LONDON — President Donald Trump is suing the BBC for $10 billion over a television documentary he claims was “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious.”
Britain’s national broadcaster has apologized to Trump over the way it edited a speech in the program, but says it will defend itself against the defamation claim.
The BBC is not the first media organization on the receiving end of a lawsuit from the president. But its position is complicated by its status as a taxpayer-funded public broadcaster and its stature as a closely scrutinized national institution.
A pioneering broadcaster
The BBC was founded in 1922 as a radio service to “inform, educate and entertain,” a mantra still central to its self-image.
It launched the world’s first regularly scheduled television service in 1936, and helped make TV a mass medium when many Britons bought a TV set specifically to watch the 1953 coronation of Queen Elizabeth II.
It operates 15 U.K. national and regional TV channels, several international channels, 10 national radio stations, dozens of local radio stations, the globe-spanning World Service radio and copious digital output including the iPlayer streaming service.
As well as its news output it has a huge global viewership for entertainment shows including “Doctor Who,” “EastEnders,” “The Traitors” and “Strictly Come Dancing.”
The BBC is funded from the public purse
The broadcaster is funded by an annual license fee, currently set at 174.50 pounds ($230), paid by all U.K. households who watch live TV or any BBC content.
The license fee has long had opponents, not least rival commercial broadcasters, and they have grown louder in an era of digital streaming when many people no longer have television sets or follow traditional TV schedules.
The BBC’s governing charter, which sets the license fee, is reviewed once a decade, and the latest round of the process kicked off Tuesday. The center-left Labour government says it will ensure the BBC has “sustainable and fair” funding but has not ruled out replacing the license fee with another funding model.
Managing the broadcaster has become a political football
The broadcaster is bound by the terms of its charter to be impartial in its output. It is not a state broadcaster beholden to the U.K government, but is overseen by a board that includes both BBC staff and political appointees.
It’s frequently a political football, with conservatives seeing a leftist slant in its news programs and some liberals accusing it of having a conservative bias.
It has repeatedly battled British governments over editorial independence, from the 1926 general strike, when Cabinet minister Winston Churchill tried to seize control of the airwaves, to a battle with Tony Blair’s administration over the intelligence used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Recently it has been criticized for its coverage of trans issues and the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. In February, the BBC removed a documentary about Gaza from its streaming service after it emerged that the child narrator was the son of an official in the Hamas-led government.
Documentary that riled Trump
The lawsuit stems from an edition of the BBC’s “Panorama” current affairs series titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” that was broadcast days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The film, made by a third-party production company, spliced together two sections of a speech given by Trump on Jan. 6, 2021, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.”
By doing so, it made it look like Trump was giving the green light to his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol as Congress was poised to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election that Trump falsely alleged was stolen from him.
Trump’s lawyers say the program falsely portrayed the president as a “violent insurrectionist,” caused “massive economic damage to his brand value” and was a “brazen attempt” to interfere in the U.S. election.
The lawsuit, filed in a Florida court, seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and $5 billion for unfair trade practices.
Legal jeopardy
The BBC said in a statement that “we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”
Media attorney Mark Stephens said Trump and his lawyers face several hurdles. They must prove that the BBC program was shown in Florida and that people in that state thought less of him as a consequence. Trump’s lawyers argue that U.S. subscribers to BritBox and people using virtual private networks could have watched it, but they must prove it definitively, said Stephens, a consultant at the firm Howard Kennedy.
“Allegations of libel are cheap, but proof is dear,’’ Stephens said.
Stephens said Trump’s lawyers also have to deal with the fact that public figures have “to put up with the slings and arrows of incorrect reporting,’’ which are protected under the First Amendment.
While many legal experts have dismissed the president’s claims against the media as having little merit, he has won some lucrative settlements against U.S. media companies and he could try to leverage the BBC mistake for a payout, potentially to a charity of his choice.
The BBC’s position is complicated by the fact that any money it pays out in legal fees or a settlement comes from British taxpayers’ pocket.
“I think President Trump is banking on the fact that the British public will not want to spend the money to defend the claim, nor will they want to pay any money in damages to him,’’ Stephens said. “So it allows him to continue a narrative of fake news and all of those other things at fairly little cost in the global scheme of things.”
WASHINGTON — The House voted to pass a sweeping defense policy bill Wednesday that authorizes $900 billion in military programs, including a pay raise for troops and an overhaul of how the Department of Defense buys weapons.
The bill’s passage comes at a time of increasing friction between the Republican-controlled Congress and President Donald Trump’s administration over the management of the military.
The annual National Defense Authorization Act typically gained bipartisan backing, and the White House has signaled “strong support” for the must-pass legislation, saying it is in line with Trump’s national security agenda. Yet tucked into the more than-3,000-page bill are several measures that push back against the Department of Defense, including a demand for more information on boat strikes in the Caribbean and support for allies in Europe, such as Ukraine.
Overall, the sweeping bill calls for a 3.8% pay raise for many military members as well as housing and facility improvements on military bases. It also strikes a compromise between the political parties — cutting climate and diversity efforts in line with Trump’s agenda, while also boosting congressional oversight of the Pentagon and repealing several old war authorizations. Still, hard-line conservatives said they were frustrated that the bill does not do more to cut U.S. commitments overseas.
“We need a ready, capable and lethal fighting force because the threats to our nation, especially those from China, are more complex and challenging than at any point in the last 40 years,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, the GOP chair of the House Armed Services Committee.
Lawmakers overseeing the military said the bill would change how the Pentagon buys weapons, with an emphasis on speed after years of delay by the defense industry. It’s also a key priority for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the armed services panel, called the bill “the most ambitious swing at acquisition reform that we’ve taken.”
Still, Smith lamented that the bill does not do as much as Democrats would like to rein in the Trump administration but called it “a step in the right direction towards reasserting the authority of Congress.”
“The biggest concern I have is that the Pentagon, being run by Secretary Hegseth and by President Trump, is simply not accountable to Congress or accountable to the law,” he said.
The legislation next heads to the Senate, where leaders are working to pass the bill before lawmakers depart Washington for a holiday break.
Several senators on both sides of the aisle have criticized the bill for not doing enough to restrict military flights over Washington. They had pushed for reforms after a midair collision this year between an Army helicopter and a jetliner killed all 67 people aboard the two aircraft near Washington’s Ronald Reagan National Airport. The National Transportation Safety Board has also voiced opposition to that section of the bill.
Here’s what the defense bill does as it makes its way through Congress:
Boat strike videos and congressional oversight
Lawmakers included a provision that would cut Hegseth’s travel budget by a quarter until the Pentagon provides Congress with unedited video of the strikes against alleged drug boats near Venezuela. Lawmakers are asserting their oversight role after a Sept. 2 strike where the U.S. military fired on two survivors who were holding on to a boat that had partially been destroyed.
The bill also demands that Hegseth allow Congress to review the orders for the strikes.
Reaffirm commitments to Europe, Korea
Trump’s ongoing support for Ukraine and other allies in Eastern Europe has been under doubt over the last year, but lawmakers included several positions meant to keep up U.S. support for countering Russian aggression in the region.
The defense bill requires the Pentagon to keep at least 76,000 troops and major equipment stationed in Europe unless NATO allies are consulted and there is a determination that such a withdrawal is in U.S. interests. Around 80,000 to 100,000 U.S. troops are usually present on European soil. It also authorizes $400 million for each of the next two years to manufacture weapons to be sent to Ukraine.
Additionally, there is a provision to keep U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, setting the minimum requirement at 28,500.
Cuts to climate and diversity initiatives
The bill makes $1.6 billion in cuts to climate change-related spending, the House Armed Services Committee said. U.S. military assessments have long found that climate change is a threat to national security, with bases being pummeled by hurricanes or routinely flooded.
The bill also would save $40 million by repealing diversity, equity and inclusion offices, programs and trainings, the committee said. The position of chief diversity officer would be cut, for example.
Iraq War resolution repeal
Congress is putting an official end to the war in Iraq by repealing the authorization for the 2003 invasion. Supporters in both the House and Senate say the repeal is crucial to prevent future abuses and to reinforce that Iraq is now a strategic partner of the U.S.
The 2002 resolution has been rarely used in recent years. But the first Trump administration cited it as part of its legal justification for a 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani.
Lawmakers imposed economically crippling sanctions on the country in 2019 to punish former leader Bashar Assad for human rights abuses during the nearly 14-year civil war. After Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa led a successful insurgency to depose Assad, he is seeking to rebuild his nation’s economy.
Advocates of a permanent repeal have said international companies are unlikely to invest in projects needed for the country’s reconstruction as long as there is a threat of sanctions returning.
Lack of IVF coverage
Democrats criticized House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) for stripping a provision from the bill to expand coverage of in vitro fertilization for active duty personnel. An earlier version covered the medical procedure, known as IVF, which helps people facing infertility have children.
There’s an old saying — well, there ought to be one — that the surest way to jinx something is to write, “I don’t want to jinx it…” My Border Patrol tornado-chasing trip to Charlotte was doomed the moment I posted about it here — frantically canceled when I learned 17 hours before takeoff that the BP had abruptly ditched North Carolina. There is a Plan B but no way will I jinx it a second time.
It’s better to stop Trump’s illegal orders than hope troops will disobey them
Lt. William L. Calley Jr., center, and his military counsel, Maj. Kenneth A. Raby, left, arrive at the Pentagon for testimony before an Army board of investigation hearing into the My Lai Massacre in December 1969. Calley led the U.S. soldiers who killed hundreds of Vietnamese civilians in the most notorious war crime in modern American military history.
A U.S. Army helicopter pilot named Hugh Thompson Jr. may be the greatest American hero you’ve probably never heard of. On March 16, 1968, Thompson — a warrant officer serving in Vietnam — and his crew were dispatched to support a “search and destroy” mission supposedly targeting the Viet Cong in a tiny hamlet called My Lai.
Instead, the Georgia-born soldier came up upon arguably the most notorious war crime in U.S. history — with thatch hutches ablaze and countless villagers, including women and children, laying dead or dying in an irrigation ditch.
Thompson landed and found the commander on the ground, Lt. William Calley. “What is this?” he asked. “Who are these people?”
“Just following orders,” Calley replied. After some more back and forth, the flustered Thompson replied: “But, these are human beings, unarmed civilians, sir.”
What Thompson and his helicopter crew did next was truly remarkable. Holding Calley and their other U.S. comrades at bay, they shielded a group of Vietnamese women, children and old men as they fled. Eventually, he loaded 11 villagers into the helicopter, and then Thompson and his men thought they detected movement in the ditch. Two fellow solders found a boy, just 5 or 6, hiding under the corpses, “covered in blood and obviously in a state of shock.” After safely evacuating the boy to a military hospital, Thompson reached a lieutenant colonel who ordered Calley to stop the killings.
Near the end of his life, Thompson — who died in 2006 — and two comrades were recognized for their courage and the many lives they saved at My Lai, awarded the Army’s highest award for bravery not in conflict with an enemy (the Soldier’s Medal), as well as the the Peace Abbey Courage of Conscience Award. He even returned to My Lai for an emotional reunion in 1998.
But it wasn’t like that in real time. During the war, a prominent congressman demanded that Thompson be court-martialed. “I’d received death threats over the phone,” he told CBS’ 60 Minutes in 2004. “Dead animals on your porch, mutilated animals on your porch some mornings when you get up.”
A generation after Thompson’s death, the kind of bold action he took that day in 1968 — disobeying what he correctly understood as an illegal order — is yet again on America’s front burner. This time, the debate is fueled by a video from six veterans who now serve as Democrats in Congress ― reminding today’s soldiers about their sworn duty to disobey unlawful commands.
That every expert in military law agrees with this principle hasn’t stopped President Donald Trump or his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, from going ballistic — calling the Democrats “traitors” or even reposting calls for their death by hanging.
On Monday, Hegseth kicked things up a notch by endorsing a plan for one of the six — Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, a former astronaut and decorated Navy fighter pilot — to return to active duty, so that he can be court-martialed for taking part in the video. A statement from the Pentagon, which Trump and Hegseth call “the Department of War,” insisted that “orders are presumed to be lawful. A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”
Even as the growing controversy dominates the headlines, there is one aspect to the illegal-orders debate that practically no one is talking about. Actions like Thompson’s refusal at My Lai don’t only stand out for the soldier’s gumption. It is also the stuff of peace prizes and 60 Minutes profiles because it is so incredibly rare.
Do your own research. It’s very difficult to find examples in America’s 249-year history of troops disobeying orders because they are believed to be illegal. To be sure, there are famous incidents of soldiers who disobeyed an order and heroically saved lives — but almost all of them were because the command was reckless or just plain stupid, which isn’t the same as illegal or unconstitutional.
It’s not like there haven’t been opportunities. There have been American war crimes from Wounded Knee to Abu Ghraib, what Barack Obama famously called “dumb wars” like the 2003 assault on Iraq, and moments of intense moral agony, like dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These did produce a few whistleblowers or conscientious objectors, of course, but cases of actually refusing an order are few.
It’s not hard to understand why. Most military orders — even ones later reviled by history — come with some veneer of legality, whether it’s an opinion from a military lawyer or a congressional authorization vote, as happened with Vietnam, Iraq, and other conflicts.
The video recorded by Kelly and the others (including Pennsylvania Reps. Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio) focuses only on the widely accepted principle that military men and women must follow the law and the Constitution above all else, and doesn’t mention Trump or any specific disputed orders. In interviews, though, Democrats like Kelly and Houlahan have criticized Trump’s ongoing attacks on boats off South America that the regime claims are smuggling drugs.
While almost every expert on military laws describes these attacks — which have killed at least 83 people— as extrajudicial killings lacking legal justification, the Office of Legal Counsel in Trump’s Justice Department has nonetheless written a secret classified memo to justify them. Any officer or lower-level troop ordered to blow up these boats and kill all the people on board hasn’t seen the memo. And they won’t get a medal for saying “no” — at least not in 2025. They will be court-martialed and vilified by MAGA.
New York Times opinion writer David French, a Harvard Law grad who served as an Army lawyer in Iraq, notes the congressional video didn’t advise troops on what exactly is an illegal order, and adds: “Individual service members don’t have sufficient knowledge or information to make those kinds of judgments. When time is of the essence and lives are on the line, your first impulse must be to do as you’re told.”
Not always, as Thompson showed at My Lai, but military matters are rarely that black and white. The Trump regime’s sending of National Guard units and even active-duty military into cities such as Los Angeles may be an unnecessary and inflammatory violation of democratic norms, but experienced judges continue to debate its legality. Expecting the rank-and-file troops to decide is asking a lot.
It is very much in the spirit of Joseph Heller’s World War II novel and its legendary Catch-22: A soldier must disobey an illegal order, yet orders, in the heat of the moment, are almost never illegal.
That doesn’t mean Trump and Hegseth threatening Kelly and the other Democrats with jail and possibly the noose isn’t utterly outrageous. After all, they did nothing more than remind soldiers of their obligation to the law in the same language their drill sergeants use in boot camp.
I do also think — understanding the limitations of a MAGA-fed Congress — that good people of both parties on Capitol Hill should be doing a lot more to invoke the War Powers Act, hold hearings, debate impeachment, and do whatever else they can to prevent Trump’s reckless acts in the Caribbean and elsewhere. In other words, stop illegal orders before they’re given.
That said, as the Trump regime deteriorates, there may come a day when right and wrong feels as obvious as it did that 1968 day in the rice paddies of Vietnam. If, heaven forbid, this government ever ordered troops to put down a protest by firing on citizens, we will need a platoon full of Hugh Thompsons and no William Calleys, “just following orders.”
Yo, do this!
The writer Anand Giridharadas is the best of today’s public intellectuals, with a laser focus on the 1 Percent and the devastating role of income inequality in works such as Winners Take All, which rips apart the facade of modern philanthropy. So who better to pour through the late financier-and-sex-fiend Jeffrey Epstein’s emails and find the true meaning? His recent, masterful New York Times essay — “How the Elite Behave When No One Is Watching: Inside the Epstein Emails” — parses the small-talk and atrocious grammar of America’s rich and powerful to decipher how they rule. It is a must read.
Saturday was the 62nd anniversary of the day that changed America, for bad: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as his motorcade rolled through downtown Dallas. It was also the day I was savaged by several dozen people on Bluesky for expressing an opinion shared by 65% of Americans: that we haven’t been told the whole truth about what really happened on Nov. 22, 1963. Kudos to ABC News for a new special that aired Monday looking at both sides of the endless controversy — Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK? — that included skeptics like veteran journalist Jefferson Morley of the excellent site JFK Facts. The one hour-special is now streaming on Hulu.
Ask me anything
Question: Why is the Trump administration uncritically regurgitating the Russian “peace plan”? — @kaboosemoose.bsky.social via Bluesky
Answer: That’s a great question as our president has consistently told us that the “Russia! Russia! Russia!” scandal around Vladimir Putin’s U.S. election interference and his seeming sway over the 45th and 47th president is all a massive hoax. How to explain, then, that the supposedly-Trump-drafted 28-point peace plan to end the fighting in Ukraine was translated from its original Russian, with its details hashed out in Florida by corrupt and contented Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and Kirill Dmitriev, a U.S.-sanctioned Russian envoy? It’s probably true that liberals were naive during Trump’s first term to believe the strange ties between MAGA and the Kremlin would bring down his presidency, but it’s also true that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. We all want peace in Ukraine, but Trump and his U.S. government simply are not honest brokers.
What you’re saying about…
Last week’s question about the Jeffrey Epstein files, and whether they’ll ever see the light of day despite enactment of the law calling for their release, was kind of open-ended, and thus it drew an array of responses. But most agreed with my view that it’s highly unlikely we’ll see the files, or see very much. “They won’t release them because they are now investigating the Democrats in the files, thus they won’t be able to release them due to the investigation,” Rosann McGinley wrote. “Also they’d be heavily redacted, ‘nothing to see here.’” Added Judy Voois: “I would not be surprised if he declared war on Venezuela just to steer the media and public interest away from continued scrutiny of the Epstein saga.”
📮 This week’s question: The heated reaction I received online about the JFK assassination now has me wondering what newsletter readers think. Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone killer of John F. Kennedy, or do you think there was a conspiracy? Please email me your answer and put the exact phrase “JFK assassination” in the subject line.
Backstory on Pennsylvania’s budget deal with the devil
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro speaks at a news conference at the United Association Local 524 union building in Scranton, Pa. in March 2024.
Saturday was the 62nd anniversary of the JFK assassination, but on Nov. 22, 2025 it was the entire planet that was under fire. One researcher declared that globally it was the hottest Nov. 22 ever recorded. It didn’t feel that way at my windswept dog park in Delco, but it did from the American Southeast — experiencing a record heat wave — to Tehran, where an epic drought has seen water fountains run dry. And yet the world’s leaders were on a full-fledged retreat from climate action, from the White House, where U.S. CEOs toasted the oil dictatorship of Saudi Arabia at a posh dinner, to Brazil, where a global summit on climate change failed to take on the hegemony of fossil fuels, to Harrisburg.
In a state that’s kowtowed to Big Oil and Gas interests since the days of John D. Rockefeller, Pennsylvania Republicans used the shame of the nation’s longest state-budget impasse to finally ram home their most cherished agenda item: gutting efforts in the Keystone State to work with our neighbors to control the greenhouse-gas pollution behind climate change. The GOP-run state Senate backed Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro into a corner. Pennsylvania had to withdraw from Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a regional pollution-control system, or the money wouldn’t resume flowing to schools and other vital services.
To be clear, the drivers of this giant step backward were state lawmakers who’ve been swimming in Big Oil’s tainted campaign cash for a couple of decades now. But the capitulation, even at political gunpoint, was not Shapiro’s finest hour — especially as the Democrat with apparent ambition for higher office continues to push for polluting and energy-devouring data centers that he claims will boost the economy. As the American Prospect noted in a new piece, Pennsylvania’s environmental retreat came at the same time Virginia was electing a Democratic governor in Abigail Spanberger who’d promised to restore her state to the RGGI. If Shapiro does run for president in 2028, he may struggle to explain this deal to climate-minded voters.
The real problem, though, is that the best way to tackle climate change is by going on offense, with aggressive programs to promote alternative energy such as wind (there seems to be a lot of that around here) and solar that aren’t not only cleaner but a better deal for beleaguered consumers. While Pennsylvania — second only to Texas in natural-gas production — went all in on fracking, a 2024 survey found the commonwealth was 49th on expanding wind power and energy efficiency. With RGGI in the rearview mirror, the Shapiro administration needs to work a lot harder on green energy. That would be good for our governor’s White House dreams, but it would be a lot better for the planet.
What I wrote on this date in 2020
In the late fall of 2020, when I wasn’t trying to warn people that Donald Trump was planning a coup, I turned my attention to the incoming president, Joe Biden — and it’s both fascinating and sad to read how naive we were in the giddy aftermath of Trump’s defeat. In writing about Biden’s early Cabinet picks, the subhead read: “America is seeing the start of something it’s not used to: A White House that’s experienced, qualified … and boring. Could Biden’s ploy work?” NO! The answer turned out to be “no.” But still read the rest: “Biden’s Cabinet is ‘delightfully boring.’ Can reality-TV-addled America deal with it?”
Recommended Inquirer reading
Only one column last week as I spent time both preparing for and then canceling the Charlotte trip that never happened. In that piece, I vented my rage at the lavish White House shindig for a monster: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who was behind the brutal bone-saw murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The man that Joe Biden all too briefly promised to make “a global pariah” was feted by the CEOs of Apple, Nvidia, GM and just about any big business entity you can think of, in a stunning embrace of corruption that should end the myth of “woke corporations.”
There are two things, more than anything else, that keep local news in America alive: Hometown sports teams, and restaurants. Here in Philly, it was a lousy week for the former but a remarkable moment for the latter, as restaurants in the City of Brotherly Love competed for the very first time for recognition from the world’s ultimate dining survey, the Michelin Guide. In a glitzy ceremony at the Kimmel Center, Michelin bestowed its coveted star on three Philadelphia restaurants and honored more than 30 others — and Inquirer readers were obsessed. Four of the newsroom’s top seven most-read articles online last week were about the Michelin madness — including the bittersweetness of one eatery cited just before its closing, the cheesesteak shop that was honored but not invited, and other various snubs and surprises. The Inquirer has amped up its food coverage this year, and if you live and eat in this region I don’t know how you’d survive without it. If you don’t subscribe, please sign up today.
By submitting your written, visual, and/or audio contributions, you agree to The Inquirer‘s Terms of Use, including the grant of rights in Section 10.
Virginia A. Smith, 75, of Philadelphia, longtime reporter and editor for The Inquirer, the Philadelphia Bulletin, the Akron Beacon Journal, and other newspapers, mentor and working-mother role model to many, and avid gardener, died Friday, Nov. 14, of interstitial lung disease at Roxborough Memorial Hospital.
Born in Philadelphia, Ms. Smith joined her hometown Inquirer in 1985 after three years at the Beacon Journal in Ohio, six months at the Bulletin in Philadelphia, and earlier stints at other papers in New York and Connecticut. Until her retirement in 2015, she covered news, health, and gardens as a reporter for The Inquirer, and served as city and Pennsylvania editor.
In her official Inquirer profile, she described her final assignment as “happily writing — and learning — about gardening full time since 2006.” Her son, Josh Wiegand, said: “She was a curious person and interested in so many different things.”
Former colleagues praised the depth and variety of her reporting, especially the detailed long-form stories she wrote about Sister Mary Scullion in 1992, the Iraq War in 2004, her own extensive garden in 2006, and the other interesting people and significant events she encountered. “She was open to reporting a story until she was confident she had all of its shadings,” Inquirer investigations editor Daniel Rubin said. “She had a gift for the stories people would talk about.”
For Ms. Smith, there was no better place than her own garden.
Ms. Smith was named The Inquirer’s garden writer in 2006, and, of course, wrote detailed previews and reviews of the annual Philadelphia Flower Show. But her favorite stories, she told colleagues, were the hundreds of others about climate change, garden gnomes, community gardens, butterflies, pruning techniques, seed banks, edible weeds, how blind people enjoy gardens, and other topics.
Her winter holiday story in 2006 was not about poinsettias or Christmas tree farms. Instead, she profiled an author who discovered a treasure trove of old black-and-white photos of gardeners tending plots in prisons, war zones, and concentration camps.
“It was her idea,” said Joanne McLaughlin, her editor then. “She wanted to write about gardens nurturing the soul under the worst of circumstances, giving hope under the worst of circumstances.”
She wrote often about her own garden in East Falls and ended one story in 2006 with: “When winter arrives, maybe I’ll settle down. Oh, what are the chances? New years are for confessions, so here’s mine: Come first snow, I’ll be out there shoveling the garden pathways, hoping to sneak another peek.”
Ms. Smith wrote this two-part series in 2012.
Her column was called “Garden Scoop,” and she blogged at “Kiss the Earth” on Inquirer.com. She won two achievement awards from what used to be called the National Garden Writers Association and the 2011 Green Exemplar Award from Bartram’s Garden.
“She understood how important the topic was to this area,” said Reid Tuvim, a longtime editor at The Inquirer.
As a health reporter in the early 2000s, Ms. Smith wrote about bottled water, flu medicine, Lyme disease, organ donation, mental illness, children’s healthcare, and other issues. In 2004, she wrote a story about the Medical Mission Sisters, a progressive religious order that offered healthcare advice and full-body massages as well as spiritual guidance. In the third paragraph, she said: “But this is no spa. And that woman doing the hands-on — are you kidding me? — is a nun!”
She covered Scullion’s acceptance speech of the 1992 Philadelphia Award for community service and described it as “fiery and heartfelt, troubling and joyful.” Inquirer staff writer Amy Rosenberg said Ms. Smith “always drilled down to such emotional depths with her subjects. She defined so much of what The Inquirer meant back then.”
Ms. Smith doted on her granddaughters.
She mentored colleagues as she had been mentored and was a role model for fellow working mothers. “I watched her over and over again get up at 5 p.m. and walk out of the newsroom to get her son when he was young,” Rosenberg said. “Never mind what any of the boys in the room thought.”
Virginia Ann Smith was born Oct. 26, 1950. She graduated from the old Eden Hall high school in Philadelphia and earned a bachelor’s degree in English at Manhattanville University in New York in 1972. In 1981, she earned a master of legal studies degree at Yale University Law School through a Ford Foundation fellowship for journalists.
She married Alan Wiegand, and they had a son, Josh, and lived in East Falls. After a divorce, she married Randy Smith in 1985. He died in 2020, and she moved to Cathedral Village Retirement Community a few years ago.
Ms. Smith was a great cook, friends said. They said she was funny, stubborn, and opinionated. She was so into gardens, her son said, that she visited him in Colorado specifically to renovate his garden.
Ms. Smith poses with her husband, Randy, and her two granddaughters.
She listened to classical music and danced at blues festivals. Everyone said she made them feel as if she was their best friend.
“She was one of the most genuine people I’ve ever known,” said friend and former colleague Mari Schaefer. Friend and former colleague Mary Flannery said: “She was so creative and so brave.”
Her son said: “She was the best. I don’t know how she did it. She wanted to do it all, and she did.”
In addition to her son and her former husband, Ms. Smith is survived by two granddaughters, two brothers, and other relatives.
A celebration of her life is to be held later.
Donations in her name may be made to the Schuylkill Center, 8480 Hagys Mill Rd., Philadelphia, Pa. 19128.
Ms. Smith tends to her garden’s black-eyed Susans in this photo.
The sense of loss that has permeated 2025 struck again this weekend when we learned of the sudden death of a Philly journalism legend, Michael Days, who guided the Philadelphia Daily News during most of its last dozen freewheeling and Pulitzer-winning years before we merged with The Inquirer in 2017. He was just 72, far too young. The top-line of Mike’s obituary was how, as the first African American to lead a newsroom in America’s founding city, he paid it forward by mentoring the next generation of rising Black journalists. But people like me who worked for him remember him more simply as the wisest and mostempathetic human being we ever had as a boss. He leaves right when the nation’s newsrooms need decent souls like Mike Days more than they ever did.
What a $10M bribe rumor says about Trump, Middle East peace, and America’s fall
President Donald Trump talks with Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi during a summit to support ending the more than two-year Israel-Hamas war in Gaza after a breakthrough ceasefire deal, Oct. 13 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt.
The thing about being a 79-year-old president is that sometimes you just blurt stuff out, with no filter as to whether your words might be embarrassing, undiplomatic — or potentially incriminating.
Consider the case of Donald John Trump, the 47th U.S. president and the oldest one on the day of his election. Last week, in what may prove to be a fleeting moment of triumph as Trump celebrated a Gaza peace deal that included the release of 20 Israeli hostages, POTUS arrived at an Egyptian resort town for a Middle East summit. He kicked off the day with a one-on-one sit-down with Egypt’s strongman ruler, Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi.
“There was a reason we chose Egypt [for the summit] because you were very helpful,” Trump said as a gaggle of reporters and photojournalists entered their meeting room.
Really? Helpful in what way?
“I want to thank you,” the American president told Sissi, who seized power in a 2013 coup. “He’s been my friend right from the beginning during the campaign against Crooked Hillary Clinton. Have you heard of her?”
Here Trump was pushing, ever so absurdly, for the Nobel Peace Prize, and then he had to spoil it all by saying somethin’ stupid like, you bribed me. Well, he almost spoiled it, if more journalists — aside from MSNBC’s brilliant Rachel Maddow, who seized on the remark hours later — had grasped the potential import of this presidential prattle.
It’s certainly legal, if gross, for Trump to be close pals with Sissi, even if Human Rights Watch reports that the Egyptian dictator is “continuing wholesale repression, systematically detaining and punishing peaceful critics and activists and effectively criminalizing peaceful dissent.” What would not be legal is the Middle Eastern nation interfering in the 2016 election, in which Trump narrowly defeated Clinton in the handful of swing states that tipped the Electoral College.
What made Trump’s comments last week so jaw-dropping is that U.S. federal investigators worked for several years trying to prove exactly that scenario. In August 2024, days after Trump was nominated by the GOP for his second reelection bid, the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department investigated a tip that Sissi’s Egypt provided Trump with $10 million the candidate desperately needed in the 2016 homestretch to defeat Clinton. That happened right before Trump, as 45th president, reopened the spigot of foreign aid that had been halted because of Sissi’s human rights abuses.
It’s known that Trump did put $10 million into the campaign, which he listed as a loan. The Post in 2024 offered a tantalizing, if circumstantial, piece of evidence — that the Cairo bank had received a note from an agency believed to be Egyptian intelligence to “kindly withdraw” nearly $10 million in two, 100-pound bags full of U.S. $100 bills, five days before Trump took the oath of office.
But the investigative trail ran cold. In 2019, then-special counsel Robert Mueller turned the matter over to Trump’s appointees in the Justice Department, who of course didn’t pursue the president’s bank records. Neither — inexplicably — did Joe Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, as the statute of limitations expired in January 2022. That’s where things stood last week before Trump started blathering in Sharm El Sheikh.
One reason I’m writing about this is the sheer frustration that Trump — yes, allegedly, possibly — might have gotten away with bribery to the point where he’s almost bragging about it in public. But I also think the mysterious case of the Egyptian bags of cash speaks to the present, dire American moment in a couple of ways.
For one thing, it casts a light on what’s really behind what Trump hopes will be viewed as the signature achievement of his second presidency. That would be the fragile peace deal that aims to end the last two years of bloodshed in Gaza that started with the Hamas terror attack of Oct. 7, 2023 and has resulted in at least 67,000 dead Palestinians and the utter destruction of their seaside homeland.
How did Trump get a deal that had eluded his predecessor Biden, in a region that has vexed every American president from both parties? It certainly helped that most of the power brokers with the clout and the cash to help end the fighting in Gaza are repressive strongmen — or, as Trump might call them, role models. And they all seem to speak the same language of corrupt back-scratching.
If those bags with $10 million in greenbacks did make their way to Trump in 2017, it looks like small change in today’s cross-Atlantic wheeling-and-dealing. After all, a key go-between in the negotiations — Qatar, which has good relations with Hamas and has hosted its exiled leaders — gifted America a $400 million jet that Trump plans to use not just as Air Force One but in his post presidency, while his regime has promised to protect the Qatari dictators if they are ever attacked.
Another key supporter of the plan is the United Arab Emirates, which also backs the UAE firm that recently purchased a whopping $2 billion in cryptocurrency from a firm owned by Trump’s family as well as the family of Steve Witkoff, the regime’s lead Middle East negotiator. At the same time, Trump’s U.S. government allowed UAE to import highly sensitive microchips used in artificial intelligence.
Witkoff’s negotiation end–game brought in Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who forged close ties during his father-in-law’s first term with Saudi Arabia’s murderous de facto ruler Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who pulled the levers for a $2 billion investment in a hedge fund created by Kushner despite no prior expertise.
Those Saudi ties could prove critical to future stability in the region, and in a joint interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes Sunday night, Kushner and Witkoff made no apologies for mixing billion-dollar deals with the pursuit of world peace. “What people call conflicts of interest,” Kushner said, “Steve and I call experience and trusted relationships.”
OK, but those “trusted relationships” are built on a flimsy mountain of cash that could collapse at any minute. Look, I’m thrilled like everyone else that 20 Israeli hostages are finally reunited with their loved ones, and to the extent Trump and his regime deserve any credit, I credit them. But the art of the deal that the president is bragging about is all about the Benjamins — more worthy of applause on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange than a Nobel Peace Prize.
Real peace is based on hard work and trust, not Bitcoin — so is it any wonder that the ceasefire is already collapsing with two dead Israeli soldiers and fresh, lethal airstrikes in Gaza? The only thing with any currency among a rogues’ gallery of world dictators is currency, and that transactional stench has fouled everything from Cairo to K Street.
Is it any surprise that a regime whose origin story allegedly includes bags of Egyptian cash would do absolutely nothing when it was told that its future border czar, Tom Homan, was captured on an audiotape accepting $50,000 in a fast-food bag from undercover FBI agents who said they wanted government contracts?
In hindsight, the failure to pursue that report of the $10 million Egyptian bribe opened up a floodgate of putrid corruption, wider than the Nile. It signaled a sick society where everything is for sale — even world peace — but nothing is guaranteed.
Yo, do this!
The 1970s and ‘80s are having a cultural moment right now, and this boomer is here for it! On Apple TV (they’ve dropped the “+,” probably after paying some consultant $1 million for that pearl of wisdom) comes the long-awaited five part docuseries about the life and times of filmmaker Martin Scorsese, the savior who rose from NYC’s mean streets to give us Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and so much more. Watching Mr. Scorsese is going to make the eventual death of the baseball season so much easier to take.
The earthy, urban musical equivalent of Scorsese would have to be Bruce Springsteen, who has been marking the 50th anniversary of his breakthrough Born to Run LP with all kinds of cool stuff, capped with Friday’s long-awaited release of the first-ever biopic about “The Boss,” Deliver Me from Nowhere. Staring The Bear’s Jeremy Allen White as Springsteen, the film’s unlikely narrative — focusing on the making of 1982’s highly personal and acoustic Nebraska as the rock star seeks release from a bout of depression — sounds like exactly the uplift that America needs right now.
Ask me anything
Question: As someone living in Ireland and looking across the ocean. Trump won’t be in power forever, but how is anyone going to deal with the MAGA crowd that helped elect him? That level of stupidity, hatred and racism cannot be fixed. How is [t]he USA ever going to heal? — Stephen (@bannside@bsky.social) via Bluesky
Answer: That’s a great question, Stephen, and like most great questions there’s no easy answer. Although I’m optimistic that the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election will happen and that the anti-Trump coalition that we witnessed at “No Kings” will prevail, I agree with you that it’s only a partial and temporary fix. I’d fear an Iraq-level resistance could rise up in the regions we call “Trump country.” My long-term solution would be along the lines of what I proposed in my 2022 bookAfter the Ivory Tower Falls: Fix higher education — broadly defined as from the Ivy League to good trade schools — to made it a public good that reduces inequality instead of driving it. And promote a universal gap year of national service for 18-year-olds, to get young people out of their isolated silos. There are ways to prevent the next generation from becoming as stupid or hateful or racist as the Americans who came before them, but it will take time and patience that we seem to lack right now.
What you’re saying about…
Remember the Philadelphia Phillies? When I last saw you here two weeks ago, their annual postseason collapse and the fate of manager Rob Thomson was a hot topic. As expected, there was minimal response from you political junkies, and opinions were split — even before the team defied the conventional wisdom and announced he’ll be returning in 2026. Thomson’s supporters were more likely to blame the Phillies’ inconsistent sluggers, with John Braun asking “who could you hire who could guarantee clutch hits?” Personally, I’m with Kim Root: “I follow the Philly Union, who just won the Supporters Shield — that is all.”
📮 This week’s question: Back to the issue at hand: I’m curious if newsletter readers attended the “No Kings” protest last Saturday, and what you see as the future of the anti-Trump movement. Are more aggressive measures like a nationwide general strike needed, or is the continued visibility of nonviolent resisters enough? Please email me your answer and put the exact phrase “No Kings future” in the subject line.
Backstory on who the “No Kings” protesters really were
Demonstrators gather for a ’No Kings’ rally in Philadelphia on Saturday.
They clogged city plazas and small-town main streets from San Diego to Bangor on Saturday, yet the more than 7 million Americans who took part in the massive “No Kings” protest — the second-largest one day demonstration in U.S. history, behind only the first Earth Day in 1970 — seemed to mystify much of the befuddled mainstream media. Just who were these people protesting the Donald Trump presidency, and why are they here?
Instead of a journalist, it took a sociologist to get some answers. Dana Fisher — the Philadelphia-area native who teaches at American University and is the leading expert on contemporary protest movements — was out in the field Saturday at the large “No Kings” march in Washington, D.C., collecting data with a team of researchers. She’s shared her early top-line results with me, aiming to both give a demographic and ideological snapshot and also compare Saturday’s crowd with her findings at other recent rallies.
If you were among the 7 million on Saturday, some of this data won’t surprise you. The protesters were, on the whole, older than the average American, with a median age of 44 (compared to 38 for the nation as a whole.) Once again, the “No Kings” participants were overwhelmingly white (87%) with women (57%) in the majority. But it’s also worth noting that men (39%) were more likely to take part than earlier protests tracked by Fisher, and the 8% who identified as Latino is double the rate of Hispanic participation in the 2017 Women’s March.
That last finding may reflect the passions of the “No Kings” protesters, who listed immigration as a key motivation at a rate of 74%, second only to their general opposition to Trump (80%, kind of a no brainer). That certainly jibed with the demonstrators at the rally I attended in suburban Havertown, who again and again mentioned the sight of masked federal agents grabbing migrants off the street as what compelled them to come out.
Fisher’s most telling findings may have been these: The people out in the streets are mad about what they see happening to America, with 80% listing “anger” as an emotion they are feeling, trailed closely by “anxiety” at 76%. Yet few of those who spoke with her team believed that will translate into violence. The number of demonstrators who agreed with the statement that “because things have gotten so off track, Americans may have to resort to violence in order to save our country” was only 23% — lower than other protests her team has surveyed. It seems like the larger the public show of resistance to Trump’s authoritarianism, the more optimism that the path back to democracy can be nonviolent.
What I wrote on this date in 2021
I hate to say I told you so but… On this date four years ago, Joe Biden was still clinging to dreams of a presidential honeymoon after ousting Donald Trump in the 2020 election, but there were dark clouds on the horizon. On Oct. 21, 2021 I warned that sluggish action on key issues was starting to hurt his standing with under-30 voters. I wrote that “while the clock hasn’t fully run out on federal action around issues like student debt or a bolder approach on climate — the disillusionment of increasingly jaded young voters could change the course of American history for the next generation, or even beyond.” How’d that turn out? Read the rest: “From college to climate, Democrats are sealing their doom by selling out young voters.”
Recommended Inquirer reading
I returned from a much-needed staycation this weekend by leaving the sofa and spending a glorious fall morning at the boisterous “No Kings” protest closest to home in Delaware County, which lined a busy street in Havertown. I wrote about how the protests are winning back America by getting under the skin of Donald Trump and the GOP, who can no longer pretend to ignore the widespread unpopularity of their authoritarian project.
Every election matters, even the ones that are dismissed as “off-year” contests. In today’s heated and divisive climate, even what used to be a fairly routine affair — the retention of sitting judges on the state and local level — has taken on greater importance. Here in Pennsylvania, the state’s richest billionaire, Jeff Yass, is spending a sliver of his vast wealth to convince voters to end the tenure of three Democrats on the state Supreme Court. The Inquirer’s Editorial Board is here to explain why that’s a very bad idea. On the other hand, some judges up for retention in the city of Philadelphia — where jurists haven’t always lived up to the promise of America’s cradle of democracy — deserve closer scrutiny. The newsroom’s Samantha Melamed revealed a leaked, secret survey detailing what Philadelphia attorneys think of some of the judges on the November ballot, and it is not pretty. The bottom line is that you need to vote this year, and subscribing to The Inquirer is the best way to stay informed. Sign up today!
By submitting your written, visual, and/or audio contributions, you agree to The Inquirer‘s Terms of Use, including the grant of rights in Section 10.
The world’s most-visited museum was closed Monday following a professional heist that resulted in the theft of priceless jewels. Within minutes, thieves entered and exited the Louvre on Sunday, taking eight treasures.
The result? One of the highest-profile museum thefts in living memory amid a climate where museum staffs — worldwide, not just at the Louvre — are complaining about crowding, thin staffing, high turnover, and strained security.
Here’s what we know so far.
How did the Louvre heist happen?
Within minutes, thieves rode up a basket lift outside the Louvre’s facade, forced open a window, smashed display cases, and fled with priceless Napoleonic jewels, officials said.
The heist took place on Sunday, only 30 minutes after opening, with visitors already inside.
The theft took four minutes inside the building and less than eight in total, according to French Culture Minister Rachida Dati, who called it a “professional” operation.
“They went straight to the display windows,” Dati said. “They knew exactly what they wanted. They were very efficient.”
Sunday’s theft focused on the gilded Apollo Gallery, where the crown jewels are displayed. Alarms brought Louvre agents to the room, forcing the intruders to bolt on motorbikes, but the robbery was already over.
It’s unclear how many people took part in the theft and whether they had inside assistance. French media reported there were four perpetrators, including two dressed as construction workers. Authorities have not commented on the specifics.
What was taken from the Louvre?
Eight pieces of “priceless” jewels were stolen from the Louvre in Paris. Here is what they were.
Eight objects were taken, according to officials:
A sapphire diadem, necklace, and single earring from a matching set linked to 19th-century French queens Marie-Amélie and Hortense.
An emerald necklace and earrings from the matching set of Empress Marie-Louise, Napoleon Bonaparte’s second wife.
A reliquary brooch.
Empress Eugénie’s diadem and her large corsage-bow brooch, a prized 19th-century imperial ensemble.
A ninth object, the emerald-set imperial crown of Napoleon III’s wife, Empress Eugénie, was also taken but apparently dropped by the thieves. The crown, with more than 1,300 diamonds, was damaged but recovered outside the museum.
All of the items are considered priceless, though officials have not disclosed an overall estimate.
What will happen to the stolen jewels?
The Louvre has been closed since the robbery on Sunday morning for the investigation.
Experts say the initial hours after a heist are critical before the scent grows colder and thieves have more time to dispose of the jewels.
The big concern is that the thieves are motivated by commodity vs. art, and will scrap the priceless works for sale on the black market, breaking the pieces for their stones and melting down the precious metals. In doing so, the thieves can make more high-ticket sales while remaining undetected.
Has this ever happened before at the Louvre?
According to National Geographic, the Louvre has a long history of bold heists — but it’s been a while until now.
In 1911, the Mona Lisa — then a lesser-known piece by Leonardo da Vinci — was taken by Vincenzo Peruggia, a former employee dressed in his old work uniform. No one noticed it was missing for over 24 hours. The painting was recovered two years later after Peruggia tried to sell it to another museum.
In 1940, a portion of the Louvre’s collection was looted by occupying Nazis, though the museum’s director had already hidden most of its collection in a safe house off-site.
There was the 1966 theft of antique jewelry, which was being transported back to France from a loan to a Virginia museum. Those jewels were recovered after being found in New York inside a grocery bag. A decade later, one group of thieves stole a Flemish painting, and months after that, another group stole French King Charles X’s jeweled sword. The sword is still missing.
The most recent string of heists occurred in the 1990s. In 1990, thieves cut a Renoir painting from its frame in broad daylight and also took ancient Roman jewelry and other paintings. In 1995, two pieces — a painting and a battle ax from a 17th-century bronze sculpture — were stolen. Finally, in 1998, a Camille Corot painting was cut from its frame and taken. It hasn’t been recovered.
What about in Philly? Any heists?
Yep. Philly-area museums have seen their fair share of art thefts over the years.
Dating back to the 1980s, several thefts or alleged thefts have occurred across the Philadelphia Art Museum, Rodin Museum, Penn Museum, and more, according to Inquirer archives.
Various thefts include a gold saw from Iraq and a 19th-century Chinese crystal ball taken from the Penn Museum in 1981 and 1988, a painting taken during a Philadelphia Art Museum after-hours party in 1984, and a bronze sculpture from the Rodin Museum in 1988 during a gunpoint robbery. The sculpture was recovered shortly afterward, and the alleged robber was arrested and charged. The crystal ball was also recovered.
There’s also Frank Waxman, the Philly-based doctor who authorities said secretly amassed the largest known private collection of stolen art: about 150 pieces worth more than $2 million. The FBI raided his Rittenhouse condo in 1982 to find Rodins, Picassos, and more. Due to the statute of limitations surrounding his thefts, he was only convicted of taking eight pieces and served eight months in prison.
In 2003, the Barnes Foundation said hundreds of items were missing from its collection, including a piece by Henri Matisse, a Jean Renoir ceramic vase, a mahogany Steinway piano, and historic recordings. It’s unclear whether the items were stolen or simply unaccounted for. No formal large-scale investigation took place.
There was also an incident in 2017 where Michael Rohana, who was attending an after-hours ugly sweater party at the Franklin Institute, broke the thumb off a life-size Chinese terracotta warrior statue.
Rohana described the incident as a “drunken mistake” and returned the thumb, which he had taken home. Still, it caused international turmoil, with Chinese officials accusing the Franklin Institute of carelessness with the artifact. The statue, which is called “The Cavalryman,” is insured for $4.5 million. Rohana went to court in 2019, eventually pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge in 2023. He was sentenced to five years’ probation, a $5,000 fine, and community service.
Thomas Gavin admitted to targeting dozens of museums up and down the East Coast, taking valuable artifacts sometimes unnoticed for years. The Hershey Museum and Pennsylvania Farm Museum in Landis, Lancaster County, were among some of the museums impacted. Gavin’s crimeswent cold for so long that the statute of limitations expired for many, leading him to only serve a day in prison for trying to sell a historic rifle.
What does the jewel heist mean for museums’ futures?
The latest Louvre heist comes amid a tense time for museums worldwide.
Following the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, museums have been working to balance mass tourism, stretched-thin staff, and security upgrades.
Locally, the Philadelphia Art Museum and its employees reached a settlement last year after a yearlong dispute over pay raises called for in their 2022 labor contract and a nearly three-week strike.
At the Louvre, a June staff walkout over frustrations with overcrowding and chronic understaffing led to a delayed opening. Unions say mass tourism leaves too few eyes on too many rooms and creates pressure points where construction zones, freight routes, and visitor flows meet.
Officials say security updates are underway at the Louvre as part of an $800 million modernization plan. But critics say the measures are too little, too late.
