Aug. 24 (UPI) — France summoned U.S. Ambassador Charles Kushner on Sunday after he published an open letter to French President Emmanuel Macron accusing the government of failing to effectively take action on anti-Semitism.
The French Foreign Ministry issued a statement to CNN saying Kushner would be expected at the ministry’s Paris headquarters Monday.
In the letter, published Sunday in The Wall Street Journal and dated Monday, Kushner wrote to Macron that he was concerned about “the dramatic rise of anti-Semitism in France and the lack of sufficient action by your government to confront it.” Kushner, the father-in-law of President Donald Trump‘s daughter, Ivanka Trump, has served as the ambassador of France for less than seven weeks.
Since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, “pro-Hamas extremists and radical activists have waged a campaign of intimidation and violence across Europe,” Kushner wrote.
The French Foreign Ministry denied the allegations and called Kushner’s comments “unacceptable.”
“The rise in anti-Semitic acts in France since the 7 October, 2023, is a reality that we deplore and against which French authorities are totally mobilized, because these actions are intolerable,” the ministry said, referencing the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas that sparked the Israel-Hamas war.
Kushner took issue with France’s plans to recognize an independent Palestinian state in September, saying that doing so gives “legitimacy to Hamas and its allies.”
“Public statements haranguing Israel and gestures towards recognition of a Palestinian state emboldened extremists, fuel violence and endanger Jewish life in France,” Kushner wrote. “In today’s world, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism — plain and simple.”
Macron announced in July that he plans to make a formal statement recognizing Palestine at U.N. headquarters in New York City. He said it was part of France’s “historical commitment to a just and durable peace in the Middle East.”
“The urgent priority today is to end the war in Gaza and to bring relief to the civilian population,” Macron said in a post on X.
Several other Western nations have come out in favor of a Palestinian state, including Canada, Spain, Norway and Ireland.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the United States was against France’s plans in July.
“This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace. It is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th,” he said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Macron of leading a “crusade against the Jewish state.”
Families and supporters of
Israelis held hostage by Hamas hold a nationwide protest strike in
Jerusalem, on August 17, 2025. Photo by Debbie Hill/UPI | License Photo
Former Peruvian President Martin Vizcarra waves as he arrives at a courthouse in Lima, Peru, in June for the court to evaluate a prosecutor’s request to order six months of preventive detention for him before a trial for alleged corruption. File Photo by Paolo Aguilar/EPA
Aug. 21 (UPI) — With a preventive detention order issued by Peru’s judiciary against former President Martín Vizcarra, the country now has all of its former presidents jailed simultaneously on corruption and other serious charges — an unprecedented situation worldwide.
Former President Martín Vizcarra entered Barbadillo prison in Lima on Aug. 13 to serve five months of preventive detention while awaiting trial on corruption allegations stemming from his time as regional governor of Moquegua between 2011 and 2014. He is accused of taking more than $600,000 in bribes linked to two public works contracts.
Although the case does not involve his time as head of state, Vizcarra becomes the fifth former Peruvian president sent to prison in the past 18 years. Barbadillo prison already holds Pedro Castillo, Alejandro Toledo and Ollanta Humala, and was first adapted to house Alberto Fujimori in facilities built specifically for a former president.
“Peru is clearly facing a legitimacy crisis in its political class, one with deep roots that reinforces the public perception that corruption permeates every level of power,” said Carlos Escaffi, a professor of international relations at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru.
Within this context, Escaffi pointed to the role of Peru’s judiciary, particularly the Public Ministry, “which has shown no hesitation in bringing the accused to trial, something that can be seen as progress in the fight against corruption.”
In 2009, former President Alberto Fujimori was sentenced to 25 years in prison, mainly for crimes tied to human rights violations and corruption during his 1990 to 2000 presidency.
After serving more than 15 years, he was granted a humanitarian pardon in 2017 for health reasons, though the measure was annulled and reinstated several times before he was freed for good in 2023 under an order from Peru’s Constitutional Court. He died in September 2024.
In the case of Alan García, who twice served as president, he died by suicide in 2019 as police tried to arrest him on corruption allegations tied to Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht, which paid massive bribes across Latin America.
Among the other former presidents held in Barbadillo prison, Alejandro Toledo is serving a 20-year sentence for collusion and money laundering related to Odebrecht bribes, while Ollanta Humala is serving a sentence for illicit contributions to his presidential campaigns.
Pedro Castillo has been in preventive detention since late 2022 on corruption allegations during his presidency and for attempting a failed coup.
Martín Vizcarra became president of Peru in 2018 after then-President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski resigned rather than face impeachment by Congress. In 2022, Vizcarra was placed under house arrest. He is currently free with restrictions — barred from leaving Peru — and faces money laundering and collusion charges, though no final sentence has been issued.
As for current President Dina Boluarte, Peru’s Constitutional Court ruled Tuesday in favor of a petition from the executive branch and ordered all criminal investigations and impeachment proceedings against her suspended until her term ends on July 28, 2026.
The cases — including deaths during protests in 2022 and 2023, the so-called “Rolexgate” scandal over alleged illicit enrichment, and accusations of abandoning office — can resume only after she leaves the presidency.
Last week, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who shows more fealty to President Trump than to the U.S. Constitution she swore to uphold, filed a complaint against the only federal judge who has initiated contempt proceedings against the government for defying his orders.
U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, she alleged, had undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary by making “improper public comments” about Trump to a group of federal judges that included Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
What is Boasberg alleged to have said?
No transcript has emerged, but according to Bondi’s complaint, at a March session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Boasberg is alleged to have expressed “a belief that the Trump Administration would ‘disregard rulings of the federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’ ”
The Judicial Conference is the perfect place to air such concerns. It is the policy-making body for the federal judiciary, and twice a year about two dozen federal judges, including the Supreme Court chief justice, meet to discuss issues relevant to their work. Recently, for example, they created a task force to deal with threats of physical violence, which have heightened considerably in the Trump era. But nothing that happens in their private sessions could reasonably be construed as “public comments.”
“The Judicial Conference is not a public setting. It’s an internal governing body of the judiciary, and there is no expectation that what gets said is going to be broadcast to the world,” explained former U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who spent seven years as director of the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, a kind of think tank for the judiciary. I reached out to Fogel because he is part of a coalition of retired federal judges — the Article III Coalition of the nonpartisan civic education group Keep Our Republic — whose goal is to defend the independence of the judiciary and promote understanding of the rule of law.
Bondi’s complaint accuses Boasberg of attempting to “transform a routine housekeeping agenda into a forum to persuade the Chief Justice and other federal judges of his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would violate court orders.”
You know how they say that every accusation is a confession in Trump World?
A mere four days after Boasberg raised his concerns to fellow federal judges, the Trump administration defied his order against the deportation of Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.
You probably remember that one. A plane carrying the deportees was already in the air, and despite the judge’s ruling, Trump officials refused to order its return. “Oopsie,” tweeted El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele after it landed. “Too late!”
Thus began the administration’s ongoing pattern of ignoring or flouting the courts in cases brought against it. It’s not as if the signs were not there. “He who saves his Country does not violate any law,” Trump wrote on social media in February, paraphrasing Napoleon Bonaparte, the dictatorial 19th century emperor of France.
In June, Erez Reuveni, a career Department of Justice attorney who was fired when he told a Maryland judge the government had deported someone in error, provided documents to Congress that implicated Emil Bove, Trump’s one-time criminal defense attorney, in efforts to violate Boasberg’s order to halt the deportation of the Venezuelans. According to Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint, Bove, who was acting deputy attorney general at the time, said the administration should consider telling judges who order deportations halted, “F— you.”
“The Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders,” wrote Bondi in her complaint against Boasberg. This is laughable.
A July 21 Washington Post analysis found that Trump and his appointees have been credibly accused of flouting court rulings in a third of more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling. The cases have involved immigration, and cuts to the federal funding and the federal work force. That record suggests, according to the Post, “widespread noncompliance with America’s legal system.”
Legal experts told the Post that this pattern is unprecedented and is a threat to our system of checks and balances at a moment when the executive branch is asserting “vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and Constitution.”
It’s no secret that Trump harbors autocratic ambitions. He adores Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán, who has transformed the Hungarian justice system into an instrument of his own will and killed off the country’s independent media. “It’s like we’re twins,” Trump said in 2019, after hosting Orbán at the White House. Trump has teased that he might try to seek an unconstitutional third term. He de-legitimizes the press. His acolytes in Congress will not restrain him. And now he has trained his sights on the independent judiciary urging punishment of judges who thwart his agenda.
On social media, he has implied that Boasberg is “a radical left lunatic,” and wrote, “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”
Roberts was moved to rebuke Trump: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” he said in a statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Some described his words as “stern.” I found them to be rather mild, considering the damage Trump’s rhetoric inflicts on the well-being of judges.
“It’s part of a longer term pattern of trying to … weaken the ability of the judiciary to put checks on executive power, ” Fogel told me. He is not among those who think we are in a constitutional crisis. Yet.
“Our Constitution has safeguards in it,” Fogel said. “Federal judges have lifetime tenure. We are in a period of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has given the executive a lot of leeway, but I don’t think it’s unlimited.”
Love Island’s Remell, who was voted out as the least favourite boy, has defended his actions and said things might be different if he and Alima ‘set boundaries’
Jessica Clarke Digital Reporter
21:00, 29 Jun 2025Updated 21:58, 29 Jun 2025
Dumped Love Island star hits back at cheating(Image: ITV/Shutterstock)
Love Island’s Remell has hit back at cheating claims as he defended his decision to stick with Alima after he spent a few days away at ‘The Sleepover’. The latest episode saw the viewers vote for their favourite boy and favourite girl, with the two islanders with the fewest votes getting dumped from the villa.
Remell said that he wasn’t surprised that he was chosen to leave and admitted to taking a ‘risk’. Opening up about his connections, he said: “Despite me having what seemed to be a good connection with Poppy, my heart was telling me that I had to see it through with Alima.
“The dynamic with Poppy was more what I’m used to on the outside. But building up slowly with Alima made me realise that that’s important.”
Remell continued and said that while he “didn’t necessarily have to share the bed and kiss outside of the Truth or Dare game”, he acted how he would have done on the outside and was “being true” to himself.
Love Island’s Remell has hit back at cheating claims as he defended his decision to stick with Alima(Image: ITV)
Defending his actions, he said: “There was never a conversation with Alima about being exclusive, we hadn’t had that chat and hadn’t spoken properly about boundaries either.”
Alima was not pleased with Remell’s actions while he was away and called it off straight away. Reflecting on the experience, he said: “As soon as I came back from The Sleepover, I was ready to speak from the heart. But when I realised that she was hurt, I learned that it was a lot deeper than I originally thought.”
He added: “If Alima and I had had a conversation about boundaries, it would have made a difference. Communication is important and I’d do my best to change.”
Remell said he acted how he would have done on the outside(Image: ITV/Shutterstock)
Remell said they didn’t leave things on the best of terms, but that he would be open to having “conversations”. He said: “Things were left a bit sour. The reality is, the woman that was opening my heart and turning me into a lover boy is never going to truly know how I feel about her.
“I was ready to tell her everything once I came back to the Villa, but because the conversation didn’t end well, we didn’t get to properly talk. We’re both stubborn so it was hard to see eye to eye.
“I would be open to a conversation, but if she’s not open to it then it’s fine. It was hard for us to talk in the Villa because I felt a bit disrespected and put my guard up.”
Elsewhere in the latest episode, Megan was voted as the least favourite girl and was sent packing despite getting to know Conor.
Love Island continues tonight at 9pm on ITV2 and ITVX
After nearly a week of protests in Los Angeles against recent federal immigration enforcement sweeps in the city, President Trump doubled down on his administration’s efforts to detain and deport immigrants without documentation, claiming they are a key voting bloc in Democratic cities.
In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump said Los Angeles and “other such cities, are the core of the Democrat Power Center, where they use illegal aliens to expand their voter base, cheat in elections, and grow the welfare state, robbing good paying jobs and benefits from hardworking American citizens.”
But according to Los Angeles County election officials, that’s simply not true.
Share via
“That claim is false and unsupported, and only serves to create unsubstantiated concern and confusion about the electoral process,” the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s office said in a statement.
In reality, the county has safeguards in place to ensure only eligible voters cast ballots and that all votes are accurately counted, said Mike Sanchez, spokesperson for the county’s Registrar-Recorder’s office.
How do people become registered voters in California?
In the state of California there are five requirements a person must meet to register to vote, according to the California Secretary of State. To register an individual must be:
A U.S. citizen.
A resident of California.
At least 18 years or older on or before Election Day.
Not currently serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony.
Not currently found mentally incompetent to vote by a court.
When a person meets the eligibility criteria, they can register to vote which includes attesting under penalty of perjury that they meet all eligibility requirements, including being a U.S. citizen and a resident of California, said Sanchez.
“This sworn statement is a legal declaration and serves as the foundation of the voter registration process,” Sanchez said.
Voting as a noncitizen is a felony that can lead to a year in jail or deportation, said Hasen.
Though there are some cities in the United States where noncitizens can participate in local elections, for example in communities in Vermont and Maryland, participation is limited to voting in school board or city council elections.
In California, San Francisco is the only city where noncitizens can vote and it is limited to the school board.
How does Los Angeles County verify who is voting in federal elections?
Once a voter registers, their personal information is verified through the State Voter Registration database, which is done by cross-checking state Department of Motor Vehicle records or the last four digits of the person’s Social Security number, Sanchez said.
When the verification process is complete, a voter does not have to show their identification when voting in person. If verification has not occurred, the voter must show identification the first time they vote. Acceptable forms of identification include a driver’s license, state-issued I.D or passport; the California Secretary of State has a complete online list of what identifying documents to take to the polling place.
Once polling places open for voters within the county, the voter must sign a roster in the presence of election workers, who attest to their identity and eligibility.
“Elections officials also conduct regular voter roll maintenance, checking against several data points including death records from the California Department of Public Health, Social Security Administration, Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,” the California Secretary of State told The Times in a statement.
For vote-by-mail ballots, the signature on the return envelope is compared to the one on file in the voter registration record, Sanchez said. If the signature does not match or is missing, the voter is contacted and given a chance to correct it.
“Only verified ballots are accepted and counted,” he said.
Where do the claims about undocumented immigrants voting originate?
The claim that immigrants lacking documentation vote in large numbers — and for Democrats — has been repeated for years.
It has seeds in the once-fringe racist conspiracy theory called the “great replacement.” According to a poll by the Associated Press and and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 1 in 3 Americans now believe “an effort is underway to replace U.S.-born Americans with immigrants for electoral gains.”
The theory has gained momentum under Trump.
In 2016, Trump won the Electoral College and the presidency, but not the popular vote. That went to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who received about 2.9 million more votes.
Trump then claimed, without evidence, that he would have won the popular vote if 3 to 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally hadn’t voted.
“About 3 million votes was the margin by which he lost the popular vote which is why I think he chose that 3 million number to try to explain away his popular vote loss,” Hasen said.
After losing his reelection bid in 2020 to Joe Biden, when voting by mail was a focus, Trump refocused on immigrants lacking authorization in the 2024 campaign and was ultimately voted back into the White House.
“In 2024, when I think Trump and the Republicans concluded that the attacks on absentee ballots were actually hurting them because people don’t want to show up in person to vote, the shift went back to immigration,” Hasen said.
Voter fraud claims echo whomever is trying to dictate the political narrative, according to Hasen.
Researchers have found, repeatedly through decades of investigation, that fraud conducted by voters at the polls is virtually nonexistent and does not happen “on a scale even close to that necessary to “rig” an election, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Many instances of reported fraud were due to clerical errors or human errors.
“I think one of the things we’ve seen is people on the losing end of elections tend to be more likely to believe that there’s cheating,” Hasen said. “But Donald Trump has really supercharged things to the point where we’re way beyond what we normally see in terms of partisan divisions.”
But Trump is not alone in fueling that theory recently. Last year as he campaigned for Trump, billionaire Elon Musk repeated those claims on his social media platform, X.
“If the Democratic party gains enough voters to win an election by importing them and giving them free stuff, then they will do so,” he posted in September.
So is the number of undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles growing?
Yes, but likely not at the rate it once was, said Manuel Paster, professor of sociology and American studies at USC.
California’s immigrant population — including those without authorization — increased by 5% (about 500,000) from 2010 to 2023, compared to 14% (1.27 million) from 2000 to 2010, and by 37% (2.4 million) rise in the 1990s, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
Between 2019 and 2022, the population of undocumented immigrants in most states across the nation steadily climbed. California’s however, decreased, according to the Pew Research Center.
These days, most new immigrants are going to Florida, Texas and the South rather than high-cost California, Pastor said.
“Los Angeles, more than 70% of our undocumented immigrants have been in the country for longer than a decade,” he said. “They’re more likely to be long established employees, parents, parts of faith institutions.”
A Chinese coast guard vessel collided with a Philippines government ship near a disputed reef in the South China Sea. The Philippines accused China of “aggressive interference,” while China said the other vessel was “illegally intruding.”
MADISON, Wis. — A federal grand jury indicted a Wisconsin judge Tuesday on charges she helped a man in the country illegally evade U.S. immigration authorities looking to arrest him as he appeared before her in a local domestic abuse case.
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan’s arrest and ensuing indictment has escalated a clash between President Trump’s administration and local authorities over the Republican’s sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats have accused the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to chill judicial opposition to the crackdown.
Prosecutors charged Dugan in April via complaint with concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstruction. In the federal criminal justice system, prosecutors can initiate charges against a defendant directly by filing a complaint or present evidence to a grand jury and let that body decide whether to issue charges.
A grand jury still reviews charges brought by complaint to determine whether enough probable cause exists to continue the case as a check on prosecutors’ power. If the grand jury determines there’s probable cause, it issues a written statement of the charges known as an indictment. That’s what happened in Dugan’s case.
Dugan faces up to six years in prison if she’s convicted on both counts. Her team of defense attorneys responded to the indictment with a one-sentence statement saying that she maintains her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court. She was scheduled to enter a plea on Thursday.
Kenneth Gales, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Milwaukee, declined to comment on the indictment Tuesday evening.
Dugan’s case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed.
Prosecutors say Dugan escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back jury door on April 18 after learning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking his arrest.
According to court documents, Flores-Ruiz illegally reentered the U.S. after being deported in 2013. Online state court records show he was charged with three counts of misdemeanor domestic abuse in Milwaukee County in March. He was in Dugan’s courtroom that morning of April 18 for a hearing.
Court documents suggest Dugan was alerted to the agents’ presence by her clerk, who was informed by an attorney that the agents appeared to be in the hallway. An affidavit says Dugan was visibly angry over the agents’ arrival and called the situation “absurd” before leaving the bench and retreating to her chambers. She and another judge later approached members of the arrest team in the courthouse with what witnesses described as a “confrontational, angry demeanor.”
After a back-and-forth with the agents over the warrant for Flores-Ruiz, Dugan demanded they speak with the chief judge and led them away from the courtroom, according to the affidavit.
She then returned to the courtroom and was heard saying words to the effect of “wait, come with me” and ushered Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out through a back jury door typically used only by deputies, jurors, court staff and in-custody defendants, according to the affidavit. Flores-Ruiz was free on a signature bond in the abuse case at the time, according to online state court records.
Federal agents ultimately captured him outside the courthouse after a foot chase.
The state Supreme Court suspended Dugan from the bench in late April, saying the move was necessary to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. A reserve judge is filling in for her.
