ReportWire

Tag: Trump

  • At Brazilian climate summit, Newsom positions California as a stand-in for the U.S.

    [ad_1]

    BELÉM, Brazil — The expansive halls of the Amazon’s newly built climate summit hub echoed with the hum of air conditioners and the footsteps of delegates from around the world — scientists, diplomats, Indigenous leaders and energy executives, all converging for two frenetic weeks of negotiations.

    Then Gov. Gavin Newsom rounded the corner, flanked by staff and security. They moved in tandem through the corridors on Tuesday as media swarmed and cellphone cameras rose into the air.

    “Hero!” one woman shouted. “Stay safe — we need you,” another attendee said. Others didn’t hide their confusion at who the man with slicked-back graying hair causing such a commotion was.

    “I’m here because I don’t want the United States of America to be a footnote at this conference,” Newsom said when he reached a packed news conference on his first day at the United Nations climate policy summit known as COP30.

    In less than a year, the United States has shifted from rallying nations on combating climate change to rejecting the science altogether under President Trump.

    Newsom has engineered his own evolution when coping with Trump — moving from sharp but reasoned criticism to name-calling and theatrical attacks on the president and his Republican allies. Newsom’s approach adds fire to America’s political spectacle — part governance, part made-for-TV drama.

    On Wednesday, Newsom’s trip collided with unwelcome headlines at home after his former chief of staff was arrested on federal charges alleging she siphoned $225,000 from a dormant campaign account and claimed business tax write-offs for $1 million in luxury handbags and private jet travel. Newsom had left COP30 before the indictment was revealed, which kept the focus during his whirlwind trip to Belém on his climate policies.

    California’s carbon market and zero-emission mandates have given the state outsize influence at summits such as COP30, where its policies are seen as both durable and exportable. The state has invested billions in renewables, battery storage and electrifying buildings and vehicles and has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 21% since 2000 — even as its economy grew 81%.

    “Absolutely,” he said when asked whether the state is in effect standing in for the United States at climate talks. “And I think the world sees us in that light, as a stable partner, a historic partner … in the absence of American leadership. And not just absence of leadership, the doubling down of stupid in terms of global leadership on clean energy.”

    Newsom has honed a combative presence online — trading barbs with Trump and leaning into satire, especially on social media, tactics that mirror the president’s. Critics have argued that it’s contributing to a lowering of the bar when it comes to political discourse, but Newsom said he doesn’t see it that way.

    “I’m trying to call that out,” Newsom said, adding that in a normal political climate, leaders should model civility and respect. “But right now, we have an invasive species — in the vernacular of climate — by the name of Donald Trump, and we got to call that out.”

    At home, Newsom recently scored a political win with Proposition 50, the ballot measure he championed to counter Trump’s effort to redraw congressional maps in Republican-led states. On his way to Brazil, he celebrated the victory with a swing through Houston, where a rally featuring Texas Democrats looked more like a presidential campaign stop than a policy event — one of several moments in recent months that have invited speculation about a White House run that he insists he hasn’t launched.

    Those questions followed him to Brazil. It was the first topic posed from a cluster of Brazilian journalists in Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city and financial hub, where Newsom had flown to speak Monday with climate investors in what he conceded sounded more like a campaign speech.

    “I think it has to,” said Newsom, his talking points scribbled on yellow index cards still in his pocket from an earlier meeting. “I think people have to understand what’s going on, because otherwise you’re wasting everyone’s time.”

    In a low-lit luxury hotel adorned with Brazilian artwork and deep-seated chairs, Newsom showcased the well-practiced pivot of a politician avoiding questions about his future. His most direct answer about his presidential prospects came in a recent interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning” in which he was asked whether he would give serious thought after the 2026 midterm elections to a White House bid. Newsom responded: “Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise.”

    He laughed when asked by The Times how often he has fielded questions about his 2028 plans in recent days, and quickly deflected.

    “It’s not about me,” he said before fishing a malaria pill out of his suit pocket and chasing it with coffee from a nearby carafe. “It’s about this moment — and people’s anxiety and concern about this moment.”

    Ann Carlson, a UCLA environmental law professor, said Newsom’s appearance in Brazil is symbolically important as the federal government targets California’s decades-old authority to enforce its own environmental standards.

    “California has continued to signal that it will play a leadership role,” she said.

    The Trump administration confirmed to The Times that no high-level federal representative will attend COP30.

    “President Trump will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said.

    For his part, Trump told world leaders at the United Nations in September that climate change is a “hoax” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.”

    Since Trump returned to office for a second term, he’s canceled funding for major clean energy projects such as California’s hydrogen hub and moved to revoke the state’s long-held authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than those of the federal government. He’s also withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement, a seminal treaty signed a decade ago in which world leaders established the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels and preferably below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). That move is seen as pivotal in preventing the worst effects of climate change.

    Leaders from Chile and Colombia called Trump a liar for rejecting climate science, while Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva broadly warned that extremist forces are fabricating fake news and “condemning future generations to life on a planet altered forever by global warming.”

    Terry Tamminen, former California Environmental Protection Agency secretary under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, contended that with the Trump administration’s absence, Newsom’s attendance at COP30 thrusts an even brighter spotlight on the governor.

    “If the governor of Delaware goes, it may not matter,” Tamminen said. “But if our governor goes, it does. It sends a message to the world that we’re still in this.”

    The U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of state leaders, said three governors from the United States are attending COP30-related events in Brazil: Newsom, Wisconsin’s Tony Evers and New Mexico’s Michelle Lujan Grisham.

    Despite the warm reception Newsom has received in Belém, environmentalists in California have recently questioned his commitment.

    In September, Newsom signed a package of bills that extended the state’s signature cap-and-trade program through 2045. That program, rebranded as cap-and-invest, limits greenhouse gas emissions and raises billions of dollars for the state’s climate priorities. But, at the same time, he also gave final approval to a bill that will allow oil and gas companies to drill as many as 2,000 new wells per year through 2036 in Kern County. Environmentalists called that backsliding; Newsom called it realism, given the impending refinery closures in the state that threaten to drive up gas prices.

    “It’s not an ideological exercise,” he said. “It’s a very pragmatic one.”

    Leah Stokes, a UC Santa Barbara political scientist, called his record “pretty complex.”

    “In many ways, he is one of the leaders,” she said. “But some of the decisions that he’s made, especially recently, don’t move us in as good a direction on climate.”

    Newsom is expected to return to the climate summit Wednesday before traveling deeper into the Amazon, where he plans to visit reforestation projects. The governor said he wanted to see firsthand the region often referred to as “the lungs of the world.”

    “It’s not just to admire the absorption of carbon from the rainforest,” Newsom said. “But to absorb a deeper spiritual connection to this issue that connects all of us. … I think that really matters in a world that can use a little more of that.”

    [ad_2]

    Melody Gutierrez

    Source link

  • Trump wants oil drilling off the coast of California. But does anyone else?

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration reportedly has plans to open the waters off California’s coast to new oil and gas drilling for the first time in four decades, drawing swift condemnation from Gov. Gavin Newsom, lawmakers and environmental groups who say it would be disastrous for the state’s environment, economy and clean energy targets.

    Whether energy companies would be interested in such leases is another question. Experts say the resources are limited and oil majors may not clamor for leases that could ensnare them in the Golden State’s stringent environmental policies.

    Trump has focused heavily on increasing fossil fuel production in the United States, yet some say offering the opportunity to drill in the Pacific is more likely a political move from an administration that has repeatedly targeted California’s green ambitions.

    Details of the administration’s plan are still emerging, but maps from the Bureau of Ocean Energy identify four West Coast planning areas, three off the coast of California and one off Oregon and Washington. The administration is planning to propose up to six offshore lease sales off the coast of California between 2027 and 2030, according to internal documents first reported by the Washington Post.

    Officials with the U.S. Interior Department declined to comment, citing the U.S. government shutdown. Last month, the administration also announced plans to open the entire 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas leasing, which Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said would create jobs and strengthen U.S. energy independence.

    California has about two dozen operating oil platforms in state and federal waters, some of which are visible from the shore in different parts of Southern California. But new leases have not been granted in federal waters since 1984, in part due to strong opposition stemming from a 1969 oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara that spewed an estimated 100,000 barrels of crude oil into the water and helped jumpstart the modern environmental movement.

    The years that followed saw a string of actions to protect the Outer Continental Shelf from oil and gas development, including bipartisan actions from the state, Congress and presidents including George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama. In January, President Biden signed an executive order protecting more than 625 million acres of the U.S. ocean from offshore drilling, which Trump repealed on his first day back in office.

    Oil companies have expressed some interest in new offshore leases. The American Petroleum Institute and other leading oil and gas trade groups encouraged the Trump administration in a June letter to evaluate and consider all areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for oil and gas drilling, noting that “continuous exploration and drilling will be needed” to ensure long-term energy security and meet U.S. energy demands into 2050.

    But the opposition from California could be strong. The state has set ambitious climate goals, including reaching 100% carbon neutrality by 2045.

    “Nobody really wants offshore oil, except for maybe Texas and Louisiana,” said Clark Williams-Derry, an energy industry analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “In my mind, this is at least in part politically motivated rather than substantively motivated.”

    Trump — who received record donations from oil and gas companies during his 2024 presidential campaign — has moved to block clean energy projects in the state and repeal its authority to set strict tailpipe emissions standards, among other challenges.

    Williams-Derry noted that offshore oil drilling is a speculative and risk-laden venture for oil companies, and prospects are better in fracking basins in Texas and New Mexico.

    The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s most recent federal assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf estimates there are about 9.8 billion barrels of untapped oil off the coast of California — the majority off Southern California — compared with about 29.6 billion barrels in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Offshore oil platforms often send oil ashore, requiring pipelines and other infrastructure. California isn’t likely to cooperate with that onshore work, and in fact has built up something of a “blue wall” of opposition to offshore drilling through local resolutions and legislative efforts, according to Richard Charter, senior fellow with the nonprofit Ocean Foundation.

    A network of state laws such as the longstanding California Coastal Sanctuary law, the California Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act and a 2025 assembly bill would effectively prevent oil companies from using existing oil and gas infrastructure in state waters to export or bring ashore new production from federal offshore leases, Charter said. State waters are the first three miles offshore.

    “I think we have as many layers of protection as it is possible to get — certainly more than any other state,” he said, adding that “the limited petroleum potential is not worth the effort and the risk.”

    However, it’s possible that interested oil companies could bypass the state altogether by loading crude onto tankers and shipping it elsewhere, something the Sable Offshore Corp. is now considering for its controversial project to restart oil drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara.

    Energy companies have also been making use of floating oil processing centers that dramatically reduce the need for pipelines.

    Rumors of the Trump administration’s plans drew sharp criticism from state leaders, including Sen. Alex Padilla, who led an Oct. 30 letter signed by more than 100 lawmakers demanding the administration reverse course to open up the Outer Continental Shelf.

    “This is a matter of national consequence for coastal communities across the country, regardless of political affiliation,” the letter said. “It puts our economies, national security, and our most vulnerable ecosystems at severe risk.”

    The lawmakers noted that the U.S. already leads the world in oil and gas production, and the industry already holds more than 2,000 offshore leases covering more than 12 million acres of federal waters, but fewer than 500 of those leases are actively producing oil and gas.

    “There is no justification for opening vast swaths of our oceans to leasing when existing leases remain largely unused, while imposing mounting environmental and economic costs on coastal communities,” they wrote.

    At the same time, any expanded drilling would meet with weakened oil spill prevention and response programs at the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which have lost about 30% of its staff to layoffs and buyouts and face a potential 50% budget cut.

    The Trump administration has caved to at least some political pressure on the issue: The administration largely backed off plans to open the Atlantic Ocean for drilling after reports drew the ire of Republican coastal state leaders.

    But advocacy groups say the administration is less likely to give favor to California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom — a 2028 presidential contender — has repeatedly sparred with Trump over energy and the environment. Newsom is currently at the United Nations climate conference in Brazil, which Trump opted not to attend.

    [ad_2]

    Hayley Smith

    Source link

  • U.S. aircraft carrier arrives in Caribbean region, escalating standoff with Maduro

    [ad_1]

    The USS Gerald R. Ford is the world’s largest aircraft carrier.

    The USS Gerald R. Ford is the world’s largest aircraft carrier.

    U.S. Navy

    The world’s largest and most technologically advanced aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, has entered the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility, further expanding what is already the biggest U.S. military presence in the Caribbean in decades, the Navy said Tuesday.

    The deployment — officially framed as a mission against narcotics trafficking and transnational crime — comes as tensions escalate between the U.S. and Venezuela, where the Nicolás Maduro regime is rushing to reinforce a troubled Russian- and Iranian-backed air defense network.

    The Ford Carrier Strike Group arrives as new antiaircraft platforms surface across Venezuela. Last week, Russian-made Buk-M2E medium-range surface-to-air missile systems were spotted inside Caracas’ La Carlota military airport, following an urgent appeal by Maduro for Moscow and Beijing to help prepare for what he describes as the threat of a U.S. invasion.

    The Buk-M2E, known by NATO as the SA-17 Grizzly, can engage multiple aircraft, helicopters and cruise missiles simultaneously with its 9M317E interceptor, which has a range of up to 28 miles.

    Major U.S. buildup

    The Ford strike group, consisting of guided-missile destroyers USS Bainbridge, USS Mahan and USS Winston S. Churchill, was ordered into the region after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth directed additional forces to support President Donald Trump’s mandate to dismantle transnational criminal organizations and counter narco-terrorism threatening the U.S. homeland.

    “The enhanced U.S. force presence in the SOUTHCOM AOR will bolster U.S. capacity to detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities that compromise the safety and prosperity of the United States homeland,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a Navy press release. “These forces will enhance and augment existing capabilities to disrupt narcotics trafficking and degrade and dismantle TCOs.”

    With more than 4,000 sailors and dozens of tactical aircraft, the Ford gives U.S. commanders unmatched reach for sustained operations at sea. Its electromagnetic catapult and advanced arresting gear allow simultaneous launches and recoveries of aircraft, offering a significant edge in both combat and surveillance missions.

    The carrier will operate alongside the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group and its Marine Expeditionary Unit, under a joint task force said to be focused on dismantling criminal networks using maritime routes in the Caribbean and along the coasts of Central and South America.

    “Through unwavering commitment and the precise use of our forces, we stand ready to combat the transnational threats that seek to destabilize our region,” said Adm. Alvin Holsey, commander of the Doral-based Southern Command.

    What the Ford brings to the table:

    The Ford Strike Group carries a formidable mix of air, surface and electronic-warfare assets. Its embarked Carrier Air Wing 8 includes:

    • F/A-18E/F Super Hornets

    • E/A-18G Growlers

    • E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes

    • MH-60S and MH-60R Seahawks

    • C-2A Greyhounds

    The accompanying destroyers bring layered air, surface and submarine defenses through the Aegis Combat System. The USS Winston S. Churchill, serving as Integrated Air and Missile Defense Commander, provides protection against long-range aerial threats.

    Venezuela builds its own shield

    The U.S. show of force has further strained relations with Caracas, with Maduro accusing Washington of planning “acts of aggression” under the guise of counter-narcotics missions. Since late September, Venezuela has been in a state of emergency, mobilized its armed forces and Bolivarian Militia, and unveiled what analysts describe as one of the most integrated—though unevenly functioning—air defense networks in Latin America.

    At its core are Russian-built S-300VM long-range missile systems capable of intercepting aircraft and ballistic missiles more than 125 miles away. Analysts believe three battalions protect Caracas and key industrial corridors. Buk-M2E, Pantsir-S1, upgraded S-125 Pechora-2M, and newly delivered Iranian Bavar-373 missile systems add medium- and short-range capacity.

    For close-range defense, Venezuela has distributed thousands of Igla-S MANPADS, Russian-made shoulder-launched surface-t0-air missile systems, across the country.

    Russian and Iranian lifelines

    Despite Venezuela’s crippling maintenance issues, Russia, Iran and China continue to support Maduro. Russian military transport aircraft reportedly delivered fresh missile components and Pantsir batteries in late October, and Russian advisors are assisting local operators. Iran has supplied Bavar-373 systems and cruise-missile technology; China contributes radars and electronic-warfare platforms.

    Even with the new hardware, experts estimate that only 25–40% of Venezuela’s radar and missile network is fully operational due to financial sanctions and a chronic shortage of spare parts. Still, the systems could challenge U.S. air operations near Venezuelan airspace.

    A recent Washington Post report said Maduro urgently asked China, Russia and Iran for additional radars, drone technology, aircraft repairs and potentially more missiles. It remains unclear what Beijing has promised.

    Strike speculation intensifies

    Reports over the past week indicate the U.S. military is expanding its presence in the Caribbean, fueling speculation about potential strikes inside Venezuela. The Miami Herald and Wall Street Journal have reported that the Trump administration has identified Venezuelan military sites allegedly tied to drug-trafficking networks as possible bombing targets.

    As Washington amasses what regional diplomats have described as an “armada,” anxiety is rising across Venezuela. Many citizens view the Ford’s arrival as a symbolic turning point that could signal the next phase of Trump’s pressure campaign.

    Speaking last week by video at the America Business Forum in Miami, top opposition leader María Corina Machado, Venezuela’s 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, endorsed Trump’s approach, calling it “absolutely correct” and a watershed in the hemisphere’s fight against tyranny and organized crime.

    In August, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi doubled the reward for Maduro’s capture to $50 million, calling him “one of the world’s biggest drug traffickers” and the leader of the Cartel de los Soles. Bondi said he works with groups including Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel and other transnational criminal networks.

    [ad_2]

    Antonio María Delgado

    Source link

  • Commentary: Democrats crumble like cookies. Is this really the best they can do?

    [ad_1]

    Democrats just crumbled like soft-bake cookies.

    The so-called resistance party has given up the shutdown fight, ensuring that millions of Americans will face Republican-created skyrocketing healthcare costs, and millions more will bury any hope that the minority party will find the substance and leadership to run a viable defense against President Trump.

    Sunday night, eight turncoat Democrats sold out every American who pays for their own health insurance through the affordable marketplaces set up by President Obama.

    As has been thoroughly reported in past weeks, Republicans are dead set on making sure that insurance is entirely out of financial reach for many Americans by refusing to help them pay for the premiums with subsidies that are part of current law, offered to both low- and middle-income families.

    Republicans — for reasons hard to fathom other than they hate Obama, and apparently basics such as flu shots — have long desired to kill the Affordable Care Act and now are on the brink of doing so, in spirit if not actuality, thanks to Democrats.

    Trump must be doing his old-man jig in the Oval Office.

    The pain this craven cave-in will cause is already evident. Rates for 2026 without the government subsidies have been announced, and premiums have doubled on average, according to nonpartisan health policy researcher KFF. Doubled.

    Insurance companies are planning on raising their rates by about 18%, already devastating and symptomatic of the need for a total overhaul of our messed-up system. That increase, coupled with the loss of the subsidies beginning at the start of next year, means a 114% jump in costs for the folks dependent on this insurance. Premiums that cost on average $888 in 2025 will jump to $1,904 in 2026, according to KFF.

    But it’s the middle-income people who will really be hit.

    “On average, a 60-year-old couple making $85,000 … would see yearly premium payments rise by over $22,600 in 2026,” KFF warns, meaning that instead of paying 8.5% of their income toward health insurance, it will now jump to about 25%.

    Merry Christmas, America.

    Although the eight Democrats who broke from their party to allow this to happen are directly responsible (thankfully our California senators are not among them), Democratic leadership should also be held accountable.

    A party that can’t keep itself together on the really big votes isn’t a party. It’s a bunch of people who occasionally have lunch together. Literally, they had one job: Stick together.

    The failure of Democratic leadership to make sure its Senate votes didn’t shatter in this intense moment isn’t just shameful, it’s depressing. For all of the condemnation of the Republican members of Congress for failing to uphold their duty to be a check on the power of the presidency, here’s the opposition party rolling over belly up on the pivotal issue of healthcare.

    As Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) put it on social media, “Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?”

    If the recent elections had any lessons in them, it’s that Democrats — and voters in general — want courage. Love or hate Zohran Mamdani, his win as New York City mayor was due in no small part to his daring to forge his own path. Ditto on Gov. Gavin Newsom and Proposition 50.

    Mamdani put that sentiment best in his victory speech, promising an age when people can “expect from their leaders a bold vision of what we will achieve, rather than a list of excuses for what we are too timid to attempt.”

    Before you start angry-emailing me, yes, I do understand how much pain the shutdown in causing, especially for furloughed workers and people facing disruptions in their SNAP benefits. I feel for every person who doesn’t know how they will pay their bills.

    But here are the facts that we can’t forget. Republicans have purposefully made that pain intense in order to break Democrats. Trump has found ways to pay his deportation agents, while simultaneously not paying critical workers such as airport screeners and air traffic controllers, where the chaos created by their absence is both visible and disruptive. He has also threatened to not give back pay to some of those folks when this does end.

    And on the give-in-or-don’t-eat front, he’s actually been ordered by courts to pay those Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits and is fighting it. Republicans could easily band together and demand that money goes out while the rest is hashed out, but they don’t want to. They want people to go hungry so that Democrats will break, and it worked.

    But at what cost?

    About 24 million people will be hit by these premium increases, leaving up to 4 million unable to keep their insurance. Unable to go to the doctor for routine care. Unable to pay for cancer treatments. Unable to have that lump, that pain, the broken bone looked at. Unable to get their kid a flu shot.

    In many ways, this isn’t a California problem. The majority of these folks are in Southern, Republican states that refused to expand Medicaid when they had the chance. About 6 in 10 subsidy recipients are represented by Republicans, according to KFF, led by those living in Florida, Georgia and Mississippi. But Americans have been clear that we want access to care for all of us, as a right, not an expensive privilege.

    Which makes it all the more mystifying that Democrats are so eager to give up, on an issue that unites voters across parties, across demographics, across our seemingly endless divides.

    But I guess that’s just how the cookie crumbles.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Trump says Americans will receive $2,000 tariff dividend

    [ad_1]

    President Trump said Sunday that most Americans would receive a $2,000 dividend payment as a result of his administration’s tariffs levied against foreign countries.

    Trump announced the potential payments on his Truth Social platform, calling opponents of his tariffs “FOOLS” in a post.

    “We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion,” the president wrote. “Record Investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place. A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”

    Congressional approval would likely be necessary to provide the payments. There is no specific plan at this point for the dividends, which could cost the government hundreds of billions of dollars.

    The post by Trump comes after a difficult week for the president.

    The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that questions whether Trump exceeded his authority in levying tariffs against foreign nations without congressional support. Most of the justices on the bench, including conservative justices such as Chief Justice John G. Roberts, appeared skeptical of the president’s authority under the Constitution.

    Most of the justices seemed to take the view that the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise taxes, duties and tariffs, not the president.

    That blow came on the heels of Democratic wins throughout the country on Tuesday.

    Since taking office, Trump has implemented steep tariffs on specific goods as well as particularly high tariffs on goods from specific countries such as India and Brazil.

    Trump said in remarks on Thursday at the White House that revocation of the tariffs would be “devastating” for the U.S.

    On Sunday in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that he had not yet spoken with Trump about the proposed dividend.

    “The $2,000 dividend could come in lots of forms and lots of ways,” Bessent said.

    [ad_2]

    Noah Goldberg

    Source link

  • BBC leaders resign after the broadcaster’s editing of a Trump speech is called misleading

    [ad_1]

    BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News Chief Executive Deborah Turness announced Sunday they are resigning from their positions.

    The departures come as the British public broadcaster has faced criticism for its editing of President Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech before the Capitol riot and insurrection.

    The BBC investigative series “Panorama,” in a broadcast a week ahead of the U.S. presidential election last year, featured an edited video of Trump’s speech.

    Critics said that the way the speech was edited was misleading in that it cut out a section in which Trump said that he expected his supporters would demonstrate peacefully.

    “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” Trump said in the speech, during which he also urged his supporters to “fight like hell.”

    In a statement, Turness acknowledged the controversy around the “Panorama” broadcast, noting, “In public life leaders need to be fully accountable, and that is why I am stepping down. While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.”

    In a separate news release, Davie said, “In these increasingly polarized times, the BBC is of unique value and speaks to the very best of us. It helps make the UK a special place; overwhelmingly kind, tolerant and curious. Like all public organizations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable.

    “While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision. Overall the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made and as Director-General I have to take ultimate responsibility.”

    Trump posted a link to a Daily Telegraph story about the speech-editing on his Truth Social network, thanking the newspaper “for exposing these Corrupt ‘Journalists.’ These are very dishonest people who tried to step on the scales of a Presidential Election.” He called that “a terrible thing for Democracy!”

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reacted on X, posting a screen grab of an article headlined “Trump goes to war with ‘fake news’ BBC” beside another about Davie’s resignation, with the words “shot” and “chaser.”

    Trump was impeached and criminally indicted over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and insurrection. The felony charges were dropped after he won the 2024 election, as U.S. Justice Department policy holds that a sitting president may not be criminally prosecuted.

    Pressure on the broadcaster’s top executives has been growing since the Daily Telegraph newspaper published parts of a dossier complied by Michael Prescott, who had been hired to advise the BBC on standards and guidelines.

    As well as the Trump edit, it criticized the BBC’s coverage of transgender issues and raised concerns of anti-Israel bias in the BBC’s Arabic service.

    The 103-year-old BBC faces greater scrutiny than other broadcasters — and criticism from its commercial rivals — because of its status as a national institution funded through an annual license fee of $230 paid by all households with a television.

    The BBC airs vast reams of entertainment and sports programming across multiple television and radio stations and online platforms — but it’s the BBC’s news output that is most often under scrutiny.

    The broadcaster is bound by the terms of its charter to be impartial in its output, and critics are quick to point out when they think it has failed. It’s frequently a political football, with conservatives seeing a leftist slant in its news output and some liberals accusing it of having a conservative bias.

    It has also been criticized from all angles over its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. In February, the BBC removed a documentary about Gaza from its streaming service after it emerged that the child narrator was the son of an official in the Hamas-led government.

    The BBC shakeup comes as Trump has been extremely aggressive in pursuing lawsuits against U.S. media companies. Paramount Global forked over $16 million this summer after Trump complained about the editing of a Kamala Harris interview on CBS’ “60 minutes.” Last year, ABC News paid $16 million to settle Trump’s defamation lawsuit against anchor George Stephanopoulos.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Olsen

    Source link

  • Newsom appears onstage at Texas rally to celebrate Prop. 50 victory, take swipes at Trump

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom strode onstage in Houston on Saturday to a cheering crowd of Texas Democrats, saying Proposition 50’s victory in California on election day was a win for the nation and a firm repudiation of President Trump.

    Newsom possessed the air of a politician running for president at the boisterous rally, a possibility the California governor says he is considering — and the location he chose was not happenstance.

    Newsom accused Trump of pressuring Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to rejigger the state’s congressional districts with the goal of sending more Republicans to Congress, an action that triggered California’s Proposition 50. Newsom successfully pushed for a special election on the ballot measure to counter the efforts in Texas, which the governor said wasan attempt by Trump and the Republicans to “rig” the 2026 midterm election.

    Cheers erupted from the friendly, union-hall crowd when Newsom belittled Trump as an “invasive species” and a “historically unpopular president.”

    “On every issue, on the economy, on terrorists, on immigration, on healthcare, [he’s a] historically unpopular president, and he knows it, and he knows it,” Newsom said. “Why else did he make that call to your governor? Why else did he feel the need to rig the election before even one vote was cast? That’s just weakness, weakness masquerading as strength. That’s Donald Trump, and he had a very bad night on Tuesday.”

    Newsom was the main political force behind Proposition 50, which California voters overwhelmingly approved in Tuesday’s special election. The statewide ballot measure was an attempt to counter Trump’s push to get Republican-led states, most notably Texas, to redraw their electoral maps to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms and upending his agenda. Newsom and California Democrats hope the change will net an additional five Democrats in California’s congressional delegation, canceling out any gains in Texas.

    Newsom thanked Texas Democrats for putting up a fight against the redistricting effort in their state, saying it inspired an uprising.

    “It’s dawning on people, all across the United States of America, what’s at stake,” Newsom told the crowd. “And you put a stake in the ground. People are showing up. I don’t believe in crowns, thrones. No kings.”

    Newsom’s trip to Texas comes as the former San Francisco mayor has been openly flirting with a 2028 run for president. In a recent interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning,” Newsom was asked whether he would give “serious thought” after the 2026 midterms to a White House bid.

    “Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise,” Newsom replied. “I’d just be lying. And I’m not — I can’t do that.”

    In July, Newsom flew to South Carolina, a state that traditionally hosts the South’s first presidential primary. He said he wanted to help his party win back the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026. But South Carolina is a solidly conservative state and did not appear to have a single competitive race.

    During that trip, South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress and renowned Democratic kingmaker, told The Times that Newsom would be “a hell of a candidate.” Newsom received similar praise — and encouragement — when he was introduced at the “Take It Back” rally in Houston.

    Newsom now heads to Belém, Brazil, where representatives from 200 nations are gathering to kick off the annual United Nations climate policy summit. For Newsom, it’s a golden opportunity to appear on a world stage and sell himself and California as the antidote to Trump and his attacks on climate change policy.

    The Trump administration this year canceled funding for major clean energy projects such as California’s hydrogen hub and moved to revoke the state’s long-held authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government.

    [ad_2]

    Phil Willon

    Source link

  • Trump made inroads with Latino voters. The GOP is losing them ahead of the midterms

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Trump made historic gains with Latinos when he won reelection last year, boosting Republicans’ confidence that their economic message was helping them make inroads with a group of voters who had long leaned toward Democrats.

    But in this week’s election, Democrats in key states were able to disrupt that rightward shift by gaining back Latino support, exit polls showed.

    In New Jersey and Virginia, the Democrats running for governor made gains in counties with large Latino populations, and overall won two-thirds of the Latino vote in their states, according to an NBC News poll.

    And in California, a CNN exit poll showed about 70% of Latinos voting in favor of Proposition 50, a Democratic redistricting initiative designed to counter Trump’s plans to reshape congressional maps in an effort to keep GOP control of the House.

    The results mark the first concrete example at the ballot box of Latino voters turning away from the GOP — a shift foreshadowed by recent polling as their concerns about the economy and immigration raids have grown.

    Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill celebrates with supporters after being elected New Jersey governor.

    (Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    If the trend continues, it could spell trouble for Republicans in next year’s midterm elections, said Gary Segura, a professor of public policy, political science and Chicana/o studies at UCLA. This could be especially true in California and Texas, where both parties are banking on Latino voters to help them pick up seats in the House, Segura said.

    “A year is a long time in politics, but certainly the vote on Prop. 50 is a very, very good sign for the Democrats’ ability to pick up the newly drawn congressional districts,” Segura said. “I think Latino voters will be really instrumental in the outcome.”

    Democrats, meanwhile, are feeling optimistic that their warnings about Trump’s immigration crackdown and a bad economy are resonating with Latinos.

    Republicans are wondering to what degree the party can maintain support among Latinos without Trump on the ticket. In 2024, Trump won roughly 48% of the Latino vote nationally — a record for any Republican presidential candidate.

    Some Republicans saw this week’s trends among Latino voters as a “wakeup call.”

    “The Hispanic vote is not guaranteed. Hispanics married President Donald Trump but are only dating the GOP,” Republican Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida said in a social media video the day after the election. “I’ve been warning it: If the GOP does not deliver, we will lose the Hispanic vote all over the country.”

    Economic issues a main driver

    Last year Trump was able to leverage widespread frustration with the economy to win the support of Latinos. He promised to create jobs and lower the costs of living.

    But polling shows that a majority of Latino voters now disapprove of how Trump and the Republicans in control of Congress are handling the economy. Half of Latinos said they expected Trump’s economic policies to leave them worse off a year from now in a Unidos poll released last week.

    In New Jersey, that sentiment was exemplified by voters like Rumaldo Gomez. He told MSNBC he voted for Trump last year but this week went for for the Democratic candidate for governor, Rep. Mikie Sherrill.

    “Now, I look at Trump different,” Gomez said. “The economy does not look good.”

    Gomez added he is “very sad” about immigration raids led by the Trump administration that have split up hardworking families.

    While Latino voters fear being affected by immigration enforcement actions, polling suggests they are more concerned about cost of living, jobs and housing. The Unidos poll showed immigration ranking fifth on the list of concerns.

    In New Jersey and Virginia, Democrats’ double-digit victories were built on promises to reduce the cost of living, while blaming Trump for their economic pain.

    Marcus Robinson, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, said Democrats “expanded margins and flipped key counties by earning back Latino voters who know Trump’s economy leaves them behind.”

    “These results show that Latino communities want progress, not a return to chaos and broken promises,” he said.

    Republicans see a different Trump issue

    GOP strategist Matt Terrill, who was chief of staff for then-Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign, said the election results are not a referendum on Trump.

    Latino voters swung left because Trump wasn’t on the ballot, he said.

    Last year “it wasn’t Latino voters turning out for the Republican party, it was Latino voters turning out for President Trump,” he said. “Like him or not, he’s able to fire up voters that the Republican party traditionally does not get.”

    With Trump barred by the Constitution from running for a third term, Republicans are left to wonder if they can get the Latino vote back when he is not on the ballot. Terrill believes Republicans need to hammer on the issue of affordability as a top priority.

    Mike Madrid, a “never Trump” Republican and former political director of the California Republican Party, has a different theory.

    “They’re abandoning both parties,” Madrid said of Latinos. “They abandoned the Republican party for the same reasons they abandoned the Democratic party in November: not addressing economic concerns.”

    The economy has long been the top concern for Latinos, Madrid said, yet both parties continue to frame the Latino political agenda around immigration.

    “Latinos aren’t voting for Democrats or Republicans — they’re voting against Democrats and against Republicans,” Madrid said. “It’s a very big difference. The partisans are all looking at us as if we’re this peculiar exotic little creature.”

    The work ahead

    Democrat Abigail Spanberger was elected governor in Virginia in part because of big gains in Latino-heavy communities. One of the biggest gains was in Manassas Park, where more than 40% of residents are Latino. She won the city by 42 points, doubling the Democrats’ performance there in last year’s election.

    The shift toward Democrats happened because Latinos believed Trump when he promised to bring down high costs of living and that he would only go after violent criminals in immigration raids, said Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, who worked with Spanberger’s campaign on outreach to Spanish-language media.

    Instead, she argued, Trump betrayed them.

    Cardona said Medicaid cuts under Trump’s massive spending package this year, along with the reduction of supplemental nutrition assistance amid the government shutdown, have Latinos families panicking.

    “What Republicans misguidedly and mistakenly thought was a realignment of Latino voters just turned out to be a blip,” she said. “Latinos should never be considered a base vote.”

    Political scientists caution that the election outcomes this week are not necessarily indicative of how races will play out a year from now.

    “It’s just one election, but certainly the seeds have been planted for strong Latino Democratic turnouts in 2026,” said Brad Jones, a political science professor at UC Davis.

    Now, both parties need to explain how they expect to carry out their promises if elected.

    “They can’t sit on their laurels and say, ‘well surely the Latinos are coming back because the economy is bad and immigration enforcement is bad,’” Jones said. “The job of the Democratic party is now to reach out to Latino voters in ways that are more than just symbolic.”

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos, Andrea Castillo

    Source link

  • Trump admin asks Supreme Court to halt order providing full SNAP payments for November

    [ad_1]

    A federal appeals court leaves an order in place that requires President Donald Trump ‘s administration to provide full SNAP food benefits for November amid a U.S. government shutdown.The judge gave the Republican administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.After the appeals court declined to do so, the Trump administration quickly asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its request.The food program serves about 1 in 8 Americans, mostly with lower incomes.The court filing came even as the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a memo to states that it’s working to make funds available Friday for full monthly SNAP benefits.Officials in at least a half-dozen states confirmed that some SNAP recipients already were issued full November payments on Friday.Which states issued SNAP payments”Food benefits are now beginning to flow back to California families,” Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.In Wisconsin, more than $104 million of monthly food benefits became available at midnight on electronic cards for about 337,000 households, a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said. The state was able to access the federal money so quickly by submitting a request to its electronic benefit card vendor to process the SNAP payments within hours of a Thursday court order to provide full benefits.Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, said state employees “worked through the night” to issue full November benefits “to make sure every Oregon family relying on SNAP could buy groceries” by Friday.Officials in Kansas, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also said they moved quickly to issue full SNAP benefits Friday, while other states said they expected full benefits to arrive over the weekend or early next week. Still others said they were waiting for further federal guidance.Many SNAP recipients face uncertaintyThe court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for Americans with lower incomes.An individual can receive a monthly maximum food benefit of nearly $300 and a family of four up to nearly $1,000, although many receive less than that under a formula that takes into consideration their income.For some SNAP participants, it remained unclear when they would receive their benefits.Jasmen Youngbey of Newark, New Jersey, waited in line Friday at a food pantry in the state’s largest city. As a single mom attending college, Youngbey said she relies on SNAP to help feed her 7-month-old and 4-year-old sons. But she said her account balance was at $0.”Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said.Later Friday, Youngbey said, she received her monthly SNAP benefits.Tihinna Franklin, a school bus guard who was waiting in the same line outside the United Community Corporation food pantry, said her SNAP account balance was at 9 cents and she was down to three items in her freezer. She typically relies on the roughly $290 a month in SNAP benefits to help feed her grandchildren.”If I don’t get it, I won’t be eating,” she said. “My money I get paid for, that goes to the bills, rent, electricity, personal items. That is not fair to us as mothers and caregivers.”Franklin said later Friday that she had received at least some of her normal SNAP benefits.The legal battle over SNAP takes another twistBecause of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration originally had said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. However, two judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the shutdown. One of those judges was U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the full payments Thursday.In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.Thursday’s federal court order rejected the Trump administration’s decision to cover only 65% of the maximum monthly benefit, a decision that could have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.In its court filing Friday, Trump’s administration contended that Thursday’s directive to fund full SNAP benefits runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.”This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend,” the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in its request to the court.In response, attorneys for the cities and nonprofits challenging Trump’s administration said the government has plenty of available money and the court should “not allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now.”States are taking different approaches to food aidSome states said they stood ready to distribute SNAP money as quickly as possible.Massachusetts said SNAP recipients should receive their full November payments as soon as Saturday. New York said access to full SNAP benefits should begin by Sunday. New Hampshire said full benefits should be available by this weekend. And Connecticut said full benefits should be accessible in the next several days.Officials in North Carolina said they distributed partial SNAP payments Friday and full benefits could be available by this weekend. Officials in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana and North Dakota also said they distributed partial November payments.Amid the federal uncertainty, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer said the state used its own funds Friday to provide the first of what could be a weekly relief payment to SNAP recipients.___Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri; Bauer from Madison, Wisconsin; and Catalini from Newark, New Jersey. Associated Press writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Jack Dura in Bismarck, North Dakota; Susan Haigh in Norwich, Connecticut; Heather Hollingsworth in Mission, Kansas; Anthony Izaguirre in New York; Mingson Lau in Claymont, Delaware; John O’Connor, in Springfield, Illinois; Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina; and Tassanee Vejpongsa in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

    BOSTON —

    A federal appeals court leaves an order in place that requires President Donald Trump ‘s administration to provide full SNAP food benefits for November amid a U.S. government shutdown.

    The judge gave the Republican administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.

    After the appeals court declined to do so, the Trump administration quickly asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its request.

    The food program serves about 1 in 8 Americans, mostly with lower incomes.

    The court filing came even as the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a memo to states that it’s working to make funds available Friday for full monthly SNAP benefits.

    Officials in at least a half-dozen states confirmed that some SNAP recipients already were issued full November payments on Friday.

    Which states issued SNAP payments

    “Food benefits are now beginning to flow back to California families,” Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.

    In Wisconsin, more than $104 million of monthly food benefits became available at midnight on electronic cards for about 337,000 households, a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said. The state was able to access the federal money so quickly by submitting a request to its electronic benefit card vendor to process the SNAP payments within hours of a Thursday court order to provide full benefits.

    Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, said state employees “worked through the night” to issue full November benefits “to make sure every Oregon family relying on SNAP could buy groceries” by Friday.

    Officials in Kansas, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also said they moved quickly to issue full SNAP benefits Friday, while other states said they expected full benefits to arrive over the weekend or early next week. Still others said they were waiting for further federal guidance.

    Many SNAP recipients face uncertainty

    The court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for Americans with lower incomes.

    An individual can receive a monthly maximum food benefit of nearly $300 and a family of four up to nearly $1,000, although many receive less than that under a formula that takes into consideration their income.

    For some SNAP participants, it remained unclear when they would receive their benefits.

    Jasmen Youngbey of Newark, New Jersey, waited in line Friday at a food pantry in the state’s largest city. As a single mom attending college, Youngbey said she relies on SNAP to help feed her 7-month-old and 4-year-old sons. But she said her account balance was at $0.

    “Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said.

    Later Friday, Youngbey said, she received her monthly SNAP benefits.

    Tihinna Franklin, a school bus guard who was waiting in the same line outside the United Community Corporation food pantry, said her SNAP account balance was at 9 cents and she was down to three items in her freezer. She typically relies on the roughly $290 a month in SNAP benefits to help feed her grandchildren.

    “If I don’t get it, I won’t be eating,” she said. “My money I get paid for, that goes to the bills, rent, electricity, personal items. That is not fair to us as mothers and caregivers.”

    Franklin said later Friday that she had received at least some of her normal SNAP benefits.

    The legal battle over SNAP takes another twist

    Because of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration originally had said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. However, two judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the shutdown. One of those judges was U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the full payments Thursday.

    In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

    On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

    Thursday’s federal court order rejected the Trump administration’s decision to cover only 65% of the maximum monthly benefit, a decision that could have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

    In its court filing Friday, Trump’s administration contended that Thursday’s directive to fund full SNAP benefits runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

    “This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend,” the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in its request to the court.

    In response, attorneys for the cities and nonprofits challenging Trump’s administration said the government has plenty of available money and the court should “not allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now.”

    States are taking different approaches to food aid

    Some states said they stood ready to distribute SNAP money as quickly as possible.

    Massachusetts said SNAP recipients should receive their full November payments as soon as Saturday. New York said access to full SNAP benefits should begin by Sunday. New Hampshire said full benefits should be available by this weekend. And Connecticut said full benefits should be accessible in the next several days.

    Officials in North Carolina said they distributed partial SNAP payments Friday and full benefits could be available by this weekend. Officials in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana and North Dakota also said they distributed partial November payments.

    Amid the federal uncertainty, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer said the state used its own funds Friday to provide the first of what could be a weekly relief payment to SNAP recipients.

    ___

    Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri; Bauer from Madison, Wisconsin; and Catalini from Newark, New Jersey. Associated Press writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Jack Dura in Bismarck, North Dakota; Susan Haigh in Norwich, Connecticut; Heather Hollingsworth in Mission, Kansas; Anthony Izaguirre in New York; Mingson Lau in Claymont, Delaware; John O’Connor, in Springfield, Illinois; Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina; and Tassanee Vejpongsa in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ICE is lawlessly detaining Coloradans, the judicial branch is our only hope (Editorial)

    [ad_1]

    Federal immigration officials are out of control, and America’s third branch of government needs to rein in the gross abuse of power on display in Colorado and across the nation.

    Gregory Davies, a high-level federal official overseeing deportation arrests in Colorado, told a judge last month that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials did not have a warrant to arrest Fernando Jaramillo-Solano. But the agents arrested Jaramillo-Solano anyway after mistakenly pulling the Durango man over while he was on his way to drop off his 12-year-old and 15-year-old children at school. ICE officials detained all three, and they spent weeks in Durango before they were shipped to Dilley, Texas.

    This is no simple mistake that is easily rectified.

    ICE is causing real harm to contributing members of our community  — teachers, nurses, mothers and fathers. And children are traumatized in the wake of these unjustified detainments.

    President Donald Trump has upended the mission at ICE, a part of Homeland Security that was once dedicated to keeping Americans safe by deporting criminals. The president has said he plans to deport the more than 13 million people who live in the United States without legal immigration status, regardless of whether they have committed other crimes. But he has gone farther than that, and his agents are now detaining people who do have legal status. The intent is clear — push out immigrants even who are doing everything right.

    Trump’s intent is that the people his agents wrongfully detain will either self-deport becasue conditions are so poor in the federal facilities or that if a judge orders their release, they will be silenced by their fear of reprisal, after all, they were detained once; who can protect these individuals from being detained again?

    But Trump has calculated wrong. These brave victims of Trump’s mass deportation policy are speaking out, and have filed a lawsuit together to try and prevent ICE from terrorizing people.

    Caroline Dias Goncalves, the 19-year-old college student who was detained in Grand Junction and held for almost three weeks in a detention center in Aurora because a sheriff’s deputy thought her perfect English was broken by an accent, testified that her detainment has dramatically affected her life.

    She lost her driver’s license, moved back home and has reduced her course load at the University of Utah.

    To Davies she might be “collateral” damage, but to us she is an injured kid trying to rebuild her life. Her arrest was completely unnecessary and likely illegal. If people like Davies don’t step up to make sure that ICE agents are doing their jobs – targeting and arresting criminals for deportation – then who will?

    The answer of course is that the judicial branch must act as a strong check on the abuses of the executive branch.

    Trump’s immigration enforcement squad cannot just smash and grab Coloradans because they suspect someone might be here illegally. And if these agents do, there must be legal consequences for them and their bosses, no matter how high the orders have come from.

    Gonclaves was lucky. She was released.

    [ad_2]

    The Denver Post Editorial Board

    Source link

  • Opinion | Evangelical Support for Israel Is About More Than Theology

    [ad_1]

    Tucker Carlson calls it a ‘heresy,’ but it’s rooted in a belief that freedom and faith are inseparable.

    [ad_2]

    Ralph Reed

    Source link

  • California steps in as Trump skips global climate summit in Brazil

    [ad_1]

    Nearly 200 nations are gathering this week in Belém, Brazil, to kick off the annual United Nations climate policy summit, but there is one glaring exception: The Trump administration is not sending any high-ranking officials.

    California hopes it can fill in the gap. The state, as it usually does, is sending a large delegation to the Conference of the Parties, including first-time attendee Gov. Gavin Newsom and top officials from the California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Food and Agriculture, Air Resources Board, Public Utilities Commission and Governor’s Office of Tribal Affairs.

    The state aims to build on its reputation as a global climate leader, sharing its experience with clean energy technology and job creation and showcasing its track record of climate agreements with other countries and regions.

    Newsom, who is positioning himself for a 2028 presidential run, told The Times he “absolutely” sees California as a proxy for the U.S. at this year’s conference, which is the main global venue for countries to strengthen their commitments to reducing greenhouse gases.

    “California has a responsibility, but also a unique opportunity at this moment, to remind the world that we’re here, that we believe these issues matter, and that there’s an opportunity here to reinforce existing alliances and develop new ones,” the governor said.

    California’s strong presence at COP also marks an escalation of Newsom’s ongoing battle with President Trump. The two have clashed over immigration and climate, with the president’s energy and environment agenda often targeting the state. The Trump administration this year canceled funding for major clean energy projects such as California’s hydrogen hub and moved to revoke the state’s long-held authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government.

    But this year’s Nov. 10-21 gathering also comes at a critical moment for the world. It’s the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, a seminal treaty signed at the 2015 COP in which world leaders established the goal of limiting global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels, and preferably below 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C), in order to prevent the worst effects of climate change.

    Most experts and scientists agree that the 2.7 degree target is no longer within reach. The last 10 years have been Earth’s hottest on record, driven largely by greenhouse gas emissions that come from the burning of fossil fuels.

    “One thing is already clear: We will not be able to contain the global warming below 1.5 degrees [C] in the next few years,” U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said at a recent gathering of the World Meteorological Organization. “The overshooting is now inevitable.”

    The U.N.’s annual Emissions Gap report released in conjunction with the conference finds that without immediate and aggressive action, the world is on track to warm between 4.14 and 5.04 degrees (2.3 and 2.8 degrees Celsius) over this century.

    Yet Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on his first day back in office, a move he also made during his first term as president. In a January executive order he stated that the Paris Agreement and other international climate compacts pose an unfair burden on the U.S. and steer American dollars to other countries.

    The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is expected to add an additional 0.18 degree to the latest warming projections, in effect nullifying a small gain made since last year, the U.N. report says. It notes that every fraction of a degree of warming means more losses for people and ecosystems, higher costs to adapt, and more reliance on uncertain techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

    However, the report underscores that the technology to deliver big emissions cuts already exists, pointing to booming developments in wind and solar energy, much of which is occurring overseas.

    It’s a sector where California can lead, Newsom said, adding that the Trump administration has “doubled down on stupid” by ceding so much ground to China. The Golden State has invested heavily in renewables, battery energy storage and the electrification of buildings and vehicles. California has also set ambitious decarbonizaiton targets and reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 21% since 2000 while its economy has grown 81%.

    “We want to continue to tip the scales, and this is about economic growth, this is about jobs, and this is about addressing the other crisis of our time: affordability,” Newsom said. “When you talk about energy efficiency, you’re talking about affordability. When you talk about wind and solar, you’re talking about abundance and you’re talking about affordability.”

    California has already helped to spread a lot of real technology. The state’s aggressive emission rules were pivotal in pushing automakers toward electric vehicles, with Toyota largely developing its Prius for California’s market. The state was the first to mandate battery energy storage at its major utilities, helping jump-start the modern grid-battery market, while its cap-and-trade carbon market program has been emulated in places around the world.

    State leaders hope to highlight more than their progress at home. In recent years, California has also forged subnational agreements and partnerships with other regions and countries on issues such as delivering clean transportation, cutting pollution and developing hydrogen and renewables. Newsom is expected to sign additional agreements at COP this year, although his team declined to provide a preview of what they will entail.

    Among the state’s dozens of existing agreements are a memorandum with Mexico’s Baja California Energy Commission focused on clean ports, zero-emission transportation and grid reliability; and memorandums with several provinces in China on pollution reduction and offshore wind power. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection also has partnerships with several countries that are sharing resources and best practices for managing vegetation and combating wildfires.

    Focusing on these actions at the state and regional level has become a key part of COP conferences as the conversation gains urgency and shifts to deployment, according to Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director at the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.

    “There is a whole other face of the United States — we have a lot of subnational actors, including leading states and cities and forward-looking businesses, who will be at COP showing the rest of the world that the United States does understand that it’s both in the interest of our country, as well as the global interest, to tackle climate change,” Cleetus said.

    California’s delegation in Brazil also includes Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot, who represented the state at the Local Leaders Forum in Rio de Janeiro this week.

    “This year, our federal government is totally missing in action … and the rest of the world needs to understand that America is still in this fight, and we’re moving forward,” Crowfoot said in a briefing.

    Crowfoot highlighted California’s carbon market partnership with Quebec and one with Denmark that yielded groundwater monitoring technology that California uses today, among other examples of international efforts.

    This year’s COP conference, which is taking place near the Amazon River delta in northern Brazil, is heavily focused on forest restoration and nature-based solutions, which California also focuses on through its 30×30 program to conserve 30% of the state’s lands and coastal waters by 2030, Crowfoot said. The Golden State already has deep ties to the region stemming from its landmark 2019 Tropical Forest Standard program, which set guidelines on carbon credits awarded for reducing deforestation.

    Newsom said that at COP, he will highlight climate action as the defining economic opportunity of the 21st century. He is slated to speak at the Milken Institute’s Global Investors’ Symposium, a gathering of leading investors and business executives, about how California shows that clean energy investments create jobs and profit. Green jobs now outnumber fossil fuel jobs in the state, 7 to 1.

    “Were not just talking about this from the perspective of trying to be good citizens,” Newsom said. “We’re also trying to be competitive geopolitical players. We want to dominate in the next big global industry.”

    Still, there is much work to be done.

    Every five years, parties to the Paris Agreement are required to submit targets for their greenhouse gas emissions. The targets so far have “barely moved the needle,” according to the U.N. report, and the ones handed in this year aren’t nearly aggressive enough.

    “It’s devastating to see that now we are definitely going to breach the 1.5 C benchmark,” said Cleetus, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    “But world leaders still have the power to sharply cut these emissions,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Hayley Smith, Melody Gutierrez

    Source link

  • Trump Announces Sweeping Cost Cuts On Obesity Drugs – KXL

    [ad_1]

    Acquired Through MGN Online on 04/29/2025

    WASHINGTON, DC – President Trump is announcing sweeping cost cuts on obesity drugs. The White House says that Eli Lilly, which makes Zepbound, and Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, will lower the price of those injectable weight loss drugs to as little as $350 a month for starter doses. The list prices now exceed $1,000.

    Trump also says that Medicare will start covering the drugs and that if the Food and Drug Administration approves oral anti-obesity tablets, the lowest dose will cost $149 a month. In exchange, the White House has agreed to give the drugmakers a priority two-month review for certain drugs and a break on tariffs.

    All this will start in January when TrumpRX, the administration’s direct-to-consumer website, launches.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • Supreme Court rules Trump may remove transgender markers from new passports

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.

    By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.

    “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

    She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.

    “The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances — even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.

    “Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”

    Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.

    The Supreme Court put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

    U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.

    In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and nonbinary persons.

    Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.

    The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, who blocked the new policy from taking effect.

    The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to the Supreme Court last month.

    They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.

    “By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely… [It] undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.

    But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.

    “Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • The U.S. was a leader in cultural heritage investigations. Now those agents are working immigration enforcement.

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration has disbanded its federal cultural property investigations team and reassigned the agents to immigration enforcement, delivering a blow to one of the world’s leaders in heritage protection and calling into question the future of America’s role in repatriating looted relics, according to multiple people familiar with the changes.

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security established the Cultural Property, Art and Antiquities program in 2017 to “conduct training on the preservation, protection and investigation of cultural heritage and property; to coordinate and support investigations involving the illicit trafficking of cultural property around the world; and to facilitate the repatriation of illicit cultural items seized as a result of (federal) investigations to the objects and artifacts’ lawful and rightful owners.”

    Looted: Stolen relics, laundered art and a Colorado scholar’s role in the illicit antiquities trade

    Homeland Security Investigations, the department’s investigative arm, once had as many as eight agents in its New York office investigating cultural property cases. A select number of additional agents around the country also worked these cases, including a nationwide investigation into looted Thai objects.

    The Denver Art Museum has previously acknowledged that two relics from Thailand in its collection are part of that federal investigation.

    Since 2007, HSI says it has repatriated over 20,000 items to more than 40 countries.

    But the Trump administration, as part of its unprecedented mass-deportation agenda, earlier this year dissolved the cultural property program and moved the agents to immigration enforcement, multiple people with knowledge of the change told The Denver Post.

    Homeland Security officials did not respond to requests for comment.

    A few months after Trump took office, a Homeland Security staffer with knowledge of the antiquities field told The Post that they received an email from their bosses. The message, according to their recollection: “The way of the world is immigration. Bring your cases to a reasonable conclusion and understand that the priority is immigration operations.”

    This individual, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said they were given no time frame for the new assignment. Leadership, though, was clear that there would be no new cultural property cases.

    Instead of conducting these investigations, this individual said they have been driving detainees between detention facilities and the airport for their deportation.

    “I just spent almost a month cuffing guys up, throwing them in a van from one jail to another,” this person said, adding that the work doesn’t take advantage of their specialized training.

    It’s frustrating, the individual said, because cultural property cases don’t require a lot of agents or resources. They don’t need all types of fancy electronic equipment.

    “The juice from the squeeze on these cases is a lot more than people wanna give it credit,” this person said.

    Photo by Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post

    The Bunker Gallery section of the Denver Art Museum’s Southeast Asian art galleries at the Martin Building is pictured on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2022. Emma C. Bunker’s name was removed from the gallery in the wake of an investigation by The Denver Post. (Photo by Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post)

    Thai objects in Denver under investigation

    For years, HSI has been investigating two Thai relics in the Denver Art Museum’s collection after officials in Thailand raised issues with their provenance, or ownership history.

    The pieces — part of the so-called “Prakhon Chai hoard” — were looted in the 1960s from a secret vault at a temple near the Cambodian border, The Post found in a three-part investigation in 2022. Villagers told the newspaper that they recall dredging the vault for these prized objects and selling them to a British collector named Douglas Latchford.

    A federal grand jury decades later indicted Latchford for conspiring to sell plundered Southeast Asian antiquities around the world. He died before he could stand trial.

    Latchford funneled some of his stolen antiquities through the Denver Art Museum due to his close personal relationship with one of the museum’s trustees and volunteers, Emma C. Bunker, The Post found.

    The museum told The Post last week it hasn’t received any communication from the federal government since December, before Trump took office.

    High-profile cases in New York and Denver are proceeding despite the reallocation of resources, one agent said.

    With the federal government mostly out of the game, cultural heritage investigations will be largely left to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in New York City, which has an Antiquities Trafficking Unit.

    But the DA’s office relies heavily on its partnership with HSI, which has federal jurisdiction and can serve warrants and issue summonses across the country. The Manhattan DA’s office only has authority over New York.

    “The future for the DA’s office and the (antiquities trafficking) unit is in jeopardy,” said an individual familiar with the Manhattan unit’s dealings, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. “It’s unclear who’s going to be swearing out warrants going forward.”

    A spokesperson for the Manhattan DA declined to comment for this story.

    Department of Homeland Security Investigations agents join Washington Metropolitan Police Department officers as they conduct traffic checks at a checkpoint along 14th Street in northwest Washington, Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
    Department of Homeland Security Investigations agents join Washington Metropolitan Police Department officers as they conduct traffic checks at a checkpoint along 14th Street in northwest Washington, Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

    ‘Doing the right thing still has power’

    These changes in enforcement priorities mean countries seeking the repatriation of their cultural items have fewer partners in the U.S. who can help them deal with museums and private collectors.

    “A few years ago, the United States led the world in restoring stolen history — and it mattered,” said Bradley Gordon, an American attorney who for years has represented the Cambodian government in its quest to reclaim its pillaged history from art museums, including Denver’s.

    It’s a shame, he said, that federal agencies have stepped back, even as the Manhattan DA continues its work.

    “This work isn’t just about art; it’s about security, diplomacy and restoring dignity,” Gordon said. “These looted objects were never meant to be hidden in mansions or displayed in museum glass cases far from their origins. When they are returned, entire communities celebrate with sincere happiness. It’s a reminder that doing the right thing still has power in the world.”

    Representatives from Thailand’s government, meanwhile, said they haven’t gotten an update on the Prakhon Chai investigation since Trump returned to office this year.

    Cultural heritage experts say these investigations can serve as an important diplomatic tool and use of soft power — a way for the U.S. to strengthen connections to allies or thaw fraught relations with longtime adversaries.

    In 2013, for example, President Barack Obama’s administration returned a ceremonial drinking vessel from the seventh century B.C. to Iran. For years, American officials said they couldn’t return the million-dollar relic until relations between the two countries normalized. The move — which NBC News titled “archaeo-diplomacy” — represented a small but important gesture as the U.S. sought a nuclear deal with the Middle Eastern power.

    “The return of the artifact reflects the strong respect the United States has for cultural heritage property — in this case, cultural heritage property that was likely looted from Iran and is important to the patrimony of the Iranian people,” the U.S. State Department said at the time. “It also reflects the strong respect the United States has for the Iranian people.”

    A lack of law enforcement activity in this space could also mean that museums and private collectors will be less inclined to return stolen pieces, said Erin Thompson, an art crime professor at New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Museums, instead, will maintain the status quo.

    [ad_2]

    Sam Tabachnik

    Source link

  • Contributor: I’m a young Latino voter. Neither party has figured us out

    [ad_1]

    On Tuesday, I voted for the first time. Not for a president, not in a midterm, but in the California special election to counter Texas Republicans’ gerrymandering efforts. What makes this dynamic particularly fascinating is that both parties are betting on the same demographic — Latino voters.

    For years, pundits assumed Latinos were a lock for Democrats. President Obama’s 44-point lead with these voters in 2012 cemented the narrative: “Shifting demographics” (shorthand for more nonwhite voters) would doom Republicans.

    But 2016, and especially the 2024 elections, shattered that idea. A year ago, Trump lost the Latino vote by just 3 points, down from 25 in 2020, according to Pew. Trump carried 14 of the 18 Texas counties within 20 miles of the border, a majority-Latino region. The shift was so significant that Texas Republicans, under Trump’s direction, are redrawing congressional districts to suppress Democratic representation, betting big that Republican gains made with Latinos can clinch the midterms in November 2026.

    To counter Republican gerrymanders in Texas, Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democrats pushed their own redistricting plans, hoping to send more Democrats to the House. They too are banking on Latino support — but that’s not a sure bet.

    Imperial County offers a cautionary tale. This border district is 86% Latino, among the poorest in California, and has long been politically overlooked. It was considered reliably blue for decades; since 1994, it had backed every Democratic presidential candidate until 2024, when Trump narrowly won the district.

    Determined to understand the recent shift, during summer break I traveled in Imperial County, interviewing local officials in El Centro, Calexico and other towns. Their insights revealed that the 2024 results weren’t just about immigration or ideology; they were about leadership, values and, above all, economics.

    “It was crazy. It was a surprise,” Imperial County Registrar of Voters Linsey Dale told me. She pointed out that the assembly seat that represents much of Imperial County and part of Riverside County flipped to Republican.

    Several interviewees cited voters’ frustration with President Biden’s age and Kamala Harris’ lack of visibility. In a climate of nostalgia politics, many Latino voters apparently longed for what they saw as the relative stability of the pre-pandemic Trump years.

    Older Latinos, in particular, were attracted to the GOP’s rhetoric around family and tradition. But when asked about the top driver of votes, the deputy county executive officer, Rebecca Terrazas-Baxter, told me: “It wasn’t immigration. It was the economic hardship and inflation.”

    Republicans winning over voters on issues such as cost of living, particularly coming out of pandemic-era recession, makes sense, but I am skeptical of the notion that Latino voters are fully realigning themselves into a slate of conservative positions.

    Imperial voters consistently back progressive economic policies at the ballot box and hold a favorable view of local government programs that deliver tangible help such as homebuyer assistance, housing rehabilitation and expanded healthcare access. In the past, even when they have supported Democratic presidential candidates, they have voted for conservative ballot measures and Republican candidates down the ticket. Imperial voters backed Obama by a wide margin but also supported California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage. This mix of progressive economics and conservative values is why Republican political consultant Mike Madrid describes Latino partisanship as a “weak anchor.”

    The same fluidity explains why many Latinos who rallied behind Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2020 later voted for Trump in 2024. Both men ran as populists, promising to challenge the establishment and deliver economic revival. For Latinos, it wasn’t about left or right; it was about surviving.

    The lesson for both parties in California, Texas and everywhere is that no matter how lines are drawn, no district should be considered “safe” without serious engagement.

    It should go without saying, Latino voters are not a monolith. They split tickets and vote pragmatically based on lived economic realities. Latinos are the youngest and fastest-growing demographic in the U.S., with a median age of 30. Twenty-five percent of Gen Z Americans are Latino, myself among them. We are the most consequential swing voters of the next generation.

    As I assume many other young Latino voters do, I approached my first time at the ballot box with ambivalence. I’ve long awaited my turn to participate in the American democratic process, but I could never have expected that my first time would be to stop a plot to undermine it. And yet, I feel hope.

    The 2024 election made it clear to both parties that Latinos are not to be taken for granted. Latino voters are American democracy’s wild card — young, dynamic and fiercely pragmatic. They embody what democracy should be: fluid, responsive and rooted in lived experience. They don’t swear loyalty to red or blue; they back whoever they think will deliver. The fastest-growing voting bloc in America is up for grabs.

    Francesca Moreno is a high school senior at Marlborough School in Los Angeles, researching Latino voting behavior under the guidance of political strategist Mike Madrid.

    [ad_2]

    Francesca Moreno

    Source link

  • President Trump urges Republicans to reopen government as shutdown marks longest in US history

    [ad_1]

    The government shutdown has reached its 36th day, the longest in U.S. history, as President Donald Trump pressures Republicans to end the Senate filibuster in order to reopen the government.”It’s time for Republicans to do what they have to do, and that’s terminate the filibuster. It’s the only way you can do it,” Trump told senators Wednesday at the White House.The filibuster is a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation. Ending the filibuster would allow Republicans to pass a bill with a simple majority, but several Republicans warn that when Democrats are in power, they’d be able to do the same thing. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after breakfast at the White House, “It’s just not happening.”The president also said the shutdown was a “big factor, negative” in Tuesday’s election results.”Countless public servants are now not being paid and the air traffic control system is under increasing strain. We must get the government back open soon and really immediately,” Trump said.The shutdown is hitting home for many Americans, with lines stretching at food banks across the country as SNAP benefits are delayed and reduced for more than 40 million Americans. After-school programs that depend on federal dollars are closing. The Transportation Secretary said, starting Friday, there will be a 10% reduction in flights at 40 airports across the country.Republicans have pushed to reopen the government with a short-term spending bill. Democrats have rejected those bills, arguing that Republicans are leaving out a key provision: restoring expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that help millions of Americans lower their health-insurance costs. Democrats say passing a short-term bill without those subsidies would leave families facing sudden premium spikes.”The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York. “The American people have spoken last night. End the shutdown, end the healthcare crisis, sit down and talk with us.”Republicans have said they’re willing to negotiate ACA subsidies, but only after the shutdown is over.See more government shutdown coverage from the Washington News Bureau:

    WASHINGTON —

    The government shutdown has reached its 36th day, the longest in U.S. history, as President Donald Trump pressures Republicans to end the Senate filibuster in order to reopen the government.

    “It’s time for Republicans to do what they have to do, and that’s terminate the filibuster. It’s the only way you can do it,” Trump told senators Wednesday at the White House.

    The filibuster is a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation. Ending the filibuster would allow Republicans to pass a bill with a simple majority, but several Republicans warn that when Democrats are in power, they’d be able to do the same thing.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after breakfast at the White House, “It’s just not happening.”

    The president also said the shutdown was a “big factor, negative” in Tuesday’s election results.

    “Countless public servants are now not being paid and the air traffic control system is under increasing strain. We must get the government back open soon and really immediately,” Trump said.

    The shutdown is hitting home for many Americans, with lines stretching at food banks across the country as SNAP benefits are delayed and reduced for more than 40 million Americans. After-school programs that depend on federal dollars are closing.

    The Transportation Secretary said, starting Friday, there will be a 10% reduction in flights at 40 airports across the country.

    Republicans have pushed to reopen the government with a short-term spending bill. Democrats have rejected those bills, arguing that Republicans are leaving out a key provision: restoring expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that help millions of Americans lower their health-insurance costs. Democrats say passing a short-term bill without those subsidies would leave families facing sudden premium spikes.

    “The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York. “The American people have spoken last night. End the shutdown, end the healthcare crisis, sit down and talk with us.”

    Republicans have said they’re willing to negotiate ACA subsidies, but only after the shutdown is over.

    See more government shutdown coverage from the Washington News Bureau:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump said California election was rigged. That’s wrong

    [ad_1]

    As Californians voted Nov. 4 for a new congressional map, President Donald Trump falsely said the process was rigged.

    “The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump wrote Nov. 4 on Truth Social. 

    “All ‘Mail-In’ Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are ‘Shut Out,’ is under very serious legal and criminal review. STAY TUNED!”  

    A reporter asked White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt for Trump’s evidence that the election was rigged. 

    “It is just a fact,” Leavitt said. “They have a universal mail in voting system, which we know is ripe for fraud. …Fraudulent ballots that are being mailed in, in the names of other people and the names of illegal aliens who shouldn’t be voting in American elections.”

    Democratic California state officials, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, challenged Trump’s assertion. “Where exactly is this fraud? Ramblings don’t equate with fact,” Weber said.  

    When PolitiFact contacted the White House, a spokesperson responded with several points, many of which had also been shared in an X post. These points criticized California’s voting system, but included only one case of a person charged with voter fraud. The White House also misrepresented the numbers on voter registration and voter removal to support its claims. 

    Trump has repeatedly spread falsehoods about “rigged” elections, including in California. Rigging a state election would require election officials across the state to work together to commit felonies. There is no evidence that happened.

    What did happen: The blue state overwhelmingly voted to redistrict the congressional map to increase the chance of adding five Democratic seats to negate added likely Republican seats in Texas.

    White House evidence does not prove the election was rigged

    Vote by mail system: Much of the White House’s evidence criticizes California’s system of mailing ballots to all active registered voters. It is one of eight states that conduct elections by such a system. Millions of ballots are sent to Californians and not returned, as the White House noted, but that doesn’t prove fraud. Election workers verify identity by matching signatures on the mail ballot envelopes with the registration records.

    Although voters are mailed ballots, they can choose to cast a ballot in person instead. Voters generally don’t have to provide an ID. Election workers can ask for an ID if the person is voting for the first time and didn’t provide an ID when registering to vote. 

    The White House cherry picked one sentence from a 2005 bipartisan report that said, “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” Although the report generally communicated a dim view of absentee voting, it didn’t call for its elimination. It recommended ways to improve security and further study. 

    Noncitizen voters: The White House said, “San Francisco allows non-citizens to vote in local elections which creates a high risk of fraud in federal elections,” and acknowledged noncitizens aren’t allowed to vote in federal elections. The city allows noncitizens to vote only in school board elections.

    The Justice Department sued Orange County in June after it redacted personal identifying information when it provided records to the department about 17 noncitizens on the voter rolls. 

    Bob Page, the county registrar of voters, said the 17 people self-reported that they wanted to cancel their voter registrations, including eight who voted before they cancelled their voter registration.

    Duplicate registrations: “California reported 2,178,551 duplicate registrations in the 2024 election cycle — 15.6% of total registered voters,” the White House said. 

    The statement misleadingly gives the impression that those people appear on the voter rolls more than once. “Duplicate registrations” refer to the number of registration applications that California election officials received but didn’t process because they were identical to existing registrations. Duplicate registration can happen by accident; some people register and forget they did so, or submit registration both through the mail and online.

    The number the White House cited represents the number of times California election officials caught the mistake, not made one. 

    The number comes from a 2024 national survey on voting activity and election administration between 2022 and 2024 by the bipartisan U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

    The national average for duplicate applications is 12.7%.

    Removing voters after death: The White House said, “California only removed 378,349 registered voters for death (11.9%), which was well below the national average,” between the 2022 and 2024 elections. 

    This figure is cherry picked. The White House cited voters removed because of death, which is just one reason for striking a voter from the rolls. 

    From 2022 to 2024, California removed more than 3.177 million voters from its rolls for all reasons, including death, according to the same election survey. That’s a 12.4% removal rate of all registered voters, compared with the national average of 9.1%. 

    California removed a larger proportion of voters for reasons other than death, such as moving or failure to return a confirmation notice.

    Voter fraud: The White House pointed to one woman charged with voter fraud.

    In September, authorities charged a woman from Costa Mesa, California, with five felonies for illegally registering her dog to vote. The dog’s vote was counted in the 2021 gubernatorial recall election, but rejected in the 2022 primary. The Orange County District Attorney’s office said the woman “self-reported that she had registered her dog to vote.” 

    Laura Lee Yourex, 62, said she wanted to prove a point about flaws in the state voting system, according to her lawyer. 

    The conservative Heritage Foundation’s voter fraud database shows 69 cases in California between 1982 and 2025. The database shows dozens of cases in red states such as Florida, which does not send a mail ballot to all voters. 

    Our ruling

    Trump said voting in California is “rigged.”

    The White House’s explanation misrepresented data about duplicate registrations, cherry-picked data about dead voter removals from registration rolls, pointed to one woman charged with voter fraud among about 23 million registered voters, and baselessly blamed San Francisco’s allowance for noncitizen voting in school board elections.

    The White House did not prove California voting is “rigged.” We rate Trump’s statement Pants on Fire!

    PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check.

    RELATED: Trump’s actions could affect the 2026 midterm elections. What will it mean for voters?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • After Republican election losses, Trump pushes lawmakers to end shutdown, filibuster

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — As the federal shutdown has dragged on to become the longest in American history, President Trump has shown little interest in talks to reopen the government. But Republican losses on election day could change that.

    Trump told Republican senators at the White House on Wednesday that he believed the government shutdown “was a big factor” in the party’s poor showing against the Democrats in key races.

    “We must get the government back open soon, and really immediately,” Trump said, adding that he would speak privately with the senators to discuss what he would like to do next.

    The president’s remarks are a departure from what has largely been an apathetic response from him about reopening the government. With Congress at a stalemate for more than a month, Trump’s attention has mostly been elsewhere.

    He spent most of last week in Asia attempting to broker trade deals. Before that, much of his focus was on reaching a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas and building a $300-million White House ballroom.

    To date, Trump’s main attempt to reopen the federal government has been calling on Republican leaders to terminate the filibuster, a long-running Senate rule that requires 60 votes in the chamber to pass most legislation. Trump wants to scrap the rule — the so-called nuclear option — to allow Republicans in control of the chamber to push through legislation with a simple-majority vote.

    “If you don’t terminate the filibuster, you’ll be in bad shape,” Trump told the GOP senators and warned that with the rule in place, the party would be viewed as “do-nothing Republicans” and get “killed” in next year’s midterm elections.

    Trump’s push to end the shutdown comes as voters are increasingly disapproving of his economic agenda, according to recent polls. The trend was reinforced Tuesday as voters cast ballots with economic concerns as their main motivation, an AP poll showed. Despite those indicators, Trump told a crowd at the American Business Forum in Miami on Wednesday that he thinks “we have the greatest economy right now.”

    While Trump has not acknowledged fault in his economic agenda, he has began to express concern that the ongoing shutdown may be hurting Republicans. Those concerns have led him to push Republicans to eliminate the filibuster, a move that has put members of his party in a tough spot.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has resisted the pressure, calling the filibuster an “important tool” that keeps the party in control of the chamber in check.

    The 60-vote threshold allowed Republicans to block a “whole host of terrible Democrat policies” when they were in the minority last year, Thune said in an interview Monday with Fox News Radio’s “Guy Benson Show.”

    “I shudder to think how much worse it would’ve been without the legislative filibuster,” he said. “The truth is that if we were to do their dirty work for them, and that is essentially what we would be doing, we would own all the crap they are going to do if and when they get the chance to do it.”

    Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said last week he is a “firm no on eliminating it.”

    “The filibuster forces us to find common ground in the Senate. Power changes hands, but principles shouldn’t,” Curtis said in a social media post.

    As the government shutdown stretched into its 36th day Wednesday, Trump continued to show no interest in negotiating with Democrats, who are refusing to vote on legislation to reopen the government that does not include a deal on healthcare.

    Budget negotiations deadlocked as Democrats tried to force Republicans to extend federal healthcare tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year. If those credits expire, millions of Americans are expected to see the cost of their premiums spike.

    With negotiations stalled, Trump said in an interview aired Sunday that he “won’t be extorted” by their demands to extend the expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies.

    On Wednesday, Democratic legislative leaders sent a letter to Trump demanding a bipartisan meeting to “end the GOP shutdown of the federal government and decisively address the Republican healthcare crisis.”

    “Democrats stand ready to meet with you face to face, anytime and anyplace,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both from New York, wrote in a letter to Trump.

    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Democrats’ letter.

    “The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” Schumer told the Associated Press.

    Trump’s remarks Wednesday signal that he is more interested in a partisan approach to ending the shutdown.

    “It is time for Republicans to do what they have to do and that is to terminate the filibuster,” Trump told GOP senators. “It’s the only way you can do it.”

    If Republicans don’t do it, Trump argued Senate Democrats will do so the next time they are in a majority.

    Democrats have not signaled any intent to end the filibuster in the future, but Trump has claimed otherwise and argued that it is up to Republicans to “do it first.”

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court Seems Skeptical of Trump’s Tariffs. It Might Not Matter.

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared doubtful about buying into the Trump administration’s rationale to justify its aggressive tariff strategy, with justices on both sides of the political aisle expressing great skepticism. 

    The nine justices grilled Trump’s Solicitor General John Sauer for nearly three hours on the Trump administration’s decision to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPAA), a 1970-era law invoked during national emergencies, to justify imposing sweeping tariffs across the globe. 

    Central to the debate was the so-called major questions doctrine, which requires government entities, in this case, the president, to have explicit authority from Congress to carry out measures with “national significance.”

    Chief Justice John Roberts underscored that IEEPAA has never been used to justify tariffs in the past. Sauer argued that the law allows the executive branch to regulate imports, which includes tariffs, since the president also has purview over foreign policy. 

    But even the court’s conservative justices seem unpersuaded by that argument, with Justice Neil Gorsuch underlining how future presidents may liberally use IEEPA for their own benefit, like imposing tariffs on gas-guzzling cars as a way to deal with the “extraordinary threat” of climate change.

    At one point, Justice Sonia Sotomayer, one of the court’s liberal justices, shot down Sauer’s claim that the tariffs are not taxes. 

    “It’s a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax,” Sotomayer said. “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are – degenerating money from American citizens’ revenue.”

    More than a few businesses would likely agree with that sentiment, as entrepreneurs nationwide have contended with steep price increases in recent months. A group of small business plaintiffs filed suit to stop the tariffs, and the high court’s decision to hear the case is rooted in a string of lower court losses for the administration.

    A decision from on the high-stakes case may not come for weeks, if not months. They have until June of next year to do so. 

    Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the states and small businesses that originally brought the case to court, there are other mechanisms that the Trump administration might use to justify its tariff strategy. That’s according to Michael Cornett, a tax lawyer and managing director at Forvis Mazars, an accounting firm headquartered in Springfield, Missouri.

    One avenue is using Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows the president to levy retaliatory tariffs of up to 50 percent on other nations if foreign nations have lobbed “unreasonable” duties against the U.S. Trump has long argued that countries have ripped off the U.S. for decades.

    “Justice Alito raised the issue that the President could impose Section 338 tariffs if he were to lose this case, which is solely focused on IEEPA,” Cornett said. “This reinforces that [..] the tariff debate will continue; This would be consistent with the Court’s approach to address issues narrowly and not address future impacts of a narrow decision.”

    The early-rate deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, November 14, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    [ad_2]

    Melissa Angell

    Source link