act

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – When US President Donald Trump lands in Malaysia for Southeast Asia’s headline summit this weekend, he will be delivering Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim a diplomatic coup.

US presidents rarely visit Malaysia, a multiracial nation of 35 million people sandwiched between Thailand and Singapore, which for decades has maintained a policy of not picking sides in rivalries between great powers.

Trump is just the third US leader to travel to the Southeast Asian country, which is hosting a Sunday-to-Tuesday summit for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), following visits by former US Presidents Barack Obama and Lyndon B Johnson.

After skipping ASEAN summits in 2018, 2019 and 2020, Trump, whose disdain for multilateralism is renowned, will be attending the gathering of Southeast Asian nations for just the second time.

The US president will be joined by a host of high-profile leaders from non-ASEAN countries, including Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Opting not to attend are Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Chinese President Xi Jinping, who Trump is expected to meet in South Korea at next week’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit.

Trump’s visit, in many ways, is emblematic of the delicate balancing act that Anwar’s government has sought to maintain as Malaysia navigates the headwinds of the heated rivalry between the US and China.

Malaysia is deeply entwined with both the US and Chinese economies.

The US, which has a large footprint in Malaysia’s tech and oil and gas industries, was the Southeast Asian country’s top foreign investor and third-biggest trading partner in 2024.

China, a major purchaser of Malaysian electronics and palm oil, the same year took the top spot in trade and was third for investment.

But Malaysia’s efforts to walk a fine line between Washington and Beijing have become increasingly fraught as the superpowers roll out tit-for-tat tariffs and export controls while butting heads over regional flashpoints such as Taiwan and the South China Sea.

“Optimally, Malaysia wants to productively engage both China and the US on a variety of issues,” said Thomas Daniel, an analyst at the Institute of Strategic & International Studies in Kuala Lumpur.

“It is in our interest,” Daniel told Al Jazeera.

Anwar has cast Trump’s visit as a chance to bolster economic ties, champion regional peace and stability, and elevate ASEAN’s standing on the international stage.

Anwar has also pledged to use the rare opportunity for face time with Trump to constructively raise points of difference between Washington and Kuala Lumpur, particularly the Palestinian cause.

“The through-line is autonomy: avoid entanglement, maximise options, and extract benefits from both poles without becoming anyone’s proxy,” Awang Azman Awang Pawi, a professor at the University of Malaya, told Al Jazeera.

During Trump’s visit, US tariffs on Malaysia, currently set at 19 percent, and China’s mooted export controls on rare earths are expected to be high on the agenda.

For Malaysia, the priority is preserving “rules-based” trade that allows for countries to deepen economic ties despite their political differences, said Mohd Ramlan Mohd Arshad, a senior lecturer at the MARA University of Technology in Shah Alam, near Kuala Lumpur.

A prolonged economic cold war between the US and China is the “worst thing” that could happen to Malaysia, Arshad told Al Jazeera.

Trump, who has made no secret of his ambitions for the Nobel Peace Prize, is also expected to witness the signing of a peace accord between Thailand and Cambodia, which engaged in a brief border conflict in July that left at least 38 people dead.

For Anwar, who has led a multiracial coalition of parties with diverse and competing interests since 2022, the balancing act also involves political considerations at home.

US support for Israel’s war in Gaza has been a bone of contention in Muslim-majority Malaysia, where the plight of Palestinians has inspired frequent public protests.

In the run-up to the summit, critics have demanded that Anwar rescind Trump’s invitation over his role in supporting the war, which a United Nations commission of inquiry last month determined to constitute genocide.

“A person like Trump, no matter how powerful, should not be welcomed in Malaysia,” former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, Anwar’s former mentor-turned-nemesis, said in a video message last month.

Defending the invitation, Anwar has stressed his view of diplomacy as “practical work” for advancing his country’s interests “in an imperfect world”.

“It demands balance, discipline, and the courage to stay the course even when the ground shifts beneath us,” he told a conference in Kuala Lumpur earlier this month.

As a small power, Malaysia has always put pragmatism at the centre of its foreign policy, said Sharifah Munirah Alatas, an international relations lecturer at the National University of Malaysia.

“Anwar and Malaysia cannot afford to do otherwise,” Alatas told Al Jazeera.

“And given the current highly unpredictable Sino-American tension induced by the Trump 2.0 era, ASEAN will remain actively non-aligned, without taking sides.”

Awang Azman, the University of Malaya professor, said that while Trump’s visit will elevate Malaysia and ASEAN’s profile by itself, the true test of the summit’s success will be tangible outcomes on issues such as the Thailand-Cambodia conflict and trade.

“It’s not just a photo op if a ceasefire accord and concrete trade language land on paper,” Awang Azman said.

“If either track stalls, the visit is still symbolically significant – given the rarity of US presidential trips to Malaysia – but the narrative will revert to optics over outcomes.”

There are few laws President Trump name-checks more frequently than the Insurrection Act.

A 200-year-old constellation of statutes, the act grants emergency powers to thrust active-duty soldiers into civilian police duty, something otherwise barred by federal law.

Trump and his team have threatened to invoke it almost daily for weeks — most recently on Monday, after a reporter pressed the president about his escalating efforts to dispatch federalized troops to Democrat-led cities.

“Insurrection Act — yeah, I mean, I could do that,” Trump said. “Many presidents have.”

Roughly a third of U.S. presidents have called on the statutes at some point — but history also shows the law has been used only in moments of extraordinary crisis and political upheaval.

The Insurrection Act was Abraham Lincoln’s sword against secessionists and Dwight D. Eisenhower’s shield around the Little Rock Nine, the young Black students who were the first to desegregate schools in Arkansas.

Ulysses S. Grant invoked it more than half a dozen times to thwart statehouse coups, stem race massacres and smother the Ku Klux Klan in its South Carolina cradle.

But it has just as often been wielded to crush labor strikes and strangle protest movements. The last time it was invoked, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was in elementary school and most U.S. soldiers had not yet been born.

Now, many fear Trump could call on the law to quell opposition to his agenda.

“The Democrats were fools not to amend the Insurrection Act in 2021,” said Kevin Carroll, former senior counsel in the Department of Homeland Security during Trump’s first term. “It gives the president almost untrammeled power.”

It also precludes most judicial review.

“It can’t even be challenged,” Trump boasted Monday. “I don’t have to go there yet, because I’m winning on appeal.”

If that winning streak cools, as legal experts say it soon could, some fear the Insurrection Act would be the administration’s next move.

“The Insurrection Act is very broadly worded, but there is a history of even the executive branch interpreting it narrowly,” said John C. Dehn, an associate professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

The president first floated using the Insurrection Act against protesters in the summer of 2020. But members of his Cabinet and military advisors blocked the move, as they did efforts to use the National Guard for immigration enforcement and the military to patrol the border.

“They have this real fixation on using the military domestically,” Carroll said. “It’s sinister.”

In his second term, Trump has instead relied on an obscure subsection of the U.S. code to surge federalized soldiers into blue cities, claiming it confers many of the same powers as the Insurrection Act.

Federal judges disagreed. Challenges to deployments in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., and Chicago have since clogged the appellate courts, with three West Coast cases before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and one pending in the 7th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Illinois.

The result is a growing knot of litigation that experts say will fall to the Supreme Court to unwind.

As of Wednesday, troops in Oregon and Illinois are activated but can’t be deployed. The Oregon case is further complicated by precedent from California, where federalized soldiers have patrolled the streets since June with the 9th Circuit’s blessing. That ruling is set to be reheard by the circuit on Oct. 22 and could be reversed.

Meanwhile, what California soldiers are legally allowed to do while they’re federalized is also under review, meaning even if Trump retains the authority to call up troops, he might not be able to use them.

Scholars are split over how the Supreme Court might rule on any of those issues.

“At this point, no court … has expressed any sympathy to these arguments, because they’re so weak,” said Harold Hongju Koh, a professor at Yale Law School.

Koh listed the high court’s most conservative members, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., as unlikely to push back against the president’s authority to invoke the Insurrection Act, but said even some of Trump’s appointees — Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — might be skeptical, along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

“I don’t think Thomas and Alito are going to stand up to Trump, but I’m not sure that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts can read this statute to give him [those] powers.”

The Insurrection Act sidesteps those fights almost entirely.

It “would change not only the legal state of play, but fundamentally change the facts we have on the ground, because what the military would be authorized to do would be so much broader,” said Christopher Mirasola, an assistant professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Congress created the Insurrection Act as a fail-safe in response to armed mobs attacking their neighbors and organized militias seeking to overthrow elected officials. But experts caution that the military is not trained to keep law and order, and that the country has a strong tradition against domestic deployments dating to the Revolutionary War.

“The uniformed military leadership in general does not like getting involved in the domestic law enforcement issue at all,” Carroll said. “The only similarities between police and military is that they have uniforms and guns.”

Today, the commander in chief can invoke the law in response to a call for help from state leaders, as George H.W. Bush did to quell the 1992 Rodney King uprising in L.A.

The statute can also be used to make an end-run around elected officials who refuse to enforce the law, or mobs who make it impossible — something Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy Jr. did in defense of school integration.

Still, modern presidents have generally shied from using the Insurrection Act even in circumstances with strong legal justification. George W. Bush weighed invoking the law after Hurricane Katrina created chaos in New Orleans but ultimately declined over fears it would intensify the already bitter power struggle between the state and federal government.

“There are any number of Justice Department internal opinions where attorneys general like Robert Kennedy or Nicholas Katzenbach said, ‘We cannot invoke the Insurrection Act because the courts are open,’” Koh said.

Despite its extraordinary power, Koh and other experts said the law has guardrails that may make it more difficult for the president to invoke it in the face of naked bicyclists or protesters in inflatable frog suits, whom federal forces have faced down recently in Portland.

“There are still statutory requirements that have to be met,” said Dehn, the Loyola professor. “The problem the Trump administration would have in invoking [the law] is that very practically, they are able to arrest people who break the law and prosecute people who break the law.”

That may be why Trump and his administration have yet to invoke the act.

“It reminds me of the run-up to Jan. 6,” Carroll said. “It’s a similar feeling that people have, a sense that an illegal or immoral and unwise order is about to be given.”

He and others say an invocation of the Insurrection Act would shift widespread concern about military policing of American streets into existential territory.

“If there’s a bad faith invocation of the Insurrection Act to send federal troops to go beat up anti-ICE protesters, there should be a general strike in the United States,” Carroll said. “It’s a real break-the-glass moment.”

At that point, the best defense may come from the military.

“If a really unwise and immoral order comes out … 17-year generals need to say no,” Carroll said. “They have to have the guts to put their stars on the table.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court may help the GOP keep control of the House of Representatives next year by clearing the way for Republican-led states to redraw election districts now held by Black Democrats.

That prospect formed the backdrop on Wednesday as the justices debated the future of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Louisiana.

The Trump administration’s top courtroom attorney urged he justices to rule that partisan politics, not racial fairness, should guide the drawing election districts for Congress and state legislatures.

“This court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education must come to an end,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his brief. The same is true, he said, for using the Voting Rights Act to draw legislative districts that are likely to elect a Black or Latino candidate.

Too often, he said, the civil rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”

The court’s conservatives lean in that direction and sought to limit the use of race for drawing district boundaries. But the five-member majority has not struck down the use of race for drawing district lines.

But the Trump administration and Louisiana’s Republican leaders argued that now was the time to do so.

If the court’s conservatives hand down such a ruling in the months ahead, it would permit Republican-led states across the South to redraw the congressional districts of a dozen or more Black Democrats.

“There’s reason for alarm,” said Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulous. “The consequences for minority representation would likely be devastating. In particular, states with unified Republican governments would have a green light to flip as many Democratic minority-opportunity districts as possible.”

Such a ruling would also upend the Voting Rights Act as it had been understood since the 1980s.

As originally enacted in 1965, the historic measure put the federal government on the side of Blacks in registering to vote and casting ballots.

But in 1982, Republicans and Democrats in Congress took note that these new Black voters were often shut out of electing anyone to office. White lawmakers could draw maps that put whites in the majority in all or nearly all the districts.

Seeking a change, Congress amended the law to allow legal challenges when discrimination results in minority voters having “less opportunity … to elect representatives of their choice.”

In decades after, the Supreme Court and the Justice Department pressed the states, and the South in particular, to draw at least some electoral districts that were likely to elect a Black candidate. These legal challenges turned on evidence that white voters in the state would not support a Black candidate.

But since he joined the court in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that drawing districts based on race is unconstitutional and should be prohibited. Justices Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented with Thomas two years ago when the court by a 5-4 vote approved a second congressional district in Alabama that elected a Black Democrat.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the opinion. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast the deciding fifth vote but also said he was open to the argument that “race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”

That issue is now before the court in the Louisiana case.

It has six congressional districts, and about one-third of its population is Black.

Prior to this decade, the New Orleans area elected a Black representative, and in response to a voting right suit, it was ordered to draw a second district where a Black candidate had a good chance to win.

But to protect its leading House Republicans — Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise — the state drew a new elongated district that elected Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat.

Now the state and the Trump administration argue the court should strike down that district because it was drawn based on race and free the state to replace him with a white Republican.

ROSEMONT, Ill. — At first, landing Lauren Betts was not a plus when it came to getting her little sister to follow her to UCLA.

When Bruins women’s basketball coach Cori Close called Sienna Betts about Lauren transferring from Stanford at her parents’ request, the younger sibling didn’t hide her displeasure.

“UCLA was my school,” Sienna told Close. “I don’t want to go where my sister’s going.”

It took some massaging of the situation to get Sienna back on board with becoming a Bruin. Big sister helped convince Sienna by delivering a PowerPoint presentation about why she should come to Westwood for Lauren’s final college season.

“By the end, there were tears everywhere,” Close said Wednesday at Big Ten media day inside the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center. “It was very heartfelt, it was very genuine. It was just why she wanted to share this experience with her sister and why they needed to share it together.”

It could be a seasonlong joy ride for the sisters after Sienna agreed to join a team that’s been picked to win the Big Ten and contend for the national championship. Lauren and point guard Kiki Rice were selected to the preseason all-conference team and could be joined on the postseason version by teammates Gianna Kneepkens and Charlisse Leger-Walker.

UCLA center Lauren Betts goes to the basket against Maryland forward Amari DeBerry, left, during the first half of a game last season.

(Nick Wass / Associated Press)

Sienna is an early candidate for Big Ten freshman of the year based on her dynamic skill set. The 6-foot-4 forward has been playing a lot alongside her 6-7 sister in practice, leading to some unusual exchanges.

“Every once in a while on the court, you’ll hear, like, the bickering from a sister standpoint, you know what I mean?” Rice said. “Like, it’s a special tone, you know, it only happens between siblings and they’ll be like, ‘Lauren, shut up’ or something like that and they get on each other and it happens quick and they move on pretty fast, but it’s always funny.”

Having her sister around could free Lauren to operate more on the perimeter, where she’s been working on her outside shot. Plus, it has the added benefit of reducing a little wear on the elder sibling.

“I told her, I was, like, ‘Listen, it’s exhausting running baseline to baseline all the time,’” Lauren cracked. “She can do it once.”

Lauren said she’s helped her sister with learning plays and persevering through tough practices while letting Sienna mostly hang out with fellow freshmen off the court. She’s always wanted what’s best for her sister, as demonstrated by that PowerPoint presentation.

“It was just to show her that, like, this recruiting process isn’t about me, and it’s not to get the Betts sisters to play with each other,” Lauren said. “It’s, I want her here because she’s Sienna Betts and she’s a really important part of our team and she would bring so much to us and she would help us win a national championship.”

Might Lauren put together another UCLA presentation for brother Dylan, a 7-2 center who is another top high school prospect?

“Yeah, his recruiting process is a little different,” Lauren said with a laugh, “so we’ll see.”

Fighting on

Don’t ever expect a concession speech from USC coach Lindsay Gottlieb.

After losing the reigning national player of the year to injury and a starting frontcourt who is now in the WNBA, Gottlieb said her team’s goals don’t change.

“That’s a lot of talent to replace,” Gottlieb said, referring to sidelined star JuJu Watkins and departed post players Kiki Iriafen and Rayah Marshall, “but we look at it in the collective and we say USC women’s basketball is not going anywhere. All the goals that we still have are in front of us. … I think we’ll have the ability to compete at a really high level.”

How do the Trojans replace Watkins, who is out for the season because of a torn knee ligament? It will be a collective effort led by returning guard Kennedy Smith, freshman phenom Jazzy Davidson and five transfers.

“No one’s gonna be JuJu, no one’s trying to be JuJu,” Gottlieb said, “but I think we can put a team on the floor that’s incredibly versatile, that plays an exciting brand of basketball and we’re going to take our shot at achieving our goals.”

Davidson, a 6-1 guard who was the nation’s top high school prospect, is already creating a buzz for a team that was picked by the media to finish third in the Big Ten.

“I don’t compare her to anybody else,” Gottlieb said, “but in terms of the way I felt when JuJu walked in the door as a freshman about her readiness for college basketball, I think Jazzy’s a pretty unique talent and will make an incredible affect not only on us but I think on the national scene.”

Finally united

Six years later, the voicemail that Gottlieb saved from a 14-year-old has additional meaning.

That teenager is now on her team.

Gottlieb was recruiting Londynn Jones when she coached at California and accepted a job with the Cleveland Cavaliers, becoming the first head women’s college coach to be hired by an NBA team. Jones left a congratulatory message tinged with sorrow.

“ ‘Coach,’” Jones said, “‘I’m happy for you, but I’m sad for me, don’t forget about me.’ ”

Now they’re together after Jones transferred from UCLA after helping the Bruins reach the Final Four.

“Here we are,” Gottlieb said, “all these years later.”

After averaging 8.5 points and making 35.1% of her three-pointers last season, Jones could play a new role across town.

“She’s a ballhandler, a distributor, she shoots the three really well,” Gottlieb said, “so I think she was looking for that just sort of ability to be dynamic and show what she’s capable of, but we just need her to be a really kind of solid, all-around contributor.”

Twice as nice

Dreams really do come true. As a freshman, UCLA softball slugger Megan Grant told roommate Amanda Muse, a forward on the basketball team, that it was her dream to play college basketball. Now Grant is on the verge of her debut in a second sport. Close described Grant as a “bully ball kind of player” who would add screening, rebounding and hustle.

Oct. 6 (UPI) — President Donald Trump told reporters Monday he would consider invoking the Insurrection Act to send National Guard troops into Portland, one day after a federal judge blocked the administration’s mobilization for a second time.

Trump planned to send 200 National Guard troops from California to Oregon to prevent protesters from confronting Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the Oregon city, where he claimed there was a “criminal insurrection.”

“You look at what’s happening with Portland over the years, it’s a burning hell hole,” Trump told reporters, who had gathered in the Oval Office at the White House. “And then you have a judge that lost her way that tries to pretend that there’s no problem.”

“I’d do it if it was necessary. So far, it hasn’t been necessary. But we have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” Trump said. “If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were being killed, and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that. I mean, I want to make sure people aren’t killed.”

The Insurrection Act is a federal law, enacted in 1807, that allows the president to deploy the U.S. military to stop what the president considers to be a “criminal insurrection” against the United States.

On Sunday night, U.S. Judge Karin Immergut issued an order to block the administration from sending any National Guard troops to Portland, accusing the feds of circumventing her previous order.

Immergut wrote that the protests outside of Portland’s ICE facility did not pose a risk of rebellion, which made the deployment of federal troops illegal.

“This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law,” Immergut wrote. The U.S. Justice Department has appealed the judge’s earlier ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the Trump administration has been dealing with a “legal insurrection against the laws and Constitution of the United States.”

“We need to have district courts in this country that see themselves as being under the laws and Constitution and not being able to take for themselves powers that are reserved solely for the president,” Miller added.

Trump has used the National Guard to address what he deems to be uncontrolled crime in other cities, including in Washington, D.C., where a deployment in August reduced violent crime by 49% and carjackings by 83%, according to data from the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.

The White House is also targeting Chicago for troop deployment. The city and the state of Illinois sued the administration Monday, claiming deployment of the National Guard would “infringe on Illinois’ sovereignty and right to self-governance.”

Shabana needs to be tough like Arnie

NEW Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has no time to lose.

She has built a reputation as an immigration hardliner from the right wing of the Labour Party and is nicknamed The Terminator.

1

So her appointment, in the reshuffle forced on Sir Keir Starmer by Angela Rayner’s resignation, was a clear sign of intent.

But she has been parachuted into the middle of the Government’s biggest political crisis zone.

A chaotic year of ineffective posturing saw an astonishing 111,000 asylum applications pile up after Sir Keir ditched the Rwanda deterrent.

Nigel Farage’s Reform have swept into this policy vacuum and seized the initiative.

Little wonder that a new poll puts them on course for Number Ten.

The new Home Secretary says she has no choice but to deliver.

She is right to call for legal migrants to put more into society if they want to have leave to remain here.

But voters want fast action on stopping the boats and kicking out those who should not be here.

Ms Mahmood has ordered reviews of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Modern Slavery Act.

Now she must bang heads together to deliver them early.

Thousands have dodged deportation because of these two legal millstones around the Government’s neck.

If Ms Mahmood wants to succeed, she needs to quickly live up to her Terminator reputation.

By saying Hasta La Vista to those here illegally.

Air Miles Miliband

ED MILIBAND’S reckless rush to Net Zero is already costing households dear.

This month, regulator Ofgem said Labour’s obsession with wind and solar power will see electricity prices hiked by almost £100 by 2031.

Now, as we reveal today, the Energy Secretary has himself clocked up 50,000 miles on globe-trotting flights since Labour came to power.

Forget his Red Ed nickname. It should now be Air Miles Miliband after he enjoyed carbon-busting jollies to India, China, Brazil and the US.

All this from a politician who in opposition urged voters to cut their use of flights.

To offset hypocrite Miliband’s globe-trotting would require 1,200 trees to be planted.

And that’s before you deal with the hot air he spouts.

Estonian President Alar Karis says Russian fighter planes entering his country’s airspace is another sign that Russia is escalating its war on Ukraine. His comments come a day after US President Donald Trump said NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft that violate their airspace.

Experts are predicting a cut in interest rates at the Federal Reserve’s meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday this week. And even more cuts could follow in late 2025 and beyond.

That means certificate of deposit (CD) rates of 4.00% or higher will likely disappear, too.

If you’ve been thinking about opening a CD, now is definitely the time. Here’s what you should know if you’re opening a CD.

What to know when opening a CD

A CD is a type of savings account where you deposit your money for a set period, earning a fixed interest rate in return for the commitment. For example, you might open a 1-year CD that earns 4.00% APY. That means when your CD matures after a full year, you’ll get your money back, plus 4.00% in interest.

Here’s how to pick the right CD for you:

• Find the right term length: Shorter terms (3-12 months) give you quicker access to your cash. Longer terms (a few years) give you a longer guaranteed rate of return.
• Shop for the best rate: Online banks usually offer higher APYs.
• Fund your account: Transfer money from an existing bank account to a CD.
• Wait it out — and don’t touch your money: Most CDs charge a penalty for early withdrawals.
• Plan your next move: Once your CD matures, you can either withdraw your money or roll it over into another CD.

Who should open a CD now?

CDs are a great fit for you if:

• You already have an emergency fund in a savings account
• You want a guaranteed return over a few months or years
• You’re saving for a short- to medium-term goal
• You want to lock in a high interest rate while you still can

With rates expected to fall as soon as this week, now is definitely the time to lock in your CD rate.

Act now before rates drop

Traders expect the Fed to announce an interest rate cut this week, and Fed leadership recently projected that rates would fall through 2027 and beyond. That means today’s high CD rates could soon disappear — for a very long time.

If those predictions turn out to be true, you’ll be glad you locked in a 4.00%-plus APY while you still could.

Ready to open a CD? Check out our full list of the best CDs available now to see some of the highest APYs you can still get.

A mum was left fuming after a recent flight with her two children, as the behaviour of the passenger sitting in front of her completely ruined the experience for her kids

If you’ve ever taken a flight with young children, you’ll know how much of a headache it can be at times. Rushing them through airport security, making sure you all get to your boarding gate on time, and hoping that they don’t cause a scene when you’re on the plane can leave you feeling drained.

Many people have sparked discussions in the past about how they don’t like flying with “screaming” children on board, but the parents of those children are likely even more exhausted – and we should all be more compassionate. But one mum didn’t receive any sympathy on a recent flight she was on with her two children, as the passenger in front of her chose to do something “rude” in the middle of their journey.

Matilda Norton shared a video on TikTok of herself sitting with her two children on the plane, where the family was happily minding their own business. Matilda had her youngest child on her lap, while her older son was standing up in the seat beside her, playing with a toy plane.

But her problem came when the man in front of her decided to recline his seat – meaning she had very little room for herself and her young baby, who was already getting restless and starting to cry.

The mum also explained in her video that the seat next to the man in front of her was empty, meaning he could have moved across and reclined that seat, which was in front of her older child.

Although that still would have encroached on their space, it would have given the mum enough room to properly look after her younger child.

In the video’s caption, she said: “He had an empty seat next to him. He could have moved over and put the other seat back … where there was no baby behind him.

“Or when he lay down across both seats, he could have at least put his seat upright since he wasn’t even using it. I know everyone has the right to put their seat back, but where is the common courtesy? We had no space.”

Commenters on the post were split over the issue. Some said that the mum was right to be annoyed, as even though the man was within his rights to recline his chair, he could have been more respectful of her situation.

Others, however, said the man did nothing wrong. They also argued that the mum could have swapped seats with her son so that she took the window seat and he was in the middle, meaning she would still escape the reclined chair.

One person said: “You could literally swap with your other son, and the issue would be resolved. People are allowed to recline their seats on a flight.”

Another added: “Why do people think they are entitled to special treatment? He’s allowed to recline his seat without any question or explanation.”

However, someone else defended the mum, stating: “This comment section isn’t it. It’s so rude to recline your seat on a short flight. It’s entirely unnecessary, and you know that it makes the person behind you uncomfortable.”

Matilda also later shared in the comments why she refused to swap seats with her son, as she said she would rather make sure he has a good time and enjoys his flight.

Responding to one commenter who told her to swap seats, she wrote: “He likes the window seat and I would rather him happily look out the window than be grumpy in the middle. You’ve clearly never travelled with kids!”

Republicans and Democrats came together on the House floor on Wednesday to hold a moment of silence in honor of Charlie Kirk, just as news broke that the magnetic youth activist had been shot and killed.

The bipartisanship lasted about a minute.

The event quickly spiraled after a request to pray for Kirk from Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado led to objections from Democrats and a partisan shouting match.

Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, a close friend of Kirk’s, told Democrats on the floor that they “caused this” — a comment she later said she stood by, arguing that “their hateful rhetoric” against Republicans contributed to Kirk’s killing.

Johnson banged on the gavel, demanding order as the commotion continued.

“The House will be in order!” he yelled to no avail.

The incident underscored the deep-seated partisan tensions on Capitol Hill as the assassination of Kirk revives the debate over gun violence and acts of political violence in a divided nation. As Congress reacted to the news, lawmakers of both parties publicly denounced the assassination of Kirk and called it an unacceptable act of violence.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he was “deeply disturbed about the threat of violence that has entered our political life.”

“I pray that we will remember that every person, no matter how vehement our disagreement with them, is a human being and a fellow American deserving of respect and protection,” Thune said.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), whose husband, Paul, was attacked with a hammer three years ago, also denounced the fatal shooting.

“Political violence has absolutely no place in our nation,” she said in a post on X.

A few hours after the commotion on the House floor, the White House released a four-minute video of President Trump in which he said Kirk’s assassination marked a “dark moment for America.” He also blamed the violent act on the “radical left.”

“My administration will find each and every one of those that contributed to this atrocity, and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it,” Trump said as he grieved the loss of his close ally.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court panel has ruled that President Trump cannot use an 18th century wartime law to speed the deportations of people his administration accuses of being in a Venezuelan gang. The decision blocking an administration priority is destined for a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Two judges on a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in the ruling Tuesday, agreed with immigrant rights lawyers and lower court judges who argued the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was not intended to be used against gangs such as Tren de Aragua, which the Republican president had targeted in March.

Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the ACLU, said the administration’s use of “a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration was rightly shut down by the court. This is a critically important decision reining in the administration’s view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts.”

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the majority erred in second-guessing the president.

“The authority to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States and to remove terrorists from the United States rests solely with the President,” Jackson said. “We expect to be vindicated on the merits in this case.”

The administration deported people designated as Tren de Aragua members to a notorious prison in El Salvador and argued that American courts could not order them freed.

In a deal announced in July, more than 250 of the deported migrants returned to Venezuela.

The Alien Enemies Act was only used three times before in U.S. history, all during declared wars — in the War of 1812 and the two world wars.

The administration unsuccessfully argued that courts cannot second-guess the president’s determination that Tren de Aragua was connected to Venezuela’s government and represented a danger to the United States, meriting use of the act.

In a 2-1 ruling, the judges said they granted the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs because they “found no invasion or predatory incursion” in this case.

The decision bars deportations from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. In the majority were U.S. Circuit Judges Leslie Southwick, who was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who was nominated by Democratic President Biden. Andrew Oldham, a Trump nominee, dissented.

The majority opinion said Trump’s allegations about Tren de Aragua did not meet the historical levels of national conflict that Congress intended for the act.

“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” the judges wrote.

In a lengthy dissent, Oldham complained his two colleagues were second-guessing Trump’s conduct of foreign affairs and national security, realms where courts usually give the president great deference.

“The majority’s approach to this case is not only unprecedented — it is contrary to more than 200 years of precedent,” Oldham wrote.

The panel did grant the Trump administration one legal victory, finding the procedures it uses to advise detainees under the Alien Enemies Act of their legal rights were appropriate.

The ruling can be appealed to the full 5th Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court, which is likely to make the ultimate decision on the issue.

The Supreme Court has already gotten involved twice before in the tangled history of the Trump administration’s use of the act. In the initial weeks after Trump’s March declaration, the court ruled that the administration could deport people under the act, but unanimously found that those targeted needed to be given a reasonable chance to argue their case before judges in the areas where they were held.

Then, as the administration moved to rapidly deport more Venezuelans from Texas, the high court stepped in again with an unusual, post-midnight ruling that they couldn’t do so until the 5th Circuit decided whether the administration was providing adequate notice to the immigrants and could weigh in on the broader legal issues of the case. The high court has yet to address whether a gang can be cited as an alien enemy under the act.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michelle L. Price in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse made their voices heard Tuesday on Capitol Hill, pressuring lawmakers to force the release of the sex trafficking investigation into the late financier and pushing back President Trump’s effort to dismiss the issue as a “hoax.”

In a news conference on the Capitol lawn that drew hundreds of supporters and chants of “release the files,” the women shared — some publicly for the first time — how they were lured into Epstein’s abuse by his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. They demanded that the Trump administration provide transparency and accountability for what they endured as teenagers.

It was a striking stand as the push for disclosure of the so-called Epstein files reached a pivotal moment in Washington. Lawmakers are battling over how Congress should delve into the Epstein saga while the Republican president, after initially signaling support for transparency on the campaign trail, has been dismissing the matter as a “Democrat hoax.”

“No matter what you do it’s going to keep going,” Trump said Wednesday. He added, “Really, I think it’s enough.”

But the survivors on Capitol Hill, as well as at least one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, disagreed. Some of the women pleaded for Trump to support their cause.

“It feels like you just want to explode inside because nobody, again, is understanding that this is a real situation. These women are real. We’re here in person,” said Haley Robson, one of the survivors who said she is a registered Republican.

Epstein killed himself in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial in 2019 on charges that said he sexually abused and trafficked dozens of underage girls. The case was brought more than a decade after he secretly cut a deal with federal prosecutors in Florida to dispose of nearly identical allegations. Epstein was accused of paying underage girls hundreds of dollars in cash for massages and then molesting them.

Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime confidant and former girlfriend, was convicted in 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison for luring teenage girls for him to abuse. Four women testified at her trial that they were abused by Epstein as teens in the 1990s and early 2000s at his homes in Florida, New York and New Mexico. The allegations have also spawned dozens of lawsuits.

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is usually closely aligned with Trump, described her support for a bill that would force the Justice Department to release the information it has compiled on Epstein as a moral fight against sexual predation.

“This isn’t one political party or the other. It’s a culmination of everyone work together to silence these women and protect Jeffrey Epstein and his cabal,” Greene said at the news conference.

She is one of four Republicans — three of them women — who have defied House GOP leadership and the White House in an effort to force a vote on their bill. House Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to quash the effort by putting forward his own resolution and arguing that a concurrent investigation by the House Oversight Committee is the best way for Congress to deliver transparency.

“I think the Oversight probe is going to be wide and expansive, and they’re going to follow the truth wherever it leads,” Johnson, R-La., said.

He added that the White House was complying with the committee to release information and that he had spoken with Trump about it Tuesday night. “He says, ‘Get it out there, put it all out there,’” Johnson told reporters.

The Oversight Committee on Tuesday night released what it said was the first tranche of documents and files it has received from the Justice Department on the Epstein case. The folders — posted on Google Drive — contained hundreds of image files of years-old court filings related to Epstein, but contained practically nothing new.

Meanwhile, the White House was warning House members that support for the bill to require the DOJ to release the files would be seen as a hostile act. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who is pressing for the bill, said that the White House was sending that message because “They’ve dug in.”

“They decided they don’t want it released,” he said. “It’s a political threat.”

But with Trump sending a strong message and Republican leadership moving forward with an alternative resolution, Massie was left looking for support from at least two more Republicans willing to cross political lines. It would take six GOP members, as well as all House Democrats, to force a vote on their bill. And even if that passes the House, it would still need to pass the Senate and be signed by Trump.

Still, the survivors saw this moment as their best chance in years to gain some justice for what had been done by Epstein, who died in as New York jail cell in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges.

“Justice and accountability are not favors from the powerful. They are obligations decades overdue” Jess Michaels, a survivor who said she was first abused by Epstein in 1991, told the rally on the Capitol lawn. “This moment began with Epstein’s crimes. But it’s going to be remembered for survivors demanding justice, demanding truth, demanding accountability.”

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016, also known as cybercrime law, was proposed by then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a 20-point National Action Plan to combat terrorism and to regulate online speech. The Electronic Transactions Ordinance of 2007 and the Pakistan Telecommunication Act of 1996 were insufficient. About 50 amendments were introduced before imposing the law, but the core criticisms remained unaddressed. The bill had four versions, and the final version was passed in August 2016. Under this act, maximum authorities were given to FIA and PTA.

Sections of the act are as follows:

l  Section 20 that criminalizes online defamation

l  Section 21 that deals with personal data misuse

l  Section 37 grants power to PTA to block or remove online content.

PECA Act and Nawaz Sharif:

When the bill was brought in the National Assembly in August 2016, many opposition members from PTI, PPP, MQM, etc. were absent. The ruling party was PML-N, who had the simple majority, and the law was passed easily due to low attendance of opposition parties. The bill was reviewed by the Standing Committee of the National Assembly that was chaired by Captain Muhammad Safdar. Civil societies were also invited, but there was limited meaningful debate, and the law was passed under the guise of cyber threats.

The law was not successfully implemented, as according to section 29 of the PECA Act, the FIA failed to report. Senator Aitzaz Ahsan raised this issue in 2017: about two reports should have been presented before Parliament within one year, but not a single report was presented. Furthermore, the government’s ability to address the cybercrime cases worsened after the law was passed. The government in October 2016 announced the allocation of Rs. 2 billion for cybercrime police stations, but nothing came out of it.

The federal government ordered, particularly in May 2017, a crackdown on those who were involved in anti-state content, including Jibran Nasir, who received a summons from the FIA’s cybercrime sector, and Salar Kakar, a member of PTI’s social media team. Imran Khan criticized the ruling party for using law as a political tool to victimize PTI social media activists.

Turning of the table:

While PML-N was still in power, the table started to turn. A law introduced to suppress opponents turned on the PML-N. In 2017, Nawaz Sharif was disqualified by the Supreme Court. Adil Tanoli, a PML-N social media handler, was charged under sections 9, 10, and 20 of the PECA Act. Aniha Anam Chaudhry and Ambreen Maria Chaudhry, two PML-N female workers, wrote a letter to then Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal that nearly 20 to 25 FIA workers entered their house and seized the laptops and mobile phones. Later, they were called by the FIA. In October 2017, Nawaz Sharif brought attention to the harassment of the party’s social media activists and called it an attack on freedom of speech.

PECA Act under Imran Khan:

The PECA Act was used extensively by Imran Khan as a political and media control tool. Within four years of his tenure, about 300,000 complaints were filed, but most were related to social media content, not hacking, fraud, or harassment. PTI introduced “Removal and Blocking of Unlawful Online Content” in 2020 to strengthen control over social media. Saleem Safi was removed when he highlighted the closure of the RTS system in the 2018 elections. Nusrat Javed was forced to leave her job for criticizing Imran Khan. Imran Khan sued Najam Sethi for 10 billion rupees. Absar Alam was targeted for questioning Asim Bajwa and his wealth. Hamid Mir was unable to return until Imran Khan was gone. Asad Ali Toor was forced out of Samaa TV for criticizing Imran Khan. Mohsin Baig, who was the former friend of Imran Khan, was arrested by FIA at the request of Murad Saeed, as Baig highlighted Murad’s performance as a minister. Ironically, in a seminar on media independence in Islamabad in July 2022, Imran Khan claimed that he was unaware of journalists’ disappearances and never issued orders against any journalist.

Many pages on Facebook and Twitter that were critical of the establishment, judiciary, or Imran Khan were restricted. This included a large number of opposition social media accounts that were put under strict monitoring of the FIA Cyber Crime Wing. Gul Bukhari, a human rights activist and one of the most prominent government critics, was abducted in 2018. She was asked to appear before court, and in case of her absence, she was threatened to be charged with the PECA Act, according to the statement in February 2020 by FIA.

PECA Ordinance Act 2022—an amendment that was not accepted:

In February, at the request of Imran Khan, President Arif Alvi issued a presidential ordinance to amend the PECA Act. Under Section 20, online defamation was extended to more institutions (military, judiciary), the offense was non-bailable, and the punishment was increased from three years to five years. Maryum Nawaz criticized this amendment by declaring that the laws used to silence the media and opposition will eventually be used against Imran Khan, a claim that has become a reality today. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch condemned this provision of PTI. Under Imran Khan, Pakistan’s press freedom dropped from 139 to 157. However, Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Athar Minallah ruled the PECA Ordinance unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, and a violation of freedom of speech, but this decision is still in a legal limbo even after three years because the judge has not issued detailed reasoning for this action.

PECA Amendment of 2025:

In May 2024, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif drafted an amendment to establish the Digital Rights Protection Authority under the supervision of the Ministry of Information Technology. The latest amendment of 2025 was proposed on January 23 and was passed in 15 minutes. President Asif Ali Zardari signed the draft on January 29, and the government passed the law on February 8, constricting penalties for false information, including up to three years in jail and a fine payment of 2 million rupees. The establishment of SMPRA prompted criticism and outrage among media professionals. They condemned this amendment as a violation of free speech rights. Critics argue that this amendment requires journalists to mention their source, which is against journalism ethics. The new amendment included Section 26(A), which criminalizes the sharing of any content that may cause fear, panic, or disorder. Ironically, PTI challenged this amendment in Lahore High Court, forgetting that a similar amendment was proposed by it. Many media associations called it the blackest law. Sherry Rehman and Raza Rabbani of PPP also criticized this amendment.

Section 20 of the PECA Act:

Defamation laws are prone to misinterpretation in Pakistan, a reality almost all Parliament members of Pakistan know. The word “defamation” was excluded from Article 19 of the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan in 1975. Though section 499 of Pakistan’s Penal Code criminalized defamation, it at least included explanations and exemptions. In this backdrop, PECA introduced a new cyber defamation law, which includes intentionally or publicly sharing any information that poses a threat to the dignity of a person. Human Rights Watch also highlighted the ambiguity of section 20.

While the PECA Act is necessary to prevent defamation, its vague wording has prompted actions against journalists, opposition members, and activists. A flexible and accountability-based approach will ensure that genuine crimes are addressed.

Tom Barrack’s remarks to journalists trigger calls for an apology and media boycott.

A top US diplomat has triggered outrage and calls for an apology in Lebanon after telling a group of local journalists to “act civilised”.

Tom Barrack, the United States ambassador to Turkiye and the special envoy for Syria, made the comments on Tuesday after meeting Lebanese President Joseph Aoun in Beirut to discuss plans for the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Briefing local media after the meeting, Barrack, who is of Lebanese descent, chided reporters for shouting out questions all at once, and appeared to draw a link between their behaviour and conflict in the Middle East.

“We’re going to have a different set of rules… please be quiet for a moment,” Barrack said.

“And I want to tell you something, the moment this starts becoming chaotic, like animalistic, we’re gone. So, you want to know what’s happening? Act civilised, act kind, act tolerant, because this is the problem with what is happening in the region.”

“In cadence with your kindness, your interest and your thoughtful questions, we’ll give you responses,” Barrack added. “If that’s not how you’d like to operate, we’re gone.”

Barrack’s remarks prompted a swift backlash in Lebanon and farther afield, with commentators accusing the diplomat of displaying arrogance and a colonial mentality.

The Lebanese Presidency expressed regret over the comments, saying in a statement on X that the government has “full appreciation for all journalists” and “extends to them its highest regards for their efforts and dedication in fulfilling their professional and national duties”.

The Union of Journalists in Lebanon called on Lebanese and Arab media outlets to boycott future events involving the envoy until he issues a formal public apology.

“The union considers Barrack’s comments against journalists not as a mere slip of the tongue or an individual stance, but rather as a reflection of an unacceptable superiority in dealing with the media and an implicit disdain for the essence of journalistic work,” the media union said in a statement.

“Furthermore, the content of his remarks reflects ingrained colonial arrogance towards the peoples of the region and constitutes a blatant violation of basic diplomatic etiquette and the values that diplomacy should represent – chief among them respect for press freedom and the people’s right to knowledge.”

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Mohamad Hasan Sweidan, a Beirut-based columnist at The Cradle, said Barrack’s comments reflected Washington’s attitude towards the region.

“Today, Tom Barrack is reminding us how they view people of the region by defining their actions as animalistic,” Sweidan said.

The US Department of State did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

WASHINGTON — Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s imprisoned former girlfriend and accomplice, repeatedly denied in her interview with the Justice Department having witnessed any sexually inappropriate interactions with Donald Trump, according to records released Friday meant to distance the president from the sex-trafficking case.

The Trump administration issued transcripts from interviews that Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche conducted with Maxwell last month as the administration was scrambling to present itself as transparent amid a fierce backlash over its refusal to disclose a trove of records from the case.

The records show Maxwell repeatedly showering Trump with praise and denying under questioning from Blanche that she had observed Trump engaged in any form of sexual behavior. The administration was presumably eager to make such denials public at a time when Trump has faced questions about his former longtime friendship with Epstein and as his administration has endured continued scrutiny over its handling of evidence from the case.

The transcript release represents the latest Trump administration effort to repair self-inflicted political wounds after failing to deliver on expectations that its own officials had created through conspiracy theories and bold pronouncements that never came to pass. By making public two days’ worth of interviews, officials appear to be hoping to at least temporarily keep at bay sustained anger from Trump’s base as they send Congress evidence they had previously kept from view.

After her interview with Blanche, Maxwell was moved from the low-security federal prison in Florida to a minimum-security prison camp in Texas to continue serving a 20-year sentence for her 2021 conviction for luring underage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein.

Her trial featured sordid accounts of the sexual exploitation of girls as young as 14 told by four women who described being abused as teens in the 1990s and early 2000s at Epstein’s homes.

She was convicted of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts, sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor.

Victims of Epstein and Maxwell and victims’ family members, among others, have expressed outrage at her prison relocation and the Trump administration’s handling of the case.

Neither Maxwell’s lawyers nor the federal Bureau of Prisons has explained the reason for the move, but one of her lawyers, David Oscar Markus, said in a social media post Friday that Maxwell was “innocent and never should have been tried, much less convicted.”

Maxwell is widely believed to be seeking a presidential pardon, which Trump has not ruled out.

‘Never inappropriate’

“I actually never saw the president in any type of massage setting,” Maxwell said, according to the transcript. “I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way. The president was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects.”

Maxwell recalled knowing about Trump and possibly meeting him for the first time in 1990, when her newspaper magnate father, Robert Maxwell, was the owner of the New York Daily News. She said she had been to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., sometimes alone, but hadn’t seen Trump since the mid-2000s.

Asked if she ever heard Epstein or anyone else say Trump “had done anything inappropriate with masseuses” or anyone else in their orbit, Maxwell replied, “Absolutely never, in any context.”

Maxwell was interviewed over the course of two days last month by Blanche — one of Trump’s personal lawyers before joining the Justice Department — at a Florida courthouse. She was given limited immunity, allowing her to speak freely without fear of prosecution for anything she said except in the event of a false statement.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department on Friday began sending to the House Oversight Committee records from the investigation that the panel says it intends to make public after removing victims’ information.

The case had long captured public attention in part because of Epstein’s social connections over the years to prominent figures, including Britain’s Prince Andrew, former President Clinton and Trump, who has said he had a falling-out with Epstein years ago and well before the financier came under investigation.

Maxwell told Blanche that Clinton was initially her friend, not Epstein’s, and that she never saw him receive a massage — nor did she believe he ever did. The only times they were together, she said, were the two dozen or so times they traveled on Epstein’s plane.

“That would’ve been the only time that I think that President Clinton could have even received a massage,” Maxwell said. “And he didn’t, because I was there.”

She also spoke glowingly of Britain’s Prince Andrew and dismissed as “rubbish” the late Virginia Giuffre’s claim that she was paid to have a relationship with Andrew and that he had sex with her at Maxwell’s London home.

Maxwell sought to distance herself from Epstein’s conduct, repeatedly denying allegations made during her trial about her role. Though she acknowledged that at one point Epstein began preferring younger women, she claimed she never understood that to “encompass children.” Prosecutors presented evidence at trial showing she and Epstein both knew some victims were underage.

“I did see from when I met him, he was involved, or — involved or friends with or whatever, however you want to characterize it — with women who were in their 20s,” she told Blanche. “And then the slide to, you know, 18 or younger looking women. But I never considered that this would encompass criminal behavior.”

Epstein was arrested in 2019 on sex-trafficking charges, accused of sexually abusing dozens of teenage girls, and was found dead a month later in a New York jail cell in what investigators determined was suicide.

A story that’s consumed the Justice Department

The saga has consumed the Trump administration following a two-page announcement from the FBI and Justice Department last month that Epstein had killed himself despite conspiracy theories to the contrary, that a “client list” that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi had intimated was on her desk did not actually exist, and that no additional documents from the high-profile investigation were suitable to be released.

The announcement produced outrage from conspiracy theorists, online sleuths and Trump supporters who had been hoping to see proof of a government cover-up during previous administrations. That expectation was driven in part by comments from officials, including FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, who on podcasts before taking their current positions had repeatedly promoted the idea that damaging details about prominent people were being withheld.

Patel, for instance, said in at least one podcast interview before becoming director that Epstein’s “black book” was under the “direct control of the director of the FBI.”

The administration made a stumble in February when far-right influencers were invited to the White House in February and provided by Bondi with binders marked “The Epstein Files: Phase 1” and “Declassified” that contained documents that had largely already been in the public domain.

After the first release fell flat, Bondi said officials were poring over a “truckload” of previously withheld evidence she said had been handed over by the FBI and raised expectations of forthcoming releases.

But after a weeks-long review of evidence in the government’s possession, the Justice Department determined that no “further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” The department noted that much of the material was placed under seal by a court to protect victims and “only a fraction” of it “would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial.”

Faced with fury from his base, Trump sought to quickly turn the page, shutting down questioning of Bondi about Epstein at a White House Cabinet meeting and deriding as “weaklings” his own supporters who he said were falling for the “Jeffrey Epstein hoax.”

The Justice Department has responded to a subpoena from House lawmakers by pledging to turn over information.

Tucker, Sisak and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writer Adriana Gomez Licon contributed to this report.

Chaotic footage was captured Saturday night at Rose Bowl Stadium of a man brutally beating a woman in the stands during a Rüfüs Du Sol concert. Other concertgoers expressed shock over the incident, and some attendees said they were concerned about crowd control and safety measures at the sold-out show.

The video, shared by festival news platform Festive Owl, shows a man knocking a woman to the ground and repeatedly throwing punches at her while other attendees try to pull him back.

“This man punched me in the face, knocking me out and causing significant bleeding, while he continued attacking our group,” the woman wrote in a message shared by Festive Owl. She is asking for the public’s help in identifying the man after the attack, which took place in Section 12-H, Row 20 at the venue.

The victim said the man became agitated after a drink was accidentally spilled on him. According to the woman, he then yelled that the spill was intentional and stormed off before returning 30 minutes later screaming and threatening violence.

“I tried to calm the situation and apologized again — and the next thing I remember I woke up in a medical tent an hour later and missed the entire show,” the woman wrote.

The Australian electronic music trio said in a statement shared on social media Monday night that they were heartbroken to hear about the act of violence that took place during the opening act of their show. They encouraged anyone with information on the incident to contact the Pasadena Police Department.

“This type of behavior is completely unacceptable anywhere and the fact that this happened at one of our shows was devastating to hear about,” the group wrote. “Local law enforcement is actively investigating the situation.”

The concert organizers were criticized on social media, with fans complaining about long lines, the packed venue and poor crowd control, with some citing fears that it could have turned into a tragedy similar to the fatal crowd crush at 2021 Astroworld.

“It was honestly out of control. It was a circus. It was not safe, and I’m very angry,” a concertgoer identified as Derek told NBC4 News.

Christina Molina told KTLA News that the venue was so packed people were watching the show from the walkway.

“I literally had people pressed up against my back, all of them blocking that entire walkway,” she told the station. “Crowd control was nonexistent.”

A WOMAN who performed a sex act on a female pal in front of horrified children on the school run has avoided jail.

Sarah Crawford, 39, had been drinking all night at a party when she got frisky with 42-year-old Rosalind Fitzgerald.

4

4

The pair were seen engaging in a sex act together near the doorway of a shop in Gateshead at 8.40am as children made their way to school.

A shocked bystander called police and the pair were arrested following the incident on December 11.

Crawford pleaded guilty to outraging public decency, a public order offence, criminal damage and assaulting a police officer.

The other charges came after she chucked items from a shop in the street in June following an outburst.

When she was taken to a police cell, Crawford “defecated” inside it.

She avoided jail for the offences and was instead handed a four month sentence, suspended for 12 months.

Fitzgerald, who also admitted outraging public decency, was previously handed a 12-month community order and fined £120.

Peterlee Magistrates’ Court heard police received reports that Crawford and Fitzgerald were “engaging in sexual activity”.

Chike Anieto, prosecuting, said: “Children were present in the area.

“The defendant then proceeded to urinate. Following this incident police attended and arrested the defendant.

“There were extensive calls to police by other members of the public about what was going on in the area.”

Crawford then landed herself in trouble in June when she hurled items at police and threatened to “raze every shop in Durham”.

She also kicked an officer in the knee, before she was eventually hauled to the police station. 

When she was taken to a police cell, she “defecated” inside it, causing criminal damage worth £64.

Crawford previously told magistrates she does not want to drink alcohol, added: “I no longer want that life anymore”.

She was also said to be “embarrassed and sorry” for her offending.

As well as a suspended sentence, Crawford was handed 25 rehabilitation activity days, which must be completed in six months and given a fine.

4

4

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL said: “Courage is rightly regarded as the foremost of the virtues, for upon it all the others depend.”

The truth of those words is highlighted by the heroics of RAF Flight Lieutenant John Cruickshank, who has died at the age 105.

5

5

5

It was 81 years ago that he performed an extraordinary act of sustained bravery, as he defied the agony of multiple severe injuries to bring home his badly damaged plane after a lethal encounter with a U-boat off the coast of Norway.

For this deed he was awarded the Victoria Cross.

He was one of four Coastal Command airmen to receive this award, but his case was unique.

The other three had died in action and were honoured posthumously.

He had survived but it was a mighty close-run thing.

It was appropriate that this Scotsman of rock-hard resilience should hail from Aberdeen, long known as “the Granite City”.

He had left school in 1938 to become an apprentice in banking.

But the drumbeat of war was echoing across Europe so he volunteered for the Territorial Army, enlisting in the Royal Artillery.

Called up for service with this regiment in 1939, he transferred to the RAF two years later then went through initial flight instruction in Canada and the US.

Back in Britain, having won his wings as a pilot, he continued his training until March 1943 when he was assigned to 210 Squadron in Coastal Command, based at Sullom Voe in the Shetland Islands.

Man of modesty

His squadron’s main duty was to protect Allied ships from U-boats and they were equipped with the rugged and reliable American-built twin-engine Catalina flying boat.

It was on July 17, 1944, soon after D-Day, that the incident occurred which lifted John Cruickshank into the record book, but almost killed him.

He was piloting an anti- submarine patrol off Norway when his radio operator John Appleton picked up a blip on the Catalina’s equipment.

John began to home in on the target, whose status as a U-boat was confirmed by fire from its 37 mm gun.

Appleton wrote in his memoir: “The skipper manoeuvred into a perfect attacking position astern of the submarine, just out of range of the enemy gunfire. He gave a blast on the klaxon and started the attack run-in from about two miles.”

As the plane got closer, flak from the U-boat intensified and was reinforced as its two pairs of 20mm cannon opened up.

The skipper manoeuvred into a perfect attacking position astern of the submarine, just out of range of the enemy gunfire. He gave a blast on the klaxon and started the attack run-in from about two miles

John Appleton

John flew on and appeared to have released the depth charges at the right moment.

But the bombs had hung up, so he then took the plane out of range of the U-boat, while his crew rearmed their own guns and checked the bomb-release mechanism.

“Everyone ready! Here we go again,” said John over the intercom.

Of the second attack, Appleton recalled: “This time all the flak was bursting much closer to us and I was surprised at how thick it could be.

“We seemed to be flying into a wall of black explosions.”

But again, John descended upon the target without hesitation.

5

5

This time the depth charges hit their target with deadly accuracy. Seconds later, the U-boat began to sink. None of the 52 men on board had a chance of survival.

But by now John’s plane, caught by more enemy fire, was in serious trouble.

Flames and smoke began to fill the aircraft. The radar was wrecked and the nose canopy shattered.

One crewman was dead and four others were badly wounded, including John, who had been hit in his chest and legs and was bleeding heavily.

But all was not lost. With the use of extinguishers, some of the uninjured crewmen put out the fire.

As the co-pilot took over the controls, John was carried to the back of the plane.

Throughout, he set an example of determination, fortitude and devotion to duty in keeping with the highest traditions of the service

Citation from Victoria Cross ceremony

Lapsing in and out of consciousness, he was in tremendous pain but refused any morphine from the emergency safety kit because he wanted to keep alert so he could help bring the Catalina boat plane home to Sullom Voe.

With almost superhuman fortitude, he returned to the cockpit to oversee the final descent just as dawn was breaking.

After landing successfully on the water, he ran the shattered plane on to the beach.

He had to be given an emergency blood transfusion before being taken to Lerwick Hospital, where he was found to have suffered 72 wounds.

Yet, by September, he was fit enough to receive the Victoria Cross from King George VI in Edinburgh, the first time Holyrood House had been used for an investiture since the reign of Queen Victoria.

His citation read: “Throughout, he set an example of determination, fortitude and devotion to duty in keeping with the highest traditions of the service.”

From a generation that never sought the spotlight

Barney Crockett

But he was a man of profound modesty who hated talking about his exploits.

Even at his investiture, he crept out of a side door afterwards to avoid the attention of the press and public.

In the same vein, when he had regained consciousness in the stricken Catalina, the first thing he said was: “How are my crew?”

Though he had recuperated imp-ressively in hospital, the legacy of his injuries was too severe to allow him to return to flying duties, so for the rest of the war he held a staff job at Coastal Command HQ.

Later, on demobilisation at the end of the war, he resumed his career in banking, eventually working in international finance before he retired in 1977.

Happily married, he lost his beloved wife Marion in 1985.

In his final years, in sheltered accommodation, he disliked any fuss, whether about his VC or his birthdays.

Barney Crockett, the former Lord Provost of his native Aberdeen, once said John was “from a generation that never sought the spotlight”.

But it was also the generation that saved the world from tyranny.