Action

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has filed a first-ever petition to a secretive and dormant court created 30 years ago to consider government requests to deport “alien terrorists” from the United States.

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established in 1996 but had never received a petition until Wednesday, when the Justice Department filed an application seeking the removal of an individual whose name is withheld from the single-page document posted on the court’s website.

The chief judge of the five-member court, Joan Ericksen, said in a written response to the petition that a hearing was held Thursday during which the court had “questions about the nexus that the government alleges between the actions of the respondent and the specific sections and subsections it invokes with respect to those actions.”

“The answers persuaded the Court that the Government could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration,” wrote Ericksen, a federal judge in Minnesota.

She directed the Justice Department to provide more information by Wednesday.

The court’s authorities emerged from the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which permits the attorney general to file under seal applications for the deportation of a suspected “alien terrorist.” If an application is granted, the court must hold a public hearing at which the government has the burden to prove that the individual satisfies that definition. Applications must be approved by the attorney general or deputy attorney general.

Federal law says that an individual could qualify as an “alien terrorist” by, among other factors, having “engaged in a terrorist activity,” endorsing or espousing terrorist activities and by belonging to a political or social group that encourages terrorist activity.

The court has been dormant since its creation, having received — until last week — no applications and conducting no hearings, according to a summary posted on the Federal Judicial Center website. It comprises five judges selected by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

The Trump administration has moved aggressively over the last year to carry out deportations, including invoking a 1798 wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to remove Venezuelan migrants who officials accuse of being part of a terrorist gang. During a hearing in that case last year, the Washington judge presiding over it, James Boasberg, indicated that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court would be the natural forum to consider a request for deportation on national security grounds.

“In fact, Congress has an answer for us, doesn’t it? Because they created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court,” he said. “So if there’s a national security concern with having these hearings … you can always go to the ATRC, which would be a first, but that’s what it’s there for, right?”

The petition was first reported by Court Watch, an independent news site.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Bryson DeChambeau thought he had finished Day 2 of the British Open in second place and just one stroke off the lead.

He apparently thinks that should still be the case — but it’s not.

After a lenghty, and at times animated, discussion involving DeChambeau, his caddie and officials, the U.S. golfer was assessed a two-stroke penalty that dropped him into a fifth-place tie and three strokes back.

Grant Moir, executive director of governance for The R&A, told reporters that DeChambeau was penalized “for inadvertently improving the area of his … intended backswing on the fifth hole when he was playing his second shot.”

Moir added that the penalty “applies even when the action is accidental, as it was in Bryson’s case.”

DeChambeau sent his tee shot 257 yards but far off to the right into tall fescue grass. He needed to step high to get to the ball but was able to hit it out of the area, eventually making bogey on the par-four hole. That score was later changed to triple-bogey, and DeChambeau officially finished the day at two-under 68.

“The player mustn’t move, bend or break any growing or attached natural object,” Moir said. “A player is allowed to fairly take their stance by taking reasonable actions to get to the ball and take a stance if in some situations that improves the condition affecting the stroke, but when doing so the player must take the least intrusive course of action to deal with the particular situation and is not entitled to normal stance or swing.”

At one point during his discussion with Moir, DeChambeau appeared to state that he might not play the next day. He did not speak with reporters afterward, other than to say he thought he played great and that he was going to hit balls on the driving range.

His agent, Brett Falkoff, said DeChambeau was told he was “not careful enough walking around a sensitive area,” adding that his client “certainly feels he was unfairly penalized.”

Asked if DeChambeau would play Saturday, Falkoff said, “Your guess is as good as mine.”

DeChambeau reportedly stayed out on the driving range until after dark, at times whistling, humming and singing while hitting balls and offering reporters snacks.

Lucas Herbert leads after the second round at eight-under, two strokes ahead of Jackson Suber, Cameron Young and Ryan Gerard.

Speaking after the match, Argentina midfielder Leandro Paredes said the Falklands War was a “sad part of our history”, adding the game “wasn’t just a football match” for his nation.

Argentina vice-president Victoria Villarruel posted on X after Wednesday’s victory, external that “it wasn’t just another match” alongside a video of what appeared to be Argentine soldiers.

“The Falklands are Argentine,” Villarruel posted. “They banned bringing them to the stadium and forgot that we carry them in our blood and our hearts.”

In the build-up to the game, Villarruel had said the semi-final was “about putting the invaders in their place”.

MP Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Business and Trade, said Argentina’s banner was “entirely inappropriate”, adding that he expects Fifa to do a thorough investigation into the matter.

“I think [an investigation] is certain to happen because it was such an egregious violation of the rules of not having political activity as part of the football,” Kyle told BBC Breakfast.

The UK Prime Minister’s official spokeswoman echoed Kyle’s view but said any potential action was “a matter for Fifa”.

She added: “The PM wishes both teams well for the final, especially Spain.”

Argentina players also sang chants which referenced the Falklands and Argentina greats Diego Maradona and Lionel Messi following their dramatic 3-2 win over Egypt in the last 16.

However, before the semi-final, manager Lionel Scaloni had said he was “not going to mix” football and politics.

“The reality is that this is a football match. I can’t mix things up, especially out of respect for what happened so many years ago,” Scaloni had said.

“It was a very sad period in our history, and there isn’t much we can do about it, that’s the reality.

“Things are happening elsewhere in the world, and we criticise the existence of war. We certainly remember those people, of course. But it is a football match – we shouldn’t confuse the two.”

The semi-final, which England lost to late goals from Enzo Fernandez and Lautaro Martinez, was held under increased security measures because of the historical tensions between the two nations.

The Trump administration’s latest nominee to lead the nation’ top public health agency drew frustrated reactions from some U.S. senators on Wednesday when they pressed her on whether she would protect the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from political meddling.

Dr. Erica Schwartz told the Senate health committee she “will never betray the science” and pledged to use “radical transparency” in a bid to rebuild public trust in the agency. But several senators questioned how she might handle pressure from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has repeatedly moved to alter U.S. vaccine and CDC policies. Schwartz repeatedly declined to dissent from some of those actions.

Schwartz, 54, is up for director of the Atlanta-based CDC, which is charged with protecting Americans from preventable health threats.

Her career has largely been spent in military uniform, including in a leadership position at the U.S. Coast Guard where she oversaw the organization’s system of 41 clinics and 150 sick bays — as well as policies promoting vaccinations of service members. She later served as deputy surgeon general, where she helped lead uniformed medical and health professionals posted at the CDC and government health agencies that serve the general public.

The CDC long enjoyed a sterling international reputation but has been in turmoil since Trump returned to office last year. Largely due to layoffs and resignations, the agency has lost more than 3,000 employees, or more than a quarter of its workforce. Morale has plummeted as a succession of mostly temporary leaders have come and gone — the front office filled with political appointees, many of them with little or no training in medicine or public health.

“There’s still really good people who work there (at the CDC). They are doing their best to navigate choppy waters,” said Dr. David Margolius, director of Cleveland’s health department and a leader in a U.S. coalition of big city health departments. But CDC no longer seems to the authoritative and communicative lead that it was on outbreaks and other public health emergencies.

“Basically everybody’s got to kind of choose their own adventure, as opposed to being led by a national public health department,” Margolius said.

CDC has had several leaders

The agency is overseen by Kennedy, who was a leading voice in the anti-vaccine movement before he was tapped to lead the CDC and other federal health agencies. Kennedy had promised not to change the nation’s vaccination schedule. But shortly after taking office, Kennedy said he was going to investigate the childhood vaccine schedule and went on to attempt a substantial rewrite of vaccine recommendations for kids. Some of those efforts were put on hold earlier this year by a federal judge.

The administration’s first pick to run the CDC was former Florida congressman Dr. David Weldon, but his March 2025 Senate confirmation hearing was canceled an hour before it was to begin. Weldon said at the time that he’d been told not enough senators were willing to vote for him.

The White House then moved on to Susan Monarez, who had been serving as the CDC’s acting director. Monarez was confirmed by the Senate, but she was ousted in less than a month. Trump administration officials said she wasn’t aligned with their agenda so they terminated her.

Several key CDC scientific leaders resigned in protest, saying Monarez’s dismissal dashed their hopes that a CDC director would be able to guard against political meddling in the agency’s scientific research and health recommendations.

Since then, there’s been a revolving door in agency leadership, with the short-term role of acting director being passed from one Washington-based HHS official to another. National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya has been overseeing the CDC most recently.

Schwartz said she was unaware of actions that hurt the CDC

On Wednesday, some senators suggested Schwartz should follow Monarez’s example, and they asked her about actions Kennedy has taken that have affected CDC.

Schwartz said she was unaware that CDC programs that worked to prevent smoking and promote vaccinations had been curtailed. She declined to commit to taking down a CDC website that suggests there’s a link between childhood vaccines and autism (she said she had not seen it), though she agreed existing medical evidence has not found a link.

Sen. Maggie Hassan, a New Hampshire Democrat, asked if she would — if Kennedy ordered her — suspend promotion of a flu vaccination campaign during a deadly flu season.

“Senator, I don’t speak in hypotheticals,” Schwartz responded.

“It isn’t hypothetical. It happened,” said Hassan, referring to internal CDC emails, released by Sen. Bernie Sanders last month, that documented such a directive from Kennedy to CDC staff last year.

Schwartz said she agreed that CDC should prioritize responding to infectious diseases. “I think over time, the CDC has had some mission creep, and it’s trying to be all things to all people,” she said.

But she also agreed to requests from Republican senators to — if confirmed — look into whether AI data centers cause health problems and into the possibility of establishing a World Trade Center Health Program clinical center in Florida.

Senators also heard from nominee overseeing health emergency preparedness

In April, Trump nominated Schwartz, calling her “incredibly talented.” In a congressional hearing in April, Kennedy said he approved of the choice, but refused to commit to supporting whatever vaccine guidance she might issue.

Last month, Schwartz filed letters with the government that address her finances and potential conflicts of interest. She wrote that if confirmed, she will leave her current job with UnitedHealth Group, where she’s making about $850,000 in salary and bonus money and cash out her stock options. She also will resign from the board of directors of Butterfly Network Inc., a Massachusetts company that makes ultrasound devices; from the board of Atlanta-based Aveanna Healthcare, a medical home care provider; and from the board of the Florida-based Searching for Solutions Institute.

At Wednesday’s hearing, senators also considered the nomination of Sean Kaufman as the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, or ASPR. That job entails overseeing preparations and response to public health emergencies and disasters.

Last year, the Trump administration announced a plan to bring those responsibilities under CDC, but the dramatic HHS restructuring has not happened.

The assistant secretary’s office is involved in decisions about funding next-generation vaccines against pandemic flu or other infectious disease threats. In postings on LinkedIn, Kaufman has made comments cheered by vaccine skeptics, arguing against hepatitis B vaccinations for newborns and saying he served as an expert witness to advocate for people who refused the COVID-19 vaccine.

On Wednesday, Kaufman faced questions about past social media posts, including one in which he expressed hatred for the CDC. He also repeatedly was asked about his support of a Trump administration decision last year to cancel 22 projects, totaling $500 million, to develop vaccines using mRNA technology.

Infectious disease experts say the mRNA technology used in vaccines is safe, and they credit its development during the first Trump administration with slowing the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. Future pandemics, they warned, will be harder to stop without the help of mRNA.

Kaufman said he supported mRNA technology and believes COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, but said it made sense to study work that’s been done so far before, including learning more about any side effects.

Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Colorado Democrat, said such evaluations are the responsibility of other federal offices — not ASPR. He also said it may slow the nation’s ability to respond to emerging new infectious threats.

Stobbe writes for the Associated Press.

When the World Cup ends, regardless of who wins, we’ll still have loads of great content every day as we build up to the new football season.

As well as all the fall-out and reaction to the tournament, we’ll quickly shift back in the club football with pre-season coverage and all the latest transfer gossip and stories.

BBC Sport and teams across BBC Nations and Regions cover every club in the Premier League, WSL, EFL, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We have dedicated club reporters, who will be travelling to bring you behind-the-scenes insights from pre-season tours.

We’ll also have live pages for selected pre-season matches as well as in-depth features and storytelling, giving you the latest updates before the new campaign.

Once the World Cup ends, some of the standout players will be hot property in the transfer market, with top clubs chasing their signatures.

Our reporters, including senior football correspondent Sami Mokbel, will be breaking the big transfer stories on our website and app.

We’ll also have our daily transfer gossip column, wrapping up all the rumours from across the football world.

For fans of World Cup Predictor, a brand new weekly Predictor game will be launching immediately after the tournament with five fixtures a week to predict the outcomes of.

You’ll be able to build up your streaks and share your results with friends and family.

Our quizzes will also continue to be available to play so you can test your knowledge of the beautiful game.

Logan Webb has long been a bright spot amid San Francisco Giants chaos and dysfunction. Now he’s gone dark, deleting his X.com account after exchanging volleys with a radio reporter.

The right-hander who led the National League in innings pitched each of the last three seasons gave up five runs Wednesday in the first inning of the Giants’ 10-0 loss to the Toronto Blue Jays, including surrendering the first grand slam of his career.

Webb settled down and tossed six scoreless innings thereafter. But the Giants were well on their way to dropping to 39-54, 21.5 games behind the first-place Dodgers. Blue Jays starter Dylan Cease took a no-hitter into the ninth inning before Heliot Ramos singled for the Giants’ lone hit.

Jack Loder, a clearly exasperated digital content producer for the Giants’ flagship station KNBR, posted a two-minute video on X shortly after the game that singled out Webb for criticism.

“People say, ‘How do you blame Webb when the offense didn’t do anything?’” Loder said. “Yes, the offense didn’t do anything. I’m spreading the blame here. Maybe they do something if it’s 0-0 or 1-0. When someone is supposed to be your ace, you think they are going to give you the best chance to win every week….

“I’ve really appreciated his Giant tenure, but there’s always been a little bit lacking. I wish he was a little bit more of an ace. Because Lord knows this team has needed him in so many instances the last few years.”

Loder then accurately predicted that Webb “might be searching his name on Twitter after the game, which is never a great look.”

Webb commented on Loder’s video soon thereafter: “You know what’s sad is they allow people like you in the locker room.”

Loder, in turn, posted Webb’s response, adding, “If you’re wondering where the Giants are at mentally after a 10-0 loss to fall to 16 games under .500.”

Webb responded to another reporter’s comment in the thread and to at least two Giants fans, telling one, “Honestly you probably don’t know anything about anything some loser on the couch that couldn’t make his little league team.”

Later in the evening, Webb deleted his account and has not reactivated it. Perhaps reporters may speak to him next at the All-Star Game. He is representing the Giants for the third year in a row.

Near the end of his video, Loder broadened his criticism: “The veterans — the highest-paid guys — let this team down, let the franchise down, let the fans down.”

Six Giants players are being paid more than $20 million this season: First baseman Rafael Devers ($25 million), third baseman Matt Chapman ($25 million), starter Robbie Ray ($25 million), Webb ($23 million), outfielder Jung Hoo Lee ($22 million) and shortstop Willy Adames ($21 million).

Only Chapman (2.5 WAR) has been worth even two wins above replacement, and he is on the injured list.

Giants woes have extended beyond the field. Four pitchers pushed back against the team’s annual Pride Night in June, with three writing Bible verses next to the rainbow-tinted logo on their caps and the fourth declining to wear the colorful cap at all. MLB informed them that they were in violation of uniform protocols, triggering a culture skirmish between one of the nation’s most vibrantly diverse and queer cities and Republican politicians who asserted that the players’ actions were an expression of religious freedom protected by the Constitution.

The response from Giants president and Hall of Fame catcher Buster Posey was considered inadequate. He refused to discuss the players’ actions or the team’s response, telling reporters, “I’ll take baseball questions.”

Baseball questions pertaining to the Giants have been numerous, from the hiring of a manager — Tony Vitello — who had zero professional baseball experience to Devers seemingly defying Vitello by waving off a pinch-runner to three outfielders engaging in a provocative hip-thrust celebration.

Webb’s social media meltdown can be added to the list.

President Trump’s administration is threatening to withhold some federal funding from states that don’t make changes to voting practices and is warning state election officials that they face arrest if they don’t remove noncitizens from voter rolls.

Letters to states and grant application details are the latest in a line of actions by Trump’s administration to shape details of running elections that have long been the job of states.

Courts have largely rejected the administration’s previous efforts, which reflect untrue claims about widespread voting fraud and come less than four months ahead of crucial midterm elections where Democrats seek to take control of one or both chambers of Congress and check Trump’s power.

“The overall point is that Trump is trying to use whatever levers of power and persuasive power that he might have to try to interfere with how states and localities are going to conduct the 2026 election,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor and the director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project. “Some of this is aimed at changing how the rules are conducted. Some of it appears to be aimed at undermining voter confidence in the integrity of the election process.”

Justice Department warns election officials of prosecution

In letters sent Tuesday, to election officials for all 50 states and the District of Columbia — often secretaries of state — the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division said they and other election administrators could face criminal charges if they knowingly allow nonvoters to vote or remain on voting rolls.

It also called on the states to tell the federal government within five days how they intend to comply with the law.

Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in election law, said it’s not clear the 50-state letter means anything except to restate some parts of the law, with a request to follow up, “which I’m sure many states will ignore.”

The letter also warns that anyone who knowingly and willfully gives false information in registering to vote or voting would face criminal prosecution.

Antiterrorism grants include election requirements

A Federal Emergency Management Agency antiterrorism grant announcement in June includes a list of election-related requirements, saying that 20% of grants for states and urban areas would be withheld until they comply.

The program includes more than $1 billion for states and local and tribal governments for a variety of programs aimed at preventing terror at crowded places, online, with border security — and around elections. FEMA expects to award 56 grants.

“Recipients can ensure that their efforts contribute to a secure, transparent, and resilient electoral process, thereby reinforcing public trust and the integrity of democratic institutions,” the grant announcement says, noting that securing election infrastructure is a national security priority.

The list of items for states includes verifying the citizenship of all registered voters and election workers.

Places that use electronic voting systems that use bar codes or QR codes to count votes would have to submit plans to switch to hand-marked paper ballots. Every jurisdiction would have to show it audits results.

UCLA’s Hasen said it could be difficult even for states that want to comply. It’s too close to the midterm election to make some of the changes, he said, and some would require state legislatures to pass new laws.

The White House on Wednesday referred questions to FEMA, which did not immediately respond to an interview request.

Response from states appears to be partisan

Some states are pushing back, while others are defending the latest actions.

They seem to be breaking along party lines.

Oregon’s secretary of state, Democrat Tobias Read, accused the Justice Department of “knocking on our door again with more threats and no evidence to back up their fever dreams about non-existent voter fraud.”

Oregon elections are secure, accurate, and fair, he said, adding that he isn’t “intimidated by political threats or manufactured controversy.”

The Michigan secretary of state’s office, headed by Democrat Jocelyn Benson, said it has discussed its work repeatedly with the Justice Department and in public statements, congressional hearings and court testimony — information that it said “is either in the DOJ’s possession or easy reach.”

“We will be happy to provide it again to help address any confusion,” the office said in a statement.

In a statement, Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose defended the Justice Department’s missive to states, saying it’s reminding them of their legal obligation regarding election integrity. A lot of states aren’t taking it seriously, he said without giving examples or citing evidence. He said Ohio has worked with the federal government to ensure that its voter rolls are accurate and that only U.S. citizens vote.

Georgia’s secretary of state’s office says the state has already taken many of the actions required in the FEMA grant, including a citizenship audit of voter rolls.

Several of Trump’s election actions have faced resistance

Trump has repeatedly and wrongly asserted that fraud cost him reelection in 2020, and his administration has put forth a series of policies and actions aimed at how elections are run.

In recent days, courts have rejected the Justice Department’s effort to collect the names and contact information for every election worker in Georgia in the 2020 election and others trying to force New Hampshire and Pennsylvania to turn over detailed information about registered voters. With those rulings, the federal government has lost similar cases more than 10 times around its requests for details from 30 states and the District of Columbia.

Last week, a group of Democratic governors asked the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw its proposed rule seeking to implement an order from Trump to create a list of eligible voters — and potentially limit who can receive a ballot in the mail. A court previously put the order on hold, saying it was unconstitutional.

Also last week, the Supreme Court rebuked Trump and ruled that states can count mailed ballots that arrive after Election Day.

Mulvihill and Levy write for the Associated Press. AP writers Gabriela Aoun Angueira, Bill Barrow, Kate Brumback and Josh Kelety contributed to this report.

As a student years ago, I dove deep into the history of the Red-hunting McCarthy era and became familiar with the actor who emerged second only to Wisconsin Sen. Joe McCarthy as the villain of that insidious time: his shameless, conniving young lawyer, Roy Cohn. Never would I have imagined that a future president would count Cohn as a mentor and role model.

Then came Donald Trump.

Now, in Cohn-inflected McCarthyesque style, President Trump is channeling his tutor yet again, baselessly labeling his political enemies — all Democrats — as communists as he looks ahead to the fall’s midterm elections. Once more Trump shows that his catchphrase “Make America great again” means regressing, this time to Trump’s formative 1950s and the McCarthy era that sadly helped define it.

In recent speeches, including on the Fourth of July, Trump’s utterances of “communist” or “communism” reached double digits each time. (As that implies, the president didn’t set aside his divisive rhetoric even for the nation’s 250th birthday.)

“Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America,” Trump said late on the Fourth on the National Mall.

Trump couples his commie-baiting with a dash of his trademark xenophobia. “There is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including by newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success,” he said at Mount Rushmore a day earlier. (He’s got it backward, of course: Immigrants come here for the American way of life and promise of success.)

Here’s the irony: Trump’s actions in his second term make him look more like the commie. He’s projecting again.

Now that Trump is exploiting a few victories lately by left-wing democratic socialists in Democratic primaries to paint the entire party as communists, it’s time to review the record — his record.

A hallmark of communism is government ownership of companies and control of the economy, at the expense of private property and free markets. In just over a year, Trump has used billions of taxpayers’ dollars to buy shares for the government in a growing list of private companies — U.S. Steel, Intel, Westinghouse and more — citing national security. The companies don’t always welcome their new stakeholder; at a minimum, they rightly fear it for the demands the government could make about prices and production.

“It’s what Putin did,” the estranged Republicans at the Lincoln Project posted online Monday. “Trump is the closest we’ve ever come to communism.”

“What began as a populist revolt against so-called elites has become a program of state ownership, price fixing and top-down industrial control,” free-market economist Veronique de Rugy wrote in The Times last October of Trump’s actions. “The power to ‘partner’ with business is the power to control it.”

Comrade Trump’s first big government grab, and a model for those to come, was in June last year, when he wrested a permanent “golden share” in U.S. Steel in return for approving its sale to Japan’s Nippon Steel. The company’s charter was revised to give the U.S. president extraordinary veto power over nearly a dozen corporate activities, including closing or relocating plants, supply-chain decisions, even pricing.

“We have a golden share, which I control,” Trump told reporters at the time, in words I never thought I’d hear from a president of the party once associated with free markets.

Just last week, Trump boasted to CNBC how he’d extracted a 10% stake in beleaguered chip giant Intel last August, after first demanding that its chief executive resign. “Intel came in. They had a problem. I said, ‘I can solve your problem, but I want 10% of the company.’ … Somebody said that’s not very American. I said, ‘No, I think it is very American, actually.’ And I’ve done that with other deals.”

And so he has.

The Pentagon is now the largest stockholder in struggling MP Materials, a large rare-earth mine in California, and guarantees a 10-year price floor for its output that stunned competitors. The administration has since taken shares in other rare-earth companies. The Commerce Department took an option for an 8% stake in Westinghouse, to spur construction of nuclear reactors, and has the right to 20% if the government decides the company should go public. The government takes a 15% cut of Nvidia’s and Advanced Micro Devices’ AI chip sales to China.

As much as anything he does, Trump’s direct intervention in private enterprise invites the question “What if Biden/Harris/Obama did that?” The answer, of course: Trump and Republicans would cry “Communist!”

Trump’s actions are the sort Americans generally have only seen during economic emergencies or major wars, and then rarely. I covered the frenzied and ultimately successful response to the near-collapse of the global financial system and the U.S. auto, insurance and housing industries. Behind the scenes in the Obama White House (and George W. Bush’s at the outset) was constant, angst-filled debate about any actions smacking of government takeovers and a determination that interventions be temporary, unlike Trump’s schemes. (For all the still-lingering unpopularity of the banking bailout, the Treasury — the taxpayers — got all the money back and then some, and exited the business.)

Trump’s economic big-footing isn’t the only way in which he resembles the commies Americans know best, and whom he so admires: Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jung Un. There are also the images of himself everywhere, monuments planned, drearily long and self-adulating speeches and interference in the nation’s cultural, educational and legal spheres and — worst of all — in elections.

At Rushmore, Trump closed with a demand that Congress pass his so-called SAVE America Act to restrict voting. “We do that and we’re not going to lose an election for 100 years,” he said, speaking of course about Republicans.

One-party rule through central government election finagling? Now that’s a communist.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

We now have our first look at a Chinese modular, road-mobile, electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) catapult actually launching a drone. The system, which consists of multiple specially-designed trucks linked together, first emerged right at the end of last year and was soon loaded onto the deck of a cargo ship. The same vessel, named Zhong Da 79, was used to showcase a new family of containerized weapons, sensors, and other systems, images of which went viral in a big way online. It has now also been confirmed that the truck-mounted EMALS catapult is part of that family.

Video of the truck-mounted EMALS catapult in use first began circulating widely on social media earlier today, but exactly where or when it was shot is unclear. The footage looks to have originally accompanied a Chinese-language social media post from the Beijing Institute of Technology’s School of Mechanical Engineering. Screenshots said to be of the post show it was primarily on news about the development of the full family of containerized weapons and other systems, which we will come back to later on.

The video, seen in full in the social media post below, starts by showing a propeller-driven drone being launched from a mobile EMALS catapult made up of three trucks. The drone in question has a high-wing monoplane planform with a v-tail and tricycle landing gear. When the system first appeared publicly last year, it was shown in a four-truck configuration, and paired with stealthy collaborative combat aircraft (CCA)-like drones, or what were more likely mockups thereof.

The footage continues on, showing three EMALS catapult trucks traveling in a group, unlinked, in a convoy, before joining together. The convoy clip notably shows what look to be covers on top of the trucks that do not appear to have been previously seen. There are what appear to be hinges or at least large straps on the side to hold them in place.

Covers would help protect the system from the elements during transit. It might also help mask its true purpose, though the trucks have other very distinct features, including a very prominent locking point at the front. The possibility that the covers hinge to either side also raises the question of whether the system could be configured to fold out to create a wider runway, though there is no evidence of this so far.

The video also reveals that the trucks have an extreme all-wheel steering capability that allows them to turn in a roughly flat circle, even when joined together. This would allow for the launching of aircraft in any direction as long as their sufficent space to turn the complete system. This would be key for pointing aircraft into the wind ahead of launches, especially in confined spaces with limited room to maneuver. This is an essential capability for enabling this concept overall. It would be extremely hard, if not impossible, to do this with normal steering, especially to account for any major shift in the wind’s direction.

The footage caps off with another clip of the drone being launched and then one of Zhong Da 79 as it was seen earlier this year with the various containerized systems, at least some of which turned out to be mockups, onboard.

As seen earlier in this story, the video is circulating along with a graphic showing the full family of containerized weapons and other capabilities. This includes versions armed with launchers for land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles, as well as surface-to-air missiles. There are also ones that contain either a single Type 1130 30mm close-in-weapon system (CIWS) or two Type 726 close-in defensive launchers. There are also containerized radars, electronic warfare systems, and command and control suites. The graphic also notably shows a container loaded with a single EMALS catapult truck and another with a disassembled drone inside that looks very much like the one seen being launched in the opening clip.

Annual production of 2,000 of these containerized systems, collectively, is now being targeted, according to a machine translation of the apparent social media post from the Beijing Institute of Technology’s School of Mechanical Engineering that is the original source of the video.

The social media post from Beijing Institute of Technology’s School of Mechanical Engineering also says 70 other entities were also involved in the development of the various systems showcased on the Zhong Da 79. The China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC), China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (CETC), and the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) are explicitly named.

Not on this list of named organizations is Tiantao Technology, a company that has been publicly discussing plans for a ground-based electromagnetic catapult system made up of modular wheeled segments since at least August 2025. As TWZ previously noted, Tiantao Technology’s renderings have shown a system that is visually different from the one now tied to the Beijing Institute of Technology’s School of Mechanical Engineering. However, its expected capabilities are in line with what have now seen in the video, especially the ability to drones weighing up to around 2.2 tons (two metric tons). The drone seen being launched is notably smaller and lighter than the CCA-type designs previously displayed with the system.

As TWZ wrote in our initial reporting on the truck-mounted EMALS catapult after it emerged last year:

“This [2.2 tons] is lighter than the expected takeoff weights of ‘loyal wingman’ type drones China has shown to date, based on the known specifications of comparably-sized Western designs. For example, the stated maximum launch weight of the XQ-58 is three tons, according to Kratos. As another point of comparison, the Chinese GJ-11, a larger flying-wing uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV), a catapult-capable version of which is now in development, reportedly has a payload capacity of around two tons. China’s J-15 family of crewed carrier-based fighters, derived from the Su-33 Flanker, each weighs around 19 tons (17.5 metric tons) empty without any fuel or ordnance, as well.”

“It is possible that the modular design of Tiantao Technology’s ground-based catapult system could allow for configurations capable of launching heavier designs. A core benefit of electromagnetic catapults over steam-powered ones, in general, is their ability to be more fine-tuned in terms of the forces they exert on any aircraft during launch. The capabilities of a modular system would also be dependent on its exact configuration, including how long the catapult track is overall. Tiantao Technology has said the total length of its system could be scaled between roughly 65 and 196 feet (20 and 60 meters). What limitations there might be on simply adding more segments to increase launch capacity are unknown.”

“Tiantao Technology has also shown models and renderings of truck and trailer-mounted electromagnetic catapults for launching even smaller drones. How much progress it has made in the actual development of any of the systems to date is unclear.”

As we noted at that time, other companies in China could very well have been working along similar lines. There’s also the distinct possibility that Tiantao Technology is among the dozens of unnamed partners that are said to have been working with Beijing Institute of Technology’s School of Mechanical Engineering on this project.

There is still an outstanding question about how drones are loaded onto the truck-mounted EMALS catapult to begin with, which would impact the launch tempo. TWZ has noted previously that a cycle could be established using trucks carrying drones that would drive up, one at a time, locking into the rear of an existing track, and then detaching after launch.

What kind of power and logistical footprint is required to support the mobile EMALS catapult, either on land or at sea, is also unknown. The system is not intended to support a traditional carrier air wing, and would therefore inherently have lower capability demands. It’s worth pointing out here that questions about power demands and logistical requirements would also apply to other parts of the family of containerized systems that are now in development, as well.

What limitations might exist when it comes to employing the catapult system from the deck of a ship that was not designed to have this capability from the start is another open question. Whether the truck-mounted arrangement would be stable enough for launches with the ship rocking back and forth at sea is unclear.

Overall, much more is still to be learned about the modular EMALS catapult and its capabilities. At the same time, what we’ve learned now underscores points that TWZ has made in the past about the new operational possibilities this system could enable, both in shipboard and ground-based modes. It is tailor-made for expeditionary scenarios or other situations in which traditional runways may not be available. As a mobile system that can be moved on the ground or embarked on ships, it would allow for at least a certain tier of airpower to be more readily positioned closer to operating areas.

The system’s mobility and ability to stay in relatively close proximity to the forces it is supporting would make this a very responsive capability, even as the overall operational picture and battlespace demands evolve. The less time any aircraft has to spend in transit means more on-station endurance, which could be especially valuable when employing smaller, shorter-range drones. The choice of an electromagnetic catapult system versus a steam-powered one also means shorter reset times between launches and, by extension, increased sortie generation rates.

Since it is made up of multiple modular truck-mounted segments, it would be easier for the system to disperse when not in use, creating targeting challenges for opponents and helping to increase survivability. Being able to store components of the catapult system, as well as drones to launch from it, concealed inside unassuming shipping containers would create further benefits in this regard.

All of this is relevant for a Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) that has significant standing requirements to be able to provide airpower and other support during island-hopping campaigns against various potential opponents in the Pacific, where established runways may be few and far between. Another key focus area for the PLA is supporting operations in highly remote and high-altitude areas along its disputed western border with India, where runway access is also often constrained. The truck-mounted catapult could also be combined with the elements of the full family of containerized systems to help establish more robust and defensible operating locations on land, as well as rapidly turn any ship with suitable deck space into a multi-purpose naval vessel.

As an aside, the fact that the new details about the truck-mounted EMALS catapult and the other containerized system have come via Beijing Institute of Technology underscores the strong ties that state-run research institutions in China often have to the country’s government-owned defense industry and to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). This is something TWZ regularly calls attention to, especially in advanced aerospace development realms, where the academic side of the ecosystem has been shown to be very deeply involved.

With the release of the video showing actual testing of the mobile EMALS catapult, and other insights into the full family of containerized weapons and other systems, more details about these new capabilities may now start coming more rapidly.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The embattled Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority sued the Trump administration on Monday to stop it from depriving the region of hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, saying the effort is unwarranted and violates federal laws.

The authority, better known as LAHSA, said in its Monday filing that cutting off the funds would put more than 11,000 people — 1,900 of them children — at risk of losing housing or other services.

LAHSA, a joint city-county agency overseen by political appointees, is seeking a temporary restraining order to bar the federal Housing and Urban Development Department from suspending the funds.

“The people who will be harmed by this decision are not bureaucrats,” said Gita O’Neill, LAHSA’s interim chief executive officer, in a statement Monday. “They are families, veterans, seniors, and formerly homeless Angelenos who rely on these resources to remain housed.”

The filing in federal court comes nearly three weeks after HUD officials said they were suspending LAHSA from applying for or receiving federal funds, citing financial mismanagement, fraud and a lack of safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest.

In its 46-page lawsuit, LAHSA pushed back on HUD’s allegations, saying they were not supported by the evidence. Lawyers for LAHSA portrayed HUD’s actions as part of a larger political agenda — elimination of the federally approved “Continuum of Care” system, which makes LAHSA the overarching applicant for most federal homelessness funding across Los Angeles County.

The Trump administration “has made clear it wants to scrap the program entirely in favor of a homelessness policy favoring criminal enforcement, drug treatment, institutionalization and civil commitment of the mentally ill,” the lawsuit states.

HUD officials have said they are barring LAHSA from applying for funds on behalf of the Continuum of Care, which covers 85 cities, including Los Angeles. LAHSA secured $220 million in federal funds for various agencies in 2024 and $944 million since 2021, according to the June 11 letter from HUD Deputy Secretary Andrew D. Hughes.

HUD did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In the letter, Hughes said his agency had received information that LAHSA “may have committed violations of federal law” while carrying out its obligations as part of its HUD grant agreements.

“HUD has evidence that LAHSA’s repeated false statements and its irresponsible actions and failures, including its lack of financial management, internal controls, and safeguards against conflicts of interest, pose a threat to HUD, the public, and those living on the streets of Los Angeles,” he wrote.

In the letter, Hughes said that HUD’s inspector general had opened an investigation. Depending on the outcome, the money could be restored or LAHSA could be permanently barred from receiving funds.

LAHSA, in its lawsuit, said HUD has not provided any investigative findings to show violations of the funding agreements. Instead, agency lawyers said, federal officials relied on “a mash-up of old news articles, comments from public officials taken out of context, and findings from routine public audits that included recommendations that were all appropriately actioned.”

Lawyers for LAHSA contend that HUD’s actions violate the U.S. Constitution and override the dictates of Congress, which established many of the processes for distributing federal homeless funds.

The vast majority of the federal funds secured by LAHSA as a grant applicant goes toward permanent housing, agency officials said.

LAHSA, created in 1993, is overseen by a 10-member commission, half from the city and half from the county. Among those commissioners is L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who has made homelessness a central part of her agenda. Each of the five county supervisors has an appointee.

At stake in the battle between HUD and LAHSA is an array of services affecting some of the region’s most vulnerable residents.

LAHSA oversees the Homeless Management Information System, the federally-mandated software that tracks homeless people across the county. It has 8,000 individual users and is used by more than 300 agencies, according to the lawsuit.

HUD’s plan to suspend the funding would prevent LAHSA from using the system to match Angelenos — those on the street and in shelters — with housing and services, the lawsuit said.

LAHSA also oversees the annual “point in time” homelessness count across the county. Agency officials have pointed to the results from those counts as evidence that they have been making steady headway, with homelessness decreasing 4.3% countywide and 5.5% within Los Angeles between 2023 and 2025.

Unsheltered homelessness, which tallies the people living outside or in their vehicles, fell by a larger margin, declining 14% across the county and 17.5% within L.A. during that period.

Despite those numbers, LAHSA’s reputation has been battered by some highly critical assessments.

Last year, a global consulting firm retained as part of a federal lawsuit over the city of L.A.’s response to homelessness found that homeless services provided by LAHSA and the city lacked adequate financial controls, leaving the system vulnerable to waste and fraud.

Several months earlier, county auditors identified lax accounting procedures that resulted in LAHSA’s failure to pay its contractors on time. Even after that report was issued, nonprofit groups with LAHSA contracts continued to report that payments were behind schedule.

Last year, the county Board of Supervisors reached a breaking point, pulling more than $300 million — the vast majority of its funds — out of LAHSA and creating its own homelessness department. City officials have been weighing a similar move in recent months.

Unionized workers of Kakao Corp., South Korea’s messenger app operator, took a day off en masse on Monday in a sign of protest amid a continued gridlock in wage negotiations.

In their second collective action, unionized members staged what they called a “Log-out Day” by taking simultaneous annual leave.

Some 2,100 workers from five units of Kakao, including its headquarters, Kakao Pay and Kakao Enterprise, have participated, the labor union claimed.

The company, however, said it estimates only 800 employees from Kakao’s headquarters took part in the latest industrial action.

Wage talks between Kakao’s labor union and management have been at a standstill since May, after the two sides failed to narrow differences in performance-based incentives.

The union is reportedly demanding the company pay around 13 to 14 percent of operating profit as bonuses, while the management has rejected such demands, claiming they put too much burden on the company.

On June 10, workers staged their first-ever strike. Some 1,500 union members walked out from their jobs for four hours and rallied near the company’s headquarters in Pangyo, south of Seoul.

Despite concerns from industry watchers, no disruptions were reported on Monday, including in the company’s key messenger service, KakaoTalk.

Kakao’s management had previously said it plans to continue negotiations with the union, while remaining on standby to ensure stable service operations.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Fans are hailing the film as a ‘masterpiece’ and calling it their favourite movie of the year

A gripping thriller based on a popular novel has finally landed on streaming and viewers are calling it a ‘masterpiece’.

The action-packed movie, adapted from a novel by Stephen King, hit cinemas last year and is tailor-made for fans of nail-biting franchises such as Mission: Impossible or Fast and Furious.

Its IMDb synopsis reads: “A man joins a game show in which contestants, allowed to flee anywhere in the world, are pursued by ‘hunters’ hired to kill them.”

The film was helmed by legendary director Edgar Wright, celebrated for cult favourites such as Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Baby Driver.

The Running Man is the most recent 2025 adaptation of King’s iconic novel, with Glen Powell taking on the lead role of Ben Richards – a part previously made famous by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1987 original.

The supporting cast boasts an impressive line-up including Josh Brolin, Colman Domingo, Lee Pace, Michael Cera, Emilia Jones and Martin Herlihy, reports the Express.

The film currently holds a 61% fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes alongside a 6.4 rating on IMDb, with legions of fans applauding this fresh take on the dystopian tale.

Now available on Paramount Plus, the streaming platform has teased: “The Running Man is a fun, unhinged deadly game show where contestants must survive 30 days while being hunted by professional assassins, with every move broadcast to a bloodthirsty public and each day bringing a greater cash reward.”

Over on IMDb, one enthusiast awarded the film a perfect 10/10, declaring: “Let me put it this way. I saw it at a matinee this afternoon and now I’m going back with my husband. I’m not a Glen Powell fan but I do live Edgar Wright movies and this one delivers. Don’t go see it if you want to relax!

“I read the Stephen King novel years and years ago and saw the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie years ago as well, so i can’t tell you how it compares, but this one stands on its own as the best action movie of the year… and maybe the decade…so far.”

A second viewer hailed the film as a ‘masterpiece of literary adaptation’, remarking: “Hands down the best adaptation of King’s work. You can literally watch the movie and turn pages. Powell’s Richards jumps out of the book.

“The ending got the Hollywood treatment, but still accomplished the same goal. I waited 34 years for a faithful version of this, and now we have it. The casting feels like they all read the novel.”

Get Paramount+ free for a week

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

£4.99

£0

Amazon/Paramount+

Get Paramount+ here

Telly fans can get seven days of free access to Paramount+ shows like Tulsa King and Dexter: Original Sin by signing up for a free trial via Amazon Prime’s Paramount+ channel.

Another cinema-goer commented: “One of the best movies of the year. After being trailer after trailer at the cinema for what seems the whole year, I was fearing this would be a total flop.

“I need not have worried because this is an action packed, well scripted remake of the original. Everyone is cast perfectly and all performances are great. It keeps you guessing throughout the movie and the twists and turns keep it going. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Well worth a visit.”

One further viewer chipped in: “It was perfect. Edgar Wright nailed I.T. on this expensive movie. The action, everything. A lot better than the 1987. It follows the book. Glen Powell did a great Job on playing the character Ben Richards.”

They even drew comparisons to other beloved action franchises, adding: “This film feels like a big mix of Fast and Furious and Mission: Impossible. I love the chase scenes.”

Over on Rotten Tomatoes, one enthusiastic viewer gushed: “Excellent film! Glen Powell did great with his character, Ben Richards.”

“Fresh! Intensely gripping all the way through. Great acting on all parts,” another remarked, while a further viewer noted: “Loved this. Im 100% certain that Stephen King will be so happy with this version of his brilliant book. Great all round really enjoyable watch.”

Not everybody was won over, however, with one person writing: “A real disappointment, falling flat both as social commentary and as an action movie.”

Another disgruntled viewer complained: “The first one was way better. Loved the satire and Richard Dawson, who was a game show host in real life, as the host in the original. Tired of remakes with all the social commentary without improving the whole movie.”

The Running Man is available to stream on Paramount Plus now.

Iran has said it remains committed to implementing the MoU signed with the United States. However, Tehran warned that it would take reciprocal measures if Washington fails to honour its obligations under the agreement.

Tests confirm a migratory brown skua found in ‌Western ‌Australia had the virus.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says Australia will do “whatever we can” to curb H5N1 bird flu after the first mainland case was confirmed in a seabird, which means the virus has now spread to every continent.

Tests confirmed a migratory brown skua found in ‌Western ‌Australia’s Cape Le Grand National Park had the deadly virus, authorities said on Saturday, and a giant petrel found in the same area was also suspected to be infected.

“This is concerning,” Albanese told reporters in Sydney, adding his government would do “whatever we can to restrict any spread”.

Previously, Australia had been the only continent without a confirmed mainland case, although the virus was detected in late 2025 on Heard Island, a sub-Antarctic territory about 4,100km (2,550 miles) from the mainland.

Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said the virus had not yet been detected in Australia’s poultry or agriculture sector.

“We all knew we couldn’t be bird flu-free forever,” she said.

Human infections remain rare, but the highly pathogenic avian influenza has led to the culling of hundreds of millions of birds globally in recent years, disrupting food supplies and driving up prices.

WASHINGTON — Most Americans continue to disapprove of how President Trump is handling Iran, while his overall presidential approval holds steady, according to a new AP-NORC poll that was conducted as he suggested a deal with Iran had been reached.

The poll points to just how unpopular the war, which began Feb. 28, has been with Americans even as the Republican president turned abruptly from threatening Iran to reopening negotiations. Support for his handling of the war remains lopsidedly partisan. About two-thirds, 65%, of U.S. adults disapprove of how Trump is handling issues with Iran. But while the vast majority of Democrats and independents view Trump’s actions negatively, only 28% of Republicans are unhappy.

Americans’ views on how the president is handling Iran are roughly in line with his overall job approval, which stands at 37%, unchanged from an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May.

The new survey was conducted June 11-17, just after Trump called off threats to escalate the war with Iran. The poll was fielded as Trump announced a deal with Iran and authorized an end to the U.S. naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, concluding just before the deal was signed Wednesday.

Approval of Trump’s actions on Iran has been low over the past few months. But in interviews, some Republicans also weren’t pleased with the outcome of this week’s agreement, which gives Iran an immediate benefit, allowing it to sell its oil freely again.

The deal also reopens the strait without tolls for two months, restarts talks between the U.S. and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program and calls for Tehran to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

David Farrington, a 79-year-old Republican-leaning independent in Fort Worth, Texas, “doesn’t have any love lost” for Iran, but he’s frustrated the agreement focused on the strait and didn’t deliver more on the country’s nuclear weapons program.

“Any agreement regarding the strait is hardly what I would consider a recognizable concession on the part of Iran,” Farrington said. “So, I consider that some fluff that attempts to make this agreement look better when it’s not.”

Trump’s approval on Iran remains flat

Only about one-third of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling Iran in the new poll, in line with May.

Donald McBride, a 28-year-old independent in Plano, Texas, is frustrated that Trump has not maintained his campaign promise to keep America out of foreign wars. McBride voted for Trump but he opposed going to war with Iran.

“I would like the war to end,” he said. “The original objective of the war was to end the Iranian regime, and that’s just not possible. I don’t really know why we’d continue fighting.”

The poll suggests most Americans want action in Iran to wrap up. Even with an agreement on the horizon, 53% of U.S. adults said American military action against Iran had “gone too far,” only a slight decline from 59% in March.

About 4 in 10 Republicans, though, said in the latest poll that action has been “about right,” and 37% said it had not gone far enough.

Joan Jones, a 64-year-old independent in northwest Florida, believes the United States’ actions in Iran have been necessary to address the threat Iran posed.

“Those attacks are ultimately to protect us from nuclear attacks,” Jones said. “I think we have to go through that … and eliminate that worry so we don’t have that hovering over us.”

Few approve of Trump’s approach on Israel

About one-third, 34%, of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling Israel.

Tensions have been rising between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump as the president criticizes recent Israeli attacks in Lebanon, which jeopardized negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

James Huffman, a 69-year-old Republican in Medway, Ohio, thinks Trump is taking the wrong strategy when it comes to Netanyahu.

“Netanyahu is not going to do everything Trump wants. He’s going to do what he wants,” Huffman said. “I just don’t think it’s effective.”

Only about one-third approve on the economy

About one-third of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s approach to the economy. That’s in line with last month, and continues a challenging stretch for Trump on the issue.

Jones, the Florida independent, is more optimistic than most. She said she can hardly leave the house some hours without getting stuck in the traffic of tourists headed to the beach on vacation. She also spots lines around the block for Starbucks, McDonalds and Chick-fil-A in her community — all signs to her that the economy is doing well overall.

“I think President Trump’s policies are contributing to a better economy,” Jones said.

Other Republicans are more skeptical, a troubling sign for a president who prides himself on his business acumen. Only 69% of Republicans approve of how he’s handling the economy, slightly lower than the 78% who approve of how he’s handling the presidency overall.

Patricia Bailey, a 42-year-old Republican in Parkersburg, West Virginia, sees an economy where prices have gotten out of control. “I just said the other night, ordering pizza is for rich people,” she said. Bailey voted for Trump but added, “He’s kind of let me down a little bit.”

Even if high prices preceded Trump, Bailey doesn’t think he’s lived up to his pledge to improve the economy.

“I think he got so distracted with the war that he forgot some old promises,” she said.

Sanders and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press.

The AP-NORC poll of 3,040 adults was conducted June 11-17 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

June 15 (UPI) — The British Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the ban on the pro-Palestine organization Palestine Action is lawful and upheld its designation as a terrorist organization.

The five judges on the Court of Appeals ruled that the ban on the organization under the Terrorism Act is “justified and proportionate.” The proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organization makes supporting the group punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

More than 2,500 members of the group have been arrested.

Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action who originally challenged the ban in court, said she plans to appeal the ruling in the British Supreme Court.

“We will fight this all the way,” Ammori said. “We will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and, if need be, take this to the European Court of Human Rights.”

Palestine Action has remained banned since February, despite the High Court in London ruling that it is disproportionate and an unlawful violation of free speech rights.

“The future threats and risks posed to third-party individuals and property by Palestine Action are perhaps the most important factors to weigh in the balance,” Sue Carr, chief justice, read from the appeals court’s ruling. “In that connection, it is important to understand that the home secretary is in the best position to assess those future threats and risks. She is advised by experts on anti-terrorism.”

Carr acknowledged that the ruling may chill free speech and may deter people from lawfully assembling to protest Israel’s actions in Gaza or show support for Palestinians.

Non-government organizations, including Liberty, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International UK and Greenpeace, said Monday’s ruling is a misuse of counter-terrorism authority.

The United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal has ruled that the British government was right to proscribe the Palestine Action activist group as a “terrorist” organisation last year.

Palestine Action is a British protest group which was founded six years ago and describes itself as a movement “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.

On Monday, police made more arrests of protesters demonstrating in support of Palestine Action outside the Court of Appeal in London.

Since the group’s proscription, which also bans support for proscribed groups, about 3,000 people have been arrested.

The Metropolitan Police welcomed the ruling and said it would continue to arrest those who protest in support of the group.

Here is what we know about the ruling:

What has the Court of Appeal ruled?

The judgement released on Monday states: “The proscription of an organisation like Palestine Action is highly controversial. But it is a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism”.

The ruling was made by a five-strong panel, including the two most senior judges in England and Wales.

Palestine Action, which was formally proscribed by the UK last July, is a British protest group founded six years ago. It says it uses “disruptive tactics” to target “corporate enablers” and companies involved in the manufacture of weapons for Israel, such as Israeli group Elbit Systems, Italian aerospace company Leonardo, French multinational Thales and Teledyne from the United States. The group has targeted British facilities linked to those companies.

In all, British police say action by the group has resulted in millions of pounds of criminal damage.

A court in London ruled on June 12 that four Palestine Action members convicted of criminal damage at a British facility owned by Israeli weapons group Elbit Systems near Bristol, west England, would be sentenced on the basis that their actions had a “terrorist connection”.

Why was this case brought?

Following the proscription of Palestine Action last year, the group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, challenged the decision in the High Court. In February, the High Court ruled that the government’s “terror group” ban was unlawful and disproportionate.

The government immediately said it would appeal. “I am disappointed by ⁠the court’s decision ⁠and disagree with the notion that banning ⁠this terrorist organisation ⁠is disproportionate,” ⁠Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood ⁠said.

The judgement on Monday agreed with her. Its ruling states: “The Home Secretary had the institutional competence and the democratic accountability to make the decision. The Proscription Decision was consistent with the Home Secretary’s Proscription Policy and was proportionate. It was not unlawful.”

Why did the UK proscribe Palestine Action?

On June 20, 2025, Palestine Action activists broke into the Royal Air Force base at Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and sprayed two military aircraft with red paint.

Days after the Brize Norton attack, members of parliament voted in favour of proscribing the group. That classified Palestine Action as a “terrorist” organisation, bringing it into the same category as armed groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).

Critics decried the vote, arguing that while members of the group have caused damage to property, they have not committed violent acts that amount to terrorism. More than 130 high-profile public figures have spoken out against the proscription.

Other previous actions the group has taken include:

• In 2021, members protested for six days on the roof of Elbit Systems’ subsidiary, UAV Tactical Systems in Leicester, until some were arrested by police.
• In 2022, the group broke into a Thales equipment factory in Glasgow, causing damage to weapons worth more than a million pounds ($1.3m).
• In 2024, 10 months into Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Palestine Action activists broke into an Elbit Systems UK facility near Bristol in southwest England, causing another million pounds of damage.

How has Palestine Action responded to the ruling?

In a statement read by a representative following the ruling, Palestine Action’s Ammori said the group will challenge the judgement in the UK’s Supreme Court.

“We will fight this all the way. We will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and, if need be, take this to the European Court of Human Rights,” Ammori said.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), established by the Council of Europe, allows individuals to hold member states accountable for rights violations through a dedicated court. When the ECHR finds a violation, its judgements are legally binding on the state concerned under the European Convention on Human Rights.

“We will not stop fighting to overturn one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history,” Ammori added.

“This unprecedented abuse of power has devastated the lives of thousands of people while silencing dissent over Israel’s slaughter of the Palestinian people during the genocide, when that dissent could not be more urgent.”

How have others reacted to the ruling?

Anas Mustapha, Head of Public Advocacy at CAGE International, said: “This ruling tells us exactly what these powers are for. They are not safeguards against violence, they are authoritarian tools for crushing dissent.”

Mustapha added: “No ruling from any court is going to convince people that their conscience is wrong, and no amount of legislation will make support for Palestine disappear. The only sustainable outcome is the abolition of these laws in their entirety.”

Thomas Bell, acting UK Director of Human Rights Watch, said: “This disastrous decision further cements the UK’s place among countries that are backsliding on human rights by classifying acts of protest as terrorism.”

“When Palestine Action members have committed criminal damage, that should be dealt with under normal criminal laws, not by misusing overbroad and poorly defined terrorism powers. Defining a protest group as terrorists has created an absurd situation where thousands of people peacefully holding up signs have been arrested,” Bell added.

A UK court has sentenced four pro-Palestine activists to jail for a raid on an Israeli arms factory near Bristol in 2024. Palestine Action says their aim was to ‘dismantle drones and weaponry’ they believed would be used to kill people in Gaza.

Four activists from the Palestine Action group face sentencing in the United Kingdom as “terrorists” on Friday, despite only being convicted by a jury of other criminal charges.

Palestine Action was formally proscribed as a “terrorist” organisation in the UK last July.

Last month, four of six activists on trial were convicted at Woolwich Crown Court in London of criminal damage during a 2024 raid on a factory in Filton, Bristol, operated by Israeli defence firm Elbit. One of the defendants was also found guilty of striking a police officer with a sledgehammer.

The possibility that the judge will rule that the offences have a “terrorist connection” for sentencing purposes has prompted protests.

What is Palestine Action?

The protest group Palestine Action, launched in July 2020, describes itself as a movement “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.

It seeks to use “disruptive tactics” to target “corporate enablers” and companies involved in the manufacture of weapons for Israel, such as Israel-based Elbit Systems, Italian aerospace company Leonardo, French multinational Thales and Teledyne from the United States. The group has targeted British facilities linked to those companies.

The UK parliament voted in favour of proscribing the group on July 2, 2025, classifying it as a “terrorist” organisation, and bringing it into the same category as armed groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS). The proscription came days after its activists sneaked into an air force base in southern England.

Critics decried the move by MPs, arguing that while members of the group have caused damage to property, they have not committed violent acts that amount to terrorism.

What were they convicted of?

In August 2024, Palestine Action activists raided a factory in Filton near Bristol in southwest England, operated by Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems. They entered the site and caused extensive damage in an attempt to disrupt the production of weapons and drone components they say would be used by Israel in Gaza.

The raid, which prosecutors said caused about one million pounds ($1.36m) of damage, happened 10 months into Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza that began in October 2023.

Last month, jurors at Woolwich Crown Court convicted Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Zainab Rajwani, 21, of criminal damage. The four activists have become known as “the Filton 4”.

Corner was also found guilty of striking a police officer with a sledgehammer and convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm.

Two other Palestine Action activists, Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31, were found not guilty.

The verdict followed an earlier trial, at which all six defendants were acquitted of aggravated burglary, while the jury was unable to reach verdicts for the criminal damage charges.

Each of the defendants gave evidence, admitting that they damaged Israeli military drones and equipment inside Elbit’s research and development facility in Filton – in order to “save lives in Palestine”, according to a statement by their lawyers.

What would a terrorism sentencing mean?

The jury was not told that, if they convicted, the four could be sentenced under terrorism laws. Criminal damage is not usually a terrorism offence, but in England and Wales judges can decide to treat an offence as having a “terrorist connection” at sentencing, even when the charge itself is not a terrorism offence.

If the court decides there was a terrorism connection, the activists would have to serve their entire sentences in prison, unless they have already completed at least two‑thirds of the sentence and a parole board decides they can be released.

Conversely, non-terrorist prisoners usually serve about 40 percent of their sentence in custody and are released early, but under conditions and supervision, sometimes called licence conditions. If they break those conditions, they can be sent back to prison to finish their sentence.

Additionally, if the activists are sentenced in this way, they can be recorded as “terrorists” for the rest of their lives, would be required to register new mobile devices, email addresses and bank accounts with the police for their lifetime, and face being returned to prison if they breach their licence conditions or reoffend.

What has the reaction to all this been?

On Wednesday, a group of more than 50 lawyers and law professors published an open letter denouncing plans to sentence the four Palestine Action members as terrorists.

The letter highlights that damage to property has been a recurring feature of protest campaigns from the Suffragettes who fought for women to have the right to vote, to environmental protest group Extinction Rebellion.

“It has never previously even been suggested that those taking such action should be treated as terrorists. Blurring the distinction between principled direct action and terrorism is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes,” the open letter stated.

The letter has been signed by law professors from universities in the UK, the Netherlands, Norway and Canada as well as by dozens of practising barristers and solicitors.

According to local news reports, a protest is expected at Woolwich Crown Court on Friday against the potential judgement.

June 11 (UPI) — The United States and Iran traded attacks Wednesday night for a second straight day with American forces hitting multiple military, surveillance and radar installations in southern Iran and Iran hitting back at its Persian Gulf neighbors.

U.S. Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy assets deployed precision munitions against Iranian “military surveillance capabilities, communication systems, and air defense sites across Iran” posing a threat to U.S. forces and international commercial ships transiting regional waters,” U.S. Central Command said in a statement on X.

Tomahawk missiles were fired from the guided-missile destroyer USS Michael Murphy.

“The strikes are in response to Iran’s unwarranted and continued aggression,” added CENTCOM.

Bahrain’s Interior Ministry reported a second night of airborne attacks and condemned what it called “sinful Iranian aggression” after an 11-year-old girl was injured.

“Vehicles caught fire and houses were damaged in Hamad Town and Manama due to falling debris of drones interception. Civil Defense and National Ambulance have taken necessary measures,” the ministry said Thursday morning in an online post accompanied by photos of burnt-out cars, blast damage and firefighters tackling blazes.

In a post on X in the early hours of Thursday, the Kuwait Army said its air defense systems were “currently intercepting hostile aerial targets.”

Royal Jordanian Air Force warplanes intercepted and downed 20 Iranian missiles headed toward the Azraq region in Zarqa Governorate, east of the capital, Amman.

In a statement issued Thursday via the National Center for Security Crises and Management, the General Command of the Jordan Armed Forces-Arab Army said debris from downed missiles fell in multiple locations but that there were no injuries or damage.

Meanwhile, the Indian government confirmed the deaths of three Indian crew members missing from the Palau-flagged oil tanker, M/T Settebello, a day after it was struck by the U.S. military in the Gulf of Oman, through which vessels transiting the Hormuz Strait must transit.

“Sadly, three Indian seafarers initially reported missing are now confirmed dead after bodies have been located and identified. This is a profound loss to our maritime family. The Modi government stands firmly with the bereaved during this difficult hour and is fully committed to supporting the next of kin,” Ports, Shipping & Waterways Minister Sarbananda Sonowal wrote on X.

“I have directed officials to ensure immediate repatriation of the rescued crew members and swift return of the mortal remains of the deceased for their final rites.”

CENTCOM said a U.S. aircraft fired precision munitions into the vessel’s engine room Wednesday after the vessel, which it said was violating the United States’ blockade by attempting to ship oil from Iran, failed to comply with instructions from U.S. forces.

WhatsApp disrupted phishing attempts linked to NSO, blacklisted by the US for security concerns.

Meta has said it is ⁠filing a federal US ⁠court contempt order against Israeli spyware firm NSO Group for violating a permanent injunction that barred it from ever ⁠targeting WhatsApp and its users.

The company said on Monday that its WhatsApp messaging service disrupted new spear phishing attempts linked to NSO, an ⁠entity blacklisted by the United States government for engaging in activities that are contrary to national security or foreign policy interests.

These attempts were similar to previous “1-click phishing campaigns”, aimed to trick users into clicking ‌malicious links and direct them to external websites, Meta said in a blogpost.

A “1-click” is a type of cyberattack where a single click on a malicious link or attachment is sufficient to compromise a victim’s device or account, without requiring them to enter their credentials.

Meta said WhatsApp took down test accounts ⁠and groups created by NSO on its platform. ⁠NSO did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

Last year, a US court ordered NSO to stop targeting Meta’s WhatsApp, a development the spyware ⁠company warned could put it out of business.

While the ruling significantly reduced the punitive damages NSO ⁠owed Meta to $4m from an ⁠initial $167m, the injunction itself was seen as a substantial challenge for the company, which faces ongoing accusations of enabling human rights abuses through its Pegasus hacking tool.

Meta ‌said on Monday that last month it was joined by 12 prominent civil rights organisations, a coalition of security researchers, privacy advocates ‌and ‌digital rights experts, who filed their amicus briefs to fight NSO’s appeal against the permanent injunction.

BOSTON — A federal judge on Friday struck down a Trump administration policy enacted after the shooting of two National Guard members that made it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to stay and enter the U.S.

In a ruling harshly criticizing the administration, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. said the policy “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo,” and he accused the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of ignoring the law.

“In enacting its latest immigration policies, USCIS: claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of ‘national security’ that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making,” he wrote. “In legal terms that means USCIS’s actions are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The policies enacted after the National Guard shooting last year meant that immigrants from 39 African, Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries have been “categorically barred” from receiving final decisions on, among other things, their asylum, work permit, green card and citizenship applications.

“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs in the case. “These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum-seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives.”

The policies apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which approves applications for immigrants to work and become citizens. The agency, which is within the Homeland Security Department, often grants asylum, but only for those already in the United States when they apply. Immigration judges grant asylum to those who are stopped at the border; the ruling does not affect them, and neither do the policies that sparked the lawsuit.

It is part of an ongoing effort by the administration to tighten U.S. entry standards for travel and immigration, in what critics say unfairly prevents travel for people from a broad range of countries. The administration suggested it would expand the restrictions after the arrest of an Afghan national suspect in the shooting of two National Guard troops over Thanksgiving weekend.

In its motion to dismiss, which the court denied, the government argued that Congress gave the executive branch broad authority over immigration policy, including “the entry of aliens into the United States as well as discretion within the statutory scheme to confer as well as withdraw various discretionary benefits.”

“This case rests on a remarkable premise: that a federal court should prevent an agency from issuing the very policy guidance that provides government personnel with the guardrails necessary to ensure consistent, non-arbitrary, and individualized decisionmaking consistent with federal law,” the government wrote in its brief.

Immigration groups celebrated the ruling.

“This ruling sets a powerful precedent that the administration cannot ignore the law as laid down by Congress and cannot arbitrarily bar immigration benefits on the basis of national origin by fiat,” said Jamal Abdi, president at the National Iranian American Council. “Fortunately, this is still a nation of laws, and those who uphold America’s values have recourse to challenge and push back on such discriminatory, arbitrary policies.”

Shawn VanDiver, a Navy veteran who heads a coalition that supports Afghan resettlement efforts called #AfghanEvac, said the ruling was a “significant victory for the rule of law and for thousands of Afghan allies and other immigrants who followed every requirement asked of them.”

“Just this week in Dallas and Fort Worth, we met people who feared losing jobs because delayed work permit renewals threatened their livelihoods, families who postponed education, travel, and homeownership because they did not know when their cases would be resolved, and future Americans who had expected to become citizens only to see their applications stall without explanation,” VanDiver said.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.