accept

If this World Series is going to turn into a food fight about the economics of baseball, Dave Roberts tossed the first meatball.

The Dodgers had just been presented with the National League Championship trophy. Roberts, the Dodgers’ manager, had something to say to a sellout crowd at Dodger Stadium, and to an audience watching on national television.

“They said the Dodgers are ruining baseball,” Roberts hollered. “Let’s get four more wins and really ruin baseball.”

The Dodgers had just vanquished the Milwaukee Brewers, a team that did everything right, with four starting pitchers whose contracts total $1.35 billion.

The Brewers led the major leagues in victories this year. They have made the playoffs seven times in the past eight years, and yet their previous manager and general manager fled for big cities, in the hope of applying small-market smarts to teams with large-market resources.

The Dodgers will spend half a billion dollars on player payroll and luxury tax payments this year, a figure that the Brewers and other small-market teams might never spend in this lifetime, or the next one.

The Brewers will make about $35 million in local television rights this year. The Dodgers make 10 times that much — and they’ll make more than $500 million per year by the end of their SportsNet LA contract in 2038.

Is revenue disparity a problem for the sport?

The owners say yes. They are expected to push for a salary cap in next year’s collective bargaining negotiations. A cap is anathema to the players’ union. At the All-Star Game, union executive director Tony Clark called a cap “institutionalized collusion.”

The union could say, yes, revenue disparity is the big issue and propose something besides a cap.

But that is not what the union is saying. The union does not agree that revenue disparity is the issue, at least to the extent that the players should participate in solving it. Put another way: Tarik Skubal should not get less than market value in free agency to appease the owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

For the most part, the union believes the owners should resolve the issue among themselves.

And the fundamental difference might be this: To most of the owners, the Dodgers’ spending is the big problem, or at least the symptom of a big problem. This was Commissioner Rob Manfred at the owners’ meetings last February: “Do people perceive that the playing field is balanced and fair and/or do people believe that money dictates who wins?”

To the union, the problem is not one of perception. The union believes the problem is that the Dodgers’ spending exposes other owners who would love a salary cap that would give them cover — not to mention cost certainty that could increase profits and franchise values.

“Players across the league show up every day ready to compete and ready to win,” Clark told The Times. “Excuses aren’t tolerated between the lines, and they shouldn’t be accepted outside them either.

“When decision-makers off the field mirror the competitive drive exhibited on it, everybody wins and baseball’s future is limitless. Fans and players alike deserve — and should demand — far more accountability from those to whom much is given.”

Tony Clark, executive director of the MLB Players’ Assn., speaks during a news conference in New York in March 2022.

(Richard Drew / Associated Press)

In its annual estimates, Forbes had the Dodgers’ revenue last season at a league-leading $752 million and the Pirates’ revenue at $326 million. The Pirates turned a profit of $47 million and the Dodgers turned a profit of $21 million, according to those estimates.

The Pirates — and other small-market teams — make more than $100 million each year in their equal split of league revenue (national and international broadcast rights, for instance, and merchandising and licensing) and revenue shared by the Dodgers and other large-market teams. That means the Pirates can cover their player payroll before selling a single ticket, beer, or Primanti sandwich stuffed with meat, cheese and fries.

“The current system is designed so larger markets share massive amounts of revenue with smaller markets to help level the playing field,” Clark said. “Small-market teams have other built-in advantages, and we’ve proposed more in bargaining — and will again.”

The union would be delighted to get a salary floor — that is, a minimum team payroll. The owners would do that if the union agreed to a maximum team payroll — that is, a salary cap.

Whether the owners believe recent and potential future changes — among them a draft lottery, more favorable draft-pick compensation for small-market teams losing free agents, providing additional draft picks for teams that promote prospects sooner and for small-market teams that win — can begin to mitigate revenue disparity is uncertain. Whether the players can condition revenue sharing on team progress also is uncertain.

And, perhaps most critically to owners, the collapse of the cable ecosystem means many teams have lost local television revenue that might not ever bounce completely back, even if Manfred can deliver on his proposed “all teams, all the time, in one place” service.

Whatever the issues might be, fans are not throwing up their hands and walking away. The league sold more tickets this year than in any year since 2017. Almost every week brought an announcement from ESPN, Fox or TNT about a ratings increase, and the league did not complain about the outstanding ratings the Dodgers and New York Yankees attracted in last year’s World Series.

Dodgers fans celebrate after Shohei Ohtani hits the second of his three home runs in Game 4 of the NLCS against the Brewers at Dodger Stadium on Oct. 17.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

Payroll is under the control of an owner. Market size is not.

Of the top 15 teams in market size, six made the playoffs. Of the bottom 15 teams in market size, six made the playoffs.

Is that a reasonable exhibition of competitive balance? Would the Dodgers winning the World Series in back-to-back years define competitive imbalance, even if they would become the first team in 25 years to repeat? The only other team currently dedicated to spending like the Dodgers — the New York Mets — has not won the World Series in 39 years.

The Kansas City Chiefs have played in the Super Bowl five times in six years, winning three times. That is because they have Patrick Mahomes, not because the NFL has a salary cap.

In the past three years, the Dodgers are the only team to appear in the final four twice — more diversity than in the final four in the NFL, NBA or NHL, each of which has a salary cap.

The league used to happily distribute information like that. After the winter chants about the Dodgers ruining baseball, the league started talking about how no small-market team had won the World Series in 10 years.

Payroll itself should not define competitive balance, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if an owner decides competing with the Dodgers would be no less futile by spending another $25 million on players.

It is premature to count heads now. However, at this point, you wonder whether any team besides the Dodgers and Mets would lobby against the league pursuing a salary cap in negotiations. If the owners really want a salary cap, they need to be prepared to do what the NHL did to get one: shut down the league for an entire season.

We should be talking about the magic of Shohei Ohtani and Mookie Betts. Instead, on its grandest stage, the talk around baseball will be all about whether its most popular team is ruining the game to the point of depriving us of it come 2027. Well done, everyone.

Israeli club Maccabi Tel Aviv say they will not accept any ticket allocation from Aston Villa should the decision to ban their supporters from next month’s Europa League match be overturned.

Birmingham’s Safety Advisory Group (SAG) – the body responsible for issuing safety certificates for matches – last week informed Villa no travelling fans would be permitted at the match in the city.

The decision was widely condemned, with Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy pledging that the government will “find the resources” to allow Maccabi fans to attend earlier on Monday.

But Maccabi Tel Aviv now say supporters will not travel for safety reasons – that “a toxic atmosphere has been created which makes the safety of our fans wishing to attend very much in doubt”.

A club statement said, external: “The wellbeing and safety of our fans is paramount, and from hard lessons learned we have taken the decision to decline any allocation offered on behalf of away fans and our decision should be understood in that context.

“We hope that circumstances will change and look forward to being able to play in Birmingham in a sporting environment in the near future.”

“We are deeply saddened Maccabi Tel Aviv have turned down their away fan allocation but we respect their right to do so,” a government spokesperson said.

They added it was “completely unacceptable” that the match has been “weaponised to stoke violence and fear by those who seek to divide us”.

“The government has been working around the clock to defend a basic principle – that football fans should be able to enjoy a game without fear of intimidation or violence.”

On Thursday, West Midlands Police said it had classified the fixture as “high risk” based on current intelligence and previous incidents, including “violent clashes and hate crime offences” between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv fans before a match in Amsterdam, in November 2024.

Nandy said ministers were working together to fund any necessary policing operation to allow away fans to attend, and the SAG would review the decision if West Midlands Police changed its risk assessment.

Nandy said the matter was wider than matchday security, adding it came “against the backdrop of rising antisemitism here and across the world, and an attack on a synagogue in Manchester in which two innocent men were killed”.

On Sunday, the Israeli Premier League derby between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Hapoel Tel Aviv was cancelled before kick-off, after what police described as “public disorder and violent riots”.

Maccabi say the decision to call that game off was not down to their supporters and thanked the UK government for its efforts.

They said: “We believe that football should be about bringing people together not driving them apart.

“Our fans regularly travel all over Europe without incident and to suggest that the reason our fans cannot be allowed to travel is due to their behaviour is an attempt to distort reality.

“We acknowledge the efforts of the UK government and police to ensure both sets of fans can attend the match safely, and are grateful for the messages of support from across the footballing community.”

Aston Villa previously told their matchday stewards they did not have to work at the Maccabi Tel Aviv fixture, saying they understood some “may have concerns”.

Following Thursday’s announcement by the club about the impending fixture, Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the move “wrong” and said: “We will not tolerate antisemitism on our streets.”

LOUIS Tomlinson has opened up about the death of Liam Payne and has revealed he’s struggling to come to terms with it.

Pop star Liam tragically died after falling from a third-floor hotel balcony in Buenos Aires in October last year.

The pair were firm friends after being in One Direction together from 2010 and 2016 and they continued their friendship after the band split up.

Speaking about the grief of losing Liam, Louis told The Independent: “I naively thought that, at this point, I’d unfortunately be a little bit more well versed with grief than other people my age.

“I thought that might mean something, but it didn’t at all. It’s something I’ll never really accept. I don’t think.”

Louis is no stranger to grief, having lost his mum Johannah Deakin in 2016, when she died of leukaemia at the age of 43.

SISTER’S BLAST

Liam Payne’s sister swipes at his ex over ‘people using his death for fame’

‘MY WORLD BURNED’

Liam Payne’s sister says she’s ‘paralysed by grief’ on death anniversary

Just three years later, his sister Félicité tragically died from an accidental overdose at the age of 18.

This isn’t the first time Louis has opened up about Liam as he recently spoke about him during an appearance on Steven Bartlett’s Diary of a CEO podcast.

He told the Dragons’ Den star: “I could just go on and talk all day about how amazing he was, but I think we all looked up to him.

“I don’t think we would have been brave enough to say at that age when I was in the bnd, I think I would’ve had too much pride, but we all looked up to him massively.”

Speaking about the devastating moment he found out about Liam’s death, Louis said: “In the car, in LA. I found out through Niall [Horan].

“I had the same feeling that I had with Felicity, and I think anyone has this when they’re around someone who’s struggling; my 150 per cent wasn’t nearly enough.

“And that’s when it’s my own arrogance thinking that I could have helped really, because it was so much deeper than what I could have done for him. He was definitely struggling at that time in his life.”

Liam had flown to Argentina with girlfriend Kate Cassidy for a five-day holiday, to see his ex-1D bandmate Niall Horan in concert.

Liam extended the trip but Kate returned home to the US.

It is claimed Liam then turned to drink and drugs.

One Direction were formed on The X Factor in 2010, with Louis and Liam being joined in the band by Harry Styles, Niall Horan and Zayn Malik, who quit the band in 2015.

The boys came third on the ITV show and went on to sell over 70 million records worldwide, making them one of the best-selling boy bands of all time.

There’s one piece of news seniors on Social Security have been itching to get for months now — news of an official cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, for 2026.

At this point, it’s pretty clear that 2026 is not going to be one of those 0% COLA years. Though there have been 0% COLAs in the past, inflation has risen enough to date that experts can say with confidence that Social Security benefits will, indeed, be going up in the new year. The question is by how much.

Image source: Getty Images.

Current estimates seem to be floating in the 2.7% to 2.8% range. But we won’t know what next year’s COLA is for sure until the Social Security Administration makes its big announcement.

That said, Social Security’s upcoming COLA is probably going to be bad news no matter what it actually amounts to. It’s important to understand why — and take steps to work around that.

Why Social Security’s upcoming COLA probably won’t cut it

There’s a reason not to get too excited about Social Security’s 2026 COLA. That reason boils down to the fact that Social Security COLAs have been failing seniors for decades.

In fact, the Senior Citizens League, an advocacy group, says that seniors on Social Security lost 20% of their buying power between 2010 and 2024 due to insufficient COLAs. So chances are, next year’s COLA won’t keep up with inflation, either.

The problem stems from how Social Security COLAs are calculated. They’re based on annual third-quarter changes to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.

Now, let’s look at that index’s name carefully. Notice the terms “urban,” “wage earners,” and “clerical workers.” Do those describe the typical Social Security recipient?

It’s true that plenty of retirees reside in cities. But that’s certainly not a given. In fact, many retirees are able to move outside of cities to lower their costs once they no longer have to worry about proximity to a job.

Many Social Security recipients, by nature, are also not workers. They’re retired. So it’s pretty silly to base Social Security COLAs on an index that measures the costs a different subset of people face.

Advocates have been pushing to base Social Security COLAs on the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, or CPI-E. But lawmakers haven’t exactly been jumping to make that change, so it’s not one to expect anytime soon.

Prepare to be disappointed now

No matter what raise Social Security recipients end up eligible for in 2026, chances are, it won’t cut it. Plus, if you’re on Medicare as well, any increase in the cost of Part B will eat away at your COLA.

If you want to improve your financial picture for 2026, you can’t sit back and wait for your COLA to take effect for that to happen. Instead, you should take matters into your own hands.

Here are some specific steps to take:

• Do a thorough review of your retirement budget
• Identify a few expenses you can reduce or even eliminate
• Explore options for going back to work, whether as an hourly employee or a gig worker
• See if it’s possible to downsize your home or rent out a room for income
• Explore moving in with a family member if money is very tight
• Review your Medicare plan choices carefully during open enrollment to lower your healthcare costs

There may be other steps you can take to improve your finances, too, and it’s worth exploring them. What you don’t want to do is assume that your Social Security COLA will be the solution to your financial problems.

Even if Social Security’s 2026 COLA is more generous than expected, chances are good that it won’t do the job of keeping up with inflation that it’s supposed to. The sooner you’re able to accept that, the sooner you can start making positive changes that have a real effect.

Outburst comes after another US strike on alleged drugs vessel in Caribbean, as Maduro rallies to defend sovereignty.

United States President Donald Trump has threatened Venezuela with “incalculable” consequences if the country does not “immediately” take back immigrants he described as “prisoners” and “people from mental institutions”.

“GET THEM THE HELL OUT OF OUR COUNTRY, RIGHT NOW, OR THE PRICE YOU PAY WILL BE INCALCULABLE!” he said on his Truth Social platform on Saturday. He insisted that Venezuela had “forced” such people into the US and claimed without evidence that “thousands of people have been badly hurt, and even killed, by these ‘Monsters.’”

Trump’s latest outburst came amid soaring tensions, one day after he announced another strike against alleged drug vessels from Venezuela in the Caribbean that killed three men he described as “male narcoterrorists”.

Venezuela, for its part, has accused the US of waging an “undeclared war” in the Caribbean and called for a United Nations investigation into at least three strikes on boats that have killed a total of 17 people since the beginning of September.

Washington has deployed seven warships, a nuclear-powered submarine and F-35 stealth fighters to international waters off Venezuela’s coast, backed by F-35 fighters sent to Puerto Rico, in the biggest US naval deployment in the Caribbean.

Trump says the military is engaged in an anti-drug operation, but has not provided specific evidence to back up claims that the boats targeted so far had actually been trafficking drugs. Legal analysts have warned that the attacks amount to extrajudicial killings.

Reward offered for Maduro’s arrest

The deployment has stoked fears of an attack on Venezuelan territory, with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro repeatedly alleging the US is hoping to drive him from power.

Trump this week denied he was interested in regime change, but Washington last month doubled its reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50m, accusing him of links to drug trafficking and criminal groups.

Maduro denies links between high-ranking authorities and drug gangs and pledged to mobilise more than four million militia fighters in response to US “threats” after Washington raised the reward for his arrest.

Maduro sent letter to Trump

Days after the first US strike on a boat from the South American country at the beginning of the month, Maduro offered to engage in direct talks with Washington, according to the Reuters news agency, which viewed a personal letter sent to Trump.

“President, I hope that together we can defeat the falsehoods that have sullied our relationship, which must be historic and peaceful,” Maduro wrote in the letter, calling for “direct and frank” talks to “overcome media noise and fake news”.

In a separate development on Saturday, Maduro’s YouTube channel disappeared from the video-sharing platform on Saturday, according to the AFP news agency.

“Without any justification, the YouTube channel was closed at a time when the US was fully implementing hybrid warfare operations against Venezuela,” AFP cited Telesur as saying on its website.

WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic Leader Charles E. Schumer weathered backlash from Democrats earlier this year when he voted with Republicans to keep the government open. But he’s now willing to risk a shutdown at the end of the month if Republicans don’t accede to Democratic demands.

Schumer says he and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries are united in opposing any legislation that doesn’t include key healthcare provisions and a commitment not to roll them back. He argues that the country is in a different place than it was in March, when he vigorously argued against a shutdown, and he says he believes Republicans and President Trump will be held responsible if they don’t negotiate a bipartisan deal.

“Things have changed” since the March vote, Schumer said in an interview with the Associated Press on Thursday. He said Republicans have since passed Trump’s massive tax breaks and spending cuts legislation, which trimmed Medicaid and other government programs, and Democrats are now unified — unlike in March, when he voted with Republicans and Jeffries voted against the legislation to fund the government.

A shutdown, Schumer said, wouldn’t necessarily worsen an environment in which Trump is already challenging the authority of Congress. “It will get worse with or without it, because Trump is lawless,” Schumer said.

Democrats’ consequential decision

Schumer’s threat comes as Republicans are considering a short-term stopgap spending measure to avoid a Sept. 30 shutdown and as Democrats face what most see as two tough choices if the parties can’t negotiate a deal — vote with Republicans to keep the government open or let it close indefinitely with no clear exit plan.

It also comes amid worsening partisan tensions in the Senate, where negotiations between the two parties over the confirmation process broke down for a second time on Thursday and Republicans are changing Senate rules to get around Democratic objections to almost all of Trump’s nominees. Democrats are also fuming over the Trump administration’s decision to unilaterally claw back $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid just as negotiations over the spending deadline were getting underway in late August.

Republicans move ahead

Republicans say that Democrats clearly will be to blame if they don’t vote to keep the government open.

Trump said Friday to not “even bother” negotiating with Democrats. He said Republicans will likely put together a continuing resolution to keep funding the federal government.

“If you gave them every dream, they would not vote for it,” Trump said, adding “we will get it through because the Republicans are sticking together.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), said in an interview with Punchbowl News on Thursday that he believes Democrats see it as “politically advantageous” to have a shutdown.

“But they don’t have a good reason to do it,” Thune said in the interview. “And I don’t intend to give them a good reason to do it.”

Thune has repeatedly said that Schumer needs to approach Republicans with a specific proposal on healthcare, including an extension of expanded government tax credits for many Americans who get their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Some Republicans are open to extending those credits before they expire at the end of the year, but Thune has indicated that he is unlikely to add an extension to a short-term spending bill, instead favoring a “clean” stopgap for several weeks without any divisive issues while Congress finishes its budget legislation.

Schumer said he believes his caucus is ready to oppose the stopgap measure if Republicans don’t negotiate it with Democrats. “I think the overwhelming majority of our caucus, with a few exceptions, and same with the House, would vote against that,” he said.

Less realistic is Democrats’ demand that Republicans roll back Medicaid cuts enacted in their tax breaks and spending cuts legislation this summer, what Trump called his “big, beautiful bill.”

Escalating partisan tensions over spending

Schumer said Democrats also want Republicans to commit that the White House won’t take back money they have negotiated and Congress has approved after Republicans pushed through a $9-billion cut requested by the White House in July and Trump blocked the additional foreign aid money in August. “How do you pass an appropriations bill and let them undo it down the road?” Schumer said.

Congress is facing the funding deadline Sept. 30 because Republicans and Democrats are still working out their differences on several annual budget bills. Intractable partisan differences on an increasing number of issues have stalled those individual bills in recent years, forcing lawmakers to pass one large omnibus package at the end of the year or simply vote to continue current spending.

A shutdown means federal agencies will stop all actions deemed nonessential, and millions of federal employees, including members of the military, won’t receive paychecks. The most recent shutdown — and the longest ever — was during Trump’s first term in 2018 and into 2019, when he demanded money for his U.S.-Mexico border wall. It lasted 35 days.

Schumer’s March vote

Schumer’s move to support the spending legislation in March put him in the rare position of bucking his party’s base. He said then that of two bad options, a partial government shutdown was worse because it would give Trump even more control to lay off workers and there would be “no offramp” to get out of it. “I think people realize it’s a tough choice,” he said.

He faced massive backlash from within the party after the vote, with some activists calling on him to resign. Jeffries temporarily distanced himself from his New York colleague, saying in a statement immediately after Schumer’s vote that House Democrats “will not be complicit.” The majority of Senate Democrats also voted against the GOP spending legislation.

This time, though, Schumer is in lockstep with Jeffries and in messaging within his caucus. In Democrats’ closed-door lunch Wednesday, he shared polling that he said suggested most Americans would blame Trump, not Democrats, for a shutdown.

“I did what I thought was right” in March, Schumer said. “It’s a different situation now than then.”

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Christopher Megerian contributed to this report.

British cyclist Finlay Pickering took a 200km taxi ride and arrived without his luggage following a flight delay to accept a late call-up for his first Vuelta a Espana.

The 22-year-old was called upon to replace injured Bahrain Victorious team-mate Damiano Caruso less than 24 hours before the start of Saturday’s opening stage.

Pickering, only able to take the call after being late to head out on a training ride, travelled in a taxi from Andorra to Toulouse before flying to Turin.

A delay meant he arrived at the race with only the contents of his hand luggage – although fortunately that included his shoes.

It was far from ideal preparation for the Yorkshireman’s first stage at a Grand Tour race, but he managed to finish stage one in 153rd place.

“It was actually really lucky. I had a problem with a pair of training wheels and they were in a bike shop so I was a bit late going out training,” Pickering explained.

“I was on the way to pick them up when I got a call from management saying: How quickly can I be in an airport?

“The first flight was delayed, so I didn’t get my suitcase. But at least I managed to pack two pairs of shoes [in my hand luggage] so I can start.

“I’ve got a set of boxers, a set of socks, and the team are really good at looking after me, so no stress.”

He added, speaking before starting the Vuelta: “I’m pretty ready. I’m a bike rider and this is a bike race, after all – even if it’s a pretty big one.”

Belgium’s Jasper Philipsen won the first red jersey of this year’s Vuelta a Espana after taking victory on the opening stage in a sprint finish.

Rwanda has confirmed it will accept deported migrants from the United States, as US President Donald Trump continues to push for mass deportation from the North American country.

On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo, acknowledged that the African country had agreed to receive up to 250 deported individuals.

Rwanda is now the third African country, after South Sudan and Eswatini, to strike a deal with the US to accept non-citizen deportees.

“Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,” Makolo said in a statement obtained by the Reuters news agency.

But the Trump administration’s efforts to rapidly deport migrants from the US have raised myriad human rights concerns, not least for sending people to “third-party countries” they have no personal connections to.

Some of those countries, including Rwanda, have faced criticisms for their human rights records, leading advocates to fear for the safety of deported migrants.

Other critics, meanwhile, have blasted Trump for using African countries as a “dumping ground” for migrants with criminal records.

In this week’s statement, Makolo appeared to anticipate some of those criticisms, underscoring that Rwanda would have the final say over who could arrive in the country.

“Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement,” she said.

“Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.”

Trump’s mass deportation campaign

In 2024, Trump successfully campaigned for re-election in the US on the premise that he would expel the country’s population of undocumented immigrants, a group estimated to number around 11 million.

But many of those people have been longtime members of their communities, and critics quickly pointed out that Trump lacked the infrastructure needed for such a large-scale deportation effort.

In response, the Trump administration has surged money to immigration-related projects. For example, his “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which was signed into law in July, earmarked $45bn for immigration detention centres, many of which will be run by private contractors.

An additional $4.1bn in the law is devoted to hiring and training more officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with another $2.1bn set aside for bonuses.

But the Trump administration has made expelling migrants from the country a top priority, prompting legal challenges and backlash to the rapid pace of such deportations.

Critics say deported migrants have been denied their right to due process, with little to no time allotted to challenge their removals.

Then, there are the cases where undocumented migrants have been deported to “third-party countries” where they may not even speak the language.

Within weeks of taking office in January, Trump began deporting citizens of countries like India, China, Iran and Afghanistan to places like Panama, where migrants were imprisoned in a hotel and later a detention camp.

Trump also accused more than 200 men, many of them Venezuelan, of being gang members in order to authorise their expedited removal to El Salvador in March. Lawyers have since cast doubt on Trump’s allegations, arguing that many of their clients were deemed to be gang members based on little more than their tattoos and fashion choices.

El Salvador reportedly received $6m as part of a deal to hold the men in a maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Centre or CECOT, where human rights abuses have been documented.

The men were ultimately released last month as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, but a federal court in the US continues to weigh whether the Trump administration violated a judge’s order by allowing the deportation flights to leave in the first place.

Deportations to Africa

In May, the Trump administration unveiled efforts to start “third-party” deportations to countries in Africa as well, sparking further concerns about human rights.

Initially, Libya was floated as a destination, and migrants were reportedly loaded onto a flight that was prepared to take off when a judge blocked its departure on due process grounds.

The Libyan government later denied reports that it was willing to accept deported, non-citizen migrants from the US.

But the Trump administration proceeded later that month to send eight migrants on a flight to South Sudan, a country the US State Department deems too dangerous for Americans to travel to.

That flight was ultimately diverted to Djibouti, after a judge in Massachusetts ruled that the eight men on board were not given an adequate opportunity to challenge their removals.

Seven of them hailed from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and Myanmar. Only one was reportedly from South Sudan.

The Trump administration said all eight had criminal records, calling them “sickos” and “barbaric”. A spokesperson pledged to have them in South Sudan by the US Independence Day holiday on July 4.

The US Supreme Court paved the way for that to happen in late June, when it issued a brief, unsigned order allowing the deportation to South Sudan to proceed. The six conservative members of the bench sided with the Trump administration, while the three left-leaning justices issued a vehement dissent.

They argued that there was no evidence that the Trump administration had ascertained the eight men would not be tortured while in South Sudan’s custody. They also described the deportations as too hasty, depriving the men of their chance to appeal.

“The affected class members lacked any opportunity to research South Sudan, to determine whether they would face risks of torture or death there, or to speak to anyone about their concerns,” the justices wrote, calling the government’s actions “flagrantly unlawful”.

In mid-July, the Trump administration also began deportations to Eswatini, a tiny, landlocked country ruled by an absolute monarchy. It identified the five deported individuals as hailing from Laos, Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba and Yemen.

“This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,” administration spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on social media.

Lawyers for the five men have since reported they were denied access to their clients, who are being held in a maximum-security prison.

Cosying up to Trump?

Little is known so far about the newly announced deportations to Rwanda. It is not yet clear when deportation flights to Rwanda will begin, nor who will be included on the flights.

Reuters, however, reported that Rwanda will be paid for accepting the deportations in the form of a grant. The amount is not yet known.

Rwanda also has set parameters for whom it may accept. No child sex offenders will be allowed among the deportation flights, and the country will only accept deported individuals with no criminal background or whose prison terms are complete.

But the deportation announcement continues a trend of Rwandan authorities seeking closer relations with the Trump administration.

In June, President Trump claimed credit for bringing peace between Rwanda and its neighbour, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

He invited leaders from both countries to attend a ceremony at the White House and sign a peace deal. Critics, however, noted that the deal was vague and did not mention Rwanda’s support for the M23 paramilitary group, which has carried out deadly attacks in the DRC.

The deal also appeared to pave the way for Trump to pursue another one of his priorities: gaining access to valuable minerals in the region, like copper and lithium, that are key to technology development.

In an interview with The Associated Press news agency, Rwandan political analyst Gonzaga Muganwa said that his government’s recent manoeuvres seem to reflect the mantra that “appeasing President Trump pays”.

Muganwa explained that Tuesday’s agreement to accept migrants from the US will strengthen the two countries’ shared bond.

“This agreement enhances Rwanda’s strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,” he said.

He has done well at Brentford, but playing for Manchester United is very different. With respect to Brentford, there is no great expectation there. At United, he will be expected to perform straightaway.

He has experience, he is a good finisher, and his versatility is a big positive – he can play as a central striker as well as on the wing, cutting inside off the right on to his left foot.

But he has had one very good season where his numbers were very good, so the question is whether he can repeat that.

Consistency in those forward positions is what United are striving for, because they have not had it with, say, Alejandro Garnacho or Antony.

They are maybe thinking an older, more experienced player, who is more reliable, is what they need. That’s Mbeumo – he fits into Ruben Amorim’s system, and he fits the bill as proven Premier League quality too.

United’s attack is clearly an area they need to improve. People talk about how the way they play at the back, with the back three Amorim wants, and it is a difficult system to play at times when you are trying to press high because all your players have to work hard and be really switched on.

That’s why he has gone for Mbeumo, because I think he is someone he feels he can trust in all areas, in possession and out of it, with the work-rate and energy he needs – and goals too.

Chris Kreider has agreed to move his no-trade clause to accept a trade from the New York Rangers to the Ducks, according to a person with knowledge of the decision.

The person spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity Thursday because the deal had not been finalized.

The trade is expected to be completed Thursday.

Kreider, 34, is third on the franchise goal-scoring list with 326 after spending his first 13 NHL seasons with the Rangers. He has two years left on his contract at an annual salary cap hit of $6.5 million.

Moving on from Kreider is general manager Chris Drury’s first offseason change to a roster that underachieved and missed the playoffs.

The New York Post was first to report Kreider accepting the move.

The Trump administration says it has accepted an airplane worth an estimated $400 million from the state of Qatar. While Trump is president, the White House says it would be used as the new Air Force One, then it would go to Trump’s presidential library after his term ends.

The aircraft would become the most expensive gift from a foreign government ever to a US elected official, ABC News reported. But some members of Congress say accepting it would be unconstitutional.

When asked about the potential gift at a May 12 executive order signing, Trump blamed Boeing’s lack of progress in building a new Air Force One. He said he would be “stupid” to refuse a free airplane, and said he won’t use it after he leaves office. “It’s not a gift to me, it’s a gift to the Department of Defense,” he said.

What do experts say?

Legal experts told PolitiFact they believe accepting the gift would violate the US Constitution’s emoluments clause, which reads, “No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

The emoluments clause was designed “to prevent foreign nations from gaining improper influence” over US leaders, said David Forte, Cleveland State University emeritus law professor.

Experts differed on whether accepting the plane would be an impeachable offense.

Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor, said that if Trump accepts the gift, it could be an impeachable deed, because it would amount to “a fully corrupt act.”

Forte, however, said the gift wouldn’t necessarily amount to a bribe or an impeachable offense, but it “is a form of influence buying designed to gain the gratitude of the recipient by playing to his vanity.”

Is this the first time Trump is facing such accusations?

During Trump’s first term, Congressional Democrats, private individuals and attorneys general from Maryland and Washington, DC, filed lawsuits against Trump stemming from the emoluments clause.

However, many of the cases were dismissed on procedural grounds, and the US Supreme Court did not rule on the transactions’ underlying constitutionality.

Trump’s possible acceptance of the aircraft is different, said Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri emeritus law professor.

In his first term, Trump said payments were made to his businesses. This time, there would be no connection to Trump’s businesses. It would be a gift offered for free with no promise of payment from the president or the US Treasury, Bowman said.

NBC News, citing an anonymous senior Justice Department official, reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi approved a memo prepared by the agency’s Office of Legal Counsel that deemed it was legal for the Defense Department to accept the gift. Bondi has previously lobbied on behalf of the state of Qatar.

Trump, on his part, has thanked Qatar for the jet.

“If we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department, during a couple of years whole they’re [Boeing is] building the other one, I think that’s a very nice gesture [from Qatar],” he said on May 12.

Can the emoluments clause be enforced against Trump?

Legal experts said it’s unlikely that Congress, controlled by Republicans, will stop Trump from accepting the gift.

Meghan Faulkner, communications director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, DC, said that since it appears the Justice Department has signed off on receiving the gift, it “could make it harder to hold him accountable”.

Bowman said the Justice Department, according to longstanding policy, wouldn’t prosecute a sitting president.

Faulkner said Trump stands to benefit again after running out the clock on emoluments challenges during his first term. “Enforcing the Emoluments Clause in the courts would face similar challenges (in his second term), including the challenge of finding a plaintiff who has standing to challenge the violations,” she said.