By PHILIP MARCELO

NEW YORK (AP) — The brooding waltz was carefully composed on a sheet of music roughly the size of an index card. The brief, moody number also bore an intriguing name, written at the top in cursive: “Chopin.”

A previously unknown work of music penned by the European master Frederic Chopin appears to have been found at the Morgan Library & Museum in Manhattan.

The untitled and unsigned piece is on display this month at the opulently appointed institution, which had once been the private library of financier J. P. Morgan.

Robinson McClellan, the museum curator who uncovered the manuscript, said it’s the first new work associated with the Romantic era composer to be discovered in nearly a century.

But McClellan concedes that it may never be known whether it is an original Chopin work or merely one written in his hand.

The piece, set in the key of A minor, stands out for its “very stormy, brooding opening section” before transitioning to a melancholy melody more characteristic of Chopin, McClellan explained.

“This is his style. This is his essence,” he said during a recent visit to the museum. “It really feels like him.”

McClellan said he came across the work in May as he was going through a collection from the late Arthur Satz, a former president of the New York School of Interior Design. Satz had acquired it from A. Sherrill Whiton Jr., an avid autograph collector who had been director of the school.

McClellan then worked with experts to verify its authenticity.

The paper was found to be consistent with what Chopin favored for manuscripts, and the ink matched a kind typical in the early 19th century when Chopin lived, according to the museum. But a handwriting analysis determined the name “Chopin” written at the top of the sheet was penned by someone else.

Born in Poland, Chopin was considered a musical genius from an early age. He lived in Warsaw and Vienna before settling in Paris, where he died in 1849 at the age of 39, likely of tuberculosis.

He’s buried among a pantheon of artists at the city’s famed Père Lachaise Cemetery, but his heart, pickled in a jar of alcohol, is housed in a church in Warsaw, in keeping with his deathbed wish for the organ to return to his homeland.

Artur Szklener, director of the Fryderyk Chopin Institute in Warsaw, the Polish capital city where the composer grew up, agreed that the document is consistent with the kinds of ink and paper Chopin used during his early years in Paris.

Musically, the piece evokes the “brilliant style” that made Chopin a luminary in his time, but it also has features unusual for his compositions, Szklener said.

“First of all, it is not a complete work, but rather a certain musical gesture, a theme laced with rather simple piano tricks alluding to a virtuoso style,” Szklener explained in a lengthy statement released after the document was revealed last month.

He and other experts conjecture the piece could have been a work in progress. It may have also been a copy of another’s work, or even co-written with someone else, perhaps a student for a musical exercise.

Jeffrey Kallberg, a University of Pennsylvania music professor and Chopin expert who helped authenticate the document, called the piece a “little gem” that Chopin likely intended as a gift for a friend or wealthy acquaintance.

“Many of the pieces that he gave as gifts were short – kind of like ‘appetizers’ to a full-blown work,” Kallberg said in an email. “And we don’t know for sure whether he intended the piece to see the light of day because he often wrote out the same waltz more than once as a gift.”

David Ludwig, dean of music at The Juilliard School, a performing arts conservatory in Manhattan, agreed the piece has many of the hallmarks of the composer’s style.

“It has the Chopin character of something very lyrical and it has a little bit of darkness as well,” said Ludwig, who was not involved in authenticating the document.

But Ludwig noted that, if it’s authentic, the tightly composed score would be one of Chopin’s shortest known pieces. The waltz clocks in at under a minute long when played on piano, as many of Chopin’s works were intended.

“In terms of the authenticity of it, in a way it doesn’t matter because it sparks our imaginations,” Ludwig said. “A discovery like this highlights the fact that classical music is very much a living art form.”

The Chopin reveal comes after the Leipzig Municipal Libraries in Germany announced in September that it had uncovered a previously unknown piece likely composed by a young Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in its collections.

Associated Press video journalist John Minchillo in New York contributed to this story.

By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — For about 50 years, adding cavity-preventing fluoride to drinking water was a popular public health measure in Yorktown, a leafy town north of New York City.

But in September, the town’s supervisor used his emergency powers to stop the practice.

The reason? A recent federal judge’s decision that ordered U.S. regulators to consider the risk that fluoride in water could cause lower IQ in kids.

“It’s too dangerous to look at and just say ‘Ah, screw it. We’ll keep going on,’” said the town supervisor, Ed Lachterman.

Yorktown isn’t alone. The decision to add fluoride to drinking water rests with state and local officials, and fights are cropping up nationwide.

Communities in Florida, Texas, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming and elsewhere have debated the idea in recent months — the total number is in the dozens, with several deciding to stop adding it to drinking water, according to Fluoride Action Network, an advocacy organization against water fluoridation. In Arkansas, legislators this week filed a bill to repeal the state’s fluoridation program.

The debates have been ignited or fueled by three developments:

• In August, a federal agency reported “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between high levels of fluoride exposure — more than twice the recommended limit — and lower IQ in kids.
• In September, the federal judge ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water because high levels could pose a risk to the intellectual development of children.
• This month, just days before the election, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declared that Donald Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day as president. Trump later picked Kennedy to run the Department of Health and Human Services.

In Durango, Colorado, there was an unsuccessful attempt to stop fluoridating the water during Trump’s first term in office. A new push came this year, as Trump saw a surge of political support.

“It’s just kind of the ebb and flow of politics on the national level that ultimately affects us down here,” said city spokesman Tom Sluis.

Fluoride is a public health success story but opposition persists

Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and the addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

Fluoride can come from a number of sources, but drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population gets fluoridated drinking water, according to CDC data.

There is a recommended fluoridation level, but many communities exceed that, sometimes because fluoride occurs naturally at higher levels in certain water sources.

Opposition is nothing new, though for decades it was considered a fringe opinion. Adherents included conspiracy theorists who claimed fluoridation was a plot to make people submissive to government power.

Health officials could point to studies that showed that cavities were less common in communities with fluoridated water, and that dental health worsened in communities without it.

But fluoride isn’t just in water. Through the years it became common in toothpaste, mouthwash and other products. And data began to emerge that there could be too much of a good thing: In 2011, officials reported that 2 out of 5 U.S. adolescents had at least mild tooth streaking or spottiness because of too much fluoride.

In 2015, the CDC recommended that communities revisit how much they were putting in the water. Beginning in 1962, the government recommended a range of 0.7 milligrams per liter for warmer climates where people drink more water to 1.2 milligrams in cooler areas. The new standard became 0.7 everywhere.

Over time, more studies pointed to a different problem: a link between higher levels of fluoride and brain development. The August report by the federal government’s National Toxicology Program — summarizing studies conducted in Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan and Mexico — concluded that drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter was associated with lower IQs in kids.

“There’s no question that fluoride prevents cavities,” said Dr. Tom Frieden, who was director of the CDC when the agency changed the recommended fluoride levels. “There’s also no question we’re getting more fluoride than we were 50 years ago, through toothpaste and other things.”

Frieden said “a legitimate question” has been raised about whether fluoride affects brain development, and studies making that link “need to be looked at carefully.”

U.S. towns wrestle with what to do

Many people in health care strongly embrace water fluoridation. The American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirmed their endorsement of current CDC recommendations in the wake of the federal report and the judge’s ruling.

Colorado’s health department, which weighed in during a Nov. 5 Durango city council meeting, said in a statement that it “seeks to align its public health recommendations with the latest scientific research. The facts of this court ruling are not sufficient” to revise current fluoridation levels.

Durango officials are waiting to see what the EPA does in reaction to the recent court decision, said Sluis, the city spokesman.

“We follow the science,” he said. “It wouldn’t be in the best interest of the city to stop fluoridation based on one judge’s interpretation.”

In Yorktown, Lachterman concluded the judge’s decision was enough to halt fluoridation. He recalled a community discussion several years ago in which most people in the room clearly favored fluoridation, but recently it seems public comment has reversed.

“It’s like a total 180,” he said.

But not all public pressure these days is against the idea.

In September, Buffalo, New York, announced it would resume water fluoridation after not having it for nearly a decade. News reports had described an increase in tooth decay and families sued, seeking damages for dental costs.

The Buffalo Sewer Authority’s general manager, Oluwole McFoy declined to discuss the decision with The Associated Press, citing the litigation.

For its part, the EPA “is in the process of reviewing the district court’s decision,” spokesman Jeff Landis said this week.

Debates have become heated

In Monroe, Wisconsin, fluoridation “has become a very hot issue,” said its mayor, Donna Douglas.

The small city, near Madison, started fluoridating its drinking water in the early 1960s. But in the late summer, some residents began calling and emailing Douglas, saying she needed to do something about what they saw as a public health danger. The first call “was more like a threat,” she recalled.

Douglas said she did not take a position on whether to stop, but decided to raise it to the city council for discussion. The discussions were unusually emotional.

Few people tend to speak during public comment sessions at council meetings, said Douglas. But more than two dozen people spoke at a city council meeting last month, most of them in favor of fluoridation. At a subsequent meeting, about a dozen more people — all opposed to fluoridation — came out to speak.

“This is the first time we’ve had any debates at all” like this, Douglas said. “I didn’t realize it would be such a heated discussion.”

---

AP video journalist Brittany Peterson and AP reporter Andrew DeMillo contributed to this report.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

By HALELUYA HADERO

About one in five Americans — and a virtually identical share of Republicans and Democrats — regularly get their news from digital influencers who are more likely to be found on the social media platform X, according to a report released Monday by the Pew Research Center.

The findings, drawn from a survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults and an analysis of social media posts posted this summer by influencers, provide an indication of how Americans consumed the news during the height of the U.S. presidential campaign that President-elect Donald Trump ultimately won.

The study examined accounts run by people who post and talk regularly about current events – including through podcasts and newsletters – and have more than 100,000 followers on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, X or TikTok. They include people across the political spectrum, such as the progressive podcast host Brian Tyler Cohen and conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro, as well as non-partisan personalities like Chris Cillizza, a former CNN analyst who now runs his own newsletter.

The report found that news influencers posted mostly about politics and the election, followed by social issues like race and abortion and international events, such as the Israel-Hamas war. Most of them — 63% — are men and the majority — 77% — have no affiliation, or background, with a media organization. Pew said about half of the influencers it sampled did not express a clear political orientation. From the ones that did, slightly more of them identified as conservative than as liberal.

During the campaign, both parties and presidential campaigns had courted influencers, including creators who weren’t very political, to compete for voters who are increasingly getting most of their news from non-traditional sources.

The Republican and Democratic national conventions had credentialed influencers to cover their events this past summer. Vice President Kamala Harris sat down with Alex Cooper for her “Call Her Daddy” podcast and talked a little Bay Area basketball with the fellows on “All the Smoke.” Meanwhile, Trump hung out with the bros on the “Bussin’ With the Boys,” “Flagrant” and the popular podcaster Joe Rogan as part of a series of appearances targeting young male voters.

“These influencers have really reached new levels of attention and prominence this year amid the presidential election,” Galen Stocking, senior computational social scientist at Pew Research Center, said in a statement. “We thought it was really important to look at who is behind some of the most popular accounts – the ones that aren’t news organizations, but actual people.”

Even though 85% of news influencers have a presence on X, many of them also have homes on other social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

Racial minorities, young adults and adults with a lower income were more likely to get their news from news influencers, according to the report. Most of the people surveyed by Pew said news influencers have helped them better understand current events, while roughly a quarter say what they hear has not made much of a difference. A small share — 9% — say influencers have confused them more.

Media analysts have long been concerned about how influencers – most of whom don’t have to abide by editorial standards – could fuel misinformation, or even be used by America’s adversaries to churn out content that fits their interests. On social media, though, some influencers have positioned themselves as figures presenting neglected points of view.

Pew, which is doing the study as part of an initiative funded by the Knight Foundation, said 70% of the survey respondents believe the news they get from influencers is somewhat different than what they hear elsewhere. Roughly a quarter said it was “extremely or very different.”

The report found TikTok is the only one of the major platforms where influencers who identify as right-leaning do not outnumber those who are more liberal. Pew said news influencers on the short-form video app were more likely than those on other sites to show support for LGBTQ+ rights or identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community. The platform also had the smallest gender gap for news influencers.

AP media writer David Bauder contributed to this report.

By Sierra Van Der Brug, Sydney Barragan, SCNG

Four Los Angeles-area residents were arrested on Wednesday on suspicion of insurance fraud and conspiracy after allegedly falsely claiming a bear got into their vehicles and damaged them.

There was no bear, rather, a person in a bear costume was seen in video footage provided with insurance claims.

Dubbed “Operation Bear Claw,” the California Department of Insurance began an investigation after an insurance company suspected fraud when the suspects, residents of Glendale and Valley Village, in January reported a bear had gotten into their Rolls-Royce Ghost in Lake Arrowhead.

Video footage was provided to the insurance company. The footage was reviewed by investigators, who determined the video showed a person in a bear suit. A biologist from the California Department of Wildlife also reviewed the footage, concurring with investigators that the footage “was clearly a human in a bear suit,” according to a news release from the Department of Insurance. After executing a search warrant, detectives found the bear costume in the home of the suspects.

The investigation also revealed two other insurance claims made by the suspects at other insurance companies, citing the same date and location of loss and bear-related circumstances, with different vehicles, a Mercedes G63 AMG and a Mercedes E350.

“This is definitely unique, but we have seen, through our cases, that people will do a lot of things to try and get an undeserved insurance payout,” said Allison Hensley,  deputy press secretary at the Department of Insurance

Photos provided by the department showed the reported damage, puncture and scratch marks on the interior doors and seats of the vehicles.

“It isn’t the first case that we’ve seen that has baffled us, but this one definitely was the first one in a while,” Hensley said.

The financial impact on the insurance companies of the alleged fraud totaled over $140,000.

By Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — Wall Street is already making big bets on what take two for a White House led by Donald Trump will mean for the economy.

Since Election Day, investors have sent prices zooming for stocks of banks, fossil-fuel producers and other companies expected to benefit from Trump’s preference for lower tax rates and lighter regulation. For retailers, meanwhile, the outlook is murkier because of uncertainty about whether they’ll be able to absorb any of the higher costs created by tariffs.

Professional investors are warning about the risk of getting carried away by the momentum. While strong rhetoric on the campaign trail can cause these big swings, not all of the promises turn into actual policy. Plus, the broad U.S. stock market tends to move more on long-term growth in profits than anything else.

— Stan Choe

Here’s a look at where Wall Street is placing its bets at the moment:

Technology

Technology stocks soared in Trump’s first term, helped by the administration’s tax policies. But the relationship was tempestuous: Trump’s immigration stance threatened a source of high-skilled immigrants that comprises a significant part of the industry’s work force and his trade wars threatened international sales and supply chains.

This time around, tech could benefit from an anticipated loosening of antitrust regulation that discouraged big deals from getting done and threatened to rein in the power of Google, Apple and Amazon. What’s more, Trump is expected to clear the way for Big Tech to make more inroads in artificial intelligence technology — an area increasingly seen as a crucial battleground in the duel for global power between the U.S. and China.

Trump’s vow to impose tariffs and other restrictions on trade does pose a potential downside for chip makers, particularly stock market darling Nvidia. A possible rollback of Biden administration efforts to boost U.S. semiconductor production also is a concern.

Still, in a sign of tech’s more conciliatory attitude, Trump’s election was greeted by congratulatory posts from most of the industry’s luminaries, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy and Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

— Michael Liedtke

Retail

Trump’s victory brings a big dose of uncertainty for the retail industry.

Trump has proposed extending 2017 tax cuts for individuals and restoring tax breaks for businesses that were being reduced. He also wants to further cut the corporate tax rate. Those would be tailwinds for shoppers and businesses, analysts said.

But the president-elect’s trade proposals could have a huge downside. He’s proposed 60% tariffs on Chinese goods and tariffs of 10% to 20% on other imports. Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData, a research firm, said retailers would either take a big hit on profits or be forced to increase prices.

As opposed to Trump’s first term, retailers will have a harder time absorbing tariffs this time because their costs of doing business are already higher, Saunders said.

Many companies, including Nike and eyewear retailer Warby Parker, have been diversifying their sourcing away from China. Shoe brand Steve Madden says it plans to cut imports from China by as much as 45% next year.

The National Retail Federation is forecasting higher prices for U.S. shoppers if Trump’s new tariffs are implemented. For example, an $80 pair of men’s jeans would cost $90 to $96.

— Anne D’Innocenzio

Energy

Trump has said he wants to “drill, drill, drill” starting on Day 1 of his presidency, so it’s expected that traditional fossil fuel-focused companies will get a boost and renewable energy outfits could be disadvantaged.

Oilfield services companies including Haliburton and Schlumberger would likely benefit from initiatives to expand drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Natural gas companies including EQT and CNX Resources could benefit from facilities and pipeline projects. Meanwhile, clean energy companies, such as First Solar and many electric vehicle makers, could have a harder time growing if Trump cuts tax credits and other incentives for the industry.

But remember Trump’s first term, says Austin Pickle, investment strategy analyst at Wells Fargo Investment Institute. The thought back then, like now, was that Trump would boost prices for oil-and-gas stocks. But energy stocks ended up struggling late in his term when the price of oil briefly went below zero during the COVID-19 pandemic.

— Damian Troise

Health Care

Drugmakers, insurers and other health care companies could benefit from fewer regulatory roadblocks to mergers and a lighter regulatory stance overall.

Insurers, in particular, may see some regulatory relief for Medicare Advantage plans, which are privately run versions of the government’s Medicare program mainly for people ages 65 and older. Under Democratic leadership, some insurers were facing smaller bonus payments tied to their Medicare Advantage plans. Some drugmakers are facing revenue hits on certain drugs covered by Medicare. Those challenges could abate under Republican rule, analysts at Morningstar noted.

A second Trump administration also may challenge health care companies.

The approval of drugs and vaccines could become less predictable, depending on the role anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plays, said Morningstar analyst Karen Andersen.

Health insurers that sell coverage on the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplaces or manage state-and-federally funded Medicaid coverage could face challenges if Republicans attempt to dismantle parts of the law, said Julie Utterback of Morningstar.

In particular, extra subsidies that help people buy marketplace coverage are slated to expire at the end of next year, which could lead to enrollment drops.

— Tom Murphy

Autos

The auto industry is another that should welcome less restrictive regulations but dread tariffs.

Trump is likely to roll back or scrap tailpipe emissions limits for 2027 through 2032 imposed by the Biden administration. Companies like General Motors, Ford and Stellantis could more easily sell larger, less-efficient vehicles without paying hefty fines.

Companies would also face less pressure to sell more electric vehicles to offset emissions from big trucks and SUVs, which make big profit margins, said Kevin Tynan, research director for The Presidio Group.

Tariffs are a different story. Trump has threatened tariffs on imported vehicles to force more production in the U.S. The threat of 100% tariffs on vehicles imported from Mexico is a big concern.

Morningstar analyst David Whiston said such tariffs could potentially cost General Motors, Stellantis and Ford billions in profits. About 30% of GM’s North American production comes from Mexico, while it’s 24% for Stellantis and about 15% for Ford.

Whiston notes that tariffs on vehicles built in Mexico would violate the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement negotiated during Trump’s first term. But that can be reworked in July of 2026. Whiston said those tariffs would mean higher prices and many buyers already can’t afford the current average price of over $47,000.

Trump also has threatened to get rid of electric vehicle tax credits that have helped boost sales of EVs.

— Tom Krisher

Banks

Bank stocks could benefit if Trump’s policies boost the U.S. economy and more customers apply for loans. In addition, Wells Fargo banking analyst Mike Mayo believes the Trump victory can usher in a “new era” of lighter financial regulation after 15 years of stricter oversight following the financial crisis of 2008-2009. Under Biden, banks were facing requirements to set aside more capital to reduce risk, but the Trump administration is likely to take a step back.

Dealmaking could see a revival under Trump, which would help banks with large investment banking operations like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. That also increases the odds the pending merger between Capital One Financial and Discover Financial gets federal clearance. Regional banks should benefit if a growing economy prompts the creation of new small businesses or the expansion of existing ones.

— Paul Harloff

Building materials and construction

Construction companies are looking at a mixed bag, with lighter regulations a plus but higher materials costs a potential minus.

Construction companies, including homebuilders KB Home and PulteGroup, could benefit from tax incentives and more friendly regulations. A surge in development could help relieve some pressure on a housing market pressured by a lack of supply for new homes. A boost in construction could also help suppliers of raw materials including steel and aggregates used in concrete.

But the potential for overall raw material price increases is a threat. Higher costs could cut into profits for construction companies and homebuilders. Steel tariffs could help shield U.S. producers from competition, but a jump in global prices as a result could negate that benefit, while also squeezing construction companies.

Plans for an immigration crackdown could worsen an existing labor shortage and result in delays for projects.

— Damian Troise

Crypto

Trump, once a crypto skeptic, has pledged to make the U.S. “the crypto capital of the planet” and create a “strategic reserve” of bitcoin. Money has poured into crypto assets since he won. Bitcoin, the largest cryptocurrency, has surged above $86,000. Shares of crypto platform Coinbase have surged more than 60% since the election.

Crypto industry players welcomed Trump’s victory, in hopes that he would push through legislative and regulatory changes that they’ve long lobbied for. And Trump had promised that, if elected, he would remove the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Gary Gensler, who has been leading the U.S. government’s crackdown on the crypto industry and repeatedly called for more oversight.

— Wyatte Grantham-Phillips

By JENNIFER PELTZ and MICHAEL R. SISAK, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — A judge on Tuesday postponed a decision on whether to undo President-elect Donald Trump’s conviction in his hush money case as prosecutors consider how to proceed in light of last week’s election and his lawyers argue for dismissal so he can run the country.

The postponement comes at a dramatic and dynamic point in the case, which focused on how Trump accounted for payments to a porn actor before the 2016 election and produced a first-ever conviction of a former commander-in-chief.

Sentencing had been set for Nov. 26. But prosecutors now say they’re reassessing, and they appear open to the possibility that the proceedings can’t go as planned.

“These are unprecedented circumstances,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo wrote in an email to the court. He said prosecutors need to consider how to balance the “competing interests” of the jury’s verdict and the presidency.

Trump lawyer Emil Bove, meanwhile, argued the case must be thrown out altogether “to avoid unconstitutional impediments to President Trump’s ability to govern.”

The messages were part of an email chain released Tuesday, when New York Judge Juan M. Merchan had been set to rule on Trump lawyers’ earlier request to toss his conviction for a different reason — because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this summer on presidential immunity.

Instead, Merchan told Trump’s lawyers he’d halt proceedings and delay the ruling until at least Nov. 19 so that prosecutors can suggest a way forward. Both sides agreed to the one-week postponement.

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung heralded the delay. He said in a statement that the president-elect’s win makes it “abundantly clear that Americans want an immediate end to the weaponization of our justice system, including this case, which should have never been filed.”

Prosecutors declined to comment.

A jury convicted Trump in May of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in 2016. The payout was to buy her silence about claims that she had sex with Trump.

Trump says they didn’t have sex, denies any wrongdoing and maintains the prosecution was a political tactic meant to harm his latest campaign. Trump is a Republican. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office brought the case, is a Democrat, as is Merchan.

Just over a month after the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for actions they took in the course of running the country, and prosecutors can’t cite those actions even to bolster a case centered on purely personal conduct.

Trump’s lawyers cited that ruling to argue that the hush money jury got some evidence it shouldn’t have, such as Trump’s presidential financial disclosure form and testimony from some White House aides.

Prosecutors disagreed and said the evidence in question was only “a sliver” of their case.

Trump’s criminal conviction was a first for any ex-president. It left the 78-year-old facing the possibility of a fine, probation or up to four years in prison.

The case centered on how Trump accounted for reimbursing a personal attorney for the Daniels payment.

The then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, fronted the money. He later recouped it through a series of payments that Trump’s company logged as legal expenses. Trump, by then in the White House, signed most of the checks himself.

Prosecutors said the designation was meant to cloak the true purpose of the payments and help cover up a broader effort to keep voters from hearing unflattering claims about Trump during his first campaign.

Trump said that Cohen was legitimately paid for legal services, and that Daniels’ story was suppressed to avoid embarrassing Trump’s family, not to influence the electorate.

Trump was a private citizen, campaigning for president, when Cohen paid Daniels in October 2016. He was president when Cohen was reimbursed, and Cohen testified that they discussed the repayment arrangement in the Oval Office.

Trump has been fighting for months to overturn the verdict. While urging Merchan to nix the conviction, the president-elect also has been trying to move the case to federal court. Before the election, a federal judge repeatedly said no to the move, but Trump has appealed.

Trump faces three other unrelated indictments in various jurisdictions.

But Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith has been evaluating how to wind down both the 2020 election interference case and the separate classified documents case against Trump before he takes office, a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Longstanding Justice Department policy says sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted.

Meanwhile, a Georgia election interference case against Trump is largely on hold while he and other defendants appeal a judge’s ruling allowing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to continue prosecuting it.

---

Associated Press reporter Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.

By AAMER MADHANI

WASHINGTON (AP) — Joe Biden’s name wasn’t on the ballot, but history will likely remember Kamala Harris’ resounding defeat as his loss too.

As Democrats pick up the pieces after President-elect Donald Trump’s decisive victory, some of the vice president’s backers are expressing frustration that Biden’s decision to seek reelection until this summer — despite long-standing voter concerns about his age and unease about post-pandemic inflation as well as the U.S.-Mexico border — all but sealed his party’s surrender of the White House.

“The biggest onus of this loss is on President Biden,” said Andrew Yang, who ran against Biden in 2020 for the Democratic nomination and endorsed Harris’ unsuccessful run. “If he had stepped down in January instead of July, we may be in a very different place.”

Biden will leave office after leading the United States out of the worst pandemic in a century, galvanizing international support for Ukraine after Russia’s invasion and passing a $1 trillion infrastructure bill that will affect communities for years to come.

But having run four years ago against Trump to “restore the soul of the country,” Biden will make way after just one term for his immediate predecessor, who overcame two impeachments, a felony conviction and an insurrection launched by his supporters. Trump has pledged to radically reshape the federal government and roll back many of Biden’s priorities.

“Maybe in 20 or 30 years, history will remember Biden for some of these achievements,” said Thom Reilly, co-director of the Center for an Independent and Sustainable Democracy at Arizona State University. “But in the shorter term, I don’t know he escapes the legacy of being the president who beat Donald Trump only to usher in another Donald Trump administration four years later.”

The president on Wednesday stayed out of sight for the second straight day, making congratulatory calls to Democratic lawmakers who won downballot races and to Trump. Biden invited Trump for a White House meeting, and the president-elect accepted.

Biden is set to deliver a Rose Garden address Thursday about the election. He issued a statement shortly after Harris delivered her concession speech Wednesday, praising Harris for running an “historic campaign” under “extraordinary circumstances.”

Some high-ranking Democrats, including three advisers to the Harris campaign, expressed deep frustration with Biden for failing to recognize earlier in the election cycle that he was not up to the challenge. The advisers spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

Biden, 81, ended his reelection campaign in July, weeks after an abysmal debate performance sent his party into a spiral and raised questions about whether he still had the mental acuity and stamina to serve as a credible nominee.

But polling long beforehand showed that many Americans worried about his age. Some 77% of Americans said in August 2023 that Biden was too old to be effective for four more years, according to a poll by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs.

The president bowed out on July 21 after getting not-so-subtle nudges from Democratic Party powers, including former President Barack Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California. Biden endorsed Harris and handed over his campaign operation to her.

Yang argued that Democratic Party leaders also deserve blame for taking too long to push out Biden. With few exceptions, most notably Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips, Democrats shied away talking publicly about Biden’s age.

“Why was this not coming from any Democratic leaders?” Yang said. “It’s a lack of courage and independence and an excess of careerism, if I just keep my mouth shut, we’ll just keep on trucking along.”

The campaign was also saddled by anger among some Arab American and young voters over its approach to Israel’s conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an ally of Biden and Harris, said in a statement that Democrats lost the thread on working class Americans’ concerns.

“Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign?” the Vermont independent said. “Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing?”

Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison took to social media Thursday to push back on Sanders’ critique, saying that Biden was “the most-pro worker President of my life time.”

Harris managed to spur far greater enthusiasm than Biden was generating from the party’s base. But she struggled to distinguish how her administration would differ from Biden’s.

Appearing on ABC’s “The View” in September, Harris was not able to identify a decision where she would have separated herself from Biden. “There is not a thing that comes to mind,” Harris said, giving the Trump campaign a sound bite it replayed through Election Day.

The strategists advising the Harris campaign said the compressed campaign timetable made it even more difficult for Harris to differentiate herself from the president.

Had Biden stepped aside early in the year, they said, it would have given Democrats enough time to hold a primary. Going through the paces of an intraparty contest would have forced Harris or another eventual nominee to more aggressively stake out differences with Biden.

The strategists acknowledged that overcoming broad dissatisfaction among the American electorate about rising costs in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic and broad concerns about the U.S. immigration system weighed heavy on the minds of voters in key states.

Still, they said that Biden had left Democrats in an untenable place.

Harris senior adviser David Plouffe in a posting on X called it a “devastating loss.” Plouffe did not assign blame and said the Harris campaign “dug out of a deep hole but not enough.” The post was later deleted.

At the vice president’s concession speech on Wednesday, some Harris supporters said they wished the vice president had had more time to make her pitch to American voters.

“I think that would have made a huge difference,” said Jerushatalla Pallay, a Howard University student who attended the speech at the center of her campus.

Republicans are poised to control the White House and Senate. Control of the House has yet to be determined.

Matt Bennett, executive vice president at the Democratic-aligned group Third Way, said this moment was the most devastating the party has faced in his lifetime.

“Harris was dealt a really bad hand. Some of it was Biden’s making and some maybe not,” said Bennett, who served as an aide to Vice President Al Gore during the Clinton administration. “Would Democrats fare better if Biden had stepped back earlier? I don’t know if we can say for certain, but it’s a question we’ll be asking ourselves for some time.”

Associated Press writer Matt Brown contributed to this report.

The end of daylight saving time is near. And come Sunday, time will shift back an hour for most of the U.S.

When is daylight saving time?

For states that follow daylight saving time, it begins on the second Sunday of March, when clocks “spring forward,” and ends when clocks “fall back” on the first Sunday of November each year.

This year, daylight saving time began on March 10 and will end on Sunday, Nov. 3 at 2 a.m., so mark your calendar and enjoy an extra hour of sleep. Sunrise and sunset will shift to be about an hour earlier.

Time will “spring forward” again on March 9, 2025.

How did daylight saving time come to be?

Some say Benjamin Franklin invented daylight saving time while others point to different individuals. According to an article published on the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health website, pushing clocks forward during the warmer months to make more use of daylight and thus conserve energy was adopted during WWI.

The Uniform Time Act of 1966 established a standardized system of daylight saving time throughout the U.S.

Who doesn’t observe daylight saving time?

Hawaii and Arizona, except the Navajo Nation, don’t observe daylight saving time. Guam, American Samoa, North Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, all U.S. territories, also don’t observe daylight saving time according to the Department of Transportation, which oversees timezones.

In 2022, the U.S. Senate passed a bill that would have made daylight saving time the new permanent standard time beginning in November 2023, but the legislation didn’t pass in the House of Representatives. In recent years, state legislatures have considered at least 650 bills and resolutions to institute yearlong daylight saving time should federal law allow it, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Maryland Del. Brian Crosby, a Democrat from St. Mary’s County, sponsored legislation in 2021 to establish Eastern Daylight Time in the state year-round. The bill didn’t pass in 2021, nor did subsequent iterations introduced again by Crosby in 2022 and 2023.