LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Source: Canadian Press

The way we’re talking about motherhood is changing, says Miranda Brady, a professor of communication at Carleton University.

Brady is the author of the recent book “Mother Trouble: Mediations of White Maternal Angst after Second Wave Feminism,” which examines media portrayals of “good” and “bad” motherhood over the last 50 years through a series of case studies that include HGTV home renovation shows, the 1975 film “Stepford Wives” and TV series “Modern Family.”

She said political discourse south of the border combined with social media “trad-wives” and “trad-moms,” who espouse traditional gender roles while they model motherhood, have led to a new era of natalism in which some populations are encouraged to go forth and multiply — with the role of “mother” treated as a moral imperative.

The Canadian Press spoke with Brady about how motherhood is being politicized in this moment — and what it’s rooted in.

CP: Where is this coming from?

MB: There’s a few different things at play. One is a pronatalist movement amongst people like Elon Musk and other (groups) coming out of Silicon Valley, which are concerned about demographic decline, and so they assume a kind of instrumentalist perspective on these declines which involves trying to promote procreation as much as possible. I think there’s another kind of pronatalism being espoused, and coming out of the U.S., which is much more influenced by Christianity — by right-wing Christian lobbyists.

CP: The Quiverfull thing. (A Christian theological belief that suggests children are a blessing from God tantamount to arrows in a quiver: the more the better.)

MB: Yes, exactly. That is influenced by the same culture that produced the Duggars (of the TLC show “19 Kids And Counting”). And I think the Duggars had a big influence on this kind of prolific child-bearing amongst a right-wing conservative Christian base.

In some Christian circles and cultures, in particular the Church of Latter Day Saints, prolific child-rearing has always been part of the culture. But what’s happening now is it’s becoming much more mainstreamed through lobbying efforts by right-wing Christians, but I think also by influencer culture.

CP: Tell me about the influencers.

MB: It’s a lot of influencers who assume either a trad-mom esthetic and who are overtly political — they’re overtly espousing political views. But in some cases, they’re more so just modelling prolific child-bearing and in particular in an agrarian, bucolic setting that seems like an ideal lifestyle. Unfortunately, it’s one which (only) people who have the means can assume in many cases.

For example, Hannah Neeleman, Ballerina Farm, (a 34-year-old mother-of-eight with 10 million Instagram followers) — that kind of lifestyle is made possible by intergenerational family wealth, where their family was able to acquire a ranch and are able to live this life because they already had money to begin with.

CP: How is this trad-mom lifestyle mainstreamed by old-school, established media like HGTV?

MB: HGTV content esthetically matches a lot of the trad-life content we’re seeing today. And even if it’s not necessarily politicized, there’s a similar kind of sentiment and esthetic. …The kind of hyper-feminine esthetic where the host of an HGTV show or a trad-mom is usually conventionally heteronormative, attractive — usually with hair extensions, wearing makeup or in some cases have on a prairie dress, they’re assuming kind of a homesteading esthetic.

CP: Can the esthetic be separated from the political? Can you just like your prairie dresses or your milkmaid dresses and cooking for your kids, or is the politics kind of baked in?

MB: A lot of people just stay at home with their kids and they don’t call themselves trad-moms. It’s what they do. It’s their circumstances or their choice. And I do think that the trad-mom is a very highly estheticized version of this.

…Where it starts to get more moralistic is where it gets more problematic. The judgment of mothers who don’t choose to stay home with their kids, those who work outside the home or those who choose not to have children. It’s a decision that’s very personal and in part motivated by economic circumstances.

…During the pandemic, for example, when I was in the midst of really messy parenthood and I was trying to do my job and all the stuff, sometimes I would turn to these highly esthetic, glossy images of people who just seem to have it figured out…. Sometimes there’s a real attractiveness to these kinds of esthetics, because they do create a fantasy world where everything is neat and orderly and you can check out of your problems.

CP: Almost like propaganda?

MB: For anybody who knows their history, it really does look a lot like propaganda. For example, Nazi German propaganda in its promotion of the agrarian setting and the duty of the mother to reproduce the nation. The visuals look very similar to what we see now in trad-mom influencer content. There’s a lot of historical patterns, and for people who have studied history, this rings a lot of alarm bells for them.

CP: And what about the language?

MB: There are a lot of historians of natalist movements who have studied both anti- and pronatalist policies and sentiment in various countries around the world. Richard Togman, for example, wrote about this and he talked about how in some forms of natalism there’s both a policy toward trying to encourage population growth among some segments of the population while simultaneously trying to discourage other segments of the population. If we look at the U.S. now, this is pretty clear with a kind of white Christian push toward encouraging reproduction through things like, for example, the executive order around in vitro fertilization…encouraging citizens to have more babies. But then at the same time, there’s a denial of birthright citizenship amongst other segments of the populations and mass deportation as well. So in particular Latinx populations are being targeted with an anti-natalist set of actions.

CP: You called it a pattern. How far back does the pattern go?

MB: It goes back further than Nazi Germany. In the U.S. in the early 20th century, there was a whole eugenics movement. There were a lot of prominent people in society, elites, who established eugenics as a way to try to grow the population in particular ways that were very ableist, excluding disabled people from society through institutionalization, and also wary of freed Black slaves, of migrant workers, of people who were generally not seen as more desirable parts of the population.

And even further back than that, Margaret Andersen wrote about the French Third Republic after the Franco-Prussian War (in 1871). There were very similar patterns there, too, with a movement toward pronatalism, but also increasing expansion through colonization and the effort to colonize new colonies with French populations, but also the treatment of colonized people as not necessarily French when they migrated to the metropole to fill labour shortages.

CP: What is it like to be a mom and see this facet of your identity being portrayed in this way — as a kind of moral imperative?

I find it incredible frustrating, because I’m a parent of two kids and one of my kids is disabled and autistic. And I find the sentiment toward women — or parents more generally — that they should just go out and have as many children as possible, unsupported, to be extremely dangerous. …There’s not enough supports for parents, but in particular mothers. So I think it’s totally irresponsible to just encourage them to go out and have as many children as possible in a world where they are not supported.

Looking at these highly estheticized images, it does not match my reality.

— This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 9, 2025.

Nicole Thompson, The Canadian Press

Click here for more

OTTAWA — As U.S. President Donald Trump continues to cast doubt on the future of the NATO military alliance, Canada is looking to partner with the European Union on defence.

Here’s a closer look at what’s driving this major shift in transatlantic relations.

What problem is Europe trying to solve?

Trump has said that Washington won’t necessarily defend NATO allies — a threat that undermines the entire point of the alliance, said defence policy analyst Federico Santopinto.

“Europeans feel very vulnerable without the United States,” said Santopinto, a senior researcher at the Paris-based French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs.

He said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine revealed just how much the continent had come to depend on American defence spending.

While European nations have spent roughly the same as the U.S. on military aid for Kyiv, Washington has provided Ukraine with indispensable intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance equipment that Europe lacks.

When the U.S. and Germany — alarmed by the prospect of direct conflict with Moscow — prevented Ukraine from using American and German weapons to hit targets deep within Russia, many EU nations saw how their own hands might be tied if they needed to use donated gear in some future conflict.

“The war in Ukraine taught everybody that when you wage war, you need to be sovereign over the weapons you have,” Santopinto said.

In addition, much of Europe’s defence market is fragmented. Many EU nations own military equipment that isn’t interoperable, leaving capacity gaps across the continent, particularly in air defence.

The EU does not have an army but it can help to structure the continent’s military industries.

How is Canada involved?

Canadian officials have sought to reduce their reliance on American gear — particularly since Trump mused in March about selling allies “toned-down” versions of fighter planes with fewer capabilities than U.S. aircraft.

For more than a year, Canada and the EU have been in talks about a possible “security and defence partnership.”

Brussels has signed such deals with Japan and South Korea, but they largely focused on joint naval exercises. The deal with Canada would involve defence procurement, according to officials on both sides of the Atlantic.

In a white paper released in March outlining the EU’s approach to defence industries, the European Union said that “our co-operation with Canada has intensified and should be further enhanced … including on respective initiatives to boost defence industry production.”

Christian Leuprecht, a political science professor at Queen’s University and the Royal Military College, said both sides can build on the fact that “European companies already invest fairly heavily and extensively in Canada, including on defence.”

What is the EU doing to boost defence?

In March, the European Commission unveiled ReArm Europe, a plan that would earmark up to the equivalent of C$1.25 trillion for defence over five years.

It’s not a subsidy program but would provide loans and allow member states to take on more debt to spend on defence, without triggering the restrictions the EU imposes on members with excessive deficits.

Santopinto said EU countries determined to cut back spending due to the high cost of borrowing aren’t likely to take on more debt, ReArm notwithstanding.

Still, ReArm proposes a loan program worth about $235 billion to be called Security Action For Europe, or SAFE, which would allow countries to work with others outside the European Union to jointly buy or build arms.

The program is still being negotiated and might only allow such partnerships with countries that have signed security and defence agreements with the EU. Canada does not yet have such an agreement.

Prime Minister Mark Carney was elected on a platform that promised to advance “Canada’s involvement in the ReArm Europe plan in support of transatlantic security.”

Leuprecht said “even a fraction of that money” being spent on ReArm would be a lifeline for a Canadian economy struggling under the weight of American tariffs.

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly said a month ago that she expects a defence deal with Europe “in the coming months.” She said the deal could be very good for aerospace and artificial intelligence companies in Montreal and Davie Shipbuilding near Quebec City.

How do individual countries feel?

Reports have emerged in recent months of a split among EU members on how the SAFE loan program should function — and whether it could be used to make joint purchases with Canada and the U.K.

France has for years called for Europe to have “strategic autonomy” in defence. Santopinto said France — which has a large domestic weapons industry — has pushed for Europe to make most or all of its own military equipment.

France has tried to work around an American law that limits its exports of arms produced with certain U.S. parts.

Santopinto said Poland and nations like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — countries on Russia’s doorstep — would prefer to see the U.S. continue to take an active role in Europe’s defence.

Other EU nations, including Germany and the Netherlands, have indicated an openness to linking the EU’s military supply chains with like-minded countries.

Separately, Germany and Norway have proposed partnering with Canada to procure new submarines — a project that would give Ottawa earlier access to the vessels and help it meet its NATO spending targets. Norway is not a member of the EU.

Why does Europe sign deals with other countries?

Santopinto said the EU wants to use the clout it enjoys due to the size of its market to set military procurement standards that would make it easier for European armies to work together.

“It’s a way for European Union to become a more strong actor in the field of armament” through “a new alternative of industrial defence policy to the domination of the United States,” he said.

The EU has used its economic clout and population to set standards in other areas that have been adopted globally — such as the requirement that websites seek permission to gather personalized information.

Leuprecht said Canada can offer Europe a place to produce arms with much cheaper energy, and access to data centres required to run some military technology.

“It’s an opportunity for Canada to contribute to deterrence, by strengthening those relationships with our European partners and (by) Russia knowing that Canada will be there for our European partners,” he said.

Is Canada a good partner?

Ottawa’s allies have for years pressed Canada to reach the NATO member defence spending guideline of two per cent of gross domestic product — a target Ottawa has not met since the alliance set it in 2006.

That pressure has been mounting since Russia launched its war on Ukraine — and particularly since Trump started suggesting the U.S. might not come to the defence of NATO allies that don’t meet the target.

Fearing that territorial gains in Ukraine will embolden Moscow to invade countries like Latvia — where Canadian troops are serving as part of a deterrence mission — European countries are already debating increasing the NATO spending target to 2.5 or three per cent.

EU officials frequently say Canada is among their closest partners and has shared values. Ottawa is already party to EU programs like PESCO that allow for some defence-industry collaboration.

But Leuprecht pointed out that European leaders have stayed largely quiet about Trump’s talk of annexing Canada.

“The stunning silence … tells you a whole lot about the view of Europeans with regards to Canada’s reliability,” he said.

Leuprecht blames that silence on what he considers Canada’s insufficient defence spending and its failure to export energy like liquefied natural gas across the Atlantic. He said he suspects this is why one-third of EU states still haven’t fully ratified the bloc’s trade deal with Canada.

Canada’s economy is about as large as Russia’s, he said, but Moscow is much more effective at advancing its strategic goals.

“There is a widespread belief in Europe that Canada has not been a reliable and reputable partner when Europe has needed Canada,” Leuprecht said, adding it would be harder for Canada to miss defence spending targets when they’re set with another country.

“Here is an opportunity for Canada to demonstrate to Europe that we are prepared to be the reliable partner that we have been in the past.”

Are Europeans looking to leave NATO?

Not according to the latest official joint report on EU-Canada relations, published last month.

“Canada and the EU recognize NATO as the primary collective defence organization for members of the alliance, and continue to encourage increased co-operation between the EU and NATO to further benefit from the experience and expertise of each organization,” reads the government report.

Leuprecht said the EU’s white paper is aimed at complementing NATO so that Europe meets U.S. demands to do more without losing Washington’s security guarantee. That arrangement is in Canada’s interest, he said.

“If the European Union goes it alone, Canada’s value to Europe will decline precipitously,” he said, arguing this would probably leave Ottawa almost entirely reliant on Washington.

Santopinto said Europe wants Canada to help preserve NATO. “They could show that there is a democratic western front that is still existing, despite this strange and erratic attitude of the United States,” he said.

All of these matters are expected to be on the agenda at the NATO summit in June, which both Carney and Trump are expected to attend. “This might possibly be the single most important NATO summit ever,” Leuprecht said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 9, 2025.

Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press

Click here for more

STONINGTON, Maine (AP) — Virginia Olsen has pulled lobsters from Maine’s chilly Atlantic waters for decades while watching threats to the state’s lifeblood industry mount.

Trade imbalances with Canada, tight regulations on fisheries and offshore wind farms towering like skyscrapers on open water pose three of those threats, said Olsen, part of the fifth generation in her family to make a living in the lobster trade.

That’s why she was encouraged last month when President Donald Trump signed an executive order that promises to restore American fisheries to their former glory. The order promises to shred fishing regulations, and Olsen said that will allow fishermen to do what they do best — fish.

That will make a huge difference in communities like her home of Stonington, the busiest lobster fishing port in the country, Olsen said. It’s a tiny island town of winding streets, swooping gulls and mansard roof houses with an economy almost entirely dependent on commercial fishing, some three hours up the coast from Portland, Maine’s biggest city.

Olsen knows firsthand how much has changed over the years. Hundreds of fish and shellfish populations globally have dwindled to dangerously low levels, alarming scientists and prompting the restrictions and catch limits that Trump’s order could wash away with the stroke of a pen. But she’s heartened that the livelihoods of people who work the traps and cast the nets have become a priority in faraway places where they often felt their voices weren’t heard.

“I do think it’s time to have the conversation on what regulations that the industry does need. We’re fishing different than we did 100 years ago,” she said. “If everything is being looked at, we should be looking at the regulations within the fishing industry.”

A question of sustainability and competitiveness

But if fishing and lobstering interests finally have a seat at the table, the questions become how much seafood can be served there — and for how long. Trump’s April 17 order, called “Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness,” promises an overhaul of the way America fishes, and cites a national seafood trade deficit of more than $20 billion as the reason to do it. The order calls on the federal government to reduce the regulatory burden on fishermen by later this month.

It arrives at a time when conservation groups and many marine scientists say the ocean needs more regulation, not less. One oft-cited 2020 study led by a scientist at the University of British Columbia looked at more than 1,300 fish and invertebrate populations and found that 82% were below levels that can produce maximum sustainable yields. The university said the study “discovered global declines, some severe, of many popularly consumed species.”

Trump’s order prioritizes commerce over conservation. It also calls for the development of a comprehensive seafood trade strategy and a review of existing marine monuments, which are underwater protected zones, to see if any should be opened for fishing. At least one, the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument, has already been reopened.

Many commercial fishermen and fishing trade groups lauded the order. Members of the industry, one of the oldest in the country, have long made the case that heavy regulations — many intended to protect the health of fish populations — leave the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage to the fleets of countries that don’t bear the same kind of burden. That disadvantage is a big piece of why America imports more than two-thirds of its seafood, they argue.

“The president’s executive order recognizes the challenges our fishing families and communities face, and we appreciate the commitment to reduce burdensome regulations and strengthen the competitiveness of American seafood,” said Patrice McCarron, executive director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association.

Some fishermen, including Maine lobsterman Don McHenan, said they’re looking forward to members of the industry being able to fish in areas of the ocean that have been closed off to them for years. McHenan said he’s also hopeful the pace of new regulations will slow.

“As long as they don’t put any more onto us,” McHenan said. “We’ll see — time will tell.”

Not all fishermen are on board

But the support for deregulation is not unanimous among fishermen. Some say strong conservation laws are critical to protecting species that fishermen rely on to make a living.

In Alaska, for example, Matt Wiebe said the executive order “terrifies” him. A commercial fisherman with more than 50 years of experience fishing for salmon, he said the order could potentially harm the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery, which has received praise from sustainability organizations for careful management of the fish supply.

Absent that management, he said the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery could go the way of the New England cod fishing business, which collapsed due in large part to overfishing and has never recovered.

“Since New England fishers lost their cod fishery due to overfishing, many other fisheries came to respect and depend on conservation efforts,” Wiebe said. “We fish because it’s what we do, and conservation efforts mean we and our kids can fish into the future.”

The executive order arrived at a time when America’s commercial fishermen are coping with environmental challenges and the decline of some once-marketable species. Maine’s historic shrimp fishery shuttered more than a decade ago, California’s salmon industry is struggling through closures and the number of fish stocks on the federal overfished list has grown in recent years.

There is also the looming question of what Trump’s trade war with major seafood producers such as Canada and China will mean for the U.S. industry — not to mention American consumers.

To many in Maine’s lobster and fishing business, the answer is clear: Cut regulations and let them do their thing.

“We definitely feel the industry is over-regulated as a whole,” said Dustin Delano, a fourth-generation Maine lobsterman who is also chief operating officer of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association. “We hope that this will help for sure. It does seek to initiate that America-first strategy in the fishery.”

___

Patrick Whittle And Robert F. Bukaty, The Associated Press





Click here for more

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Thursday that lawyers should stand up and fight in battles faced by the nation’s legal system, comments that come amid attacks on federal judges and President Donald Trump’s targeting of elite law firms in executive orders.

“Our job is to stand up for people who can’t do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes,” she said. “But right now, we can’t lose the battles we are facing. And we need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight.”

Sotomayor didn’t mention the president as she spoke at an event in the nation’s capital hosted by a section of the American Bar Association, which has also been targeted by Trump.

The liberal justice’s remarks come a day after conservative Chief Justice John Roberts defended judicial independence as necessary to “check the excesses of the Congress or the executive” at an appearance in Buffalo, New York.

Last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson forcefully condemned attacks on judges in her own speech. She did not mention Trump by name, but called the threats and harassment “an attack on democracy.”

The nation’s highest court is weighing a growing number of emergency appeals from the Trump administration as his sweeping conservative agenda faces pushback in lower courts.

The president and his allies have railed at judges who have blocked parts of Trump’s agenda, sometimes with highly personal attacks. Trump has also targeted elite law firms over work he disagrees with, leading some to fight back in court and others to strike deals with him.

The ABA has sued Trump over federal grant terminations and Trump has threatened the organization’s role in accrediting law schools over its diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press

Click here for more

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly fired Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden on Thursday as the White House continues to purge the federal government of those perceived to oppose the president and its agenda.

The dismissal was disclosed in statements from three top House Democrats and confirmed by a separate person familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity before it was made public.

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Hayden was “callously fired” by Trump and demanded an explanation from the administration as to why.

“Dr. Hayden’s tenure has been marked by a steadfast commitment to accessibility, modernization, and the democratization of knowledge,” DeLauro said in a statement. “Her dismissal is not just an affront to her historic service but a direct attack on the independence of one of our most revered institutions.”

Seung Min Kim And Zeke Miller, The Associated Press


Click here for more

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The South Carolina General Assembly wrapped up its regular 2025 session Thursday with a few accomplishments, but a number of things like the fate of the state treasurer and radical changes in the state’s tax code are still up in the air.

In a flurry of action over the final days, the Republican-dominated legislature passed a bill they hope will reduce skyrocketing insurance rates for restaurants and clubs that serve liquor, and another measure that utilities said was necessary for them to meet the growing demand for power as the state’s population booms.

And by the end of the year, it will likely be illegal for drivers to hold their cellphones in their hands.

Lawmakers also passed a bill allowing parents to spend public money on private schools. The General Assembly passed a similar voucher program in 2023 but it was struck down by the state Supreme Court. Republicans are confident they made just enough changes that the justices won’t rule again that it violates the state constitution by directly benefiting private schools.

Republican Gov. Henry McMaster has either signed or is expected to sign all those proposals.

This is the first of the two-year session, so all pending bills will remain where they are until January when the 2026 session begins.

But since the 2024 elections created a Republican supermajority in the Senate and locked in the one in the House, issues like a hate crimes law or medical marijuana measure that have been building support fell off the radar this session.

“In the big picture, we didn’t do any momentous legislation this year that’s going to be remembered long after this year other than potentially the voucher bill if it is somehow found to be constitutional,” Democratic Senate Minority Leader Brad Hutto said.

Big wins

The liquor liability proposal keeps the requirement for restaurants and bars that serve alcohol to have $1 million in liability insurance. But they can reduce the amount of coverage they must carry by doing things like closing early, having scanners to confirm IDs or showing less than 40% of their sales come from alcohol.

Lawmakers discussed tackling other issues with civil lawsuits, but mostly punted that to next year.

On energy, lawmakers decided to allow private Dominion Energy and publicly-owned Santee Cooper to work together on a large power plant run on natural gas that both utilities say is needed to meet growing energy needs. The bill also requires regulators to review permits for utility projects quicker.

The compromise did not include any limits on data centers, which can use massive amounts of power, or protections some lawmakers wanted for when utilities want to take private land to build pipelines, power lines or substations.

“You’re going to regret this,” said Republican Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, who several times invoked problems utilities created with too much operational freedom, such as losing billions of dollars on nuclear reactors that were never completed.

Wait ’til next year

The House passed a bill that would substantially alter the state’s income tax system after their original plan was criticized for raising taxes for up to 60% of filers in its first year.

The new plan would leave two rates — 1.99% on the first $30,000 of taxable income and 5.39% on everything above that. The current highest rate will likely be dropped to 6% this summer. Republicans said their goal is to slowly drop the higher rate until everyone pays 1.99%. When initially put in place, about 24% of taxpayers will pay more.

The Senate didn’t take up the bill.

The Senate voted to remove Republican Treasurer Curtis Loftis from office for his role in a $1.8 billion accounting error that required millions of dollars by forensic accounts to determine it didn’t involve actual money, just bad entries in the state’s ledgers.

Loftis remains in office because the proposal needed a two-thirds vote from the House as well, and Republican Speaker Murrell Smith said nothing will happen next year — when Loftis plans to run for reelection — because most of the party doesn’t think that is an appropriate punishment.

“We need to let the voters decide if they want to keep him in office,” Smith said.

Never mind

Two perennial issues in the General Assembly — a hate crimes bill and a proposal allowing medical use of marijuana — didn’t get much traction in 2025.

After passing a bill that would make South Carolina the 49th state with a hate crime laws in previous sessions, the House ignored it in 2025. The effort has failed continuously in the Senate, and Massey said he doesn’t expect that to change any time soon because he sees no need for it.

Medical marijuana has passed the Senate twice in recent years but couldn’t quite get through the House. This year it failed to get a hearing in either chamber.

Jeffrey Collins, The Associated Press




Click here for more

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Thursday that he is naming Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, a former county prosecutor and elected judge, to be the top federal prosecutor for the nation’s capital after abandoning his first pick for the job.

Pirro, who joined Fox News in 2006, co-hosts the network’s show “The Five” on weekday evenings. She was elected as a judge in New York’s Westchester County Court in 1990 before serving three terms as the county’s elected district attorney.

Trump tapped Pirro to at least temporarily lead the nation’s largest U.S. Attorney’s office after pulling his nomination of conservative activist Ed Martin Jr. for the position earlier on Thursday. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was naming Pirro as the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., but didn’t indicate whether he would nominate her for the Senate-confirmed position on a more permanent basis.

“Jeanine is incredibly well qualified for this position, and is considered one of the Top District Attorneys in the History of the State of New York. She is in a class by herself,” Trump wrote.

Trump withdrew Martin from consideration after a key Republican senator said he could not support Martin for the job due to his defense of rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“He’s a terrific person, and he wasn’t getting the support from people that I thought,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday. He later added: “But we have somebody else that will be great.”

Pirro is the latest in a string of Trump appointments coming from Fox News — a list that includes Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who co-hosted “Fox & Friends Weekend.”

Martin has served as acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia since Trump’s first week in office. But his hopes of keeping the job faded amid questions about his qualifications and background. Martin had never served as a prosecutor or tried a case before taking office in January.

Martin has stirred up a chorus of critics during his brief but tumultuous tenure in office. He fired and demoted subordinates who worked on politically sensitive cases. He posted on social media about potential targets of investigations. And he forced the chief of the office’s criminal division to resign after directing her to scrutinize the awarding of a government contract during Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration.

Martin’s temporary appointment is due to expire on May 20.

Pirro, a 1975 graduate of Albany Law School, has significantly more courtroom experience than Martin. She led one of the nation’s first domestic violence units in a prosecutor’s office.

After her elected terms as a judge and district attorney, Pirro briefly campaigned in 2005 as a Republican to unseat then-Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton before announcing that she would would run for New York attorney general instead. She lost that race to Andrew Cuomo, son of former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo.

Pirro became an ubiquitous television pundit during O.J. Simpson’s murder trial, often appearing on CNN’s “Larry King Live.” During her time on Fox News, she has frequently interviewed Trump.

In the final minutes of his first term as president, Trump issued a pardon to Pirro’s ex-husband, Albert Pirro, who was convicted in 2000 on conspiracy and tax evasion charges.

In 2021, voting technology company Smartmatic USA sued Fox News, Pirro and others for spreading false claims that the company helped “steal” the 2020 presidential election from Trump. The company’s libel suit, filed in a New York state court, sought $2.7 billion from the defendants.

Michael Kunzelman, The Associated Press

Click here for more

VANCOUVER — A British Columbia researcher in South Asian affairs says concerns about the current India and Pakistan tensions are justified, given that the region has not seen a conflict this intense in more than 25 years.

M.V. Ramana, professor at the University of B.C.’s school of public policy and global affairs, says the last time there was a realistic risk of nuclear weapons being used was a conflict between the two sides in the Kargil region of Kashmir in 1999.

Ramana says the difference between then and now is that in 1999 the United States brokered an end to hostilities, but the current White House administration has not shown similar diplomatic priorities.

He says the growth of social media has also added to his level of concern, as it makes it harder for governments to take less forceful responses given the nationalistic emotions behind conflict.

India launched missile strikes into Pakistani-administered areas earlier this week that killed 31 people in what it said was retaliation for an April attack on Indian Hindu tourists in India-controlled Kashmir.

Tensions have continued since the missile strikes, with Pakistan saying it has shot down several drones, while India says it has “neutralized” Pakistani attempts to hit military targets.

Not all of the claims by both sides have been verified.

– With files from The Associated Press

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 8, 2025.

Chuck Chiang, The Canadian Press

Click here for more

SEATTLE (AP) — Trump administration funding cuts and a loss of federal workers who help support wildland firefighting continues to make planning for the upcoming wildfire season a challenge, according to forest and fire officials in Washington state and Oregon.

The biggest issue they’re facing is a lack of communication from the federal government as the West faces “a pretty significant wildland fire season,” Washington State Forester George Geissler said Thursday during a press conference hosted by Democratic Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

“This is the time when we make certain that we have the aviation we need, when we have the personnel we need and that all of our systems check out and are ready to go when the alarm bell rings,” he said. “Without knowing what our partners are doing or not having a clear understanding of what actions are being taken, we struggle with missing the third leg of the stool that we have.”

The Forest Service workforce was cut in February during Elon Musk’s push to reduce federal spending, and at least 1,000 National Park Service workers were let go. A court order to rehire fired workers, along with a public outcry brought many workers back to their jobs, but Murray and fire officials say it wasn’t enough. Plus, the lost of experienced, trained workers set the process back.

“We’re hearing that don’t worry, we are going to hire frontline people,” Murray said. “You just let a whole bunch of frontline people go.”

A spokesperson with the Department of Interior, which oversees National Parks and other public lands, said “funding is not in jeopardy.” They’re supporting firefighting efforts by increasing pay for federal and tribal wildland firefighters across the U.S.

The administration has refused to release the exact number of fired and rehired workers, but numbers are coming in from individual forests, she said.

“I’ve heard of at least 35 people at Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, 46 at Okanagan-Wenatchee, 21 at Colville, 15 at Gifford-Pinchot, and more at the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Olympic National Forest and Methow Valley,” she said. “Here’s the thing, nearly every single Forest Service employee supports fire operations in some capacity.”

Fire Chief Leonard Johnson, with the McLane Black Fire Department in Washington state, said they may line up aviation support and heavy equipment, but it takes trained firefighters to put the fires out.

“We have a high reliance on that workforce out there,” he said. “Not only at the local level, at the state level, but at the federal level to make our wildfire season successful to deal with those large fires. People are the critical component in all of this.”

Merkley said Trump’s budget proposal cuts forest and watershed management programs that improve forest conditions, eliminates a collaborative forest landscape restoration program and slashes 2,000 National Forest positions, on top of the thousands who left through early retirement, buyouts and layoffs.

Most of those workers may not have the title “firefighter” but they all hold Red Cards – which shows they have special training to provide essential frontline support to firefighting crews, Murray said.

“In fact, around three quarters of forest service workers are trained in wild land firefighting,” she said. “They provide crucial surge capacity when a crisis strikes.”

Trail maintenance crews ensure the paths are clear for firefighting personnel and equipment, Murray said. Biologists conduct testing to make decisions about prescribed burns and fuel reduction planning.

“We are here today to pull the fire alarm, and we’re gonna set off some sirens,” she said. “We’re going to keep focused on this, and we are gonna keep pushing back. There is just too much at stake to do anything less.”

Martha Bellisle, The Associated Press



Click here for more

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon will immediately begin moving as many as 1,000 openly identifying transgender service members out of the military and give others 30 days to self-identify, under a new directive issued Thursday.

Buoyed by Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision allowing the Trump administration to enforce a ban on transgender individuals in the military, the Defense Department will then begin going through medical records to identify others who haven’t come forward.

Department officials have said it’s difficult to determine exactly how many transgender service members there are, but medical records will show those who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, who show symptoms or are being treated.

Those troops would then be involuntarily forced out of the service.

Lolita C. Baldor, The Associated Press

Click here for more