agreement

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday said the U.S. has entered an agreement with Venezuela to take control of 65 billion barrels of the South American country’s oil reserves.

Trump in a social media post announced the agreement he said was negotiated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodríguez.

“The United States of America has just entered into an Agreement with the Country of Venezuela on, THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY!” Trump wrote.

The Venezuelan government’s press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The announcement of the deal comes nearly nine months after the U.S. military at Trump’s direction carried out an operation to capture Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro and spirit him to the United States to face federal narcoterrorism and drug trafficking charges.

Trump faces mounting pressure to address high gas prices as the war in Iran on Friday reached a six-month milestone with no conclusion in sight. The U.S. has tapped its strategic petroleum reserves, which in early August fell below 300 million barrels, down by more than 100 million barrels since the start of 2026.

The U.S.-Israel war against Iran has led to a dramatic slowdown of Gulf oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz, which about 20% of the world petroleum passed through prior to the conflict.

The average price of gas in the U.S. stood at about $4.09 a gallon on Friday, according to AAA. The average price was $3.21 at the same time last year.

Trump in his social media post Friday evening alluded to the Venezuela deal being part of a private partnership. The White House did not immediately reply to a request for comment about the private sector partners involved in the deal, and details on how the arrangement would work were not provided.

Persuading big American oil companies to return the region could face headwinds given and decades of badly damaged infrastructure.

Days after the ouster of Maduro, Trump gathered oil executives at the White House and called on them to rush back into Venezuela. Executives expressed interest in the opportunity but there was also a measure of caution given their past experience in the country.

Darren Woods, CEO of ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, said at that moment he saw the country as “un-investable.”

But Trump has insisted that his administration has brought a measure of stability to Venezuela.

He has argued that Venezuela stole U.S. oil when former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s moved decades ago to nationalize hundreds of foreign-owned assets, including those owned by American oil companies.

Rodríguez, in one of her early moves after taking power, signed a law that opens the nation’s oil sector to privatization and reversed a bedrock tenet of the self-proclaimed socialist movement that had ruled the country for more than two decades.

Rubio said on X that the agreement would usher in $100 billion in private investment into Venezuela and lead to lower gas prices in the United States.

“This deal is a huge win for both the American and Venezuelan people,” Rubio posted.

Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves in the world, with an estimated 303 billion barrels of crude oil in the ground. That’s about 17% of the world’s supply, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Madhani and Binkley write for the Associated Press. Regina Garcia Cano in Caracas contributed to this report.

GUATEMALA CITY — The United States has deported nearly 2,300 Mexicans to Guatemala this year and sent at least dozens more to Honduras, according to official data, a shift from the beginning of President Trump’s second term when such transfers were minimal.

Until now, Mexicans deported from the U.S. were sent almost exclusively back to their country by air and land. Only a handful arrived in other countries.

Some civil organizations believe this change reported in recent days is a way to increase pressure on Mexico, whose government has protested the deaths of 17 Mexicans in U.S. immigration custody or during enforcement operations. This also comes as Trump has expanded agreements with allied Latin American countries to conduct joint operations in the region against criminal groups and has increased U.S. security demands on Mexico.

Sent to Central America by plane and Mexico by bus

Guatemalan President Bernardo Arévalo confirmed Wednesday night that, so far this year, 2,284 Mexicans deported from the U.S. have arrived in the country as part of a “transit stopover” before being taken to Mexico as part of an “arrangement” with the Mexican government, and without these individuals being under any refugee or asylum status.

“They are arriving on planes carrying Guatemalan returnees, and what we have done is bring them in transit so that, in coordination with Mexican immigration authorities, we can return them to Mexican territory within 24 hours of their arrival in the country,” he explained at a news conference.

The costs of these operations are covered by the Mexican government or, in some cases, by U.S. funding, he added.

Mexico’s National Migration Institute confirmed to the Associated Press in a brief message that Mexicans have been deported by the Trump administration to Guatemala and Honduras, primarily since April, and are then transported by bus to southern Mexico.

“The reason is that the United States wants to prevent them from crossing back into its territory,” the institute said. It did not provide figures or further details.

Asked about why the Mexicans were sent to Central America and not their home country, and for more details, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration enforcement, said in an emailed statement that the administration “is utilizing all lawful options to carry out the largest deportation operation in history, just as President Trump promised.”

“The Mexican government has expressed its opposition to this practice to U.S. authorities and has reiterated that every Mexican citizen has the right to enter the country,” the Mexican foreign ministry said in a statement Thursday. It added that Mexico is coordinating with the countries involved to ensure the safe return of Mexican citizens.

Third-country deportations raise concerns for Mexican migrants

Historically, Mexico has always been willing to receive its deported citizens.

Since Trump’s first term, it has also accepted deportees from third countries, although the details of immigration agreements with Washington have usually been opaque. In 2025, Mexico received about 12,000 deported foreigners, mostly Cubans and Venezuelans, according to figures provided by Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. The government has not updated these figures since December although the practice has continued.

Authorities in Honduras also did not respond to requests for comment, but according to official documents from the country accessed by the Associated Press, 82 Mexicans deported from the U.S. arrived in the Honduran city of San Pedro Sula on two flights on Aug. 13 and Saturday. An additional 35 were scheduled to arrive Thursday.

An additional 165 Mexicans were deported to Honduras between May and mid-July, according to the website Third Country Deportation Watch, run by the nongovernmental organizations Human Rights First and Refugees International, which track U.S. deportation flights to third countries.

The website does not clarify the source of its nationality figures, but both organizations have expressed concern because these transfers could endanger migrants who possibly sought asylum in the U.S. or have few resources in an unknown country.

The deportation tactic “seems to be to put pressure on the Mexican government,” said Savitri Arvey of Human Rights First. “They really don’t want any Mexicans crossing the border.” Some of those deported arrived in Honduras on U.S. military flights, she added.

A recent change in the deportation pattern

At the beginning of his second term, with immigration control as one of his priorities, Trump reached agreements with Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama to act as “bridge” or destination countries for migrants from third countries expelled from U.S. territory. These agreements gradually expanded to more countries, including some African ones, most recently Liberia.

Until recently, only a handful of Mexicans had been expelled from the U.S. to countries other than Mexico.

Arévalo said Wednesday that Guatemala received 15 Mexicans in 2025. As of February 2026, Honduras had officially reported the arrival of six. Costa Rica has received 11 Mexicans since Trump’s return to the White House, and according to local immigration authorities, they remain in the country. Presumably, these individuals may have requested to not be returned to Mexico out of fear.

Immigration lawyers believe that the Trump administration is using deportations to third countries as a legal loophole to indirectly force asylum seekers to return to Mexico when the government cannot send them there because it would violate court orders from immigration judges that recognize the dangers. Organizations and politicians both inside and outside the U.S. have also questioned the use of force by U.S. immigration authorities.

Pérez, Verza and González write for the Associated Press. Verza reported from Mexico City and González from Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is pitching a plan to help shield local police officers who make immigration arrests from possible financial consequences if they are accused of on-duty misconduct.

The agency is proposing to subsidize liability insurance for state and local officers who are trained and deputized to enforce federal immigration laws, according to a planning document published Friday.

ICE’s partnerships with local departments have soared since President Trump returned to the White House last year and may get an additional boost with liability insurance by removing a hurdle that has made some local police departments reluctant to join. The Associated Press is the first to report on this insurance proposal.

Under the plan, officers would purchase insurance covering up to $500,000 in personal liability, which typically funds legal fees, settlements and judgments. Officers would be reimbursed up to $250 annually — roughly what the insurance is expected to cost.

One prominent critic of ICE’s immigration crackdown said the program would be yet another way for officers to avoid personal accountability for misconduct.

“The concern here is that ICE is going above and beyond to guarantee law enforcement does not have even the slightest risk of liability for violating Americans’ rights while helping ICE arrest people,” said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, who has called on Congress to make it easier to sue ICE agents for wrongdoing.

ICE outlined the plan in a document informing industry officials that it is considering hiring a contractor to help provide outreach, training and communications support for its so-called 287(g) partnerships with local departments, which are named for a section of a 1996 immigration law. The contractor would hire the insurance vendor and process the reimbursements, among other tasks.

ICE has asked for industry feedback by Thursday. The proposed timeline for launching the program and its estimated cost are unclear.

ICE had no immediate comment on the plan.

Arrests by ICE’s local partners have spiked since last year

During Trump’s second term, ICE has offered generous financial incentives to participating local agencies, increasing the number who have partnered with the federal government, as well as the number of arrests.

Nearly 1,600 agencies in 32 states now have agreements to participate in ICE’s task force model, in which trained local officers can interrogate, arrest and charge people suspected of being in the country illegally, according to ICE data.

Departments qualify for funding to help cover expenses like their officers’ pay, equipment and vehicles. With encouragement from state and local Republican officials, agencies in Florida, Texas, Oklahoma and Georgia have been among the leaders.

Arrests made through such programs jumped to an average of 3,000 per month in the first two months of 2026, according to the most recent ICE data provided to the University of California Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project. That compares to a monthly average of 250 in 2024 under President Biden.

Local departments, officers worried about liability for ICE work

As local officers increasingly carry out federal immigration work, they and their departments have expressed concerns about the civil liability that could result from claims alleging excessive use of force, wrongful arrest and illegal search and seizure, among other things.

That’s because insurance policies that cover their local work may not apply. Pennsylvania’s risk pool, for instance, recently made clear that it would exclude “proactive immigration enforcement activities” from coverage, forcing several participating counties to search for other insurance options.

Butler County Sheriff Michael Slupe said he found insurance to cover his 13 deputies participating in the program at a cost of $20,000 in annual premiums.

“I want to make sure the guys are additionally covered, so we had to spend the money,” he said, adding that federal funding would cover the cost.

Federal officers usually enjoy legal immunities and a government-funded defense when they face lawsuits. But those protections may not always apply to local officers, which has heightened their concerns over liability and the need for insurance.

Although civil lawsuits are the main concern, professional liability insurance typically helps cover legal fees for officers facing criminal investigations as well.

Sheriffs’ group says ICE’s insurance idea sounds promising

Justin Smith, a former Colorado sheriff who is executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Assn., said ICE’s plan sounds promising and that he was eager to speak with ICE about how the plan would work.

Smith said he has shared concerns with ICE that some sheriffs are reluctant to join the partnerships because of the potential liability at a time when immigration enforcement faces intense public protests and media scrutiny. Smith said others who are partnering with ICE have already started facing legal claims tied to their immigration work, which can be costly whether or not deputies are ultimately found to have done anything wrong.

“Right now, any time you are working on immigration there is going to be a much higher potential for there being problems and having suits and issues,” he said. “They’re recognizing that it is a different environment. And I think trying to be good partners with us as best they can.”

Under their agreements, ICE warns local departments that they are responsible for the costs of incidents that give rise to liability. But it seeks to reduce the risk by saying local officers performing ICE-authorized functions are “acting under color of federal authority,” which would bar lawsuits against individual officers.

The agreements also state that local officers who face civil lawsuits can ask the U.S. Department of Justice to represent them, and that ICE will generally support their requests. But the final decision on whether to do so rests with the department.

Foley writes for the Associated Press.

Major League Baseball’s team owners unanimously have approved the sale of the San Diego Padres to an investor group led by private equity billionaire José E. Feliciano and his wife and business partner, Kwanza Jones.

The league announced the approval Monday after a vote. Feliciano and Jones reached an agreement in May to buy the Padres from the family of late owner Peter Seidler at an MLB-record valuation of $3.9 billion. The deal is still contingent on the official closing of the transaction in the coming weeks.

“José and Kwanza understand the unique place the Padres hold in San Diego and the powerful bond between the club and its fans,” Commissioner Rob Manfred said in a statement. “We look forward to their leadership of the Padres and to working with them to build on the club’s strong foundation in a market that is so important to Major League Baseball.”

Seidler’s family announced its intention to explore a sale of the Padres last November, two years after his death. The 53-year-old Feliciano, a co-founder of Santa Monica-based private equity firm Clearlake Capital, emerged from the competition as the Seidler family’s top choice.

Padres Chief Executive Erik Greupner and general manager A.J. Preller will remain in charge of day-to-day operations, according to MLB’s announcement.

“We are a family first, and becoming owners of the San Diego Padres means joining an even larger one,” Jones and Feliciano said in a statement. “We are grateful to the Seidler family, and especially to Peter, for raising the expectations of what this franchise can achieve. … Our ambition is clear: to bring a World Series championship to San Diego and build an enduring organization capable of competing for championships year after year. We intend to be engaged owners, bringing our energy, experience and perspective while working alongside the talented team already in place and investing ambitiously and thoughtfully in the Padres’ future.

“We are all in and committed to winning.”

Peter Seidler assumed majority control of the Padres in 2020 after first joining their ownership group in 2012, but he became beloved in San Diego for his aggressive financial pursuit of winning and his eagerness to engage with the team’s fan base. He died at age 63 in November 2023.

The Padres dramatically increased their payroll under Seidler, allowing Preller to build the foundation for the current team, which has made four playoff appearances in the past six years and won at least 89 games in three of the last four seasons during the most successful stretch in franchise history. San Diego is currently in the playoff race again, winning 17 of its last 22 games entering Monday to surge into an NL wild-card position at 67-58.

“As far as the day-to-day operations, nothing changes for us,” Padres manager Craig Stammen said in New York before San Diego’s series opener against the Mets. “We’ve got to go out here and play the games, just like we have all season long. The ownership sale has kind of been something that’s been going on throughout the entire year. It doesn’t really affect the play on the field, but we’re excited to have José and Kwanza a part of the Padres and can’t wait to welcome them.”

The minority partners in the Padres’ new ownership group include Joey and Jesse Buss, two sons of former Lakers owner Jerry Buss. Coincidentally, the six Buss siblings decided earlier Monday to sell their remaining minority ownership stake in the Lakers to incoming majority owners Joshua Kushner and Bob Iger. Jeanie Buss is contesting the sale of the family’s shares.

When Feliciano and Jones reached their agreement to purchase the Padres earlier this year, they praised the team as “a unifying force in San Diego, rooted in community, connection and belonging.” They’ve since been spotted at Padres games in San Diego and in Mexico City.

“It’s good to see people that care working with us, you know?” Padres outfielder Jackson Merrill said. “I mean, the Seidlers cared a lot. It’ll be fun to see how these people take it, mold it into their own, you know? Trust in them, as they trust in us on the field. So, full confidence in them. Excited to meet them.”

The Padres have never won a World Series, but they were a valuable commodity for potential owners as the only team in the four biggest North American sports leagues in a metropolitan area with roughly 3.3 million people. Downtown Petco Park has become one of the liveliest ballparks in the sport, and the Padres ranked second in the majors in attendance last season.

Feliciano, who was born in Puerto Rico, becomes the second Latino principal owner in baseball, along with the Angels’ Arte Moreno. Latino and Hispanic players comprise roughly 30% of major league rosters.

Feliciano and Jones will hold an introductory news conference at Petco Park on Aug. 24.

Beacham writes for the Associated Press.

The Motion Picture Assn. has struck its first agreement with an artificial intelligence company, saying Monday that ByteDance has strengthened copyright guardrails into its AI video and image tools that drew legal threats from every major Hollywood studio in February.

ByteDance, a Chinese company, is the former majority owner of TikTok’s U.S. operations.

The MPA, the trade association that lobbies for major studios such as Disney, Netflix and Sony Pictures Entertainment, said it has had constructive engagement with ByteDance over the last several months to rein in Seedance, a text-to-video generation tool, and Seedream, which produces images using text commands.

“Today’s agreement illustrates our belief that copyright is a cornerstone of the film and television industry – and reinforces our commitment to protect creative content,” said MPA Chairman and Chief Executive Charles Rivkin.

MPA declined to share the specific guardrails in the agreement.

The agreement comes as some studios have expressed concerns about AI models training on their copyrighted material without permission or compensation. In February, MPA issued a cease-and-desist letter to ByteDance, alleging Seedance 2.0 was trained on copyrighted material and generating unauthorized videos featuring characters such as “SpongeBob SquarePants” and visuals replicating a scene from sci-fi series “Stranger Things” without studios’ permission. It was the first time the MPA had filed a cease-and-desist letter to a major AI firm.

“ByteDance is engaged in pervasive and widespread infringement of our members’ valuable intellectual property that it must stop immediately,” MPA’s global general counsel Karyn Temple wrote in a Feb. 20 letter to ByteDance’s global general counsel John Rogovin.

ByteDance in response said it was taking steps to strengthen its safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of IP or likeness.

Since then, ByteDance has released Seedream 5.0 Pro and Seedance 2.5, which reflect “ByteDance’s continued advances in IP protections,” the tech company and MPA said in a news release.

“ByteDance respects the intellectual property rights that underpin creative industries around the world, and we believe responsible innovation in AI goes hand in hand with meaningful protections for rightsholders,” ByteDance’s Rogovin said in the statement.

Seedance has emerged as a leader in AI tools among some indie filmmakers, who say it is more cost-effective than other options. AI tech companies are eager to find ways to partner with studios to make their tools better, but are also facing competition from rivals to gain more customers as quickly as possible. That has caused some companies to quickly launch their AI products without first putting in more mechanisms to prevent images from appearing without copyright holders’ permission.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye have signed a joint defence pact.

It is an alliance that analysts say highlights Riyadh’s desire to diversify its defence partnerships, expanding to Ankara and Islamabad.

The pact was announced at a time of increased regional tension.

Yemen’s Saudi-backed government has launched a military operation against the Iran-aligned Houthis following a series of attacks, while Iran and the US have yet to reach a final deal to end the war.

The trilateral Mecca pact raises questions about the effectiveness of the decades-long US military presence in the Gulf. Does this alliance offer a viable alternative to the security umbrella promised by Washington?

Presenter: Anna Burns-Francis

Guests:

Abdulaziz Alghashian – Senior non-resident fellow at the Gulf International Forum

David Des Roches – Professor at the Thayer Marshall Institute

Zaid M Belbagi – Managing partner at Hardcastle Advisory

WASHINGTON — President Trump reaffirmed Friday that Hamas has agreed to disarm and relinquish control of Gaza to a newly created Palestinian government, a milestone he cast as a critical step in the long-stalled effort to end the war in the territory.

The agreement, which the president initially announced in a Truth Social post Thursday evening, capped months of negotiations overseen by the Board of Peace, a body created by the Trump administration last year to oversee talks with Hamas and Israel over the future of Gaza.

“As disarmament is completed, Israeli forces will withdraw, and the International Stabilization Force will work with a new Palestinian police force to take responsibility for Gaza being safe for its residents and its neighbors,” Trump wrote.

But uncertainty looms over the agreement, with Hamas saying Friday it would begin disarming only if Israel halts all military operations in Gaza and Israeli officials expressing skepticism about the deal in news interviews Friday. Trump, during a Cabinet meeting Friday at Camp David, Md., acknowledged the possibility of the deal going awry, saying it is likely the agreement’s implementation could go through its “ups and downs.”

“It’s a very complex situation over there,” Trump said. “The people are very complex and difficult.”

Trump added that Israel was “very happy” with the deal. He also said that the Board of Peace intends to take possession of Hamas’ weapons when it relinquishes them.

Trump, who faces public pressure over his handling of a broadening war in Iran and the economic impact it is having on Americans, downplayed the unpopularity of his policies and said he hopes Americans vote for Republicans when they head to the polls in November.

At the same time, he defended his military strategies in the Middle East, even as he was unable to provide a clear timeline for when the conflict in Iran will end.

“We’re in for five months, and we have obliterated their military capacity. Again, they’ve got some left, but soon they won’t have some left,” Trump said. He added that he was “losing faith” in Iranian leaders amid negotiations because he said they “lie.”

Trump, however, argued that the deal with Hamas is an indication that his administration’s strategy will succeed in Iran.

“Nobody thought that it would be possible to disarm Hamas. That shows you how much success we’re having with Iran, because if you went four months ago or five months ago, a deal like that would have been impossible,” Trump said.

Hamas, for its part, has confirmed it would begin disarmament, but in a statement Friday said it was contingent on Israel halting all attacks in Gaza and fulfilling provisions of the first phase of a ceasefire deal that was signed in October 2025.

Hamas, which said it was approaching the proposal with “responsibility and positivity,” also took the unprecedented step of agreeing to a sequenced decommissioning of a range of armory, described to include: “police weapons, heavy weapons, military production sites, weapons depots and tunnels, personal weapons and the weapons of militias.”

But the group linked it to a raft of processes, including Israel’s withdrawal from the enclave and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state — both nonstarters for Israel’s government.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had yet to comment on the proposal by Friday afternoon, but several Israeli officials expressed skepticism if not outright rejection of the proposal.

“In response to various publications this morning about political progress in the Gaza Strip, Israel has reiterated that there will be no IDF withdrawal from the current Yellow Line without the genuine disarmament of Hamas,” a senior Israeli official was quoted as saying in the Times of Israel newspaper.

The official referred to the demarcation line behind which Israeli troops withdrew under the ceasefire agreement. When the agreement went into effect in October 2025, the Yellow Line marked off territory comprising about 53% of Gaza. But Israel has repeatedly shifted the line westward, swallowing up more of the enclave with the intent to control 70% of it, according to Israeli officials.

Speaking to CNN on Friday, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, said Israel would have to verify what Hamas is doing with regard to disarmament, “not what they are saying.”

“Disarmament means the weapons are out of Gaza,” he said. He added that the idea of a Palestinian state was “not on the table.”

And in an example of the fervent opposition the deal is likely to face in Israeli political circles, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir — a hard-line member of Netanyahu’s government — dismissed the deal as “unacceptable” and that suspending Israel’s attacks on the enclave would only allow Hamas to reconstitute itself.

“The assassinations in Gaza must continue, the encouragement of [Palestinian] emigration [from the enclave] must happen. Israel must win,” he said in a post on Telegram.

The agreement as laid out by the Board of Peace involves a 15-point “roadmap” with several provisions, including security, governance, reconstruction, the deployment of international peacekeeping forces and Israeli withdrawal. Those points, which were agreed to Thursday, are meant to carry out Trump’s broader plan for the territory.

All parties reaffirm their commitment to the “comprehensive plan” announced by Trump in September, which involves stopping the fighting in Gaza, complete Israeli withdrawal from the strip, and “a credible political path that achieves self-determination and [Palestinian] Statehood.”

Israel should “without delay” fulfill its remaining commitments in phase one, including cessation of military attacks. Hamas too should stop all attacks “without delay,” the agreement says.

Once those milestones are reached, the Palestinian-led National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, or NCAG — which Israel has thus far prevented from entering Gaza — would take on responsibilities in the strip, along with an International Verification Committee that will certify progress on both sides.

The NCAG administers the police force and controls its weapons, and will eventually become the only party in Gaza with arms. It will also administer and implement a process to decommission and store heavy weapons, military production sites, depots of weapons, and tunnels.

The process will be linked to a phased Israeli withdrawal.

Regional and Western governments welcomed the proposal’s announcement while acknowledging the difficulties facing its implementation. It also brought a measure of cautious hope in Gaza, where more than nine months after the ceasefire was signed conditions remain nightmarish.

Since Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas launched an assault on southern Israel in which 1,200 people were killed and 250 others were kidnapped, the enclave has been the target of a furious Israeli military campaign that has killed more than 73,000 people and displaced nearly all of Gaza’s 2.1 million residents. Much of Gaza is a rubble-encrusted moonscape, spurring rights groups and the U.N. to accuse Israel of genocide.

Despite Trump’s optimism, the deal comes at a delicate moment for Israel’s leaders, as the country gears up for an acrimonious election fight at the end of October that could see Netanyahu — who is on trial for corruption charges and could be imprisoned if he loses — dethroned.

Already trailing in the polls, he can ill afford appearing soft on Hamas, especially among a pool of candidates eager to excoriate him for his post-Oct. 7 legacy.

“The outrageous gap between Netanyahu’s promises and reality is exposed. After the heavy prices, the fallen and the wounded, he has capitulated in his political weakness without achieving the war’s objectives, instead of ending it from a position of strength,” said Gadi Eisenkot, an election contender and the former military chief of staff responsible for the Dahiyah Doctrine, the Israeli military’s strategy of targeting large-scale civilian infrastructure.

“The State of Israel must not accept a reality in which Hamas survives, rearms, and waits for the opportunity to carry out the next massacre!” Eisenkot wrote on X.

At the same time, with Trump already facing criticism for joining the Israeli leader in assaulting Iran, Netanyahu can’t be seen as scuttling a Trump-brokered agreement in Gaza.

Ceballos reported from Washington, Bulos from Beirut.

Paramount Skydance has agreed to delay its purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery to as late as next June as David Ellison’s media company mounts its defense to the antitrust challenge brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his coalition of 11 other state attorneys general.

The major concession comes as Paramount was facing an Aug. 3 hearing to try to convince U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín that its proposed $111-billion deal — which would reshape Hollywood with the combination of two historic studios — would not violate U.S. antitrust laws.

The judge appeared to be leaning toward the arguments of the state attorneys general, who have alleged the proposed union of two big film studios and television networks including HBO, CBS, CNN, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and TBS, runs afoul of the 112-year-old Clayton Antitrust Act.

In a stipulation filed Friday, Paramount agreed to hold off on closing its blockbuster purchase until after the states’ antitrust case can be decided in a trial before the Oakland-based judge or by June 1, 2027, whichever date comes first.

The move came after Martínez-Olguín issued a temporary restraining order earlier in the week — requested by Bonta and the others — which paused the deal until next month’s preliminary injunction hearing when she was set to decide whether a lengthy moratorium should be imposed.

Privately, Paramount officials were worried they might lose that round before Martínez-Olguín, so, during negotiations with the states, Paramount stipulated that it would not close the deal on its preferred timetable.

Paramount had wanted to finalize the takeover this month — or at least have it wrapped up by Sept. 30.

In a statement, Bonta celebrated the delay as “great news for audiences, movie theaters, and the many people who write, build, and create the art, news, and entertainment so many of us enjoy.”

“Our argument against this illegal merger is straightforward: When too few corporations have too much power in markets central to American life, it makes things more expensive, and it makes things worse,” Bonta said.

Now, Paramount will incur added deal costs and significant legal fees as it prepares the case for a full-blown trial. Paramount, in a statement, framed the delay as “a significant win” for the company.

“The result is exactly what we have sought from the outset: a direct path to a trial based on the evidence,” a Paramount spokesperson said in a statement. “This is the fastest and clearest way to prove that this transaction is good for competition, good for consumers, and good for creators, a conclusion dozens of competition authorities around the world have already reached. We look forward to proving our case at trial.”

On Wednesday, the European Commission gave its blessing, allowing the Paramount-Warner merger to move forward in European countries. More than 40 jurisdictions have given their consent. The U.S. Justice Department last month signed off — an approval that had been expected because of President Trump’s desire to see the Ellison family own CNN.

Paramount shares slipped on the news, falling 3.3% to $8.21 — marking the year’s lowest trading day. Warner’s stock gains since Monday’s restraining order ruling were suddenly erased. Warner shares finished at $25.77 — 17% lower than Paramount’s deal offer.

Now Paramount will have to pay Warner Bros. Discovery investors more than the $31 a share it previously promised.

In a show of confidence earlier this year, the company boasted it would quickly secure the necessary regulatory approvals to finalize the Warner purchase by late September. As an added incentive to win over investors, the company said it would pay so-called “ticking fees” should the deal encounter snags.

Those fees of $.25 a share per quarter begin Oct. 1, adding about $650 million to the pricetag each quarter until close. If Paramount is unable to close the deal by June 1, it would owe Warner Bros. Discovery a $7 billion breakup fee.

Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle, is bankrolling his son’s ambitions to acquire a second major entertainment company in less than a year. The Ellison family acquired the smaller Paramount in August.

The Democratic state attorneys general, including from New York, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, filed their lawsuit nearly two weeks ago.

The state attorneys general have alleged the deal would harm competition in three markets: films released widely (in more than 3,000 theaters); potential blockbuster films; and a concentration of cable TV channels.

Paramount insists that streaming marketshare be included in the market definition because a combined Paramount+ and HBO Max would still trail industry leaders, Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime and Disney+.

“Plaintiffs’ market definitions bear no relationship to the realities of today’s marketplace and cannot withstand scrutiny,” Paramount’s spokesperson said.

In her order earlier this week, Martínez-Olguín wrote that the plaintiff states presented “compelling evidence” that the merged company could wield too much control in theatrical distribution.

Friday’s agreement came after Martínez-Olguín on Thursday extended the restraining order for another 14 days — until Aug. 17 — in recognition the two sides needed time to hash out their scheduling requests. In addition, the Writers Guild of America has filed its own antitrust lawsuit, and the judge agreed to allow that case to move forward with the states’ case.

The Aug. 3 preliminary injunction hearing will be canceled as the two sides prepare for a trial.

“We are eager to continue to make our case in court …to ensure this unlawful merger never sees the light of day,” Bonta said.

The months-long delay is expected to affect Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav’s proposed $887-million exit package.

As part of a pact earlier this year, Warner board members agreed to cover Zaslav’s expected $335 million in tax obligations tied to his enormous payout, according to regulatory filings. However, Warner is not on the hook to cover Zaslav’s tax bill should the deal extend into 2027.

The merger has faced stiff resistance in Hollywood and beyond. More than 5,000 entertainment industry workers have signed an open letter calling on Bonta to block the merger.

Britain’s culture minister has also signaled that she may open a full inquiry into the proposed media consolidation, which could also bring other delays.

“This victory in putting the merger on hold belongs to the people who refused to treat the merger as inevitable,” Norm Eisen, a former ambassador and Obama White House ethics lawyer who is helping lead the #BlocktheMerger campaign.

“Artists, journalists, filmmakers, and consumer advocates spoke out despite the risk of retaliation, more than 5,500 people signed our open letter,” Eisen said in a statement. “This collective resistance is turning the tide.”

For more than a quarter-century, a lawsuit settlement from a case brought in Los Angeles federal court has dictated conditions for children held in immigration detention.

But now, the long-standing settlement — which set minimum standards for housing, education and medical care for migrant kids in federal custody, while strictly limiting how long they can remain there — hangs in the balance in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after a challenge by the Trump administration.

At the same time, the federal judge in L.A. who presides over the agreement appears poised to appoint a powerful new enforcer to uphold it.

President Trump has long sought to scrap the Flores settlement, which dates back to the Clinton era. In recent months, the Trump administration has waged a legal battle to cancel the agreement, while also pleading with the district court not to order an independent monitor to boost its compliance.

“[Flores] is the only thing standing between them and indefinite detention of families,” said Leecia Welch, chief legal director at Children’s Rights, a plaintiff in the case.

Last month, Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett A. Shumate pressed the 9th Circuit court to give the administration “the thumbs-up or thumbs-down” on its bid to tear up the settlement and end what he called “judicial micromanagement” of federal immigration policy.

“The Flores consent decree is an agreement which goes well above the constitutional floor,” Shumate told the court during oral arguments in June. “We’re asking that [the Department of Homeland Security’s] compliance with the law be assessed based on the law, not a 30-year-old settlement agreement.”

The three-judge panel sharply questioned the Justice Department’s legal claims, saying little had changed since the government last petitioned the court to have the agreement dissolved in 2020 — a request that was rejected.

The judges also pressed Trump administration lawyers to respond to evidence from scores of declarations filed in district court since last summer, in which detainees describe struggling to sleep in freezing, brightly lit rooms, vomiting from eating spoiled food, and begging for diapers, baby formula and asthma inhalers.

“You’ve said a lot of the reason you’re doing this is to discourage families from coming in the first place, so you’re basically punishing children because their parents brought them here,” Judge Marsha S. Berzon said.

Berzon, a Clinton appointee who issued a fiery dissent last year in a case that challenged the administration’s use of armed troops in immigration enforcement operations, asked: “You’re saying there’s no constitutional problem there?”

“I understand the detention of children at the border is a controversial policy issue, but that’s a policy decision,” Shumate said.

Just a day earlier, Chief U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee scolded a pair of government attorneys from her bench in Los Angeles, signaling she would probably appoint a new special master to force compliance with the settlement agreement.

“We’re talking about 11 years of this,” Gee said during the June 1 status conference. “None of these issues are new to me. These are all issues on which I have issued orders. I am very displeased about the fact that my orders are being disregarded and are not being complied with, not in good faith.”

“Both sides seem to be operating in different planes of reality,” Gee said.

The disputed settlement emerged from a 1985 lawsuit over the fate of 15-year-old Jenny Flores, a Salvadoran refugee who was picked up by federal immigration enforcement and left to languish in detention in Pasadena. At the time, there was little awareness that children were among the tens of thousands of migrants fleeing civil war and state collapse in Central America — with virtually no U.S. government infrastructure to protect them.

“It was a surprise,” said Benjamin Roth, a professor at the University of South Carolina College of Social Work and an expert on the agreement. “There was no thought then that there were kids in this mix.”

The current court fight centers on an immigration detention center in Dilley, Texas, run by the private prison company CoreCivic, where the vast majority of children and families in immigration custody are held.

In court filings earlier this month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it has “maintained core Flores-related services” at Dilley and argued its length-of-stay numbers were skewed by a small number of families it was forced to keep because they are considered “national security risks.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection likewise boasted its July 1 report “shows our highest level of compliance to date.”

Immigrant rights advocates called those claims “a fiction.”

“We see the same sorts of problems and concerns and misery that we’ve been seeing for the last 15 months,” said Welch, the Children’s Rights attorney.

In dozens of declarations collected as part of the court record, detainees recounted broccoli full of worms, diapers doled out one at a time, and staff tearing up children’s drawings.

One mother said medical staff laughed off her 8-year-old’s broken arm. Another said she was denied treatment for hepatitis B, even after doctors told her she could develop liver cancer and pass the infection on to her unborn daughter.

Still others described unexplained rashes, outbreaks of diarrhea and infestations of lice, among a host of other maladies for which many said they were offered only Tylenol or allergy medication. Even Christmas brought misery in the form of an ICE agent dressed up as Santa, who shoved away children trying to hug him, according to the detainee declarations submitted to the court.

“What happened on Christmas Day can only be described as an atrocity,” one mother recalled. Children “dropped everything, ran up to him, begged for candy and wanted to take pictures. Some children even cried and begged him for their freedom. Santa himself acted very indifferent.”

The Department of Justice argued that immigrant kids could still sue over poor conditions if the Flores settlement is unwound. But experts say existing protections would collapse without the legal architecture of the consent decree to support them.

“[Under the settlement], the federal government has built out a very efficient system to provide temporary care for kids,” Roth said. “If Flores is dissolved, it’s not going to be easy to stand up this same set of programs.”

If the Trump administration loses before the 9th Circuit, the fight over Flores could soon escalate to the Supreme Court.

“I’d be shocked if the 9th Circuit rules for the government, and I’d be shocked if the Trump administration doesn’t appeal,” said Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and an expert on the high court.

But consent decrees are legally and politically complicated, and the treatment of migrant children further tangles the situation. Given the legal and political complexity, the Supreme Court could rule to keep the settlement in place, or decline to take the case at all, experts said.

“It’s more likely than not the court would stay away from this,” Segall said.

For now, both the district judge and the 9th Circuit panel appear fed up.

“I think my patience has come to an end,” Gee said during the recent hearing in her Los Angeles courtroom.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has agreed to work with Saudi Arabia to develop a civilian nuclear program, a watershed moment following a years-long effort to curb the proliferation of nuclear technology in the Middle East.

The announcement comes as President Trump has vowed to continue executing a war against Iran over its own nuclear ambitions. On Wednesday, the president warned he would target a bridge or power plant for every commercial vessel Iran fires upon in the Strait of Hormuz, after earlier this week threatening to strike a new facility Tehran is reportedly building to conceal its continued nuclear work.

The Saudi deal stoked surprise and immediate concern across Washington, where lawmakers are expected to have a vote on the matter, as well as in Israel, itself a nuclear power that has long feared an atomic arms race could grip the region.

A Saudi nuclear program has long been tied to the standoff over Iran’s nuclear work, which successive U.S. administrations have said extends beyond civilian purposes. After Iran struck a nuclear deal with world powers in 2015, Saudi Arabia vowed to match whatever nuclear capabilities Tehran was allowed to keep.

In the decade since, U.S. officials had tried to keep Saudi Arabia from developing its own program, fearing it would fuel nuclear competition across the Middle East. But it became a consistent and central point of negotiation between the two allies.

Both the Trump and Biden administrations ultimately offered to support a limited, monitored program as part of a broader deal to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, hoping that a diplomatic breakthrough would mitigate the risks of an arms race.

But the agreement secured this week left skeptics in Washington and the region unclear what the United States had secured in return.

The deal comes after Trump told reporters this week that the goal of resuming war with Iran was to prevent them from ever obtaining nuclear weapons, a challenge that has vexed the international community since the outset of the century.

U.S. presidents have long sought to prevent Middle Eastern countries from acquiring technologies that could be used to build weapons of mass destruction. The 2003 invasion of Iraq over false claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs prompted Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi to abandon his nuclear work. Over the next two decades, the United States and Israel also targeted Syria’s nuclear and chemical weapons programs under Bashar al-Assad.

But Iran’s slow march to nuclear weapons capability, enriching uranium near to weapons-grade with no clear civilian or scientific ends, has prompted other countries in the region to question whether they, too, might need similar capabilities to counterbalance a historic foe. Israel, which views the Islamic Republic and its nuclear program as existential threats, is widely believed to possess its own nuclear weapons.

Hours after the nuclear deal was reported by the Wall Street Journal, the White House was silent on the details and Trump administration officials were left scrambling when asked by lawmakers and reporters for answers.

While traveling in Manila, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters he was aware of the news reports, but deferred to the White House to provide more public information.

When pressed about the risks of such a deal, Rubio said he would not “opine directly on the agreement,” but said the United States “is not going to reach any agreement with any country in the world that leads to the risk of proliferation.”

The White House confirmed the deal Wednesday afternoon.

Back in Washington, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he has not yet seen the agreement with Saudi Arabia.

The deal, which would last 30 years and involve American firms developing the program, is expected to be submitted for review to Congress. Lawmakers will consider the deal as they grow increasingly uneasy about the Trump administration’s handling of an expanding Iran war, which Trump and Israel launched, arguing for the need to wipe out Tehran’s capabilities to build nuclear weapons.

As the war enters its fifth month, Trump has continued to defend the military efforts and has dismissed the idea that war is unpopular among Americans as they feel the economic effects.

“Americans aren’t against the war,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday. “Americans don’t want high gasoline prices but they’re not against the war.”

Trump’s remarks were made as he traveled to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to attend a dignified transfer of U.S. service members killed in the war. Asked what he would say to the families who lost their loved ones, Trump said he’d tell them they’re loved.

“All I’m going to say is, we love you. We love your child, and that’s what they are to them. They’re their children. There’s no games, no nothing,” Trump said. “That’s their child, and all you can do is throw out your heart.”

Earlier in the day, Trump said the United States will destroy a bridge or power plant in Iran each time it shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for the global energy supply.

Trump’s threat to target bridges and power plants would mark yet another escalation that could affect civilians in the region.

Hasan Ghashghavi, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, denied Trump’s claim on Tuesday that Iran was requesting negotiations, saying in a statement on X that it was “in no way consistent with the facts.”

“It seems that Trump, in order to extricate himself from the quagmire he’s trapped in, should seek better paths,” he wrote. “Repetitive lies no longer even bring about short-term market relief.”

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

A year ago, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump struck a trade deal in Turnberry, Scotland, shaking hands under the spotlight of the world’s media after weeks of trade disputes.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Defended by the Commission as the best deal it could secure, the agreement imposed 15 percent US tariffs on imports from the EU, while the EU committed to removing its duties on most US industrial products.

The Europeans also pledged to invest €520 billion in the US and purchase €700 billion in US energy by 2028, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), oil and nuclear energy products.

The Turnberry agreement was supposed to draw a line under the dispute. Instead, it opened a new chapter.

Over the past year, Trump has repeatedly threatened the EU with new tariffs, slowing the implementation of the agreement on the European side, where lawmakers froze its ratification. Following negotiations between the EU’s co-legislators, the bloc eventually removed its tariffs on 1 July.

On the US side, the process has been no smoother. The White House had to adopt new tariffs after the US Supreme Court ruled in February 2026 that the duties imposed on US trading partners in 2025 were illegal.

The new tariffs, introduced under a different legal basis, are set to expire at the end of this week, on 24 July, unless Congress extends them – a prospect considered unlikely with the midterm elections approaching.

As the Turnberry deal marks its first anniversary, here are four things to know about the state of transatlantic trade relations.

1. Trade with the US increased in 2025

Despite the tariff war, transatlantic trade has not shrunk. Quite the opposite: EU-US goods and services trade rose by 4.5 percent to €1.8 trillion in 2025, as companies rushed shipments ahead of Trump’s tariffs, offsetting the slowdown later in the year.

Since January 2025, US importers have had to pay around €31 billion in additional duties, compared with €7 billion in pre-tariff years.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, however, some have already been refunded. US data released in mid-July shows that $81 billion was paid back for tariffs imposed globally on the country’s trading partners.

2. Europe is on track to meet its investment pledges

According to the European Commission, the EU will keep its promise to invest massively in the US. In early 2025, it reported that EU companies had pledged €242 billion in investments across various US sectors, including cars, IT, chemicals and food.

Regarding energy investments, an EU senior official said the €700 billion target will be exceeded. The Commission said that, in 2025 alone, EU buyers imported energy products and signed deals worth more than $250 billion.

As the Iran war broke out and the EU phased out Russian gas supplies, purchases of US LNG and oil reached record levels. New nuclear projects will also be carried out in cooperation with US partners.

3. Negotiations continue on exemptions, steel and aluminium

The EU-US trade saga is far from over. Brussels and Washington have started negotiating new tariff exemptions for EU goods. The Turnberry agreement referred to these future discussions, but the White House wanted the EU to implement its side of the agreement before talks could begin.

Last autumn, the Commission, together with European businesses, drew up a list of hundreds of products for which it hopes to restore pre-existing tariff levels. The list, recently transmitted to the US side, covers around €150 billion worth of EU exports and includes iconic products such as Roquefort, olive oil, wines and spirits.

The Europeans also hope to make progress on steel and aluminium. The US still imposes 50 percent tariffs on imports from trading partners worldwide. However, the Commission expects the discussions to be challenging, as the White House wants to bring production back to the US while also dealing with massive Chinese overcapacity.

4. The US is preparing new tariffs

Following the Supreme Court ruling, the White House had to rely on a new legal basis to impose tariffs reaching the 15 percent ceiling set by the Turnberry agreement. But those tariffs expire on Friday, and the US is already looking for new ways to impose additional duties.

European officials therefore expect the White House to introduce new tariffs targeting forced labour and overcapacity following investigations launched under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The forced labour tariffs have already been announced and are expected to come first, despite the EU arguing that it already has legislation banning forced labour.

“Of course we do not agree with the findings on forced labour, and we’ve made that very clear to our United States counterparts,” an EU senior official said. “But the main objective is to make sure that the agreement is respected and that our companies can benefit from the stability and predictability that was set out there.”

So as long as those future tariffs don’t exceed the 15 percent cap, the EU will not go against them.

The Commission is also closely monitoring a US investigation into German drug pricing under Section 301, which could also lead to punitive tariffs if the US Trade Department finds that “persistent underpayment for innovative pharmaceutical products by Germany is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts US commerce”.

PHOENIX — Election officials in Arizona’s most populous county reached an agreement this week on how to jointly oversee the vote, ending a prolonged legal battle.

Republican Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap sued the predominantly GOP board of supervisors in June 2025, alleging it illegally took control of certain aspects of election administration. The board called the lawsuit frivolous and said Heap was wasting taxpayer money.

They reached a settlement this week to resolve the lawsuit after mediated negotiations, and the board approved it.

“This deal gets us out of the courtroom,” board Chair Kate Brophy McGee, said after Tuesday’s vote. “I’m sick of drama. We are done with being on the front page going forward.”

Heap said his objective was simple: to ensure his office’s statutory responsibilities are carried out lawfully.

“I am pleased we have reached an agreement that, when implemented, will restore those responsibilities and establish a clear framework for administering elections moving forward,” Heap said in a statement jointly released with the board.

Under the agreement, an interim plan proposed by Heap and approved by the Arizona Supreme Court will govern the July 21 primary. Early voting began in late June.

Heap will oversee much of early voting, selection of ballot drop box locations and other duties. The board will handle other areas, including Election Day voting, ballot tabulation and voting location equipment maintenance. The board also will fund a new $15 million information technology system and related positions for the recorder.

Heap was backed in the lawsuit by America First Legal, a conservative public interest group founded by Stephen Miller, a deputy chief of staff in the White House. Heap had claimed the board transferred funding, IT staff and some key functions — including management of drop boxes and establishment of early voting sites — away from his office through an agreement negotiated with his predecessor.

Heap defeated incumbent recorder Stephen Richer, in a GOP primary, and won the 2024 general election.

The two were at odds over election administration in Maricopa County. In the past, Heap has stopped short of repeating false claims that the 2020 and 2022 elections were stolen. But he has said voters don’t trust the state’s voting system and that it is poorly run. Richer, also a Republican, relentlessly defended the legitimacy of the vote.

Supervisor Steve Gallardo, a Democrat, did not vote to approve the settlement and criticized Heap during Tuesday’s board meeting.

“Honestly, I don’t think he wants to have an election that is conducted transparent or even an election that’s not compromised,” Gallardo said. “Now, with this, he owns it.”

Kelety writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over his leaked tax returns was filed for an “improper purpose,” a judge said Monday in a scathing decision that referred one of his lawyers for discipline and characterized the $10-billion complaint as an exercise in self-dealing.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams accused Trump of having manipulated the court system when he sued a federal agency under his control, bypassing a requirement that parties in a lawsuit must have adverse interests and laying the groundwork for a settlement last spring that granted him immunity from tax audits and created a fund to compensate allies of the president who say they were unjustly persecuted.

Though the practical impacts of the ruling may be limited given the administration’s public pronouncements that the so-called $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund has been abandoned, the judge’s ruling nonetheless amounts to a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration and resurfaces a politically damaging storyline for acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche just as he prepares to face the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing Wednesday.

“The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” Williams wrote in her ruling.

She added: “The President may be the functional ‘dominus litus’ of the Executive Branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules. Ensuring that our courts are used only for the express purpose created by the Constitution is the obligation of every judge and an obligation that this Court must discharge in light of the matter before it. ”

The judge pointed to Blanche’s congressional testimony in early June in which he revealed that the “anti-weaponization” fund was no longer moving forward amid intense bipartisan backlash. Though nothing had been filed in court, Blanche appeared confident in his testimony that he “could speak for, and bind, both sides of this matter,” the judge wrote.

“Acting Attorney General Blanche’s apparent capacity to speak for both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sign a ‘settlement’ document on behalf of all Parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case,” the judge wrote.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Fatima Hussein and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

Victor Wembanyama has signed what will be the richest contract in San Antonio Spurs history, a five-year extension that could exceed $250 million if the player option in the final season is picked up, a person with knowledge of the negotiations said Friday.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press because the financial figures were not disclosed by either side. The Spurs, who went to the NBA Finals this past season behind the All-NBA center and unanimous Defensive Player of the Year, announced that Wembanyama had signed, simply saying the sides agreed on “a multi-year contract extension.”

The agreement comes at a discount; Wembanyama could have agreed to a deal that topped $300 million — but chose a lesser amount to help give the Spurs flexibility going forward with their young core and in anticipation of the contracts some of those budding stars will be eligible for in coming years, the person said.

ESPN first reported the agreement.

Reynolds writes for the Associated Press.

United States President Donald Trump declared that the agreement pausing the war with Iran was over this week – and ordered a series of strikes.

He accused Iranian forces of violating the ceasefire by attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Tehran was quick to respond, targeting US interests in Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar.

The escalation was the worst since the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding last month.

It was meant to pave the way to more talks and a permanent deal to end the war.

Now regional mediators are working to ease the tension.

But does diplomacy still stand a chance?

Presenter: Per Nyberg

Guests:

Hakimeh Saghaye-Biria – Assistant professor at the University of Tehran

Salman Shaikh – Founder of The Shaikh Group, a peacebuilding organisation

Kirsten Fontenrose – Non-resident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council

Beirut, Lebanon – After the governments of Lebanon and Israel on Friday signed a United States-brokered framework agreement following months of direct negotiations, protesters took to the streets of the Lebanese capital to express their anger at the deal.

Many of the demonstrators waved flags of the Iran-backed group Hezbollah, which has been militarily confronting Israel’s ongoing invasion and occupation of large swaths of southern Lebanon.

Israel and Hezbollah have been fighting since October 2023, with varying levels of intensity, but the former has twice escalated the conflict – first in September 2024 and then nearly four months ago.

Some of the harshest critics of the framework, which does not force the Israeli army to withdraw from the areas it occupies, have been those most deeply impacted by Israel’s war, which has killed more than 4,200 people and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes since early March.

“After everything my family, my village, the south, and Dahiyeh have endured – the destruction, the displacement, the grief and the loss – it is incredibly difficult for me to accept an agreement with the same state that carried out the military actions that devastated our communities,” said Ali Zaytoun, a resident of Beirut’s southern suburbs, known as Dahiyeh.

Zaytoun, who runs a popular Instagram account called History of Dahieh, said he had been displaced multiple times due to Israeli attacks.

“Imagine someone destroys your home and your life, and then you’re expected to simply move on as if nothing happened,” said Zaytoun. “My protest is about remembering those who suffered, standing up for my community, and expressing that this agreement does not reflect the justice or respect that people who lived through this war deserve.”

A new Oslo?

The Israeli intensification on March 2 came after Hezbollah fired on Israel for the first time in more than a year following the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israeli air attack on Tehran two days earlier, and as a response to more than 10,000 Israeli violations of a ceasefire reached in November 2024.

On the same day, the Lebanese government declared Hezbollah’s military activities illegal and later tried – unsuccessfully – to expel the Iranian ambassador.

Its position was that Hezbollah’s actions invited Israel’s wrath in a war fought on behalf of Iran and not the people of Lebanon.

Hezbollah, however, continued fighting Israel in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli army has established what it calls a “security zone” that goes as deep as 10km (6.2 miles) into the country.

As attacks continued, Lebanon’s government entered the United States-brokered negotiations with Israel, despite Hezbollah’s objections.

The final text of the 14-point Washington agreement states Israel has no claim to Lebanese territory and that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) will eventually be the authority in southern Lebanon, “pending the verified disarmament of” non-state armed groups such as Hezbollah.

Proponents point to Israel recognising Lebanon’s authority over its own territory, though critics say the framework relies too heavily on the US – Israel’s main military and diplomatic backer and a signatory to the deal – to enforce it.

“The United States is unlikely to act as a neutral mediator and will almost certainly align with Israeli positions whenever disputes arise over the interpretation or implementation of the agreement,” said Karim Emile Bitar, a professor of international relations at the Saint Joseph University of Beirut.

“This creates a fundamentally asymmetric negotiating environment in which Lebanon has little leverage and few effective guarantees.”

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem declared the agreement “null and void”, calling it “humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty”, while Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah lawmaker, warned of “internal conflict” in Lebanon.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri called for calm but also declared that the deal was an attempt to incite strife.

Those who backed the government said it had originally little choice but to enter direct negotiations, given its limited leverage in a war where Israel has technological superiority and unwavering US support.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam wrote on social media after the agreement’s signing that it “aims to achieve Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territories”, while President Joseph Aoun called it “a first step” towards restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Still, the final terms of the deal were criticised by many analysts.

“This framework agreement essentially mirrors the reality of the military and political balance on the ground, which is decisively tilted in Israel’s favour,” said Bitar.

Bitar said the agreement was reminiscent of the Oslo Accords, a series of US-brokered agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel in the 1990s.

“We see a similar pattern here: Israeli negotiators seek recognition and get the other side to relinquish leverage while offering no binding timetable or reciprocal obligations,” he added.

On Saturday, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz insisted soldiers will remain in Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed.

US reliance

Days before the signing of the Washington framework, Iran and the US agreed on a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that aims to end the war launched by the US and Israel against Iran in late February.

The MoU declared, among other things, “the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon”, between the two countries and their allies.

Lebanon’s inclusion in the MoU was reportedly an Iranian priority, while a “deconfliction cell” was formed to bolster the supposed ceasefire in the country.

Throughout the war and the period of negotiations, Lebanon’s government has tried to separate itself from Iran – but some said it may have gone too far in the other direction.

“We are seeing the confirmation of what Hezbollah has been warning all along. Not because Hezbollah got it right, but because the Lebanese state got it so wrong,” said Lebanese writer Elia Ayoub.

“I understand the need to not depend on Iran, but what we’ve instead done is become even more dependent on the US than we’ve previously been,” added Ayoub, the founder of the podcast The Fire These Times.

“And it’s the US that has been bankrolling Israel’s genocide in Palestine and war crimes in Lebanon,” Ayoub added.

Analysts also questioned whether the government would be able to implement the deal.

“It appears that the Lebanese side has come under significant US pressure to sign an agreement that is very likely to remain little more than ink on paper, and very unlikely to be implemented in any meaningful way,” said Bitar.

Karim Safieddine, a nonresident fellow with the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, said the framework left the Lebanese government with “very little agency”.

“It’s Israel imposing a deal,” he added. “It’s very clear what this deal is. It’s just a surrender agreement.”

At the same time, some pointed to similarities to the 2024 ceasefire agreement, expressing doubt whether Israel will be incentivised to respect the framework.

“It’s one thing to sign a declaration of intent; it’s another thing to have it implemented, and I can see all kinds of problems emerging from this,” said Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of a book on Hezbollah.

Last year, Israel repeatedly complained that LAF’s efforts to disarm Hezbollah were either too slow or ineffective. The US often sided with Israel despite diplomatic attempts from European and other officials encouraging it to support LAF.

In a call with his US counterpart, President Donald Trump, on Saturday, Aoun said Lebanon “would assume its responsibilities” in implementing the framework and expressed hope Washington would help ensure that commitments ‌are fulfilled, particularly by pressing Israel to pull out from the areas it occupies.

Point 9 of the agreement states Lebanon’s government commits to a “rigorous, performance-based program to enable the capacity of the LAF to assert full military and security control within Lebanon … to implement the disarmament of all non-state armed groups”.

This provision has some in Lebanon worried about potential confrontations between LAF and Hezbollah, but Blanford said the possibility of a large escalation is currently not likely.

“The Lebanese army and the government are unwilling to use force against Hezbollah,” he said. “Forcibly trying to disarm a group that is refusing to disarm is an act of war. And I think the Lebanese army and the Lebanese government would be extremely wary of that.”

The memorandum of understanding (MoU) the United States and Iran have signed is not a peace treaty. It is not even a credible framework for one. A vocal chorus of critics has rushed to portray it as a humiliation – evidence that President Donald Trump was manoeuvred into negotiations and extracted a poor deal from a regime that outplayed him.

That reading mistakes a mirage for reality. The Trump administration entered these talks with a precise understanding of what the Iranian regime is, what it wants and what any agreement with it is actually worth. No one in that negotiating team harbours the illusion that Tehran intends to honour commitments that constrain its core ambitions. The MоU is not a peace settlement. It is a mutually understood pause – a tactical intermission chosen by both sides for reasons that have nothing to do with trust and everything to do with time.

To grasp why, one needs only consult Iran’s unbroken record. That record is not a matter of interpretation or political dispute. It is a documented history of agreements made, commitments given and obligations systematically abandoned whenever honouring them conflicted with the regime’s objectives.

The pattern is consistent enough to constitute a doctrine: Iran negotiates under pressure, signs what is necessary to relieve that pressure and resumes its course once the immediate threat has passed.

The deeply flawed 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the most prominent recent demonstration of this cycle. Presented as a landmark of multilateral diplomacy, it was in practice a subsidised intermission – a breathing space Iran used to consolidate resources, sustain its proxy networks and continue advancing its strategic programme. The JCPOA did not change Iranian behaviour. It funded and protected it.

The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign was a direct response to that lesson: A regime of this kind cannot be managed through diplomatic lifelines. It can only be constrained by pressure severe enough to leave it no viable alternative to compliance.

The new MoU does not signal that Iran has changed. Its calculus remains what it has always been – survival and expansion, pursued through whatever tactical posture the moment requires. When pressure mounts, Iran negotiates. When pressure eases, Iran advances. Its negotiators are, by all available evidence, prepared to offer assurances they have no intention of keeping. This is not a failure of diplomatic craftsmanship. This is simply the nature of any negotiation with a regime like Iran’s.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Iranian nuclear programme. As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has repeatedly committed to transparent cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. It has repeatedly broken those commitments, blocking inspections, constructing clandestine enrichment facilities, destroying evidence and systematically deceiving the international community. The pattern is not one of occasional noncompliance. It is deliberate, sustained deception in pursuit of a single unwavering objective: the acquisition of a nuclear weapon.

A state genuinely committed to civilian nuclear energy has no need for a vast and enormously expensive domestic enrichment programme. Nuclear fuel can be purchased – from Russia, among others – at a fraction of the cost and without the international confrontation such a programme inevitably provokes.

Iran has chosen the far more costly and dangerous path for one reason: Enrichment is not a means to an end, but the end itself. Its rulers are committed to a nuclear weapon, and that commitment has survived changes in personnel, shifts in rhetoric and decades of pressure.

It will not be bargained away – and here lies the critical point that no amount of diplomatic optimism can paper over. Iran’s rulers are not pragmatic actors engaged in a conventional cost-benefit calculation. Their goals are theological and strategic in a way that places them beyond the reach of ordinary negotiation.

They do not govern in the interests of the Iranian people. The sanctions they have endured have devastated ordinary Iranians – driven up poverty, hollowed out the middle class, denied the population access to medicines and opportunity. None of that has moved the regime one degree from its course.

This is a regime that could, if it chose, transform its position entirely. It could make peace with its neighbours, normalise relations with the international community, shed the sanctions that have devastated its economy and dramatically improve the lives of Iranians. The price is not beyond reach: abandon the nuclear weapons programme, cease development of offensive ballistic missiles and end the sponsorship of terrorist proxies. Iran’s rulers have refused that bargain consistently and completely.

That is the essential context for understanding what the Trump administration is actually doing. It would be a serious misjudgement to read this MoU as evidence of American weakness or strategic confusion. The team that designed and executed the most effective pressure campaign against Iran in recent memory is not naive about this adversary.

Trump enters this pause knowing that Iran will not honour commitments that genuinely constrain it. He is not expecting otherwise. Neither side, in all likelihood, operates under any such illusion – which is precisely what makes the critics’ alarm about a “bad deal” somewhat beside the point.

You cannot be cheated by an agreement you never expected the other party to keep.

What this MoU represents is a mutually understood strategic pause, a breathing space both parties have chosen, for entirely different reasons, over immediate confrontation. Iran needs economic relief. A regime facing internal decay and a depleted treasury has strong incentives to buy time, replenish its resources and wait out what it calculates to be a finite window.

Tehran is acutely aware that Trump has roughly two and a half years remaining in office. From its perspective, survival through that period is itself a form of victory.

Washington’s calculus is different in kind. Keeping the Strait of Hormuz open is an immediate, non-negotiable goal – a choked strait means an energy price shock with global consequences. Beyond that, the US has its own repositioning to accomplish. Military inventories drawn down through recent operations are being restocked. Strategic options are being preserved and expanded.

A pause that enables that rebuilding, while avoiding a premature confrontation on unfavourable terms, is not a concession. It is preparation.

Trump has never wavered in his commitment to eliminating Iran as a strategic threat – not through wishful diplomacy, but through the kind of pressure that forecloses options. That commitment did not expire with the signing of this MoU. The question for Tehran is not whether American resolve exists but whether it can be outlasted. That is a wager the Iranian regime has made before and lost.

The international community will, as usual, observe from a careful distance. Many nations will urge Iran to be stopped while taking few steps to stop it, criticising US action and inaction with equal facility.

Trump understands this dynamic. It is the foundation of his approach to alliances – the insistence that partners bear proportionate burdens rather than simply drawing on American resolve while contributing little of their own.

The MoU will not resolve the Iranian problem. It was not designed to. When its terms expire or when Iran decides it has served its purpose, the nuclear programme will resume its advance, the proxies will be better resourced, and the Strait of Hormuz will once again become a flashpoint.

That outcome is not a possibility. Given Iran’s record, it is a near-certainty. The only consequential variable is whether the US and those willing to stand alongside it will be better positioned to act decisively when that moment arrives. Far from a mirage, the evidence suggests that is precisely what this administration is working to ensure.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

The Directors Guild of America on Thursday night said it approved a four-year contract with the major studios.

The new contract will boost studio contributions to DGA’s healthcare plan, increase minimum salaries and offer AI protections. The DGA declined to say how many voted in favor of the contract, but in a memo to members, union President Christopher Nolan and National Executive Director Russell Hollander said members “voted overwhelmingly” to ratify it.

“Throughout this process, our focus was clear: protect our members, strengthen the Guild, and address the challenges facing our industry during a period of profound change,” Nolan and Hollander wrote in a memo to members sent on Thursday. “… We have achieved critical wins that put the Guild in a position to further protect our members economic and creative rights now and into the future.”

The newly ratified contract provides some stability in Hollywood, about three years after a summer of strikes led by the Writers Guild of America and performers guild SAG-AFTRA. WGA approved a contract with major studios under the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers in April and SAG-AFTRA members ratified their contract in June. All the contracts extend the terms to four years instead of three years, which studios had sought out.

The AMPTP in a statement thanked DGA, WGA and SAG-AFTRA “for their thoughtful and collaborative approach to negotiations.”

“Together, we reached agreements that deliver substantial gains for guild members while supporting greater stability across the entertainment business,” the AMPTP said. “We are encouraged by the trust built throughout this cycle and look forward to building on that momentum to advance opportunity and shared success across our industry.”

The new DGA contract starts on July 1 and runs through June 30, 2030. Key aspects of the agreement include requiring the studios to increase their contribution to DGA’s health plan by 24.4% over four years. In return, the DGA would support “modest” increases to the eligibility threshold and annual premiums.

The contract also increases minimum salaries on many jobs by 2.5% in the first year and up 3% for each of the following years in the agreement.

It also adds more rules around the use of AI technology, including requiring that directors oversee any footage created by artificial intelligence.

Los Angeles officials have reached a tentative agreement with organizers of the 2028 Olympic Games laying out the process for reimbursing the city for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in public services.

The agreement, which still needs approval from Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council, would require the privately run Olympic organizing committee LA28 to provide the city with funding in advance to cover services that are ineligible for reimbursement from the federal government, such as traffic control and trash pickup.

The two parties would take a somewhat different approach for police protection at high-security venues. Under the proposed arrangement, the city would seek reimbursement from the federal government for security costs at those locations, said City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo, the city’s top negotiator.

If the federal government does not provide full reimbursement for those security costs, the city would seek to tap LA28’s contingency funds to cover the difference, Szabo said.

“This deal ensures the 2028 Games will have the City services needed to be safe and successful, while protecting the taxpayers from footing the bill,” he said in a statement.

Paul Krekorian, executive director for Bass’ Office of Major Events, praised the agreement.

“Mayor Bass’ priority is that the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games be fiscally responsible, protect taxpayers, and benefit Angelenos for decades to come,” he said. “This agreement helps deliver that commitment.”

Negotiations between the city and LA28 have played out behind closed doors over the last year, even as critics have grown increasingly vocal about the potential for taxpayers to be saddled with huge payouts if the Games fail to generate a profit. If organizers experience significant losses, the city would be on the hook for the first $270 million and possibly more after that.

Szabo acknowledged that under that scenario, the city would be far less likely to recoup all of its security costs if the federal government failed to provide full reimbursement.

Under an agreement finalized in 2021, the organizing committee must reimburse the city for any services that go beyond what would be provided on a normal day at a variety of locations, including parts of downtown L.A., Exposition Park, Venice and elsewhere.

President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” included $1 billion for security, planning and other costs associated with the Olympics. Nevertheless, some elected officials have voiced fears that money might not materialize once the Games are over, or that the city’s security expenses could exceed that amount.

The tentative deal, known as an Enhanced City Resources Master Agreement, goes before the council’s ad hoc committee on the Olympic Games on Tuesday, then to the full council.

Even with the agreement, many of the details surrounding taxpayer services during the Olympics and Paralympics will remain unresolved for at least a year.

The two sides still have to finalize agreements spelling out the services that will be provided at each venue by July 2027. They also must agree on the cost of those services by Oct. 31 of the same year.

According to a summary of the agreement released by the city Friday, Los Angeles World Airports, the Port of Los Angeles and the Department of Water and Power would need to enter into their own service agreements with LA28.

LA28 and the city were supposed to have a tentative agreement in place last fall. The negotiations dragged out for an additional nine months, in large part because of the “inherent complexity of the 2028 Games,” Szabo said in a memo he co-wrote with Sharon Tso, the city’s chief legislative analyst.

Under the terms of the 2021 agreement, LA28 must create a $270-million contingency fund that can be distributed as a surplus if the Games make money, or be used to cover any losses in the event of a shortfall.

The proposal unveiled Friday calls for the five-year-old agreement to be amended to ensure that those contingency funds can be used to cover the city’s costs in the event that other revenue is not enough to pay for certain city services provided during the Games.

The money from that contingency fund would be distributed to the city only after LA28 covers its own costs, according to the city’s summary.

If LA28 does make money, it would not be allowed to distribute its surplus funds to any other organization until after it has covered its financial obligations to the city, according to the tentative agreement.

Jacie Prieto Lopez, LA28’s vice president of communications and public affairs, said in a statement that her organization is pleased to forward the agreement to the council for consideration.

“We proudly stand behind this agreement which delivers on our commitment to execute a safe, secure, and fiscally responsible Games that benefits Los Angeles for decades to come,” she said.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced the deal after talks unfolded in Washington, DC.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced a deal framework between Lebanon and Israel after negotiations in Washington, DC.

Details about the agreement remain scarce. But in his remarks on Friday, Rubio made clear that the deal was only the “first step” in further negotiations.

“It’s the beginning of the beginning,” Rubio said, surrounded by representatives from both Lebanon and Israel.

“There’s a lot of work ahead. We don’t in any way underestimate the difficulty of the task ahead, but we understand the importance of it, how vital it is.”

The two sides had gathered in Washington, DC, for three days of US-mediated talks this week, starting on Tuesday.

More details to come…

MANAMA, Bahrain — U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday that relations between the United States and its gulf Arab partners are rock solid, despite fears by some of them that they might be left out of discussions aimed at ending the war with Iran.

Rubio used a three-day, three-nation trip to the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain this week to try to convince all the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council that the Trump administration does indeed have their backs in negotiations to end the war President Trump and Israel launched on Feb. 28.

That conflict sharply curtailed the region’s oil exports and saw several gulf countries take direct retaliatory Iranian missile and drone hits.

“They’ve shared with us some very concrete concerns, ideas,” Rubio said in Bahrain, the last stop on the trip. “And when I say concern, the biggest concern is that they really just want to be informed every step along the way as we enter these negotiations at both the technical and political levels.

“We want them to be involved and we want the views of all these countries to be reflected,” he said. “We don’t want to and will not be making any decisions or commitments that in any way undermines the prosperity, stability or security of our gulf partners.”

Although the U.S. and the gulf council members — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — eventually released a joint statement after the meeting that extolled areas of agreement about the end goals of the Iran deal, there were small signs of potential discontent.

The joint statement said the two sides “stressed the need to maintain momentum and unity as negotiations proceed toward a more permanent end to hostilities and the shared objective of preventing Iran from ever developing or otherwise acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

They also expressed opposition to any attempt by Iran to impose tolls or fees, or assert control over the Strait of Hormuz. They welcomed an Omani initiative to create a safe lane to evacuate stranded sailors from the waterway and stressed that any economic benefit Iran might realize “is conditional and reversible, contingent on Iran’s compliance” with the temporary agreement and a final deal.

The joint statement painted a rosy picture, yet the council secretary, Gen. Jasem Mohamed Albudaiwi, suggested in a statement that doubts remain.

He said it was emphasized during the meeting that any future understandings or arrangements must incorporate the requirements of the gulf council countries to safeguard their interests and ensure “their security and stability.” His statement, released by the group, hinted that the gulf council members felt snubbed in the earlier talks.

“Such arrangements must be based on the principles of international law, respect for state sovereignty, good neighborliness, and non-interference in internal affairs, thereby contributing to the consolidation of regional security and stability,” he said.

Before Rubio spoke to the group, the meeting host, Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani, said that although the memorandum of understanding is welcome, many questions remain outstanding.

“While this progress is encouraging, it is critically important that Iran fully adheres to its obligations,” including under the memorandum, he said.

He said that means preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, preserving freedom of navigation, ending all missile and drone attacks, halting support for proxy groups and abandoning attempts to interfere with Iran’s neighbors.

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

June 22 (UPI) — Leaders in the House Energy and Commerce Committee announced a bipartisan agreement Monday to advance the Kids Online Safety Act.

Committee Chairman Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., and ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., announced the agreement that will set new standards for online platforms in respect to child users.

The committee passed the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act in March on partisan lines but Monday’s deal brings some changes to the bill.

“Coming into this Congress, we knew that protecting children and teens online would be one of the most significant challenges this committee would have to address,” Guthrie and Pallone said in a joint statement. “Through empowering parents, establishing safety as a default, strengthening privacy for children and teens, increasing transparency around data brokers, and holding Big Tech accountable, the KIDS Act delivers the 21st century protections parents have demanded and our kids deserve.”

The updated bill is expected to be considered on the House floor next week.

The Senate is considering a different version of the Kids Online Safety Act. If the House bill passes, the differences between the bills will need to be resolved.

One of the key distinctions in the House version of the bill is the absence of a duty of care standard which would require social media companies to design their platforms with the safety of children in mind. This includes implementing measures that block children from consuming age-inappropriate content and assures the platform’s design does not contribute to compulsive use.

States would be allowed to implement stricter regulations.