Politics
Amid the Chaos, Trump Has a Simple Message: He’s in Charge
When he took office last week, President Trump said he would measure his success in part by “the wars we never get into.” But he has eagerly waged a full-fledged assault on his own government.
In his first eight days in office, Mr. Trump mounted a lightning blitz against the federal government that has the nation’s capital in an uproar. He has moved quickly and aggressively to eliminate pockets of resistance in what he calls “the deep state” and put his own stamp on far-flung corners of the bureaucracy.
It has been a campaign of breathtaking scope and relentless velocity, one unlike any new president has tried in modern times. It has been a blend of personal and political as he seeks revenge against those who investigated him or his allies, while simultaneously demolishing the foundations of the modern liberal state and asserting more control than he or any of his predecessors had in the past.
Mr. Trump has purged perceived enemies from a range of agencies; begun to rid the government of diversity, environmental, gender and other “woke” policies that he objects to; sought to punish those who acted against his interests in the past; and fired independent inspectors general charged with guarding against potential corruption and abuse by his administration. His directive to temporarily freeze trillions of dollars of federal spending touched off a firestorm and prompted a judge to block him, for now.
Mr. Trump presents this effort as a fundamental reorientation of government and politics, in effect reversing generations of change to return to a different bygone era. “We’re forging a new political majority that’s shattering and replacing Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition, which dominated American politics for over 100 years,” he told House Republicans at their retreat this week.
Never mind his faulty math — Roosevelt was first elected 92 years ago — Mr. Trump has approached his mission more systematically and methodically than he ever did in his chaotic first term, when he became the first U.S. president who had never served in public office or the military.
Instead of fumbling around to figure out how to even draft an executive order — his travel ban on select Muslim-majority countries eight years ago had changes scribbled on it by hand just minutes before he signed it — this time he and his team came in ready to quickly move forward on myriad fronts.
This was an odd benefit of losing his bid for re-election in 2020. As the first president since Grover Cleveland to come back to office after being defeated, Mr. Trump had the advantage of both four years of experience in the White House and four years in hiatus to map out plans for his return. Aided by a cadre of like-minded ideological advisers, he crafted a sweeping set of plans to quickly seize the reins of government.
The shock-and-awe onslaught has not just changed the government’s approach to major policies, as happens anytime a president of one party takes over from that of another. Mr. Trump is intent on “deconstruction of the administrative state,” as his onetime chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon put it during his first term, a goal predicated on the assumption that the bureaucracy is inherently biased against conservatives and their priorities.
“Trump is on a wrecking cruise to de-professionalize the civil service and threaten basic services to Americans,” said Representative Gerald E. Connolly, Democrat of Virginia, whose district includes many federal workers. “It’s unlawful firings and impoundments that threaten to unravel 142 years” of tradition of a “civil service immune from partisan politics.”
At the president’s order, the career prosecutors who worked for the special counsel Jack Smith on investigations into Mr. Trump have been fired. And after the president granted clemency to those who ransacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, an investigation was opened into the actions of career prosecutors who charged those Trump supporters.
Dozens of career officials at the National Security Council were sent home while their loyalty is being reviewed. Dozens of other career officials, at the U.S. Agency for International Development, were put on leave for suspicion of resisting an order by Mr. Trump. The Justice Department ordered a temporary halt to all civil rights enforcement.
Mr. Trump has also rescinded certain additional protections for senior civil servants enacted by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and this week he ordered a review of people in policy-making positions to ensure that they follow his administration’s priorities or face dismissal. The administration also offered an incentive to federal workers to resign as of Sept. 30 in hopes of encouraging a broad exodus so that slots can be filled with loyalists.
But the most explosive move so far was Mr. Trump’s order on Monday night temporarily freezing up to $3 trillion federal grants and loans to determine whether they meet his priorities, even though they had been passed by Congress. More than any other move, this order generated widespread Democratic protests and could have affected everyday Americans, including Mr. Trump’s own voters.
A federal judge in Washington on Tuesday stepped in to temporarily prevent it from taking effect, pending further review of its legality, capping a day of confusion. For all its efficiency so far, the Trump team stumbled over enactment of this order, unable to promptly answer basic questions about who it would affect and for how long.
At her debut briefing on Tuesday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, assured Americans that it would not affect Social Security, Medicare, welfare or food stamps, but did not know whether it would affect Medicaid, which covers health care for 72 million Americans, most of whom are lower-income.
“The American people gave President Trump an overwhelming mandate on Nov. 5,” Ms. Leavitt said, referring to Mr. Trump’s 1.5-percentage-point popular vote victory, one of the smallest since the 19th century. “And he’s trying to ensure that the tax money going out the door in this very bankrupt city actually aligns with the will and priorities of the American people.”
A memo sent to Congress by the Office of Management and Budget on Tuesday insisted that Medicaid would not be affected by the order. But later in the day, the White House acknowledged that the online Medicaid portal was down even as it insisted that payments were still being processed and sent.
For all their loud criticism, congressional Democrats have limited ability to do much other than complain since they control neither house of Congress. Instead, Mr. Trump’s opponents are left to turn to the courts to try to stop him, as they did with the temporary spending freeze. Mr. Trump’s order on civil servants has already generated a legal challenge, and there could be more over his decisions to eliminate diversity programs and fire inspectors general.
Mr. Trump and his team anticipated pushback and expected to have to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to make some of these changes, hopeful that they will be ratified by the six-to-three conservative majority among the justices.
At one point while running for president again, Mr. Trump said he hoped to trigger a legal fight to overturn the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which was passed after President Richard M. Nixon refused to spend billions of dollars appropriated by Congress.
The act enshrined into law a previous understanding that a president cannot unilaterally decide not to spend money that Congress had approved. The law laid out a process allowing spending items to be temporarily suspended during a fast-track request to lawmakers to rescind them.
“When I return to the White House, I will do everything I can to challenge the Impoundment Control Act in court, and if necessary, get Congress to overturn it,” Mr. Trump said in 2023. “We will overturn it.”
Whether he will succeed in overturning it or not, it may take a while to find out. But part of the point is to have the fight, win or lose. Even if he gets resistance on one front or another, Mr. Trump is sending a signal to the federal government: He plans to reshape it in his image and anyone who disagrees should get out of the way or he will try to run them over.
Politics
L.A. city attorney likely to be first incumbent ousted in primary in nearly 100 years
The last time Angelenos sacked an incumbent city attorney in the primaries, almost 30% of them were unemployed.
That was May 2, 1933, the nadir of the Great Depression, when sprawling encampments blanketed downtown, King Kong ruled movie theaters and violent crime reached a fever pitch not seen again for almost half a century.
Incumbent City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto’s near-certain defeat on Tuesday may have little in common with Erwin P. Werner’s primary loss 93 years ago, but themes of Depression-era Los Angeles echo through the contest.
Marissa Roy, a deputy attorney general with the California Department of Justice who leads the race with ballots still being counted, wooed voters with shoe-leather and social media savvy, promising to use the office to fight for wage workers and tenants. But it was the city’s powerful unions and its increasingly democratic socialist bloc that propelled her to the top spot, mirroring the coalition that drove California’s sharp left turn in the early 1930s.
Meanwhile, county prosecutor John McKinney tapped into voter frustration with homeless encampments, a blighted downtown and general distrust of City Hall to pull off a last-minute heist of the second runoff spot. McKinney only started campaigning in earnest five weeks ago, but managed to win votes with a tough-on-crime campaign — even as some categories of city crime have dipped to historic lows.
L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, left, shares a laugh with L.A. City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, right, at Avance Democratic Club’s politics and tacos event on May 16.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
As of Thursday morning, Roy had nearly double the number of votes of Feldstein Soto. McKinney led the incumbent by 13 percentage points for the second runoff slot. The race has not yet been called, but Feldstein Soto issued a statement effectively conceding the race Wednesday morning. She acknowledged that “the voters had spoken” and referenced “her successor’s administration.”
Her campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
The ouster of Feldstein Soto would be nearly unprecedented. Werner’s 1933 loss is the only similar instance since the city adopted its current primary ballot process in 1917, according to the City Clerk’s office. No other incumbent city council member or mayor has ever failed to advance out of the primary when facing two or more opponents.
“This is not something that has happened in the lifetimes of most people who follow city government,” said Mike Bonin, former City Council member and executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State L.A.
McKinney’s sudden emergence in the race in May saw him hijack the incumbent’s support from law enforcement. His campaign received $3 million worth of independent expenditures. An official with a group supporting McKinney — who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media — said an internal poll showed Feldstein Soto falling nearly 10 points outside the runoff a week before election day.
Since Roy had already captured the support of the county Democratic Party and energized left-leaning voters, that put Feldstein Soto in the center, analysts said, which left her vulnerable in a race that most people casting ballots hadn’t closely followed.
“To the extent that people had any information, they knew that one of them basically wanted to be tougher and somebody on the other side wanted to be kinder, that left her with very little room to maneuver,” said Roy Behr, a longtime consultant to veteran politicians in the city.
Roy “micro-targeted” likely progressive voters in social media spots, experts said, presenting as an affable presence in her ever-present purple blazer while sharing her vision of serving as the “people’s lawyer.”
Marissa Roy, a deputy attorney general with the California Department of Justice, appears poised to finish first in the June 2 primary race for L.A. city attorney.
(Gary Coronado / For The Times)
Boosted by a massive influx of cash from rental giant Airbnb, some of McKinney’s ads played up his hard-luck upbringing in one of New Jersey’s most violent cities. His campaign also sent out texts that painted his opponents as “George Gascón”-style Democrats, invoking the former progressive district attorney as a bogeyman for voters anxious about crime.
AI-generated videos depicted McKinney as a stoic, suit-clad crime fighter walking through a dystopian version of L.A.’s Metro system.
“The debate isn’t necessarily two candidates on one stage appealing to one person, it’s for attention and information in the same sphere,” said Spencer Slovic of Mycorrhiza Digital, who ran Roy’s digital advertising. “That battle of information will play out almost in different realms.”
Without a compelling story for her powerful but poorly understood role, Feldstein Soto often struggled to explain her achievements in office.
In a recent interview with The Times, she said she delivered on “public safety, public integrity and public services.” She went on to discuss granular improvements she made to the office, such as limiting access to law enforcement databases by former employees, modernizing internal systems and improving the rapport between the city attorney’s office and LAPD. By her own admission, she doesn’t often publicly celebrate her accomplishments.
“I didn’t hold some big press conference and hop up on a white horse and declare myself Joan of Arc and the savior of all things Los Angeles,” she said. “Which I could have done.”
Tumult during Feldstein Soto’s lone term in office was easier for voters to identify. The cost of litigation exploded. A high-ranking city lawyer accused her of abusing her power, prosecuting political enemies, mistreating employees and engaging in “inappropriate alcohol consumption.” Feldstein Soto claimed she improved her office’s rapport with the LAPD, but the police union’s decision to rescind its endorsement of her and instead back McKinney cost her a key voting bloc.
Feldstein Soto’s messaging was at times muddled and lacked the flair of her challengers, political observers said. Campaign finance records show she paid for 80 email blasts, mailers and other messages that sought to influence voters.
John McKinney, a Los Angeles County prosecutor, appears set to advance to a run-off against Marissa Roy in the race for L.A. city attorney.
(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)
In one video, she stood in front of a static background and talked for three minutes straight about her record while describing her opponents as representing the “extreme left” and “extreme right.” She attacked both for receiving large sums of money from “special interests,” especially McKinney for accepting Airbnb’s largesse. Feldstein Soto sued the rental giant for price gouging in the wake of the 2025 wildfires.
Roy’s campaign sent out 180 communications, records show, the bulk of them ads for Instagram and Facebook, where her team said they saw instantly which stories resonated with likely voters and which were duds.
Slovic said a “clip of Hydee talking about how she wasn’t going to prosecute the Trump administration” seemed to touch a nerve with voters.
“That was by far our best performing ad,” he said, adding, “What Democrats really want in primaries is someone who will fight and have some sort of backbone.”
McKinney had just 23 communications, campaign records show, plus 19 more made by independent groups. He often leaned into the same gritty visuals that defined mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt’s viral AI spots.
In a race for a position most voters don’t understand, McKinney’s and Roy’s ability to play a consistent character may have proved critical, political analysts said.
“The vast majority of voters started off with no strong feelings about the race,” Behr said. “Nobody had any votes locked down other than their friends and neighbors.”
Politics
Rubio sanctions Cuban groups with ties to US nonprofit network funded by communist donor Neville Roy Singham
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Secretary of State Marco Rubio put U.S. organizations on notice: they can no longer do business with a key Cuban organization that has spent over six decades – since the launch of Fidel Castro’s communist revolution in 1959 – cultivating relationships with U.S. activists and groups, many of them now funded by communist American tycoon Neville Roy Singham.
The sanctions target the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples, known by its Spanish acronym ICAP, an organization founded by Castro in 1960 to spread Marxist ideology and support for Cuba. Long ago, U.S. officials and intelligence assessments concluded ICAP is a key component of Cuba’s intelligence apparatus.
“For decades, Cuba has been the world capital for radical left-wing terrorism,” Rubio said. “The regime in Havana has recruited, trained and backed violent Marxist and third-worldist movements across our hemisphere and beyond.”
REVOLUTIONARY TOURISM: INSIDE THE $600M MARRIAGE OF DARK MONEY AND FAR-LEFT AGITPROP
Marco Rubio moves to put sanctions on a group that Fidel Castro established in 1960 to spread Cuba’s communist influence in the world. (Sven Creutzmann/Mambo Photography/Getty Images; Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Earlier this year, ICAP worked with U.S. nonprofits, including the People’s Forum, Progressive International and CodePink, to organize a March “convoy” that included controversial Marxist streamer Hasan Piker landing in Cuba to support Cuba’s communist party.
The trip has since attracted federal scrutiny, with CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin confirming she received questions from federal officials about the trip, investigating whether she violated sanctions.
Late last month, Fox News Digital published a three-part series, reporting that federal investigators are examining Cuba’s alleged malign foreign influence operation in the U.S., investigating a network of 145 groups with collective revenues of about $1 billion, promoting Cuba’s agenda and communist ideology.
“Today, we are targeting the network that enables and funds Cuba’s subversive and radical operations,” Rubio said.
The groups working closely with ICAP include the People’s Forum, CodePink, BreakThrough News and Tricontinental, funded by Singham, a Marxist tech tycoon living in Shanghai. As reported, Singham has pumped $285 million into nonprofits since 2017 that have built very close relationships with ICAP and the communist government of Cuba.
Singham is married to CodePink co-founder Jodie Evans.
INSIDE CUBA’S FOREIGN INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN: FROM THE VENCEREMOS BRIGADE OF THE 1960S TO SATURDAY IN A UNION HALL
ICAP is today led by Fernando González Llort, one of five former Cuban intelligence officers, known as the “Cuban Five,” convicted in the U.S. years ago on espionage-related charges and released after spending time in jail.
Critics say ICAP acts as a gateway for revolutionaries from around the world to get embedded in the propaganda, organizing tactics and strategic goals of the Communist Party of Cuba. ICAP has denied wrongdoing and says it’s a civil society organization.
ICAP was one of five entities that Rubio designated as off-limits under sanctions authorities established by President Donald Trump’s Cuba executive order. The sanctions also target Cuba’s Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (MINFAR), the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), Minera La Victoria S.A. and the state-run tourism company Amistur Cuba S.A., which has arranged trips to Cuba with U.S. nonprofits in the Singham network.
Experts said the move signals that the Trump administration is focused not only on the Cuban government but also on U.S. institutions that U.S. officials believe help project Cuban influence internationally.
A declassified CIA report from the Cold War era, “Cuba: Castro’s Propaganda Apparatus and Foreign Policy,” described Cuba’s international propaganda and influence activities as a central component of Castro’s foreign policy strategy. The report named ICAP among organizations that act as important instruments for cultivating sympathetic political movements abroad and extending Cuban influence beyond the island.
DOJ, TREASURY INVESTIGATE NONPROFITS AND LEADERS ALLEGEDLY COORDINATING WITH CUBA IN INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN
One of the most notable examples was the Venceremos Brigade, a Cuba solidarity program established in 1969 that brought generations of American activists to the island through exchanges organized with Cuban authorities and institutions including ICAP.
The program became one of the most visible pipelines connecting American activists to the Cuban revolutionary government.
Today, the Venceremos Brigade operates as a fiscally-sponsored project of the People’s Forum.
Lawmakers and federal authorities are examining whether organizations funded by Singham have acted on behalf of foreign interests without properly registering and have helped amplify messaging favorable to the Chinese Communist Party and the Communist Party of Cuba.
Cuba’s President Miguel Diaz-Canel (C) listens to Progressive International’s general coordinator, David Adler, during an event at the Cuban Institute for Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP) in Havana, on March 21, 2026. (Ernesto Mastrascusa/AFP via Getty Images)
HOW A RHODES SCHOLAR WITH TIES TO CUBA’S PRESIDENT ORGANIZED THE CONVOY THAT BROUGHT HASAN PIKER TO HAVANA
During the recent convoy in March, Progressive International co-founder David Adler appeared alongside Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel and ICAP President González at an official event hosted by ICAP.
Years ago, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass participated in Venceremos Brigade trips, a connection that her mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt resurfaced during her campaign. Bass has denied any wrongdoing.
Supporters of such exchanges describe them as educational and humanitarian programs intended to foster international understanding. Critics argue they function as political influence operations designed to build support for the Cuban regime and its ideological objectives.
The Cuban government condemned Rubio’s sanctions shortly after the announcement.
President Miguel Díaz-Canel accused the United States of escalating economic pressure against Cuba and attempting to intensify tensions between the two countries.
Hasan Piker, a Democratic Socialists of America member, and CodePink co-founder Jodie Evans meet in Havana, Cuba, as part of a “United Front” supporting the communist regime. (CodePink via Storyful)
“The Treasury Department has added new names of Cuban leaders, organizations and companies to an illegitimate sanctions list,” Díaz-Canel wrote on social media. “They are aimed at reinforcing the blockade measures and the scenario of conflict between Cuba and the United States.”
Rubio’s warning extended beyond the sanctioned entities.
The action signals that the administration is increasingly focused on the networks, partnerships and influence channels that U.S. officials believe have helped advance Cuban interests abroad long after the Cold War officially ended.
“Anyone providing services to these sanctioned actors is at risk of sanctions themselves,” he said. “Foreign banks and other companies that provide services to these entities should freeze those activities.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital’s Reagan Schroeder contributed to this report.
Politics
Commentary: No, Mr. Hilton, our elections are not ‘a joke.’ It’s time for you to stand up to Trump
Well, that didn’t take long.
A day after California’s primary election, President Trump took to social media with baseless claims of election fraud — predictable, but also dangerous.
“Look what’s happening in California, the Dumocrats, right before our very eyes, are stealing the Vote,” Trump wrote in one post.
“There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California,” he wrote in another, apparently enamored of his latest juvenile slur.
Never mind that his candidate, Steve Hilton, is in the lead — for now anyway.
California has once again become the main dish on Trump’s buffet of bull-hockey as he continues to undermine democracy and consolidate authoritarian power, using this disingenuous and patently untrue narrative that American elections are rigged by shadowy Democratic forces working in collusion with illegal immigrants.
That last part is called the Great Replacement Theory, the idea that “elites” are replacing white people — and white voters — with Black and brown immigrants in a bid to destroy white culture. It’s at the heart of Trump’s voter fraud allegations.
The twist this time is that Hilton, the man who wants to represent all Californians, seems to be jumping on the election fraud conspiracy train with the president. I get it, there’s the MAGA base to feed, and it’s a base that feasts on outrage and fakery. Serving up resentment glazed with lies and propaganda has been the MAGA playbook for years under Trump, a strategy that no one can deny has been heartbreakingly effective.
But Hilton is a smart man and must certainly know that voter fraud is rare, to the point of being inconsequential to election outcomes. Hilton by his own admission understands voting patterns, and that in this cycle, Republicans have voted early and often by mail, despite Trump’s claims that all vote-by-mail should be suspect. So Hilton understands that early votes have skewed his way, and that later vote tallies will likely favor Democrats.
And Hilton is definitely intelligent enough to expect that in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly three to one, he will not keep the top spot in this primary, and a slim chance remains that he will not make it into the top two. That’s just simple math.
So if Hilton truly seeks to represent this state as its top elected executive, now is the time to renounce election fraud myths and stand up to Trump’s lies. If Hilton can’t say that he believes our recent election was free and fair, then he has no business being our governor.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the path he’s taking, even as it seems increasingly likely that he will advance to the general election.
This week, speaking with far-right podcaster and former Turning Point USA creative director Benny Johnson (who was allegedly duped into working for a Russian influence operation), Hilton said that while “so far we’re not seeing any signs” of cheating, “we’re going to be all over it. We’re not going to let them do that.”
Hilton was responding to a question from Johnson on whether Hilton will sue over “cheating.”
On a post-election appearance with Laura Ingraham, the conservative Fox News host who has repeatedly promoted the Great Replacement Theory, Hilton delved into more conspiracy.
“Just to really underline the point that you made about the corruption,” he told Ingraham an anecdote about supposed fraud in a previous election cycle when a “whistleblower” at the post office told him that they were instructed that a handwritten postmark was acceptable when sorting ballots to deliver to the county registrar.
“It’s just unbelievable, and of course, that’s why so many people don’t believe the results, but it just undermines confidence,” he told Ingraham, certainly knowing that the post office forwarding a ballot on to a county registrar in no way means it will be certified or counted. Would we really want the USPS deciding which ballots to deliver? Disingenuous on Hilton’s part at best.
“The whole thing is a joke,” Hilton went on to say of California elections, which of course, is absurd.
Thursday, when I asked Hilton’s team to speak with him about his views on voter fraud, they sent back a response that focused on the slowness of the California vote count; voter rolls Hilton has described as “wildly inaccurate,” which is a wildly inaccurate claim; and two instances of actual fraud with voter registration — not examples of votes that were counted.
To be sure, all those items are important. Any malfeasance should be punished, and the system should always strive to improve.
But how hard is it to simply be against fraud, while accurately acknowledging that it is rare and our current system provides accurate results?
I am against voter registration fraud. I am against vote fraud. I am absolutely pro-democracy, including policies such as mail-in voting that increase participation.
I do not believe that there is widespread fraud in the California primary, or in American elections in general, because the evidence does not support that conspiracy. I do not believe that Democrats are running a decades-long, nationwide conspiracy to replace white voters with votes from Black and brown undocumented immigrants, because that is both false and racist.
Pretty basic stuff, and statements in line with the values and common sense of the majority of Californians Hilton says he will represent.
If Hilton can’t come out and clearly say that Trump is wrong — about fraud and about the Great Replacement Theory — can he really be trusted to represent the values of the Golden State?
-
Technology7 minutes agoCarnival breach may put your travel data at risk
-
Business10 minutes agoPolluted rain runoff from big box store parking lots could see a crackdown
-
Entertainment15 minutes agoSAG-AFTRA members approve deal with major studios
-
Lifestyle22 minutes agoL.A. Affairs: What a Facebook Marketplace pickup taught me about grief and starting over
-
Politics25 minutes agoL.A. city attorney likely to be first incumbent ousted in primary in nearly 100 years
-
Sports37 minutes agoVegas’ Brayden McNabb takes a puck to the face, forced to leave Game 2 of Stanley Cup Finals
-
World45 minutes ago‘Red meat is a dream’: Iran inflation hits highest level since World War II
-
News1 hour agoPlatner Faces New Accusations Of ‘Toxic’ Relationships After Sexting Scandal