The Houthi movement, labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S., has lashed out at Saudi Arabia, accusing it of launching airstrikes on Sanaa airport in northern Yemen. This accusation has the potential to open a volatile new chapter in the ongoing Middle Eastern conflict, further entangling Iran’s proxy forces.

Despite a 2022 truce with the Saudi-led coalition, tensions have periodically erupted, particularly after the Houthis expressed solidarity with Hamas following its incursion into Israel on October 7, 2023. Their actions have included disrupting commercial shipping in the Red Sea, and these recent hostilities could propel Saudi Arabia and the Houthis back into full-blown conflict.

Yahya Saree, the spokesperson for Houthi military forces, denounced the strikes as “blatant aggression,” claiming they shattered the calm achieved after recent attempts at de-escalation. He warned that Saudi Arabia would face serious repercussions, with the Houthis threatening retaliatory attacks, including a specific warning about targeting King Khalid Airport in Riyadh. Iran has echoed the sentiment, with Press TV declaring the strikes a violation against Yemen’s sovereignty.

At the heart of the Houthi ideology is their bold slogan: “God is great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse upon the Jews, Victory to Islam,” reflecting the group’s staunch opposition to Western and Israeli influences in the region.

Earlier on Monday, the government’s defense ministry said the runway ⁠at Sanaa International Airport had been targeted to prevent an Iranian plane from landing. An armed forces spokesman later said the aircraft had landed at Houthi-controlled ​Hodeidah airport.

Salman Al-Ansari, a prominent Saudi geopolitical analyst, told News Media, “The Iranian-backed Houthi militia is now in a desperate position, attempting to demonstrate its usefulness to its Iranian masters amid the ongoing U.S.-Iran war.”

He said, “This is an action taken by Yemen’s legitimate government in response to the violation of its airspace and sovereignty. It was not carried out by Saudi Arabia or the coalition. Yemeni forces struck the runway at Sana’a International Airport after the terrorist Houthi militia defied international law by allowing unauthorized Iranian flights into Yemen, despite measures intended to prevent the smuggling of weapons and explosives.”

According to Al-Ansari, “The Houthis know that these flights can land normally if they follow the agreed-upon route through a Jordanian airport, for inspection purposes. The Houthis are currently at one of their weakest points, particularly after Yemen’s legitimate government consolidated effective authority over 80% of the country’s territory. This is a marked departure from the past, when the legitimate government was fragmented between two rival camps.”

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Israel, Lebanon and other Sunni Gulf countries have expressed concerns about the Iranian regime’s plan to establish a so-called “Shiite crescent” that stretches from Iran to Lebanon and includes such terrorist proxies as the Houthis and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Al-Ansari noted that “By confronting the Houthis, Yemen’s legitimate government is not only defending its own sovereignty; it is helping safeguard the region and the wider world from Iran’s network of terrorist proxies.”

Nadwa Al-Dawsari, an expert on Yemen and an associate fellow at the Middle East Institute, told News Media that, “The Houthis’ warning that the strike on Sana’a airport ‘will not go unanswered’ should be taken seriously. But the significance of the incident extends well beyond the prospect of retaliation.”

She said, “The dispute was never really about civilian aviation or simply returning a Houthi delegation from Tehran. The Yemeni government had agreed to facilitate the delegation’s return aboard a Yemenia aircraft. The issue was the Iranian aircraft itself.”

She added that “By proceeding with the Mahan Air flight despite Yemeni objections and ensuring that it reached Houthi-controlled Yemen anyway, Iran and the Houthis were sending a political message: Tehran intends to normalize direct and public ties with Houthi-controlled Yemen and is willing to challenge the restrictions that have governed access to the country since 2015.”

The U.S. government sanctioned Mahan Air for its role in supplying weapons and technology to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. 

Al-Dawsari said, “What we are increasingly seeing is a pattern in which Iran and its proxies create facts on the ground, betting that regional and international actors have little appetite for escalation and will eventually adjust to them. We have seen the same approach in the Strait of Hormuz.”

She said, “The episode also highlights the Houthis’ growing importance within Iran’s regional network. While other members of the Axis of Resistance have been weakened in recent years, the Houthis have emerged as Tehran’s most capable and strategically important partners, particularly in the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa.”

According to Reuters, the Saudi ​government’s communication office did not immediately respond to the accusations.

Muhammad Al-Farah, a member of the Houthi Political Bureau, wrote on Telegram, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), that the alleged Saudi attack will lead to the Bab al-Mandab Strait joining the Strait of Hormuz with respect to disruption and possible closure. As a result, the price of a barrel of oil will rise to $200 and the attacks give the Houthis a reason to “strike back and liberate Yemen from occupation.”

A State Department spokesperson told News Media that, “We are aware of these reports and monitoring closely. The United States and Saudi Arabia share a strategic partnership that has only grown stronger under President Trump. The United States stands firmly with Saudi Arabia against Iranian aggression, including Iranian-supported Houthi attacks, and remains committed to the Kingdom’s security and regional stability.”

The spokesperson added, “We continue to actively enforce the Trump Administration’s designation of the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and condemn Iran’s flagrant violation of Yemen’s sovereignty in support of their Houthi proxies.

“The Administration’s National Security Strategy states that our core interests in the region include ensuring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and preventing the export of terrorism.  It is critical to continue efforts to counter the Iran-backed Houthis and other terrorist groups in Yemen who threaten these U.S. interests.”

After announcing her plans for a hike in a final Facebook post, an Australian tourist has mysteriously gone missing. This 26-year-old woman has not been seen for over three weeks.

On June 20, Sally Grace Contarino last communicated with a male friend on Facebook, mentioning her intention to hike Lone Mountain, as detailed in a report from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police obtained by 8 News Now.

Investigators reveal uncertainty about whether Contarino had company during her excursion. Authorities have previously issued warnings that she may be experiencing severe emotional distress and could require medical care.

The last known location for her was around 1 p.m. on June 20, near 9700 West Skye Canyon Drive, according to officials.

This northwest Las Vegas location is situated near a bustling intersection that includes fast-food outlets, a gas station, and various other businesses.

Contarino was due to fly home to Melbourne on June 21 but never boarded her scheduled return flight, police said.

The report said she traveled from Melbourne to Nevada on June 13 and later confirmed to her sister that she had arrived at the Bungalows Hostel on Las Vegas Boulevard in downtown Las Vegas on June 18.

Investigators also noted she was using the WISE money transfer app and owned an Apple cell phone.

An influencer’s creepy video, taken with Meta glasses, hauntingly shows the missing woman in her last known moments.

The footage captures him approaching the 26-year-old — just days before she failed to board her flight home to Melbourne and has not been heard from since June 20.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

Contarino appeared in the mysterious video outside a 7-Eleven on Boulder Highway near Flamingo Road, where a man known as “@epicdamianpov” approached her while she smoked a cigarette.

In the clip, he says, “Hello. Sorry, I saw you. I just saw that you were very beautiful. I was wondering if I could get your number, by chance.”

Contarino smiles before replying, “I have a boyfriend.”

“Oh, okay, yeah, sorry. Are you waiting for him or…?” he asks.

“No,” she responds. “I’m just gonna have a cigarette…”

“Oh, okay, yeah, of course,” the man says before walking away.

The video, later shared by “Real Vegas Locals,” had been viewed more than 814,000 times on Instagram as of July 13.

Police said Contarino was last seen wearing a gray-blue sweatshirt, jean shorts, black-and-white shoes and carrying a purse.

She is described as having brown hair and brown eyes, standing about 5 feet 5 inches tall and weighing around 130 pounds.

The search has also drawn in Australian authorities after the missing persons report was first made to Victoria Police, which then notified Interpol US. The Deputy Consul-General from the Australian Consulate in Los Angeles also contacted Las Vegas Metro Police, according to the report.

Contarino’s family, including her sister, has since traveled to Las Vegas to find her and learn what happened.

The atmosphere buzzed with vibrant music and warm lights as Sam Neill gracefully mingled with the crowd during the ARIA Hall of Fame ceremony in Sydney this past June. It turned out to be the beloved actor’s last public appearance before his unexpected passing at the age of 78.

Having recently received the all-clear from cancer, the Jurassic Park star exuded joy, posing for photos and engaging in lively conversations with friends. His demeanor was that of a man savoring a hard-fought victory over health challenges.

Taking to Instagram, Neill described the event as a ‘great night,’ sharing that he spent it celebrating the artists he had admired for many years.

A few weeks afterward, Neill’s family announced the heartbreaking news of his ‘sudden’ passing at a Sydney hospital. They said he ‘passed with the dignity that has characterized his whole life,’ leaving a legacy of grace and poise.

For fans, the jubilant images from the ARIA ceremony now symbolize Neill’s last chapter, yet the announcement of his death left many stunned, as he had seemed in such high spirits in the days leading up to his departure.

‘Sam had been feeling great and looked healthier than he had in months after his battle with cancer,’ a source told the Daily Mail. ‘He was in a genuinely happy place, embracing life, staying busy with work, and reading scripts for future projects… Because of that, nobody saw this coming.’

According to the insider, ‘his family is absolutely devastated by the loss.’

In medical terms, too, Neill had every reason to feel hopeful. 

The actor was diagnosed with blood cancer – stage 3 angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma – in 2022. But after years of chemotherapy, when it briefly looked like he was ‘on the way out,’ he was thrown a lifeline in the form of CAR T‑cell therapy – a cutting‑edge treatment that genetically re‑engineers a patient’s own immune cells to hunt down cancer.

Tests in April confirmed there was no cancer left in his body, and Neill spoke about the news with genuine delight, calling it ‘an extraordinary thing’ and admitting he was ‘very, very excited that this can happen.’

From there, he began talking not in terms of endings, but of what came next.

‘It’s time I did another movie,’ he said in April, signaling that he wasn’t done with film sets and scripts just yet.

And friends say that wasn’t idle talk. 

‘He felt as though he had been given a new lease on life and was determined to make the most of every opportunity, enjoying every moment that came his way,’ our source said. 

For his doctor, that renewed energy was more than personal; it was a beacon. 

Dr Orly Lavee, the hematologist who treated Neill and became his friend, recalled how his response to treatment extended far beyond hospital corridors.

‘Sam overcoming an aggressive lymphoma provided so much hope for people far and wide,’ she told the Daily Mail.

‘He was a true believer and advocate for the science and research that continues to improve outcomes for our patients. It’s just one of his many legacies.’

Long before he was declared cancer-free, Neill spoke candidly about the possibility that his life might be shorter than he’d planned.

In a 2023 interview, he said he wasn’t afraid of dying; what bothered him was the idea of leaving while there was still so much he wanted to do.

‘I’m not afraid to die,’ he admitted, ‘but it would annoy me. Because I’d really like another decade or two, you know?’

He talked about the terraces and olive trees on his beloved Central Otago property in New Zealand, and the grandchildren he longed to watch grow up. 

Even in his memoir Did I Ever Tell You This? he joked about ‘possibly dying’ in the first chapter – more irritated than afraid. 

‘He often said he wasn’t afraid of dying – he simply didn’t want to because he loved his life,’ our source said. ‘He cherished every minute of it, valued the people around him, and wanted nothing more than to keep living, working, and creating for as long as he could.

‘And that is exactly what he was doing.’ 

Away from the cameras, that love of life showed up in the simplest ways. 

In recent years, Neill had stepped back from Hollywood’s bustle to focus on Two Paddocks, his vineyard in Central Otago. He also ran Redbank Farm, a menagerie of animals he clearly enjoyed as much as any glitzy movie premiere.

But beyond the vineyard and farm, family remained at the heart of Neill’s world. 

He had a son, Tim, with New Zealand actress Lisa Harrow, to whom he was married in the 1980s; a daughter, Elena, with Japanese makeup artist Noriko Watanabe, whom he married in 1989; and a stepdaughter, Maiko, whom he adopted from Watanabe’s previous marriage. 

Years later, he reunited with another son, Andrew, who had been placed up for adoption when Neill was in his twenties. They found each other again in 1994, and Andrew became part of the family circle. 

When Neill talked about wanting ‘another decade or two,’ it was for all of them – the terraces and trees, yes, but especially the eight grandchildren he wanted to watch become adults.

Professionally, he had already carved out the kind of résumé that would outlive any one lifetime. 

Born Nigel John Dermot Neill in Northern Ireland before his family moved to New Zealand in 1954, he eased himself into the name the world would eventually know. 

‘I found I moved more easily in the world as a Sam,’ he once joked. ‘Nigel is an awkward fit in most circumstances. Imagine being a movie actor called Nigel Neill.’

By the time he was playing Dr Alan Grant in Jurassic Park in 1993 – opposite Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum, sprinting away from CGI dinosaurs in the Steven Spielberg blockbuster – the transformation was complete. 

He would reprise the role in Jurassic Park III and Jurassic World Dominion, and those three films alone were enough to make him a permanent part of pop‑culture history.

It’s no accident, then, that some of the most emotional tributes in the days after his death came from his Jurassic family. 

‘Sam was my beloved lifetime friend… He showed me the depths of loyalty, protectiveness and love always with the driest of wit,’ Dern said, describing him as ‘a true and noble gentleman, wrapped up in my dream leading man’ and signing off with, ‘I will love you forever, Dr. Alan Grant.’

Spielberg, meanwhile, remembered him as ‘exceptionally collaborative’ and recalled how playing a character impatient with children was a stretch for an actor who was, in real life, a devoted father. 

‘I adored making all the Jurassic movies with him,’ the director said. ‘Along with Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum, we will always have our Jurassic family and Sam will never be forgotten by us or his many millions of fans around the world.’

Governor Gavin Newsom is confronting criticism from an unexpected adversary within his own political sphere.

In the final stretch as California lawmakers rush to finalize legislation for the governor’s approval, Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper has publicly rebuked state leaders. He accuses them of prioritizing criminals over victims, faltering on implementing voter-endorsed crime reforms, and supporting policies that undermine accountability.

During a recent interview on KCRA 3’s California Politics 360, Cooper voiced his frustrations regarding the state’s crime policies. He emphasized that despite voter demands for stricter measures against repeat offenders, the efforts from California’s leadership remain insufficient.

When asked to evaluate Newsom and the Legislature’s handling of crime, Cooper did not hold back in his critique.

“Not enough. Not enough,” Cooper said. “It’s just frustrating that people are hesitant to do anything.”

🚨 Know something we should investigate?

📩 stepheny.price@fox.com

📸 IG: @fndstephprice

🎥 X: @StephenyPrice

Although California recently announced its lowest homicide rate in nearly six decades, Cooper argued the numbers don’t tell the whole story, saying victims continue to pay the price for policies that emphasize diversion and early release over accountability.

A major focus of Cooper’s criticism was Proposition 36, the voter-approved initiative that passed in 2024 with nearly 70% support statewide and in all 58 counties.

The measure increased penalties for repeat retail theft and certain drug crimes while allowing eligible offenders to have felony charges dismissed after completing court-ordered treatment.

“Not one statewide official supported it. And that’s troubling,” Cooper said during the interview.

While Cooper said the law is already showing results, pointing to retailers reporting declines in theft, he argued Sacramento has failed to provide the funding needed to make the initiative successful.

“The issue is no funding, no funding came with it,” he said. “It is working. But without funding, it doesn’t go anywhere.”

State leaders have said this year’s budget includes $375 million to help implement Proposition 36, though KCRA reported budget documents show $50 million is specifically directed toward Proposition 36-related court and pretrial services.

Cooper also blasted California’s expanding mental health diversion system, warning proposals to make more theft offenses eligible for diversion would undermine the very initiative voters overwhelmingly approved.

“It would water it down,” Cooper said, adding that some lawmakers “don’t want anybody held accountable.”

Gov. Newsom’s office pushed back on Cooper’s criticism, arguing California’s crime trends tell a different story.

“We will stick to real results, not headlines,” a spokesperson for the governor’s office told News Media. “Why don’t you ask Jim Cooper why we’ve made so much progress lowering crime rates in California.”

The spokesperson also pointed to Assembly Bill 46, legislation Newsom recently signed that tightens oversight of California’s mental health diversion program. According to the governor’s office, the measure was supported by Cooper, despite his broader criticism of the state’s diversion policies.

Cooper acknowledged during his interview with KCRA 3 that lawmakers and the governor recently approved changes adding new guardrails to mental health diversion. However, he argued the reforms still fall short.

“Some crimes are so shocking … you shouldn’t be eligible for mental health diversion,” he said, pointing to offenses including felony child abuse and crimes involving sexually violent predators.

The sheriff also renewed his criticism of California’s domestic violence laws, arguing the state still refuses to classify many felony domestic violence offenses as violent felonies despite the devastating injuries suffered by victims.

“Domestic violence goes on every day. Doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor. Happens in every neighborhood. We have to treat it seriously,” he said.

When asked why lawmakers continue opposing legislation to classify domestic violence as a violent felony, Cooper replied bluntly.

“They have no argument. They just vote against it,” he said.

The criticism is consistent with Cooper’s recent public campaign against California’s criminal justice policies.

In recent months, the sheriff has argued that “domestic violence is one of the most personal and devastating forms of violence, but California law can still classify felony domestic violence as ‘non-violent.’ That needs to change.”

He has also repeatedly criticized lawmakers over Proposition 36, accusing them of ignoring nearly 70% of California voters by advancing diversion programs for retail theft offenders instead of fully funding and implementing the initiative.

“Californians were fed up with retail theft and passed Prop. 36 in all 58 counties,” Cooper wrote in a recent statement, arguing lawmakers instead responded by proposing new diversion programs that allow some offenders to avoid convictions.

Cooper has also emerged as one of the state’s most vocal critics of California’s youth offender and elderly parole policies, arguing they have systematically reduced accountability for violent offenders.

After five young suspects were charged in the fatal shooting of an 18-year-old Sacramento State student who was struck while riding in the back of an Uber, Cooper warned that California law often places greater emphasis on the offender’s age than the severity of the crime.

He argued that changes stemming from Proposition 57, youth offender parole laws and elderly parole policies have created a system where serious offenders can receive earlier release based on age rather than the harm inflicted on victims.

“The law places limits on how long offenders can be held but takes zero ownership of the damage done to victims and their families,” Cooper wrote. “This is not a system failing. It is a system operating exactly as designed.”

Cooper has also criticized California’s compassionate release program after a convicted attempted cop killer, who had been released early after shooting at Stockton police officers, was later arrested on new weapons charges.

Following that arrest, Cooper accused lawmakers of ignoring warnings from prosecutors and law enforcement about expanding release standards.

“The experts in the room saw the risks and they were ignored,” he wrote. “This is what happens when ideology outweighs public safety.”

Cooper closed his latest interview with a message he says Sacramento has lost sight of.

“We’ve got to get back to the victims.”

News Media has reached out to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office for comment.

Resistance from left-leaning circles is mounting against the proposed merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery, with California, perhaps predictably, taking a leading role in opposing the deal.

Last year, Americans observed Netflix as it circled around the struggling Warner Bros. Discovery, watching with curiosity rather than concern. Meanwhile, Hollywood speculated whether the streaming giant would transform the iconic studio into a mere content factory.

This speculation didn’t prompt political intervention at the time, but as the merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery nears conclusion, the political stakes have been raised.

And politics, particularly of a partisan nature, is at the heart of this confrontation.

In an unfolding drama earlier this year, Democratic Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar urged Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison to preserve documents related to the merger, as well as any connections to the Trump administration.

More recently, Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal, and Adam Schiff brought up “national security risks” tied to the deal’s fiscal connections with Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi.

Now, 12 Democratic attorneys general are rolling up their sleeves, filing suit to stop the $110 billion merger between the Hollywood parties, with California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta as the tip of the legal spear.

Bonta warned of dystopian results that would impact “audiences on every sofa and movie theater seat in the U.S.”

But the main threat is that Paramount Skydance’s CEO, David Ellison, is viewed as a FOT – friend of Trump. Larry Ellison, the CEO’s father, has contribued to President Donald Trump’s political campaigns, starting in 2016.

Paramount Skydance also helped bring the pro-American “Top Gun: Maverick” to theaters in 2022. That, in turn, suggests the newly formed merger might tweak Hollywood programming to placate Red State USA.

Imagine one major movie studio reaching out to the half of the country that fellow studios either ignore, disdain, or mock.

The cultural fear spreads beyond the cineplex. 

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

Paramount already flexed its editorial might over at CBS, courtesy of the new news sheriff, Bari Weiss. Under her rule, CBS covered fraud abuses the other, left-leaning programs downplayed. She also rattled the cages at “60 Minutes,” leading to veteran reporter Scott Pelley’s noisy dismissal.

Weiss could also take control of CNN. Picture a Weiss-ified CNN where Scott Jennings isn’t the only conservative on any given panel. Or a “Reliable Sources” segment tackling PBS’s extreme liberal bias, not the latest Fox News diatribe.

Losing CNN as a progressive mouthpiece, despite its ratings droop, would hurt the left.

Does that explain the zeal behind the new antitrust suit, not to mention the partisan nature of the merger attacks? Is this Trump Derangement Syndrome of the highest order?

Hollywood’s liberal elite have the Democrats’ back on the matter. In April, Ben Stiller, Rose Byrne, Javier Bardem and Emma Thompson, among others, signed an open letter skewering the deal.

“This transaction would further consolidate an already concentrated media landscape, reducing competition at a moment when our industries — and the audiences we serve — can least afford it,” they claimed.

Much of the fuss appears to be an effort to use the deal as an election year cudgel. It’s also a way to stop a more politcally-balanced movie studio and news apparatus from entering the chat.

Any time the left’s cultural dominance is threatened, the reaction is swift and punitive. Right-leaning movies get pummeled by movie critics, who lean aggressively to the left.

The 2024 movie “Reagan” earned a withering 17 percent “rotten” rating at RottenTomatoes.com, while general audiences gave it a 98 percent “fresh” score.

Bonta’s lawsuit says competition would be crushed by the merger. That might have once been the case, but the digital landscape is vastly different today. Newer platforms like YouTube now dominate the culture, while film and TV production are fleeing L.A. for redder states.

It’s more likely that Bonta and Co. fear a mega-studio that doesn’t genuflect to the left’s messaging machine.

That’s why this fight could get even uglier.

Christian Toto is the founder of Hollywood in Toto and host of The Hollywood in Toto podcast.

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Lindsey Graham’s sister, Darline Graham Nordone, has been appointed as the interim U.S. Senator, taking over the seat of her late brother.

Speaking at a Statehouse news conference on Monday, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster announced Nordone’s appointment. She will fulfill the remainder of Graham’s term, which is set to conclude in January. According to an insider who requested anonymity due to lack of authorization to comment, Nordone is expected to be sworn in on Wednesday, marking a historic moment as the first woman to represent South Carolina in the Senate.

“It’s a tremendous honor,” Nordone expressed. “Lindsey has always supported me. Now, it’s my turn to support him.”

The political landscape of South Carolina is in mourning following the passing of Graham, who died at age 71 this past weekend. Without a spouse or children, Graham’s most steadfast companion throughout his political journey was his sister, Nordone. She frequently joined him at significant events and even featured in some of his campaign advertisements.

Nordone’s bond with her brother deepened after their parents’ untimely deaths, when Graham stepped up as her guardian. Their relationship was a constant throughout his career, and she stood beside him as he filed for reelection earlier this year, accompanied by her children and grandchildren.

A special election will be held next month to pick a new Republican nominee in the general election for Graham’s seat. He had been seeking a fifth term this year.

The rare open Senate seat has ignited a scramble among South Carolina’s most ambitious conservatives, who have been eager to climb the political ladder.

Republicans just finished a sprawling and bruising contest to figure out their nominee for succeeding McMaster, who is wrapping up his second term. State Attorney General Alan Wilson won the nomination, overcoming a field that included Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, Rep. Nancy Mace and Ralph Norman – all of whom are now eyeing Graham’s seat following his death over the weekend.

How will a special primary work?

According to South Carolina law, a one-week filing period for a special primary election begins on the second Tuesday after the candidate’s death, or July 21.

The special primary election would be held on the second Tuesday after that filing period closes, or Aug. 11. Any necessary runoff would follow two weeks after that, or Aug. 25.

From that point, the new nominee would have just over two months to campaign for the general election on Nov. 3.

All of this is problematic according to federal law, which requires military and overseas ballots to go out 45 days before any federal election. For the special election primary, that would have been June 27. Federal Election Commission officials didn’t immediately return a message seeking clarity about the process.

Who could replace Graham?

Graham died on Saturday night, and a preliminary medical examiner report said he suffered a tear in his aorta, known as an aortic dissection.

In the hours after Graham’s death was announced, South Carolina’s Republican circles were already swirling with rumors about possible replacements. Given the proximity of November’s election, it’s likely that whomever McMaster appoints could be a top contender in the special primary, although it’s possible that McMaster’s choice will only serve as a temporary caretaker.

Evette, who has served nearly eight years alongside McMaster and received his endorsement in the governor’s race, is one possibility. She lost the June 23 runoff to Wilson.

A person with knowledge of Evette’s thinking but not authorized to discuss it publicly said that she was getting encouragement from across the state and feels she would have good chances in the special primary.

It’s unlikely that any House member would be appointed to finish Graham’s current term, since Republicans have such a slim majority in the chamber.

U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, a rumored replacement, said he assured Trump on Sunday that “my goal is to remain in the House to keep his two-vote majority for the American people!!!”

However, that doesn’t mean that House members won’t run for the next full term. A person with knowledge of Mace’s thinking but not authorized to speak about it publicly said she was considering the race. Mace is not running for reelection to the House.

But another Republican from the state, Rep. Russell Fry, could be a possibility. The two-term lawmaker represents the growing area around Myrtle Beach, and he’s been a top Trump ally.

Businessman Mark Lynch, whom Graham defeated in the primary, could also jump into the race. A person familiar with but not authorized to speak publicly about the thinking of Mark Sanford – South Carolina’s former governor who also served two separate stints in the U.S. House – said he was considering it, too.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who lived in South Carolina before joining the Trump administration, has fielded calls about potentially replacing Graham but doesn’t have interest in the role and enjoys working for the president, according to a person who insisted on anonymity to describe private conversations.

How does Graham’s death affect the general election?

No Democrat has won a Senate seat in South Carolina in decades, and Republicans in recent history typically take statewide seats by double digits. When he last ran in 2020, Graham defeated his Democratic opponent, Jaime Harrison, by a 10 percentage point margin.

So while history suggests that Graham was en route to a fifth term, Republicans are carefully surveying the landscape.

Charleston pediatrician Annie Andrews won the Democratic nomination last month and has raised more than $8 million in the race, and she had just under $3 million cash on hand at the end of May, according to federal filings. Graham had taken in $6 million, with just over $4 million on hand.

In a statement Sunday, Andrews called on South Carolinians to join her “in setting partisanship aside and offering gratitude” to Graham for his service.

Harrison, noting that he and Graham “had our share of political disagreements,” wrote on social media that he “always appreciated that even in our fiercest political battles, we could still share a conversation, a laugh, and a mutual respect for South Carolina and the institutions we were both privileged to serve.”

What happens to South Carolina’s Republican clout?

Graham leaves a major void in the Senate, where seniority can determine influence. He served more than two decades in the chamber, positioning himself to lead committees and set the agenda.

Scott, South Carolina’s junior senator, has been in office only since 2012 – short by the state’s standards. Fritz Hollings served for 38 years, and Strom Thurmond was there for 47.

Scott, who co-chaired Graham’s reelection effort, described his former colleague as “irreplaceable.”

“America lost a statesman, but I lost a friend,” he told ABC’s “This Week.”

___

Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein in Washington contributed to this report.

___

Kinnard reported from Charleston, South Carolina, and can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP.

An eminent Black historian is at the center of a controversy after asserting that academic critiques of her work on slavery stem from racial bias. This follows her loss of a tenured professorship, attributed to claims that her book contained numerous inaccuracies.

Kerri Greenidge released her book ‘The Grimkes’ in 2022 to considerable acclaim, as she explored the history of a slave-owning family from South Carolina. Her insightful narrative initially won her several accolades.

Though the book initially drew attention to the Grimke sisters, Angelina and Sarah, who were known for abandoning their plantation to advocate for abolition, Greenidge aimed to highlight the lives of the enslaved individuals connected to their family.

Despite the initial praise and honors Greenidge received for her publication, a number of fellow historians later expressed doubts regarding some of the assertions presented within the pages.

Myra C. Glenn, a historian who previously taught American history at Elmira College, confided to the New York Times that her first reaction upon reading Greenidge’s book was to question the sources of the author’s claims.

Glenn then wrote in a review published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2023 that The Grimkes was a ‘deeply flawed book’, and said Greenidge ‘lacks the evidence to substantiate many of her major claims.’

‘Her work is also riddled with factual errors and repeatedly omits needed endnotes,’ Glenn wrote. 

In response to the scrutiny, Greenidge told the Times that she believes the backlash was rooted in racism, saying: ‘The attack on Black women academics is real.’ 

After scrutiny on Greenidge’s work captured headlines, she lost her position as a tenured associate professor in the Department of Studies in Race, Colonialism, and Diaspora at Tufts University.

Greenidge said she felt she has never been accepted by the academic community and feels her life’s work has consistently been criticized by white scholars. 

‘I am heartbroken that a field I have given my life to can treat me this way,’ she said. 

In Glenn’s review of the book, she questioned Greenidge’s citation of letters between the Grimke sisters that were claimed to have been kept by the University of Michigan – but were actually found to not be in the college’s possession at all.

The reviewer also alleged that Greenidge distorted the story of a 1838 attack on Pennsylvania Hall in Philadelphia. 

Greenidge had claimed that the church was set upon by an anti-abolitionist mob, but the Grimke sisters ‘led thousands of antislavery women through prayer’ and allowed them to escape the ‘flaming building.’ 

In reality, Glenn said ‘numerous sources have documented no one was in the building when it was torched, since antislavery activists cancelled a scheduled meeting, fearing impending violence.’ 

Greenidge told the New York Times that she believes the criticism of her work was due to racism. 

Alongside losing her tenured position as a college professor, Greenidge also reportedly lost a book deal when scrutiny on her work was made public. 

Greenidge denied that she had stolen or made up parts of the history she wrote about.

‘I have never plagiarized anything in my life, I have never fabricated anything,’ she said. 

However, she admitted that some parts of her texts may have missed correct attributions, saying: ‘Are there citations that were misattributed? Probably.’ 

Following the criticisms of the book, publisher Liveright Publishing pulled the book from its website. The publisher, which is part of the W. W. Norton & Co. publishing house, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

When Greenidge left Tufts University, a spokesman told the Times that the college became aware that her renowned book ‘contained multiple errors of fact and failed to give appropriate credit to the work of another.’ 

The university said it became aware of the errors in December 2022, over a year before Glenn shared her scathing review. 

‘The university initiated a thorough peer review involving a panel of external scholars of American history which identified multiple errors of fact and citation,’ the Tufts spokesman said.

‘In keeping with its commitment to ethical conduct in research, the university proactively moved to correct the public record by informing publisher W.W. Norton of the peer review findings.’ 

In response to the university’s statement, Greenidge doubled down on her stance that she was being targeted because of racism. 

She said the university’s peer review panel had two senior historians who she believed were hostile toward Black women in academia, and that the review had been triggered by a complaint put forward by a white woman. 

She said she had sought a restraining order against that woman. 

The Daily Mail has attempted to contact Greenidge for comment.