s COP30 climate summit in Brazil. But don’t be confused: America is still in the arena; it’s just fighting for the other side.

    Since his return to Washington, Trump has used trade talks, tariff threats and verbal dressing-downs to encourage countries to jettison their renewable energy commitments (and buy more U.S. oil and liquefied natural gas in the process). Just 10 months into his second term, the campaign is showing surprising success as key figures and countries increasingly buckle under the determined pressure.

    Trump was elected to implement a “common sense energy agenda,” says White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers. He “will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries.”

    Oil and gas supporters champion the president’s ambition. They say he’s helped reset the global conversation around climate change and given a welcome political opening to banks, corporations and other governments that wanted to back away from some sustainability targets in the face of growing electricity demand. “President Trump is sort of providing the banks, the European Union and others cover for tempering their climate ambitions,” says Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, an advocacy group. “He gives these countries the ability to say, ‘Hey, I’m just trying to go along with the United States here. That’s why I’m buying all this LNG.’”

    But in the eyes of environmental advocates and leaders who depend on multilateralism as a means for global climate action, Trump is unfairly asserting his will on a world that’s running out of time to rein in emissions and avert the worst consequences of global warming. “They’re clearly casting a much wider net to the climate destruction than they did the first time,” says Jake Schmidt, a senior strategic director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “They have more people engaged in it, and they obviously had more time to plan for it.”

    The strong-arming is happening on multiple fronts. Among the biggest is trade, where Trump has already compelled Japan, South Korea and the EU to pledge to spend on American energy and energy infrastructure. Japan, for instance, agreed to invest $550 billion on U.S. projects, and talks are underway to steer some of that funding to a $44 billion Alaska gas pipeline and export site. South Korea has pledged roughly $100 billion in U.S. energy purchases.

    The EU, meanwhile, has vowed to spend some $750 billion buying American energy, including LNG, to secure lower tariffs on its exports to the U.S. Analysts have questioned whether those sales will fully materialize, since they’d require Europe to more than triple its annual energy imports from the U.S. But the public commitment by itself was a stunning move for a bloc that’s led the world in pushing policies to combat climate change — including by setting binding targets for slashing planet-warming pollution, establishing a “green deal” plan to shed fossil fuels and slapping a tariff on carbon-intensive imports.

    Trump administration officials have seized on the U.S.-EU trade deal to urge other changes. For instance, Energy Secretary Chris Wright is pressuring the bloc to relax curbs on the methane footprint of imported gas. The EU is already easing corporate sustainability requirements so fewer companies are compelled to limit their environmental harms, a retrenchment that came after pressure from Germany and other European stakeholders as well as the White House.

    Meanwhile the administration has been goading the International Energy Agency to shuffle its leadership and urged the agency to reinstate forecasts that show a rosier outlook for fossil fuel demand. It has pressed multilateral development banks to prioritize fossil fuels over climate adaptation and clean energy projects when their financing of those green initiatives has become critical given widespread foreign aid cuts.

    And Trump himself has berated countries that aren’t falling in line. In a September speech to the United Nations General Assembly, he chided nations for setting policies around what he called the “hoax” and “con job” of climate change, warning that they can’t be “great again” without “traditional energy sources.” He’s also told UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to reject wind turbines and embrace the North Sea’s oil riches.

    It’s a marked acceleration from term-one Trump. During his first four years in the White House, Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda amounted to rally cries of “drill, baby, drill” and slow steps to encourage more domestic oil and gas production. This time around, the president’s approach has global reach — and far fewer limits. And when it comes to international agreements relating to energy and climate, “the U.S. has an interest in divide and rule, and thus breaking the potential for cooperation,” says Abby Innes, an associate professor in political economy at the London School of Economics.

    Whether or not U.S. officials attend COP30 in November, the U.S. president’s influence will loom large. “Countries like Saudi Arabia feel emboldened by Trump to promote fossil fuels,” says Linda Kalcher, founder of the Strategic Perspectives think tank and a veteran of the annual UN climate summits. One European diplomat said the main goal now at COP30 is just to avoid being bullied.

    To be sure, other countries haven’t followed the U.S. exodus from the Paris Agreement, and the deployment of clean energy is still soaring globally. Even tax incentive phaseouts and project cancellations in the U.S. are only slowing, not stopping, the country’s adoption of wind and solar power. And while multinational companies may be dialing down their green rhetoric, analysts say many are still quietly cleaning up their supply chains and operations to keep selling in California, Europe and other places demanding more sustainability.

    And in a perverse twist for a U.S. president who’s decried the world’s reliance on China, other nations are increasingly linking arms with Beijing as they bid for zero-emission energy tech. “When it comes to dealing with China, whether it’s countries or companies, politicians and executives tell me: ‘Better the devil that you know,’” says Ioannis Ioannou, an associate professor at the London Business School whose research focuses on sustainability and corporate social responsibility. “It offers more stability than the Trump administration.”

    Dlouhy and Rathi write for Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s Jack Wittels and John Ainger contributed to this report.

    Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Akshat Rathi

    Source link

  • Kai Trump, president’s granddaughter, will play in LPGA Tour’s Annika event next month

    Kai Trump, President Trump’s eldest granddaughter, a high school senior and University of Miami commit, has secured a sponsor invitation to play in an LPGA Tour event Nov. 13-16.

    The 18-year-old will compete in the Annika at Pelican Golf Club in Belleair, Fla. She currently attends the Benjamin School in Palm Beach and is ranked No. 461 on the American Junior Golf Assn. rankings. She also competes on the Srixon Medalist Tour on the South Florida PGA. Her top finish was a tie for third in July.

    “My dream has been to compete with the best in the world on the LPGA Tour,” Trump said in a statement. “This event will be an incredible experience. I look forward to meeting and competing against so many of my heroes and mentors in golf as I make my LPGA Tour debut.”

    Sponsor invitations have long been used to attract attention to a tournament through a golfer who is from a well-known family or, in recent years, has a strong social media presence. Kai Trump qualifies on both counts.

    She is the oldest daughter of Donald Trump Jr. and his ex-wife, Vanessa, and has nearly 8 million followers combined on Instagram, Tiktok, YouTube and X. In addition to posting her own exploits on and off the course, she creates videos playing golf with her grandpa and chronicled their visit to the Ryder Cup.

    She also recently launched her own sports apparel and lifestyle brand, KT.

    “Kai’s broad following and reach are helping introduce golf to new audiences, especially among younger fans,” said Ricki Lasky, LPGA chief tour business and operations officer, in a statement.

    The oldest of the president’s 11 grandchildren, Kai became known nationally when she made a speech in support of her grandfather’s campaign at the 2024 Republican National Convention. Her parents divorced in 2018, and her mother has been dating Tiger Woods for about a year.

    Steve Henson

    Source link

  • Kamala Harris Hints at New Presidential Run – LAmag

    ‘I am not done,’ the former Vice President, who lives in Brentwood, said in a new interview

    Former Vice President Kamala Harris told the BBC in a new interview that politics are “in my bones” and did not rule out another run to move from Brentwood to the White House.

    “I am not done,” she told the BBC. “I have lived my entire career as a life of service, and it’s in my bones.”

    In her first UK interview, Harris said she would “possibly” be president one day and was confident there would be a woman in the White House in the future, making her strongest hint to date that she is eyeing another run against President Trump in 2028. Harris dismissed polls that put her as an outsider to become the Democrats’ pick for the next election after Trump trounced her last year, saying: “If I listened to polls I would have not run for my first office, or my second office — and I certainly wouldn’t be sitting here.”

    Harris, however, emphasized that she has not made a final decision yet about a new run to become commander in chief, but insisted she is not out of politics. She did have harsh words for American billionaires, business leaders, and universities, who she said have bowed to Trump’s authoritarianism.

    “There are many, that have capitulated since day one, who are bending the knee at the foot of a tyrant, I believe for many reasons, including they want to be next to power, because they want to perhaps have a merger approved or avoid an investigation,” she told the BBC.

    Michele McPhee

    Source link

  • ‘Make or break moment’: Supreme Court is set to rule on Trump using troops in U.S. cities

    The Supreme Court is set to rule for the first time on whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials.

    A decision could come at any time.

    And even a one-line order siding with President Trump would send the message that he is free to use the military to carry out his orders — and in particular, in Democratic-controlled cities and states.

    Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency appeal last week asking the court to reverse judges in Chicago who blocked the deployment of the National Guard there.

    The Chicago-based judges said Trump exaggerated the threat faced by federal immigration agents and had equated “protests with riots.”

    Trump administration lawyers, however, said these judges had no authority to second-guess the president. The power to deploy the National Guard “is committed to his exclusive discretion by law,” they asserted in their appeal in Trump vs. Illinois.

    That broad claim of executive power might win favor with the court’s conservatives.

    Administration lawyers told the court that the National Guard would “defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence” in response to aggressive immigration enforcement, but it would not carry out ordinary policing.

    Yet Trump has repeatedly threatened to send U.S. troops to San Francisco and other Democratic-led cities to carry out ordinary law enforcement.

    When he sent 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, their mission was to protect federal buildings from protesters. But state officials said troops went beyond that and were used to carry out a show in force in MacArthur Park in July.

    Newsom, Bonta warn of dangers

    That’s why legal experts and Democratic officials are sounding an alarm.

    “Trump v. Illinois is a make-or-break moment for this court,” said Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent critic of the court’s pro-Trump emergency orders. “For the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that allows the president to send troops into our cities based upon contrived (or even government-provoked) facts … would be a terrible precedent for the court to set not just for what it would allow President Trump to do now but for even more grossly tyrannical conduct.”

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case warning of the danger ahead.

    “On June 7, for the first time in our nation’s history, the President invoked [the Militia Act of 1903] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor. Since that time, it has become clear that the federal government’s actions in Southern California earlier this summer were just the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” their brief said.

    “At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate. … What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time.”

    Conservatives cite civil rights examples

    Conservatives counter that Trump is seeking to enforce federal law in the face of strong resistance and non-cooperation at times from local officials.

    “Portland and Chicago have seen violent protests outside of federal buildings, attacks on ICE and DHS agents, and organized efforts to block the enforcement of immigration law,” said UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo. “Although local officials have raised cries of a federal ‘occupation’ and ‘dictatorship,’ the Constitution places on the president the duty to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed.’”

    He noted that presidents in the past “used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Those who cheer those interventions cannot now deny the same constitutional authority when it is exercised by a president they oppose,” he said.

    The legal battle so far has sidestepped Trump’s broadest claims of unchecked power, but focused instead on whether he is acting in line with the laws adopted by Congress.

    The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.”

    Beginning in 1903, Congress said that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” if he faces “danger of invasion by a foreign nation … danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States or the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States.”

    While Trump administration lawyers claim he faces a “rebellion,” the legal dispute has focused on whether he is “unable to execute the laws.”

    Lower courts have blocked deployments

    Federal district judges in Portland and Chicago blocked Trump’s deployments after ruling that protesters had not prevented U.S. immigration agents from doing their jobs.

    Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, described the administration’s description of “war-ravaged” Portland as “untethered to the facts.”

    In Chicago, Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, said that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

    But the two appeals courts — the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and the 7th Circuit in Chicago — handed down opposite decisions.

    A panel of the 9th Circuit said judges must defer to the president’s assessment of the danger faced by immigration agents. Applying that standard, the appeals court by a 2-1 vote said the National Guard deployment in Portland may proceed.

    But a panel of the 7th Circuit in Chicago agreed with Perry.

    “The facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois, even giving substantial deference to his assertions,” they said in a 3-0 ruling last week. “Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities.”

    Attorneys for Illinois and Chicago agreed and urged the court to turn down Trump’s appeal.

    “There is no basis for claiming the President is ‘unable’ to ‘execute’ federal law in Illinois,” they said. “Federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks.”

    U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, shown at his confirmation hearing in February, said the federal judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the Trump administration’s deployment of troops.

    (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

    Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer presented a dramatically different account in his appeal.

    “On October 4, the President determined that the situation in Chicago had become unsustainably dangerous for federal agents, who now risk their lives to carry out basic law enforcement functions,” he wrote. “The President deployed the federalized Guardsmen to Illinois to protect federal officers and federal property.”

    He disputed the idea that agents faced just peaceful protests.

    “On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protestors at the Broadview facility. The physical altercations became more significant and the clashes more violent as the size of the crowds swelled throughout September,” Sauer wrote. “Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them. More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations.”

    He said the judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the deployment, and he urged the court to cast aside their rulings.

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Unions opposing Trump agenda pouring money into Proposition 50 campaign

    With the fate of President’s Trump’s right-wing agenda at stake, the California ballot measure crafted to tilt Congress to Democratic control has turned into a fight among millionaires and billionaires, a former president, a past movie-star governor and the nation’s top partisans.

    Californians have been inundated with political ads popping up on every screen — no cellphone, computer or living-room television is spared — trying to sway them about Proposition 50, which will reconfigure the districts of the largest state congressional delegation in the union.

    Besides opposing pleas from former President Obama and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state’s powerful, left-leaning labor unions are another factor that may influence the outcome of the Nov. 4 special election.

    Unions representing California school teachers, carpenters, state workers and nurses have plowed more than $23 million into efforts to pass Proposition 50, according to an analysis of campaign finance disclosure reports about donations exceeding $100,000. That’s nearly one-third of the six-figure donations reported through Thursday.

    Not only do these groups have major interests in the state capitol, including charter school reform, minimum wage hikes and preserving government healthcare programs, they also are deeply aligned with efforts by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his fellow Democrats to put their party in control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 election.
    “There are real issues here that are at stake,” said veteran Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman, who has represented several unions that have contributed to Newsom’s committee supporting Proposition 50.

    “There’s always a risk when making sizable donations, that you’re putting yourself out there,” Kaufman said. “But the truth is on Proposition 50, I think it’s much less calculated than normal contributions. It really is about the issue, not about currying favor with members of the Legislature, or the congressional delegation, or the governor. Even though, of course, it benefits them if we win.”

    High stakes brings in big money from across the nation

    Newsom’s pro-Proposition 50 committee has raised more than $116 million, according to campaign disclosure filings through Thursday afternoon, though that number is sure to increase once additional donations are disclosed in the latest fundraising reports that are due by midnight Thursday.

    The multimillion-dollar donations provide the best evidence of what’s at stake, and how Proposition 50 could determine control of the House during the final two years of Trump’s presidency. If the Democrats take control of the House, not only could that derail major parts of Trumps agenda, it probably would lead to a slew of congressional hearings on Trump’s immigration crackdown, use of the military in American cities, accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from Qatari’s royal family, the cutting of research funding to universities and the president’s ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, among many others.

    The House Majority PAC — the Democrats’ congressional fundraising arm — has donated at least $15 million to the pro-Proposition 50 campaign, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) was in Los Angeles to campaign for the ballot measure last weekend. Obama joined Newsom on a livestream promoting the proposition Wednesday, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin hosted a bilingual phone bank in Los Angeles on Thursday.

    “Make no mistake about what they’re trying to do and why it’s so important that we fight back,” Martin said. “We’re not going to be the only party with one hand tied behind our back. If they want a showdown, we’re going to give them a showdown and in just a little under two weeks it starts right here with Prop. 50 in California.”

    Billionaire financier George Soros — a generous donor to liberal causes and a bogeyman to Republicans — has contributed $10 million. Others have chosen to fund separate entities campaigning in favor of Proposition 50, notably billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer, who chipped in $12 million.

    On the opposition side, the largest donor is Charles Munger Jr., the son of the longtime investment partner of billionaire Warren Buffett, who has contributed $32.8 million to one of the two main committees opposing Proposition 50. The Congressional Leadership Fund — the GOP’s political arm in the House — has donated $5 million to the other main anti-Proposition 50 committee and $8 million to the California Republican Party.

    Although Republicans may control the White House and Congress, the California GOP wields no real power in Sacramento, so it’s not surprising that Republican efforts opposing Proposition 50 have not received major donations from entities with business before the state.

    The California Chamber of Commerce opted to remain neutral on Proposition 50. Chevron and the California Resources Corp., petroleum companies that have given to California Republicans in the past, also remain on the sidelines.

    In contrast, Democrats control every statewide office and hold supermajorities in both houses of the California Legislature. The pro-Proposition 50 campaign has been showered with donations from groups aligned with Sacramento’s legislative leaders — with labor organizations chief among them.

    Among the labor donors, the powerful carpenters unions have donated at least $4 million. Newsom hailed them in July when he signed legislation altering a landmark environmental law for urban apartment developments to boost the supply of housing. The California Conference of Carpenters union has become one of the most pro-housing voices in the state.

    “This is the third of the last four years we’ve been together signing landmark housing reforms, and it simply would not have happened without the Carpenters,” Newsom said at the time.

    Daniel M. Curtin, director of the California Conference of Carpenters, pointed to a letter he wrote to legislators in August urging them to put redistricting on the ballot because of the effect of Trump’s policies on the state’s workers.

    “These are not normal times, and this isn’t politics as usual. Not only has the Trump administration denied disaster assistance to victims of California’s devastating forest fires, he’s damaging our CA economy with mass arrests of law-abiding workers without warrants,” wrote Curtin, whose union has 70,000 members in the state. “The Trump administration is now unilaterally withdrawing from legally binding union collective bargaining agreements with federal workforce unions. The President has made it clear that this is just the beginning.”

    Proposition 50 was prompted by Trump urging Republican leaders in Texas to redraw their congressional districts to boost the number of GOP members in the House and keep the party in control after the 2026 election. Newsom sought to counter the move by altering California’s congressional boundaries in a rare mid-decade redistricting.

    With 52 members in the House, the state has the largest congressional delegation in the nation. But unlike many states, California’s districts are drawn by an independent commission created by voters in 2010 in an effort to end partisan gerrymandering and incumbent protection.

    The state’s districts would not have been redrawn until after the 2030 U.S. census, but the Legislature and Newsom agreed in August to put Proposition 50, which would give Democrats the potential to pick up five seats, on the November ballot.

    Money from California unions pours in

    Although much of the money supporting the efforts comes from wealth Democratic donors and partisan groups aimed at helping Democrats take control of Congress, a significant portion comes from labor unions.

    The Service Employees International Union, which represents more than 700,000 healthcare workers, social workers, in-home caregivers and school employees and other state and local government workers, has contributed more than $5.5 million to the committee.

    On Oct. 12, the union celebrated Newsom signing bills ensuring that workers, regardless of immigration status, are informed about their civil and labor rights under state and federal law as well as updating legal guidance to state and local agencies about protecting private information, such as court records and medical data, from being misused by federal authorities.

    “Thank you to Governor Newsom for … standing up to federal overreach and indiscriminate, violent attacks on our communities,” David Huerta, president of SEIU California, said in a statement.

    Huerta was arrested during the first day of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles in June and charged with a felony. But federal prosecutors are instead pursuing a misdemeanor case against him, according to a Friday court filing.

    An SEIU representative did not respond to requests for comment.

    The California Teachers Assn., another potent force in state politics, has contributed more than $3.3 million, along with millions more from other education unions such as the National Education Assn., the California Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers.

    CTA had a mixed record in this year’s legislative session.

    Newsom vetoed a bill to crack down on charter school fraud, Senate Bill 414. The CTA opposed the bill, arguing that it didn’t go far enough to target fraud in some of the schools, and had urged the governor to reject it.

    Newsom signed CTA-backed bills that placed strict limits on ICE agents’ access to school grounds. But he also vetoed union-backed bill that would have required the state Board of Education to adopt health education instructional materials by July 1, 2028.

    CTA President David Goldberg said their donations are driven not only by issues important to the union’s members, but also the students they serve who are dependent on federally funded assistance programs and impacted by policies such as immigration.

    “It’s about our livelihood but it really is about fundamental issues … for people who serve students who are just incredibly under attack right now,” Goldberg said.

    “The governor’s support for labor would be exactly the same with or without Proposition 50 on the ballot. But he would acknowledge this year is more urgent than ever for labor and working people,” said Newsom spokesperson Bob Salladay. “Trump is taking a wrecking ball to collective bargaining, to fair wages and safe working conditions. He would be backing them up under any circumstances, but especially now.”

    Critics of Proposition 50 argue that these contributions are among the reasons voters should oppose the ballot measure.

    “The independent redistricting commission exists to prevent conflicts of interest and money from influencing line drawing,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition, the committee backed by Munger Jr., who bankrolled the 2010 ballot measure to create the independent commission. “That’s why we want to preserve its independence.”

    Other labor leaders argued that although they are not always in lockstep with Newsom, they need to support Proposition 50 because of the importance of Democrats winning the congressional majority next year.

    Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the powerful California Labor Federation, said the timing of the member unions’ donations of millions of dollars to Newsom’s ballot measure committee for an election taking place shortly after the bill-signing period was “unfortunate” and “weird.”

    “Because we have so many bills in front of him, we were gun-shy,” she said, noting that the federation has sparred with the governor over issues such as the effect of artificial intelligence in the workplace. “Never be too close to your elected officials. Because we see the good, the bad, the ugly.”

    Times staff writers Andrea Flores and Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Column: Trump is in his Louis XIV era, and it’s not a good look

    To say that President Trump is unfazed by Saturday’s nationwide “No Kings” rally, which vies for bragging rights as perhaps the largest single-day protest in U.S. history, is the sort of understatement too typical when describing his monarchical outrages.

    Leave aside Trump’s grotesque mockery of the protests — his post that night of an AI-generated video depicting himself as a becrowned pilot in a fighter jet, dropping poop bombs on citizens protesting peacefully below. Consider instead two other post-rally actions: On Sunday and Wednesday, “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth announced first that on Trump’s orders the military had struck a seventh boat off Venezuela and then an eighth vessel in the Pacific, bringing the number of people killed over two months to 34. The administration has provided no evidence to Congress or the American public for Trump’s claims that the unidentified dead were “narco-terrorists,” nor any credible legal rationale for the strikes. Then, on Monday, Trump began demolishing the White House’s East Wing to create the gilded ballroom of his dreams, which, at 90,000 square feet, would be nearly twice the size of the White House residence itself.

    As sickening as the sight was — heavy equipment ripping away at the historic property as high-powered hoses doused the dusty debris — Trump’s $250-million vanity project is small stuff compared to a policy of killing noncombatant civilian citizens of nations with which we are not at war (Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador). Yet together the actions reflect the spectrum of consequences of Trump’s utter sense of impunity as president, from the relatively symbolic to the murderous.

    “In America the law is king,” Thomas Paine wrote in 1776. Not in Trump’s America.

    Among the commentariat, the president’s desecration of the East Wing is getting at least as much criticism as his extralegal killings at sea. Many critics see in the bulldozing of the People’s House a metaphor for Trump’s destructive governance generally — his other teardowns of federal agencies, life-saving foreign aid, healthcare benefits and more. The metaphor is indeed apt.

    But what’s more striking is the sheer sense of impunity that Trump telegraphs, constantly, with the “je suis l’état” flare of a Louis XIV — complete (soon) with Trump’s Versailles. (Separately, Trump’s mimicry of French emperors now includes plans for a sort of Arc de Triomphe near Arlington Cemetery. A reporter asked who it would be for. “Me,” Trump said. Arc de Trump.)

    No law, domestic or international, constrains him, as far as the convicted felon is concerned. Neither does Congress, where Republicans bend the knee. Nor the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 right-wing majority, including three justices Trump chose in his first term.

    The court’s ruling last year in Trump vs. United States gives Trump virtual immunity from criminal prosecution, but U.S. servicemembers don’t have that protection when it comes to the deadly Caribbean Sea attacks or any other orders from the commander in chief that might one day be judged to have been illegal.

    The operation’s commander, Navy Adm. Alvin Holsey, reportedly expressed concerns about the strikes within the administration. Last week he announced his retirement after less than a year as head of the U.S. Southern Command. It could be a coincidence. But I’m hardly alone in counting Holsey as the latest casualty in Trump and Hegseth’s purge of perceived nonloyalists at the Pentagon.

    “When the president decides someone has to die, the military becomes his personal hit squad,” military analyst and former Republican Tom Nichols said Monday on MSNBC. Just like with kings and other autocrats: Off with their heads.

    Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a rare maverick Republican, noted on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that in years past, the Coast Guard would board foreign boats suspected of ferrying drugs and, if contraband were found, take it and suspected traffickers into custody, often gleaning information about higher-ups to make a real dent in the drug trade. But, Paul added, about one in four boats typically had no drugs. No matter nowadays — everyone’s a target for deadly force. “So,” Paul said, “all of these people have been blown up without us knowing their name, without any evidence of a crime.” (Paul was the only Republican senator not invited to lunch with Trump on Monday in the paved-over Rose Garden.)

    On Monday, Ecuador said no evidence connects a citizen who survived a recent U.S. strike to any crime. Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused the United States of murdering a fisherman in a September strike, provoking Trump to call Petro a “drug leader” and unilaterally yank U.S. foreign aid. A Venezuelan told the Washington Post that the 11 people killed in the first known U.S. strike were fishermen; national security officials told Congress the individuals were headed back to shore when hit. Meanwhile, the three countries and U.S. news reports contradict Trump’s claims that he’s destroying and seizing fentanyl — a drug that typically comes from Mexico and then is smuggled by land, usually by U.S. citizens.

    Again, no matter to America’s king, who said last week that he’s eyeing land incursions in Venezuela now “because we’ve got the sea very well under control.” Trump’s courtiers say he doesn’t need Congress’ authorization for any use of force. The Constitution suggests otherwise.

    Alas, neither it nor the law limits Trump’s White House makeover. He doesn’t have to submit to Congress because he’s tapping rich individuals and corporations for the cost. Past presidents, mindful that the house is a public treasure, not their palace, voluntarily sought input from various federal and nonprofit groups. After reports about the demolition, which put the lie to Trump’s promise in July that the ballroom “won’t interfere with the current building,” the American Institute of Architects urged its members to ask Congress to “investigate destruction of the White House.”

    Disparate as they are, Trump’s ballroom project and his Caribbean killings were joined last week. At a White House dinner for ballroom donors, Trump joked about the sea strikes: “Nobody wants to go fishing anymore.” The pay-to-play titans laughed. Shame on them.

    Trump acts with impunity because he can; he’s a lame duck. But other Republicans must face the voters. Keep the “No Kings” protests coming — right through the elections this November and next.

    Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
    Threads: @jkcalmes
    X: @jackiekcalmes

    Jackie Calmes

    Source link

  • No, Donald Trump isn’t the first US president to solve a war

    During a White House visit from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President Donald Trump expanded on his oft-repeated boast about ending multiple wars and made an even bolder assertion: that no president had solved even one war before him.

    Trump said Oct. 17 that people tell him, “‘Sir, if you solve one more, you’re going to be known as a peacekeeper.’ So to the best of my knowledge, we’ve never had a president that solved one war, not one war. (George W.) Bush started a war (in Iraq). A lot of them start wars, but they don’t solve the wars. They don’t settle them, and especially when they’re not, when they have nothing to do with us.”

    Trump is ignoring at least two instances of presidents personally overseeing negotiations that ended other countries’ wars, plus several others in which presidents’ designated diplomats successfully reached peace agreements following negotiations.

    “Like a lot of Trump’s statements, it massively exaggerates what he’s done, while ignoring any history of what other presidents have done,” said David Silbey, a Cornell University military historian. 

    For our analysis, we did not count wars that the United States participated in militarily and won, such as World War II. Trump said he was focusing on wars that “have nothing to do with us,” and none of the eight wars he claims to have ended have primarily involved the U.S. as a combatant.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly told PolitiFact that Trump’s “direct involvement in major conflicts, leveraging tools from America’s military might to our superior consumer market, has brought peace to decades-long wars around the world in a fashion unlike any of his predecessors.”

    Wars settled by U.S. presidents

    In this 1904 file photo, Theodore Roosevelt campaigns for the presidency in 1904. Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for negotiating peace in the 1904-5 war between Russia and Japan. (AP)

    Japan became the first modern Asian power to defeat a European power in the Russo-Japanese War in 1904 and 1905. President Theodore Roosevelt helped mediate a settlement at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in 1905. Roosevelt was awarded the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize for his role in ending the war.

    President Jimmy Carter, center, shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat before signing a peace treaty at the White House on March 26, 1979. (AP)

    By the time President Jimmy Carter brought Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to the White House to sign the Camp David Accords on Sept. 17, 1978, Israel and Egypt had been at war for three decades, alternating between periods of hot and cold war. The agreement was the fruit of negotiations conducted at the presidential retreat, Camp David. Sadat and Begin won the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize.

    Wars settled by U.S. diplomats on a president’s watch

    Secretary of State Warren Christopher, center, is flanked by Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic, left, and Croatian President Franjo Tudjman as they sign an accord Nov. 10, 1995, in Dayton, Ohio. (AP)

    The Bosnian War

    On Nov. 21, 1995, the presidents of Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia reached an agreement for peace in Dayton, Ohio, ending the Bosnian War, which began in 1992. The primary U.S. officials involved in the negotiations over the Dayton Accords were veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke and Secretary of State Warren Christopher, along with leaders from Europe and Russia. The U.S. president at the time was Bill Clinton.

    Former President Bill Clinton and, from left, former Sen. George Mitchell, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern on the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, in Belfast, Northern Ireland, April 17, 2023. (AP)

    Northern Ireland’s ‘Troubles’

    The sectarian violence between Protestants and Catholics — known as “the Troubles” — in the United Kingdom-administered Northern Ireland persisted for roughly three decades before the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, also known as the Belfast Agreement. Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, D-Maine, spearheaded it, and it followed shuttle diplomacy — when an intermediary carries out a negotiation by traveling back and forth between the disputing parties — between Washington and Belfast. Clinton was also the president at the time.

    Secretary of State Colin Powell is among the witnesses of the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement in  Nairobi’s Nyayo Stadium on Jan. 9, 2005. (AP)

    Civil war in Sudan

    Fighting between the government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, based in southern Sudan, ended in 2005 with the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement, thanks to negotiations overseen by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. George W. Bush was president at the time of the 2005 agreement. In 2011, a referendum led to the creation of a new country, South Sudan. 

    What has Trump previously said about settling multiple wars?

    Trump has often repeated the exaggerated claim that he’s ended six, seven or eight wars. 

    Trump had a hand in ceasefires that recently eased conflicts between Israel and Iran, India and Pakistan, and Armenia and Azerbaijan. But these were mostly incremental accords without a strong likelihood of long-term peace. Some leaders also dispute the extent of Trump’s role. 

    The U.S. was involved in a temporary peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, but violence in the region has continued, with hundreds of civilians killed since the deal’s June signing. After Trump helped broker a deal between Cambodia and Thailand, the countries accused each other of ceasefire violations.

    A long-running standoff between Egypt and Ethiopia over an Ethiopian dam on the Nile River remains unresolved. In the case of Kosovo and Serbia, there is little evidence a potential war was brewing.

    Most recently, Trump has made notable progress by securing an agreement to end the Israel-Hamas war. The agreement involves multiple stages, so it will take time to see if peace holds.

    For weeks, Trump has cited his diplomatic activity as being worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. 

    “Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize for each one of these achievements,” Trump said during a Sept. 23 speech at the United Nations.

    The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado with the prize Oct. 10 for her “tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela.”

    Our ruling

    Trump said, “We’ve never had a president that solved one war, not one war.”

    At least two U.S. presidents — Roosevelt and Carter — personally conducted negotiations that led to peace agreements, both of which resulted in Nobel Prizes for some of the participants.

    Several other presidents saw peace agreements hammered out on their watch by officials they appointed.

    We rate the statement Pants on Fire! 

    Staff Writer Samantha Putterman contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Trump keeps name-checking the Insurrection Act. It could give him extraordinary powers

    There are few laws President Trump name-checks more frequently than the Insurrection Act.

    A 200-year-old constellation of statutes, the act grants emergency powers to thrust active-duty soldiers into civilian police duty, something otherwise barred by federal law.

    Trump and his team have threatened to invoke it almost daily for weeks — most recently on Monday, after a reporter pressed the president about his escalating efforts to dispatch federalized troops to Democrat-led cities.

    “Insurrection Act — yeah, I mean, I could do that,” Trump said. “Many presidents have.”

    Roughly a third of U.S. presidents have called on the statutes at some point — but history also shows the law has been used only in moments of extraordinary crisis and political upheaval.

    The Insurrection Act was Abraham Lincoln’s sword against secessionists and Dwight D. Eisenhower’s shield around the Little Rock Nine, the young Black students who were the first to desegregate schools in Arkansas.

    Ulysses S. Grant invoked it more than half a dozen times to thwart statehouse coups, stem race massacres and smother the Ku Klux Klan in its South Carolina cradle.

    But it has just as often been wielded to crush labor strikes and strangle protest movements. The last time it was invoked, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was in elementary school and most U.S. soldiers had not yet been born.

    Now, many fear Trump could call on the law to quell opposition to his agenda.

    “The Democrats were fools not to amend the Insurrection Act in 2021,” said Kevin Carroll, former senior counsel in the Department of Homeland Security during Trump’s first term. “It gives the president almost untrammeled power.”

    It also precludes most judicial review.

    “It can’t even be challenged,” Trump boasted Monday. “I don’t have to go there yet, because I’m winning on appeal.”

    If that winning streak cools, as legal experts say it soon could, some fear the Insurrection Act would be the administration’s next move.

    “The Insurrection Act is very broadly worded, but there is a history of even the executive branch interpreting it narrowly,” said John C. Dehn, an associate professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

    The president first floated using the Insurrection Act against protesters in the summer of 2020. But members of his Cabinet and military advisors blocked the move, as they did efforts to use the National Guard for immigration enforcement and the military to patrol the border.

    “They have this real fixation on using the military domestically,” Carroll said. “It’s sinister.”

    In his second term, Trump has instead relied on an obscure subsection of the U.S. code to surge federalized soldiers into blue cities, claiming it confers many of the same powers as the Insurrection Act.

    Federal judges disagreed. Challenges to deployments in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., and Chicago have since clogged the appellate courts, with three West Coast cases before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and one pending in the 7th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Illinois.

    The result is a growing knot of litigation that experts say will fall to the Supreme Court to unwind.

    As of Wednesday, troops in Oregon and Illinois are activated but can’t be deployed. The Oregon case is further complicated by precedent from California, where federalized soldiers have patrolled the streets since June with the 9th Circuit’s blessing. That ruling is set to be reheard by the circuit on Oct. 22 and could be reversed.

    Meanwhile, what California soldiers are legally allowed to do while they’re federalized is also under review, meaning even if Trump retains the authority to call up troops, he might not be able to use them.

    Scholars are split over how the Supreme Court might rule on any of those issues.

    “At this point, no court … has expressed any sympathy to these arguments, because they’re so weak,” said Harold Hongju Koh, a professor at Yale Law School.

    Koh listed the high court’s most conservative members, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., as unlikely to push back against the president’s authority to invoke the Insurrection Act, but said even some of Trump’s appointees — Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — might be skeptical, along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

    “I don’t think Thomas and Alito are going to stand up to Trump, but I’m not sure that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts can read this statute to give him [those] powers.”

    The Insurrection Act sidesteps those fights almost entirely.

    It “would change not only the legal state of play, but fundamentally change the facts we have on the ground, because what the military would be authorized to do would be so much broader,” said Christopher Mirasola, an assistant professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

    Congress created the Insurrection Act as a fail-safe in response to armed mobs attacking their neighbors and organized militias seeking to overthrow elected officials. But experts caution that the military is not trained to keep law and order, and that the country has a strong tradition against domestic deployments dating to the Revolutionary War.

    “The uniformed military leadership in general does not like getting involved in the domestic law enforcement issue at all,” Carroll said. “The only similarities between police and military is that they have uniforms and guns.”

    Today, the commander in chief can invoke the law in response to a call for help from state leaders, as George H.W. Bush did to quell the 1992 Rodney King uprising in L.A.

    The statute can also be used to make an end-run around elected officials who refuse to enforce the law, or mobs who make it impossible — something Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy Jr. did in defense of school integration.

    Still, modern presidents have generally shied from using the Insurrection Act even in circumstances with strong legal justification. George W. Bush weighed invoking the law after Hurricane Katrina created chaos in New Orleans but ultimately declined over fears it would intensify the already bitter power struggle between the state and federal government.

    “There are any number of Justice Department internal opinions where attorneys general like Robert Kennedy or Nicholas Katzenbach said, ‘We cannot invoke the Insurrection Act because the courts are open,’” Koh said.

    Despite its extraordinary power, Koh and other experts said the law has guardrails that may make it more difficult for the president to invoke it in the face of naked bicyclists or protesters in inflatable frog suits, whom federal forces have faced down recently in Portland.

    “There are still statutory requirements that have to be met,” said Dehn, the Loyola professor. “The problem the Trump administration would have in invoking [the law] is that very practically, they are able to arrest people who break the law and prosecute people who break the law.”

    That may be why Trump and his administration have yet to invoke the act.

    “It reminds me of the run-up to Jan. 6,” Carroll said. “It’s a similar feeling that people have, a sense that an illegal or immoral and unwise order is about to be given.”

    He and others say an invocation of the Insurrection Act would shift widespread concern about military policing of American streets into existential territory.

    “If there’s a bad faith invocation of the Insurrection Act to send federal troops to go beat up anti-ICE protesters, there should be a general strike in the United States,” Carroll said. “It’s a real break-the-glass moment.”

    At that point, the best defense may come from the military.

    “If a really unwise and immoral order comes out … 17-year generals need to say no,” Carroll said. “They have to have the guts to put their stars on the table.”

    Sonja Sharp

    Source link

  • L.A. planners clear $2-billion project in Skid Row neighborhood

    A proposed mega-development in downtown Los Angeles, which would replace a cold storage facility with a $2-billion residential and commercial complex, cleared a major hurdle last week when the city Planning Commission backed it.

    Commissioners unanimously recommended the construction of Fourth & Central in the Skid Row neighborhood.

    The 7.6-acre compound along Central Avenue that would contain apartments, offices, shops and restaurants in 10 distinct buildings of various sizes that would change the city skyline. The City Council will consider final approval later this year.

    The project, which would be built near the neighborhood’s boundary with the Arts District, is being proposed by property owner Larry Rauch, president of Los Angeles Cold Storage. His family has operated food chilling facilities at Fourth Street and Central Avenue since the 1960s and plans to move the business to a new location.

    In its place would be 1,589 rental apartments with 249 affordable units, along with 401,000 square feet of creative office space and 145,748 square feet of retail or restaurant space. The complex was conceived by Long Beach architect Studio One Eleven.

    In response to changing market conditions and reactions from community members, a number of revisions have been made to Fourth & Central since the project was initially proposed in 2021.

    Rendering of Fourth & Central, a $2-billion mixed-use development planned to replace a cold storage facility in downtown Los Angeles.

    (Tomorrow Inc)

    The tallest building, an apartment tower, has been reduced to 30 stories from 44. With housing more in demand than lodging, the hotel originally planned for the project has been replaced by additional residential units, including more affordable housing units.

    The open space design has been changed to create better pedestrian connections to the Little Tokyo Galleria shopping center north of the complex. The 2 acres of open space in the project will be accessible to the public, Rauch said.

    Denver real estate developer Continuum Partners, which initially launched the project with Rauch, is no longer involved, Rauch said.

    “Continuum has chosen to focus its resources elsewhere at this time; the Fourth & Central Project will be moving forward with LA Cold Storage at the lead,” he said in a statement.

    If approved, it would probably take a year to 18 months to complete final plans for the project before starting work. Fourth & Central is moving through its preliminary stages at a time when many other developers have put residential projects in Los Angeles on hold because it’s difficult to find viable construction financing at current interest rates.

    Many equity investors, such as pension funds and insurance companies, are also reluctant to park money in L.A. because the rapidly changing rules make it impossible to predict profits.

    Among investors’ concerns are public policies such as the United to House Los Angeles (Measure ULA) transfer tax on large real estate sales, and also temporary limits on evicting tenants that were enacted during the pandemic.

    “We’ve spent years working on our plan to transform this industrial property into a mixed-use community, which made it so rewarding to hear city decision-makers agree with our vision,” Rauch said after the Planning Commission vote.

    Among the organizations voicing support for the project were the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council, the Little Tokyo Business Assn. and the Central City Assn.

    “This project represents a significant stride toward addressing the region’s housing challenges,” said Nella McOsker, president of the Central City Assn. “Plus, the new retail and restaurant space will attract business and people to downtown.”

    Fourth & Central is not the only mega project being planned on the east side of downtown.

    In July, the City Council approved 670 Mequit, a $1.4-billion complex intended to have apartments, offices, a hotel, a charter elementary school, shops and restaurants. It is to replace a cold storage facility on the west side of the Los Angeles River with the mixed-use complex designed by Danish architect Bjarke Ingels Group.

    Roger Vincent

    Source link

  • Dallin H. Oaks, Former Utah Supreme Court Justice, Is Selected To Lead Mormon Church – KXL

    SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Dallin H. Oaks, a former Utah Supreme Court justice, was named Tuesday as the new president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its more than 17 million members worldwide.

    Oaks’ selection to lead what is widely known as the Mormon church follows the recent death of his 101-year-old predecessor, Russell M. Nelson. His ascension is not a surprise; a longstanding church policy says the longest-tenured member of a top leadership body called the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles becomes the next president. The tradition is meant to ensure a seamless transition and prevent internal or public lobbying.

    “I accept with humility the responsibility that God has place upon me and commit my whole heart and soul to the service to which I’ve been called,” Oaks said.

    As president, Oaks is considered a prophet and seer who will guide the church through divine revelation from God alongside two top counselors and members of the Quorum of the Twelve. He’ll set policy and oversee the church’s many business interests.

    The church’s leadership transition comes as many of its members have been shaken by a deadly attack on a Michigan congregation, and are grappling with the high-profile assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in Utah, where the denomination is based.

    At 93, Oaks will be one of the church’s oldest presidents. He will serve in the role until he dies. Tenures for past presidents have varied, with the longest reaching nearly 30 years and the shortest being just nine months.

    Experts are doubtful Oaks will pivot sharply from Nelson’s approach to leadership because he was one of Nelson’s closest advisers. But experts say Oaks might shift from Nelson’s focus on the faith’s global footprint to domestic issues.

    For his top counselors, Oaks selected Henry B. Eyring, who also served in that role for Nelson, and former lawyer D. Todd Christofferson, the church’s seventh most senior apostle.

    While serving on a lower leadership panel in the 1990s, Christofferson was involved in negotiations with Jewish leaders regarding the posthumous baptisms of Holocaust victims. In 1994, following intense criticism from the Jewish community, the church agreed to end the ceremonial baptism of Holocaust victims. After it was revealed that they continued, church leaders again spoke out against the practice in 2012.

    “I confess that this is not what I expected when I woke up this morning,” Christofferson said during Tuesday’s announcement. “But I am deeply honored by this calling and the trust that it carries.”

    In the first major difference from Nelson’s presidency, Oaks announced during the faith’s recent general conference that the church will slow the announcement of new temples.

    He also emphasized the importance of family while acknowledging that not all families look the same. In a departure from his typical sermons, which often appeal more to reason than emotion, Oaks shared a story about the day his grandfather told him at age 7 that his father had died. He went on to describe the value of being raised by a single mother and others who stepped into parental roles for him and his siblings.

    Oaks is known for his jurist sensibilities and traditionalist beliefs on marriage and religious freedom. He has been a driving force in the church against same-sex marriage and in upholding a teaching that homosexuality is a sin — a position that causes uneasiness among LGBTQ+ members and their allies.

    He said in 2022 that social and legal pressure would not influence the church to change its posture on same-sex marriage and matters of gender identity.

    Yet in recent years, Oaks has been part of some key church moves that suggest he might not make the topic a centerpiece of his administration, experts say. Oaks was Nelson’s closest adviser in 2019 when Nelson rescinded a policy that banned baptisms for children of gay parents and labeled same-sex couples as sinners eligible for expulsion.

    Oaks has also been a strong advocate for civil public discourse.

    Early on as an apostle, he was involved in a crackdown on far-right extremism that resulted in some excommunications. In 2020, he gave a speech about having faith in elections without resorting to radicalism or violence.

    More about:

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • News Analysis: For Trump, celebration and a victory lap in the Middle East

    Summoned last minute by the president of the United States, the world’s most powerful leaders dropped their schedules to fly to Egypt on Monday, where they idled on a stage awaiting Donald Trump’s grand entrance.

    They were there to celebrate a significant U.S. diplomatic achievement that has ended hostilities in Gaza after two brutal years of war. But really, they were there for Trump, who took a victory lap for brokering what he called the “greatest deal of them all.

    “Together we’ve achieved what everyone said was impossible, but at long last, we have peace in the Middle East,” Trump told gathered presidents, sheikhs, prime ministers and emirs, arriving in Egypt after addressing the Knesset in Israel. “Nobody thought it could ever get there, and now we’re there.

    “Now, the rebuilding begins — the rebuilding is maybe going to be the easiest part,” Trump said. “I think we’ve done a lot of the hardest part, because the rest comes together. We all know how to rebuild, and we know how to build better than anybody in the world.”

    The achievement of a ceasefire in Gaza has earned Trump praise from across the political aisle and from U.S. friends and foes around the world, securing an elusive peace that officials hope will endure long enough to provide space for a wider settlement of Mideast tensions.

    Trump’s negotiation of the Abraham Accords in his first term, which saw his administration secure diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, were a nonpartisan success embraced by the succeeding Biden administration. But it was the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, and the overwhelming response from Israel that followed, that interrupted efforts by President Biden and his team to build on their success.

    The Trump administration now hopes to get talks of expanding the Abraham Accords back on track, eyeing new deals between Israel and Lebanon, Syria, and most of all, Saudi Arabia, effectively ending Israel’s isolation from the Arab world.

    Yet, while the current Gaza war appears to be over, the greater Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains.

    Trump’s diplomatic success halted the deadliest and most destructive war between Israelis and Palestinians in history, making the achievement all the more notable. Yet the record of the conflict shows a pattern of cyclical violence that flares when similar ceasefires are followed by periods of global neglect.

    The first phase of Trump’s peace plan saw Israeli defense forces withdraw from half of Gazan territory, followed by the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas since Oct. 7 in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian detainees and prisoners in Israeli custody.

    The next phase — Hamas’ disarmament and Gaza’s reconstruction — may not in fact be “the easiest part,” experts say.

    “Phase two depends on Trump keeping everyone’s feet to the fire,” said Dennis Ross, a veteran diplomat on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who served in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations.

    “Israeli withdrawal and reconstruction are tied together,” he added. “The Saudis and Emiratis won’t invest the big sums Trump talked about without it. Otherwise they know this will happen again.”

    While the Israeli government voted to approve the conditions of the hostage release, neither side has agreed to later stages of Trump’s plan, which would see Hamas militants granted amnesty for disarming and vowing to remain outside of Palestinian governance going forward.

    An apolitical, technocratic council would assume governing responsibilities for an interim period, with an international body, chaired by Trump, overseeing reconstruction of a territory that has seen 90% of its structures destroyed.

    President Trump speaks during a summit of world leaders Monday in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt.

    (Amr Nabil / Associated Press)

    The document, in other words, is not just a concession of defeat by Hamas, but a full and complete surrender that few in the Middle East believe the group will ultimately accept. While Hamas could technically cease to exist, the Muslim Brotherhood — a sprawling political movement throughout the region from which Hamas was born — could end up reviving the group in another form.

    In Israel, the success of the next stage — as well as a long-delayed internal investigation into the government failures that led to Oct. 7 — will likely dominate the next election, which could be called for any time next year.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s domestic polling fluctuated dramatically over the course of the war, and both flanks of Israeli society, from the moderate left to the far right, are expected to exploit the country’s growing war fatigue under his leadership for their own political gain.

    Netanyahu’s instinct has been to run to the right in every Israeli election this last decade. But catering to a voting bloc fueling Israel’s settler enterprise in the West Bank — long the more peaceful Palestinian territory, governed by a historically weak Palestinian Authority — runs the risk of spawning another crisis that could quickly upend Trump’s peace effort.

    And crises in the West Bank have prompted the resumption of war in Gaza before.

    “Israelis will fear Hamas would dominate a Palestinian state, and that is why disarmament of Hamas and reform of the [Palestinian Authority] are so important. Having Saudi leaders reach out to the Israeli public would help,” Ross said.

    “The creeping annexation in the West Bank must stop,” Ross added. “The expansion of settlements must stop, and the violence of extremist settlers must stop.”

    In the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7, Netanyahu faced broad criticism for a yearslong strategy of disempowering the Palestinian Authority to Hamas’ benefit, preferring a conflict he knew Israel could win over a peace Israel could not control.

    So the true fate of Trump’s peace plan may ultimately come down to the type of peace Netanyahu chooses to pursue in the heat of an election year.

    “You are committed to this peace,” Netanyahu said Monday, standing alongside Trump in the Knesset. The Israeli prime minister added: “I am committed to this peace.”

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • New York Attorney General Letitia James indicted for alleged mortgage fraud

    This two-count indictment of New York attorney General Letitia James accuses her of bank fraud and of making false statements to *** financial institution. Specifically, it alleges that she intentionally misrepresented *** rental property as her secondary residence to obtain better mortgage terms. James is *** longtime foe of President Donald Trump. Last year she won *** civil lawsuit alleging that the president and his company overstated real estate values. Now the president has publicly urged the Justice Department to prosecute James and other political opponents. In *** video message yesterday, James said this indictment is part of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system. These charges are baseless. And the president’s own public statements make clear. That his only goal is political retribution at any cost. Lindsay Halligan, US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, wrote in *** statement, quote, No one is above the law. The charges, as alleged in this case, represent intentional criminal acts and tremendous breaches of the public’s trust, unquote. Now if convicted, James faces up to 30 years in prison per count. She’s expected to make her first appearance in federal court on October 24th at the White House, I’m Jackie DeFusco.

    New York Attorney General Letitia James indicted for alleged mortgage fraud

    New York Attorney General Letitia James is the latest political foe of President Donald Trump to face federal charges.

    Updated: 8:01 AM EDT Oct 10, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    New York Attorney General Letitia James is the latest political foe of President Donald Trump to face federal charges. A federal grand jury indicted James on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. The indictment accuses her of intentionally misrepresenting an investment property in Norfolk, Virginia, as her secondary residence to obtain better mortgage terms.In a video statement on Thursday, James said the indictment is part of the president’s “desperate weaponization of our justice system.””These charges are baseless. And the president’s own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost,” James said. Trump has publicly urged the Justice Department to prosecute James and other political opponents. In a Truth Social post last month that was directed at Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump alleged his opponents are “guilty as hell” and complained “nothing is being done.” Trump said, “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”Last year, James won a civil lawsuit against the president, alleging that Trump and his companies artificially inflated real estate values. An appeals court later overturned the staggering fine, which had grown to more than half a billion dollars with interest, but upheld the lower court’s finding that Trump committed fraud. Lindsey Halligan, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said in a statement Thursday, “No one is above the law. The charges as alleged in this case represent intentional, criminal acts and tremendous breaches of the public’s trust.”The statement noted that James faces up to 30 years in prison per count if convicted. Her first court appearance is scheduled for Oct. 24.Halligan, who previously served as a White House aide and Trump’s personal lawyer, is also spearheading the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. She was appointed to the job after the Trump administration removed Erik Siebert, the veteran prosecutor who had overseen both investigations for months and resisted pressure to file charges. On social media last month, Trump wrote, “I withdrew the Nomination of Erik Siebert as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, when I was informed that he received the UNUSUALLY STRONG support of the two absolutely terrible, sleazebag Democrat Senators, from the Great State of Virginia. He didn’t quit, I fired him!”James specifically cited the shakeup as evidence that her prosecution is politically motivated. “His decision to fire a United States attorney who refused to bring charges against me and replaced them with someone who was blindly loyal, not to the law but to the president, is antithetical to the bedrock principles of our country,” James said. Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    New York Attorney General Letitia James is the latest political foe of President Donald Trump to face federal charges.

    A federal grand jury indicted James on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. The indictment accuses her of intentionally misrepresenting an investment property in Norfolk, Virginia, as her secondary residence to obtain better mortgage terms.

    In a video statement on Thursday, James said the indictment is part of the president’s “desperate weaponization of our justice system.”

    “These charges are baseless. And the president’s own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost,” James said.

    Trump has publicly urged the Justice Department to prosecute James and other political opponents. In a Truth Social post last month that was directed at Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump alleged his opponents are “guilty as hell” and complained “nothing is being done.”

    Trump said, “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

    Last year, James won a civil lawsuit against the president, alleging that Trump and his companies artificially inflated real estate values. An appeals court later overturned the staggering fine, which had grown to more than half a billion dollars with interest, but upheld the lower court’s finding that Trump committed fraud.

    Lindsey Halligan, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said in a statement Thursday, “No one is above the law. The charges as alleged in this case represent intentional, criminal acts and tremendous breaches of the public’s trust.”

    The statement noted that James faces up to 30 years in prison per count if convicted. Her first court appearance is scheduled for Oct. 24.

    Halligan, who previously served as a White House aide and Trump’s personal lawyer, is also spearheading the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. She was appointed to the job after the Trump administration removed Erik Siebert, the veteran prosecutor who had overseen both investigations for months and resisted pressure to file charges.

    On social media last month, Trump wrote, “I withdrew the Nomination of Erik Siebert as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, when I was informed that he received the UNUSUALLY STRONG support of the two absolutely terrible, sleazebag Democrat Senators, from the Great State of Virginia. He didn’t quit, I fired him!”

    James specifically cited the shakeup as evidence that her prosecution is politically motivated.

    “His decision to fire a United States attorney who refused to bring charges against me and replaced them with someone who was blindly loyal, not to the law but to the president, is antithetical to the bedrock principles of our country,” James said.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    Source link

  • Trump-appointed judges signal willingness to let president deploy troops to states

    The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appears poised to recognize President Trump’s authority to send soldiers to Portland, Ore., with members of the court signaling receptiveness to an expansive new read of the president’s power to put boots on the ground in American cities.

    A three-judge panel from the appellate court — including two members appointed by Trump during his first term — heard oral arguments Thursday after Oregon challenged the legality of the president’s order to deploy hundreds of soldiers to Portland. The administration claims the city has become lawless; Oregon officials argue Trump is manufacturing a crisis to justify calling in the National Guard.

    While the court has not issued a decision, a ruling in Trump’s favor would mark a sharp rightward turn for the once-liberal circuit — and probably set up a Supreme Court showdown over why and how the U.S. military can be used domestically.

    “I’m sort of trying to figure out how a district court of any nature is supposed to get in and question whether the president’s assessment of ‘executing the laws’ is right or wrong,” said Judge Ryan D. Nelson of Idaho Falls, Idaho, one of the two Trump appointees hearing the arguments.

    “That’s an internal decision making, and whether there’s a ton of protests or low protests, they can still have an impact on his ability to execute the laws,” he said.

    U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland, another Trump appointee, previously called the president’s justification for federalizing Oregon troops “simply untethered to the facts” in her temporary restraining on Oct. 4.

    The facts about the situation on the ground in Portland were not in dispute at the hearing on Thursday. The city has remained mostly calm in recent months, with protesters occasionally engaging in brief skirmishes with authorities stationed outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building.

    Instead, Nelson and Judge Bridget S. Bade of Phoenix, whom Trump once floated as a possible Supreme Court nominee, questioned how much the facts mattered.

    “The president gets to direct his resources as he deems fit, and it seems a little counterintuitive to me that the city of Portland can come and say, ‘No you need to do it differently,’” Nelson said.

    He also appeared to endorse the Department of Justice’s claim that “penalizing” the president for waiting until protests had calmed to deploy soldiers to quell them created a perverse incentive to act first and ask questions later.

    “It just seems like such a tortured reading of the statute,” the judge said. He then referenced the first battle of the U.S. Civil War in 1861, saying, “I’m not sure even President Lincoln would be able to bring in forces when he did, because if he didn’t do it immediately after Fort Sumter, [Oregon’s] argument would be, ‘Oh, things are OK now.’”

    Trump’s efforts to use troops to quell protests and support federal immigration operations have led to a growing tangle of legal challenges. The Portland deployment was halted by Immergut, who blocked Trump from federalizing Oregon troops. (A ruling from the same case issued the next day prevents already federalized troops from being deployed.)

    In June, a different 9th Circuit panel also made up of two Trump appointees ruled that the president had broad — though not “unreviewable” — discretion to determine whether facts on the ground met the threshold for military response in Los Angeles. Thousands of federalized National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines were deployed over the summer amid widespread protests over immigration enforcement.

    The June decision set precedent for how any future deployment in the circuit’s vast territory can be reviewed. It also sparked outrage, both among those who oppose armed soldiers patrolling American streets and those who support them.

    Opponents argue repeated domestic deployments shred America’s social fabric and trample protest rights protected by the 1st Amendment. With soldiers called into action so far in Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago, many charge the administration is using the military for political purposes.

    “The military should not be acting as a domestic police force in this country except in the most extreme circumstances,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. “That set of circumstances is not present right now anywhere in the country, so this is an abuse of power — and a very dangerous one because of the precedent it sets.”

    Supporters say the president has sole authority to determine the facts on the ground and if they warrant military intervention. They argue any check by the judicial branch is an illegal power grab, aimed at thwarting response to a legitimate and growing “invasion from within.”

    “What they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles — they’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them out one by one,” Trump said in an address to military top brass last week. “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”

    The 9th Circuit agreed to rehear the Los Angeles case with an 11-member “en banc” panel in Pasadena on Oct. 22, signaling a schism among Trump’s own judges over the boundaries of the president’s power.

    Still, Trump’s authority to call soldiers into American cities is only the first piece in a larger legal puzzle spread before the 9th Circuit, experts said.

    What federalized troops are allowed to do once deployed is the subject of another court decision now under review. That case could determine whether soldiers are barred from assisting immigration raids, controlling crowds of protesters or any other form of civilian law enforcement.

    Trump officials have maintained the president can wield the military as he sees fit — and that cities such as Portland and L.A. would be in danger if soldiers can’t come to the rescue.

    “These are violent people, and if at any point we let down our guard, there is a serious risk of ongoing violence,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said. “The president is entitled to say enough is enough and bring in the National Guard.”

    Sonja Sharp

    Source link

  • News Analysis: With Gaza deal, praise and peril for Trump

    At a moment when hope for peace seemed lost, senior U.S. officials, led by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2012 that would be touted for years as a historic diplomatic achievement. She would later campaign on her strategic prowess for the presidency against Donald Trump.

    In 2014, a similar ceasefire was brokered between the two parties during yet another war by Clinton’s successor, John Kerry, also seen at the time as a diplomatic coup. But in the first 72 hours of that ceasefire, without clarity on the precise lines of an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas operatives ambushed an Israeli Defense Forces patrol decommissioning a tunnel, throwing peace in doubt. The remains of the Israeli soldier caught in that raid have been held by Hamas ever since.

    History shows that Trump’s achievement this week, brokering a new truce between Israel and Hamas after their most devastating war yet, is filled with opportunity and peril for the president.

    A lasting ceasefire could cement him a legacy as a peacemaker, long sought by Trump, who has harnessed President Nixon’s madman theory of diplomacy to coerce several other warring parties into ceasefires and settlements. But the record of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows that consistent interest and engagement by the president may be necessary to ensure any peace can hold.

    Hamas and Israel agreed on Wednesday to implement the first phase of Trump’s proposed 20-point peace plan, exchanging all remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas since its Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel in exchange for 1,700 detainees from Gaza, as well as 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences in Israel.

    Only the first phase has been agreed to thus far.

    Guns are expected to fall silent Friday, followed by a partial withdrawal of Israeli forces that would initially leave roughly half of the Gaza Strip — along its periphery bordering Israel — within Israeli military control. A 72-hour clock would then begin after the partial withdrawal is complete, counting down to the hostage release.

    Achieving this alone is a significant victory for Trump, who leveraged deep ties with Arab partners built over his first administration and political clout among the Israeli right and with its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to bring the deal to a close.

    The president’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, had been working toward a ceasefire for months, starting back during the presidential transition period nearly one year ago. He found little success on his own.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio writes a note before handing it to President Trump during a White House meeting Wednesday.

    (Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

    It was Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who designed the Abraham Accords in Trump’s first term and maintains close ties with Netanyahu and Arab governments, took an unofficial yet active role in a recent diplomatic push that helped secure an agreement, according to a U.S. official familiar with the matter.

    “None of this would have happened without Jared,” the source said.

    Speaking with reporters from the White House, Trump took a victory lap over the truce, claiming not only credit for a hostage and ceasefire deal but the historic achievement of a broader Middle East peace.

    “We ended the war in Gaza and really, on a much bigger basis, created peace. And I think it’s going to be a lasting peace — hopefully an everlasting peace. Peace in the Middle East,” Trump said.

    “We secured the release of all of the remaining hostages,” he added. “And they should be released on Monday or Tuesday — getting them is a complicated process. I’d rather not tell you what they have to do to get them. They’re in places you don’t want to be.”

    An opening emerged for a diplomatic breakthrough after Israel conducted an extraordinary strike on a Hamas target in Doha, shaking the confidence of the Qatari government, a key U.S. ally. While Doha has hosted Hamas’ political leadership for years, Qatar’s leadership thought their relationship with Washington would protect them from Israeli violations of its territory.

    Trump sought a deal with Qatar, a U.S. official said, that would assure them with security guarantees in exchange for delivering Hamas leadership on a hostage deal. Separately, Egypt — which has intelligence and sourcing capabilities in Gaza seen by the U.S. government as second only to Israel’s — agreed to apply similar pressure, the official said.

    “There’s an argument here, that presumably the Qataris are making to Hamas — which is that they lost, this round anyway, and that it’s going to take them a very long time to rebuild. But the war must come to an end for the rebuilding to start,” said Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat from the Reagan, George W. Bush and first Trump administrations.

    “On Friday, the Nobel Peace Prize will be announced, and he won’t get it,” Abrams said, adding that, if the deal falls through, “I think the Israelis are going to be saying to him, ‘This is a game. They didn’t really accept your plan.’”

    “I don’t think, in the end, he’ll blame the Israelis for ruining the deal,” Abrams continued. “I think he’ll blame Hamas.”

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • With Trump threats on back pay, another blow to public servants

    Sidelined by political appointees, targeted over deep state conspiracies and derided by the president, career public servants have grown used to life in Washington under a constant state of assault.

    But President Trump’s latest threat, to withhold back pay due to workers furloughed by an ongoing government shutdown, is adding fresh uncertainty to the beleaguered workforce.

    Whether federal workers will ultimately receive retroactive paychecks after the government reopens, Trump told reporters on Tuesday, “really depends on who you’re talking about.” The law requires federal employees receive their expected compensation in the event of a shutdown.

    “For the most part, we’re going to take care of our people,” the president said, while adding: “There are some people that really don’t deserve to be taken care of, and we’ll take care of them in a different way.”

    It is yet another peril facing public servants, who, according to Trump’s Office of Management and Budget director, Russ Vought, may also be the target of mass layoffs if the shutdown continues.

    The government has been shut since Oct. 1, when Republican and Democratic lawmakers came to an impasse over whether to extend government funding at existing levels, or account for a significant increase in healthcare premiums facing millions of Americans at the start of next year.

    White House officials say that, on the one hand, Democrats are to blame for extending a shutdown that will give the administration no other choice but to initiate firings of agency employees working on “nonessential” projects. On the other hand, the president has referred to the moment as an opportunity to root out Democrats working in career roles throughout the federal system.

    Legal scholars and public policy experts have roundly dismissed Trump’s latest efforts — both to use the shutdown as a predicate to cut the workforce, and to withhold back pay — as plainly illegal.

    And Democrats in Congress, who continue to vote against reopening the government, are counting on them being right, hoping that courts will reject the administration’s moves while they attempt to secure an extension of healthcare tax credits in the shutdown negotiations.

    If the experts are wrong, thousands of government workers could face a profound cost.

    “Senior leaders of the Trump administration promised to put federal employees in trauma, and they certainly seem intent on keeping that promise,” said Don Moynihan, a professor at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy.

    “According to a law that Trump himself has signed, furloughed employees are entitled to back pay,” Moynihan said. “There is no real ambiguity about this, and the idea only some employees in agencies that Trump likes would receive back pay is an illegal abuse of presidential power.”

    A day after the shutdown began, Trump wrote on social media that he planned on meeting with Vought, “of Project 2025 fame,” to discuss what he called the “unprecedented opportunity” of making “permanent” cuts to agencies during the ongoing funding lapse.

    A lawsuit brought in California against Vought and the OMB, by a coalition of labor unions representing over 2 million federal workers, is challenging the premise of that claim, arguing the government is “deviating from historic practice and violating applicable laws” by using government employees “as a pawn in congressional deliberations.” But whether courts can or will stop the effort is unclear.

    Sen. John Thune, the majority leader and a Republican from South Dakota, said last week that Democrats should have known the risk they were running by “shutting down the government and handing the keys to Russ Vought.”

    “We don’t control what he’s going to do,” he told Politico.

    The White House has sent mixed messages on its willingness to negotiate with Democrats since the shutdown began. Within a matter of hours earlier this week, the president’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told reporters that there was nothing to negotiate, before Trump said that dialogue had opened with Democratic leadership over a potential agreement on healthcare.

    Donald Kettl, professor emeritus and former dean at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, taught and trained prospective public servants for 45 years.

    “What is happening is profoundly discouraging for young students seeking careers in the federal public service,” he said. “Many of the students are going to state and local governments, nonprofits, and think tanks, but increasingly don’t see the federal government as a place where they can make a difference or make a career.”

    “All of us depend on the government, and the government depends on a pipeline of skilled workers,” Kettl added. “The administration’s efforts have blown up the pipeline, and the costs will continue for years — probably decades — to come.”

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi dodges Democrats’ questions in combative Senate hearing

    Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi struck a defiant tone Tuesday during a Senate hearing where she dodged a series of questions about brewing scandals that have dogged her agency.

    Bondi, a Trump loyalist, refused to discuss her conversations with the White House about the recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey and the deployment of federal troops to Democrat-run cities.

    She deflected questions about an alleged bribery scheme involving the president’s border advisor and declined to elaborate on her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

    In many instances, Bondi’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee devolved into personal attacks against Democrats, who expressed dismay at their inability to get her to answer their inquiries.

    “This is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions about the cover-up of corruption about the prosecution of the president’s enemies,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said toward the end of the nearly five-hour hearing. “When will it be that the members of this committee on a bipartisan basis demand answers to those questions?”

    Her testimony came as the Justice Department faces increased accusations that it is being weaponized against President Trump’s political foes.

    It marked a continuation of what has become a hallmark of not just Bondi, but most of Trump’s top officials. When pressed on potential scandals that the president has taken great pains to publicly avoid, they almost universally turn to one tactic: ignore and attack the questioner.

    That strategy was shown in an exchange between Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who wanted to know who decided to close an investigation into Trump border advisor Tom Homan. Homan reportedly accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents after indicating he could get them government contracts. Bondi declined to say and shifted the focus to Padilla.

    “I wish that you loved your state of California as much as you hate President Trump,” Bondi said. “We’d be in really good shape then because violent crime in California is currently 35% higher than the national average.”

    In between partisan attacks, the congressional hearing allowed Bondi to boast about her eight months in office. She said her focus has been on combating illegal immigration, violent crime and restoring public trust in the Justice Department, which she said Biden-era officials weaponized against Trump.

    “They wanted to take President Trump off the playing field,” she said about the effort to indict Trump. “This is the kind of conduct that shatters the American people’s faith in our law enforcement system. We will work to earn that back every single day. We are returning to our core mission of fighting real crime.”

    She defended the administration’s deployment of federal troops to Washington, D.C., and Chicago, where she said troops had been sent on Tuesday. Bondi declined to say whether the White House consulted her on the deployment of troops to American cities but said the effort is meant to “protect” citizens from violent crime.

    Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked about the legal justification for the military shooting vessels crossing the Carribbean Sea off Venezuela. The administration has said the boats are carrying drugs, but Coons told Bondi that “Congress has never authorized such a use of military force.”

    “It’s unclear to me how the administration has concluded that the strikes are legal,” Coons said.

    Bondi told Coons she would not discuss the legal advice her department has given to the president on the matter but said Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro “is a narcoterrorist,” and that “drugs coming from Venezuela are killing our children at record levels.”

    Coons said he was “gravely concerned” that she was not leading a department that is making decisions that are in “keeping with the core values of the Constitution.” As another example, he pointed to Trump urging her to prosecute his political adversaries, such as Comey.

    Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) the top Democrat on the committee, raised a similar concern at the beginning of the hearing, saying Bondi has “systematically weaponized our nation’s leading law enforcement agency to protect President Trump and his allies.”

    “In eight short months, you have fundamentally transformed the Justice Department and left an enormous stain on American history,” Durbin said. “It will take decades to recover.”

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link