act

WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficits caused by President Trump’s tax and spending law could trigger automatic cuts to Medicare if Congress does not act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Friday.

The CBO estimates that Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans over age 65, could potentially see as much as $491 billion in cuts from 2027 to 2034 if Congress does not act to mitigate a 2010 law that forces across-the-board cuts to many federal programs once legislation increases the federal deficit. The latest report from CBO showed how Trump’s signature tax and spending law could put new pressure on federal programs that are bedrocks of the American social safety net.

Trump and Republicans pledged not to cut Medicare as part of the legislation, but the estimated $3.4 trillion that the law adds to the federal deficit over the next decade means that many Medicare programs could see cuts. In the past, Congress has always acted to mitigate cuts to Medicare and other programs, but it would take some bipartisan cooperation to do so.

Democrats, who requested the analysis from CBO, jumped on the potential cuts.

“Republicans knew their tax breaks for billionaires would force over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts — and they did it anyway,” Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement. “American families simply cannot afford Donald Trump’s attacks on Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.”

Hospitals in rural parts of the country are already grappling with cuts to Medicaid, which is available to people with low incomes, and cuts to Medicare could exacerbate their shortfalls.

As Republicans muscled the bill through Congress and are now selling it to voters back home, they have been critical of how the CBO has analyzed the bill. They have also argued that the tax cuts will spur economic growth and pointed to $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals that was included in the package.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Hugo Ekitike was Liverpool’s headline act on a night of pure theatre at Anfield which was high on emotion and rich in thrilling drama, but was also played out under the shadow of allegations of racist abuse.

Ekitike might face a future fight for his place only weeks after making a £70m from Eintracht Frankfurt, with Newcastle United rebel Alexander Isak still on Liverpool’s agenda – but he stated his case eloquently with a superb individual display that made him an instant hero on The Kop.

Liverpool’s 4-2 win, secured with late goals from Federico Chiesa and Mohamed Salah, was packed with sub-plots – not all of them good. Indeed, the scoreline barely touches the sides of a chaotic night.

It all started with emotional tributes to Diogo Jota, the Liverpool striker killed in a car crash in July, along with his brother Andre Silva.

The Kop was adorned with banners paying tribute to Jota, including one for his family reading: ‘Anfield will always be your home. You’ll Never Walk Alone’ before a minute’s silence.

Jota was remembered in song throughout, with a rousing minute of applause after 20 minutes for the beloved striker who wore the number 20 shirt.

It was a night when Liverpool’s expensive transition was on display, with four Premier League newcomers including Ekitike and Florian Wirtz, as well as full-back pair Jeremie Frimpong and Milos Kerkez.

The scale of change is illustrated by the fact that, excluding the inaugural 1992-93 season, Liverpool are the first reigning champions to name as many as four Premier League debutants in their opening-day starting line-up.

Ekitike was the best of that quartet by a distance, throwing up a conundrum about how head coach Arne Slot will adapt should Liverpool return to Tyneside with a bid closer to the striker Newcastle rate at £150m.

Slot has barely used a strike pairing since he arrived at Liverpool, so it would be a change of gear to combine Ekitike and Isak should the latter arrive.

It may not quite beg the question of whether Liverpool actually need to make such a lavish outlay on another striker, but it will give Slot a conundrum to solve.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A failed political candidate was sentenced to 80 years in federal prison Wednesday for his convictions in a series of drive-by shootings at the homes of state and local lawmakers in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

A jury convicted former Republican candidate Solomon Peña earlier this year of conspiracy, weapons and other charges in the shootings in December 2022 and January 2023 on the homes of four Democratic officials in Albuquerque, including the current state House speaker.

Prosecutors, who had sought a 90-year sentence, said Peña has shown no remorse and had hoped to cause political change by terrorizing people who held contrary views to him into being too afraid to take part in political life.

Peña’s lawyers had sought a 60-year sentence, saying their client maintains that he is innocent of the charges. They have said Peña was not involved in the shootings and that prosecutors were relying on the testimony of two men who bear responsibility and accepted plea agreements in exchange for leniency.

“Today was a necessary step toward Mr. Peña’s continued fight to prove his innocence,” said Nicholas Hart, one of Peña’s attorneys. “He looks forward to the opportunity to appeal, where serious issues about the propriety of this prosecution will be addressed.”

The attacks took place as threats and acts of intimidation against election workers and public officials surged across the country after President Donald Trump and his allies called into question the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Prosecutors said Peña resorted to violence in the belief that a “rigged” election had robbed him of victory in his bid to serve in the state Legislature.

The shootings targeted the homes of officials including two county commissioners after their certification of the 2022 election, in which Peña lost by nearly 50 percentage points. No one was injured, but in one case bullets passed through the bedroom of a state senator’s 10-year-old daughter.

Two other men who had acknowledged helping Peña with the attacks had previously pleaded guilty to federal charges and received yearslong prison sentences.

Glacier National Park, Mont. — JOHAN looked up. Jenna was running toward him. She had yelled something, he wasn’t sure what. Then he saw it. The open mouth, the tongue, the teeth, the flattened ears. Jenna ran right past him, and it struck him — a flash of fur, two jumps, 400 pounds of lightning.

It was a grizzly, and it had him by his left thigh. His mind started racing — to Jenna, to the trip, to fighting, to escaping. The bear jerked him back and forth like a rag doll, but he remembered no pain, just disbelief. It bit into him again and again, its jaw like a sharp vise stopping at nothing until teeth hit bone. Then came the claws, rising like shiny knife blades, long and stark.

Classic stories from the Los Angeles Times’ 143-year archive

Johan and Jenna had been on the trail little more than an hour. They had just followed a series of switchbacks above Grinnell Lake and were on a narrow ledge cut into a cliff. It was an easy ascent, rocky and just slightly muddy from yesterday’s rain.

Johan took some pictures. Jenna pushed ahead. It was one of the most spectacular hikes they’d taken on this trip, a father-daughter getaway to celebrate her graduation from high school. There were some steps, a small outcropping, a blind turn, and there it was, the worst possibility: a surprised bear with two yearling cubs.

The bear kept pounding into him. He had to break away. To his right was the wall of the mountain, to his left a sheer drop. Slightly behind him, however, and 20 feet below the trail, a thimbleberry and alder patch grew on a small slope jutting from the cliff. As a boy growing up in Holland, Johan had roughhoused with his brother and had fallen into bushes. He knew it would hurt, but at least it wouldn’t kill him.

So like a linebacker hurtling for a tackle, he dived for that thimbleberry patch. The landing rattled him, but he was OK. His right eye was bleeding, but he didn’t have time to think about that. Jenna was now alone with the bear.

She had reached down to pick up the bear spray. The small red canister had fallen out of the side pocket of his day pack, and there it was, on the ground. But she couldn’t remove the safety clip, and the bear was coming at her again. She screamed.

“Jenna, come down here,” he yelled.

She never heard him. She was falling, arms and legs striking the rocky cliff, then nothing for seconds before she landed hard.

The bear did hear him, however. It looked over the cliff and pounced. Johan had never seen anything move so fast in his life. He tucked into a fetal position. The bear fell upon him, clawing and biting at his back. His day pack protected him, and his mind started racing again.

His daughter didn’t have a pack. He always carried the water and snacks. If the bear got to her, it’d tear her apart.

He turned, swung to his right and let himself go. Only this time there wasn’t a thimbleberry patch to break his fall. It was a straight drop to where Jenna had landed, and instead of taking the bear away from her, as he had hoped, he was taking the bear to her.

JOHAN Otter lived with his wife, Marilyn, and their two teenage daughters in a two-story home in a semirural neighborhood of Escondido, Calif. He worked as an administrator at Scripps Memorial Hospital in La Jolla. He ran in marathons and bred exotic birds. He knew the love of his family, success at his job, good health. At 43, he had dreams of a long and happy life. But dreams are often upended. Johan knew this, and whenever possible, he tried to distance himself and his family from risk.

It was Aug. 25, 2005. Seven days earlier, Johan and Jenna had packed up the family pickup truck and driven north through Nevada and Utah. In September, she would begin her freshman year at UC Irvine. Hiking was their special bond. He was a runner, she was a dancer; they both were in good shape for the trail, and it wasn’t unusual for Marilyn and Stephanie, their younger daughter, to stay home.

Johan Otter, top photo at Logan Pass in Glacier National Park on Aug. 24, 2005. A day hike that he and his daugther Jenna took. “My last day with hair,” Otter said. Bottom photo shows Jenna Otter in of the last photos taken by Johan Otter before being attacked by a Grizzly bear on the Grinnell Glacier Trail in Glacier National Park, Montana.

(Jenna Otter)

Johan and Jenna checked into a motor lodge on the east side of Glacier. Johan was eager to experience the wildness of the park, and the first night he did. A black bear, just outside the lodge.

For millenniums, bears have lurked on the periphery of everyday life, dark shadows just beyond the firelight. On this continent, they have been our respected competition and greatest threat. Even though close encounters with bears, especially grizzlies, are rare, they trigger a conditioned response, a reflex of fear and flight that is seldom called upon in modern life. Sometimes we get away. Sometimes we can’t.

But most of all, bears inspire a deep fascination. Johan remembered how, as a boy, he would go with his family on vacations to Norway and how his parents, his brother and he had always wanted to see a bear. The curiosity never left him. Three years ago, during a trip to Canada with the family, he and Stephanie saw a cub. Marilyn and Jenna stayed back.

On this trip to Glacier, they had an ambitious hiking schedule, and they were disappointed when it rained their first full day. They contented themselves with driving to various sights. The next day was beautiful. The sun cut through scattered, misting clouds. Johan was eager to get out on the trail before anyone else. It was 7:30 a.m.

The path wound through a lush carpet of thimbleberry, beargrass and lilies growing beneath a mix of Engelmann spruce and Scotch pine. They skirted Lake Josephine, and in less than an hour, Johan and Jenna were above the tree line. Surrounding peaks were lightly dusted with snow. At one point Johan spotted a golden eagle trying to catch a thermal. They talked loudly, just as you’re supposed to do in bear country. Jenna was trying to figure out how she could be both a dancer and a doctor. He wondered if he’d be able to qualify for the Boston Marathon.

As they made their way along the southern flank of Mt. Grinnell, a glacier-carved cliff that rises nearly 3,500 vertical feet from the valley floor, they fell silent, lost in the sounds of the wind and the water, the beauty of the moment. Ahead of them were the Gem and Salamander glaciers. A ribbon of water cascaded into the forest below. A river flowed into the turquoise stillness of Grinnell Lake.

Penstemon, columbines and fireweed bloomed amid the low-lying alder scrub. They passed through Thunderbird Falls, a landmark on the trail where a stream often pours from the cliff above onto a platform of flat stones. Today it was only wet and slippery, but the drop-off was unforgiving.

(Doug Stevens / Los Angeles Times)

TEN minutes past the falls, they ran into the bear. In a matter of minutes, they had all tumbled 30 feet down a rocky V-shaped chute, landing on a ledge beneath the trail. Jenna had scrambled away, and the grizzly was on top of Johan.

The attack had just started, and it had been going on too long. He grabbed the bear by the fur on its throat. The feeling of the coarse hair, as on a dirty dog, was unforgettable, and for a moment the animal just stared at him, two amber-brown eyes, its snout straight in his face. It showed no emotion, no fear, no anger. There were just those eyes looking down at him.

Johan considered fighting. He reached to his left for a rock. A piece of shale, it crumbled in his fist. He tucked his knees to his chest and tried to cover his head.

The bear bit again and again on his right arm. So this is what it feels like to have your flesh torn, he thought, still trying to comprehend the attack. He tussled about, trying to avoid greater injury.

“Aaagh,” he screamed.

Now the bear was tugging on his back. It felt as if someone were jumping up and down on him, and he found himself growing angry. Throw it off the mountain. If only he could throw it off the mountain.

He felt a sharp pressure on the top of his neck and his head. The bear was biting into his skull, chewing into the bone. This could be it, he thought. This could be his death, and his right hand was useless. He could not push the bear away.

If only this were a movie or one of those old episodes of “Bonanza” he used to watch on TV. He’d be a stuntman, and they’d stop shooting any time.

But this was real. He’d die if he didn’t make another move, so he rolled and fell again, sliding 20 feet down the slope to a small ledge and then over that and onto a narrow shelf. Right foot, left foot. He landed on his feet. He was lucky he stopped. He wouldn’t have survived the next long straight drop.

He was silent. The bear stood above him, unable to reach him. It felt good to be left alone. Water flowed down his back. Cold water. He’d fallen into a small stream, runoff from yesterday’s rain.

Jenna heard the bear panting as it came closer to where she lay beneath the branches of a low-lying alder. She felt woozy from her fall. She had a knot on her head. Her back ached, and her ankle was bleeding.

She tried to stay tucked in, but when the bear got close to her face, she had to push it away. It nipped at the right corner of her mouth, at her hair, her right shoulder. Each bite was quick, followed by a slight jostle.

Her screams split the morning silence like an ax.

Source: National Park Service. Graphics reporting by Thomas Curwen

(Thomas Suh Lauder/Los Angeles Times; Photo by Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

JOHAN pressed himself against the mountain. There was no room to sit or lie down. He heard Jenna, but he couldn’t do anything. He would remember the sound as the worst he had ever heard, and then there was nothing. All was still.

He was wet and dirty, soaked with blood and starting to shiver. The attack had lasted at most 15 minutes. He looked at his right arm and saw exposed tendons. His medical training as a physical therapist told him no major nerves or arteries had been cut. They can sew that together, he thought, and that, and that.

Then he touched the top of his head and felt only bone. He stopped exploring. It was enough to know that his scalp had been torn off. His neck hurt. He wondered if something was broken.

He couldn’t see out of his right eye. He reached up. It was full of blood and caked over. Was his eyeball hanging out? No, it was still in place. He carefully parted his eyelids. The sweet turquoise stillness of Grinnell Lake shimmered nearly 1,500 feet below him. He could see. He was relieved.

“Jenna,” he eventually called out.

“Dad.”

She had played dead, and the bear had moved on. She assessed her injuries. A bite on her shoulder as deep as a knuckle. Lower lip torn down to her chin. Hair caked with blood.

Her father’s voice was the best sound she’d ever heard.

“Are you OK?” he asked.

“I’m OK. How are you?”

“I’m bleeding a lot.” He thought of his own injuries and of his daughter’s appearance. “How’s your face? Did it get you?”

“Just my mouth.”

“And your eyes?”

“They’re fine.”

He could tell by the sound of her voice that she was OK. Thank you, God.

He gazed up into the sky above Mt. Gould on the far side of the valley. He thought of the people he knew who were dead. His mother and father. Thank you, Mom, and thank you, Dad, for being an energy that he could draw on. Somehow it made him less afraid.

And thank you, Sophie. She was a patient of his, an 80-year-old woman who had died last year. They had grown close as Johan worked with her. She would complain — I’m going to die, she’d say — and he’d tell her to be quiet. You’re not going to die, Sophie. And to think he nearly had.

And thank you, Steve, his father-in-law, Marilyn’s dad, who had become his own dad in a way.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Then he called back to Jenna. “It got me kind of bad.”

It was the only time he told her how he felt. After that, he turned stoic. No complaining. No despairing. He knew his dad would have reacted the same way. He chalked it up to being Dutch: You take care of yourself and your children. Jenna would do the same.

Together, unprompted, they began to call out.

“Helllp.”

“Helllp.”

GLACIER National Park straddles the Continental Divide. Popularly thought of as North America’s Switzerland, famous for its snowy peaks, alpine meadows, rivers and lakes, the park attracts nearly 2 million visitors each year. On the east side of the park, the Grinnell Glacier Trail is one of the most popular day hikes.

“Helllp.”

Johan knew he couldn’t stand here much longer. He took off his day pack and camcorder. His digital camera was gone, lost in the chaos. He pulled a jacket out of his pack and put the hood over his head. The night before, he’d read a book about bear attacks: how a woman in Alaska had stopped the bleeding of her scalp by covering her head. He also thought it might be easier on Jenna or anyone else who might happen to see him.

He wanted to climb to the ledge above. He didn’t know how he’d carry his pack and camcorder. Then it came to him, what they say on airplanes. Leave your luggage and take care of yourself. It made sense. He clambered and crawled off the narrow shelf and up to the ledge. He felt dizzy, so he sat down.

Johan and Jenna alternated their calls. Jenna had decided to stay where she was. She too was dizzy and uncertain of her injuries. Perched on the side of the mountain, about 75 feet apart, they looked down into the valley. Their cries disappeared in the vast open space. It was windy and cold, and the quiet seemed unreal after the intensity of the attack.

“Helllp.”

Then Jenna called out. “Dad, the boat just got to the dock. I see people getting off.” It was a water taxi that ran a regular service across Lake Josephine.

Johan knew that with the arrival of the boat, hikers would soon be streaming along the trail and their shouts would be heard. He was tired. He stopped yelling and tried not to think about how badly injured he was. Nothing a little surgery can’t fix, he told himself. Besides, he was alive, and his daughter was fine.

Amid the isolation and the cold, he grew sore and stiff and numb. Lying down, sitting up, nothing helped. Forty-five minutes later, he heard Jenna talking with someone. She called to him. “Dad, there are people here now. They’re getting help.”

Still it seemed like forever. Then Johan saw a man cutting through the bushes and sliding down toward him. The man’s eyes were wide open. The expression said everything.

“Are you OK?” the man asked.

“Do you see a camera?” Johan replied.

Jim Knapp was surprised by the question, but very little was making sense.

Knapp and his wife had started their hike that morning a little past 8, well ahead of the water taxi. After an hour on the trail, they heard what sounded like a coyote or a hawk or some animal being attacked. Then there was more, and it sounded human. They started running. Someone must have fallen or sprained an ankle.

Knapp told Johan he would look for the camera, but his attention was focused on the injured man before him. It was the most gruesome sight he had ever seen.

Blood covered Johan’s face. His arms and legs oozed blood. His voice and sentences were jerky and repetitive. He reminded Knapp of Dustin Hoffman in “Rainman,” and with his sweat shirt pulled up over his head, he looked like Beavis in an episode of “Beavis and Butthead.”

“Jenna’s OK,” Knapp said, as he began to get a sense of Johan’s injuries. He noticed the day pack — but no camera — on the shelf beneath them, and he climbed down to retrieve it. Inside were a sweat shirt and four water bottles. He covered Johan and tried to make him drink. He took off his T-shirt and wrapped it around a deep gash on Johan’s leg. He laid out some nuts and a granola bar and took some water up to Jenna.

Then Johan saw a girl. She was sliding down to him. Her name was Kari.

Kari Schweigert and Heidi Reindl had been car-camping in Glacier. They were just starting on an 11-mile hike when they ran into Jim Knapp’s wife, running down the trail, screaming for help.

Then there were two teenage boys. Johan couldn’t keep track of everyone, but one of the boys — the one who wore a beanie — did get his camera. It was the camcorder, and Johan was glad to see it. He was also glad that people were finally getting there, but he felt bad for them. He knew stumbling upon a bear attack — and finding him as bloody as he was — couldn’t be easy for them. A fall or a sprain, sure, but a bear attack? He tried to tell himself that it would be OK. He tried to console himself. If he and Jenna had not been attacked, then these other hikers would have.

What can we do, everyone asked. How can we help?

The rock at the back of his head felt like it was digging into his skull. He squirmed about. He wanted them to help him sit up, but they didn’t want to. They were worried about his neck.

Then he’d have to do it himself. He simply wanted to sit up, have a drink of water and then maybe lie down again.

But he was fading.

Grinnell Glacier at Glacier National Park

(Ryan Herron/Getty Images/iStockphoto)

VOICES told him that help was on the way, only he was losing interest. He didn’t want to deal with any of this anymore. It was all too much: wondering how they’d get him and Jenna off the mountain; wanting to be cleaned up from the dirt and sticky blood; saddened that their trip was ending this way.

Kari Schweigert sat beside him, talking. Her curly hair was tied back in a ponytail. She was in a tank top; Johan was wearing her jacket. He was shaking and numb with cold.

“How are you doing?” she asked.

“The pain is OK,” he said. “I’d just like to take a nap.”

Then she started to move in closer to him. She knew he was cold. She said she wanted to warm him up. She angled around him and covered his abdomen and chest with her body, her legs off to a side.

“Are you sure about this?” he asked. He didn’t want her to get covered with blood; it would be impossible to wash out.

She couldn’t cover him completely, but she did shield him from the wind. It was a moment he would never forget. How strange, he thought, to be hiking along on this trail one moment, thinking about running in a marathon, and then suddenly not being able to walk, being so dependent upon strangers, and now this girl so close to him, so tender and different from the savagery of the attack.

His mind kept going back to Jenna. Everyone told him that she was not as badly injured as he was. He felt guilty. Why had he wanted to go hiking here? Why wasn’t he a better parent?

Schweigert kept talking to him. She told him not to fall asleep. It made sense. He knew he’d lost a lot of blood, and he knew he was in shock. The wash of voices and movement of people around him, once reassuring, began to blur.

A park ranger and a dozen hikers were on the trail above them. The ranger radioed a report on Johan and Jenna’s status to the ranger station at Many Glacier, where an incident commander was assembling a rescue team.

A few of the hikers peered over the edge.

“Do you need anything?” they yelled.

“More jackets.”

Someone tucked one under Johan’s head.

His neck felt broken.

“WHAT’S your name?”

“Johan Otter.”

“Where are you?”

“Glacier National Park.”

“What time of day is it?”

“Late morning.”

“What happened?”

“Bear attack….”

The name badge said Katie. She wore the green and gray uniform of the park service. She had slid down the slope, balancing a medical kit and a shotgun in her hands, and once she determined that he was alert and oriented, she started dressing his wounds.

Katie Fullerton had pulled into the Many Glacier parking lot expecting just another summer day. Then she heard about the attack. She and another ranger were ordered to get to Johan and Jenna as soon as possible. Since opening in 1910, Glacier National Park has had only 10 bear fatalities, and they were enough.

The incident commander at Many Glacier had put a call out for additional rangers, some stationed on the west side of the park, 70 miles — a two-hour drive — away. A helicopter, chartered from Minuteman Aviation, would ferry those rangers to the site of the attack and would be used to shuttle equipment and personnel up to the mountain.

Whup, whup, whup.

Katie Fullerton looked up. At 9,000 feet, the white chopper had negotiated a U-shaped notch in the Garden Wall, a narrow filigree of stone crowning the Continental Divide. As it drew close, it circled, looking for a place to land. Johan and Jenna Otter could not have fallen in a less accessible place.

Three hours had passed since the attack, and Johan’s metabolism was slowing down. The blast of adrenaline triggered by the attack was long gone; the 15-minute torrent of thought and reaction had dissipated in a miasma of pain, discomfort and boredom. Why was the rescue taking so long?

Crashing mentally and emotionally, he knew he needed to stay warm and awake. Gusts of wind ghosted along the cliff; temperatures shot from warm to freezing as clouds drifted beneath the sun. Hikers on the trail were tossing down energy bars, water and more outerwear. A ranger was talking on the radio.

A second ranger crouched beside Johan. He had arrived with nearly 50 pounds of gear, including a life-support pack with IV fluids, medications and an oxygen tank, and he began cutting away Johan’s jackets and clothing. He introduced himself as Gary, Gary Moses. Johan appreciated his calm and confident manner.

Moses explained that the plan was to place Johan and Jenna on litters, have them lifted up to the trail and then carried down to a landing zone, where the chopper would take them to the Kalispell Regional Medical Center in Kalispell, Mont., in the Flathead Valley on the west side of the park.

Rangers on the trail set up a belaying system. They knew they had to move fast. Moses took Johan’s vitals. His blood pressure was 80 over 30, his pulse 44, his temperature dropping.

Moses prepared an IV line. Johan tried to lie still, but he was shivering uncontrollably. Then he heard something. It was Katie Fullerton; she was crying. The sound startled him at first.

“Do you want to stand down?” Moses asked his fellow ranger.

She shook her head.

Johan was glad. She had worked hard to make him comfortable and safe.

This was her first season as a patrol ranger, her first major trauma. Just last year, she’d been collecting user fees, and she had grown up near the park. She and her family had hiked these trails. This could just as easily have been her father.

Her tears reminded Johan how grave his situation was.

THE helicopter was making a second landing, and all Johan could think was: Hurry up. A second medic had joined Moses and Fullerton.

“How’s Jenna?” It was his steady refrain.

“There’re people with her.”

Moses and the other medic put a C-collar around Johan’s neck and got ready to insert a urinary catheter. Johan reminded them about a scene in “Seinfeld” in which an embarrassed George Costanza is caught naked and complains about “shrinkage.” They burst out laughing, and Johan relaxed a little. This is who he was: not just a bloodied man but someone always there with an easy line, ready to lighten the mood, to give to others.

Moses reassessed the rescue plan. It had taken nearly an hour to find a vein and get the IV started. Carrying Johan out, lifting him to the trail and then down to the helicopter landing zone was going to be too traumatic, and the afternoon was getting on.

He thought a helicopter could lift Johan directly off this ledge, in a rescue known as a short haul. It would be quicker but riskier. Still, he didn’t see any way around it. He radioed in his recommendation. The incident commander agreed. They called in the rescue helicopter operated by the hospital in Kalispell.

As they waited, Johan remembered an Air Force chopper that had crashed during a rescue on Mt. Hood little more than three years earlier. Everything — the foundering, the dipping, the rolling down the slope in a cascade of snow — had been televised on the evening news.

It made him nervous.

“Am I going to die?” Johan asked.

“You’re not going to die up here,” the second medic said.

RED against the blue sky and white clouds, the short-haul helicopter was easier to spot than the Minuteman.

“Hear that?” Gary Moses looked out over the valley. “That’s the sound of your rescue.”

Pilot Ken Justus adjusted the foot pedals and hand controls to bring the Bell 407 closer to the cliff. Travis Willcut, the flight nurse, sat next to him, calling out positions, monitoring radio traffic. Jerry Anderson, a medic, dangled 150 feet beneath them on a rope with a red Bauman Bag and a body board at his waist.

Piloting a helicopter at moments like this is like pedaling an exercise bike on the roof of a two-story building while trying to dangle a hot dog into the mouth of a jar on the ground. Lying on his back, Johan watched.

The IV had kicked in. Though stiff and still cold, he was wide awake and in no pain. Anticipation was everything, and he remembered feeling a little afraid. He hated roller coasters and worried about his stomach.

“You’ll have the best view of your life,” Moses said, hiding his worry. He knew getting Anderson in would be tricky. Because helicopters can’t cast sharply defined shadows on steep terrain, pilots flying short-haul missions have trouble judging closing speeds and distances.

Johan Otter is airlifted from the Grinnell Glacier Trail with medic Jerry Anderson, after being attacked by a grizzly bear and her two cubs in Glacier National Park, Montana on August 25, 2005. Johan tumbled down a steep chute about 75 feet where he almost died.

(Heidi Reindl)

Anderson, dangling at the end of the rope, had a radio in his helmet. He was using it to direct Justus lower and closer to Johan. Abruptly, the radio died.

“I’m at your 11 o’clock position, a mile out,” Moses broke in with his radio, once he understood the problem. “Half mile, 12 o’clock.”

“Do I need to come up or down?”

“Up about 10 feet.”

Then just as Justus got closer, he caught Anderson’s shadow on the ledge and set him down about 20 feet to the right of Johan. The other rangers shielded Johan from the rotor wash and dust.

Anderson unhooked himself. Justus moved the helicopter away. With the rangers’ help, Anderson slid the body board beneath Johan and strapped the Bauman Bag around him. He waved Justus back in.

“We’re ready to lift.”

“Roger, ready to lift.”

Johan couldn’t tell when he was off the ground. Dangling with Anderson beside him, 150 feet beneath the helicopter, all Johan would see was Anderson’s face, the blue sky and the belly of the chopper. The wind whistled around him.

“Woo hoo!” The hikers and rangers on the mountain started cheering and clapping.

With Johan and Anderson still beneath him, Justus accelerated down the valley to the helipad at Many Glacier. A waiting crowd was asked not to take pictures. Johan was transferred into an ambulance while Justus went back to pick up Jenna. Finally Johan was out of the wind and in a warm place.

Then he heard the news.

“Jenna is here,” someone said.

“Hi, sweetie,” he called out as they prepared to fly him to the medical center in Kalispell. With his head wrapped in bandages, mummy slits for his eyes and the C-collar on his neck, Johan couldn’t see her. “Make sure when they call Mom that you talk to her.”

He knew he wouldn’t be the one making that call.

“Otherwise she’ll totally freak out,” he said.

About this article

The accounts in this article are drawn from interviews over a span of 18 months with Johan, Marilyn and Jenna Otter. Additional interviews were conducted with the following individuals:

National Park Service: Jan Cauthorn-Page, Katie Fullerton, Rachel Jenkins, Kathy Krisko, Gary Moses, Rick Mulligan, Melissa Wilson, Amy Vanderbilt and Andrew Winslow.

Hikers on the Grinnell Trail: Julie Aitchison, Colin Aitchison, Kathleen MacDonald, Jim Knapp, Marla Moore, Robin Malone and Heidi Reindl.

Minuteman Aviation: Jerry Mamuzich.

Kalispell Regional Medical Center’s Advanced Life Support and Emergency Rescue Team (ALERT helicopter): Jerry Anderson, Addison Clark, Ken Justus, Travis Willcut, Patricia Harmon and Keith Hannon.

Additional reporting came from the National Park Service’s investigation report concerning the attack.

Sam Faiers and Billie Shepherd have reunited to star in a new ITV2 series titled Sam and Billie: Sister Act – and the first trailer has been released

A sneak peek at Samantha Faiers and Billie Shepherd’s new ITV2 reality show has been released.

The sisters have teamed up once again for a new venture titled Sam and Billie: Sister Act, four years after their shared series The Mummy Diaries concluded in 2021.

Sam and Billie are embarking on the next phase of their lives as they take on the world together.

Now that the children are a bit older, it’s time for them to concentrate more on themselves and enjoy some sisterly downtime, all while juggling motherhood, their careers and life in the spotlight.

As the girls set off on joint journeys of self-discovery, they delve deeper into their lives, grapple with health concerns and confront some startling truths, but as always, they pull through it together with plenty of love and laughter as they continue to create lifelong memories, reports OK!.

In a tribute to sisterhood and with a bond that’s stronger than ever, Sam and Billie open up like never before.

From emotional heart-to-hearts and healing past wounds to marking milestones and dealing with life’s unexpected twists and turns, the sisters unite to experience the glamorous highs and humbling lows.

With numerous trips abroad, glitzy events and family life back home, this series offers an all-access pass.

The Mummy Diaries began as a one-off special in 2018 when Sam announced she was expecting her first child, Paul, with her partner Paul Knightley.

The programme was later given the green light for a full series, before being rebranded as Sam and Billie: The Mummy Diaries for the third series to highlight Billie’s family’s increased participation.

In 2021, it was recently revealed that Sam was stepping back from reality TV and would no longer feature on the popular ITVBe show with her partner Paul and their children.

The format subsequently shifted, with Billie and her husband Greg Shepherd taking centre stage alongside their children Nelly and Arthur.

Sam & Billie: Sister Act kicks off on August 19 at 9pm on ITV2 and ITVX

THIS is officially Love Island’s sauciest season for nearly a decade, with crew forced to take action on behalf of frisky cast.

It comes after Islanders coined a new term for one sex act based on footballer Andy Carroll.

7

7

7

For the first time since 2016, production took the step of ordering in more condoms to ensure there was protection available.

They took action after it became apparent this year’s cast were keen to get hands on.

A source said: “It’s been a long while since there’s been as much action in the bedroom as this year.

“When Harry and Helena went into the Hideaway just 56 hours into the series it set the ball rolling and it’s been a particularly feral year.

“There’s been duvet tents most nights.

“Obviously duty of care is paramount so producers stocked up on condoms to ensure there were enough for the run.”

Viewers were shocked when the ITV2 dating show aired scenes of randy Harrison Solomon asking Harry Cookseley, who slept in the next bed, to pass him a condom in the middle of the night.

Harrison slept with Lauren Wood twice before she lost her place in a vote and he followed her out.

But others have gone all the way too, including girlfriend and boyfriend Meg Moore and Dejon Williams.

As part of their duty of care process, ITV are careful what they air and usually wait for the Islanders to consent to sex scenes being screened.

The girls admitted to performing “Handy Carolls” on their boys, though, in cheeky new terminology.

But ex-Islander Mitch Taylor told the Sun he was put off going all the way in the villa during his 2023 series because of show procedure.

He said: “Even if you shuffled about it in bed a bit, you’d go to the beach hut the next day and production are going ‘did you wear a condom?’

“It’s like instant production c*ckblock for me, the next day production asking 21 questions.

“That killed it for me to be honest.”

Fans have always considered Love Island’s 2016 series its sauciest year, when Alex Bowen and now wife Olivia plus Zara Holland, Terry Walsh and Emma Jane Woodhams set the screen alight.

7

7

7

7

A lunatic. An idiot. A person of unsound mind. 

These three phrases were used in The Nigerian Lunacy Ordinance of 1916, later modified into The Lunacy Act of 1958, to describe people battling mental disorders. Beyond these descriptors, the act stated that individuals with mental illness could be confined in asylums based on the judgment of a magistrate, medical officer, or family member, regardless of their consent to such confinement.

The legislation was inherited law from the colonial masters, copying the cultural norms of the United Kingdom’s mental health affairs of the 1900s. However, with criticisms from institutions like Cambridge, which argued that the act “hampered the progress of the mental health movement for nearly 70 years”, the UK came up with the 1959 Mental Health Act, officially repealing the old law. They described their new act as “a fresh provision with respect to the treatment and care of mentally disordered persons”. Among other changes, stigmatising words such as “lunatic” and “asylum” were replaced with terms like “mental disorder” and “patient”, giving mentally afflicted people the choice to seek help for themselves. 

Nigeria, however, had other ideas.

While the UK took this step in a new direction, Nigeria steadfastly held on to the 1958 Lunacy Act, and for decades, the country would show no signs of amending it. 

The urge for change went on for years, with judicial officers like the Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Olufunmilayo Atilade, asking for a reform of the Lunacy Act at a Bench and Bar Forum in 2016. She criticised the state of the Lunacy Act, explaining that the laws remained grossly inadequate and hopeless in dealing with the situation in Nigeria.

The Lancet Global Health journal also regarded the act in 2020 as “reflective of a period in human history not only when mental health was severely misunderstood but also when the treatment of people with mental health care needs was both inhumane and ineffective.”

Even mental health advocacy groups lent their voice to the fight. In 2021, the Mentally Aware Nigeria Initiative (MANI) hosted an X space, speaking out against the act and urging the legislative arm to repeal and replace it with something more humanising. Some Nigerian psychiatrists also lent their voice to the matter, with the President of the Association of Psychiatrists in Nigeria, Taiwo Lateef, explaining in 2019 that the Lunacy Act was inadequate, failed to define a mental disorder, and that it stemmed from a time when there were no treatments for mental illnesses.

For a long time, there was a desperate call for change, and after 65 years, Nigerian leaders finally listened to these pleas. In 2021, the National Mental Health Act was introduced, and it was officially signed into law on January 5, 2023. After years of waiting for reform, people began to see the changes in national mental health they had long requested. The Act was lauded, with people praising the government for enacting it. Mental health practitioners like Alabede Surajdeen also termed it “a cheering and good development”.

With five parts and 56 actionable sections, the long-awaited 2021 Mental Health Act swore to bring a monumental number of changes that, when implemented, would leave the mental health landscape in Nigeria forever altered. 

The Act promised a Department of Mental Health Services to truly focus on mentally disordered persons and a Mental Health Fund to ensure frequent financing. It guaranteed patients the freedom to consent to whatever was done to them and ordered mental health to be integrated into everyday clinics. It also proposed the formation of an independent Mental Health Assessment Committee to prevent abuses.

Despite its promises, most of the 56 sections of the act have not been implemented. The most glaring absence is the lack of a Department of Mental Health Services, as every other law governing mental health care in Nigeria is meant to flow through this system. 

The National Library of Medicine, a scientific medical journal, analysed the Act in 2024. It explained that the Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) was supposed to establish a Department of Mental Health Services. However, as of 2025, the FMoH has not provided any updates on when this department will be created, and there is no mention of such a department on their website. Basic rights promised, like legal protection from discrimination and the choice to deny treatment, remain unenforced.

While the Act mandated affordable and accessible mental health care, the price and accessibility of therapy seems too high and limited for the average Nigerian. It also promised the integration of mental health services into primary healthcare, but most mental health units remain buried within public health departments.

This has led to many state leaders lacking the needed direction to implement the Act on a state level.  As a result, out of Nigeria’s 36 states, only three have recognised the Act, and only two states – Lagos and Ekiti – have successfully adopted it into their local legislation. Inadequate budgetary allocation for mental health, among other factors, explains why this lack of implementation persists.

In 2021, a study showed that Nigeria did not have a mental health budget. All the funding received for mental health situations was pegged at between three and four per cent of the total health budget, with 90 per cent of that limited funding allocated to Federal psychiatric hospitals. The promised Mental Health Fund remains a concept within the law, and the capital given to the mental health sector remains unnoticeable.

Another issue halting the implementation of the Act is the severe shortage of trained personnel. In 2022, media reports showed that only 250 psychiatrists were recognised to help over 200 million Nigerians. In 2024, months after the act went into effect, the Medical Report Foundation found that these statistics had not changed. 

At a ratio of about one psychiatrist to  80,000 Nigerians, experts say the strain on those meant to enact the Act is steep, making them move outside the country with their expertise. Just like psychiatrists, facilities are also greatly limited in the country.  The Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare has reported ten federal neuropsychiatric hospitals in Nigeria, each one dating back to before the existence of the Mental Health Act. 

While the existence of 10 federal neuropsychiatric hospitals may inspire hope in some, others have no faith in them due to mistrust of the government. Modupe Olagunju*, a final year student who has struggled with her mental health on and off for over 6 years, seemed disgusted by the prospect of attending a government-owned mental health facility.

“I would not attend a federal hospital for anything, especially not for my already fragile mental health. From my experience, almost everything that involves government-provided facilities in Nigeria involves three things: Crowds, bribery, and competition. Every regular healthcare facility I’ve been to that is owned by the government was poorly managed and overflowing with patients. I don’t believe a government mental health facility would be well-equipped to handle mental health matters professionally.”

Modupe’s concern for a lack of proper government-owned mental health facilities seems well-founded. While the Federal Government ordered 16 new infrastructure projects for the neuropsychiatric hospital in Kware, Sokoto State, in 2025, their efforts to improve mental health facilities after the Act’s existence seem to have ended there. No information about the projects’ implementation has come out since May, and no new neuropsychiatric hospitals have been opened since 2022. 

The crawl towards implementation can be attributed to the masses as well, as deep-rooted cultural stigma continues to influence the public understanding of mental health and therefore dampens the government’s push to do something about it, experts said.

A study by the African Polling Institute revealed that 54 per cent of Nigerians attribute mental illness to possession by evil spirits, and 23 per cent understand it as a punishment from God. Many Nigerians are more concerned with religious institutions than seeking out psychiatric care, which may discourage the government from taking action to better mental health facilities.

When Modupe was asked if there were any hindrances towards her seeking therapy, both before and after the Act’s implementation, she said, “It took me a while to convince my family to allow me.  My dad and my brother don’t really believe in mental health matters and believe Africans can’t go through such  a Western phenomenon (even though my dad has been diagnosed with a mental health issue himself). It was my mum who finally relented and took me in 2020, but even now, they are sceptical. ”

With a lack of significant effort from the government, many are worried that the Act does far more showing than telling. Paul Agboola, the Provost and Medical Director of the Neuropsychiatric Hospital of Abeokuta, notably told journalists in 2025 that “Togo, Ghana and Benin Republic are already implementing this law, but we who pride ourselves as the giants of Africa can’t implement our [mental health] laws that have been passed for two years now.”

The effects can be felt on a personal level. Modupe expressed her confusion about the Mental Health Act when asked if she was aware it existed.

“No, I am not aware [it exists].  I didn’t even know we had a Lunacy Act, and now we have another one? I am very surprised that such an Act exists because it feels like Nigeria has too many problems to pay much attention to mental health.”

As someone who has struggled with thoughts of ending her life since 2019, years before the Mental Health Act came to be, Modupe laughs at the idea that a positive change has occurred from when her struggles began till now. 

“In Nigeria, the [mental health]  law is just a suggestion.” She mused, “It isn’t something that needs to be implemented. Unless you have the right connections or adequate knowledge, the policy is useless.” 

Tomiwa Oladapo*, an autistic sexual assault survivor, also expressed his disbelief that the Act was a thing, saying, “I didn’t know… I think I didn’t know because coverage of stuff like that sucks in our country, and I’ve become really apathetic to this country. If something good had come out of the Act, I’m sure I would have known about it, but since 2021, please, what has changed?”

At best, it seems the Act has done little other than halt the degradation of mental health in the country, as no reports show a significant dip in the state of mental health nationwide since the its existence. In fact, some believe, on a private level, that mental health in Nigeria is ticking upward.

“At the end of the day, these discussions and changes about mental health in Nigeria are often had in privileged spaces. I do think people are more aware (of mental health) in Nigeria in recent days, but I’m not sure the nation itself is bringing about any significant change,” Tomiwa told HumAngle.

His views reflected those of Bernice Ezeani*, a 21-year-old NYSC corper who simply stated, “I haven’t seen anything significant from the government or state (concerning mental health) but from private entities? Yes. I also don’t know about the Act, but I know that private entities have been championing mental health activities even since before the Act.”

Still, for many in Nigeria, private efforts towards mental health improvement are not enough. “We have an Act,” Bernice states, “And so we should use it.”

Properly implementing the Act not only favours mentally ill Nigerians calling for change but also strengthens the country’s economic stability, benefiting all inhabitants.

This view is echoed by the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), a global health organisation, which showed the steep cost of underinvesting in mental health nationwide. 

The study explains that brain health, which is how optimally the brain works,  and brain skills, such as analytical thinking and creativity, are linked. Together, they are necessary for the sort of productivity that drives the modern workforce and therefore builds the economy. 

Mental illness is described as a major roadblock for brain health, and in a country where an estimated 20 – 30 per cent of inhabitants are estimated to suffer a mental illness, according to ReasearchGate, a monumental portion of Nigerians, if they has access to proper mental health care, could have a positive impact on Nigeria’s struggling economy.

Until the Mental Health Act brings significant action to back up the written law, its 56 sections will remain mainly symbolic. For the millions who need the promises it offers, the law without proper implementation will continue to foster confusion and hopelessness, with some continuing to share the same sentiment as an X user did in 2025, stating, “Mental health Act signed 2022 yet implementation is poor. Funding is also very poor, we still have a long way to go (in regards to ) mental healthcare in Nigeria.”

July 18 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed the GENIUS Act, which regulates dollar-based digital tokens called stablecoins and is the first major law governing digital currency.

On Thursday, the U.S. House voted 308-122 for the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act. In June, the Senate passed the bill 68-30 with at least 60 votes needed for passage.

With congressional leaders and industry leaders in the White House’s East Room, he said: “This could be perhaps the greatest revolution of financial technology since the birth of the Internet itself.”

Trump has become a big ally of the crypto industry since his 2024 presidential campaign after calling it a “scam.”

Stablecoins are tied to tangible assets, such as the U.S. dollar, to make them more stable in comparison to other types of cryptocurrencies that derive their value from market demand.

Other digital cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, can experience significant price fluctuations and are not part of the Senate legislation.

Stablecoins must be fully backed by U.S. dollars or similar liquid assets, along with mandated annual audits for issuers with more than $50 billion in market capitalization and added language on foreign issuance.

Trump said “we take a giant step to cement the American dominance of global finance and crypto technology.”

He named David Sacks as his crypto and artificial intelligence czar early his in second presidency.

On March 6, Trump signed an executive order establishing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve capitalized with Bitcoin that the U.S. Treasury seized through criminal and civil forfeiture.

A crypto market structure legislation has been delayed in the Senate. The House passed the Digital AssetMarket Clarity Act, for clarity and regulatory framework for digital assets.

Some Democrats were concerned about foreign issuers, anti-money laundering standards, potential corporate issuance of stablecoins and Trump’s deepening ties to crypto ventures.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who voted against the legislation, said: “Through his crypto business, Trump has created an efficient means to trade presidential favors like tariff exemptions, pardons and government appointments for hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars from foreign governments, from billionaires and from large corporations. By passing the GENIUS Act, the Senate is not only about to bless this corruption, but to actively facilitate its expansion.”

His affiliated venture, World Liberty Financial, launched its stablecoin. Trump Media is planning to build a multi-billion-dollar Bitcoin treasury. And American Bitcoin, a mining firm backed by his sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., is planning to go public via a Gryphon merger.

Trump and his wife, Melania, launched meme coins days before his inauguration on Jan. 20.

On May 22, Trump invited the top 220 holders of his $TRUMP meme to a private dinner at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va.

July 17 (UPI) — The House of Representatives voted to regulate digital currencies and protect their owners on Thursday during what many lawmakers called “crypto week.”

The House voted 308-222 to approve the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, which is dubbed the GENIUS Act.

The measure goes to President Donald Trump for signing and establishes financial guidelines and protections for owners of stablecoins.

“For far too long, America’s digital assets industry has been stifled by ambiguous rules, confusing enforcement and the Biden administration’s anti-crypto crusade,” House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., told media on Thursday.

“President Trump and this Congress are correcting course and unleashing America’s digital asset potential with historic, transformative legislation,” Emmer said.

“President Trump promised to make America the crypto capital of the world,” Emmer added. “Today, we delivered.”

Stablecoins are digital assets that are tied to tangible assets, such as the U.S. dollar, to make them more stable in comparison to other types of cryptocurrencies that derive their value from market demand.

A dozen Republican House members voted against the measure, the passage of which was delayed by GOP-based opposition on Tuesday.

The president met with 11 Republican lawmakers who stopped the measure’s passage and on Tuesday evening announced they reached an agreement to pass the GENIUS Act.

Despite Trump’s announcement, several GOP lawmakers stalled the measure’s passage for nine hours on Wednesday, which delayed its passage to Thursday.

The House also passed the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 with a 294-134 vote and the Anti-Central Bank Digital Currency Act with a 219-210 vote.

Those measures go to the Senate for consideration.

The Anti-CBDC Act would ban the Federal Reserve from issuing its own version of a cryptocurrency.

Those who oppose a Federal Reserve-issued digital currency say it would enable the federal government to monitor the currency and track its use.

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 would define digital assets as commodities, securities or stablecoins.

The proposed act also would divide regulatory control of the digital assets between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

House approval of the three measures occurred during what many Republican lawmakers called “crypto week” on Capitol Hill.

Advocates hope House bills will bring decentralised currency into US mainstream as Trump pushes ‘crypto week’.

The United States House of Representatives has passed three bills related to cryptocurrency, sending one directly to US President Donald Trump and the other two to the US Senate.

The votes by the Republican-controlled chamber come amid a wider push by the Trump administration to make the US the “crypto capital of the world”, in what the president has dubbed “crypto week”.

Trump and his family’s emphasis on the largely unregulated crypto industry has also raised concerns it could be used to mask corruption and foreign influence.

The bill that will go directly to Trump is called the GENIUS Act. It sets initial guardrails and consumer protections for a cryptocurrency known as stablecoins, which are tied to “stable” assets like the US dollar to reduce their volatility.

House Financial Services Chair French Hill said during debate on Thursday that the bill will “ensure American competitiveness and strong guardrails for our consumers”.

“Around the world, payment systems are undergoing a revolution,” he said.

The legislation passed in the Senate and by a 308-122 vote in the House. It garnered bipartisan support in both chambers.

A second bill would create a new market structure for cryptocurrency. It passed by a slimmer margin of 294-134 and will need to go to the Senate, where lawmakers could craft a new version.

That legislation aims to provide clarity for how digital assets are regulated, mostly by defining what forms of cryptocurrency should be treated as commodities regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and which are securities policed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Commodities are typically considered goods that can be traded or sold, while securities, like stocks and bonds, typically refer to partial ownership of an asset.

A third bill, passed by a narrower 219-210 margin, would prohibit the US from offering what’s known as a “central bank digital currency”, essentially a government-issued form of digital cash. It will also head to the Senate.

Trump’s crypto interests

Cryptocurrencies, which are unmoored from any central government authority, have exploded in popularity since first emerging in 2009.

But experts have said US operations have been curtailed by unclear laws governing the industry. Advocates have said the bills passed on Thursday could help to hearken in more mainstream adoption.

Still, Democrats critical of the GENIUS bill accused Republicans of fast-tracking the passage, while failing to address Trump and future presidents’ interests in cryptocurrency.

For example, a provision in the bill bans members of Congress and their families from profiting off stablecoins. That prohibition does not extend to the president and his family.

Trump’s family holds a significant stake in World Liberty Financial, a crypto project that launched its own stablecoin, USD1. Trump reported earning $57.35m from token sales at World Liberty Financial in 2024, according to a public financial disclosure released in June.

A meme coin linked to him has also generated an estimated $320m in fees, though the earnings are split among multiple investors.

“No one should be surprised that these same Republicans’ next order of business is to validate, legitimise, and endorse the Trump family’s corruption and efforts to sell the White House to the highest bidder,” Representative Maxine Waters, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services panel, said amid the flurry of votes on Thursday.

Since taking office, Trump has also proposed creating a cryptocurrency “national reserve” and has suspended Department of Justice investigations related to cryptocurrency.

Some Democrats also criticised the GENIUS bill for creating what they called an overly weak regulatory framework that could pose longterm financial risks.

They also say the legislation opens the door for major corporations to issue their own private cryptocurrencies.

Ryanair passengers were treated to an unexpected surprise by a man on the flight who wanted to spread kindness with a wonderful gesture and make it the “happiest plane in the sky”

A spontaneous act of generosity on a Ryanair flight left passengers so moved that some were reduced to tears. Air travel often brings stories of seat disputes or complaints about fellow travellers, but one young man aimed to bring a wave of positivity aboard his Ryanair journey.

Staffordshire’s Sebbie Hall aspired to transform the aircraft into the “happiest plane in the sky.” In an attempt to “make someone a billionaire,” according to a crew member, Sebbie bought a scratchcard for every family group on the flight. A video on TikTok captures the moment Sebbie and the crew member distributed the cards to seated passengers.

One woman was visibly emotional, while another passenger gave Sebbie a handshake.

Despite living with a rare chromosome anomaly causing physical and communication challenges and learning disabilities, Sebbie continues to spread kindness.

The Ryanair crew member who helped Sebbie in distributing the scratchcards informed passengers that Sebbie has performed a random act of kindness daily for five years, beginning during lockdown to bring smiles to people’s faces.

He has raised more than £100,000 to aid disabled and disadvantaged children across the UK, earning him the title of UK kind hero last year.

The Ryanair staff member’s called for “an absolute round of applause” for Sebbie from passengers on board.

Another employee of the airline announced: “Sebbie wants to say ‘good luck strangers, no strings attached’ but if you win, could you please somehow let him know?” He doesn’t want your money but he’d like to know. Good luck!”

The TikTok clip featured delighted passengers brandishing their scratch cards showing how pleased they were with Sebbie’s selfless act.

The post racked up more than 800 comments, as curious users asked about any potential winners.

Sebbie responded, confessing that he was unaware of any victories, “but they were happy.”

Many comments celebrated the sweet gesture, one user said: “The lady sobbing would be me if I was on this flight.”

An impressed Ryanair crew member added: “As Ryanair crew, this is incredible! What a smashing young man.”

A third chimed in: “Oh Sebbie, what a wonderful thing to do. We need more Sebbies in the world.”

Emotionally touched, a fourth viewer commented: “I’m definitely not laid in bed bawling my eyes out.” Someone else praised Sebbie as a “real life angel.”

In March 2022, the Sebbie Hall Kindness Foundation was set up, providing financial support for initiatives promoting inclusion for disabled young people and offering communication, arts, and sports resources to families and organisations working with individuals aged 16 and above.

Kindness is Sebbie’s ‘superpower’, and in a recent act of generosity, he distributed Fab ice lollies to passers-by on a warm day, telling them they are ‘fab’.

June 30 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Monday threatened more funding cuts to Harvard University after a federal task force claimed the Ivy League school was in “violent violation” of the Civil Rights Act over a perceived failure to protect Jewish students.

“Harvard holds the regrettable distinction of being among the most prominent and visible breeding ground for race discrimination,” read the letter in part to University President Alan Garber from the federal government’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism.

The letter, signed by four federal officials from the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, the U.S. General Services Administration, and Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet K. Dhillon, cited the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on Harvard’s admission practices.

It said that its Title VI investigation via the 1964 Civil Rights Act — which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin — concluded that Harvard allegedly failed to suppress anti-Semitism on its Boston-based campus.

“That legacy of discrimination persists with Harvard’s continued anti-Semitism,” it stated, adding that any institution refusing to “meet its duties under federal law may not receive a wide range of federal privileges.”

The task force listed in its examples a series of allegations that it says Harvard “did not dispute our findings of fact, nor could it.”

It indicated a quarter of Harvard’s Jewish students felt unsafe, saw negative bias and reported alleged assaults during campus demonstrations that federal officials claimed violated university policy, among a number of other issues.

In their letter, it went on to express how the Holocaust engulfed Europe “due to the ‘[d]isbelief, incredulity, and denial on the part of both victims and onlookers’ which ‘worked to the advantage of those who wanted to eradicate the Jews.'”

“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” the letter continued. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”

On Monday, the university pointed to “substantive, proactive steps” officials took to address “the root causes of antisemitism” on campus, saying Harvard is “far from indifferent on this issue and strongly disagrees with the government’s findings.”

“In responding to the government’s investigation, Harvard not only shared its comprehensive and retrospective Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israeli Bias Report but also outlined the ways that it has strengthened policies, disciplined those who violate them, encouraged civil discourse, and promoted open, respectful dialogue,” a university spokesman told The Hill in a statement.

Harvard previously refused to give in to the administration’s demands to end its diversity, equity, inclusion and other policies, leading to a lawsuit over a pause in more than $3 billion in federal funds and Trump’s order to rid Harvard’s long-existing right to enroll foreign students.

This month, the president in a social media post said a deal with Harvard could arrive but offered no other detail and has not spoken of it since.

June 25 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Wednesday filed a lawsuit challenging Minnesota laws that provide some undocumented immigrants with higher-education tuition benefits not offered to U.S. citizens.

The lawsuit is the third time the Justice Department has challenged states’ laws this month amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

The filing challenges the Minnesota Dream Act, which was signed into state law in May 2013 to make illegible some undocumented immigrants in the state for in-state tuition rates, privately funded financial aid and state financial aid.

Federal prosecutors allege the Dream Act discriminates against U.S. citizens from other states who must pay higher out-of-state tuition rates while violating federal law that states “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state … for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit.”

“No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement.

“The Department of Justice just won on this exact issue in Texas, and we look forward to taking this fight to Minnesota in order to protect the rights of American citizens first.”

Earlier this month, federal prosecutors filed lawsuit challenging a similar law in Texas. Instead of a legal fight as is anticipated in Minnesota, Texas’ Republican-led government joined the Trump administration seeking the enjoin the Texas Dream Act of 2001.

And the court sided with them, handing the Trump administration a win in its fight against immigration.

“Ending this discriminatory and unAmerican provision is a major victory for Texas,” the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, said in a June 4 statement.

On Tuesday, however, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and several civil rights and pro-democracy organizations filed a motion to intervene in the Texas case on behalf of students and related groups, arguing the order “creates sweeping uncertainty for impacted students and colleges and universities.”

“The Texas Legislature passed the Texas Dream Act with overwhelming bipartisan support because Dreamers represent the best of us in our classrooms, board rooms and communities,” David Donatti, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas, said in a statement.

“While the attorney general normally would defend state laws, the decision not to means that somebody must. We are proud to advocate for our Dreamers alongside Texas schools and students.”

The Justice Department last week also filed a lawsuit against a similar law in Kentucky.

The lawsuits follow President Donald Trump signing several immigration-related executive orders including “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” which directed the attorney general to identify laws “favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens,” including “State laws that provide in-State higher education tuition to alines but not to out-of-State American citizens.”

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia provide in-state tuition to their undocumented students, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal. Eighteen states and D.C. also provide access to state financial aid.

WASHINGTON — President Trump isn’t the first president to order military strikes without congressional approval. But his decision to bomb Iran comes at a uniquely volatile moment — both at home and abroad.

Overseas, the U.S. risks deeper entanglement in the Middle East if fighting erupts again between Israel and Iran. At home, Trump continues to sidestep oversight, showing little regard for checks and balances.

His move has reignited a decades-old debate over the War Powers Act, a law passed in the early 1970s meant to divide authority over military action between Congress and the president. Critics say Trump violated the act by striking with little input from Congress, while supporters argue he responded to an imminent threat and is looking to avoid prolonged conflict.

Even after Trump announced late Monday that a “complete and total ceasefire” between Israel and Iran would take effect over the next 24 hours, tensions remained high in Congress over Trump’s action. A vote is expected in the Senate later this week on a Democratic Iran war powers resolution that is meant to place a check on Trump when it comes to further entanglement with Iran.

Here’s a closer look at what the act does and doesn’t do, how past presidents have tested it and how Congress plans to respond:

Dividing war powers between Congress and the president

Passed in the wake of American involvement in Vietnam, the War Powers Resolution prescribes how the president should work with lawmakers to deploy troops if Congress hasn’t already issued a declaration of war.

It states that the framers of the Constitution intended for Congress and the President to use its “collective judgement” to send troops into “hostilities.” The War Powers Resolution calls for the president “in every possible instance” to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.”

But when Congress enacted the law, “it didn’t install any hard requirements, and it provided a lot of outs,” said Scott Anderson, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

“Habitual practice for presidents in the last few decades has been to minimally — almost not at all — consult with Congress on a lot of military action,” Anderson said. And “the language of the statute is so vague and open-ended that it’s hard to say it’s in clear contradiction” to the War Powers Resolution.

Unless a Declaration of War has already been passed or Congress has authorized deploying forces, the president has 48 hours after deploying troops to send a written report to congressional leadership explaining the decision. Trump did so on Monday, sending Congress a letter that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were “limited in scope and purpose” and “designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.”

In March, when Trump ordered airstrikes in Houthi-held areas in Yemen, he wrote a letter to congressional leadership explaining his rationale and reviewing his orders to the Department of Defense. President Biden wrote nearly 20 letters citing the War Powers Resolution during his term.

If Congress doesn’t authorize further action within 60 to 90 days, the resolution requires that the president “terminate any use” of the armed forces. “That’s the hard requirement of the War Powers Resolution,” Anderson said.

How past presidents have used it

Congress hasn’t declared war on another country since World War II, but U.S. presidents have filed scores of reports pursuant to the War Powers Resolution since it was enacted in 1973, over President Nixon’s veto.

Presidents have seized upon some of the vague wording in the War Powers Resolution to justify their actions abroad. In 1980, for example, Jimmy Carter argued that attempting to rescue hostages from Iran didn’t require a consultation with Congress, since it wasn’t an act of war, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President George W. Bush invoked war powers in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and persuaded Congress to approve an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq in 2002.

Throughout his presidency, President Obama faced pressure to cease operations in Libya after 90 days. But his administration argued that the U.S. use of airpower in Libya didn’t rise to the level of “hostilities” set forth in the War Powers Resolution.

What Congress is doing now

Trump’s actions in Iran have drawn the loudest praise from the right and the sharpest rebukes from the left. But the response hasn’t broken cleanly along party lines.

Daily developments have also complicated matters. Trump on Sunday raised the possibility of a change in leadership in Iran, before on Monday announcing that Israel and Iran had agreed to a “complete and total” ceasefire to be phased in over the next 24 hours.

Nevertheless, the Senate could vote as soon as this week on a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the bill’s sponsor, told reporters Monday — prior to the ceasefire announcement — that the vote could come “as early as Wednesday, as late as Friday.” He expects bipartisan backing, though support is still coming together ahead of a classified briefing for senators on Tuesday.

“There will be Republicans who will support it,” Kaine said. “Exactly how many, I don’t know.”

He added that, “this is as fluid a vote as I’ve been involved with during my time here, because the facts are changing every day.”

Passing the resolution could prove difficult, especially with Republicans praising Trump after news of the ceasefire broke. Even prior to that, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., defended Trump’s actions on Monday and said he’s operating within his authority.

“There’s always a tension between Congress’ power to declare war and the president’s power as commander in chief,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “But I think the White House contacted its people, as many people as they could.”

A similar bipartisan resolution in the House — led by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie — could follow soon, although Massie signaled Monday that he may no longer pursue it if peace has been reached.

Khanna was undeterred.

“In case of a conflict in the future, we need to be on record saying no offensive war in Iran without prior authorization,” Khanna said. “We still need a vote.”

Askarinam and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

As many Brits up and down the country prepare to jet off on their summer holidays, the Mirror takes a look at some of the worst passengers ever to cross the airport tarmac

When boarding a plane for a sunny summer holiday, many of us will be praying for a seatmate who doesn’t make us wish for the aircraft to simply turn around.

From passengers sticking their bare feet on the armrest to vicious spats about seat swaps, there are a number of cabin faux pas that can seriously dampen your holiday mood before you’d even had a chance to sample the drinks trolley.

But perhaps next time you sit next to a thunderous snorer, or an enthusiastic Pringles chewer who sprays crumbs all over your lap, you’ll remember that really, it could be so, so much worse.

Here, the Mirror takes a look at some of the most obnoxious passengers of all time, from potty-mouthed ranters to those whose selfish actions have posed a serious health and safety risk…

READ MORE: Warning greedy airlines can legally ‘bump’ you from your flight with little notice

Reckless emergency door act

Back in May, a young man caused chaos during a flight from Changsha, China, to Kunming Changshui International Airport after opening the emergency exit.

Just as China Eastern Airlines flight MU5828 was taxiing on the runway, he yanked the emergency handle and deployed the evacuation slide, causing complete panic onboard.

As witnesses later reported, he’d opened the exit to “get some fresh air”. His reckless actions resulted in a 20-minute delay for passengers wishing to disembark the aircraft.

The unnamed man was eventually escorted off the plane by police officers and taken for questioning. Thankfully, nobody was injured.

Depending on the plane and circumstances, those flying in China can face fines for opening an emergency exit ranging from £10,482 to £20,985 (CNY 100,000 and 200,000), China Eastern Airlines was previously approached for comment.

Cruel meltdown over seat

Shocking footage emerged this week of an allegedly intoxicated passenger cruelly raging that she had “sit next to a f***ing fat lady” during a flight from New York’s LaGuardia Airport to Kansas City.

Videos taken in the early hours of Monday, June 16, aboard a Southwest Airlines flight show the unamed woman pulling at another female passenger’s hair, spitting in her face and kicking her. Other clips show her screaming at the other passenger, and making nasty jibes about her physical appearance.

Slurring her words, she lashed out in an unacceptable rant, appearing to say: “Look at this fat lady. Look at this fat a** b****.”

The alleged foul-mouthed passenger also ridiculed the victim’s decision to wear a face mask, screeching: “It’s horrible. Look at her outfit. Look at this fat a** b****. Hilarious. You can’t even show your mouth because you’re embarrassed.”

Another passenger who recorded the scene told the Daily Mail that the woman had even “knocked the glasses off the Southwest employee”.

They claimed: ‘”When she first started saying stuff, I called out, ‘Why don’t you be nice?” She turned around and called me ugly a few times, and that I could never get a boyfriend or have sex. I looked at her and said I’ve been married for almost 20 years, lady’.”

Eventually, the ranting woman was escorted off the plane and was not permitted to return, Southwest Airlines informed the publication. The Port Authority Police Department also confirmed they’d been called at approximately 1.10 am following reports of an ‘intoxicated passenger’, who was then taken for hospital evaluation before being remanded into custody at New York City Department of Correction, on charges of aggravated assault.

A Southwest spokesperson stated: “We commend our Team for their professionalism during the incident.” The woman, a 32-year-old New York resident, was arrested and charged with aggravated assault.

Punching cabin crew

In May this year, an aggressive passenger was escorted off a flight from Gran Canaria to Birmingham after allegedly punching a member of cabin crew in the face.

The passenger, who witnesses say was inebriated, had to be led off the plane in handcuffs following an hour-long ordeal that left air hostesses in tears.

Staff even had to use a ‘restraint kit’ in a desperate bid to get the situation under control. An eyewitness told The Sun: “It all kicked off just before 1 am as we were landing in Birmingham from Las Palmas.

“When they slammed the brakes, he was shouting that the plane was going to crash. He started shouting at the hostesses and got up to go to the toilet compartment.

“The stewardess told him to sit back down, which he did, but then he got back up for the second time and went to the same place. There was a lot of screaming and shouting between him and the crew, and then he punched an air hostess in the nose.”

They continued: “Air hostesses were screaming for police in panic – they were shook up and crying. People had to tell them to stop screaming because it was scaring the kids – it was a nightmare.”

Cheers rang out across the cabin as West Midlands Police arrived to deal with the violent troublemaker, who reportedly resisted arrest.

Failed exit dash

An entitled woman who was in a frantic rush to be the first one off the plane following an already tiresome eight-hour flight ended up getting more than she bargained for when the captain publicly called her out, to the delight of her seatmates.

Showing no care whatsoever for seat etiquette, the passenger determinedly leapt from her seat as soon as the plane hit tarmac, making a beeline for the exit. The seatbelt sign was still on, and flight attendants pleaded with her to return to her seat until they came to a safe stop. However, she paid them no heed.

Having none of her antics, the captain himself then decided to get involved, revealing that he had a “special guest onboard”, whom he would be greeting after they arrived at the gate. Recalling the incident in a Reddit post, a passenger who witnessed the brazen dash wrote: “The woman stood there awkwardly until we did the whole rolling into the gate thing, and whatever planes do when they land, for about 15 to 20 minutes.

“Everyone sat there waiting to see what the captain was talking about. Eventually, the captain came out and asked the lady to please move back a little to get to his special guest, then a little more, then a little more. He was looking from row to row, trying to find a specific person. Everyone is watching and looking around to see who it could be.”

The pilot continued ushering the cheeky traveller back one row at a time until, finally, they were at the very back of the plane. He then requested that she sit down for a moment while he grabbed the intercom. The Reddit user continued: “He said, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to announce our special guest sitting in seat 42C. Let’s give her a round of applause’. The whole plane went wild with laughter and applause. I loved every moment of that.”

Reclining seat karma

A ticked-off woman decided to exact a “14-hour revenge” against an elderly power couple who “gloated” after buckling themselves into seats which had been reserved for her and her then-husband. When they confronted the couple, they refused point-blank to move, as “they had scored three seats to their two bottoms, whereas the row in front had a very slim girl at the window”.

A flight attendant got involved, by which point the audacious couple played “the age card” to get their own way. The woman and her now ex were asked to sit in front, next to the “slim girl who took up no room whatsoever”.

When they overheard the couple “loudly gloating” about their brazen behaviour, they began taking petty revenge, reclining in order to reduce their leg room. Then, as the indignant passenger put it, “Karma took a dump on the gloating couple’s lap”.

Taking to Reddit, the now-vindicated woman revealed: “So here we were settled when this man started walking up the plane. he was a very, very large man, long, long dreadlocks, shoving a baguette in his mouth as he made his way up the aisle. My husband just looked at me and smiled as he realised the only spare seat was that window seat, which would have been next to mine.

“Karma took a dump on the gloating couple’s lap as the man asked them to move so he could get into his seat. Once settled, he took up a lot of the space, and once in the air, the lady called a hostess down and started having a strop about how we had stolen their seats and that we had refused to move when they boarded.”

“Sadly for the lady, our argument at the start of the flight had been witnessed by the staff as everyone else was settled by then so she was shut down by the staff who refused to move us.”

To the amusement of their new enemies, the seat thieves endured a “miserable” 14-hour flight, with their unexpected seatmate repeatedly getting up for the toilet, and to grab extra snacks and beverages.

‘Inexcusable’ Ryanair damages

Back in January, Ryanair announced it would be pursuing legal action against an unruly passenger, whose “completely unacceptable” behaviour resulted in a Dublin to Lanzarote flight having to be diverted to Porto, Portugal.

Revealing that they would be suing the unnamed passenger to the tune of £12,500, the airline told of how the flight had been delayed overnight, causing 160 passengers to “face unnecessary disruption as well as losing a full day of their holiday”.

The damages sought were intended to cover accommodation costs plus any other expenses for passengers affected by the “inexcusable” antics. It was also hoped that the legal action taken would deter any other future troublemakers from following suit.

Describing the incident as a “major clampdown”, a spokesperson released the following statement on the Ryanair website: “It is unacceptable that passengers – many of whom are heading away with family or friends to enjoy a relaxing summer holiday – are suffering unnecessary disruption and reduced holiday time as a result of one unruly passenger’s behaviour.”

Do you have a story to share? Email me at [email protected]

READ MORE: ‘Cooling’ mattress and pillows for 30C heat leaves shoppers ‘sleeping like a dream’

Getty Images

‘At risk of avoidable harm’

MARTIN MCQUADE / BBC

Speaking with reporters on the White House lawn, President Donald Trump played coy when asked if he would bring the United States into Israel’s war on Iran.

“I may do it. I may not,” he said on Wednesday.

US officials and the president’s allies have stressed that the decision to get involved in the war – or not – lies with Trump, stressing that they trust his instincts.

“He is the singular guiding hand about what will be occurring from this point forward,” Department of State spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters on Tuesday.

But antiwar advocates have been arguing that it should not all be up to Trump and Congress must be the ultimate decider over war and peace, according to the US Constitution.

As Trump increasingly appears to hint at the possibility of US engagement in the conflict, some lawmakers are seeking to reassert that congressional role under the War Powers Act.

But what are the laws guiding a declaration of war, and could Trump get the US involved in the war without the consent of Congress?

Here’s what you need to know about the laws that govern decisions about war in the US.

What does the US Constitution say?

Section 1 of the US Constitution, which established the legislative branch of the government and outlines its duties, says Congress has the power to “declare war”.

Some advocates take that provision to mean that lawmakers, not the president, have the authority over US military interventions.

When was the last time the US formally declared war?

In 1942, during World War II. Since then, the US has gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq while carrying out strikes and interventions in numerous countries – Serbia, Libya, Somalia and Yemen to name a few.

What authority does the president have when it comes to war?

According to Article II of the constitution, the president is designated “commander in chief” of the armed forces.

Presidents have the power to order the military to respond to attacks and imminent threats. Beyond that, their war-making powers are constrained by Congress. Article II empowers them to direct military operations once Congress has authorised a war. They are responsible for mobilising the military under the guidelines of lawmakers.

That said, successive presidents have used the ability to direct the military on an emergency basis to carry out attacks that they frame as defensive or in response to threats.

How has the US sent soldiers into Iraq and other places without formal declarations of war?

Short of a declaration of war, Congress may grant the president powers to use the military for specific goals through legislation known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed an AUMF that gave then-President George W Bush broad powers to conduct what would become the global “war on terror”.

And one year later, it passed another AUMF allowing the use of the military against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion.

The two authorisations remain in place, and presidents continue to rely on them to carry out strikes without first seeking congressional approval. For example, the assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 in Baghdad was authorised by Trump under the 2003 AUMF.

During Trump’s first term, there were concerns that he could use the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran under the unfounded claim that Tehran supports al-Qaeda.

When was the War Powers Act passed?

Despite the articles outlined in the constitution, presidents have found ways to sidestep Congress in war matters. So in 1973, after decades of US intervention in Vietnam and elsewhere in Asia, lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution to reassert their authority over military action.

The law restricts the president’s war-making powers – or that was its intention at least.

It was passed after President Richard Nixon’s secret bombing of Cambodia, which killed tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians and led to widespread protests in the US.

What are the key provisions of the War Powers Act?

The federal law was designed to limit the US president’s power to commit the US to armed conflict.

Enacted over Nixon’s veto, the resolution requires “in the absence of a declaration of war” that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and limits deployments to 60 or 90 days unless authorisations to extend them are passed.

Before US troops are committed abroad, Congress must be consulted “in every possible instance”, it says.

Why is the War Powers Act relevant now? 

With the possibility of a US intervention in Iran mounting, lawmakers have been eyeing the five-decade law and pushing for their own version.

On Monday, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a bill requiring that Trump, a Republican, seek authorisation from Congress before ordering military strikes against Iran. That was followed by a similar bill put forward in the House of Representatives on Tuesday by US Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican, and Democrat Ro Khanna of California.

A No War Against Iran Act, introduced by Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, seeks to “prohibit the use of funds for military force against Iran, and for other purposes”.

But even as some polls find Trump supporters are against war with Iran, passage of such bills in the Republican-controlled legislature remains unlikely.

Why is new legislation needed if it’s in the constitution? 

Despite the constitutional separation of war powers, the executive and legislative branches have jockeyed over those roles throughout US history.

The most prominent of these incidents – and the last time such a case made it to the Supreme Court in fact – took place in 1861 at the start of the US Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln blockaded southern ports months before Congress legally declared war on the Confederacy. The highest court eventually ruled the president’s acts were constitutional because the executive “may repel sudden attacks”.

Throughout history, formal congressional declarations of war have remained scarce. There have been just 11.

Instead, Congress has traditionally authorised a wide range of military resolutions.

Does the War Powers Act have any teeth?

Almost since its passage, the 1973 law has been viewed by some critics as deeply ineffective – more of a political tool for lawmakers to voice dissent than as a real check on power. (In the 1980s, then-Senator Joe Biden led a subcommittee that concluded the law fell short of its intent.)

Congressional resolutions seeking to end military involvements unauthorised by Congress are subject to a presidential veto, which can be overridden only by two-thirds majority votes in the House and the Senate.

Others have argued the law served an important role in asserting Congress’s rights and creating a framework for speedy, presidential reporting to Congress. The more than 100 reports that have been sent to Congress since 1973 offer a semblance of transparency.

How do presidents view the act?

While Nixon was the most vociferous in his opposition to the War Powers Act, he’s hardly the only president to appear critical. Modern presidents have routinely sidestepped the act, using creative legal arguments to work around its requirements.

The executive branch has since steadily expanded its war-making powers, particularly after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The 2001 AUMF and the 2002 Iraq AUMF have been used to justify attacks on “terrorist groups” in at least 19 countries, according to the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

“The executive branch has stretched this authorization to cover groups that had no connection to the 9/11 attacks, including those such as ISIS [ISIL], which did not even exist at the time,” Heather Brandon-Smith, the nonprofit’s legislative director of foreign policy, wrote in a briefing.

And while organisations like the International Crisis Group have urged a rehaul or repeal of the AUMF, successive administrations have shown little interest in doing so. In recent years, congressional efforts to repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs have only begun chipping away at the acts.

The Senate in 2023 voted to repeal the 2001 AUMF although the move was largely viewed as symbolic. The House similarly voted to repeal the 2002 AUMF in 2021. But both laws still remain in effect.

Can the War Powers Act stop Trump from going to war with Iran?

That remains to be seen, but it does not seem likely.

During Trump’s first term in office, Congress sought to limit presidential war authority for the first time since the Vietnam War.

In 2019, Congress approved a bill to end US support for the Saudi-United Arab Emirates war in Yemen, which Trump quickly vetoed.

A year later, a similar situation played out after Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Soleimani.

In response, both houses of Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president’s ability to wage war against Iran.

That legislation was vetoed by Trump, and once again, there were not enough Republicans to meet the two-thirds majority necessary in both houses to override the veto.

With the balance of power in Congress since then fully shifting to the Republicans in Trump’s second term, the newest war powers resolutions face an even stiffer battle.

The assassination of one Democratic Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband and the shooting of another lawmaker and his wife at their homes are just the latest addition to a long and unsettling roll call of political violence in the United States.

The list, in the last two months alone: the killing of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington, D.C.; the firebombing of a Colorado march calling for the release of Israeli hostages; and the firebombing of the official residence of Pennsylvania’s governor — on a Jewish holiday while he and his family were inside.

Here is a sampling of other attacks before that — the assassination of a healthcare executive on the streets of New York City late last year; the attempted assassination of Donald Trump at a Pennsylvania rally during his presidential campaign last year; the 2022 attack on the husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) by a believer in right-wing conspiracy theories; and the 2017 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) by a gunman at a congressional softball game practice.

“We’ve entered into this especially scary time in the country where it feels the sort of norms and rhetoric and rules that would tamp down on violence have been lifted,” said Matt Dallek, a political scientist at Georgetown University who studies extremism. “A lot of people are receiving signals from the culture.”

Individual shootings and massacres

Politics have also driven large-scale massacres. Gunmen who killed 11 worshipers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, 23 shoppers at a heavily Latino Walmart in El Paso in 2019 and 10 Black people at a Buffalo, N.Y., grocery store in 2022 each cited the conspiracy theory that a secret cabal of Jews was trying to replace white people with people of color. That has become a staple on parts of the right that support Trump’s push to limit immigration.

The Anti-Defamation League found that from 2022 through 2024, all of the 61 political killings in the United States were committed by right-wing extremists. That changed on the first day of 2025, when a Texas man flying the flag of the Islamic State group killed 14 people by driving his truck through a crowded New Orleans street before being fatally shot by police.

“You’re seeing acts of violence from all different ideologies,” said Jacob Ware, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who researches terrorism. “It feels more random and chaotic and more frequent.”

The United States has a long and grim history of political violence, including presidential assassinations dating to the killing of President Abraham Lincoln, lynchings and other violence aimed at Black people in the South, and the 1954 shooting inside Congress by four Puerto Rican nationalists. Experts say the last few years, however, have reached a level not seen since the tumultuous days of the 1960s and 1970s, when political leaders the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., President Kennedy, Malcolm X and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated.

Ware noted that the most recent surge comes after the new Trump administration has closed units that focus on investigating white supremacist extremism and pushed federal law enforcement to spend less time on anti-terrorism and more on detaining people who are in the country illegally.

“We’re at the point, after these six weeks, where we have to ask about how effectively the Trump administration is combating terrorism,” Ware said.

One of Trump’s first acts in office was to pardon those involved in the largest act of domestic political violence this century — the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob intended to prevent Congress from certifying Trump’s 2020 election loss.

Those pardons broadcast a signal to would-be extremists on either side of the political debate, Dallek said: “They sent a very strong message that violence, as long as you’re a Trump supporter, will be permitted and may be rewarded.”

Ideologies not always aligned — or coherent

Often, those who engage in political violence don’t have clearly defined ideologies that easily map onto the country’s partisan divides. A man who died after he detonated a car bomb outside a Palm Springs fertility clinic last month left writings urging people not to procreate and expressed what the FBI called “nihilistic ideations.”

But each political attack seems to inspire partisans to find evidence the attacker is on the other side. Little was known about the man police identified as a suspect in the Minnesota attacks, 57-year-old Vance Boelter. Authorities say they found a list of other apparent targets that included other Democratic officials, abortion clinics and abortion rights advocates, as well as fliers for the day’s anti-Trump “No Kings” parades.

Conservatives online seized on the fliers — and the fact that Boelter had apparently once been reappointed to a state workforce development board by Democratic Gov. Tim Walz — to claim the suspect must be a liberal. “The far left is murderously violent,” billionaire Elon Musk posted on his social media site, X.

It was reminiscent of the fallout from the attack on Paul Pelosi, the former House speaker’s then-82-year-old husband, who was seriously injured by a man wielding a hammer. Right-wing figures falsely theorized the assailant was a secret lover rather than what authorities said he was: a believer in pro-Trump conspiracy theories who broke into the Pelosi home echoing Jan. 6 rioters who broke into the Capitol by saying: “Where is Nancy?!”

No prominent Republican ever denounced the Pelosi assault, and GOP leaders including Trump joked about the attack at public events in its aftermath.

On Saturday, Nancy Pelosi posted a statement on X decrying the Minnesota attack. “All of us must remember that it’s not only the act of violence, but also the reaction to it, that can normalize it,” she wrote.

After mocking the Pelosis after the 2022 attack, Trump on Saturday joined in the bipartisan condemnation of the Minnesota shootings, calling them “horrific violence.” The president has, however, consistently broken new ground with his bellicose rhetoric toward his political opponents, whom he routinely calls “sick” and “evil,” and has talked repeatedly about how violence is needed to quell protests.

The Minnesota attack occurred after Trump took the extraordinary step of mobilizing the military to try to control protests against his administration’s immigration operations in Los Angeles during the last week, when he pledged to “HIT” disrespectful protesters and warned of a “migrant invasion” of the city.

Dallek said Trump has been “both a victim and an accelerant” of the charged, dehumanizing political rhetoric that is flooding the country.

“It feels as if the extremists are in the saddle,” he said, “and the extremists are the ones driving our rhetoric and politics.”

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

THE Prince of Wales said watching humans destroy our oceans was “simply heartbreaking” as he urged world leaders to act by thinking big yesterday.

William‘s call came in a speech to the Blue Economy and Finance Forum on ocean preservation at the ­Grimaldi Forum in Monaco after meeting France’s President Emmanuel Macron.

2

2

The prince, whose opening and closing remarks were in French, said those attending were “united by our deep connection to the ocean and our ­concern for its safety”.

William, in navy suit with a recycled sustainable tie from Wilmok, said the clock was ticking on meeting the target agreed at the 2022 UN Biodiversity Summit aiming to protect at least 30 per cent of the world’s land and sea by 2030.

Speaking at the heads of state and government session on the forum’s final day, the prince added: “Watching human activity reduce beautiful sea forests to barren deserts at the base of our oceans is simply heartbreaking.

“For the future of our planet, for the future generations, we must listen to the words of Sir David Attenborough: ‘If we save the sea, we save our world’.

“I call on all of you to think big in your actions.”

World leaders were greeted by a blue carpet as they arrived at the event, with William chatting with Mr Macron and other dignitaries.

Addressing an audience of 1,800, William said: “Rising sea temperatures, plastic pollution and overfishing are putting pressure on fragile ecosystems.

“What once seemed an abundant resource is diminishing before our eyes.

“We all stand to be impacted. And we are all responsible for change — both negative and positive.

“But there remains time to turn this tide.”

Later, William said he went through a range of emotions when he saw Sir David’s new Ocean film.

He told Enric Sala, who worked on the film: “I got angry, then sad, then I got frustrated, then I got happy.”

Unlock even more award-winning articles as The Sun launches brand new membership programme – Sun Club.