access

July 15 (UPI) — Argentina has strengthened cooperation with U.S. authorities to implement its stadium access control system for the World Cup semifinal match Wednesday against England in Atlanta.

The system allows officials to identify people banned from attending soccer matches, including members of violent fan groups and thousands of child support debtors.

The Ministry of National Security is coordinating a joint operation with U.S. and British agencies to strengthen security inside and outside Atlanta Stadium, where the match was to be played.

The operation includes meetings with the FBI and Georgia State Police, as well as an increased presence of law enforcement officers and private security personnel at stadium entrances, the ministry said.

National Security Secretary Alejandra Monteoliva said in a video posted on X that Argentina’s National Registry of Individuals Banned from Stadiums has already been made available to U.S. authorities to assist with the operation.

“Soccer belongs to families and true fans, and we do not want violent people representing us anywhere in the world,” she said.

The Argentine government previously provided U.S. authorities with a database that contains the names of some 35,000 people subject to stadium bans. The information-sharing system allows U.S. authorities to identify those prohibited from entering soccer stadiums in Argentina, although the final decision on entry into the United States stadiums to matches rests exclusively with U.S. authorities.

The operation also incorporates the “Alerta Halcón” system, which works alongside the National Directorate of Migration and detects when a person subject to a stadium ban leaves Argentina. That information is transmitted in real time to Argentine officials in the United States, who share it with local authorities for case-by-case evaluation.

The mechanism is part of the Tribuna Segura program, created by the Argentine government in 2016 to prevent people considered a security risk because of previous violence at sporting events from entering stadiums.

The registry primarily includes members of barras bravas, the term used in Argentina for organized soccer supporter groups historically associated with violence inside and outside stadiums.

The system operates through a national database that is checked whenever a spectator presents an identity document to enter a stadium. If the individual is listed as subject to an active restriction, entry is automatically denied.

In May, the national government expanded the scope of Tribuna Segura by incorporating information from child support debtor registries in Buenos Aires and 13 provinces as part of an agreement to extend restrictions already in force in different jurisdictions, the Buenos Aires Herald reported.

Also, about 13,000 of the roughly 35,000 people in the database are parents who failed to meet child support obligations.

Authorities said, however, that not every late payment results in a stadium ban. To be added to the registry, a person must go through judicial proceedings for failing to comply with child support obligations and become subject to measures ordered by a judge, which may include a ban on attending sporting events.

The Argentine government said the inclusion of child support debtors is intended to encourage compliance with obligations toward children by restricting access to recreational activities.

According to the latest report by UNICEF Argentina, 56% of mothers whose children do not live with their father receive no child support, and that figure rises to 68% when those who receive irregular payments are included.

“Failure to pay child support constitutes a violation of children’s rights, with tangible effects on their living conditions,” Carolina Aulicino, social policy officer at UNICEF Argentina, said while presenting the report.

Experts cited by the Buenos Aires Herald said the measure has strong symbolic value because it seeks to encourage debtors to regularize their situation, although they argued it should be accompanied by reforms to speed up access to the courts and facilitate the effective collection of child support payments.

July 13 (UPI) — Mexico announced the United States will begin to restore Mexican sugar’s access to its market, a measure that could significantly increase exports during the 2026-2027 season and boost income for about 170,000 sugarcane producers.

Mexico’s presidency said in a statement released Friday that the measure is the result of talks with U.S. authorities led by President Claudia Sheinbaum since November 2025.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated the country will need to import up to 1,152,000 tons of Mexican sugar during the 2026-2027 marketing year, an amount 512% higher than the estimate for the current marketing year, according to the statement.

The estimate appears in the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on July 10, the Mexican government said.

The presidency said the new conditions could generate a potential increase of up to 4.76 billion pesos, about $272 million, in the price paid by the sugar industry to about 170,000 Mexican sugarcane producers.

The talks that led to the announcement began in November 2025 during a visit by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to Sheinbaum, the statement said.

The Mexican government said the outcome demonstrates that “through dialogue it is possible to build important agreements” benefiting agricultural producers and food consumers in both countries.

Sugar trade between Mexico and the United States has been regulated since late 2014 under the so-called suspension agreements, according to background information published by the Latin American and Caribbean Economic System.

In June 2017, the governments of both countries reached an agreement in principle that reduced the share of refined Mexican sugar to 30% of total imports from the previous 53% limit, while increasing the share of raw sugar, the regional organization reported.

The U.S. sugar industry initially refused to support that agreement. Then-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Mexico had accepted nearly all of the requests made by the industry, but U.S. producers still did not support the proposed terms.

U.S. refiners argued that high-quality Mexican raw sugar was reaching consumers directly instead of passing through their plants, according to the Latin American and Caribbean Economic System.

The dispute involved a coalition of U.S. sugarcane and sugar beet producers, as well as ASR Group, maker of Domino Sugar, and Imperial Sugar.

ASR Group and Imperial Sugar said at the time that the 2014 agreement did not provide sufficient supplies for their refining operations and had asked the U.S. government to end the pact, the regional organization reported.

The Warner Bros. Ranch in Burbank will serve as broadcast headquarters during the Los Angeles Olympics and Paralympic Games in two years.

LA28 and Warner Bros. Discovery on Thursday jointly announced that the 30-acre Hollywood Way campus would play a pivotal role in the Games. Constructing an efficient TV nerve center — the operational hub where feeds from events are produced, then distributed to hundreds of millions of viewers around the world — has long been a crucial component to staging such an ambitious television extravaganza.

Over the last few months, LA28 executives and the Olympic Broadcasting Services team narrowed their search to the Ranch. The facility, which recently underwent a $300 million transformation with new soundstages, has the capacity and technical requirements to support the international broadcast center.

The International Olympics Committee approved the selection at a recent meeting.

“The facilities are near-perfect for them, both in size and in access,” Simon Robinson, Warner Bros. Discovery’s president of global experiences and studio operations, said in an interview with The Times. “As we sat down and talked it through with them, we were able to reach what we think is a great deal for both of us.”

Warner Bros. and LA28 declined to provide financial details of the arrangement, which will span nearly two years.

For Warner Bros., the decision came down to whether the studio needed the space for its own TV and film productions or if it was advantageous to turn over the facility, which boasts 16 soundstages and a five-story creative office building, to LA28.

Work to prepare the campus for the Olympics will begin in January.

LA28 plans to use nearly all of the soundstages, which are equipped with dedicated set lighting power, high-capacity silent air conditioning, high-speed wired and wireless internet, and adjoining production suites. There’s also a mill — a 40,000-square foot workshop space — a cafe, plenty of parking and quick access to area freeways.

“We look forward to welcoming the global broadcast community to Los Angeles in 2028,” Shana Ferguson, LA28’s chief of sport and games delivery officer, said in a statement.

No Warner Bros. production will be displaced, Robinson said. Three shows that currently use the complex — the HBO productions “Rooster” and “I Love LA,” and “I Suck at Girls” for Netflix, will be wrapped by the time LA28 moves in next year.

“Everything fell into place nicely,” Robinson said.

The Ranch outpost is rich in Hollywood history — a go-to site to shoot old westerns. Columbia Pictures owned the lot for years, before bringing in Warner Bros. as a partner in the 1970s.

It was later used for filming such classic TV series as “Bewitched” and “I Dream of Jeannie” and the movie “Lethal Weapon.” Opening credits of Warner Bros.’ 1990s sitcom “Friends,” featured the then 20-something cast members frolicking in a fountain near the center of the lot. (The fountain was moved to the main Warner Bros. lot, where it has become a featured part of the studio tour.)

Published on
09/07/2026 – 13:31 GMT+2

In a draft regulation obtained by Euronews and due to be presented in September, the European Commission plans to tighten access to the EU market by allowing public authorities to exclude foreign companies that present risks of interference from public procurement.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The draft proposal comes amid heightened geopolitical tensions, with concerns over data leaks from sensitive public services to Beijing and Washington and as well as the weaponisation of the EU’s dependence on rare earths and technology products from China.

The draft document proposes that “public buyers shall take appropriate measures, where relevant at any stage of the procurement procedure, from planning and market consultation to contract award and execution, to ensure the protection of the security and public safety interests of the Union.”

The document adds that risks to security or public safety in a public contract may arise from firms whose “ownership, control, or financing structure” bears “risks of undue interference or influence over it,” as well as companies whose “exposure to third-country legislation […] may compel disclosure of sensitive information or interference with contract performance.”

Finally, public buyers would be allowed to introduce a European preference in public procurement, although the draft regulation would not make it compulsory.

Such provisions could confirm the EU’s protectionist shift towards a “Made in Europe” strategy, which the EU executive already proposed last March for strategic sectors such as clean technologies, the automotive industry and energy-intensive industries.

The risks of foreign interference and data transfer have become more acute in recent years, with the US and China both adopting legislation allowing them to request that companies under their jurisdiction transfer data stored in the EU.

Some European governments are already taking steps to mitigate these risks. In April, the French government ended its contract with Microsoft to protect French health data, and in June, it replaced US tech company Palantir with French company ChapsVision for the processing of sensitive information held by the the country’s domestic intelligence service, the Directorate General for Internal Security.

Over the last few years, several EU countries, including Germany, France, Italy and Denmark, have also cancelled or denied public contracts to the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei over security concerns.

The draft regulation also seeks to protect “critical infrastructure, critical supply chains, critical technologies or essential services, resilience against physical, cyber, or hybrid threats, and prevention and protection against risks of their disruption including due to harmful strategic dependencies on third-country suppliers.”

Last year, China cut off the EU from exports of rare earth minerals, which are essential for green technologies and the defence sector. It also stopped the Dutch-based Nexperia, owned by China’s Wingtech, from importing Chinese chips essential to the EU’s car industry.

MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an attempt by a conservative activist to obtain guardianship records in an effort to find ineligible voters in the presidential battleground state.

The case has been wending its way through the courts for years and stems from attempts by conservatives to overturn President Biden’s victory in Wisconsin over President Trump in 2020.

Here’s what to know:

A conservative activist brought the case

The case tested the line between protecting personal privacy rights and ensuring that ineligible people can’t vote.

Former travel executive Ron Heuer and a group he leads, the Wisconsin Voter Alliance, brought the lawsuit in 2022 alleging that the number of ineligible voters doesn’t match the count on Wisconsin’s voter registration list. The lawsuit doesn’t specify how many people could be affected.

In Wisconsin, a guardianship order is granted by a court giving a person certain legal rights over another who is determined to be unable to make decisions about their life. A court has the power to remove the right to vote from a person under a guardianship order if the person is determined to be unable to understand “the objective of the election process.”

Heuer asked the state Supreme Court to rule that counties must release records filed when a judge determines that someone isn’t competent to vote so that those names can be compared to the voter registration list.

Heuer’s attorney, Erick Kaardal, argued that privacy concerns could be balanced with the public’s right to access government records by redacting identifying or sensitive information on the forms.

But the attorney for Walworth County said those seeking access to the records wanted to cross-check ineligible voters against the names of those registered. They can’t do that, attorney Sam Hall said during oral arguments, without releasing the person’s name and address.

Hall praised the ruling, saying it “protects the privacy of vulnerable individuals while preserving their dignity.”

Kaardal did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, which advocates for public access to documents but did not take a position on this case, said the court’s decision was “narrowly tailored and should not have a huge impact.”

The council praised the court for clarifying the standard for deciding similar cases in the future, but that “it’s always disappointing when access to public information is curtailed.”

Signs supporting Judge Susan Crawford, and voting and election officials adorn the front yard of a home on South 16th Street on election day April 1, 2025, in Milwaukee.

(Kayla Wolf / Associated Press)

Liberal justices who control Wisconsin Supreme Court reject the case

In the 5-2 ruling on Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority along with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn ruled that the records are not public as the conservative activist had claimed.

The court took the case after two lower state appeals courts issued divergent rulings. One appeals court, based in Madison, denied access to the records while another appeals court, based in Waukesha, said in 2023 that the records should be made public.

It ordered Walworth County to release them with birth dates and case numbers redacted.

The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court ruling that the records should be made public.

State law is clear that the records being sought are not public and “the Alliance has no right to the records,” Justice Janet Protasiewicz wrote for the majority.

Conservative justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented, saying the court adopted “an overbroad and unworkable definition of what records pertain to a finding of incompetency” to include the forms that indicate a person has been found ineligible to vote.

Those forms are not pertinent to the finding of incompetency and are therefore subject to the open records law, Ziegler and Bradley wrote.

The case was one of several targeting the 2020 election

The case was an attempt by those who questioned the outcome of the 2020 presidential race to cast doubt on the integrity of elections in the presidential swing state. Heuer and the WVA filed lawsuits in 13 Wisconsin counties in 2022 seeking guardianship records.

Heuer and the WVA have pushed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election in a failed attempt to overturn Biden’s win in Wisconsin. Heuer was hired as an investigator in the discredited 2020 election probe led by former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman. The probe found no evidence of fraud or abuse that would have changed the election results.

The WVA also filed two unsuccessful lawsuits that sought to overturn Biden’s win in Wisconsin.

Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 after losing in 2020

Biden defeated Trump by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin in 2020, a result that has withstood independent and partisan audits and reviews, as well as lawsuits and the recounts Trump requested. Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 by about 29,000 votes.

There are no pending lawsuits challenging the results of the 2024 election or calls to investigate the outcome.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

A new commission made up of legislators, public defenders, academics and advocates seeks to push California — one of just two states that don’t pay for basic public defense — to begin providing resources and enforcing minimum standards for county public defender systems.

The California Independent Commission on Public Defense includes three assemblymembers and two senators — among them Jesse Arreguín and Nick Schultz, chairs of the Senate and Assembly Public Safety Committees — as well as chief public defenders from several counties, retired judges, the directors of criminal justice nonprofits, and the heads of organizations representing thousands of defense attorneys in the state.

“We have discussed the problem of our public defense system for years,” said Schultz, a Democrat from Burbank and former prosecutor who has sponsored legislation to improve public defense.

The goal is to “move past discussion and study, and come up with an actionable road map of what we need to do to really build out the robust public defense infrastructure that Californians are rightfully entitled to,” he said.

The commissioners plan to develop a five-year plan to phase in state funding, along with enforceable standards like caseload limits and access to defense investigators.

A CalMatters investigation last year found that criminal defendants across the state are routinely convicted without anyone investigating the charges against them, significantly increasing the likelihood of wrongful convictions. Many California counties do not employ a single defense investigator who can interview witnesses, review police reports, visit crime scenes and retrieve video surveillance footage. CalMatters also found that lawyers in some rural counties are handling caseloads that far exceed even the most permissive standards, making them less likely than other defense attorneys to challenge the prosecution’s evidence in legal motions and take their cases to trial.

But the state has resisted stepping in. After a proposed bill that would have created an official state commission to address the issue was abandoned, two advocacy groups, the Wren Collective and UC Berkeley’s Criminal Law and Justice Center, decided to form an independent commission and began assembling participants who could develop and act on reforms. These types of commissions, which have facilitated significant improvements in other states’ public defender systems, are usually established by the governor.

“It became clear that this was an issue that was not a high priority for Sacramento, especially during a budget crisis,” said Chesa Boudin, the Berkeley center’s founding director and a former San Francisco district attorney. It also became clear, Boudin said, that “there was a tremendous gap between what experts understood to be the crisis and the public perception of California government as a kind of progressive leader in the country.”

In the decades since the U.S. Supreme Court established the right to an attorney in state court criminal proceedings, California has saddled its counties with the responsibility of providing lawyers to poor people accused of crimes. Many of those counties have opted for the cheapest path: paying private lawyers and firms a flat fee to represent indigent defendants, regardless of how many cases they handle or how much time they spend on each case.

“You’ve got some offices that have an incredibly high caliber of representation that they can provide, and you have other offices that are doing these flat-fee contracts where the quality has been documented to be pretty bad,” said Eve Brensike Primus, a law professor at the University of Michigan.

Primus is the only member of the new commission from outside of California. She was asked to join because of her extensive research and writing about the structure of indigent defense.

An indigent defense commission in Michigan, which was formed by the legislature in 2013, has led to significant reforms and a substantial influx in state funding.

The California commission’s work, Primus said, can serve “as a catalyst for political actors to do the right thing and start to fund and improve indigent defense delivery, or as fodder for lawsuits that then can try to get the judiciary to push the political actors to do what is necessary to provide for effective representation.”

The commission is scheduled to hold its first in-person meeting, which will be open to the public, in Berkeley in October, with additional meetings planned for Los Angeles, the Central Valley and Northern California over the next 12 months. Commissioners say they will work in subcommittees in between these quarterly sessions to develop a concrete fiscal plan for the state, draft legislative language, and establish minimum standards for how counties should structure their public defender offices, compensate their attorneys, provide access to experts, and report on their work.

Anat Rubin writes for CalMatters.

From now through July 6, residents and tourists alike can download the California State Parks Historian Passport for free, allowing them access to more than 30 state historic parks across the state through the end of 2026.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the initiative Wednesday in honor of both Juneteenth and the the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

“California’s state historic parks preserve some of our nation’s most powerful and meaningful stories, and I’m proud to live in a state that celebrates diversity to connect more people with those stories through this limited-time free pass,” California State Parks director Armando Quintero said in a statement. “I hope the free Historian Passport introduces more Californians to the state’s historic gems and sparks a curiosity and thirst for knowledge that leads to many return visits.”

The pass typically costs $50 and allows unlimited entry for up to four people to state historic parks and museums that charge a per-person admission fee or a vehicle day-use fee.

Historic parks in and around L.A. County that accept the Historian Passport include:

Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park

(Courtesy of California State Parks, 2026)

Other parks that accept the pass are:

A full list is available at parks.ca.gov.

To download a free pass, visit ReserveCalifornia.com and click “Passes” in the upper main menu. From here, you’ll be prompted to either create a new account or log into your existing account. Once logged in, you can use the dropdown menu on the page to select “Special Edition Historian Passport 2026 – $0.00.” You can then check out with your pass and will quickly have it added to your list of passes within your account.

Leaders with the California State Parks Foundation and the California State Railroad Museum Foundation, which helped finance the initiative, said they hope the free Historian pass opens up access to more people to see our public lands.

“California state parks help us understand the history of California, the United States, and the ongoing work of building a more inclusive democracy,” said Rachel Norton, executive director of California State Parks Foundation. “The special edition Historian Passport is a great opportunity to explore state parks for free. We hope access to the Historian Passport encourages more Californians to visit a historic state park and learn about, and reflect on, our shared history.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a historic California law inspired by Cesar Chavez and the farm workers union, ruling that agricultural landowners and food processors have a right to keep union organizers off their property.

The justices by a 6-3 vote said the state’s “right of access” rule violates property rights protected by the Constitution, which states private property shall not be “taken for public use without just compensation.”

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said “the access regulation is not germane to any benefit provided to agricultural employers or any risk posed to the public…The access regulation grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers’ property. It therefore constitutes a per se physical taking,” he wrote in Cedar Point Nursery vs. Hassid.

He cited as precedents a pair of California cases. One ruled for the owner of a beachfront home in Ventura who objected to giving the public access to the shore and a second from 2015 which ruled for a grape grower from Fresno who objected to giving his grapes to a government-sponsored cooperative.

“The upshot of this line of precedent is that government-authorized invasions of property — whether by plane, boat, cable, or beachcomber — are physical takings requiring just compensation,” Roberts said.

The three liberal justices dissented. They described the rule as a regulation, not a taking of property.

The California Legislature in 1975 became the first in the nation to extend collective bargaining rights to farm workers. Months later, a new agricultural labor board adopted the “right of access” rule to allow organizers to seek out those who were working on farmland.

Earlier this year, the state’s lawyers said the rule was still needed because farm laborers often worked in remote areas and were not fully aware of their rights to join a union.

It has come under attack in recent years by agribusinesses that have called it a “union trespassing” rule that violates their property rights.

A lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the farm owners, cheered the ruling as “a huge victory for property rights.” It “affirms that one of the most fundamental aspects of property is the right to decide who can and can’t access your property,” said Joshua Thompson, a senior attorney for the group, based in Arlington, Va..

Karla Walter, a director of employment policy for the liberal Center for American Progress, called it a major setback for union organizing.

“Today the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned nearly a half-century of progress for California’s farm workers, who have struggled to exercise their right to bargain for decent wages and to protect their health and safety,” she said. “Reaching farm workers — the overwhelming majority of whom are Latinx and migrant workers — where they work is critical to protecting their rights and interests.”

The case decided Wednesday began in 2015. The owners of the Fowler Packing Co. in Fresno, which produces grapes and citrus fruit, refused to allow union organizers onto their property.

A few months later, union organizers entered a strawberry packing plant near the Oregon border and disrupted the work, according to Mike Fahner, owner of the Cedar Point Nursery.

The two companies then joined in a lawsuit seeking to have the California union access regulation declared unconstitutional. They lost before a federal judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but the Supreme Court voted to hear their appeal.

Lawyers for the Pacific Legal Foundation representing the farm owners argued the Constitution “forbids the government from requiring you to allow unwanted strangers on to your property.”

In defense of the rule, California officials called it a temporary regulation of property, not a taking of the grower’s land. Union organizers may enter a farm for one hour before the start of the workday or for an hour at the end of the day.

The state’s lawyers said the rule is similar to federal and state laws that allow meat and poultry inspectors to go into packing plants or health and safety inspectors to visit warehouses, manufacturing plants or construction sites.

WITH summer well and truly on its way, you don’t need to empty your wallet to book an unforgettable family holiday.

Some of Haven’s most popular, award-winning UK holiday parks are cheaper to book than you’d think – and offer much more than a standard caravan stay.

From Scotland’s largest indoor waterpark to coastal Yorkshire parks with private lakes, these parks are set in some seriously stunning locations.

They’re also packed with activities like climbing walls, high-ropes courses and tube slides for kids to burn off energy and make lasting memories.

All of these Haven holiday parks offer 3 or 4 night stays in a saver caravan from £49 – working out to just £12.25 a night for four nights away. Plus, if you’re feeling fancy, there’s also room to upgrade accommodation.

Here’s our pick of affordable, award-winning Haven holiday parks.

Read more on holiday parks

TOP PARKS

The MEGA UK holiday parks with water worlds, Wetherspoons and more – from £3 pp

WHEEL OF FORTUNE

I visited holiday park on UK’s Sunshine Coast – it’s perfect for families

Hopton Holiday Village, Norfolk

This Haven holiday park was recently named the AA Holiday Park of the Year, and for good reason – there’s loads to see and do, and it’s right on the beach.

The holiday park sits in Norfolk‘s Hopton-on-Sea, just down the road from mega seaside resort Great Yarmouth, and just steps away from its own golden beach.

On-site, there’s a heated indoor pool with slides, flumes and a splash zone, a bar and lounge with Seaside Squad entertainment, and activities like crazy golf and segways.

In recent years the holiday park has seen new additions and renovations that have kept it a firm favourite among holidaymakers.

In spring 2026 the park gained its own Wetherspoons pub, The White Clover, as well as renovations to its swimming pool complex, doubling its capacity.

Book a 3 night stay at Hopton Holiday Village from £49

Craig Tara, Scotland

Craig Tara holiday park in Ayrshire is Haven’s flagship Scottish park, home to the largest indoor waterpark in Scotland, Splashaway Bay.

Perched on the dramatic Ayrshire coast, this is one of the largest Haven resorts in the UK.

This seaside resort is a paradise for families who want non-stop, high-energy action where there is plenty to do no matter the weather.

Splashaway Bay is a giant indoor pool paradise with flumes, multi-lane water slides, a lazy rivers and an interactive splash zone for toddlers.

Beyond the waterpark, you’ll find activity zones like the Airspace sports hall, where you’ll find a climbing wall, soft play, a golf simulator and electronic target walls for sports.

Over in the Lighthouse Harbour Adventure Village, you can take on the six-metre high The Jump, or tackle an aerial ropes course.

Book a 3 night stay at Craig Tara from £49

Devon Cliffs

Not only is this one of the largest Haven holiday parks, Devon Cliffs is also home to a private, award-winning beach: Sandy Bay.

The park slopes towards the sea, where you’ll find a Blue Flag beach backed by dramatic red cliffs.

Other than its scenic coastal setting, this holiday park has plenty more to offer for families.

Activities include bungee trampolines, rubber ring tube slides, a high ropes course and mini 4×4 off-roading.

Entertainment here is varied and exciting, with two venues hosting everything from bingo to the nostalgic 90’s Tiger Club Show.

Plus this year a Wetherspoons pub opened up on-site – The Red Rocks – feeding families on a budget.

Book a 4 night stay at Devon Cliffs from £49

Cleethorpes Beach, Lincolnshire

With 1,827 caravans and lodges, Haven’s Cleethorpes Beach holiday park is a mega resort built for the ideal family seaside holiday.

This AA 5 star-rated holiday park has everything from a peaceful fishing lake and lazy river, to an exciting NERF training camp and huge climbing wall.

Plus there’s lots to do that the family can enjoy all together, such as mini golf and go karts.

When the sun comes out, head to the outdoor splash park to cool off with interactive water features and fountains, or simply walk down to the beach to swim in the sea.

This park has plenty of food and drink options that will please even fussy eaters, like a Slim Chickens fried chicken shack, Papa Johns, Burger King and – you guessed it – its very own Wetherspoons pub.

Book a 4 night stay at Cleethorpes Beach from £49

Thornwick Bay, East Yorkshire

Haven’s AA 5 Gold Star-awarded Thornwick Bay holiday park is a nature-lover’s paradise, with direct access to a golden beach with a stunning backdrop.

This cliffside resort sits on the dramatic Flamborough Headland, just a short walk from a rugged sand-and-pebble cove that is perfect for rock pooling, fossil hunting, and exploring hidden sea caves.

But you don’t just have to stick to the sea – this park boasts its very own private activity lake where families can hire pedalos and try out paddleboarding.

Indoors, the Activity Barn has plenty to keep kids of all ages occupied. There’s an indoor climbing wall, archery coaching, and creative slime and pottery workshops.

To burn off some energy, head to the heated indoor pool complex with three separate pools and a giant, multi-lane water slide.

Food and drink options include the park’s main Lighthouse Bar & Restaurant – complete with a kids sand pit on the terrace -as well as a Chopstix noodle bar and Papa Johns pizza takeaway.

Book a 4 night stay at Thornwick Bay from £49

*Prices correct at time of publication.

Parents who are wondering how to fill the six week holidays should take a look at this offer on Merlin passes, which not only offer unlimited park visits, but also other passholder perks

Merlin has launched a summer sale that slashes the cost of annual passes and monthly memberships in time for the six-week school holidays.

The sale, launched today by the owner of a number of theme parks and attractions across the UK, means theme park fans can enjoy discounts on both Gold and Platinum passes, as well as monthly memberships, giving them unlimited access to over 20 UK attractions. These include Thorpe Park, Alton Towers, LEGOLAND, and Chessington.

Best of all, if you opt for a Gold membership at the discounted price of £16.99 a month, this works out cheaper than a monthly Netflix Premium subscription, which costs £18.99 a month. So, you can enjoy lots of days out with the kids and screen-free time over the summer without worrying about entry fees.

You can currently buy an annual pass at Gold or Platinum level with £50 off the total price. This brings Gold membership down from £239 to £189 a year, and Platinum down from £299 to £249. If you prefer to pay monthly, the sale has slashed Gold from £19.99 a month to £16.99, and Platinum from £24.99 to £20.99.

Gold memberships, whether annual or monthly, include 364 days’ entry to over 20 Merlin attractions, free parking, and 20% off food, drinks, and shopping. Platinum members get these perks with no exclusion dates, four bring-a-friend passes, a free one-shot Fastrack per visit, and other extras.

While it’s not included in the sale, there’s also the cheapest Merlin Essentials pass for £139 a year, which offers unlimited access for 339 days of the year. However, parents should note that exclusion dates include Saturdays in August, at the peak of the school holidays.

Merlin’s parks are set to be popular with families this summer thanks to the addition of some major new rides aimed at the younger crowd. The brand-new World of PAW Patrol at Chessington World of Adventures Resort opened in early May, and includes four pup-themed rides, play areas, and meet and greets. Over at Alton Towers, CBeebies Land also recently opened Bluey the Ride: Here Come The Grannies!, a must-visit for fans of the Heeler family.

In addition to its well-known theme parks, Merlin also operates a range of family-friendly attractions that make perfect school holiday days out. These include the London Eye, SEA LIFE centres, Madame Tussauds, and Cadbury World, meaning it’s easy to make the most out of your pass.

For comparison, booking a day ticket to Alton Towers starts at £34, so if you live near a Merlin theme park or visit a lot, you could soon get your money’s worth.

If you’re planning a one-off visit, then Cadbury is currently running a promotion on selected packs offering half-price tickets. Simply pick up an eligible product and visit fun.cadbury.co.uk to enter your barcode to receive a discount code and a link to book your tickets at 50% off.

The Merlin Pass Summer Sale ends June 28. For more information or to purchase, visit the Merlin website.

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

Stephen Colbert’s viral public access spot had former bosses CBS and its parent company Paramount in a brief tizzy over the weekend, mere hours after his buzzy late-night sign-off.

The longtime TV personality, 62, returned to the air on Friday evening on “Only in Monroe,” a public access program in Monroe, Mich., with an hour-long late-night parody episode that featured several guests and took shots at Paramount’s monopolistic aspirations in media. Colbert, previously a one-time host of “Only in Monroe,” began his episode: “It’s been an excruciating 23 hours without being on TV, so I am grateful to be able to be here on Monroe Community before they also get acquired by Paramount.”

The “Only in Monroe” episode was broadcast in southeast Michigan, the Associated Press reported, and also published to Colbert’s official YouTube page. News of Colbert’s surprise late-night spot spread online, with social media users reposting the episode in its entirety or sharing clips. Journalist and the Desk founder Matthew Keys shared the episode to his X (formerly Twitter) page, tweeting on Sunday that he received a “frivolous” copyright notice from Paramount Global.

CBS said in a statement shared over the holiday weekend to multiple outlets that the “Only in Monroe” episode was “financed and produced by CBS Studios” and was posted on Colbert’s YouTube page through a collaboration with Monroe Community Media and Colbert’s “The Late Show” YouTube channels. The network, which was home to “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” for more than a decade, said in its statement that it is “regular practice” to copyright-strike “unauthorized websites” that repost its “copyrighted content,” but later added that it’s walking back its actions.

“For this episode, we have decided to waive further enforcement of this standard industry practice until additional review,” the statement said.

A representative for CBS did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment on Tuesday. A representative for Colbert also did not immediately respond.

Colbert’s guests on Friday included regular “Only in Monroe” hosts Michelle Baumann and Kaye Lani Rae Rafko Wilson, Emmy winners Jeff Daniels and Steve Buscemi, rapper Eminem (via video call) and White Stripes rocker Jack White. Friday’s broadcast ended with a literal bang, with Colbert, Daniels and White taking hammers to the talk show set and setting it ablaze.

“Since they are no longer using this set, it would actually be helpful for me to destroy it,” Colbert said, “which is pretty great news because right now — for no particular reason — I would very much like to break something.”

“The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” ended its run at CBS after 11 seasons and more than 1,800 episodes. Colbert began his late-night talk series in 2015, succeeding David Letterman. CBS announced it was canceling “The Late Show” in July 2025, with chief executive George Cheeks claiming “this is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night.”

“It is not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount,” Cheeks added at the time.

CBS announced it was parting ways with Colbert, a relentless critic of President Trump, after Paramount settled a lawsuit filed by Trump for $16 million. At the time, media mogul David Ellison’s Skydance Media was also awaiting federal approval to acquire Paramount for $8 billion. Ellison is the son of Oracle co-founder, tech billionaire and Trump ally Larry Ellison.

Colbert ended his CBS tenure at the Ed Sullivan Theater on Thursday evening, joined by an impressive roster of celebrity guests including Paul Rudd, Bryan Cranston, Tim Meadows, Ryan Reynolds and Paul McCartney. The “Late Show” time slot now hosts media mogul Byron Allen’s “Comics Unleashed” syndicated show.

After late night, Colbert revealed in March that his next project is co-writing a new “Lord of the Rings” movie with his screenwriter son Peter McGee. Even as Colbert begins a new chapter away from late night, work may bring him right back under the Paramount umbrella.

The new “Lord of the Rings” films, including Colbert’s project, will be produced by New Line and its parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery. David Ellison‘s Paramount Skydance is seeking a $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery and its properties.

Times staff writers Greg Braxton and Meg James contributed to this report.

SAVANNAH, Ga. — An advocacy group has filed suit against the Trump administration over its decision to reinstate a near-ban on abortions for veterans and their family members who depend on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for healthcare.

The federal lawsuit filed Thursday says the rule finalized by the VA on Dec. 31 takes away limited abortion access that was “crucial for the health, autonomy, and equality of veterans and their family members.”

Attorneys for the group Minority Veterans of America want the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to throw out the rule. They say the VA adopted the change without citing medical evidence or other justifications, violating the Administrative Procedures Act that governs federal rulemaking.

The VA did not include abortion in its coverage until 2022. President Biden’s administration added it months after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and states’ abortion bans began taking effect.

Abortion access the VA provided under Biden was limited, applying only in cases when a pregnant woman’s life or health was at risk, or in cases of rape or incest.

The Biden change allowed the VA to provide abortion even in states where it was banned. And it brought the VA’s coverage into line with other federal healthcare plans — including Medicaid and TriCare coverage for active military members and their families — that allowed limited abortion access.

The VA announced its proposal to undo those changes last August, a few months after President Trump returned to the White House.

The VA had said it will still provide abortions in cases where a pregnant woman’s life is threatened. That’s something state laws allow, even in places where bans are in place.

However, the VA no longer allows exceptions for abortions in cases of rape, incest or to protect a pregnant woman’s health. Abortion counseling is also no longer allowed.

A VA spokesperson declined to comment, noting the agency typically doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

Minority Veterans of America says it represents more than 3,600 members across the U.S.

“Our community includes veterans with complex medical histories, those who have experienced pregnancy complications, and survivors of sexual violence and trauma, all of whom need access to abortion care and counseling to protect their health,” Lindsay Church, the group’s executive director, said in a statement.

In publishing its final rule in December, the VA said it was restoring the agency’s longstanding position that abortions were not “needed” under federal law and that “this determination did not prohibit providing life-saving care to pregnant veterans.”

The lawsuit says one of Minority Veteran of America’s members is a military veteran who just learned she was pregnant in early May. She suffers from chronic pain that has been exacerbated by the pregnancy, placing her health “at substantial risk,” says the lawsuit, which withheld the woman’s name to protect her privacy.

The lawsuit says the VA won’t allow the unnamed veteran to receive an abortion “even if her health is at risk, unless a provider determines an abortion is necessary to save her life.”

Bynum writes for the Associated Press.

Smart, cynical about politicians but not apathetic. That’s how MTV political reporter Tabitha Soren describes her audience . It’s also a good description of Soren herself.

A former reporter and anchor covering state politics for an ABC – TV station in Burlington , Vt . , the 25-year-old Soren has won praise from TV critics for her informed questioning of the presidential candidates about young people’s issues on MTV’ s “Choose or Lose” coverage of the 1992 campaign.

MTV’s coverage has been aimed at getting the MTV generation registered to vote and motivated to go to the polls. In the last presidential election, less than 34% of eligible 18-to-24-year-olds turned out to cast ballots.

Soren, who is under contract to MTV through November, 1993, traveled the country covering the campaigns and in the process became something of a celebrity. Last weekend she interviewed President Bush aboard his campaign train .

Question: Why do you think that President Bush decided to talk to you?

Answer: One reason may be that, independent of MTV, a young voter in Florida recently asked him, “Why won’t you go on MTV?” His answer was that he was not a “mod MTV kind of guy”–which is the last thing young people want to hear. Using a ‘60s word like mod –that’s sort of saying he’s out of touch with young people. Young people have voted Republican in the last three elections. They grew up during a Republican dynasty, and that is how they formed their values. With the presidential race getting so close and seeing the numbers of young people getting registered, maybe (Bush’s strategists) thought this could be an easy constituency to win over.

Q: Do you think President Bush is out of touch with young people?

A: He hasn’t talked about young people’s issues enough for young people to even be able to tell. His big things are the line-item veto, capital-gains taxes, public- or private-school vouchers–all of these are things within issues that young people care about, like the economy and education. But there aren’t a lot of 20-year-olds that have capital gains.

Q: What are the issues that your audience is interested in?

A: They’re interested in the economy, the economy and the economy. When I go to colleges to talk, to encourage them to register to vote and to vote, students will ask their “I’ll ask this in front of an audience” serious, political questions. Then, afterward, they all come up to me and want to know how I got my job. They’re getting ready to graduate, and they don’t have job prospects. It makes me feel a little guilty about having a job.

The economy is No. 1 on their minds. But they’re also concerned about the environment. They want the homeless problem solved, they want to find a cure for AIDS, they want the deficit eliminated. Young people are the ones who are going to be stuck with that deficit. . . . Ross Perot wants to eliminate the deficit, and he says he is running on behalf of young people. Before he withdrew from the race in July, it was hard to find young people who weren’t for him.

Q: How were you regarded when you first started out in the New Hampshire primary?

A: Nobody had ever heard of MTV News; they didn’t know we had a news department. We’d walk up to the candidates, camera rolling, and say, ‘We’re trying to get more young people to vote.’ When you say that, most candidates–hopefully, even without a camera rolling but certainly with one rolling–would look pretty bad if they didn’t talk to you. I think they found it novel.

Each one of the Democratic candidates had their little thing they did to make them look hip for MTV. Jerry Brown had on a suit when we asked to talk to him, but he changed into a turtleneck and flannel shirt for the interview. Gov. Bob Kerry walked up to me and said, ‘I want my MTV.’ ” And Pat Buchanan said, ‘I hope you aren’t going to ask me about any of that hard-rock music because I can tell you right now I don’t like it.’ Buchanan seemed surprised when I kept asking him questions about his ‘America First’ agenda–questions about music were not on my mind.

Q: Why do you think you and MTV News have received so much attention from other news organizations during the election?

A: I think we’ve energized a lot of young people with our coverage, and perhaps we’re forcing the politicians to talk about young issues in ways they weren’t before. Our coverage is fair and unbiased. But the whole point behind ‘Choose or Lose’ is advocacy journalism–getting young people to vote, regardless of which candidate they vote for. There are a lot of voter-registration groups–Rock the Vote, Project Vote and others–that are using celebrities and others to make voting trendy, make it cool. As silly as those words sound, getting young people excited about voting–something so basic to this country–is very important. If we don’t vote, how do we expect politicians to listen to our concerns?

Q: If young voters don’t turn out to vote in greater numbers, will you consider that a referendum on your coverage?

A: I don’t think it will be a referendum on our coverage, but I will be very disappointed. This is what my life has been consumed with for the past 10 months.

Q: How has it been for you to become a celebrity yourself, being interviewed by other TV reporters at the Democratic convention, appearing on “The Tonight Show’ and being parodied on “The Ben Stiller Show”?

A: We were helped a lot in gaining credibility because other news organizations did stories on us early on. But being interviewed at the Democratic convention–I took that as a sign of slow news at the convention! Being on “The Tonight Show”–that made me petrified. I was already sick with the flu and a 102-degree temperature, and I was so nervous before the show I got sick to my stomach. It’s not something you say, “Oh, no big deal.” But I’m not going to get used to it–because after the election, it’s going to be over.

As far as being parodied, I don’t mind that because the people doing it don’t seem to have seen our coverage, so how can I be offended?

Q: Why do you think alternative media–from MTV News to Larry King–have gained prominence during this campaign?

A: I think what we do is supplemental. I tell people all the time to read books and newspapers because you just can’t get all the information you need from television. But I do think that political information has expanded. Movies like “JFK” are forcing the government to reopen files on the Kennedy assassination; rap groups like Public Enemy are addressing the issue of race much more directly than the evening news.

Q: Are young voters today cynical?

A: They’re cynical, but they’re not apathetic. That’s the difference. They haven’t voted, perhaps, because they grew up in an era first of government deregulation and, later, an era when many people feel alienated from Washington. But college freshmen today demonstrate and protest at the grass-roots level about issues like civil rights and abortion. They’re worried about jobs, but they’re also the ones who want to cure homelessness and feed the people in Somalia. They just want to know that someone in Washington is listening to their concerns.

A new report by the California Department of Justice found that conditions at immigrant detention facilities in the state have worsened as surging arrests under the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign led to overcrowding and insufficient medical care.

For the 175-page report, which was released Friday, California Justice Department staff, along with correctional and healthcare experts, toured all seven facilities that existed in 2025 (an eighth facility, the Central Valley Annex in McFarland, began receiving detainees in April). The team analyzed internal documents and detainee records, and interviewed detention staff and 194 detainees.

“This is the federal government paying for-profit, private companies to run these detention centers, and they are running these detention centers with inhumane, cruel, and unacceptable conditions, “ California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said at a news conference Friday.

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Lauren Bis, in a statement, defended the treatment of those held at detainment centers.

“No lawbreakers in the history of human civilization have been treated better than illegal aliens in the United States,” she said.

Bis added, “This is the best healthcare many aliens have received in their entire lives. Meals are certified by dietitians. Ensuring the safety, security, and well-being of individuals in our custody is a top priority at ICE.”

The inspections were possible because California enacted a law during the first Trump administration requiring state oversight and public reports detailing the conditions of immigrant detention facilities. Bonta said California is the only state in the country with such a law.

Such detailed reports have taken on outsized significance as the Trump administration has whittled down the Department of Homeland Security’s own oversight mechanisms.

The agency said it would respond later to a request for comment.

Christopher Ferreira, a spokesperson for The Geo Group, said the company’s services are monitored by DHS to ensure compliance with federal detention standards and contract requirements regarding detainees. The company oversees four facilities in California, including the Adelanto ICE Processing Center north of San Bernardino.

“The support services GEO provides include around-the-clock access to medical care, in-person and virtual legal and family visitation, general and legal library access, translation services, dietitian-approved meals, religious and specialty diets, recreational amenities, and opportunities to practice their religious beliefs,” Ferreira said.

He added that of the company’s immigration facilities are independently accredited by the American Correctional Assn. and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care.

CoreCivic operates the California City Detention Facility north of Lancaster and Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego. Spokesperson Ryan Gustin said the company had not been provided a copy of the report or reviewed its findings.

“The safety, health and well-being of the individuals entrusted to our care is our top priority,” Gustin said. He added that the company’s ICE-contracted facilities are “subject to multiple layers of oversight by our government partners” and auditors.

The report notes that CoreCivic did not make requested documents available to investigators, including records on use of force at the California City facility.

“The decision to deny Cal DOJ access to these files was remarkable in light of the serious legal claims that have been made against the facility, which allege that staff routinely engage in abusive behavior and unreasonable use of force against detainees, including deploying pepper spray, hitting a detainee with riot shields and holding him down with their knees on his back, and aggressively pushing a detainee,” the report states.

According to the report, the detainee population in California grew 162%, from 2,300 to more than 6,000 detainees, between site visits in 2023 and those in 2025. Most detainees had no criminal history and were classified as low-security.

Collectively, the facilities have the capacity to hold up to nearly 8,200 detainees.

Six people have died in ICE custody in California since the start of 2025 — four at Adelanto and two at Imperial Regional Detention Facility. In all of the Adelanto cases, family members alleged that the facility’s medical response was inadequate, the report said.

Inspectors found that staffing failed to keep pace with the growing numbers of detainees, particularly at Adelanto and at California City, where they saw “crisis-level healthcare understaffing.”

At Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center in Bakersfield, the report says, “Medical care delays, including specialty care and referrals, were widespread and appeared to be caused by delays in approvals by ICE Health Service Corps and canceled or dropped referrals due to transfers between facilities.”

The intake process for new detainees, which includes a medical and mental health screening, is supposed to take place within 12 hours of their arrival. But detainees at several facilities reported waiting days or weeks before receiving their housing assignment and medical screening, the report says. While waiting, some slept on the floor without access to water.

In its statement, the Department of Homeland Security said detainees undergo medical, dental, and mental health intake screening within 12 hours of arriving at each detention facility, a full health assessment within 14 days of entering ICE custody or arrival at a facility, and access to medical appointments and 24-hour emergency care.

Gustin, the CoreCivic spokesperson, said its facilities adhere to detention standards on staffing and medical care. Emergency care is available 24 hours a day, he said, and the facilities work closely with local hospitals and providers for specialized care.

Ferreira, the Geo Group spokesperson, said detainees have access to teams of medical professionals and off-site specialists, imaging facilities and emergency services.

At the Adelanto facility, detainees said water coolers remained empty for hours. Justice Department staff saw murky drinking water come out of the tap in the women’s housing unit.

At the Golden State Annex in McFarland and at Mesa Verde, detainees said they spent at least $50 per week on commissary items so they wouldn’t go hungry. Across most facilities, detainees reported undercooked food, a lack of dietary or allergy accommodations and irregular mealtimes.

Basic necessities are also an issue, according to the report. At the California City facility, detainees said they got so cold that they cut the ends off socks to make improvised sleeves and covered the air vents in their cells with sheets of paper.

According to the report, Otay Mesa is the only detention center in California with a policy requiring that detainees be strip searched after being visited by anyone other than their attorney. Detained women recounted being told strip in front of male officers, even when menstruating, the report said.

Gustin said CoreCivic follows federal detention standards regarding searches of detainees.

The report did highlight some improvements, including at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility in Calexico, which inspectors said appeared better staffed with medical and mental health care providers compared to their 2023 visit. Still, the review “identified concerns regarding the facility’s management of detainees with severe mental health issues, including two detainees who experienced extended stays in restrictive housing of over 200 days.”

Emily Lawhead, a spokesperson for Management & Training Corp., which oversees the Imperial facility, said the company takes the report seriously. She noted that the report also highlights prompt responses to sick-call requests, meaningful access to programming and recreation and expanded attorney access through 36 private phone booths.

But Lawhead said the company will examine the concerns raised in the report.

“If our review identifies gaps, delays, or missed standards, we will address them,” she said.

The state law requiring the detention facility inspections expires next year. A bill by state Sen. María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) would make the inspections permanent. Another state bill, by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego), would prevent the excessive markup of products sold at detention center commissaries.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is leaving access to a widely used abortion pill untouched until at least Thursday, while the justices consider whether to allow restrictions on the drug, mifepristone, to take effect.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s order Monday allows women seeking abortions to continue obtaining the pill at pharmacies or through the mail, without an in-person visit to a doctor. It prevents restrictions on mifepristone imposed by a federal appeals court from taking effect for the time being.

The court is dealing with its latest abortion controversy four years after its conservative majority overturned Roe vs. Wade and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.

The case before the court stems from a lawsuit Louisiana filed to roll back the Food and Drug Administration’s rules on how mifepristone can be prescribed. The state claims the policy undermines the ban there, and it questions the safety of the drug, which was first approved in 2000 and has repeatedly been deemed safe and effective by FDA scientists.

Lower courts concluded that Louisiana is likely to prevail, and a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that mail access and telehealth visits should be suspended while the case plays out.

The drug is most often used for abortion in combination with another drug, misoprostol. Medication abortions accounted for nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. in 2023, the last year for which statistics are available.

The current dispute is similar to one that reached the court three years ago.

Lower courts then also sought to restrict access to mifepristone, in a case brought by physicians who oppose abortion. They filed suit in the months after the court overturned Roe.

The Supreme Court blocked the 5th Circuit ruling from taking effect over the dissenting votes of Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. Then, in 2024, the high court unanimously dismissed the doctors’ suit, reasoning they did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue.

In the current dispute, mainstream medical groups, the pharmaceutical industry and Democratic members of Congress have weighed in cautioning the court against limiting access to the drug. Pharmaceutical companies said a ruling for abortion opponents would upend the drug approval process.

The FDA has eased a number of restrictions initially placed on the drug, including who can prescribe it, how it is dispensed and what kinds of safety complications must be reported.

Despite those determinations, abortion opponents have been challenging the safety of mifepristone for more than 25 years. They have filed a series of petitions and lawsuits against the agency, generally alleging that it violated federal law by overlooking safety issues with the pill.

President Trump’s administration has been unusually quiet at the Supreme Court. It declined to file a written brief recommending what the court should do, even though federal regulations are at issue.

The case puts Trump’s Republican administration in a difficult place. Trump has relied on the political support of antiabortion groups but has also seen ballot question and poll results that show Americans generally support abortion rights.

Both sides took the silence as an implicit endorsement of the appellate ruling. Alito is both the justice in charge of handling emergency appeals from Louisiana and the author of the 2022 decision that declared abortion is not a constitutional right and returned the issue to the states.

Sherman, Mulvihill and Perrone write for the Associated Press. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.

Alphabet’s (GOOG) Google DeepMind, Microsoft (MSFT), and xAI (X.AI) have agreed to give the U.S. government early access to their AI models to evaluate the systems’ capabilities and help improve security.

The U.S. Commerce Department’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation, or

HARARE, Zimbabwe — Zambia is accusing the United States of tying a $2-billion deal for critical health assistance to access to the southern African nation’s rich mineral assets, and calling the outgoing U.S. ambassador’s allegations of corruption “mischievous” and “undiplomatic.”

The comments by Zambia’s foreign affairs minister, Mulambo Haimbe, on Monday brought into the open simmering tensions over President Trump’s “America First” strategy, which is reshaping aid to Africa into transactional agreements.

Some African leaders and health experts have criticized the new U.S. stance and its demands for sensitive health data in exchange for badly needed support for health systems strained by the Trump administration’s dismantling of foreign aid. Some say they would not receive access to health innovations like vaccines in return.

The U.S. is also seeking to challenge China, a dominant player in Zambia and much of Africa, whose minerals are critical to the green energy transition, including inputs for solar panels, electric vehicle batteries and energy storage systems.

Zambia says talks stalled over data-sharing demands

In a statement, Haimbe described the accusations of Zambian graft and negotiation inertia by outgoing U.S. ambassador Michael Gonzales as “mischievous” and “deeply regrettable, undiplomatic and inconsistent with the spirit of mutual respect.”

Haimbe also accused the U.S. of tying access to critical minerals to the conclusion of the health deal, which Gonzales earlier dismissed as “alarmist allegations” that he called “disgusting” and “absolutely and patently false.”

Negotiations have continued for months to conclude the deal, one of dozens the Trump administration is pursuing in some of the world’s most aid-dependent countries.

Gonzales in late April said Zambian leaders had “abdicated their responsibilities, letting the United States pay for healthcare while officials diverted government funds to their own pockets.” He said Zambian authorities had “ignored” U.S. overtures to conclude a new deal.

But Haimbe said negotiations had stalled over “unacceptable” data-sharing demands “in violation of our citizens’ right to privacy” and “the insistence on preferential treatment of U.S companies over Zambia’s critical minerals.”

Zambia “takes the view, first and foremost, that Zambians must have a say on how her critical minerals are used, and second that no one strategic partner is to be treated preferentially to others,” he said.

The U.S. Embassy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

U.S. says its approach aims to reduce donor dependency

The U.S. approach replaces decades of engagement anchored in the now-dismantled United States Agency for International Development and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

In their place, U.S. officials are negotiating country-by-country agreements that recast aid as a transaction, tying funding to conditions including commercial provisions, domestic financing commitments, disease surveillance, pathogen sharing and even religion.

Since late last year, the U.S. has signed agreements with about 30 countries, many in Africa. Washington says the approach is meant to reduce donor dependency, promote local ownership and safeguard American interests, including against an aggressive China that dominates trade in Africa but contributes less aid.

There has been pushback.

Ghana last week said it had rejected a proposed deal over provisions granting broad access to sensitive health data without safeguards. Zimbabwe walked away from a $367-million package over similar concerns. In Kenya, a $2.5- billion agreement signed in December has been put on hold after a court challenge arguing it violates data protection laws.

In Lesotho, draft U.S. proposals sought 25 years of access to health data and biological samples before local officials secured a shorter five-year deal.

Health experts say data would largely flow one way

Critics say the data-sharing demands tilt toward U.S. interests and warn the information-sharing would largely go in just one direction: toward Washington.

The new agreements aim to ensure the flow of disease surveillance data and biological samples, but through bilateral channels, after the U.S withdrew from the World Health Organization in January, said Asia Russell, executive director of advocacy group Health GAP.

Countries currently report disease outbreaks primarily through the WHO, which coordinates responses and is negotiating new frameworks on pathogen-sharing and equitable access to vaccines.

The U.S., now outside those talks, is pursuing direct access instead.

“[The U.S. wants] to understand what’s actually happening,” said Jen Kates, a senior vice president at the Washington-based nonprofit KFF. “But they are trying to do it in a very different way.”

Health advocates say this risks creating a parallel global health system. In Zimbabwe, a government spokesperson in February said the government terminated negotiations because the U.S. was not offering a “corresponding guarantee of access to any medical innovations — such as vaccines, diagnostics or treatments — that might result from that shared data.”

“That raises serious concerns about who benefits,” said Atilla Kisla of the Southern Africa Litigation Center.

Advocates point to the harsh experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, when African countries contributed data and samples but were largely last in line for vaccines.

Experts warn against health as a ‘bargaining chip’

The agreements with the U.S. are drawing criticism for closed-door negotiations and limited public scrutiny.

“Secrecy is at the center of this. That puts accountability for results at risk,” said Health GAP’s Russell. “It’s impossible to evaluate these deals properly without seeing the full terms. Part of what made PEPFAR successful was transparency. Now that’s been taken away.”

The deals also come with tighter financial conditions. Many include reduced funding compared to previous levels of U.S. assistance, while requiring countries to increase domestic health spending, with aid at risk if targets are not met.

“These are going to be very heavy lifts,” said KFF’s Kates. “Countries are already under strain.”

Critics say some agreements also advance U.S. commercial and political interests, blurring the line between aid and transactional diplomacy.

“When health becomes a bargaining chip, everyone becomes less safe,” Russell warned.

Mutsaka and Imray write for the Associated Press. Keketso Phakela in Maseru, Lesotho, contributed to this report.

In the biggest jolt to abortion policy in the U.S. since the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, a federal appeals court has restricted access to one of the most common ways to end early pregnancies by blocking the mailing of mifepristone prescriptions.

The unanimous ruling Friday from the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marks a substantial victory for abortion opponents seeking to stem the flow of abortion pills prescribed online that they view as subverting state bans on the procedure.

The ruling, which is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, requires that mifepristone be distributed only in person and at clinics, overruling regulations set by the federal Food and Drug Administration.

Friday’s ruling is in effect while the case works its way through the courts, but a mifepristone maker has asked the appellate court to put its ruling on hold until the Supreme Court weighs in.

Here’s what to know.

Nationwide impact

Frustrated with a lack of federal action against medicated abortions, Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill sued the FDA last month, saying its regulations undermined the state’s ban on abortions at all stages of pregnancy.

“The regulation creates an effective way for an out-of-state prescriber to place the drug in the hands of Louisianans in defiance of Louisiana law,” Judge Kyle Duncan, who was appointed by President Trump, wrote in the ruling.

FDA officials have said the agency is conducting a new review of mifepristone’s safety, but the appeals court noted that there was no timeline for its completion.

Friday’s ruling affects all states, even those without abortion restrictions.

There is little precedent for a federal court overruling the scientific regulations of the FDA, and it remains to be seen how the decision could affect how the drug is dispensed long-term.

Murrill, a Republican, celebrated the ruling as a “victory for life,” while other antiabortion advocates cheered the reversal of rules finalized under President Biden that ended a long-standing requirement that the pills be obtained in person at a doctor’s visit.

Representatives for the FDA and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Long record as safe and effective

Danco Laboratories, a mifepristone manufacturer and defendant in the lawsuit, has asked the appeals court to put its order on hold for one week to give the company time to seek relief from the Supreme Court.

Mifepristone was approved in 2000 as a safe and effective way to end early pregnancies. It is typically used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol, which is not affected by the ruling but is less effective on its own.

Surveys have found that the majority of abortions in the U.S. are administered using pills and that about 1 in 4 abortions nationally are prescribed via telehealth. Providers have suggested that its availability through telehealth is a reason why the number of abortions in the U.S. has not fallen since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022.

As a result, abortion pills and those who prescribe them out of state have become key targets of abortion opponents.

Some Democratic-led states have adopted laws that aim to protect providers who prescribe via telehealth and mail the pills to states with bans. Those so-called shield laws are being tested through civil and criminal cases in Louisiana and Texas.

One telehealth provider in a state with a shield law, Dr. Angel Foster, was working with legal experts to understand how the ruling would affect her organization, the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project.

“We will do everything in our power to continue providing care to people in all 50 states,” she said.

Midterm politics

The case could make abortion a key issue in this fall’s midterm elections as Democrats aim to take back control of the U.S. House and Senate and Republicans fight to hold on to their narrow majorities.

Recent electoral results suggest that voters seeking to maintain abortion access have the political momentum. Since Roe was overturned, abortion has been on the ballot directly in 17 states. Voters have sided with the abortion rights side in 14 of those results.

Abortion rights supporter Fatima Goss Graves, president and chief executive of the National Women’s Law Center, slammed Friday’s ruling as “deeply out of step with both the public and fact-based science.”

Trump received criticism after the ruling from some antiabortion advocates who expressed frustration that he did not take action himself to block distribution of the pill.

The FDA under Trump approved another generic version of mifepristone last year, which peeved some allies of the president.

“It’s shameful that the Trump administration’s inaction has forced pro-life states to take their battle to the federal courts,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, who also applauded the ruling.

Schoenbaum and Mulvihill write for the Associated Press.

NEW ORLEANS — A federal appeals court has restricted access to one of the most common means of abortion in the U.S. by blocking mailing of mifepristone prescriptions.

Friday’s unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is requiring that the abortion pill be distributed only in person and at clinics, overruling regulations set by the federal Food and Drug Administration.

The ruling, which is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, is the biggest jolt to abortion policy in the U.S. since the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe vs. Wade and allowed states to enforce abortion bans.

In the ruling, Judge Kyle Duncan, who was appointed by President Trump, agreed with the state of Louisiana’s contention that allowing the drug to be mailed there makes moot the state’s ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy.

“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ‘every unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person,’” the ruling states.

Commonplace treatment

Mifepristone was approved in 2000 as a safe and effective way to end early pregnancies. It is typically used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol.

Surveys have found that the majority of abortions in the U.S. are provided via pills and that about 1 in 4 abortions nationally are prescribed via telehealth.

One survey of abortion providers last year estimated that more women in states where abortion is banned obtained abortions that way than by traveling to other states.

Some Democratic-led states have laws that seek to protect providers who prescribe via telehealth to patients in places with bans.

That rise in prominence is why abortion opponents have targeted the pills in legislation and litigation.

Little precedent

There is little precedent for a federal court overruling the scientific regulations of the FDA, and it wasn’t immediately clear how quickly or completely the decision would affect mailing of the drug throughout the country.

Judges have long deferred to the agency’s judgments on the safety and appropriate regulation of drugs.

FDA officials under Trump have repeatedly stated that the agency is conducting a new review of mifepristone’s safety, at the direction of the president.

The judges, all nominated by Republican presidents, noted in their ruling that the FDA “could not say when that review might be complete and admitted it was still collecting data.”

Because of rare cases of excessive bleeding, the FDA initially imposed strict limits on who could prescribe and distribute the pill — only specially certified physicians and only after an in-person appointment where the person would receive the pill.

Both requirements were dropped during the COVID-19 emergency. At the time, FDA officials under President Biden said that after more than 20 years of monitoring mifepristone use, and reviewing dozens of studies involving thousands of women, it was clear that women could safely use the pill without direct supervision.

GenBioPro, which makes generic mifepristone, said in a statement that the court’s decision “ignores the FDA’s rigorous science and decades of safe use of mifepristone in a case pursued by extremist abortion opponents.”

Broader impact

In a court filing, Louisiana’s attorney general and a woman who said she was coerced into taking abortion pills requested that the FDA rules be rolled back to when the pills were allowed to be prescribed and dispensed only in person.

A Louisiana-based federal judge last month ruled that those allowances undermined the state’s abortion ban but stopped short of undoing the regulations immediately.

Friday’s ruling is in effect as the case works its way through the courts and extends beyond Louisiana and other states with abortion bans.

Telehealth prescriptions have become common even in states where abortion is allowed — and the ruling blocks them there, too.

“This is going to affect patients’ access to abortion and miscarriage care in every state in the nation,” said Julia Kaye, an ACLU lawyer. “When telemedicine is restricted, rural communities, people with low incomes, people with disabilities, survivors of intimate partner violence and communities of color suffer the most.”

The National Right to Life Committee said the ruling “restores a critical layer of oversight” in women’s health.

“Women deserve better than an abortion-by-mail system that prioritizes ideology over safety,” said Carol Tobias, the group’s president.

Next step

Friday’s ruling sets up a likely appeal to the Supreme Court.

“I look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues,” Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill, a Republican, said in a statement.

The conservative-majority high court overturned abortion as a nationwide right in 2022 but unanimously preserved access to mifepristone two years later.

That 2024 decision sidestepped the core issues, however, by ruling that the antiabortion doctors behind the case didn’t have legal standing to sue.

Representatives for the FDA and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday evening.

In the meantime, antiabortion groups are celebrating Friday’s ruling. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, applauded the ruling as “a huge victory for victims and survivors of Biden’s reckless mail-order abortion drug regime.” She also criticized the Trump administration for taking time to conduct its own review of mifepristone, saying its slow movement has forced states to take action.

“Women and children suffer and state sovereignty is violated every day the FDA allows abortion drugs to flood the mail,” Dannenfelser said.

Mulvihill and Schoenbaum write for the Associated Press. AP writers John Hanna, Matthew Perrone and Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

Jacqueline Falk, daughter of the late “Columbo” star Peter Falk, died Monday by suicide, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Medical Examiner. She was 60.

Jackie Falk died at her Los Angeles residence, the department’s website said. The case is still listed as open.

The Times was unable to obtain further information about Jackie Falk’s death Wednesday as the medical examiner’s public information office was closed because of staffing issues.

Peter Falk was 83 when he died at his Beverly Hills home in June 2011.

He and first wife Alyce Mayo married in 1960 and later adopted sisters Jackie and Catherine. The college sweethearts divorced in 1976, but according to Catherine — who was around 5 when her parents split — they remained “best friends.”

“I remember watching my mom and dad laugh and tell stories about their college years,” she told Closer magazine in 2023. “It was nice as a teenager to experience that.”

Peter Falk would bring both her and her older sister Jackie to movie premieres and set visits, and loved to take them ice skating, Catherine Falk said.

In 1977, he married actor Shera Danese, who he met while making the 1976 movie “Mikey and Nicky.”

“He saw me walking down the street, and that was it,” Danese told The Times in 1991. She said with a giggle that at 15 years or so into their marriage, “I tell him what to do.” Danese has not acted in film or TV since the year before Peter Falk’s death, according to IMDb.

The family story grew complicated when Catherine Falk alleged that Danese hindered access to their father.

After what she said was an expensive legal battle to gain visitation late in her father’s life, Catherine Falk has a website dedicated to the passage of laws to guarantee a new spouse can’t prevent children from a previous marriage from visiting an incapacitated parent. She said on the site that her dad maintained a 30-year loving relationship with her and Jackie despite alleged interference from his new wife.

In 2009, after petitioning the court to have her ailing father placed under a conservatorship, Catherine was permitted to visit Peter Falk, who was suffering from dementia. Danese was named the “Columbo” actor’s conservator. Jackie, who did not join the court fight to have access to her father, was not able to visit him during the three years before his death, the Catherine Falk Foundation website said.

The women found out about their father’s death via media accounts, the website said.

During a volleyball tournament trip to Las Vegas in March, Chatsworth coach Sina Aghassy confiscated all his players’ cellphones and put them in his backpack to make sure they focused on their sports assignment — with one exception.

Anyone waiting to learn if they were accepted to a college could briefly have access to their phone.

The players are standing in a hallway listening to their coach evaluate their performance when Grant Wang, the team’s star 6-foot-6 senior, decides to open his phone to check whether he got a message from MIT.

“I opened it up a couple minutes before it was supposed to come out and all I see is confetti,” he said. “I was in shock and all I did was make a noise.”

Aghassy, not knowing what the noise meant, said, “Can you quiet down a bit?”

“Five minutes into his talk, I started breaking down crying. I got overwhelmed by emotions,” Wang said.

Volleyball standout Grant Wange of Chatsworth High has never received a grade other than A in high school.

(Eric Sondheimer / Los Angeles Times)

Teammates didn’t know if it was good news or bad news as they saw his tears.

“My teammate whispers to me.”

Wang tells the good news, “I got into MIT.”

“Everyone breaks out cheering and going wild.

Wang had kept it a secret that MIT was his dream school. He was so disappointed in the fall when he was put on the deferred list that he didn’t think he’d get in.

He becomes the fourth volleyball player from Southern California to be accepted to MIT, joining three others from Redondo Union who he knows.

He’s never received a grade other than A in Chatsworth’s magnet program focused on STEM. He’s such a math whiz that he took geometry in eighth grade and finished all his math classes, from chemistry to calculus, last school year. This year he’s focused on AP Physics.

He already owns three rings — one playing for Chatsworth’s state championship basketball team with Alijah Arenas and two City Open Division volleyball titles. He’s going for a third ring this season as Chatsworth is expected to be the No. 1 or No. 2 seed for the volleyball playoffs. He gave up basketball for volleyball, a sport he didn’t start playing until his freshman year.

“I love the sport. I always put in extra work,” he said.

Redondo Union High volleyball players (from left) Tommy Spalding, Vaughan Flaherty and Carter Mirabal are headed to MIT this fall.

(Eric Sondheimer / Los Angeles Times)

Unlike the Redondo Union trio, he doesn’t surf and plays no instruments even though his Redondo Union friends are looking for a drummer to start a band. Wang knows math formulas, but drumming? “I cannot,” he said.

“In college, I’m going to learn how to drum so I can join the band,” he joked.

His size and improving skills make him a good volleyball prospect for the future. He seems all set except for dealing with cold weather.

“I don’t think I’ve ever been in weather under 60 degrees for two days,” he said. “My parents said, ‘Good luck,’ they would send me some hot Korean soup during tough days.”

Asked how he became such a good student, Wang said, “My mom and dad always put me in academic settings trying to get me to learn as much as possible.”

B’s on a report card are not allowed in his family.

He offered a rousing endorsement for his educators at Chatsworth.

“All the teachers put their heart and soul into us,” he said.

As for his volleyball coach, he appreciated Aghassy giving access to his phone for just a few minutes and apologizes for disrupting his speech.

What a memory it will be for years to come telling the story of being in Las Vegas and learning he got into MIT.

It was his jackpot worth more than money.