Donald Trump

Robert Kennedy Jr expels all 17 members of CDC vaccine panel | Health News

US President Trump-appointed Health Secretary and vaccine sceptic will replace panel with his own selections.

United States Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr has purged a 17-member panel at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that provides expertise on vaccines.

Kennedy, who before taking a position in the administration of President Donald Trump was a vocal anti-vaccine activist, has said he will replace the panel with his own picks.

“Today, we are prioritising the restoration of public trust above any specific pro- or anti-vaccine agenda,” Kennedy said. “The public must know that unbiased science – evaluated through a transparent process and insulated from conflicts of interest – guides the recommendations of our health agencies.”

Kennedy’s reorganisation of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is the latest move by the Trump administration to shake up US health practices, sometimes by pushing ideas that depart strongly from the existing scientific consensus on issues such as vaccinations and fluoride.

“That’s a tragedy,” a former chief scientist of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Jesse Goodman, said of the firings.

“This is a highly professional group of scientists and physicians and others … It’s the kind of political meddling that will reduce confidence rather than increase confidence.”

The HHS said that all 17 members of the panel were selected during the administration of former President Joe Biden, and that keeping them on would have prevented Trump from choosing the majority of the panel’s members until 2028.

The department said that the ACIP will convene its next meeting on June 25-27. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves vaccinations for public use, the ACIP reviews data in public meetings before voting on whether to recommend a vaccine.

Source link

Trump to ‘activate’ Marines to respond to LA protests in major escalation | Donald Trump News

The Pentagon will send a Marine battalion to Los Angeles in a major escalation of US President Donald Trump’s response to anti-immigration enforcement protests, the United States military has said.

The statement on Monday confirmed the “activation” of 700 Marines to help protect federal personnel and property in the California city, where Trump had deployed the US National Guard a day earlier.

The update came despite opposition from state officials, including California’s Governor Gavin Newsom, who had earlier mounted a legal challenge to the deployment of the National Guard troops.

In a statement, the military said the “activation of the Marines” was meant to help “provide continuous coverage of the area in support of the lead federal agency”.

Speaking to the Reuters news agency, an unnamed Trump administration official said the soldiers would be acting only in support of the National Guard and other law enforcement.

The official said that Trump was not yet invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, which would suspend legal limitations that block the military from taking part in domestic law enforcement.

Speaking shortly before the reports emerged, Trump said he was open to deploying Marines to Los Angeles, but said protests in the city were “heading in the right direction”.

“We’ll see what happens,” he said.

Reporting from Los Angeles, Al Jazeera’s Rob Reynolds said protests on Monday organised in the city centre by union groups were peaceful.

He noted that the National Guard which Trump had deployed to the city on Sunday played a minimal role in responding to the protests, only guarding federal buildings. That raised questions over why the Trump administration would feel a Marine deployment was needed.

“[The National Guard] didn’t engage with the protesters. They didn’t do much of anything other than stand there in their military uniforms,” Reynolds said.

He added that there is an important distinction between the National Guard, a state-based military force usually composed of part-time reserves, and the more combat-forward Marines, which are the land force of the US Navy.

“Now the Marines, this is a whole different thing. The United States sends Marines overseas where US imperialist interests are at stake, but not to cities in the United States,” he said.

California Governor Newsom’s office, meanwhile, said that according to the information it had received, the Marines were only being transferred to a base closer to Los Angeles, and not technically being deployed onto the streets.

Still, it said the “level of escalation is completely unwarranted, uncalled for, and unprecedented – mobilising the best in class branch of the US military against its own citizens”.

California mounts challenge

The updates on Monday came shortly after Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the state had filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles.

Newsom has maintained that local law enforcement had the capacity to respond to protests over US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles and the nearby city of Paramount that first broke out on Friday.

The Democratic state leader accused Trump of escalating the situation, saying in a statement that the president was “creating fear and terror by failing to adhere to the US Constitution and overstepping his authority”.

“This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,” Newsom said.

 

The California lawsuit argues that the legal authority Trump invoked to deploy the National Guard requires the consent of the state’s governor, which Newsom did not provide.

For his part, Trump indicated he would support Newsom being arrested for impeding immigration enforcement, responding to an earlier threat from the president’s border czar, Tom Homan.

Trump’s response to the protests represented the first time since 1965 that a president deployed the National Guard against the will of a state governor. At the time, President Lyndon B Johnson did so to protect civil rights demonstrators in Alabama.

Protests continue

Protests against Trump’s crackdown – as well as his overall immigration policy – continued on Monday.

Standing in front of Ambiance Apparel in Los Angeles, one of the sites raided by ICE agents last week, Indigenous community leader Perla Rios spoke alongside family members of individuals detained by immigration agents.

Rios called for due process and legal representation for those taken into detention.

“What our families are experiencing is simply a nightmare,” Rios said.

Meanwhile, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) called for protests in cities across the country over the Trump administration’s response to demonstrations, which included the arrest of the union’s California president David Huerta.

Huerta was detained on Friday during immigration raids and charged with conspiracy to impede an officer during immigration enforcement operations.

“From Massachusetts to California, we call for his immediate release and for an end to ICE raids that are tearing our communities apart,” the SEIU said in a statement.

Protesters also gathered in New York and Los Angeles in response to Trump’s latest ban on travellers from 12 countries, a policy critics have decried as racist.

Speaking at a protest in New York City on Monday, Murad Awawdeh, president of the New York Immigration Coalition, said the policy was “a continuation of the Muslim and travel ban under the first Trump administration, which separated families and harmed our communities”.

The policy, he said, was creating “an immense amount of fear”.

Source link

Israeli attack could drive Iran to seek nuclear weapons, IAEA chief warns | Nuclear Weapons News

Head of nuclear watchdog warns Israeli strike may harden Iran’s resolve on nuclear arms as diplomacy stalls.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, has warned that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could push Tehran closer to developing nuclear weapons as indirect talks between the United States and Iran continue through Omani mediation.

Speaking to i24 News and The Jerusalem Post, Grossi said Iranian officials had cautioned him about the potential consequences of a strike.

“A strike could potentially have an amalgamating effect, solidifying Iran’s determination – I will say it plainly – to pursue a nuclear weapon or withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” he said in an interview that was published on Monday.

Grossi added that he did not believe Israel would launch such an operation.

“But one thing is certain,” he said, “The [Iranian] programme runs wide and deep. And when I say ‘deep’, I mean it. Many of these facilities are extremely well-protected. Disrupting them would require overwhelming and devastating force.”

He made his comments as Iran prepares a counteroffer to a US proposal for a new nuclear deal.

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that the US offer lacked key elements and failed to address sanctions relief – a longstanding demand from Tehran.

“We will soon submit our own proposed plan to the other side through Oman once it is finalised,” Baghaei said without elaborating on the details.

He also criticised the IAEA’s latest report on Iran’s nuclear programme as “unbalanced”, accusing it of relying on “forged documents” from Israel. The IAEA had recently described Iran’s cooperation as “less than satisfactory”, particularly in clarifying past nuclear activities at undeclared locations.

The US and Iran are trying to strike a new nuclear deal after a 2015 agreement was abandoned by US President Donald Trump in 2018 during his first term.

In a surprise comment last week, Trump said he had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to jeopardise the fragile negotiations.

“I told him this would be inappropriate to do right now because we’re very close to a solution,” Trump said.

It remains unclear when the next round of indirect negotiations will take place. Baghaei said talks are ongoing but did not give a date for the next meeting

Source link

World leaders call for end to ‘plunder’ at U.N. ocean summit

June 9 (UPI) — World leaders at a United Nations conference in France called for an end to ocean-plundering activity with a global agreement likely on the horizon.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres opened the UN’s third ocean conference Monday in Nice with over 120 nations and more than 50 heads of state taking part in the five-day gathering.

“The ocean is the ultimate share resource,” Guterres said to global representatives at the port of Nice. “But we are failing it.”

He said oceans are absorbing 90% of excess heat fro greenhouse gas emissions and buckling under the strain of overfishing, rising temperatures, plastic pollution, acidification, dying coral reefs and collapsing marine life.

The conference co-hosted by France and Costa Rica was focused on ratifying the 2023 High Seas Treaty, which required 60 other countries to sign-on to before it becomes a binding international law.

Rising seas, accordion to Guterres, could soon “submerge deltas, destroy crops, and swallow coastlines — threatening many islands’ survival.”

On Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron revealed that the milestone was within reach.

“The sea is our first ally against global warming,” Macron said in his opening speech.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said if the world neglects the ocean and its treated “without respect” then it “will turn on us,” she said, adding there will be “ever more violent storms” that ravage the world’s coastlines.

Last month, the European Union ratified the treaty.

“The ocean is our greatest ally, whether you live here in Europe, or anywhere in the world,” said von der Leyen.

The treaty sets a global commitment to protect at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, and provides countries with meaningful tools and ways to create protected ocean areas and conduct evaluations of such things as the damage of commercial activities like deep sea mining to marine life.

The United States was not present at the meeting as a State Department spokesman said it was “at odds” with current U.S. policy.

Macron said 15 other countries have “formally committed to joining” in addition to the more than 50 countries.

“So that’s a win,” said the French president, at one point saying the ocean “is not for sale” in an apparent swipe at U.S. President Donald Trump.

Meanhwile, von der Leyen said Monday that Europe would contribute more than $45 million to the Global Ocean Programme.

“So I ask you all today: Please speed up ratification, because our ocean needs us to play (our) part,” she said.

Source link

US-China trade talks: Is a thaw on the cards after Trump-Xi call? | Business and Economy News

Top US and Chinese officials are meeting in London in a bid to defuse trade tensions over rare earth minerals and advanced technology after a phone call between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping last week.

The two sides are aiming in Monday’s talks to build on a preliminary trade deal struck in Geneva in May, which briefly lowered the temperature between Washington and Beijing and offered relief for investors battered by months of Trump’s global trade war.

Since then, the agreement to mutually suspend most of the 100 percent-plus tariffs for 90 days has been followed by barbs and accusations from both sides.

But after reaching a tentative understanding with Xi on resuming the flow of critical minerals, Trump said on Thursday that he expected Monday’s meeting to go “very well”.

Who is leading the US and Chinese delegations?

The US delegation in London is headed by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The Chinese contingent will be led by Vice Premier He Lifeng.

The venue of the meeting has not been disclosed.

What happened during last week’s call between Xi and Trump?

Monday’s meeting comes four days after Trump and Xi spoke by phone, their first direct interaction since Trump’s January 20 inauguration.

After the more than hourlong call on Thursday, Trump said the conversation was focused on trade and had resulted in a “very positive conclusion” for both countries.

In the first readout of the call, Trump posted on his social media site, Truth Social: “I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi, of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal.”

“There should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of Rare Earth products. Our respective teams will be meeting shortly at a location to be determined. During the conversation, President Xi graciously invited the First Lady and me to visit China, and I reciprocated,” he added.

For his part, Xi was quoted by Chinese state TV as saying after the call that the two countries should strive for a win-win outcome and dialogue and cooperation are the only right choice for both.

In recent weeks, both sides have accused the other of breaching their deal made in Geneva and aimed at dramatically reducing tariffs – an agreement Trump touted as a “total reset” after he announced tariffs on all US trading partners on April 2.

The tentative truce struck on May 11 in Geneva brought US tariffs on Chinese products down from 145 to 30 percent while Beijing slashed levies on US imports from 125 to 10 percent.

The agreement gave both sides a three-month deadline to try to reach a more lasting deal.

In what ways have US export controls played a role?

Renewed tensions between the US and China began just one day after the May 12 announcement of the Geneva agreement to temporarily lower tariffs.

The US Department of Commerce issued guidance saying the use of Ascend artificial intelligence chips from Huawei, a leading Chinese tech company, could violate US export controls.

The agency warned companies “anywhere in the world” against using AI chips made by Huawei, claiming they illegally contained, or were made with, US technology.

Beijing publicly criticised Washington’s move to limit access to American technology, accusing the US of trying to stymie China’s ability to develop cutting-edge AI chips.

On May 15, Chinese Ministry of Commerce spokesperson He Yongqian accused the US of “abusing export control measures”, adding that China would take steps to defend its business interests.

Lutnick wasn’t in Geneva last month, but he is a lead negotiator in Monday’s talks in London. His Commerce Department oversees export controls for the US, and some analysts believe his participation is an indication of how central the issue has become for both sides.

China issuing rare earth licences to US companies

In response to Trump’s April 2 tariff announcement, Beijing suspended exports to all countries of six heavy rare earth metals and associated magnets on April 4.

The move upended global supply chains central to automakers, aerospace manufacturers and military contractors.

China produces 90 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals, which are essential components in permanent magnets – used in a swath of high-tech applications.

Without mentioning rare earths specifically, Trump took to social media last month to attack China’s trade restrictions.

“The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,” Trump posted on Truth Social on May 30.

After Xi and Trump’s phone call last week, however, the Chinese government hinted that it is addressing US concerns, which have also been echoed by some European companies.

On Saturday, China’s Commerce Ministry said it had approved some rare earth exports, without specifying which countries were involved.

It issued a statement saying it had granted some approvals and “will continue to strengthen the approval of applications that comply with regulations”.

On Monday, the rare earth suppliers of three big US automakers – General Motors, Ford and Stellantis – got clearance from Beijing for a handful of export licences.

Washington wants access to as many rare earths as quickly as possible, Kevin Hassett, head of the National Economic Council at the White House, said on the CBS TV network’s Face the Nation programme on Sunday.

“We want the rare earths, the magnets that are crucial for cellphones and everything else to flow just as they did before the beginning of April, and we don’t want any technical details slowing that down,” Hassett said.

What challenges remain?

Student visas don’t normally figure in trade talks, but a recent US announcement that it would begin revoking the visas of Chinese students has emerged as another flashpoint between Washington and Beijing.

On May 28, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the Trump administration would begin to “aggressively” revoke the visas of Chinese university students.

He also said the US would revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications from China and Hong Kong.

China is the second largest country of origin for international students in the US after India.

More than 270,000 Chinese students studied in the US in the 2023-2024 academic year.

Beijing’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Mao Ning criticised Washington’s decision to revoke the visas, saying it “damaged” the rights of Chinese students.

Other concerns continue to strain the bilateral relationship from the illicit fentanyl trade to the status of democratically governed Taiwan and US complaints about China’s state-dominated economic model.

Still, Trump’s geopolitical bluster goes well beyond China. While promising to reshape relationships with all US trading partners, Trump so far has reached only one new trade agreement – with the United Kingdom.

Trump’s reduction of US tariffs on Chinese goods runs out in August unless he decides to extend it. If deals aren’t reached, the White House said Trump plans to restore tariff rates to the levels he first announced in April.

Source link

Iran to present counterproposal for nuclear deal to US via Oman | Nuclear Weapons News

Tehran indicates it will not accept the US proposal made during the fifth round of talks last month.

Iran will soon present a counterproposal for a nuclear deal to the United States, according to its Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Esmaeil Baghaei, the ministry’s spokesman, told a weekly news conference on Monday that Iran was not satisfied with a US proposal and it would present its version via mediator Oman.

This marks the first public sign that Tehran will not accept the US proposal after the fifth round of talks last month, during which Iran said it had received “elements” of a US proposal and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi later said the text contained “ambiguities”.

Baqhaei criticised the US proposal on Monday as “lacking elements” reflective of the previous rounds of negotiations, but he did not provide details.

“We will soon submit our own proposed plan to the other side through Oman once it is finalised,” he said.

Baghaei said the US proposal failed to include the lifting of sanctions – a key demand for Tehran, which has been reeling under their weight for years.

Five rounds of talks

Tehran and Washington have held talks since April to thrash out a new nuclear accord to replace a deal with major powers that US President Donald Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018.

The longtime foes have been locked in a diplomatic standoff over Iran’s uranium enrichment. Tehran defends it as a “nonnegotiable” right and Washington describes it as a “red line”.

Trump, who has revived his “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions on Iran since retaking office in January, has repeatedly said Tehran will not be allowed any uranium enrichment under a potential deal.

Last week, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei dismissed the US proposal as against Iran’s interests, pledging to continue enrichment on Iranian soil, which Western powers view as a potential pathway to building nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), will convene a Board of Governors meeting from Monday to Friday in Vienna to discuss Iran’s nuclear activities.

The meeting comes after the IAEA released a report criticising “less than satisfactory” cooperation from Tehran, particularly in explaining past cases of nuclear material found at undeclared sites.

Iran has criticised the IAEA report as unbalanced, saying it relied on “forged documents” provided by Israel.

It is not yet clear when the sixth round of nuclear talks will take place between Tehran and Washington, Baghaei said.

Source link

Protests intensify in Los Angeles as National Guard troops deployed | Donald Trump News

Thousands of protesters have clashed with authorities as they took to the streets of Los Angeles for a third night in response to United States President Donald Trump’s extraordinary deployment of the National Guard.

Sunday’s protests in Los Angeles, a sprawling city of 4 million people, were centred in several blocks of the city centre. It was the third and most intense day of demonstrations against Trump’s immigration crackdown in the region, as the arrival of about 300 National Guard troops spurred anger and fear among many residents.

The troops were deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the Metropolitan Detention Center where protesters concentrated.

The crowds blocked a major highway and set fire to self-driving cars. The authorities used tear gas, rubber bullets and flashbangs.

Governor Gavin Newsom requested Trump remove the National Guard in a letter, calling their deployment a “serious breach of state sovereignty”.

It was the first time in decades that a state’s National Guard was activated without a request from its governor, a significant escalation against those who have sought to hinder the administration’s mass deportation efforts.

The arrival of the National Guard followed two days of protests, which began on Friday in central Los Angeles before spreading on Saturday to Paramount, a heavily Latino city to the south, and neighbouring Compton.

Federal agents arrested immigrants in LA’s fashion district, in a Home Depot car park and at several other locations on Friday.

The next day, they were staging at a Department of Homeland Security office near another Home Depot in Paramount, which drew out protesters who suspected another raid. Federal authorities later said there was no enforcement activity at that Home Depot.

The weeklong tally of immigrant arrests in the LA area climbed above 100, federal authorities said. Many more were arrested whilst protesting, including a prominent union leader who was accused of impeding law enforcement.

The last time the National Guard was activated without a governor’s permission was in 1965, when President Lyndon B Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Centre for Justice.

Source link

Fact-checking claims Trump’s pardons wiped out $1bn in debt owed to US | Donald Trump News

Liz Oyer, a lawyer with the United States Department of Justice handling pardons for a long time, was fired by the Trump administration in March. Since then, Oyer has publicly criticised the administration, including its approach to pardons.

In an April 30 video on TikTok, Oyer took issue with many of Trump’s pardons, not only because they short-circuited the justice system but also because of their financial impact.

“President Trump has granted pardons that have wiped out over $1bn in debts owed by wealthy Americans who have committed fraud and broken the law,” claims Oyer, who said she was fired because she opposed a pardon to restore gun rights to actor Mel Gibson, a Trump supporter who was convicted on misdemeanour domestic violence charges in 2011.

US Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, shared her post on May 31 on Instagram, saying Trump is “selling pardons to criminals who dump money on him and ingratiate themselves to his ego. They not only get out of jail, but they get out of the money they owe to make restitution for their crimes. This is wrong.”

Oyer’s Substack includes a running list of Trump’s pardons, along with a dollar figure for each that she says the pardon erased. The dollar figures on her list include fines – a financial penalty for being convicted of a crime – and restitution, which is designed to compensate victims for their losses.

As of June 5, Oyer’s pardon tracker listed 24 people with federal convictions whom Trump pardoned, along with the dollar amounts to be forgiven.

People and companies pardoned by Trump could save up to $1.3bn

On the surface, the maths holds: collectively, the 24 pardoned people and companies Oyer listed were on the hook for $1.34bn.

“A full pardon would wipe out any payments that were required as part of the criminal sentence”, as long as they have not already been paid, said Brian Kalt, a Michigan State University law professor.

But legal experts offered some caveats about this calculation. Some of the dollar amounts on Oyer’s list were not finalised, which adds some speculation to her total.

Oyer did not respond to inquiries for this article.

The biggest debts erased by pardons so far

After four and a half months in office, Trump has surpassed all but three post-World War II presidents for the number of clemency actions, which include pardons and commutations. His total is dominated by the roughly 1,500 pardons he granted to people who faced legal consequences from their participation in the events of January 6, 2021, when pro-Trump rioters stormed the US Capitol.

Trump’s second-term clemency acts exceed all but three modern presidents

The vast majority of clemency actions by Trump’s predecessor, President Joe Biden, were commutations, meaning they did not affect fines or restitution. (Biden commuted sentences for 37 people on death row and about 2,500 others convicted of nonviolent drug crimes.)

Biden pardoned 80 people over four years; Trump has pardoned 58 people in four and a half months, excluding the January 6, 2021-related pardons.

The four pardon recipients on Oyer’s list with the highest debt would collectively exceed $1bn by themselves. They are:

  • Trevor Milton, an electric-truck company owner, who had been convicted of securities fraud and wire fraud in 2023 and sentenced to four years in prison. He was ordered to pay $676m in restitution.
  • Ross William Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, an online marketplace that sold illegal drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Ulbricht had been convicted of aiding and abetting the distribution of drugs over the internet, continuing criminal enterprise, computer hacking conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy. He had been sentenced to life in prison. (Ulbricht’s pardon fulfilled a Trump campaign promise.) Ulbricht was ordered to pay almost $184m.
  • HDR Global Trading Limited, operator of a cryptocurrency exchange that had been ordered to pay a $100m fine for violating the Bank Secrecy Act’s anti-money laundering provisions.
  • Lawrence Duran, owner of American Therapeutic Corp, a Miami-area mental health company, convicted of multiple counts related to healthcare fraud; Duran was sentenced to 50 years in prison and $87.5m in restitution.

However, it is unclear whether these four would add up to $1bn plus in forgone payments to the federal government, because not every amount listed had been formally approved by a judge.

“Almost always, a pardon has come after sentencing, so we know the amount of the fine or restitution with certainty,” said Mark Osler, a University of St Thomas law professor. But at least in Milton’s case, the pardon came before the restitution portion of his sentencing was completed.

Milton is the most important pardon recipient for judging the accuracy of Oyer’s statement, because it is the largest, accounting for about two-thirds of the $1bn figure.

He was sentenced in December 2023, but legal skirmishing over his restitution package was delayed. In March 2025, federal prosecutors requested that the judge approve about $676m in restitution – $660.8m to shareholders in his company and $15m to one victim. That request was pending at the time of Milton’s pardon.

It is impossible to know whether the judge would have ultimately accepted that amount.

Defendants can contest the prosecution’s restitution request, and they often do, said Frank O Bowman III, a University of Missouri emeritus law professor.

However, “a judge will usually accept” what the government suggests, Osler said.

For the second-, third- and fourth-ranking dollar amounts on Oyer’s list, each was finalised in court. For these, though, it is unclear whether the pardon recipients had already begun to pay any of their restitution. If they had, that could reduce the dollar amounts on Oyer’s list. (Our reporting did not turn up a central, publicly accessible repository showing who had paid what by the time of their pardon.)

Restitution owed by January 6, 2021, pardon recipients, which is not included in Oyer’s figure, could also push the total higher. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee said in a March 2025 letter that people receiving pardons related to January 6, 2021, owed nearly $3m in restitution before being pardoned.

Other high-profile names on Oyer’s list with smaller dollar amounts include: Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s former business partner, who was interviewed by congressional Republicans during an investigation of Joe Biden, Hunter’s father; Carlos Watson, the founder of Ozy Media Inc, who was convicted on several fraud counts; reality TV stars Todd Chrisley and Julie Chrisley, who were also convicted on fraud counts; and former politicians Michael Grimm, John Rowland, Michelle Fiore and Alexander Sittenfeld.

Oyer told The Washington Post that when deciding clemency, past presidents have hewed closer to the recommendations of her former Justice Department office, which has guidelines stating that potential pardon recipients should have already completed their sentence, including paying any restitution.

“It’s unprecedented for a president to grant pardons that have the effect of wiping out so much debt owed by people who have committed frauds,” Oyer told the Post. “They do not meet Justice Department standards for recommending a pardon.”

Legal experts told PolitiFact that courts have not ruled on what happens to fines or restitution payments after a pardon if they had not already been paid. A 1995 Justice Department memo said that although payments already made and received would not be subject to being clawed back, the obligations not yet paid at the time of the pardon would be forgiven.

“This question, to our knowledge, has not been decided by any court, but we conclude, based upon existing precedent, that a pardon does reach such restitution where the victim has not yet received the restitution award, provided the pardon does not contain an express limitation to the contrary,” the memo said.

Margaret Love, who held Oyer’s former post at the Justice Department from 1990 to 1997, said, “If money is paid to the government, you can’t get the money back except through a congressional appropriation.”

For restitution intended to compensate a person — such as the victim of a fraudulent scheme — it appears that the victims are out of luck once a pardon is issued if they have not received that money already, legal experts said. It is unclear whether the victims would be obliged to repay the restitution they had already received back to the pardoned convict who defrauded them.

“I don’t know if it has ever come up,” Osler said.

Our ruling

Oyer said, “President Trump has granted pardons that have wiped out over $1bn in debts owed by wealthy Americans who have committed fraud and broken the law.”

In 24 Trump pardons Oyer cited, the four biggest dollar amounts top $1bn. However, the single biggest – about $676m – relates to an amount sought by prosecutors that had not been formally approved by a judge before the pardon was issued, making the dollar figure speculative. It accounts for about two-thirds of the $1bn figure.

The statement is accurate but requires additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

Source link

Pope asks God to ‘open borders, breakdown barriers’ during papal mass

June 8 (UPI) — Pope Leo asked God to “open borders, break down walls and dispel hatred,” during Sunday mass with tens of thousands of people in St. Peter’s Square Sunday.

The pontiff has been critical of nationalist political movements and the “exclusionary mindset” they convey, but did not name a specific country or government.

“There is no room for prejudice , for ‘security zones’ separating us from our neighbors, for the exclusionary mindset that, unfortunately, we now see emerging in political nationalisms,” the pope said during the mass.

Leo added that the church “must open the borders between peoples and break down the barriers between class and race.”

“People must move beyond our fear of those who are different,” he continued, and said the Holy Spirit “breaks down barriers and tears down the walls of indifference and hatred.”

While the pontiff did not mention President Donald Trump by name, he has been critical of his administration and policies.

Prior to ascending to pope in May, Leo, formerly known as Cardinal Robert Prevost, routinely posted negative comments about Trump and vice-president JD Vance on social media. The Prevost X account was deactivated shortly after he became pope.

Prior to Leo, pope Francis, who died earlier this year, was also critical of Trump.

“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not a Christian,” Francis said about Trump when asked about him in 2016.

Source link

Marchers rally on the National Mall for WorldPride 2025

June 8 (UPI) — More than 1,000 people gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Sunday as part of WorldPride 2025 to protest what organizers called a “coordinated and systemic attack” on human rights.

The rally, which promotes LGBTQ+ visibility with events around the world and pushes back on an increasingly hostile attitude towards gay, lesbian and transgender people that organizers said has been stepped up under the Trump administration.

“Our fundamental freedoms — and our very democracy — are at risk,” a statement on the WorldPride website said. “And if we fail to recognize the urgency of this moment, we’ll only have ourselves to blame. Resist the marginalization and persecution of people just for being who they are.”

The Washington event, which saw marchers gather at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, is being hosted by DC’s Capital Pride Alliance, which is marking 50 years of celebrating Pride Month in the capital.

Marchers gathered near the Reflecting Pool at the Lincoln Memorial waving rainbow colored Pride flags representing transgender and bisexual communities and held up signs that read “Proud and Gay,” “Trans rights are human rights,” and “Gender affirming care saved my life.”

The rally and march on the National Mall came a day after a march through the streets of Washington. The Sunday event is scheduled to conclude with a festival and concert.

Former vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris made an unannounced appearance at the Sunday event.

Hundreds of people gathered along the parade route, and marchers waved rainbow flags and balloons as they gathered along the steps and columns of the National City Christian Church.

June is Pride Month and is celebrated this year amid President Donald Trump‘s push to remove transgender members from the military and roll back diversity, equity and inclusion policies at federal agencies and at universities that receive federal money.

Supporters of the LGBTQIA+ community march from the Lincoln Memorial to the U.S. Capitol as part of WorldPride 2025 in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, June 8, 2025. Photo by Leigh Vogel/UPI | License Photo

Source link

Trump-deployed National Guard arrives in LA to crush immigration protests | Protests News

US National Guard soldiers have begun deploying on Los Angeles streets after United States President Donald Trump sent in 2,000 troops in a bid to suppress protests against a wave of federal immigration raids in the region, sparking a sharp rebuke from California’s Democratic leadership.

Troops were seen early Sunday at the federal complex in downtown Los Angeles, including around the Metropolitan Detention Center, which has been a flashpoint over the past two days.

The deployment follows intense confrontations between demonstrators and federal agents near a Department of Homeland Security facility in Paramount, a city south of Los Angeles with a large Latino population.

The clashes erupted after federal authorities carried out mass arrests in several locations, including the city’s fashion district and a Home Depot store.

More than 100 people have been detained over the past week, according to immigration officials.

Trump accused of inflaming tensions

During Saturday’s confrontation, agents fired tear gas, stun grenades, and pepper balls, while protesters responded with rocks and debris. Fires burned in the streets as tensions spiralled.

“This deployment of National Guard troops was done in a very unusual manner,” said Rob Reynolds, Al Jazeera’s senior correspondent reporting from Los Angeles.

“Usually, the National Guard presence is requested by the governor of a state. In this case, Trump went around [California Governor Gavin] Newsom using a different provision of the law that allows him to nationalise the state National Guard and call it out in cases of insurrection against the United States government,” said Reynolds.

He added that many in the city, including community leaders and politicians, fear that the very presence of the National Guard “could constitute in and of itself a provocation, an inflammatory situation that might actually lead to more confrontations”.

“That’s certainly something that the leaders of this city do not want to see happen,” Reynolds said.

Newsom, who has long been at odds with Trump, condemned the move as “inflammatory” and warned it would only make the situation more combustible.

“They want a spectacle. Don’t give them one,” Newsom posted on X.

He accused the administration of using heavy-handed tactics to provoke unrest and distract from its controversial immigration agenda.

Trump has denounced the protests as “a form of rebellion”.

“There has long been a sense of antagonism between Trump and the state of California in general and also particularly against Newsom, who Trump refers to on social media by the somewhat juvenile nickname of Gavin New Scum. He was brandishing that nickname on social media earlier today,” Reynolds noted.

The White House defended the decision, saying the Guard was being sent to “address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester.”

Alexandra Miller, an immigration justice attorney at VECINA, a non-governmental organisation working on immigrant legal needs, said the raids by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are “incredibly concerning”, with local communities afraid of what they should do to defend their area.

“I think that’s exactly the point of the raids … to create a massive public fear tactic to undermine communities into demonstrating the force of the administration,” Miller told Al Jazeera.

While the US government has the authority to enforce immigration laws, the way that it is being handled is “disproportionate to the needs and priorities” that the government should have, Miller said.

“ICE and other federal authorities have to abide by the rules of due process and to ensure that migrants have the ability to defend themselves against removal and they’re not having that full due process [at] this moment,” she added.

The last deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles was in 1992, during the rioting triggered by the brutal police beating by white officers of Black motorist Rodney King, which was caught on video.

Robert Patillo, a civil and human rights attorney, called the president’s move to bypass the governor and call in troops as “unprecedented” in recent history.

“Normally, if federal troops are going to be used inside of states, it’s going to be at the invitation of the governor of that state. For example, in 1992, the California governor invited federal troops in to put down the LA riots. But if the governor, such as Gavin Newsom, has not asked for federal troops to come in, and these troops are coming in against his will, then there will be challenges,” he said.

In Compton, another site of protest, a vehicle was set alight, while in Paramount, hundreds of demonstrators rallied near a doughnut shop as police erected barriers of barbed wire. The protests extended into the night, with crowds also returning to federal buildings in central Los Angeles.

A car burns during a protest following federal immigration operations, in the Compton neighbourhood of Los Angeles, California on June 7, 2025. [File: Ringo Chiu/AFP]
A car burns during a protest following federal immigration operations, in the Compton neighbourhood of Los Angeles, California on June 7, 2025 [Ringo Chiu/AFP]

Police later declared an unlawful assembly and began making arrests.

In a further escalation, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that active-duty Marines based at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and could be mobilised if unrest continues.

Progressive Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said the Trump order captured  “a president moving this country rapidly into authoritarianism” and “usurping the powers of the United States Congress”.

Several Republican leaders voiced their support for the involvement of the National Guard.

Source link

Marines could be sent to L.A. protests, Hegseth says

June 8 (UPI) — The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department arrested one person overnight in Paramount, a city in Los Angeles County, amid ongoing protests against raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, officials said Sunday.

The sheriff’s department confirmed the arrest by email to UPI but did not provide any further details about the arrest.

More protests have been planned in Los Angeles ahead of the arrival of National Guardsmen called up by President Donald Trump to curb the demonstrations, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he might send in U.S. Marines if necessary to aid them.

“The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,” Hegseth said. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to UPI late Saturday that the administration has “a zero tolerance for criminal behavior and violence,” especially violence allegedly targeted at law enforcement.

Protesters clashed with police in riot gear in Los Angeles on Saturday as outrage mounted over a series of ICE raids carried out last week across southern California.

Trump then ordered 2,000 members of the National Guard to Los Angeles, later thanking them Saturday night for their “good job” in handling the protests.

“Great job by the National Guard in Los Angeles after two days of violence, clashes and unrest,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform. “These radical left protests, by instigators and often paid troublemakers, will not be tolerated.”

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said afterward on social media that no National Guardsmen had yet arrived. “Just to be clear, the National Guard has not been deployed in the City of Los Angeles,” she said.

Trump, who pardoned mask-wearing demonstrators who rioted at the U.S. Capitol in 2021, also said protesters would not be allowed to wear masks.

Demonstrators have criticized ICE officers for also wearing masks while conducting raids. Federal law does not explicitly forbid them from wearing masks but they are required by law to clearly identify themselves with badges or patches and to state their identity in an arrest.

“Masks will not be allowed to be worn at protests. What do these people have to hide, and why?” Trump said of the protesters. “Again, thank you to the National Guard for a job well done!” The streets were quiet in Los Angeles around 7 a.m. local time, The New York Times reported.

Meanwhile, the Northern California Coalition for Just Immigration Reform said Saturday that it would be organizing a protest rally outside the California State Capitol on Monday.

“The Trump administration’s baseless deployment of the National Guard is plainly retaliation against California, a stronghold for immigrant communities, and is akin to a declaration of war on all Californians,” the ACLU’s division in southern California said in a statement.

“The only threat to safety today is the masked goon squads that the Trump administration has deployed to terrorize the communities of Los Angeles County,” the organization said.



Source link

Los Angeles unrest: Is Trump allowed to deploy National Guard troops? | Protests News

United States President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of 2,000 members of the National Guard to Los Angeles County to quell protests against coordinated immigration raids, bypassing the authority of the governor of California.

The extraordinary development came on Saturday, the second day of protests, amid clashes between law enforcement officers and demonstrators in the city.

The Los Angeles Police Department said Saturday’s demonstrations were peaceful and that “the day concluded without incident”. But in the two cities south of Los Angeles, Compton and Paramount, street battles broke out between protesters and police who used tear gas and flashbangs to disperse the crowds.

Local authorities did not request federal assistance. On the contrary, California Governor Gavin Newsom called Trump’s decision to call in National Guard troops “purposefully inflammatory”.

He accused the Trump administration of ordering the deployment “not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle”.

How did it start?

It all started on Friday, when law enforcement officials in full riot gear descended on Los Angeles, rounding up day labourers at a building supply shop.

The raids, part of a military-style operation, signalled a step up in the Trump administration’s use of force in its crackdown against undocumented immigrants. The arrests were carried out without judicial warrants, according to multiple legal observers and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Department of Homeland Security said more than 100 undocumented immigrants have been arrested in two days of raids across southern California.

After word spread through southern Los Angeles of immigration agents arresting people, residents came out to show their outrage, and a police crackdown followed.

What is the National Guard?

It is made up of part-time soldiers who can be used at the state and federal levels. Under the authority of state governors, National Guard troops can be deployed to respond to emergencies, such as the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. It can also be used to tackle social unrest when local police are overwhelmed.

During times of war or national emergencies, the federal government can order a deployment for military service – that is, when the National Guard is federalised and serves under the control of the president.

Can the president deploy the National Guard in a state?

The president can federalise, or take control of, the National Guard in very specific cases.

The main legal mechanism that a president can use to send military forces is the Insurrection Act to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and civil disorder within the country. If certain conditions are met, the president can send in the National Guard, bypassing the authority of the governor, though that is rare and politically sensitive.

Following the breakout of protests in Los Angeles, Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act, but rather a specific provision of the US Code on Armed Services. It says National Guard troops can be placed under federal command when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority” of the US.

But the law also says “orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors” of the states, making it not clear whether Trump had the legal authority to bypass Newsom.

Trump’s directive ordering the deployment of troops said “protests or acts of violence” directly inhibiting the execution of the laws would “constitute a form of rebellion” against the government.

According to Robert Patillo, a civil and human rights lawyer, Trump’s order will likely face legal challenges.

“Normally, federal troops are going to be used inside states at the invitation of the governor of that state,” he told Al Jazeera, citing the 1992 riots in Los Angeles, which were put down by federal troops invited by Pete Wilson, then-governor of California.

“But if the governor, such as Gavin Newsom, has not asked for federal troops to come in, and these troops are coming in against his will, then there will be challenges … and this will have to go to the Supreme Court in order to determine who has a legal right to deploy those troops,” Patillo said.

Is it the first time Trump has activated the National Guard?

In 2020, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to respond to the protests that followed the killing by a Minneapolis police officer of George Floyd. Then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper pushed back, saying active-duty troops in a law enforcement role should be used “only in the most urgent and dire of situations”.

Finally, Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act and asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, DC. Those who refused to send them were allowed to do so.

But this time around, Trump has already signalled his unwillingness to hold back on calling in troops. When on the campaign trail in 2023, Trump told supporters in Iowa that he would not be waiting for a governor to be asked to send in troops as during his first term.

“The next time, I’m not waiting,” he said.

Source link

Democrats wooing Musk after the Trump breakup is US plutocracy at its best | Donald Trump

It’s official: United States President Donald Trump and the world’s richest person, Elon Musk, have broken up.

At the end of last month, Musk departed from his post as the head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), where he oversaw the mass firing of federal employees and dismantling of various government agencies – all the while benefitting from his own companies’ lucrative contracts with the government.

Anyway, US “democracy” has never met a conflict of interest it didn’t like.

Musk’s service at the White House initially appeared to end on an amicable note as Trump praised him for the “colossal change” he had achieved “in the old ways of doing business in Washington”. The former head of DOGE in turn thanked the president for the opportunity.

But soon after his departure, Musk publicly criticised the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, a tax and spending bill that Trump is currently obsessed with passing, slamming it as a “disgusting abomination”.

There ensued predictably dramatic social media exchanges between the two right-wing billionaires with Trump pronouncing Musk “so depressed and so heartbroken” after leaving the White House and offering the additional coherent analysis:

“ It’s sort of Trump derangement syndrome. We have it with others, too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour’s gone. The whole world is different, and they become hostile.”

Musk has repeatedly taken credit for Trump’s 2024 election victory on account of the gobs of money he donated to the president’s campaign and those of other Republican candidates. Now that the relationship is over, Trump has wasted no time in warning Musk that he’ll face “very serious consequences” if he chooses to fund Democratic campaigns in the future.

But some Democratic ears, at least, have perked up at the possibility of getting the planet’s richest person back on their side – which he abandoned in favour of Trump after having extended support to Democratic former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The political switcheroo was hardly extreme. At the end of the day, ideology matters little when you’re just in the business of buying power.

California Congressman Ro Khanna, for example, recently opined that Democrats should “be in a dialogue” with Musk in light of their shared opposition to Trump’s big beautiful bill.

As per Khanna’s view, “we should ultimately be trying to convince [Musk] that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with.” He went on to list a few of these alleged values: “A commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.”

Never mind that Musk’s main “value” is a commitment to controlling as much of the earth – not to mention the whole solar system – as he possibly can for the benefit of himself and himself alone. Beyond his mass firing activities while head of DOGE, a brief review of Musk’s entrepreneurial track record reveals a total lack of the “values” that Democrats purport to espouse.

Over recent years, reports have abounded of sexual harassment and acute racism at Musk’s Tesla car factories. In October 2021, a federal jury in San Francisco ordered Tesla to pay $137m to a Black former employee who claimed he was told to “go back to Africa” among other abuses suffered at his workplace.

Along with violating federal labour laws, Musk as chief executive of Tesla threatened workers over the prospect of unionisation. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, he violated local regulations to keep his factories up and running, underscoring a general contempt for human life that, again, should not be a “value” that anyone aspires to.

To be sure, not all Democrats are on board with the proposal to woo Musk back into the Democratic camp – but he may be getting a growing cheering squad. In addition to Khanna’s advocacy on his behalf, New York Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres seems prepared to give Musk his vote as well: “I’m a believer in redemption, and he is telling the truth about the [big beautiful] legislation.”

Anthony Scaramucci, Trump’s former White House director of communications, has, meanwhile, suggested that Democrats could “bring Elon Musk back into the fold as a prodigal son” by foregoing more left-wing policies – as if there’s anything truly left-wing about the Democratic Party in the first place.

Newsweek’s write-up of Scaramucci’s comments observed that “It would be a coup for Democrats if they could court the influence of the world’s richest man once more.” It would not, obviously, be a coup for democracy, which is supposed to be rule by the people and not by money.

And yet a longstanding bipartisan commitment to plutocracy means the US has never been in danger of true democracy. Instead, billions upon billions of dollars are spent to sustain an electoral charade and ensure that capital remains concentrated in the hands of the few – while Americans continue to literally die of poverty.

Now it remains to be seen whether the Trump-Musk breakup will drive Democrats into Musk’s arms. But either way, the country’s plutocratic values remain rock solid – and that is nothing less than a “disgusting abomination”.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Source link

Democrats are busy bashing themselves. Needed, or just needy?

To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there.

But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president.

Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend’s state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris’ 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing.

Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out.

Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts?

Barabak: I’ll start by noting this is the first convention I’ve attended — and I’ve been to dozensrated “R” for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome.

I’ve covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don’t recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, “I have a [expletive deleted] dream.” Both were pretty darned effective leaders.

Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn’t going to win them back the White House or control of Congress.

Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I’m not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand “toxic.” Walz told his fellow Dems: “We’re in this mess because some of it’s our own doing.”

It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I’m not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance.

I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I’m starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris’ loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values?

Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why.

That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election.

This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It’s not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness.

Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection.

In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected.

Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: “A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study.”

Sound familar?

So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout.

Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one.

I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it’s all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don’t like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don’t want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won’t hold the line until the midterms.

They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there’s a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation.

Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it?

Barabak: No, and no.

I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000.

But Trump’s margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn’t even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%.

As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute’s Yuval Levin, who noted Trump’s victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century.

Challengers “win elections because their opponents were unpopular,” Levin wrote, “and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists’ agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular.”

It’s a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028.

But Levin is sure looking smart.

Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I’d argue that Harris wasn’t resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some.

Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy “maybe” period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable.

But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.”

Sometimes there’s truth in anger. Musk’s money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn’t resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication?

Barabak:

Chabria: Mark?

Barabak: Sorry.

I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world’s richest man going all neener-neener with the world’s most powerful man I lost track of where we were.

With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It’s not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage.

Then, come 2028, they’ll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment.

Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox.

Source link

Los Angeles unrest persists as protesters rally against migrant arrests | Protests News

Federal agents have fired flashbangs and tear gas towards crowds angered by the arrests of dozens of migrants in Los Angeles, United States, a city with a large Latino population.

The Department for Homeland Security said Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in Los Angeles this week had led to the arrest of “118 aliens, including five gang members”.

The standoff came on Saturday in the suburb of Paramount, where demonstrators gathered outside a reported federal facility, which the local mayor said was being used as a staging post by agents.

On Friday, masked and armed immigration agents carried out high-profile workplace raids across different parts of Los Angeles, drawing angry crowds and causing hours-long standoffs.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass acknowledged that some residents were “feeling fear” following the federal actions.

“Everyone has the right to peacefully protest, but let me be clear: violence and destruction are unacceptable, and those responsible will be held accountable,” she said on X.

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said multiple arrests had been made after Friday’s clashes.

“You bring chaos, and we’ll bring handcuffs. Law and order will prevail,” he said on X.

The White House has taken a firm stance against the protests, with deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller describing them as “an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States”.

Source link

Donald Trump gets astonishing reaction at UFC 316 amid Elon Musk row before stunning gesture by winner Merab Dvalishvili

DONALD TRUMP has made a surprise appearance at UFC 316 – but this time Elon Musk was nowhere to be seen.

The President was cageside to watch Merab Dvalishvili’s title scrap with Sean O’Malley on Saturday night.

Donald Trump and Dana White at a UFC event.

9

Donald Trump joined Dana White (left) at UFC 316 in New JerseyCredit: Reuters
Merab Dvalishvili holding up the UFC championship belt after a victory.

9

Merab Dvalishvili celebrated with the President after his win in the main eventCredit: Reuters
Donald Trump and Dana White at a UFC event.

9

The President was joined by a host of family membersCredit: AFP
Kayla Harrison and Donald Trump at a UFC event.

9

Kayla Harrison was among those to welcome Trump cagesideCredit: Getty
Donald Trump shaking hands with Sean O'Malley after a UFC match.

9

He was also seen commiserating with Sean O’Malley after his loss to DvalishviliCredit: AFP
Mike Tyson at a UFC event.

9

Boxing legend Mike Tyson was seated behind Trump in New JerseyCredit: AFP

Trump was flanked by UFC kingpin Dana White in a one-man entourage as he entered the arena in Newark, New Jersey.

He received loud cheers from the capacity crowd at the Prudential Center before taking his seat close to boxing icon Mike Tyson.

Trump shook hands with former NFL stars Will Compton and Taylor Lewan as he settled in to watch a packed main card.

Son Eric, daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner were also in the audience, as well as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The 47th President arrived in New Jersey on Friday, where he stayed at his golf course in Bedminster.

Trump was on the end of a high five from Kevin Holland after his submission victory against fellow welterweight Vicente Luque.

And he later shared words of encouragement to Georgian star Dvalishvili following an epic end to the main event.

Trump’s appearance was also notable for the absence of former sidekick Elon Musk.

His relationship with the world’s richest man disintegrated earlier this week.

The former allies battled it out on social media after disagreeing on Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’, with the President claiming Elon had “gone crazy”.

I’m an ex-UFC champ who has quit masturbating and smoking weed to try win my belt back at UFC 316,

Musk, who is worth an estimated $330 billion, was a major contributor to Trump’s presidential campaign.

He reportedly spent $250 million in supporting the Republican’s race for the White House last year.

Musk accompanied Trump to his last UFC showing in April.

The President was given a thunderous reception as he entered the arena for UFC 314 in Miami, Florida.

But prior to Saturday’s action, Trump indicated his working relationship with Musk was irreparable.

“I’m too busy doing other things. I won an election in a landslide,” he said.

“I gave [Musk] a lot of breaks, long before this happened.

“I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him.”

Photo of Donald Trump, Kid Rock, and Elon Musk together.

9

Elon Musk (right) accompanied Trump to his last UFC event in AprilCredit: AFP

Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s complicated relationship

Former president Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s relationship started rocky, but the pair have since reconciled, with Musk fully endorsing Trump and interviewing him on X Spaces on August 12.

In 2022, Elon Musk and Donald Trump publicly feuded on X, then still known as Twitter.

Trump called Musk a liar and “bulls**t artist” during a rally in Alaska.

“Elon is not going to buy Twitter,” Trump said at the time.

“You know, he said the other day, ‘I’ve never voted for a Republican.’ I said, ‘I didn’t know that – you told me you voted for me. So he’s another bulls**t artist, but he’s not going to be buying it.”

In response to Trump’s critiques, the SpaceX founder clapped back.

“I don’t hate the man, but it’s time for Trump to hang up his hat & sail into the sunset,” Musk posted.

Musk also went on to buy X months later.

The X owner said he had previously voted mostly for Democrats since becoming a United States citizen in 2002.

Musk initially backed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to be the Republican Party’s presidential nominee.

“My preference for the 2024 presidency is someone sensible and centrist,” Musk wrote on X in 2022.

“I had hoped that would [be] the case for the Biden administration, but have been disappointed so far.”

His shift in political parties might be attributed to his plummeting relationship with President Joe Biden who didn’t invite Musk to the 2021 White House electric vehicle summit.

Despite their past issues, Trump and Musk’s relationship took a turn in March after they met at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump was also previously against electric vehicles but has since changed his stance.

“I’m for electric cars,” he said at a rally earlier this month.

“I have to be, because Elon endorsed me very strongly. So I have no choice.”

Following the assassination attempt at Trump’s rally in July, Musk announced his support for the former president.

“I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery,” Musk wrote on X after the shooting.

During a recent press conference, Trump spoke highly of Musk.

“I respect Elon a lot. He respects me,” he said.

“Elon, more than almost anybody I know, he loves this country. He loves the concept of this country, but like me, he says this country is in big trouble, it’s in tremendous danger.”

Musk has been pictured at events at Mar-a-Lago and the UFC, buddying up with Trump.

Trump selected Musk to lead the Department of Government Efficiency – a taskforce aimed at cutting bureaucracy.

In the Octagon, it was a night to remember for Dvalishvili, who proved too strong for O’Malley in their main event rematch.

The reigning bantamweight champion secured his first-ever UFC submission following a brutal choke-out.

And he celebrated by vaulting out of the Octagon for a handshake and words with Trump.

The President also shook hands with a devastated O’Malley, who was able to leave the Octagon under his own steam after the choke.

“He was well trained, he was well prepared, and I knew that he was going to make changes,” Dvalishvili told reporters after the third round win.

“Every time I lost I made big changes and I learned from it.

“But I’m getting better and better. I wasn’t showing this technique [before] and I have more tools in my pocket I’m still working on, and then little by little I will show.

“Now it’s my time.”

Elsewhere on the main card, there were also wins for Kayla Harrison, Joe Pyfer, Holland, and Mario Bautista.

Donald Trump waving to a crowd.

9

Trump was given a hero’s welcome by the crowdCredit: Getty
Kevin Holland shaking hands with Donald Trump at a UFC event.

9

Kevin Holland shook hands with Trump after beating Vicente LuqueCredit: Reuters

Source link