debate

NASHVILLE — Kilmar Abrego Garcia will remain in jail for at least a few more days while attorneys in the federal smuggling case against him spar over whether lawyers have the ability to prevent Abrego Garcia’s deportation if he is released to await trial.

The Salvadoran national whose mistaken deportation became a tinderbox in the fight over President Trump’s immigration policies has been in jail since he was returned to the U.S. on June 7, facing two counts of human smuggling.

Although a federal judge has ruled that he has a right to be released and even set specific conditions for his release, his attorneys expressed concern that it would lead to immediate detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and deportation.

On Sunday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes ruled that Abrego Garcia does not have to remain in jail before that trial. On Wednesday afternoon, she will set his conditions of his release and allow him to go, according to her order. However, his defense attorneys and prosecutors have said they expect him to be taken into custody by ICE as soon as he is released on the criminal charges.

Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, said during a news conference before Wednesday’s scheduled court hearing that it’s been 106 days since he “was abducted by the Trump administration and separated from our family.” She noted that he has missed family birthdays, graduations and Father’s Day, while “today he misses our wedding anniversary.”

Vasquez Sura said their love, their faith in God and an abundance of community support have helped them persevere.

“Kilmar should never have been taken away from us,” she said. “This fight has been the hardest thing in my life.”

Federal prosecutors are appealing Holmes’ release order. Among other things, they expressed concern in a motion filed Sunday that Abrego Garcia could be deported before he faces trial. Holmes has said that she won’t step between the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security — it is up to them to decide whether they want to deport Abrego Garcia or prosecute him.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty June 13 to smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify his mistaken deportation in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

Those charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. At his detention hearing, Homeland Security special agent Peter Joseph testified that he did not begin investigating Abrego Garcia until April this year.

Holmes said in her Sunday ruling that federal prosecutors failed to show that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk or a danger to the community. He has lived for more than a decade in Maryland, where he and his American wife are raising three children.

However, Holmes referred to her ruling as “little more than an academic exercise,” noting that ICE plans to detain him. It is less clear what will happen after that. Although Abrego Garcia can’t be deported to El Salvador — where an immigration judge found he faces a credible threat from gangs — he is still deportable to a third country as long as that country agrees to not send him to El Salvador.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Trump for decisive action as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval.

“Well done, President Trump,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) posted on X. Another Republican, Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama, called the bombings “strong and surgical.” The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), said Trump “has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.”

The divisions in Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president’s ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. Though Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to carry out acts of war without congressional approval, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority.

“This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,” said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a “perfunctory notification” without any details, according to a spokesperson.

“No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,” Schumer said in a statement. “Confronting Iran’s ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.”

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said that Trump “misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.”

The quick GOP endorsements of stepped-up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party’s schism over Iran could complicate the GOP’s efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350-billion national security package in Trump’s massive tax and spending bill, which he planned to push toward speedy votes this week.

“We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,” Wicker posted on X.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) both were briefed ahead of the strikes Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that “as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm’s way.”

Johnson said in a statement that the military operations “should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) said he had also been in touch with the White House and that “I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.”

Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, a staunch supporter of Israel’s military actions in the Middle East, also praised the U.S. attacks on Iran. “As I’ve long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,” he posted. “Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.”

Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including among some of Trump’s most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America’s “forever wars.” Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that “while President Trump’s decision may prove just, it’s hard to conceive a rationale that’s Constitutional.”

Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X: “This is not Constitutional.”

“This is not our fight,” said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, one of Trump’s most loyal congressional allies.

Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch’s constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action.

Kaine said the bombings were an act of “horrible judgment.”

“I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,” Kaine said.

Democratic Rep. Greg Casar of Texas, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that “new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.”

“Then they sent other people’s children to fight and die endlessly,” Casar said. “Enough.”

Jalonick and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

Good Morning Britain viewers were left furious after a heated debate was broadcast on Thursday morning

Good Morning Britain viewers issued a complaint as an “excruciating” debate unfolded on the show on Thursday (May 29).

This morning’s broadcast saw presenters Ed Balls and Susanna Reid tackle the day’s top stories, both domestically and globally, on the popular ITV show.

At one point, they began debating the current doctors’ strike after health secretary Wes Streeting warned that resident doctors would “choke” the NHS by going back on strike.

In a BBC interview, the MP urged resident doctors to “work with the government” and warned strikes risked hampering the progress being made in the NHS.

Last week, it was announced that resident doctors, the new name for junior doctors, would be getting a 5.4% average pay rise this year – more than other doctors, nurses and teachers.

But they have said it’s not enough to make up for below-inflation pay awards since 2008.

GMB hosts Ed and Susanna invited Dr Ross Nieuwoudt from the resident doctors’ committee and Reem Ibrahim from the Institute of Economic Affairs onto the programme to delve into the contentious issue, reports Bristol Live.

“I absolutely believe in markets, but the NHS is not a market, it’s a socialised healthcare system. That is the fundamental point. If doctors want to be paid more, then let’s look at a social healthcare system,” Reem said.

“Let’s look at countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark that have public and private partnerships where there is competition.”

She added: “What I would like to see is the National Health Service as a whole, the spending that we’re using at the moment, being used more efficiently.”

Ross was quick to counter, asserting: “I think that’s a foolish thing to do. A canary in a coal mine is there to alert people of danger, and that’s what the strikes are doing.”

The debate soon escalated as Ed and Susanna joined the conversation, with tempers flaring on all sides.

Viewers tuning into the fiery exchange soon expressed their frustation on X (formerly Twitter), criticising the segment’s confrontational tone.

One viewer questioned: “Why are they shouting??” while another commented: “Why is Ed Balls getting angry here? So unprofessional.”

Another exasperated viewer remarked: “This is excruciating,” and one more asked: “Can you explain please why Ed Balls’s questioning and response to the young lady was more aggressive than to the BMA representative. Seems to forget he’s now supposed to be balanced as an interviewer and his political bias as a labour minister put on the back burner.”

Good Morning Britain airs weekdays on ITV1 and ITVX at 6am

WASHINGTON  — A lot has happened since the Democratic presidential candidates last clashed on the debate stage. Former Vice President Joe Biden has taken some blows. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s support has surged. Ten candidates who were on the stage back in July have either dropped out or been cut from the debate because of poor polling and fundraising.

That is just how the Democratic National Committee wants it. Party leaders wanted an early set of debates open to even obscure candidates, then a steady process of winnowing the herd.

Voters appear to support that plan — in one poll this week, more than half of Democratic voters said the 10 remaining candidates were still too many. Only about 3% said they wanted more choices.

Thursday’s debate in Houston could be less of a free-for-all than the previous two. There will still be 10 podiums, but the stage will be free of fringe candidates with little to lose. It is the first time voters will get to see all the top-tier candidates on the stage at once.

Here are five things we will be watching:

Spotlight on Warren

The Massachusetts senator has so far avoided hand-to-hand political combat on the debate stage. We’ve seen California Sen. Kamala Harris grab headlines by pillorying Vice President Biden’s history on busing. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard made her name briefly the most searched term on Google during the July contest by relentlessly attacking Harris and her history as a prosecutor. Former Housing Secretary Julián Castro’s spirited takedown of fellow Texan Beto O’Rourke over how to handle unauthorized border crossings put Castro on the map.

It’s not Warren’s style to take such shots.

But she may not be able to avoid them Thursday.

Warren’s ascendancy gives rivals cause for anxiety. They are eager to slow her down. After struggling early in the race, she has now moved into at least a tie with Sen. Bernie Sanders for second place and has passed the Vermont senator in some polls.

Warren draws huge crowds everywhere she goes. At the New Hampshire State Democratic Convention last weekend, the attendees cheered loudest and longest for her. Look for others on the stage to seek opportunities to trip her up.

Warren, for her part, plans to stick to her playbook of focusing on policy and the economic inequality she argues justifies levying big taxes on the wealthy and the new government programs she proposes. We’ll see if she can stay above the fray.

The last time Warren was the focus of personal political attacks — when President Trump targeted her claim of Native American ancestry —her flatfooted response nearly doomed her presidential prospects. Warren may need to show Thursday that neither Trump, nor any of her Democratic rivals, can inflict that kind of political damage again.

Biden on the hot seat

Former Vice President Joe Biden will still be carrying the frontrunner’s burden: A target on his back. His rivals — especially those struggling to climb into the top tier of candidates — will be tempted to take aim at him.

Given Biden’s lackluster performances in the first two debate rounds, he still has a lot to prove to skeptics about his ability to parry attacks, make clear points and avoid the verbal gaffes that have littered his campaign appearances.

Biden for the first time will be sharing a stage with Warren, and the interaction between the two will be closely scrutinized because of the policy differences and historic conflicts that have pitted him against the progressive firebrand.

Those differences frame a basic choice facing Democratic primary voters: Do they want a nominee like Warren who is asking voters to dream big and make fundamental progressive changes in the U.S. economy, or a nominee like Biden who is proposing a more pragmatic agenda and seen as a safer choice to beat Trump?

Previous debates have not played to Biden’s strong suit — his command of international affairs. During the last round of debates, only 17 minutes focused on foreign policy, according to an analysis by the Washington Post. Biden’s team hopes there will be more questions on the subject.

Can Mayor Pete bust out?

Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., will be looking to break out of his status as a second-tier candidate with a top-tier fundraising capacity. He probably won’t do it by frontally attacking anyone because Buttigieg is pitching himself as the candidate who can bring people together.

He likely will re-up his argument for generational change, an implicit slap at the three septuagenarians — Biden, Warren and Sanders — at the top of most polls. And he could draw a contrast between the more sweeping “Medicare for all” proposals of Warren and Sanders and his own more incremental health plan. A middle-of-the road profile could equip Buttigieg to benefit if Biden eventually falters and leaves a political opening for someone to emerge as centrist alternative to the Warren-Sanders axis.

But Buttigieg’s immediate mission on Thursday will be to make a stronger impression on the many voters who don’t know much about him. Despite his early success at fundraising — he was the top money raiser in the second quarter of 2019 — the burden of obscurity is heavier for him than for other, better known candidates on the stage.

Can Kamala Harris recapture some debate magic?

Pressure is high on Harris to turn in a standout performance, as she did in the first round of debates, and avoid the stumbles of the second. Now mired in the second tier of the candidate pack, she is hoping for an upturn in the roller coaster ride that has defined her campaign over the last several months.

First time out as a debater, Harris soared — in polls and fundraising — after her dramatic confrontation with Biden. Her energy fizzled in the second debate, when she was thrown on the defensive by attacks on her record as California’s attorney general and seemed ill at ease answering questions about her healthcare plan.

She may opt for the safer ground of attacking President Trump rather than her rivals and of promoting the common-ground message that was her original campaign theme. She, like Buttigieg, may try to position herself as a bridge-building alternative to Biden if he eventually loses his footing as frontrunner.

Is there room left for 10?

Even some of the candidates who made the cut for this debate seem to be on life support. Several are polling in the low single digits after having been in the race for months.

Many of the candidates started with a burst of energy and small-donor enthusiasm but have struggled since. They have yet to manufacture any breakout moments on the debate stage.

(Chris Keller / Los Angeles Times)

So the pressure is on for O’Rourke, Castro, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and entrepreneur Andrew Yang to generate some buzz out of this event. All the candidates talk about how much can change in Iowa or New Hampshire in the final weeks before voting. But voting is still a long way away, and it is an open question whether some of these candidates will be able to sustain a robust campaign until then if they don’t get something started tonight.

If Kamala Harris runs for California governor, the job is essentially hers for the taking.

So goes the common wisdom.

After all, she’s a household name, which is no small consideration in a state as vast and politically inattentive as California. She has a coast-to-coast fundraising base and a record of winning statewide contests going back to 2010, when she was first elected attorney general.

Who better, supporters say, to engage President Trump than the former prosecutor who whipped him in their one debate and only just lost the popular vote after being thrust overnight into a drastically truncated campaign?

Antonio Villaraigosa isn’t buying that for a second.

Unlike others in the crowded race for governor, who are likely to drop out if Harris jumps in, L.A.’s former mayor said he’s not budging.

In fact, Villaraigosa insists he wants Harris to run — just so he can beat her and, he says, send an anti-elitist message to those Democrats who have their noses in the air rather than eyes fixed on hard-pressed voters and their myriad frustrations.

“I think she’s been OK that we’ve been a party of just people that drive a Tesla and not a Toyota pickup, or ride a bus like my mother did,” Villaraigosa said. “I think she has no idea what it means to buy a carton of eggs and spend $12 at Ralph’s.”

Harris is “the face of that party,” he went on, warming to the heat of his smoldering rhetoric. “The party that thinks that people that don’t have a college education are stupid. The party that believes that … people voted for Trump just because he’s a great used-car salesman and not because what he was selling resonated with people that work every day. The people who shower after work. Not before.”

As Harris uses the summer to decide her future — retiring from politics or running again for president being other options — no Democrat has been as brash and bold as Villaraigosa when it comes to assailing the putative front-runner and erstwhile leader of the national party.

Earlier this week, he accused Harris and Former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra of helping cover up President Biden’s decline in office, seizing on the scandal fueled by a new book, “Original Sin,” that offered details of Biden’s eroding mental and physical state.

“She could say she didn’t know,” Villaraigosa said, elaborating on that initial volley during a lengthy conversation. “They can’t prove that she did. But last time I looked, she had lunch with him pretty regularly … She had to have seen what the world [saw] over time and particularly in that debate. The notion that she didn’t? Come on. Who’s going to buy that?”

That sort of talk is more typical of, say, Fox News than a candidate bidding for the support of fellow Democrats. Villaraigosa, a former labor leader who’s gotten crossways with teacher unions among other party mainstays, professed not to care. If anything, he said, he’s been encouraged by the response.

“For every one of those people” — upset by Villaraigosa’s remarks — “there are three of them, maybe not as high up among Democrats, who are saying the same damn thing. That’s why this got so much traction … Since Vietnam, people don’t believe in government anymore. They don’t believe in their leaders. And every time we lie or misrepresent … [or] hide the truth from them, their support and their belief in our institutions” diminishes.

Harris would have plenty of time to push back on Villaraigosa’s depiction, should she choose to run. In the meantime, what’s notable is his eagerness to take on the former vice president, positioning himself as the most vocal and assertive of her potential gubernatorial rivals.

Others have taken a few pokes.

“No one should be waiting to lead,” former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter told The Times’ Seema Mehta after entering the contest in March.

Becerra echoed that sentiment when he announced his candidacy in April. “Watching what’s unfolding before our eyes made it clear this is not a time to sit on the sidelines,” Becerra said.

But that’s comparatively weak tea.

“If she wants to come in the race, she should come in now,” Villaraigosa taunted. “Let’s debate. What are the challenges facing our state? Where are the opportunities? Where do we meld them together? How do we make this a better state for our kids?”

During the 40-minute phone conversation, starting in his car and finishing after Villaraigosa arrived home in Los Angeles, he toggled between criticisms of Harris and statements of good will toward a one-time political ally.

The two have known each other, he said, since the mid-1990s, when Villaraigosa was a freshman assemblyman in Sacramento and Harris was dating then-Speaker Willie Brown. He supported her run for attorney general — “I did three press conferences” as L.A. mayor — and was quick to back her as soon as Biden stepped aside last summer and Harris became the Democratic nominee.

“I supported her,” he said. “I got behind her. Her husband” — former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff — “has thanked me a number of times when he’s seen me in person.”

The disagreement now, Villaraigosa said, is over the direction of a party he sees unmoored from its history as a champion of the middle and working classes and too beholden to interest groups that make up its patchwork coalition. Harris, he suggested, is the personification of that disconnect from Democratic tradition.

“At the end of the day, what I’m arguing for is, let’s get to the place where we’re focused on getting things done and focused on common sense,” Villaraigosa said, citing, among issues, his support for Proposition 36, the anti-crime measure that voters overwhelming approved last November. The vice president, he noted, refused to take a position.

But don’t, he said before hanging up, take his attacks on Harris the wrong way.

“This isn’t personal,” Villaraigosa insisted.

It’s just politics.

Former United States President Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis has rekindled questions about whether he deceived the public about his health while in office, with his successor, Donald Trump, adding his voice to those suggesting a coverup.

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Monday, President Trump cast doubt on the timing of Biden’s advanced cancer diagnosis amid renewed scrutiny of the former president’s physical and mental fitness during his tenure.

“I’m surprised that the public wasn’t notified a long time ago,” Trump told reporters at the White House.

“Why did it take so long? This takes a long time, it can take years to get this level of danger,” Trump added.

“So, look, it’s a very sad situation, I feel very badly about it. And I think people should try and find out what happened.”

Trump also said that the doctors who had examined Biden while in office were “not telling the facts”.

“That’s a big problem,” he said.

Biden’s office said in a statement on Sunday that the former president was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer that had spread to his bones.

The statement said Biden was diagnosed on Friday after experiencing “increasing urinary symptoms” and that he and his family were reviewing treatment options.

Doctors graded Biden’s cancer with a score of 9 under the Gleason classification system, according to the statement, indicating it is among the most aggressive kinds.

Late-stage prostate cancer has an average five-year survival rate of 28 percent, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

Biden earlier on Monday expressed gratitude to well-wishers for their words of support and encouragement.

“Cancer touches us all,” Biden wrote on social media.

“Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places. Thank you for lifting us up with love and support.”

Cancer touches us all. Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places. Thank you for lifting us up with love and support. pic.twitter.com/oSS1vGIiwU

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 19, 2025

The news of Biden’s cancer diagnosis came as the former president’s health was already under renewed scrutiny ahead of the publication of a new book detailing the alleged coverup of his physical and mental deterioration by his inner circle.

Original Sin, written by CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios correspondent Alex Thompson, contains various damning accounts of Biden’s alleged decline, including an incident in which the then-president was reportedly unable to recognise Hollywood actor George Clooney at a 2024 fundraiser.

In his comments on Biden’s diagnosis on Monday, Trump drew a link between the former president’s cancer and the alleged concealment of his mental acuity.

“If you take a look, it’s the same doctor that said Joe was cognitively fine, there was nothing wrong with him,” Trump said.

“There are things going on that the public wasn’t informed of, and I think somebody is going to have to speak to his doctor,” he added.

Some doctors have publicly questioned the account of Biden’s cancer diagnosis provided by his office, pointing out that such advanced cancer would have had to progress over a period of years.

“For even with the most aggressive form, it is a 5-7 year journey without treatment before it becomes metastatic,” Steven Quay, a pathologist who is the chief executive of biopharmaceutical company Atossa Therapeutics, said in a post on X.

“Meaning, it would be malpractice for this patient to show up and be first diagnosed with metastatic disease in May 2025. It is highly likely he was carrying a diagnosis of prostate cancer throughout his White House tenure and the American people were uninformed.”

Howard P Forman, a professor of radiology at Yale University, said it was “inconceivable” that Biden’s cancer was not detected before he left office, as it would have been picked up by a blood test known as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test.

“Gleason grade 9 would have had an elevated PSA level for some time before this diagnosis. And he must have had a PSA test numerous times before. This is odd,” Forman said in a post on X.

However, Daniel W Lin, a prostate cancer expert at UW Medicine in Washington state, said that while Biden has “very likely” had cancer for years, it is possible he was not given a PSA test.

“There are screening controversies with the use of PSA, and many medical groups do not recommend PSA testing after 70 or 75 years of age, although others recommend based on life expectancy or state of health rather than age cut-points,” Lin told Al Jazeera.

Lin said it was also possible that Biden has a rarer form of cancer that is not detectable by the test.

“This situation is less common, but not considered overly rare. Additionally, when this situation occurs, it is more common in high-grade cancers, such as former President Biden’s case,” he said.

“Playing the odds, he does not fall into this category, however, it can definitely occur.”

Candidates Lee, the frontrunner, and his opponent Kim clash in the first of three televised debates.

South Korea’s two leading presidential candidates, Lee Jae-myung and Kim Moon-soo, have held the first of three televised debates as the race intensifies to replace former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who was removed in April over his contentious move to declare martial law late last year.

Yoon’s ouster has stoked political turmoil in the nation, and a snap election is set for June 3.

During Sunday’s heated debate, Lee, who is the main opposition Democratic Party’s candidate and the frontrunner in the race, faced criticism about being too friendly towards China from his opponents, who cited his comments that South Korea does not need to get involved in China-Taiwan disputes.

But Lee, who considers pragmatism as key to his foreign policy, said the country “should not go all-in” on its alliance with traditional ally the United States and called for the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.

He added that managing China and Russia relations was important, while noting that security cooperation with the US and Japan is necessary.

Lee also advocated putting South Korea’s interests first in response to US tariffs, more investment in artificial intelligence (AI), protection for unionised workers, and a four-and-a-half-day working week.

There was no need for Seoul to rush to reach a trade agreement with Washington, Lee said during the two-hour debate.

South Korea has begun trade talks with the US and is seeking a waiver from the 25 percent tariffs that US President Donald Trump slapped on the country in April – after which Seoul was one of the first countries to hold face-to-face talks with Washington, following in the footsteps of Japan.

“I think we should prepare well for this situation delicately and competently,” Lee added, also arguing that South Korea needs to nurture high-tech and renewable energy industries to overcome low economic growth.

“We will focus on developing so-called sovereign AI so our people can at least use something like ChatGPT for free like an electronic calculator,” he said.

Kim, candidate for the conservative People Power Party, vowed to create jobs and deregulate to foster businesses.

Kim has also pledged to create a government agency dedicated to innovating regulations and to invest more than five percent of the budget in research and development.

Asia’s fourth-largest economy contracted in the first quarter as exports and consumption stalled, amid fears over the impact of Washington’s aggressive tariffs and political turmoil at home.

Lee holds a lead with 51 percent support in the latest Gallup Korea poll released on Friday, with Kim trailing far behind at 29 percent.

Lee called earlier in the day for constitutional reform to allow a four-year, two-term presidency and a two-round system for presidential elections through a referendum. South Korean presidents currently serve a single five-year term.

He also vowed to curb the presidential right to declare martial law and hold to account those responsible for the December 3 declaration.

Former President Yoon had claimed at the time he declared martial law that antistate and North Korean forces had infiltrated the government. But senior military and police officials who were sent to shut down the country’s National Assembly have testified that he ordered them to detain rival politicians and prevent the assembly from voting to lift his military rule order.

BALTIMORE — Horse racing’s biggest prize is winning the three legs of the Triple Crown — the Kentucky Derby, Preakness Stakes and Belmont Stakes. Three races in five weeks. It’s difficult, which is why only 13 horses have done it in more than a century.

It probably goes without saying that to achieve that goal, a horse actually has to run in all three races. And therein lies the rub.

For the third time in seven years, the winner of the Kentucky Derby is not running in the Preakness Stakes. Many in racing believe that horses aren’t trained, or even bred, to come back and race on two weeks’ rest. Others say it’s not that big of a deal to come back so quickly.

Horse racing embraces change about as well as giving your dog or cat a pill. It can be done, but it sure isn’t easy.

Aidan Butler, the president of 1/ST Racing, which owned Pimlico Race Course at the time, stirred the discussion two years ago when he suggested racing needed to look at the spacing between the Triple Crown races. He thought the sport would benefit if there was at least one more week between the Derby and Preakness. It would have meant that the Belmont Stakes would also have to move at least a week.

Belinda Stronach, chairman of The Stronach Group, the parent company of 1/ST Racing, even called the New York Racing Assn. (NYRA) to lobby the case for changing the dates. NYRA didn’t bite.

In hindsight, Butler thinks it was a case of bad timing.

“In fairness to NYRA, what and when I was suggesting a change, they were moving [the Belmont Stakes temporarily] to Saratoga,” Butler said. “They changed the distance from 1 ½ miles to 1 ¼ miles. And there was the construction at Belmont Park . That’s a lot to deal with. And we’re asking to change the date. I think it was maybe too much too soon.”

While things quieted in the corporate offices, it remained a hot topic on the backstretch.

Bill Mott, the trainer of this year’s Derby winner Sovereignty, ended the speculation early by saying he was skipping the Preakness on Saturday and pointing to the Belmont. Mott also skipped the Preakness when Country House won the 2019 Derby, although the stated reason was the horse developed a cough.

In 2022, Rich Strike, the longshot winner of the Derby, also skipped the Preakness because of the short turnaround.

Kenny McPeek, trainer of last year’s Derby winner Mystik Dan, said on the Tony Kornheiser podcast that he wishes he would have made a different decision and not gone to the Preakness.

“If I could have a do-over, I wouldn’t have gone last year,” McPeek said. “I think it was a mistake on my part.”

This year only three of the nine Preakness starters ran in the Kentucky Derby: Journalism (2nd), Sandman (7th) and American Promise (16th). The Baltimore Sun surveyed all the Derby horses from 2022 to 2025 and found that only 10 of the 67 horses ran in both the Derby and Preakness. That’s an abysmal 15% participation rate.

Michael McCarthy, trainer of Preakness favorite Journalism, would prefer to keep things the way they are.

“I think it’s demanding and meant to separate the greats,” McCarthy said. “I think it captivates the average observer for the five weeks. Sometimes there’s some great stories involved. This year we’re not going to have [a Triple Crown winner], but we’re still going to have a great Triple Crown series.

“Obviously, with the Belmont going to Saratoga last year and this year, it makes for a little bit of a different kind of a series. … I’m a bit of a traditionalist in that way, but I think three races in five weeks is good.”

Wayne Lukas, who trains American Promise, has been around racing longer than anyone. The 89-year-old has won the Preakness seven times, including last year with Seize the Grey.

“I’ve been pushing for a change in that tradition for 20 years,” Lukas said. “But then Bob Baffert comes up and wins [the Triple Crown] twice. So that silenced everybody pretty much.

“I thought that we could run the first Saturday in May and then run the Preakness on Memorial Day weekend … when everybody’s off work and then run the Belmont on the Fourth of July. But in order to get that done, you got to have three race tracks agree. And that’s really difficult.”

Baffert, who won the Triple Crown with American Pharoah and Justify and is running Goal Oriented in the Preakness, chooses to play Switzerland in this discussion.

“I don’t get involved in that conversation because I’ll do whatever [they want],” Baffert said. “We should just take it to Santa Anita for one year. Bring it out there. Don’t need your raincoats. Get a tan while you’re out there.”

Trainer Mark Casse, who has Sandman in the Preakness, has changed his mind on the topic.

“For a long time, I’ve said ‘No, I like the two weeks,” Casse said. “It’s not supposed to be easy. One of the things that drives me crazy is when people say, ‘Well, this is the way we’ve always done it.’ I believe that the world gets smarter every day, and if you stand still, you get run over.

“I think if we’re going to continue losing Kentucky Derby winners because of the two weeks, then I think we got to really seriously look at making it maybe a month and a month.”

Butler brought up another theory as to why fewer horses run the first two legs of the Triple Crown.

“There’s a lot of opportunities for 3-year-olds,” Butler said. “When the Triple Crown was the Triple Crown back in the day, that was it for big money races and you wanted to be there. That’s why you had a lot of the Derby horses running back to run for the money. Now, there are so many other opportunities, and two weeks doesn’t fit in.”

The Preakness is considered the easiest of the three races to win. It has a field about half the size of the Derby, which is considered the most difficult of the three to win. It also is 1/16 of a mile shorter than the Derby and 5/16th of a mile shorter than a traditional Belmont Stakes.

Doug O’Neill, when he was campaigning Derby winner Nyquist in 2016, might have offered the best explanation of why running the Preakness two weeks after the Derby is a good idea.

“You’re coming back so quick [after two weeks], you don’t have time to screw them up,” O’Neill said.

The topic likely will remain quiet for 50 weeks until the connections of next year’s Kentucky Derby winner decide to go to Baltimore or wait for New York.

DOWNIEVILLE, Calif. — Patrice Miller, 71, lived by herself in a small yellow house beneath towering mountain peaks on the edge of a burbling river in this Sierra County village. She doted on her cats and her exotic orchids, and was known to neighbors for her delicious homemade bread. One fall afternoon in 2023, after Miller had failed for several days to make her customary appearance at the town market, a store clerk asked authorities to check on her.

A short time later, a sheriff’s deputy found Miller’s lifeless body in her kitchen. Her right leg and left arm had been partially gnawed off. On the floor around her were the large paw prints of a bear.

Months after her death, officials would make a stunning disclosure, revealing that an autopsy had determined that Miller had likely been killed by the animal after it broke into her home. It marked the first known instance in California history of a fatal bear attack on a human.

But amid the contentious politics around black bears and other apex predators in California, not everyone accepts the official version of how she died.

“We don’t believe the bear did it,” said Ann Bryant, executive director of the Bear League in the Tahoe Basin. “And I will go on record as saying that. … We’ve never had a bear kill anybody.”

The story of Miller’s grisly end — and the increasingly heated battles around predators in California — have come roaring into the state Capitol this spring. Lawmakers representing conservative rural districts in the state’s rugged northern reaches argue that their communities are under attack, and point to Miller as one example of the worst that can happen. One solution they have pushed is changing the law to allow people to set packs of hunting dogs after bears to haze them. A similar measure has been floated — for now unsuccessfully — to ward off mountain lions considered a threat.

Wildlife conservation advocates are aghast. They say turning dogs on bears is barbaric and won’t make anyone safer. They contend the proposed laws don’t reflect a scientifically backed approach to managing wild populations but instead are pro-hunting bills dressed up in the guise of public safety. The real solution, they say, is for humans living near bears to learn to safely co-exist by not leaving out food or otherwise attracting them.

“These people are using [Miller’s death] to try to start hounding bears again,” said Bryant, who maintains that Miller, who was in poor health, must have died before the bear came into her home and devoured her. “She would roll in her grave if she knew that in her death people would create a situation where people were going to mistreat bears, because she loved bears.”

In a recent report, the Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates there are now 60,000 black bears roaming California and notes a marked increase in reports of human-bear conflicts.

(John Axtell / Nevada Department of Wildlife)

Founded in 1849, Downieville, population 300, is one of California’s oldest towns, and also one of its quaintest. Colorfully painted wooden buildings sit at the junction of two rivers, beneath majestic pines and mountain peaks.

Along with tourists, who flood in in the summer for rafting and mountain biking, the town also receives frequent visits from bears and mountain lions. More recently, wolves have arrived with deadly force, snatching domesticated cattle off the open pastures that stretch across the plains on the other side of the mountains east of town.

Miller wound up here about a decade ago, at the end of a rich, complicated life. She had worked in an oil refinery, and also as a contractor. She was a master gardener, expert at transplanting Japanese maples, according to her neighbor, Patty Hall. She was a voracious reader and a skilled pianist. But she also struggled with a variety of serious ailments and substance abuse, according to neighbors and officials.

Longtime residents in the area were used to the challenges of living among wild animals. But in the summer of 2023, Sierra County Sheriff Mike Fisher said he started getting an overwhelming number of calls about problem bears.

“We had three or four habituated bears that were constantly here in town,” said Fisher. “They had zero fear. I would say, almost daily, we were having to go out and chase these bears away, haze them.”

But bears have a sharp sense of smell, a long memory for food sources and an incredible sense of direction. If a tourist tosses them a pizza crust or the last bits of an ice cream cone, or leaves the lid off a trash can, they will return again and again, even if they are relocated miles away.

That summer, Fisher said, no matter what he did, the bears kept lumbering back into town. It was unlike anything he had experienced, he said, and he had grown up in Downieville. “A police car with an air horn or the siren, we would push the bear up out of the community. Fifteen minutes later, they were right back downtown,” he said.

Founded in 1849, Downieville, population 300, is one of California’s oldest towns and also one of its quaintest.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

And then there were the bears harassing Miller and her neighbors.

“There were three bears,” recalled Hall, who lives just up the hill from the home Miller rented. “Twice a night they would walk up and down our [porch] stairs. The Ring cameras were constantly going off.”

Fisher said some of Miller’s neighbors complained that she was part of the lure, because she was not disposing of her garbage properly. Some also alleged she was tossing food on her porch for her cats — and that the bears were coming for it. Miller’s daughter later told sheriff’s officials that bears were “constantly trying” to get into her house, and that “her mother had physically hit one” to keep it out. One particular bear, which Miller had nicknamed “Big Bastard,” was a frequent pest.

Fifty miles from Downieville, in the Lake Tahoe Basin, the Bear League was getting calls about Miller, too. The organization, which Bryant founded more than two decades ago, seeks to protect bears by helping residents coexist with them. This includes educating people about locking down their trash and helping to haze bears away from homes.

“We got calls [from her neighbors] that told us she had been feeding the bears, tossing food out to them, and let them come into her house,” Bryant said. She added that some thought, erroneously, that the Bear League was a government organization, and “maybe we had the ability to enforce the law” against feeding bears.

Hall, Miller’s friend, told The Times that Miller was not feeding bears. Still, the problems continued.

Eventually, officials with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife were called and told Miller she could sign a “depredation permit,” after which authorities could kill bears trying to get into her house. But Miller declined to do so, Fisher said.

In early November, Miller stopped showing up around town, prompting calls for a welfare check.

A little before 3 p.m. on Nov. 8, 2023, Deputy Malcolm Fadden approached Miller’s home, which was a short walk from the sheriff’s office. The security bars on the kitchen window had been ripped off. The window itself had been busted from the outside.

“I knocked on the door,” Fadden wrote in his report, but got no answer.

Patrice Miller was found dead in her rental cottage in November 2023. Bear advocates take issue with an autopsy report that said she probably was killed in a bear attack.

(Jessica Garrison / Los Angeles Times)

Through the window, he saw blood streaked across the living room floor. He took out his gun and burst into the house, where he was greeted by a giant pile of bear scat. He found Miller in the kitchen, her half-eaten body surrounded by food and garbage, which, Fadden wrote, had been “apparently scattered by bears.”

Fisher was horrified. Already frustrated at what he saw as the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s lackluster response to the escalating bear incursions that summer, now he wanted the bear that had fed on Miller to be trapped and killed.

He said the department told him that for the bear to be killed, “the person who lives at the house has to sign the [depredation] permit.” Fisher said he responded: “How many times do I have to tell you the person who lives at that house was eaten by the bear?”

This was the start of a long-running conflict between the sheriff and agency officials that would complicate the release of the autopsy findings about Miller’s death, and also convince Fisher that more aggressive steps were needed to protect his community.

Eventually, Fisher managed to get a depredation permit for the bear that had fed on Miller; his deputies tracked down her landlord, who as the homeowner could sign it. Wildlife officials set up a trap near Miller’s house, and in short order, a bear was caught.

But, according to Fisher, officials initially said it wasn’t the same bear. They said DNA tests showed that the bear who had eaten her was male, and the bear they had caught appeared to be female. They intended to release the bear, he said.

Fisher padlocked the cage, and threatened to call the media. In response, he said, wildlife officials sent a biologist, who determined the bear in the trap was male. It was shot that night.

At that point, few people, including Fisher, believed that the bear had actually killed Miller, as opposed to feeding on her after she died of natural causes. Though there are recorded instances of fatal black bear maulings in other U.S. states, they are rare, and there had been no reports of one in California. Fisher issued a news release saying that the death was under investigation, but that “it is believed that Patrice Miller passed away before a bear, possibly drawn by the scent or other factors, accessed the residence.”

After performing an autopsy, however, the pathologist on contract with Sierra County came to a different conclusion. She issued a report that found that Miller had “deep hemorrhage of the face and neck“ as well as “puncture injuries (consistent with claw ‘swipe’ or ‘slap’).” These injuries, she noted, were “characteristics more suggestive of a vital reaction by a living person.” In short: The pathologist found that Miller was probably killed by the bear.

Because of Fisher’s feud with Fish and Wildlife, that autopsy report, dated Jan. 4, 2024, wouldn’t become public for months.

Fisher said the state agency was refusing to provide him with copies of the DNA analysis of the bear that had been trapped in Miller’s yard. He wanted to see for himself that it matched the DNA evidence collected at her home, saying he hated the thought that a bear that had feasted on a person might still be roaming his town.

“I requested DNA from Fish and Wildlife, and they refused to provide it to me,” he said. “So I withheld the coroner’s report. We stopped talking.”

He said he verbally told department officials that the pathologist believed Miller had been killed by the bear — a seemingly noteworthy development. He said that officials responded: “I guess we’ll see when we get the report.”

In an email to The Times, state wildlife officials confirmed that Fisher had verbally shared the results of the autopsy report, but said they felt they needed to see the report to do their “due diligence before making an announcement about the first fatal bear attack in California.” The agency had sent an investigator to the scene after Miller’s death, who like Fisher and his deputies, thought the evidence suggested she had died of natural causes, said agency spokesperson Peter Tira.

By the time Fisher got the autopsy report, it was deep winter in the mountains, and bear activity decreased. Then came spring, and along with the blossoms, the bears came back to Downieville.

Bears were knocking over trash cans and breaking into cars. In May, residents on Main Street reported that a bear had broken into multiple houses, including one incursion that involved a bear standing over 82-year-old Dale Hunter as he napped on his couch.

A few days later, a bear tried to break into the cafeteria at Downieville High School while students were at school.

Fisher declared the bear a threat to public safety. Fish and Wildlife eventually issued a depredation permit, and the bear was shot.

That led to a story in the Mountain Messenger, the local paper. In it, the sheriff dropped a bombshell: “Miller was mauled to death after a black bear entered her home,” the paper reported. The story went on to say that the sheriff had made “numerous attempts” to inform Fish and Wildlife “about Miller’s death and more recent dangerous situations.”

After the story ran, state Sen. Megan Dahle, a Lassen County Republican who at the time served in the Assembly, set up a conciliatory meeting between Fish and Wildlife and Fisher. They have been meeting regularly ever since, Fisher said.

Fisher got his DNA results confirming that the bear trapped in Miller’s yard was the same bear that had eaten her. And Fish and Wildlife officials finally got a copy of the pathology report, which said Miller was probably alive when she encountered the bear.

The revelation made headlines around the state. “We’re in new territory,” Capt. Patrick Foy of Fish and Wildlife’s law enforcement division told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Bryant and other bear advocates found the release of such a significant finding so long after the fact confounding.

“I absolutely do not believe it,” Bryant said. If the bear had killed her, Bryant added, “the evidence should have been so clear, like immediately.”

“We don’t believe the bear did it,” Ann Bryant, executive director of the Bear League, says of Patrice Miller’s death. “We’ve never had a bear kill anybody.”

(Max Whittaker / For The Times)

The Downieville saga unfolded as bears seemed to be making news all over California.

To many, it seemed there were just many more bears encroaching on human settlements. A Fish and Wildlife report released last month estimated there are now 60,000 black bears roaming the Golden State, roughly triple the figure from 1998, the last time the department issued a bear management plan. That’s the highest population estimate for anywhere in the contiguous U.S., although the report also suggests that California’s bear population has been stable for the last decade.

In the Lake Tahoe area, where 50,000 people live year-round and tens of thousands more crowd in on busy tourist weekends, bears were breaking into houses and raiding refrigerators; they were bursting into ice cream shops and strolling along packed beaches.

State and local officials went into overdrive, trying to teach residents and tourists how to avoid attracting bears. The state set money aside for distribution of bear-proof trash cans and “unwelcome mats” that deliver a jolt of electricity if bears try to break into homes.

The Bear League will loan Tahoe Basin residents “unwelcome mats” that deliver a little jolt of electricity to bears if they try to break into homes.

(Max Whittaker / For The Times)

The Bear League stepped up its efforts. From a small office on Bryant’s property, the organization’s 24-hour hotline was ringing, and volunteers were rushing out with paintball guns to haze bears and to advise people on how to bear-proof their houses.

The tensions continued to escalate, nonetheless, between people who wanted to protect bears at all costs and those who wanted some problem bears trapped and relocated — or killed. In 2024, after a homeowner in the Tahoe area fatally shot a bear he said had broken into his home, many people were outraged that the Department of Fish and Wildlife declined to file charges.

Advocates also complained that the state has fallen behind in its efforts to help people and bears coexist. In recent years, the state had hired dedicated staff to help people in bear country, but the money ran out and some of those people were laid off, said Jennifer Fearing, a wildlife advocate and lobbyist.

“We have the tools to minimize human-wildlife conflict in California,” Fearing said. “We need the state to invest in using them.”

In Sierra County, the sheriff had come to a different conclusion. “We’ve swung the pendulum too far on the environmental side on these apex predators,” Fisher said.

Earlier this year, Fisher found common cause with newly elected GOP Assemblymember Heather Hadwick. “Mountain lions, bears and wolves are my biggest issue. I get calls every day about some kind of predator, which is crazy,” said Hadwick, who represents 11 northern counties.

In February, she introduced a bill, AB 1038, that would allow hunters to sic trained dogs on bears to chase them through the woods, but not kill them. While California has a legal hunting season for bears, it is strictly regulated; the use of hounds to aid the chase has been banned since 2013.

Hadwick argued that hounding bears would increase their fear of humans, which she said some are starting to lose: “We’re keeping them in the forest, where they belong.”

Bears have a long memory for food sources and an incredible sense of direction. If a tourist tosses them a pizza crust or leaves the lid off a trash can, they will return again and again.

(California Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Wildlife advocates showed up in force last month to oppose Hadwick’s bill in an Assembly committee hearing. Sending hounds after bears is cruel, they said. Plus, hounding bears in the woods would have no impact on the bears knocking over neighborhood trash cans and sneaking into ice cream stores.

Fisher testified in favor of the bill, and spoke of Miller’s death.

Lawmakers listened, some with stricken looks on their faces. But in a Legislature controlled by Democrats, Hadwick did not garner enough votes to send her bill on to the full Assembly; it became a two-year bill, meaning it could come back next year.

Fisher returned to Sierra County, where he has continued to advocate for locals to have more power to go after predators. The current situation, he said, is “out of control.”