For UFC boss Dana White, heavyweight Josh Hokit’s post-fight behavior at UFC Freedom 250 on Sunday crossed a line.

On Monday, the mixed martial arts promotion’s president and chief executive told Time reporter Sean Gregory via text he is “completely against saying nasty and false things about people’s families” in reference to Hokit’s tasteless comment about Michelle Obama. During the White House spectacle in front of President Trump and others, Hokit was interviewed after his technical-knockout victory over Derrick Lewis and propped up a false conspiracy about the former first lady, declaring “Michelle Obama is a man.”

Hokit, who has a history of making tasteless comments after his fights, including the same Obama jab, drew mixed reaction from the UFC Freedom 250 crowd — and also from social media users, with some repeating the false claim in the comments on Hokit’s Instagram page and others chiding it. White, who has panned Hokit’s remarks in the past, did so again.

“Everyone knows my position on free speech but I hate that kind of nonsense,” White’s text added.

Hokit insulted Obama months after Trump faced backlash in February for a racist social media video that depicted President Obama and the former first lady as apes. Amid mounting public criticism, the White House took down the video and blamed an unnamed aide.

Michelle Obama, clearly on Hokit’s mind on Sunday, was busy with other matters over the weekend: preparing with her husband to open their Obama Presidential Center in Chicago. The museum and library hosts its grand opening Thursday and will be open to the public Friday.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.

For months, senior Trump administration officials argued that Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal helped shield Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and was a key reason the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury attacks on the country. 

Now, President Donald Trump is suggesting Iran having missiles may not be a problem at all.

“If other countries have them, it’s a little bit unfair for them not to have some. If Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and they all have some, I would say that in relative proportion, I think it’s okay,” Trump said at the G7 international forum Wednesday. “Am I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but (Iran) can’t have them? It doesn’t work that way.” 

“Missiles aren’t the problem. They hurt a little location, but they don’t blow up the planet.”

“The Gulf nations will address the nonnuclear issues, as we’ll be talking about the ballistic missiles,” the president added. “And we’ll talk, also, about the terrorist proxies that they have that — we don’t want that to happen.” 

ISRAELI OFFICIALS REPORTEDLY WARN IRAN’S BALLISTIC MISSILES COULD TRIGGER SOLO MILITARY ACTION AGAINST TEHRAN

Trump made the remarks while discussing whether Iran should be permitted to retain missile capabilities in a news conference at the G7 in Évian-les-Bains, France, just as details of the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran were being released. 

The comments strike a much different tone than arguments repeatedly made by senior administration officials in recent months, who described Iran’s ballistic missile force as both a major threat to regional security and a protective shield for Iran’s nuclear program.

“Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, and we will not allow Iran to hide behind the immunity of a massive short-term ballistic missile inventory, or the ability to make them or launch them,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in a press conference March 3. “What they are trying to do, and have been trying to do for a very long time, is build a conventional weapons capability as a shield to hide behind.”

TRUMP VOWS TO HIT IRAN ‘VERY HARD’ AFTER OBLITERATING NEARLY ’90 PERCENT’ OF REGIME MISSILES

Other senior officials repeatedly described degrading Iran’s missile capabilities as a central objective of Operation Epic Fury. 

In remarks at the White House on March 2, days after the start of the operation, Trump said, “Our objectives are clear. First, we’re destroying Iran’s missile capabilities … and their capacity to produce brand new ones.”

War Secretary Pete Hegseth later said March 4 the mission was “laser-focused” on obliterating Iran’s missiles and the facilities that produce them, while White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the same day one of the administration’s primary goals was to “destroy the regime’s deadly ballistic missiles and completely raze their missile industry to the ground.”  

Rubio repeatedly returned to the theme throughout the operation, arguing that degrading Iran’s missile force was necessary to prevent Iran from using conventional military power as cover for a future nuclear weapons program.

TRUMP SAYS US, ISRAEL SHATTERED IRANIAN MILITARY CAPABILITIES, PRESSES LEADERS TO SURRENDER: ‘CRY UNCLE’

“This is about very specific objectives,” Rubio told reporters on March 30. “The President laid them out on the first night of the operation… Here they are — you should write them down. Number one, the destruction of their air force. Number two, the destruction of their navy. Number three, the severe diminishing of their missile launching capability. And number four, the destruction of their factories so they can’t make more missiles and more drones to threaten us in the future. All of this so that they can never hide behind it to acquire a nuclear weapon. That was our objective from the beginning; that remains our objective now.” 

Leavitt made similar comments the same day, saying the objectives of Operation Epic Fury included “destroying their ballistic missiles” and dismantling the infrastructure used to produce them while ensuring Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon.

Trump’s remarks at the G7 also raised questions about the administration’s approach to Iran’s nuclear program, another issue that administration officials had previously described in far less flexible terms.

Trump’s comments also come as the administration pursues a memorandum of understanding with Iran that leaves unresolved one of the central disputes in the nuclear negotiations: the future of Tehran’s enrichment program.

Under the framework agreement unveiled this week, the United States and Iran agreed to spend 60 days negotiating the fate of Iran’s nearly 900-pound stockpile of near-weapons-grade 60% enriched uranium and any future enrichment activities. Administration officials said the minimum outcome under discussion would involve down-blending the material under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, while acknowledging that key details of a final agreement remain unsettled.

Officials described Iran’s willingness to dilute its stockpile as a significant concession, but also acknowledged that the memorandum does not resolve whether Iran will ultimately be permitted to retain any enrichment capability.

TRUMP REAFFIRMS HARD LINE ON IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL: ‘WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM’

Trump appeared to strike a more accommodating tone when discussing Iran’s access to nuclear power at the G7.

“It is a little hard, though, when you say that somebody wants it, other people have it, other, adjoining states have it. And you’re not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that,” Trump said. “It’s always a little tough. You have to use a little common sense.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The administration had previously drawn a much harder line on Iran’s nuclear program. Special envoy Steve Witkoff said the United States could not allow Iran to retain “even 1 percent” enrichment capability, while White House officials repeatedly described the end of Iranian enrichment as a red line.

The White House referred back to Trump’s recent remarks on missiles when asked for additional comment. “

“We are going to let the President’s comments stand,” a State Department spokesperson said when asked for comment.  

The Pentagon could not immediately be reached for comment. 

After Gov. Gavin Newsom announced this week that the U.S. Department of Justice may be investigating his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, media and pundits pounced on millions in charity payments he has solicited for nonprofits, including ones she is involved in.

Those donations, known as “behested payments,” aren’t illegal in California, but, long before Newsom started asking for them, many have found them unsavory — with good cause. A behest, after all, is by definition a command or at least a strong suggestion.

Anytime a politician is commanding money, regardless of the purpose, there is at least the appearance that the giver — Meta, Google, Blue Shield for example — may expect something in return.

It may seem absurd that the Trump administration could be investigating Newsom for questionable ethics, when Trump has hawked everything from crypto-coins to sneakers from the Oval Office. But the problem Newsom now faces is that behested payments are actually skeevy, and legal or not, they make an excellent target for pummeling the presidential contender. Especially because some of the charities are tied to his wife.

“The Newsom case has blown it wide open, but this has been an issue for years,” Sean McMorris told me. He’s the transparency, ethics and accountability program manager at Common Cause, a nonpartisan organization that has been raising alarms over behested payments for more than a decade.

McMorris said that while these payments don’t violate any laws, they are “ripe for abuse” because companies and people likely aren’t ponying up cash just to be good citizens. If you or I called up PG&E and asked them to give a few million to our favorite cause, I doubt we’d have much luck, even if it involved kittens, puppies or small children in need.

The entire system, McMorris points out, “doesn’t really work unless you’re shaking down people who you know need things from you as a politician.”

Jerry Brown used behested payments to get millions for charter schools he supported. Lesser luminaries such as mayors (including Antonio Villaraigosa, Eric Garcetti and Karen Bass, just to name the last three in L.A.) have used them for all kinds of stuff from jobs programs to fixing up official residences.

And it’s far from a Democratic thing. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, used them to pay for travel and after-school programs. Republican James Gallagher, who recently won a congressional seat, used them to fund computers for schools while he was in the state Legislature. Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones has raised millions, including helping to get $800,000 in donations to fund a replica of a historic ship for the maritime museum in his San Diego district.

Trump himself could be considered king of behested payments, with his corporate-paid ballroom and birthday bash.

Literally, folks, find me a politician with an itty-bitty bit of clout, and I’ll show you a trail of behested payments stretching through their pet projects. For that reason alone, it’s unlikely that California legislators will take any action to curb them, especially now when doing so would appear as a criticism to Newsom and Democrats in general.

And, to be fair, behested payments can do a lot of good. Newsom supercharged behested payments during the pandemic, raising hundreds of millions for programs to get Californians through that social disaster.

For that reason and others, not all experts find them terribly troubling. Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor with an expertise in election and governance issues, points out that money in politics is nothing new and at least behested payments are (mostly) required to be acknowledged. Anything over $5,000 and the politician has to report it to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, which keeps a public database.

That makes behested payments far more transparent than, say, dark money donations to a mysterious political action committee. And at least the money is going to a good cause, be it historical ships or computers for kids.

“I actually don’t think that they’re the evil mechanism that other people do,” Levinson said. “I mean, my feeling is like, let’s live in reality, right? People are going to want to give as much money to or close to powerful people as possible, and I think that we have a choice between money going to independent expenditure groups or political committees or going to nonprofits.”

So behested payments in and of themselves might not be much of a headache for Newsom. But some of the payments Newsom solicited went to nonprofits Siebel Newsom is involved with, and which have paid her a salary. That proximity is uncomfortable for many of us. There is no distinction for a behest given to a charity with direct ties to the politician, but maybe there should be.

Still, salaries being paid by behested payments also aren’t illegal, and it’s been done before, even by Newsom. Villaraigosa was paid through behested funds for his work as the state “infrastructure czar” back in 2022. Bass considered paying former L.A. Police Commissioner Steve Soboroff through behested-funded nonprofits for his work after the recent fires before public scrutiny pushed him to forgo the funds.

None of that is to say the Newsoms are off the hook in a federal investigation. Newsom’s office said that along with the FBI, agents from the IRS have been knocking on doors and asking questions. All of us — probably the Newsoms included — will just have to wait to see if the fine-tooth combs of the feds pick up any dirt.

If there is any lesson to be learned at this point, it’s about ambition and hubris. Behested payments are easy money for California politicians and business as usual — everyone does it. But maybe they shouldn’t. It’s not black or white.

Newsom is learning quickly what it means to have a powerful enemy like Trump, one who has shown he will use the full power of the American government for his own purposes. One who can tip the scales and slide white to gray and gray to felony.

Federal investigators do not like to come up empty-handed, and the wink-wink nature of behested payments creates just that kind of ambiguity that provides reasonable cause for investigation — a self-inflicted vulnerability that surely has every California politician nervous.