resolution

More than a month after he was arrested on suspicion of felony assault with a deadly weapon with great bodily injury, UCLA backup quarterback Pierce Clarkson has taken a major step toward being able to resolve his case while avoiding charges altogether.

After the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office referred the case to the L.A. City Attorney for possible misdemeanor consideration, the latter agency has decided to handle the matter via a city attorney hearing, according to Ivor Pine, deputy director of communications for the City Attorney.

A city attorney hearing is an informal proceeding that allows individuals who face certain misdemeanors to resolve their situation with a hearing officer without a criminal filing.

The resolution of such hearings, including conditions imposed to remediate and rehabilitate, are fact-dependent and vary matter to matter, according to Pine. If the participant successfully complies with the conditions, the case is diverted and no charges are filed. If the participant fails to comply, then criminal charges may be filed.

A UCLA athletic department spokesperson said Tuesday evening that there was no update on Clarkson’s status with the team. He had been suspended from all team activities pending the resolution of legal proceedings after his Sept. 5 arrest.

Before his suspension, Clarkson had been one of the top backups to quarterback Nico Iamaleava. The son of quarterback guru Steve Clarkson, Pierce Clarkson had transferred to UCLA this offseason after having spent last spring at Mississippi. The former St. John Bosco High standout spent his first two college seasons at Louisville, where he played sparingly.

Luke Duncan has been UCLA’s top backup in Clarkson’s absence, playing briefly at the end of the Bruins’ victory over Michigan State.

Published on
08/10/2025 – 18:10 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

It’s a narrow win — but a win nonetheless — for the opponents of the controversial trade agreement reached with the Mercosur countries in December 2024.

A show of hands from European lawmakers on Wednesday saw 269 of them reject a paragraph of a resolution on the EU’s political strategy for Latin America that welcomed the conclusion of the Mercosur agreement — offering a preview of the showdown taking shape in the European Parliament over the controversial trade deal.

The Strasbourg vote was decided by just 10 votes, as 259 other MEPs voted in favour, reflecting a divided hemicycle over this controversial agreement.

“The European Parliament is once again expressing its scepticism about the trade agreement with Mercosur,” French MEP Pascal Canfin (Renew) wrote in a post on LinkedIn.

“The political signal is very clear: there are more MEPs who have profound doubts about the merits of this agreement than MEPs who want it adopted immediately.”

The European Commission, which had been at the helm during more than twenty years of negotiations for this agreement, submitted it for ratification to the Council and for its consent to the European Parliament on 3 September.

However, it remains uncertain whether the final step for the EU to conclude the agreement will proceed smoothly.

The deal, which liberalises trade between Mercosur countries — Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — and the EU, reduces tariffs on many products, including some agricultural goods, raising concerns among European farmers about facing unfair competition from Latin American producers.

‘We will continue fighting’

In the Parliament, a group of lawmakers is preparing to submit a resolution to their colleagues calling for the EU Court of Justice to be seized to suspend the deal’s approval.

Opponents of the agreement also fear that Mercosur countries will not comply with European phytosanitary and environmental standards.

The agreement “abandons agriculture and livestock, harms the environment, fuels deforestation, rolls out the red carpet for extractive multinationals,” Spanish MEP Irene Montero (The Left), who prompted the vote on Wednesday, told Euronews.

“We will continue fighting to ensure that this agreement is not ratified and to stop the danger it poses to the environment and our primary sector.”

Supporters of the deal argue, on the other hand, that this text — which creates a free trade area of 700 million people — is necessary in the new global trade context to face Chinese competition in Mercosur countries and diversify trading partners, especially as the US is raising tariff barriers around its market.

The part of the resolution that was rejected welcomed the conclusion of the deal’s negotiations, highlighting “the fact that the agreement would be a real game changer for the relationship between the two regions.”

The deal “would be the largest trade agreement ever signed by the EU in terms of population, covering more than 700 million citizens, and the most significant in terms of its economic impact,” the resolution emphasised.

The resolution also stressed the “geopolitical value” of the deal, “as an essential tool for advancing the EU’s strategic interests in the current international context.”

The plenary vote on the Mercosur agreement itself has not yet been scheduled. A source familiar with the matter told Euronews that the European Parliament’s administration hopes it will be on the MEPs’ agenda by the end of the year.

WASHINGTON — Washington is barreling toward a government shutdown Tuesday night, with few signs of an off-ramp as Democrats and Republicans dig in for a fight over government spending.

Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill is insisting on an extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits as part of a package to fund the government. At least seven Democratic votes are needed in the Senate to pass a seven-week stopgap bill that cleared the House last week.

But Republican lawmakers and the White House have dismissed the proposal, with senior officials in the Trump administration threatening to use unique legal authorities granted during a government shutdown to conduct yet more mass firings of federal workers.

Bipartisan congressional leadership met with President Trump at the White House on Monday afternoon in a last-minute effort to avert the crisis. But neither side exited the meeting with expectations of a breakthrough. On the contrary, Republican leaders in the House told the GOP caucus to plan to return to work next week and said they would hold a news conference on Wednesday anticipating the government’s closure.

“We are not going to support a partisan Republican spending bill that continues to gut the healthcare of everyday Americans, period, full stop,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Monday.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer talk to reporters outside the White House.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

Vice President JD Vance said he thought the country was “headed to a shutdown,” labeling Democratic calls for healthcare tax credits an “absurd” demand that amounts to an “excuse for shutting down the people’s government.”

“You don’t use your policy disagreements as leverage to not pay our troops,” Vance said. “That’s exactly what they’re proposing out there.”

When the government shuts down, the law requires all nonessential government services to cease, requiring most federal workers to go on furlough or work without pay. Essential services — such as national security functions and air traffic control — are not affected.

Ahead of the meeting, Trump told reporters he hoped Democrats would agree to “keeping our country open,” before proceeding to criticize their proposals.

“They’re going to have to do some things, because their ideas are not very good ones,” Trump said. “They’re very bad for our country. So we’ll see how that works out.”

But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he thought his message was beginning to resonate with the president after their meeting Monday afternoon.

“We have very large differences, on healthcare, and on their ability to undo whatever budget we agree to, through rescissions and through impoundment,” Schumer said. “I think for the first time, the president heard our objections and heard why we needed a bipartisan bill. Their bill has not one iota of Democratic input. That is never how we’ve done this before.”

“We’ve made to the president some proposals,” Schumer added. “Ultimately, he’s a decision-maker.”

Schumer faced widespread ridicule from within his party in March after reversing course during the last showdown, choosing then to support the Trump administration’s continuing resolution to fund the government at the height of an aggressive purge of the federal workforce.

At that point, Schumer feared a shutdown could accelerate the firings. But Schumer is now defiant, despite the renewed threat of layoffs, after the White House Office of Management and Budget circulated a memo last week directing federal agencies to relieve workers on discretionary projects that lose funding after Oct. 1.

“This is an attempt at intimidation,” Schumer said in response to the memo. “Donald Trump has been firing federal workers since day one — not to govern, but to scare. This is nothing new and has nothing to do with funding the government.”

Vice President JD Vance talks to reporters as House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune listen.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

Still, Schumer began gauging his caucus Monday afternoon on the prospects of a continuing resolution that would in effect delay a shutdown by a week, briefly extending government funding in order to continue negotiations.

Betting markets had chances of a shutdown soaring above 70% by the end of the day on Monday.

Speaking to Fox News on Monday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the president’s position was “the reasonable and commonsense thing to do,” calling on Democrats to continue funding to the military and its veterans.

“All we are asking for is a commonsense, clean funding resolution — a continuing resolution — to keep the government open,” Leavitt said. “This is a bill that keeps the government funded at the exact same levels as today, just adjusted for inflation.”

“So there is zero good reason for the Democrats to vote against this,” she added. “The president is giving Democrat leadership one last chance to be reasonable.”

But Jeffries dismissed Leavitt as “divorced from reality” in a podcast interview.

“In what world will any rational American conclude, after we’ve been lectured throughout the year about this so-called mandate that the Republican Party has in this country, and their complete control of government in Washington, that because Democrats are unwilling to gut the healthcare of the American people as part of the Republican healthcare crisis, that it’s us shutting the government down?” Jeffries said.

“Nobody’s buying that,” he continued, “outside of the parts of the MAGA base who basically, seemingly, will buy anything that Donald Trump has to peddle.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he would call a vote on funding the government Tuesday afternoon.

“This is purely and simply hostage-taking,” Thune said Monday. Whether it passes or fails, he said, is “up to the Democrats.”

Four countries vote to stop sanctions from being reintroduced, while nine vote against sanctions relief.

The United Nations Security Council has voted not to permanently lift economic sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme, delivering a major economic blow that Tehran claims is “politically biased”.

A resolution on Friday to block the sanctions fell in the Security Council by a vote of four to nine, meaning European sanctions will return by September 28 if no significant deal is reached beforehand.

Russia, China, Pakistan and Algeria voted to stop the sanctions from being reintroduced, while nine UNSC members voted against sanctions relief. Two countries abstained.

The vote follows a 30-day process launched in late August by Britain, France and Germany – known as the E3 – to reinstate sanctions unless Tehran meets their demands.

Iran says Europeans ‘misusing JCPOA mechanism’

Iranian officials have accused the European trio of abusing the dispute mechanism contained in the 2015 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which allows for the application of sanctions under a “snapback mechanism”.

“What Europeans are doing is politically biased and politically motivated … They are wrong on different levels by trying to misuse the mechanism embedded in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),” Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh said.

The Europeans offered to delay the snapback for up to six months if Iran restored access for UN nuclear inspectors and engaged in talks with the US.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed that Tehran had presented a “reasonable and actionable plan” and insisted Iran remains committed to the NPT.

But the E3 accuse Tehran of breaching their nuclear commitments, including by building up a uranium stockpile of more than 40 times the level permitted under the JCPOA. The UN’s nuclear watchdog board also ruled back in June that Iran was not respecting international nuclear safeguards.

‘Clock is ticking for high-level diplomacy’

The UNSC vote allowing sanctions to snap back is not the complete “end of negotiations,” as the parties have just over a week to come up with a last-ditch deal, said Al Jazeera’s Diplomatic Editor James Bays, reporting from the UN.

“It’s the week where world leaders are all here in New York for the high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly, so it sets the stage for high-level diplomacy between Iran and particularly the three European countries,” said Bays. But “we’re reaching the end of this high-stakes diplomacy, and the clock really is ticking.”

Under the JCPOA – signed by Iran, the United States, China, Russia and the EU – Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. But the agreement unravelled in 2018 after then-US President Donald Trump pulled out and reimposed unilateral sanctions.

Tensions escalated further earlier this summer, when Israel launched a 12-day war on Iran, with Israeli and US forces striking several nuclear facilities.

Iran has repeatedly denied pursuing nuclear weapons but affirmed its right to peacefully pursue nuclear energy.

The United Nations General Assembly has endorsed a resolution reviving a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. It also calls for Hamas to end its rule in Gaza. Israel and the United States were among the 10 members who voted against it.

Sept. 6 (UPI) — South Korea might send a government official to Washington to resolve issues after hundreds of South Koreans were arrested at an under-construction Hyundai battery plant in Georgia.

South Korean officials convened an emergency meeting following the Thursday raid by federal agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and other law enforcement, who arrested 457 “unlawful aliens” working at the electric vehicle battery plant in Bryan County, Ga.

About 300 are South Koreans, who were working at the plant run by the HL-GA Battery Co., which is jointly owned by South Korean firms Hyundai Motor Co. and LG Energy Solution Ltd.

“We are deeply concerned and feel a heavy sense of responsibility over the arrests of our nationals,” South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun said during the meeting.

“If necessary, I will personally travel to Washington to hold consultations with the U.S. administration,” Cho said.

Homeland Security Investigations said the raid was the largest in its history and occurred after investigating the plant for several months, NPR reported.

Most of those who were arrested are being held at a Folkston, Ga., detention center, many of whom have expired visas or entered the United States via a waiver program that does not allow them to work.

Officials with LG Energy Solution have suspended all the company’s business-related trips to the United States and have encouraged employees in the United States to either stay at their places of residence or return to South Korea.

Construction on the battery plant has stopped, and HL-GA Battery officials are cooperating with U.S. investigators.

Sept. 3 (UPI) — Five Republicans in the House joined Democrats Wednesday to block an effort to censure Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., over a confrontation with immigration officers in her district.

Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., sponsored a resolution that would have condemned McIver’s actions in May and removed her from her position on the House Homeland Security Committee. The House voted 215-207 to table the measure, with Republican Reps. Don Bacon and Mike Flood of Nebraska, Dave Joyce and Mike Turner of Ohio, and David Valadao of California voting against the censure along with all Democrats. Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., and Rep. Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas, voted present.

Turner’s representative said he mistakenly voted against the resolution, which would not have changed the outcome of the vote, Politico reported.

McIver faces three federal charges for allegedly assaulting and interfering with immigration officers outside the Delaney Hall Federal Immigration Facility in Newark, N.J., during a congressional visit on May 9. U.S. Attorney Alina Habra said McIver forcibly grabbed and slammed an agent with her forearm and struck a second agent.

The counts carry up to eight years in prison if she’s convicted. She pleaded not guilty to the charges during her arraignment in June.

Along with McIver at the oversight inspection were Newark Mayor Ray Baraka, and Democratic Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez of New Jersey. Authorities initially arrested Baraka but later dropped the charges against him.

Democrats have called the charges and censure politically motivated. McIver’s lawyers said she didn’t commit any crimes and was simply carrying out her duties as a member of Congress attempting to inspect the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement facility, but federal agents reacted recklessly and disproportionately.

Garbarino said he voted no on the censure because he believes the Ethics Committee should review the matter. Bacon agreed.

“I don’t support the censure of Rep. LaMonica McIver because I want the Ethics Committee to finish their report on this matter,” he said.

Higgins said McIver was to blame for him pushing the vote, according to Roll Call.

“Had she withdrawn from the Homeland Security Committee, I certainly wouldn’t have offered a resolution, even though censure [is] legitimate and called for,” he said.

Israel has engaged in systematic crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide in Gaza, according to a resolution by members of the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

The group says there is clear intent to expel Palestinians from the Gaza Strip – by bombardment, starvation and forced displacement.

The assessment comes months after the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes.

And there’s a case at the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocide.

So what tangible results can come from this new accusation?

Presenter:

James Bays

Guests:

Andrew Gilmour – Former United Nations assistant secretary-general for human rights

Ori Goldberg – Political analyst specialising in the Middle East

Jonathan Kuttab – Palestinian human rights lawyer

MINNEAPOLIS — Ken Martin is in the fight of his life.

The low-profile political operative from Minnesota, just six months on the job as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is charged with leading his party’s formal resistance to President Trump and fixing the Democratic brand.

“I think the greatest divide right now in our party, frankly, is not ideological,” Martin told The Associated Press. “The greatest divide is those people who are standing up and fighting and those who are sitting on the sidelines.”

“We’re using every single lever of power we have to take the fight to Donald Trump,” he said of the DNC.

And yet, as hundreds of Democratic officials gather in Martin’s Minneapolis hometown on Monday for the first official DNC meeting since he became chair, there is evidence that Martin’s fight may extend well beyond the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Big Democratic donors are unhappy with the direction of their own party and not writing checks. Political factions are fragmented over issues such as the Israel-Hamas war. The party’s message is murky. Key segments of the Democratic base — working-class voters and young people, among them — have drifted away.

And there is deep frustration that the Democratic Party under Martin’s leadership is not doing enough to stop the Republican president — no matter how tough his rhetoric may be.

“There are no magic fixes,” said Jeanna Repass, the chair of the Kansas Democratic Party, who praised Martin’s performance so far. “He is trying to lead at a time where everyone wants it to be fixed right now. And it’s just not going to happen.”

At this week’s three-day summer meeting, DNC officials hope to make real progress in reversing the sense of pessimism and frustration that has consumed Democrats since Republicans seized the White House and control of Congress last fall.

It may not be so easy.

Confidence questions and money trouble

At least a couple of DNC members privately considered bringing a vote of no confidence against Martin this week in part because of the committee’s underwhelming fundraising, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation who was granted anonymity to share internal discussions. Ultimately, the no confidence vote will not move forward because Martin’s critics couldn’t get sufficient support from the party’s broader membership, which includes more than 400 elected officials from every state and several territories.

Still, the committee’s financial situation is weak compared with the opposition’s.

The most recent federal filings reveal that the DNC has $14 million in the bank at the end of July compared with the Republican National Committee’s $84 million. The Democrats’ figure represents its lowest level of cash on hand in at least the last five years.

Martin and his allies, including his predecessor Jaime Harrison, insist it’s not fair to compare the party’s current financial health with recent years, when Democratic President Joe Biden was in the White House.

Harrison pointed to 2017 as a more accurate comparison. That year, the committee struggled to raise money in the months after losing to Trump the first time. And in the 2018 midterm elections that followed, Harrison noted, Democrats overcame their fundraising problems and won the House majority and several Senate seats.

“These are just the normal pains of being a Democrat when we don’t have the White House,” Harrison said. “Ken is finding his footing.”

Martin acknowledged that big donors are burnt out after the last election, which has forced the committee to turn to smaller-dollar donors, who have responded well.

“Money will not be the ultimate determinant in this (midterm) election,” Martin said. “We’ve been making investments, record investments, in our state parties. … We have the money to operate. We’re not in a bad position.”

Gaza debate could get ugly

While Martin is broadly popular among the DNC’s rank and file, internal divisions may flare publicly this week when the committee considers competing resolutions about the Israel-Hamas war.

One proposed resolution would have the DNC encourage Democratic members of Congress to suspend military aid to Israel, establish an arms embargo and recognize Palestine as a country, according to draft language reviewed by the AP. The measure also states that the crisis in Gaza has resulted in the loss of over 60,000 lives and the displacement of 1.7 million Palestinians “at the hands of the Israeli government.”

The DNC leadership, led by Martin, introduced a competing resolution that adds more context about Israel’s challenges.

One line, for example, refers to “the suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis” and notes the number of Israelis killed in Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Martin’s version calls for a two-state solution, but there is no reference to the number of Palestinians killed or displaced, nor is there a call for an end to military aid or an arms embargo.

Meanwhile, another proposed resolution would reaffirm the DNC’s commitment to “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Many Democrats, businesses and educational institutions have distanced themselves from DEI programs after Trump and other Republicans attacked them as Democrats’ “woke” policies.

Ultimately, Martin said the party needs to focus its message on the economy.

“There’s no doubt we have to get back to a message that resonates with voters,” he said. “And focusing on an economic agenda is the thing that brings all parts of our coalition and Americans into the conversation.”

“We have work to do for sure,” he added.

Presidential prospects on the agenda

The DNC is years away from deciding which states vote first on the 2028 presidential primary calendar, but that discussion will begin in earnest at the Minneapolis gathering, where at least three presidential prospects will be featured speakers: Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

Martin said the DNC is open to changes from the 2024 calendar, which kicked off in South Carolina, while pushing back traditional openers Iowa and New Hampshire. In recent days, Iowa Democrats have publicly threatened to go rogue and ignore the wishes of the DNC if they are skipped over again in 2028.

The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws committee this week is expected to outline what the next calendar selection process would look like, although the calendar itself likely won’t be completed until 2027.

“We’re going to make sure that the process is open, that any state that wants to make a bid to be in the early window can do so,” Martin said.

Peoples writes for the Associated Press.

After a tense and sharply divided debate Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council voted to oppose a state bill that aims to vastly expand high-density housing near public transit hubs, arguing that the state should leave important planning decisions to local legislators.

The council voted 8 to 5 to oppose Senate Bill 79, which seeks to mitigate the state’s housing shortage by allowing buildings of up to nine stories near certain train stops and slightly smaller buildings near some bus stops throughout California.

“A one-size-fits-all mandate from Sacramento is not safe, and it’s not responsible,” said City Councilmember Traci Park at a news conference before the vote.

Park, who was joined at the news conference by Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and John Lee, said the bill was an attempt by its sponsor, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), and other state legislators to “hijack” local planning from the city.

Lee, who authored the resolution opposing the bill, called it “not planning” but “chaos.”

Wiener lamented the City Council’s vote.

“Opponents of SB 79 are offering no real solutions to address our housing shortage at the scale needed to make housing more affordable,” Wiener said in a statement. “California’s affordability crisis threatens our economy, our diversity, and our fundamental strength as a state.”

In addition to creating more affordable housing, the bill would increase public transit ridership, reduce traffic and help the state meet its climate goals, he said.

Councilmember Nithya Raman, who voted against opposing the bill, said the city’s housing crisis is so dire that the council needs to work with the drafters of the bill — even if there are elements of it they do not support.

“Overall, we talk a lot about our housing crisis on this body, but our actions have not met the moment,” she said. “If I thought that this body was acting in good faith to address our housing crisis, I would support this [resolution].”

The bill, which passed the Senate and is before the Assembly Appropriations Committee, would allow heights of nine stories near major transit hubs, such as certain Metro train stops in L.A. A quarter-mile from a stop, buildings could be seven stories tall, and a half-mile from a stop, they could be six stories. Single-family neighborhoods within a half-mile of transit stops would be included in the new zoning rules.

Near smaller transit stops, such as light rail or bus rapid transit, the allowed heights would be slightly lower.

Next week, the Appropriations Committee will determine whether the bill goes to the Assembly floor for a vote. If passed in both chambers, the bill would go to Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign by mid-October.

The City Council’s resolution opposing the bill has no binding effect on the state Legislature but gives the council a platform to potentially lobby in Sacramento against its passage. The resolution also called for the city to be exempt from the bill because it has a state-approved housing plan.

“If they hadn’t taken a position on this, the state Legislature would say, ‘Well, the city of L.A. doesn’t care,’” said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former City Council member and now the director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

Mayor Karen Bass has not yet taken a position on the bill. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto came out against it in May, arguing that it would cost the city billions of dollars to upgrade infrastructure such as sewage and electrical systems to handle an influx of residents in previously low-density neighborhoods.

Wiener’s office said the bill allows for cities to exempt some properties near transit hubs if they meet density guidelines.

This year, the City Council passed the Citywide Housing Incentive Program, which provides incentives for developers to build market-rate and affordable units and aims to boost building along commercial corridors and in dense residential neighborhoods.

The council passed the ordinance, which left single-family zones largely untouched after pushback from homeowners groups, a week before a state deadline for the city to have a housing plan in place. As part of the plan, the city was required to find land where an additional 255,000 homes could be built.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Carl DeMaio, if you so choose.

The first-term San Diego assembly member is MAGA to his marrow, bringing Donald Trump’s noxious politics and personal approach to Sacramento. For Democrats, the mere mention of his name has the same effect as nails applied to a chalkboard.

Fellow Republicans aren’t too fond of DeMaio, either.

Party leaders worked strenuously — and far from successfully — to keep DeMaio from being elected last fall. They accused him of criminal wrongdoing. Allies spent millions of dollars to boost his GOP rival.

Republican foes “cite his relentless self-promotion, his criticism of his party and his tendency to take credit for victories he played little or no part in to help him fundraise and elevate his political brand,” CalMatters wrote in a harsh January profile.

None of that, however, excuses the silly and juvenile behavior of the Assembly’s majority Democrats last week when the chamber took up a resolution commemorating Pride month.

DeMaio, the Assembly’s first openly gay Republican member, rose on the floor to voice his objections. Usually lawmakers have around five minutes to offer their remarks without interruption.

Not this time.

DeMaio complained that the resolution — larded with more than three dozen whereas-es — strayed far afield from a straightforward commendation, endorsing some “very controversial and extremist positions” opposed even by members of the LGBQT+ community.

“This is not about affirming the LGBT community,” DeMaio said. “It’s about using them as a political pawn to divide us.”

You can agree or disagree with DeMaio. You can embrace the resolution and its myriad clauses with all your heart, or not. That’s beside the point.

About 90 seconds into his remarks, DeMaio was interrupted by the Assembly member presiding over the debate, Democrat Josh Lowenthal of Long Beach, who said he had a “very important announcement” to make.

And what was the pressing matter that couldn’t possibly wait a second longer? Wishing another Assembly Democrat a happy birthday.

Cheers and applause filled the chamber.

DeMaio resumed, only to be interrupted a short time later. Lowenthal deadpanned that he’d forgotten: It had been another Democratic lawmaker’s birthday just a few days earlier. More cheers and applause.

DeMaio resumed and then was interrupted a third time, so Lowenthal could wish “a very, very happy birthday” to a third Democratic Assembly member, who was marking the occasion the next day.

The response in the chamber, laughter mixed with more whoops and cheers, suggested the hazing by Lowenthal and fellow Democrats was great good fun and oh-so-clever.

It wasn’t.

It was petty. It was stupid.

And it bespoke the arrogance of a super-majority party too used to having its way and bulldozing Sacramento’s greatly outnumbered Republicans.

A few things are worth noting here, seeing as how California is supposed to be governed by a representative democracy.

DeMaio’s political peers may not be terribly enamored of the freshman lawmaker. But he was the clear-cut favorite of voters in San Diego, who sent him to the Assembly by a whopping 57% to 43% margin. Their views and voices deserve to be heard.

Democrats may be California’s majority party, enjoying a sizable registration advantage. They hold 60 of 80 seats in the Assembly and 30 of 40 in the state Senate. But the state has nearly 6 million registered Republicans. There are doubtless many more in California who support the party, or at least its policies and broad philosophy, but choose not to formally affiliate with the GOP.

They, too, deserve to be heard.

A not-insignificant number of California residents feel overlooked, ignored and unrepresented by Democrats and their hegemonic rule over Sacramento. The frustration helped spawn the fruitless and wasteful 2021 attempt to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom — which cost taxpayers more than $200 million — and fuels the perennial fantasy of a breakaway rural state called Jefferson.

To a larger point: One-party rule is not good for California.

“When you’re competing, you’ve got to be sort of on your toes,” said Thad Kousser, a UC San Diego political science professor who’s researched the difference between states with two vibrant political parties and those ruled by one or the other.

“When you’re solidly in control, you don’t feel like you need to prove it to voters,” Kousser went on. “You can write off certain areas of the state. You can ignore legislators in the other party, because you don’t think the shoe will ever be on the other foot.

“None of that,” Kousser concluded, “is good for democracy.”

It’s been well over a decade since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger left office and Republicans wielded meaningful clout in Sacramento. The last time the GOP controlled the Assembly was when Bill Clinton was in the White House. Gerald Ford was president the last time Republicans had a majority in the state Senate.

That’s not likely to change anytime soon.

In the meantime, Democrats don’t have to love their fellow lawmakers. They don’t even have to like them. But at the very least, Republicans elected to serve in Sacramento should be treated with respect.

Their constituents deserve as much.

WASHINGTON — Democratic efforts in the Senate to prevent President Trump from escalating his military confrontation with Iran fell short Friday, with Republicans blocking a resolution that marked Congress’ first attempt to reassert its war powers after U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.

The resolution, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, aimed to affirm that Trump should seek authorization from Congress before launching more military action against Iran. Asked Friday whether he would bomb Iranian nuclear sites again if he deemed necessary, Trump said, “Sure, without question.”

The measure was defeated in a 53-47 vote in the Republican-held Senate. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, joined Republicans in opposition, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote in favor.

Most Republicans have said Iran posed an imminent threat that required decisive action from Trump, and they backed his decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend without seeking congressional approval.

“Of course, we can debate the scope and strategy of our military engagements,” said Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.). “But we must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line.”

Democrats cast doubt on that justification, arguing that the president should have come to Congress first. They also said the president did not update them adequately, with Congress’ first briefings taking place Thursday.

“The idea is this: We shouldn’t send our sons and daughters into war unless there’s a political consensus that this is a good idea, this is a national interest,” Kaine said in a Thursday interview with the Associated Press. The resolution, Kaine said, wasn’t aimed at restricting the president’s ability to defend against a threat, but that “if it’s offense, let’s really make sure we’re making the right decision.”

In a statement after Friday’s vote, Kaine said he was “disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress” should be a part of a decision to go to war.

Democrats’ argument for backing the resolution centered on the War Powers Resolution, passed in the early 1970s, which requires the president “in every possible instance” to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.”

Speaking on the Senate floor ahead of Friday’s vote, Paul said he would back the resolution, saying that “despite the tactical success of our strikes, they may end up proving to be a strategic failure.”

“It is unclear if this intervention will fully curtail Iran’s nuclear aspirations,” said Paul.

Trump is just the latest in a line of presidents to test the limits of the resolution — though he’s done so at a time when he’s often bristling at the nation’s checks and balances.

Trump on Monday sent a letter to Congress — as required by the War Powers Resolution — that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were “limited in scope and purpose” and “designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.”

But after classified briefings with top White House officials this week, some lawmakers remain skeptical about how imminent the threat was.

“There was no imminent threat to the United States,” said Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, after Friday’s classified briefing.

“There’s always an Iranian threat to the world. But, I have not seen anything to suggest that the threat from the Iranians was radically different last Saturday than it was two Saturdays ago,” Himes said.

Meanwhile, nearly all Republicans applauded Trump’s decision to strike Iran. And for GOP senators, supporting the resolution would have meant rebuking the president at the same time they’re working to pass his major legislative package.

Kaine proposed a similar resolution in 2020 aimed at limiting Trump’s authority to launch military operations against Iran. Among the eight Republicans who joined Democrats in approving that resolution was Indiana Sen. Todd Young.

After Thursday’s classified briefing for the Senate, Young said he was “confident that Iran was prepared to pose a significant threat” and that, given Trump’s stated goal of no further escalation, “I do not believe this resolution is necessary at this time.”

“Should the Administration’s posture change or events dictate the consideration of additional American military action, Congress should be consulted so we can best support those efforts and weigh in on behalf of our constituents,” Young said in a statement.

Trump has said that a ceasefire between Israel and Iran is now in place. But he and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have verbally sparred in recent days, with the Iranian leader warning the U.S. not to launch future strikes on Iran.

White House officials have said they expect to restart talks soon with Iran, though nothing has been scheduled.

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Leah Askarinam contributed to this report.

After Doha helped mediate, Qatari diplomat Mohammed bin Abdulaziz al-Khulaifi says country is committed to efforts to de-escalate conflicts.

Qatari diplomat Mohammed bin Abdulaziz al-Khulaifi has welcomed the peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), saying that it came after several rounds of talks, some of which were held in Doha.

The deal, signed in Washington, DC, on Friday with backing from the United States and Qatar, will see Rwandan soldiers withdraw from the DRC and the two countries set up mechanisms to enhance trade and security cooperation.

“We hope that the sides will adhere to the terms of the agreement to de-escalate and bolster the security and stability of the … region,” al-Khulaifi, who serves as minister of state at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told Al Jazeera.

Al-Khulaifi added that the meeting between Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame, hosted by Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in Doha in March, was followed by a series of talks, paving the way for Friday’s deal.

“Qatar enjoys excellent relationships with both countries and has earned the trust of both countries as a mediator and international partner trying to resolve these issues,” he said.

“Doha was a platform for these meetings, and we contributed [to reaching the agreement] with the US.”

The Reuters news agency reported earlier this month that Qatar presented a draft peace proposal to Rwanda and the DRC after negotiations in Doha.

On Friday, the US Department of State said the US, Qatar, the African Union and Togo “will continue to engage both parties to ensure implementation of the obligations laid out in the agreement”.

The agreement has sparked hopes of ending the conflict in the DRC, where the Rwanda-backed M23 armed group has been advancing in the resource-rich east of the country.

The renewed violence had raised fears of igniting a full-blown conflict, akin to the wars that the DRC endured in the late 1990s, involving several African countries, which killed millions of people.

“Qatar fully believes in dialogue as the cornerstone for resolving conflict through peaceful means,” al-Khulaifi said.

“Qatar believes that mediation is a pillar of its foreign policy. That’s why, hopefully, you will find Qatar always racing to try to resolve issues between countries, even countries that are geographically far from Qatar.”

Qatar has played a key role in securing diplomatic deals in various conflicts across the world over the past years. Most recently, it helped mediate the ceasefire agreement that ended the 12-day war between Israel and Iran.

“What pleases me is that this agreement came days after another agreement which Qatar contributed to with the US – and that’s the ceasefire between Iran and Israel,” al-Khulaifi said. “Qatar will not spare any efforts to engage in more attempts to de-escalate and pursue peaceful means to end these conflicts.”

The United States has vetoed a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution that called for an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, as Israeli strikes across the enclave have killed nearly 100 Palestinians in the past 24 hours amid a crippling aid blockade.

The US was the only country to vote against the measure on Wednesday while the 14 other members of the council voted in favour.

The resolution also called for the release of Israeli captives held in Gaza, but Washington said it was a “non-starter” because the ceasefire demand is not directly linked to the release of captives.

In remarks before the start of the voting, Acting US Ambassador Dorothy Shea made her country’s opposition to the resolution, put forward by 10 countries on the 15-member council, painfully clear, which she said “should come as no surprise”.

“The United States has taken the very clear position since this conflict began that Israel has the right to defend itself, which includes defeating Hamas and ensuring they are never again in a position to threaten Israel,” she told the council.

China’s Ambassador Fu Cong said Israel’s actions have “crossed every red line” of international humanitarian law and seriously violated UN resolutions. “Yet, due to the shielding by one country, these violations have not been stopped or held accountable.”

Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst Marwan Bishara noted that the US veto makes it “so isolated.”

“Clearly there is a gathering storm … with so many countries” that are standing against the US at the UNSC. “It’s only the US that is trying to block this converging and rising current against Israel and what it’s doing in Gaza … Israel is not defending itself in Gaza, Israel is defending its occupation and siege in Gaza,” Bishara added.

‘Open the crossings’

Despite global demands for a truce, Israel has repeatedly rejected calls for an unconditional or permanent ceasefire, insisting Hamas cannot stay in power, nor in Gaza. It has expanded its military assault in Gaza, killing and wounding thousands more Palestinians and maintaining a brutal blockade on the enclave, only allowing a trickle of tightly-controlled aid in where a famine looms.

At least 95 Palestinians have been killed on Wednesday and more than 440 injured, according to health officials in Gaza.

Al Jazeera’s Tareq Abu Azzoum, reporting from Deir el-Balah, said, “There has been a clear surge of attacks.” He said there were relentless Israeli strikes there in central Gaza and throughout the territory.

Meanwhile, Israel’s military warned starving Palestinians against approaching roads to the US-backed aid distribution sites run by the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), saying the areas will be “considered combat zones” while it halted aid for a whole day.

That move came after Israeli forces opened fire at aid seekers several times, killing more than 100 Palestinians and injuring hundreds more since the GHF started operating on May 27.

Witnesses said Israeli soldiers opened fire on crowds that massed before dawn to seek food on Tuesday. Images of starving Palestinians scrambling for paltry aid packages, herded in cage-like lines and then coming under fire have caused global outrage.

The Israeli military admitted it shot at aid seekers on Tuesday, but claimed that they opened fire when “suspects” deviated from a stipulated route.

At a hospital in southern Gaza, the family of Reem al-Akhras, who was killed in Israel’s mass shooting on Tuesday, mourned her death.

“She went to bring us some food, and this is what happened to her,” her son Zain Zidan said through tears. Her husband, Mohamed Zidan, said “every day unarmed people” are being killed. “This is not humanitarian aid – it’s a trap.”

The new aid distribution process – currently from just three sites – has been widely criticised by rights groups and the UN, who say it does not adhere to humanitarian principles. They also say the aid model, which uses private US security and logistics workers, militarises aid.

Ahead of the UNSC vote, UN aid chief Tom Fletcher again appealed for the UN and aid groups to be allowed to assist people in Gaza, stressing that they have a plan, supplies and experience.

“Open the crossings – all of them. Let in lifesaving aid at scale, from all directions. Lift the restrictions on what and how much aid we can bring in. Ensure our convoys aren’t held up by delays and denials,” Fletcher said in a statement.

The UN has long blamed Israel and lawlessness in the enclave for hindering the delivery of aid and its distribution in Gaza. Israel accuses Hamas of stealing aid, which the group vehemently denies, and the World Food Programme says there is no evidence to support that allegation.

UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) spokesman James Elder, currently in Gaza, described the “horrors” he witnessed within just 24 hours. Speaking from al-Mawasi, Elder told Al Jazeera that Gaza’s hospitals and streets are filled with malnourished children. “I’m seeing teenage boys in tears, showing me their ribs,” he said, noting that children were pleading for food.

The UNSC has voted on 14 Gaza-related resolutions and approved four since the war began in October 2023. Wednesday’s vote was the first since November 2024.

Hamas is still holding 58 captives, a third of them believed to be alive, after most of the rest were released in previous short-lived ceasefire agreements or other deals.

Israel’s offensive has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

NFL team owners approved the participation of NFL players in the 2028 L.A. Olympic flag football competition at the league’s owners meetings on Tuesday.

The resolution permits NFL players currently under contract to try out for flag football, but limits only one player per NFL team to play for each national team participating in the Olympics. An exception was made for each NFL team’s designated international player, who is allowed to play for his home country.

Injury protections and salary cap credit will cover any players injured during flag football activities, and Olympic flag football teams must implement minimum standards for medical staff and field surfaces to be eligible to have NFL players on their rosters.

Flag football is one of five new sports in the 2028 Olympics and will make its Olympic debut, along with squash. There are five players per team on the field and each team builds a 10-person roster. The U.S. men’s national team has won five consecutive world championships.

This is a developing story. The Times will have more soon on the NFL’s vote.

Super Bowl champion and Olympic gold medalist? Some NFL players could be at the center of the venn diagram in 2028.

NFL team owners could vote next week at the league’s meetings on whether to allow NFL players to participate in Olympic flag football in the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. A resolution, announced Thursday, included several possible guidelines as further negotiations continue between the NFL Players Assn., the league, national governing bodies and Olympic authorities.

The proposed resolution would permit players under an NFL contract to try out for a 2028 Olympic flag football team, but limit NFL player participation to no more than one from each NFL team for each national team. In addition, each NFL team’s designated international player can play for his home country.

With injuries a primary concern for the crossover, the proposal adds that any NFL player would have injury protection and salary-cap credit if they are injured while playing Olympic flag football. Olympic flag football teams would have to implement certain minimum standards for medical staff and field surfaces for eligible NFL players to participate.

The resolution also calls for a flag football schedule that does not unreasonably conflict with a player’s NFL commitments. The 2028 Olympics are scheduled for July 14, 2028-July 30, 2028. The timing could potentially conflict with the beginning of some training camps, but the flag football competition, which is scheduled to take place at BMO Stadium, will only span about a week of the Games.

Flag football is one of five new sports in the 2028 Olympic program and one of two sports, along with squash, making its Olympic debut. The U.S. men’s flag football team is five-time defending flag football world champions.

NFL owners are “committed to supporting the growth of flag football,” the resolution states.

“The membership believes that participation by NFL players in flag football during the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, California will support such growth and advance several league interests,” the resolution continues, “including increasing fan and public interest in flag football, expanding the global reach of the NFL, and providing greater opportunities for fan engagement and for our league partners.”

WASHINGTON — A Democratic lawmaker is launching a renegade effort to impeach President Trump, pushing past party leaders on Wednesday with an attempt to force a procedural vote in the U.S. House that is expected to fail.

Rep. Shri Thanedar of Michigan announced his intention to charge ahead, saying that as an immigrant to America he wants to do all he can to protect its Constitution and institutions from Trump’s lawlessness. His resolution contains seven articles of impeachment against the Republican president.

“Donald J. Trump has been committing crimes since day one — bribery, corruption, taking power from Congress, creating an unlawful office in DOGE, violating 1st Amendment rights, ignoring due process,” the congressman said earlier from the House floor.

It would be the historic third time Trump has faced impeachment efforts after being twice impeached during his first term as president — first in 2019 on charges related to withholding military aid to Ukraine as it confronted Russia and later on a charge of inciting insurrection over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters. Trump was acquitted both times by the Senate.

Thanedar is not the only Democrat who has signaled impeachment efforts against Trump. But his decision to go it almost alone, without backing from party leadership, comes as he faces his own political challenges at home, with several primary opponents looking to unseat him in his Detroit-area congressional district.

Timing is also key. His resolution claiming Trump committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” comes as Trump is traveling in the Middle East in his first major trip abroad of his second term, violating a norm in American politics of not criticizing the president once he leaves the U.S.

But Thanedar said he was pressing ahead in part because of Trump’s trip abroad and the potential conflicts of interest as the president appears to be mixing his personal business dealings with his presidential duties and is considering accepting a lavish gift of an airplane from the Qatari government.

“My constituents want me to act,” Thanedar told the Associated Press late Tuesday.

“It’s time for us to stand up and speak. We can’t worry about, ‘Is this the right time?’ We can’t worry about, ‘Are we going to win this battle?’ It’s more about doing the right thing,” he said. “I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. So did Mr. Trump. He has violated his oath, and he’s doing unconstitutional activities. It’s time for someone to stand up and say that, and if that’s just me, then so be it.”

Thanedar is using a procedural tool to force a vote Wednesday on whether to proceed to the issue or shelve the matter.

One top Trump ally, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, criticized Thanedar and dismissed the impeachment effort.

“It’s DOA,” she posted on social media.

Impeachment of a president or other U.S. officials, once rare, has become an increasingly common in Congress.

Republicans in the House opened an impeachment inquiry into then-President Biden, a Democrat, but stopped short of action. The Republicans in Congress did, however, impeach Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The Senate dismissed two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, ending his trial.

Thanedar, who’s from India, has said he came to the United States without many resources. He said he loves the U.S. and wants to defend its Constitution and institutions.

When he took over the Detroit congressional district, it was the first time in decades the city was left without a Black lawmaker in Congress.

Mascaro, Brown and Askarinam write for the Associated Press.

April 30 (UPI) — Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday night broke a 49-49 tie in the U.S. Senate to kill a bipartisan resolution to end President Donald Trump‘s tariffs.

The resolution came hours after Trump acknowledged during a Cabinet meeting there will be shortages and rising prices, saying: “Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally. But we’re not talking about something that we have to go out of our way. They have ships that are loaded up with stuff, much of which — not all of it — but much of which we don’t need.”

Two senators who would have voted for the resolution, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, of Rhode Island, were absent.

Whitehouse was traveling to South Korea and McConnell was ill, The Hill reported.

Voting with all 46 Democrats were Republicans Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky. The approved motion tabled the resolution.

Earlier Wednesday, the Senate rejected a resolution 49-49 to block the president’s global tariffs by revoking his emergency order because it needed more than 50% for passage. A baseline tariff of 10% has been imposed on most treading partners with reciprocal tariffs paused until July 9.

The tariff plans were announced on April 2, which Trump called “Liberation Day.” China has been slapped with a 145% tariffs though electronics were later exempted and are at 20%.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, of South Dakota, then moved to ensure that tariff opponents couldn’t bring the resolution back up for consideration. Vance broke the tie.

Senate Republican leaders had dismissed the importance of Wednesday’s vote.

“I think the broad majorities of Republicans are giving the administration … some space to figure out if they can get some good deals,” Thune said. “We’re awaiting the results of that. I wouldn’t attach too much weight to it.”

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, of Virginia, who co-sponsored the resolution, said: “They are so dead set on this tariff idiocy that is wrecking the economy that they’re going to bring the vice president over to completely own it. Great, let them do it. Let them do it. The American public needs to know who to blame for this. And they are showing everybody tonight who is to blame for this.”

The measure wasn’t going anywhere after a Senate vote with unlikely House passage and a veto by Trump.

“Tariffs are taxes, plain and simple,” Paul said before the vote. “Tariffs don’t punish foreign governments, they punish American families. When we tax imports, we raise the price of everything, from groceries, to smartphones to washing machines to just about every conceivable product.”

Trump said he understands how Americans may be unhappy with the tariffs during an interview on NewsNation.

“You have to be able to dodge and move and be flexible,” Trump said.

He noted that he scrapped auto tariffs after listening to automaker leaders opposed to them.

“And now, if I didn’t do that, it would have been very, very tough for them, and so what I am is flexible, and if I didn’t do that, it would be very tough for these companies, and these companies,” he said. “It’s a transition period.”

Trump said on NewsNation that there are potential deals with three Asian nations. The scheduled reciprocal ones were India 27%, South Korea 25%, and Japan 24%.

“It can wait two weeks,” Trump said.

Despite Americans’ opposition to tariffs in polls, Trump said: “I’m an honest guy, and I, we have to save the country.”

He said Republicans could face troubles during the midterms in 2026.

“I’ve got to explain it,” Trump said. “I’ve got to have people that can explain it, but I can tell you that right now, we have over 100, 100 countries that are calling us like morning, noon and night, dying to make a deal. We’re in a great position of strength. We’ll make great deals.”

The U.S. gross national product contracted at 0.3%, according to data released Wednesday, the worst quarter since 2022.

A recession is defined as consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

April 30 (UPI) — Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday night broke a 49-49 tie in the U.S. Senate to kill a bipartisan resolution to end President Donald Trump‘s tariffs.

Two senators who would have voted for the resolution, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, of Rhode Island, were absent.

Whitehouse was traveling to South Korea and McConnell was ill, The Hill reported.

Voting with all 46 Democrats were Republicans Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky. The approved motion tabled the resolution.

Earlier Wednesday, the Senate rejected a resolution 49-49 to block the president’s global tariffs by revoking his emergency order because it needed more than 50% for passage. A baseline tariff of 10% has been imposed on most treading partners with reciprocal tariffs paused until July 9.

The tariff plans were announced on April 2, which Trump called “Liberation Day.” China has been slapped with a 145% tariffs though electronics were later exempted and are at 20%.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, of South Dakota, then moved to ensure that tariff opponents couldn’t bring the resolution back up for consideration. Vance broke the tie.

Senate Republican leaders had dismissed the importance of Wednesday’s vote.

“I think the broad majorities of Republicans are giving the administration … some space to figure out if they can get some good deals,” Thune said. “We’re awaiting the results of that. I wouldn’t attach too much weight to it.”

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, of Virginia, who co-sponsored the resolution, said: “They are so dead set on this tariff idiocy that is wrecking the economy that they’re going to bring the vice president over to completely own it. Great, let them do it. Let them do it. The American public needs to know who to blame for this. And they are showing everybody tonight who is to blame for this.”

The measure wasn’t going anywhere after a Senate vote with unlikely House passage and a veto by Trump.

“Tariffs are taxes, plain and simple,” Paul said before the vote. “Tariffs don’t punish foreign governments, they punish American families. When we tax imports, we raise the price of everything, from groceries, to smartphones to washing machines to just about every conceivable product.”

Trump said he understands how Americans may be unhappy with the tariffs during an interview on NewsNation.

“You have to be able to dodge and move and be flexible,” Trump said.

He noted that he scrapped auto tariffs after listening to automaker leaders opposed to them.

“And now, if I didn’t do that, it would have been very, very tough for them, and so what I am is flexible, and if I didn’t do that, it would be very tough for these companies, and these companies,” he said. “It’s a transition period.”

Despite Americans’ opposition to tariffs in polls, Trump said: “I’m an honest guy, and I, we have to save the country.”

He said Republicans could face troubles during the midterms in 2026.

“I’ve got to explain it,” Trump said. “I’ve got to have people that can explain it, but I can tell you that right now, we have over 100, 100 countries that are calling us like morning, noon and night, dying to make a deal. We’re in a great position of strength. We’ll make great deals.”