approval

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld highly partisan state election maps that permit one party to win most seats, even when most voters cast ballots for the other side.

Partisan gerrymandering has allowed Republicans to control power in several closely divided states. And it has been repeatedly condemned for depriving citizens of a fair vote and letting politicians rig the outcomes.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for a 5-4 conservative majority, ruled that citizens may not sue in federal court over the issue.

Partisan gerrymandering claims “present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts,” he said, tossing out lower court rulings that North Carolina’s Republicans and Maryland’s Democrats had drawn skewed districts to entrench their party in power.

Although the Supreme Court has repeatedly said racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, it has never struck down an election map because it was unfairly partisan, despite four decades of lawsuits over the issue.

Thursday’s decision goes even further, closing the courthouse door to future claims. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions,” he wrote in Rucho vs. Common Cause.

The court’s four liberal justices dissented, warning that new technology has made partisan gerrymandering easier and more precise than ever before.

“These are not your grandfather’s — let alone the framers’ — gerrymanders,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

“The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people,” she said, reading her dissent in the court. “Of all the time to abandon the court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government.”

The ruling substantially raises the stakes for the 2020 election. In many states, whichever party controls the state legislature and the governor’s office at that time will be in a prime position to gerrymander electoral districts in their favor and lock in political power for years to come.

“This is obviously a deeply disappointing outcome,” said Allison Riggs, a voting rights lawyer who represented the League of Women Voters in the North Carolina case. There, the state’s Republican leaders drew an election map that aimed to lock in 10 of 13 seats for the GOP.

“Unlike citizens in some other states, North Carolinians cannot force redistricting reform upon recalcitrant legislators,” Riggs said. “We must raise our voices even more loudly, demanding change.”

While reform advocates were distraught over the decision — envisioning an era of ruthless, no-holds-barred gerrymandering — there is reason to believe the result may not be as drastic as feared.

Numerous states, including California, have taken the line-drawing process away from politicians and placed it in the hands of independent commissioners charged with drawing fair and competitive political maps.

Roberts appeared to endorse these state reforms, even though he voted in dissent four years ago in an Arizona case to strike down these voter initiatives as improper. He said then the power to draw election districts was reserved to the state legislature alone.

“Where we go from here is where we’ve been,” said Justin Levitt, an election law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “Most of the real action has been in state courts or through ballot initiatives. … We are back to a limited set of tools, but tools that are still immensely powerful.”

States are also getting more involved. He noted that state supreme courts in Pennsylvania and Florida have struck down maps as overly partisan. The Supreme Court’s decision blocks federal lawsuits over gerrymandering, but it does not alter the authority of state courts to make rulings based on their own state constitutions. In 2018, voters in five states — Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Utah — overhauled their redistricting processes by creating independent or bipartisan map-drawing commissions.

This year’s cases began with the 2010 midterm elections, in which Republicans won sweeping victories and took full control in politically divided states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina. Armed with new census data, GOP lawmakers drew election maps that all but guaranteed their candidates would win a majority. In Pennsylvania, Republicans won 13 of 18 congressional seats, and 12 of 16 in Ohio.

Last year, however, political reformers had high hopes that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy would join the four liberals and cast the crucial fifth vote against partisan gerrymandering. He had voiced repeated concern that voters were being cheated if politicians could decide the outcomes in advance.

But those hopes were dashed last June when the chief justice engineered a procedural ruling that scuttled a gerrymandering case from Wisconsin.

Kennedy then retired, and his replacement, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, cast the fifth vote with Roberts on Thursday to close the doors to these claims.

Justices reviewed two cases in reaching the decision.

In North Carolina, Republican leaders flatly admitted they drew an election map for “partisan advantage.” One state leader said he drew a map to give Republicans a 10-to-3 advantage, only because he could not devise a map that would yield an 11-to-2 advantage.

In Maryland, Democratic leaders shifted hundreds of thousands of voters with the aim of ousting a veteran Republican from Congress and creating a reliably Democratic district.

A three-judge court in North Carolina declared the election map unconstitutional and said it deprived Democrats of a fair vote. Another three-judge panel ruled Maryland’s Democrats deprived Republicans of a fair vote and free election.

In January, the justices agreed to hear appeals from both states. Last month, the court also put on hold gerrymandering rulings from Ohio and Michigan.

The chief justice wrote one opinion for the two cases and overturned the rulings from North Carolina and Maryland. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh signed on to the Roberts opinion.

Joining Kagan in dissent were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

More stories from David G. Savage »

WASHINGTON — The White House started tearing down part of the East Wing, the traditional base of operations for the first lady, to build President Trump’s $250-million ballroom despite lacking approval for construction from the federal agency that oversees such projects.

Dramatic photos of the demolition work that began Monday showed construction equipment tearing into the East Wing façade and windows and other building parts in tatters on the ground. Some reporters watched from a park near the Treasury Department, which is next to the East Wing.

On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the plan now called for the demolition of the entire East Wing and that the tear-down should be completed by Sunday. Citing a source, The Times said it marks an escalation over earlier plans for the ballroom.

Trump announced the start of construction in a social media post and referenced the work while hosting 2025 college baseball champs Louisiana State University and LSU-Shreveport in the East Room. He noted the work was happening “right behind us.”

“We have a lot of construction going on, which you might hear periodically,” he said, adding, “It just started today.”

The White House has moved ahead with the massive construction project despite not yet having sign-off from the National Capital Planning Commission, which approves construction work and major renovations to government buildings in the Washington area.

Its chairman, Will Scharf, who is also the White House staff secretary and one of Trump’s top aides, said at the commission’s September meeting that the agency does not have jurisdiction over demolition or site preparation work for buildings on federal property.

“What we deal with is essentially construction, vertical build,” Scharf said last month.

It was unclear whether the White House had submitted the ballroom plans for the agency’s review and approval. The White House did not respond to a request for comment and the commission’s offices are closed because of the government shutdown.

The Republican president had said in July when the project was announced that the ballroom would not interfere with the mansion itself.

“It’ll be near it but not touching it and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of,” he said of the White House.

The East Wing houses several offices, including those of the first lady. It was built in 1902 and and has been renovated over the years, with a second story added in 1942, according to the White House.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said those East Wing offices will be temporarily relocated during construction and that wing of the building will be modernized and renovated.

“Nothing will be torn down,” Leavitt said when she announced the project in July.

Trump insists that presidents have desired such a ballroom for 150 years and that he’s adding the massive 90,000-square-foot, glass-walled space because the East Room, which is the largest room in the White House with an approximately 200-person capacity, is too small. He also has said he does not like the idea of hosting kings, queens, presidents and prime ministers in pavilions on the South Lawn.

Trump said in the social media announcement that the project would be completed “with zero cost to the American Taxpayer! The White House Ballroom is being privately funded by many generous Patriots, Great American Companies, and, yours truly.”

The ballroom will be the biggest structural change to the Executive Mansion since the addition in 1948 of the Truman Balcony overlooking the South Lawn, even dwarfing the residence itself.

At a dinner he hosted last week for some of the wealthy business executives who are donating money toward the construction cost, Trump said the project had grown in size and now will accommodate 999 people. The capacity was 650 seated people at the July announcement.

The White House has said it will disclose information on who has contributed money to build the ballroom, but has yet to do so.

Trump also said at last week’s event that the head of Carrier Global Corp., a leading manufacturer of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, had offered to donate the air-conditioning system for the ballroom.

Carrier confirmed to the Associated Press on Monday that it had done so. A cost estimate was not immediately available.

“Carrier is honored to provide the new iconic ballroom at the White House with a world-class, energy-efficient HVAC system, bringing comfort to distinguished guests and dignitaries in this historic setting for years to come,” the company said in an emailed statement.

The clearing of trees on the south grounds and other site preparation work for the construction started in September. Plans call for the ballroom to be ready before Trump’s term ends in January 2029.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Egypt’s foreign minister says his country is working with Qatar and Turkiye to convince Hamas to accept United States President Donald Trump’s proposal to end Israel’s nearly two-year war on Gaza, and warned that the conflict would escalate if the Palestinian group refused.

Speaking at the French Institute of International Relations in Paris on Thursday, Badr Abdelatty said it was clear that Hamas had to disarm and that Israel should not be given an excuse to carry on with its assault on Gaza.

“Let’s not give any excuse for one party to use Hamas as a pretext for this mad daily killings of civilians. What’s happening is far beyond the seventh of October,” he said, referring to the Palestinian group’s 2023 attack on Israel, in which 1,129 people were killed, according to Israeli tallies.

The Palestinian Health Ministry says Israel’s offensive on Gaza has killed more than 66,000 people, mostly women and children, but experts believe the actual death toll could be up to three times higher.

“It is beyond revenge. This is ethnic cleansing and genocide in motion. So enough is enough,” Abdelatty said.

Earlier this week, the White House unveiled a 20-point document that called for an immediate ceasefire, an exchange of captives held by Hamas for Palestinian political prisoners held by Israel, a staged Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas disarmament and a transitional government led by an international body.

On Tuesday, Trump gave Hamas three to four days to agree to the plan.

Palestinians long for the war to end, but many believe the plan heavily favours Israel, and a Hamas official told The Associated Press news agency that some elements were unacceptable, without elaborating.

In past negotiations, Hamas has insisted on a full Israeli withdrawal from the famine-struck enclave and said it was seeking a permanent ceasefire, with guarantees that displaced families can return to their homes, particularly in the north of Gaza, where Israeli forces are intensifying attacks.

Many ‘holes that need to be filled’

Qatar and Egypt, two key mediators, said Trump’s plan requires more negotiations on certain elements.

Abdelatty said Cairo was coordinating with Qatar and Turkiye to convince Hamas to respond positively to the plan, but he remained very cautious.

“If Hamas refuse, you know, then it would be very difficult. And of course, we will have more escalation. So that’s why we are exerting our intensive efforts in order to make this plan applicable and to get the approval of Hamas,” he said.

Abdelatty said while he was broadly supportive of Trump’s proposal for Gaza, more talks were needed on it.

“There are a lot of holes that need to be filled; we need more discussions on how to implement it, especially on two important issues – governance and security arrangements,” he said. “We are supportive of the Trump plan and the vision to end war and need to move forward.”

When asked whether he feared the Trump plan could lead to the forced displacement of Palestinians, he said Egypt would not accept that.

“Displacement will not happen, it will not happen because displacement means the end of the Palestinian cause,” he said. “We will not allow this to happen under any circumstances.”

Meanwhile, the White House said Trump expects Hamas to accept his Gaza proposal, stressing that the US president could impose consequences if the group does not do so.

Since Israel’s war on Gaza began, the US has often pushed Israel-backed proposals unlikely to garner Palestinian support and then blamed Hamas as the primary obstacle to ending the conflict.

“It’s a red line that the president of the United States is going to have to draw, and I’m confident that he will,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in an interview with Fox News.

For her part, Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, called on Hamas to accept the proposal.

“We urge Hamas to follow the plan, release all remaining hostages and lay down its arms.  The EU calls on those who have influence to bear to pass these messages to Hamas,” a statement read.

Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin said Russia was willing to support the plan, but only if it leads to a two-state solution.

Jean-Noel Barrot, France’s foreign minister, said Hamas “has lost”.

According to the plan, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to relinquish their weapons will be given amnesty, while those who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.

“Hamas bears a very heavy responsibility for the catastrophe experienced by the Palestinians,” Barrot told the AFP news agency. “It must accept its own surrender.”

Experts say the move echoes past Western attempts to reshape the Middle East without local input.

“With this agreement, it’s clear that what they’re presenting is a formula that they tried to use before in Iraq, and I think they utterly failed,” political analyst Xavier Abu Eid told Al Jazeera.

Abu Eid noted that the involvement of figures such as Tony Blair, who joined the US war in Iraq while serving as British prime minister in 2003, in Trump’s proposal is concerning for many in the region.

“The fact that they’re trying to bring in a group of foreigners led by someone with a very dark history in our region, like Tony Blair, is not something that would make people very enthusiastic,” he said.

Reporting from Washington — Brett J. Talley, President Trump’s nominee to be a federal judge in Alabama, has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party-line vote, approved him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.

Talley, 36, is part of what Trump has called the “untold story” of his success in filling the courts with young conservatives.

UPDATE: Brett J. Talley withdraws nomination »

“The judge story is an untold story. Nobody wants to talk about it,” Trump said last month, standing alongside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in the White House Rose Garden. “But when you think of it, Mitch and I were saying, that has consequences 40 years out, depending on the age of the judge — but 40 years out.”

Civil rights groups and liberal advocates see the matter differently. They denounced Thursday’s vote, calling it “laughable” that none of the committee Republicans objected to confirming a lawyer with as little experience as Talley to preside over federal trials.

“He’s practiced law for less than three years and never argued a motion, let alone brought a case. This is the least amount of experience I’ve seen in a judicial nominee,” said Kristine Lucius, executive vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

The group was one of several on the left that urged the Judiciary Committee to reject Talley because of his lack of qualifications and because of doubts over whether he had the “temperament and ability to approach cases with the fairness and open-mindedness necessary to serve as a federal judge.”

Some conservatives discount the ABA’s rating. “The ABA is a liberal interest group. They have a long history of giving lower ratings to Republican nominees,” said Carrie Severino, counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, which supports Trump’s nominees. She said past liberal nominees have been rated as qualified even if they had little or no courtroom experience.

Talley does have some other qualifications, some traditional, others less so. He grew up in Alabama and earned degrees from the University of Alabama and Harvard Law School. He clerked for two federal judges and worked as a speech writer on the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. And, like many people who eventually became federal judges, he became the protege of someone who became a senator.

In Talley’s case, the mentor was Republican Sen. Luther Strange, the former Alabama state attorney general who was appointed to the Senate in February to replace Jeff Sessions, who left the Senate to become U.S. attorney general. Talley worked for Strange as a deputy.

Typically, senators play the lead role in recommending nominees for the federal district judgeships in their state. Talley also had something of an inside track. This year, when Sessions moved to the attorney general’s post, Talley took a job in the Justice Department’s office that selects judicial nominees.

Trump and McConnell have succeeded in pushing judicial nominees through the Senate because the Republicans have voted in lockstep since taking control of the chamber in 2014.

When Trump took office in January, there were more than 100 vacant seats on the federal courts, thanks to an unprecedented slowdown engineered by McConnell during the final two years of President Obama’s term. The Senate under GOP control approved only 22 judges in that two-year period, the lowest total since 1951-52 in the last year of President Truman’s term. By contrast, the Senate under Democratic control approved 68 judges in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency.

The best-known vacancy was on the Supreme Court. After Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, McConnell refused to permit a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee. Trump filled the seat this year with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

The Alliance for Justice, which tracks judicial nominees, said Trump’s team is off to a fast start, particularly when compared with Obama’s first year. By November 2009, Obama had made 27 judicial nominations, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Trump has nominated 59 people to the federal courts, including Justice Gorsuch. That’s also a contrast with Trump’s pace in filling executive branch jobs, where he has lagged far behind the pace of previous administrations.

Liberal advocates are dismayed that Republicans have voted in unison on Trump’s judges.

“So far, no one from his party has been willing to stand up against him on the agenda of packing the courts,” said Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way.

Last month, when the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on several other nominations, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Talley about his fervent advocacy of gun rights. In a blog post titled “A Call to Arms,” he wrote that “the President and his democratic allies in Congress are about to launch the greatest attack on our constitutional freedoms in our lifetime,” referring to Obama’s proposal for background checks and limits on rapid-fire weapons following the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“The object of that war is to make guns illegal, in all forms,” Talley wrote. The NRA “stands for all of us now, and I pray that in the coming battle for our rights, they will be victorious,” he added.

A month later, he reprinted a “thoughtful response” from a reader who wrote: “We will have to resort to arms when our other rights — of speech, press, assembly, representative government — fail to yield the desired results.” To that, he wrote: “I agree completely with this.”

When pressed, he told the senators he was “trying to generate discussion. I wanted people to be able to use my blog to discuss issues, to come together and find common ground.”

In a follow-up written question, Feinstein asked him how many times he had appeared in a federal district court.

“To my recollection, during my time as Alabama’s deputy solicitor general, I participated as part of the legal team in one hearing in federal district court in the Middle District of Alabama,” he replied.

On Thursday, the Judiciary Committee approved White House lawyer Greg Katsas on a 11-9 vote to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, then approved Talley on another 11-9 vote. The nominations now move to the Senate floor, where a similar party-line result is expected.

Major questions before the Supreme Court this fall »

[email protected]

Twitter: DavidGSavage

UPDATES:

9:50 a.m.: This article was updated with comments from the Judicial Crisis Network.

This article was originally published at 8:10 a.m.

The Pentagon says it will require credentialed journalists at the military headquarters to sign a pledge to refrain from reporting information that has not been authorized for release — including unclassified information.

Journalists who don’t abide by the policy risk losing credentials that provide access to the Pentagon, under a 17-page memo distributed Friday that steps up media restrictions imposed by the administration of President Trump.

“Information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified,” the directive states. The signature form includes an array of security requirements for credentialed media at the Defense Department, which Trump has moved to rename the War Department.

Advocates for press freedoms denounced the nondisclosure requirement as an assault on independent journalism. The new Pentagon restrictions arrive as Trump expands threats, lawsuits and government pressure as he remakes the American media landscape.

“If the news about our military must first be approved by the government, then the public is no longer getting independent reporting. It is getting only what officials want them to see,” said National Press Club President Mike Balsamo, also national law enforcement editor at the Associated Press. “That should alarm every American.”

No more permission to ‘roam the halls’

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News Channel personality, highlighted the restrictions in a social media post on X.

“The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon — the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility,” Hegseth said. “Wear a badge and follow the rules — or go home.”

The Pentagon this year has evicted many news organizations while imposing a series of restrictions that include banning reporters from entering wide areas of the complex without a government escort — areas where the press had access in past administrations as it covers the activities of the world’s most powerful military.

The Pentagon was embarrassed early in Hegseth’s tenure when the editor in chief of the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was inadvertently included in a group chat on the Signal messaging app where the Defense secretary discussed plans for upcoming military strikes in Yemen. Trump’s then-national security advisor, Mike Waltz, took responsibility for Goldberg being included and was shifted to another job.

The Defense Department also was embarrassed by a leak to the New York Times that billionaire Elon Musk was to get a briefing on the U.S. military’s plans in case a war broke out with China. That briefing never took place, on Trump’s orders, and Hegseth suspended two Pentagon officials as part of an investigation into how that news got out.

On Saturday, the Society of Professional Journalists also objected to the Pentagon’s move, calling it “alarming.”

“This policy reeks of prior restraint — the most egregious violation of press freedom under the First Amendment — and is a dangerous step toward government censorship,” it said in a statement Saturday. “Attempts to silence the press under the guise of ‘security’ are part of a disturbing pattern of growing government hostility toward transparency and democratic norms.”

And Matt Murray, executive editor of the Washington Post, said in the paper Saturday that the new policy runs counter to what’s good for the American public.

“The Constitution protects the right to report on the activities of democratically elected and appointed government officials,” Murray said. “Any attempt to control messaging and curb access by the government is counter to the First Amendment and against the public interest.”

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — The decision about whether to keep Jimmy Kimmel on his late-night ABC show depends on far more than his jokes. The choice is complicated by a web of business and regulatory considerations involving ABC’s parent company, other media companies and the Trump administration.

It’s the inevitable result of industry consolidation that over years has built giant corporations with wide-ranging interests.

ABC owner Walt Disney Co., a massive organization with far-flung operations, frequently seeks federal regulatory approval to expand, buy or sell businesses or acquire licenses. And the Trump administration has not spared the company from investigations, opening multiple inquiries in just the last few months to investigate alleged antitrust, programming and hiring violations.

Kimmel was suspended from his show last week following comments suggesting that fans of Charlie Kirk were trying to “score political points” over the conservative activist’s shooting death. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr called the remarks “truly sick” and suggested his agency would look into them.

Carr answers to President Trump, a frequent Kimmel target whose dislike of the comedian is well known.

Two companies that operate roughly a quarter of ABC affiliates nationwide, Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcasting, also said they would not air Kimmel’s show.

Disney took a step in December to avoid a confrontation with Trump by paying $15 million to settle Trump’s defamation lawsuit against ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos, in a case many civil rights attorneys considered weak. It also made moves to dismantle some of its diversity, equity and inclusion practices, including removing references in its annual report to its Reimagine Tomorrow program aimed at “amplifying underrepresented voices.”

Apparently that wasn’t enough.

In April, the FCC sent a a blistering letter to Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger saying it suspected the company was so thoroughly “infected” with “invidious” practices favoring minorities that it had no choice but to open an investigation.

Among other questions, the inquiry sought to determine whether Disney had really ended policies designed to ensure characters in its shows and its hiring practices favored “underrepresented groups.”

Meanwhile, a Disney deal struck in January to buy a stake in the streaming service FuboTV fell under scrutiny too, with several reports that the Justice Department was investigating possible antitrust violations.

The Federal Trade Commission also launched an inquiry into whether Disney broke rules by gathering personal data from children watching its videos without permission from parents. Disney settled the case this month by paying $10 million and agreeing to change its practices.

Disney also needs approval from the Trump administration for ESPN to complete its acquisition of the NFL Network.

It hasn’t helped that Disney was a target for many conservatives well before the current controversy. Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis battled with the company over its criticism of a DeSantis-backed law that restricted discussion of sexual orientation in schools.

Kirk wasn’t a fan, either, criticizing Disney when it closed Splash Mountain rides at theme parks three years ago to remove references to the 1946 film “Song of the South,” which has long been decried as racist for its romanticized depictions of slavery.

The move, Kirk’s website posted, was “destructive to our cultural and societal fabric.”

The companies with ABC stations that put out statements disavowing Kimmel have their own business before the government. Nexstar needs the Trump administration’s approval to complete its $6.2-billion purchase of broadcast rival Tegna.

Sinclair has its own regulatory challenges. In June, it entered into an agreement with the FCC to fix problems with paperwork filed to the agency and to observe rules about advertising on children’s shows and closed-captioning requirements. It has also petitioned the regulator to relax rules limiting broadcaster ownership of stations.

The companies are being asked by advocates and others to put aside financial concerns to stand up for free speech.

“Where has all the leadership gone?” ex-Disney Chief Executive Michael Eisner wrote Friday on social media. “If not for university presidents, law firm managing partners and corporate chief executives standing up to bullies, then who will step up for the First Amendment?”

The administration’s attacks on Kimmel have also been criticized in some unexpected places, such as the Wall Street Journal and Bari Weiss’ website, the Free Press — both known for their conservative editorial voices — and by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a staunch conservative and Trump ally.

The comedian’s comments don’t justify the right wing’s move toward regulatory censorship, the Journal wrote in an editorial. “As victims of cancel culture for so long, conservatives more than anyone should oppose it,” the Journal wrote. “They will surely be the targets again when the left returns to power.”

“When a network drops a high-profile talent hours after the FCC chairman makes a barely veiled threat, then it’s no longer just a business decision,” the Free Press wrote in an editorial. “It’s government coercion. Is it now Trump administration policy to punish broadcasters for comedy that doesn’t conform to its politics?”

Bauder and Condon write for the Associated Press.

When I wrote last week about how immigration raids are targeting far more laborers than criminals, and whacking the California economy at a cost to all of us, I was surprised by the number of readers who wrote to say it’s high time for immigration reform.

The cynic in me had an immediate response, which essentially was, yeah, sure.

Bipartisan attempts failed in 2006 and 2014, so there’s a fat chance of getting anywhere in this political climate.

But the more I thought about it, nobody has done more to make clear how badly we need to rewrite federal immigration law than guess who.

President Trump.

Raids, the threat of more raids, and the promise to deport 3,000 people a day, are sabotaging Trump’s economic agenda and eroding his support among Latinos. Restaurants have suffered, construction has slowed and fruit has rotted on vines as the promised crackdown on violent offenders — which would have had much more public support — instead turned into a heartless, destructive and costly eradication.

I wouldn’t bet a nickel on Trump or his congressional lackeys to publicly admit to any of that. But there have been signs that the emperor is beginning to soften hard-line positions on deportations of working immigrants and student visas, sending his MAGA posse into convulsions.

“His heart isn’t in the nativist purge the way the rest of his administration’s heart is into it,” the Cato Institute’s director of immigration studies, David J. Bier, told the New York Times. Despite the tough talk, Bier said, Trump has “always had a soft spot for the economic needs from a business perspective.”

So too, apparently, do some California GOP legislators.

In June, six Republican lawmakers led by state Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares (R-Santa Clarita) sent Trump a letter urging him to ease up on the raids and get to work on immigration reform.

“Focus deportations on criminals,” Martinez Valladares wrote, “and support legal immigration and visa policies that will build a strong economy, secure our borders and protect our communities.”

Then in July, a bipartisan group of California lawmakers led by State Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (R-Yucaipa), followed suit.

Ochoa Bogh urged “immediate federal action … to issue expedited work permits to the millions of undocumented immigrants who are considered essential workers, such as farmworkers who provide critical services. These workers support many industries that keep our country afloat and, regardless of immigration status, we must not overlook the value of their economic, academic, and cultural contributions to the United States.”

State Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares (R-Santa Clarita) sent President Trump a letter urging him to ease up on raids and focus on immigration reform.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Ochoa Bogh told me she heard from constituents in agriculture and hospitality who complained about the impact of raids. She said her aunt, a citizen, “is afraid to go out and carries a passport with her now because she’s afraid they might stop her.”

The senator said she blames both Democrats and Republicans for the failure to deliver sensible immigration reform over the years, and she told me her own family experience guides her thinking on what could be a way forward.

Her grandfather was a Mexican guest worker in the Bracero Program of the 1940s, ‘50s and ‘60s, ended up being sponsored for legal status, and eventually moved his entire family north. Since then, children and grandchildren have gone to school, worked, prospered and contributed.

If Trump were to respond to her letter and visit her district, Ochoa Bogh said, “I would absolutely have him visit my family.”

Her relatives include restaurateurs, the owners of a tailoring business, a county employee and a priest.

“We don’t want undocumented people in our country. … But we need a work permit process” that serves the needs of employers and workers, Ochoa Bogh said.

Public opinion polls reflect similar attitudes. Views are mixed, largely along party lines, but a Pew study in June found 42% approval and 47% disapproval of Trump’s overall approach on immigration.

A July Gallup poll found increasing support for immigration in general, with 85% in favor of a pathway to citizenship for immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors, and 60% support among Republicans for legal status of all undocumented people if certain requirements are met.

State Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, shown with Senate Republican Leader Scott Wilk in 2022, says constituents in agriculture and hospitality have complained about the impact of raids.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

So it’s not entirely surprising that a bipartisan congressional immigration reform bill, the Dignity Act of 2025, was introduced in July by a Florida Republican and a Texas Democrat. It would allow legal status for those who have lived in the U.S. for five years, are working and paying taxes, and have no criminal record.

Victor Narro, project director at the UCLA Labor Center, isn’t optimistic, given political realities. But he’s been advocating for immigration reform for decades and said “we need to continue the fight because there will be a time of reckoning” in which the U.S. will “have to rely on immigrant workers to assure economic survival.”

“Germany had to resort to guest worker programs when birth rates declined,” said Kevin Johnson, a former UC Davis law school dean. “We may be begging for workers from other nations in the not too distant future.”

“No side wants to give the other a victory, but there have got to be ways to close that gap,” said Hiroshi Motomura, a UCLA immigration scholar whose new book, “Borders and Belonging: Toward A Fair Immigration Policy,” examines the history and causes of immigration, as well as the complexities of arguments for and against.

“Practically and politically, there’s potential” for reform, Motomura said, and he sees a better chance for rational conversations at the local level than in the heat of national debate. “You’re more likely to hear stories of mixed families … and that kind of thing humanizes the situation instead of turning it into a lot of abstract statistics.”

Ochoa Bogh told me that when she wrote her letter to Trump, the feedback from constituents included both support and criticism. She said she met with her critics, who told her she should be focused on jobs for citizens rather than for undocumented immigrants.

She said she told them she is all for “American people doing American jobs.” But “we have a workforce shortage in the state in various industries,” and a U.S.-born population that is not stepping up to do certain kinds of work.

“I said to them, ‘You can’t keep your eyes closed and say this is what it should be, when there are certain realities we have to navigate.”

So what are the chances of progress on immigration reform?

Not great at the moment.

But as readers suggested, a better question is this:

Why not?

[email protected]

Paramount has named Kenneth R. Weinstein, former head of a conservative-leaning Washington think tank, to be ombudsman for CBS News, fulfilling a condition of winning the Trump administration’s approval for an $8-billion merger.

The company announced Monday “that complaints from consumers, employees and others” about CBS News stories will go to Weinstein, who will help determine if remedial action is necessary.

Weinstein, who served as president and chief executive of the Hudson Institute, will report to Jeff Shell, who is president of Paramount under new owner and CEO David Ellison.

Weinstein will address complaints about news coverage in consultation with Shell, CBS President and CEO George Cheeks and CBS News Executive Editor Tom Cibrowski.

Paramount buyer Skydance Media agreed to appoint an ombudsman in order to get regulatory clearance for its acquisition of the media company, which closed in August.

The Federal Communications Commission said Skydance agreed to commit to “viewpoint diversity, nondiscrimination and enhanced localism” in its news coverage when the agency announced its approval of the deal.

“Americans no longer trust the legacy national news media to report fully, accurately, and fairly. It is time for a change,” FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said in a statement at the time of the approval. “That is why I welcome Skydance’s commitment to make significant changes at the once storied CBS broadcast network.”

Under Skydance’s ownership, CBS News has already shown a willingness to respond to Trump White House beefs with its coverage. On Friday the division announced a new policy for its Washington public affairs program “Face the Nation,” which will no longer edit taped interviews.

The policy shift came after U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem complained that her Aug. 31 “Face the Nation” interview, which was trimmed for time, deleted harsh allegations against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man wrongly deported to his native El Salvador. He was returned to the U.S., where he faces deportation efforts.

In addition to his work at the Hudson Institute, where he still holds a chair, Weinstein served on multiple advisory boards including the United States Agency for Global Media when it was known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The agency, currently headed on an interim basis by Kari Lake, oversees the funding for government-run media outlets such as Voice of America.

Weinstein also holds a doctorate in government from Harvard University and has taught political theory at Georgetown University and Claremont McKenna College.

“I’ve known [Weinstein] for many years and have respect for his integrity, sound judgment and thoughtful approach to complex issues,” Shell said in a statement. “Ken brings not only a wealth of experience in media and beyond but also a calm measured perspective that makes him exceptionally well-suited to serve as our Ombudsman.”

SEOUL, Sept. 4 (UPI) — Just one day after President Lee Jae Myung’s cabinet approved the so-called “Yellow Envelope Law” on Tuesday, Hyundai Motors’ union launched its first partial strike in seven years, demanding the company notify labor in advance of new business ventures and overseas plant expansions, The Korea Economic Daily reported.

The law, passed by the National Assembly on Aug. 24 and set to take effect in early 2026, expands the scope of legal strikes to include management decisions such as mergers, restructuring and plant relocations.

It also limits corporate damage claims against unions. Analysts say the Hyundai union’s push reflects the law’s immediate influence on labor tactics.

Hyundai shut down assembly lines Wednesday in Ulsan, Jeonju and Asan for four hours, affecting an estimated 1,500 vehicles, Maeil Daily reported. GM Korea and HD Hyundai shipbuilding unions also staged partial walkouts to protest restructuring moves.

Observers warn the law, intended to protect workers from excessive corporate lawsuits, could embolden unions to intervene in management strategy, heightening labor unrest across Korea’s key industries, Maeil Business Newspaper reported.

Frank McCourt will have to pursue his proposed Dodger Stadium gondola without legislation that would have limited potential legal challenges to the project.

After The Times reported on the legislation, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council publicly opposed it, asking a state Assembly committee to strip the language that would have benefited the gondola project or kill the bill entirely.

On Friday, the committee stripped the language and moved ahead with the remainder of the bill, which is designed to expedite transit projects in California. Under the now-removed language, future legal challenges to certain Los Angeles transit projects would have been limited to 12 months.

The language of the bill did not cite any specific project, but a staff report called the gondola proposal “one project that would benefit.”

A court fight over Metro’s approval of the environmental impact report for the project is at 17 months and counting.

In a letter to state legislators in which she shared the council resolution opposing the language in question, City Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez said the language would amount to “carve outs” from a worthy bill in order to ease challenges to “a billionaire’s private project.”

McCourt, the former Dodgers owner, first proposed a gondola from Union Station to Dodger Stadium in 2018. The project requires approvals from four public agencies, including the City Council, which is expected to consider the gondola after the completion of a city-commissioned Dodger Stadium traffic study next year.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s border czar Tom Homan visited Capitol Hill just weeks after Inauguration Day, with other administration officials and a singular message: They needed money for the White House’s border security and mass deportation agenda.

By summer, Congress delivered.

The Republican Party’s big bill of tax breaks and spending cuts that Trump signed into law July 4 included what’s arguably the biggest boost of funds yet to the Department of Homeland Security — nearly $170 billion, almost double its annual budget.

The staggering sum is powering the nation’s sweeping new Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, delivering gripping scenes of people being pulled off city streets and from job sites across the nation — the cornerstone of Trump’s promise for the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. Homeland Security confirmed over the weekend ICE is working to set up detention sites at certain military bases.

“We’re getting them out at record numbers,” Trump said at the White House bill signing ceremony. “We have an obligation to, and we’re doing it.”

Money flows, and so do questions

The crush of new money is setting off alarms in Congress and beyond, raising questions from lawmakers in both major political parties who are expected to provide oversight. The bill text provided general funding categories — almost $30 billion for ICE officers, $45 billion for detention facilities, $10 billion for the office of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — but few policy details or directives. Homeland Security recently announced $50,000 ICE hiring bonuses.

And it’s not just the big bill’s fresh infusion of funds fueling the president’s agenda of 1 million deportations a year.

In the months since Trump took office, his administration has been shifting as much as $1 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other accounts to pay for immigration enforcement and deportation operations, lawmakers said.

“Your agency is out of control,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Noem during a Senate committee hearing in the spring.

The senator warned that Homeland Security would “go broke” by July.

Noem quickly responded that she always lives within her budget.

But Murphy said later in a letter to Homeland Security, objecting to its repurposing funds, that ICE was being directed to spend at an “indefensible and unsustainable rate to build a mass deportation army,” often without approval from Congress.

This past week, the new Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Andrew Garbarino of New York, along with a subcommittee chairman, Rep. Michael Guest of Mississippi, requested a briefing from Noem on the border security components of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, which included $46 billion over the next four years for Trump’s long-sought U.S.-Mexico border wall.

“We write today to understand how the Department plans to outlay this funding to deliver a strong and secure homeland for years to come,” the GOP lawmakers said in a letter to the homeland security secretary, noting border apprehensions are at record lows.

“We respectfully request that you provide Committee staff with a briefing on the Department’s plan to disburse OBBBA funding,” they wrote, seeking a response by Aug. 22.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Associated Press the department is in daily discussions with the committee “to honor all briefing requests including the spend plan for the funds allocated” through the new law.

“ICE is indeed pursuing all available options to expand bedspace capacity,” she said. “This process does include housing detainees at certain military bases, including Fort Bliss.”

Deportations move deep into communities

All together, it’s what observers on and off Capitol Hill see as a fundamental shift in immigration policy — enabling DHS to reach far beyond the U.S. southern border and deep into communities to conduct raids and stand up detention facilities as holding camps for immigrants.

The Defense Department, the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies are being enlisted in what Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, calls a “whole of government” approach.

“They’re orienting this huge shift,” Bush-Joseph said, as deportation enforcement moves “inward.”

The flood of cash comes when Americans’ views on immigration are shifting. Polling showed 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a “good thing” for the country, having jumped substantially from 64% a year ago, according to Gallup. Only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults say immigration is a bad thing right now.

At the same time, Trump’s approval rating on immigration has slipped. According to a July AP-NORC poll, 43% of U.S. adults said they approved of his handling of immigration, down slightly from 49% in March.

Americans are watching images of often masked officers arresting college students, people at Home Depot lots, parents, workers and a Tunisian musician. Stories abound of people being whisked off to detention facilities, often without allegations of wrongdoing beyond being unauthorized to remain in the U.S.

A new era of detention centers

Detention centers are being stood up, from “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida to the repurposed federal prison at Leavenworth, Kansas, and the proposed new “Speedway Slammer” in Indiana. Flights are ferrying migrants not just home or to El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison but far away to Africa and beyond.

Homan has insisted in recent interviews those being detained and deported are the “worst of the worst,” and he dismissed as “garbage” the reports showing many of those being removed have not committed violations beyond their irregular immigration status.

“There’s no safe haven here,” Homan said recently outside the White House. “We’re going to do exactly what President Trump has promised the American people he’d do.”

Back in February, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, emerged from their private meeting saying Trump administration officials were “begging for money.”

As Graham got to work, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and a leading deficit hawk, proposed an alternative border package, at $39 billion, a fraction of the size.

But Paul’s proposal was quickly dismissed. He was among a handful of GOP lawmakers who joined all Democrats in voting against the final tax and spending cuts bill.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Eric Hildenbrand has noticed prices continue to rise this year with President Trump in the White House.

The San Diego resident doesn’t blame Trump, however, his choice for president in 2024, but says Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats who control the state are at fault.

“You can’t compare California with the rest of the country,” said Hildenbrand, 76. “I don’t know what’s going on in the rest of the country. It seems like prices are dropping. Things are getting better, but I don’t necessarily see it here.”

Voters like Hildenbrand, whose support of the Republican president is unwavering, help explain Trump’s polling numbers and how they have differed from other presidents’ polling trajectory in significant ways. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in March found that 42% of U.S. adults approved of Trump’s job performance. That is a lower rating than those of other recent presidents at the beginning of their second terms, including Democrat Barack Obama and Republican George W. Bush.

The most recent AP-NORC poll, from July, puts Trump at 40% approval. While that is not a meaningful change from March, there is some evidence that Trump’s support may be softening, at least on the margins. The July poll showed a slight decrease in approval of his handling of immigration since earlier in the year. Some other pollsters, such as Gallup, show a downward slide in overall approval since slightly earlier in his term, in January.

But even those shifts are within a relatively narrow range, which is typical for Trump. The new AP-NORC polling tracker shows that Trump’s favorability rating has remained largely steady since the end of his first term, with between 33% and 43% of U.S. adults saying they viewed him favorably across more than five years.

Those long-term trends underscore that Trump has many steadfast opponents. But loyal supporters also help explain why views of the president are hard to change even as he pursues policies that most Americans do not support, using an approach that many find abrasive.

Persistently low approval numbers

Trump has not had a traditional honeymoon period in his second term. He did not in his first, either.

An AP-NORC poll conducted in March 2017, two months into his first term, showed that 42% of Americans “somewhat” or “strongly” approved of his performance. That is largely where his approval rating stayed over the course of the next four years.

The recent slippage on immigration is particularly significant because that issue was a major strength for Trump in the 2024 election. Earlier in his second term, it was also one of the few areas where he was outperforming his overall approval. In March, about half of U.S. adults approved of his handling of immigration. But the July AP-NORC poll found his approval on immigration at 43%, in line with his overall approval rating.

Other recent polls show growing discontent with Trump’s approach on immigration. A CNN/SSRS poll found that 55% of U.S. adults say the president has gone too far when it comes to deporting immigrants who are living in the United States illegally, an increase of 10 percentage points since February.

“I understand wanting to get rid of illegal immigrants, but the way that’s being done is very aggressive,” said Donovan Baldwin, 18, of Asheboro, N.C., who did not vote in the 2024 election. “And that’s why people are protesting, because it comes off as aggression. It’s not right.”

Ratings of Trump’s handling of the economy, which were more positive during his first term, have been persistently negative in his second term. The July poll found that few Americans think Trump’s policies have benefited them so far.

Even if he is not a fan of everything Trump has done so far, Brian Nichols, 58, of Albuquerque is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Nichols, who voted for Trump in 2024, likes what he is seeing from the president overall, though he has his concerns both on style and substance, particularly Trump’s social media presence and his on-again, off-again tariffs. Nichols also does not like the push to eliminate federal agencies such as the Education Department.

Despite his occasional disagreements with Trump, though, Nichols said he wants to give the president space to do his job, and he trusts the House and Senate, now run by Republicans, to act as a safeguard.

“We put him into office for a reason, and we should be trusting that he’s doing the job for the best of America,” Nichols said.

Overall views are steady

Trump has spent the last six months pushing far-reaching and often unpopular policies. Earlier this year, Americans were bracing themselves for higher prices as a result of his approach to tariffs. The July poll found that most people think Trump’s tax and spending bill will benefit the wealthy, while few think it will pay dividends for the middle class or people like them.

Discomfort with individual policies may not translate into wholesale changes in views of Trump, though. Those have largely been constant through years of turmoil, with his favorability rating staying within a 10-percentage point range through his widely panned handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, a felony conviction and an attempted assassination.

To some of his supporters, the benefits of his presidency far outweigh the costs.

Kim Schultz, 62, of Springhill, Fla., said she is thrilled with just about everything Trump is doing as president, particularly his aggressive moves to deport anyone living in the country illegally.

Even if Trump’s tariffs eventually take effect and push prices up, she said she will not be alarmed.

“I’ve always had the opinion that if the tariffs are going to cost me a little bit more here and there, I don’t have a problem with that,” she said.

Across the country, Hildenbrand dislikes Trump’s personality and his penchant for insults, including those directed at foreign leaders. But he thinks Trump is making things happen.

“More or less, to me, he’s showing that he’s on the right track,” he said. “I’m not in favor of Trump’s personality, but I am in favor of what he’s getting done.”

Thomson-Deveaux and Cooper write for the Associated Press and reported from Washington and Phoenix, respectively.

Jensen Huang says Trump administration has assured his company it will be granted licences to export advanced chips.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says the technology giant has won approval from United States President Donald Trump’s administration to sell its advanced H20 computer chips, used to develop artificial intelligence, to China.

The news came in a company blog post late on Monday, and Huang also spoke about the coup on China’s state-run CGTN television network in remarks shown on X.

“The US government has assured Nvidia that licences will be granted, and Nvidia hopes to start deliveries soon,” the post said.

“Today, I’m announcing that the US government has approved for us filing licences to start shipping H20s,” Huang told reporters in Beijing.

He noted that half of the world’s AI researchers are in China.

“It’s so innovative and dynamic here in China that it’s really important that American companies are able to compete and serve the market here in China,” he said.

Huang recently met with Trump and other US policymakers, and this week, he is in Beijing to attend a supply chain conference and speak with Chinese officials.

The broadcast showed Huang meeting with Ren Hongbin, the head of the China Council for Promotion of International Trade, which is hosting the China International Supply Chain Expo, which Huang was attending.

Nvidia is an exhibitor.

Nvidia has profited enormously from rapid adoption of AI and last week became the first company to have its market value surpass $4 trillion.

However, the trade rivalry between the US and China has been weighing heavily on the industry.

Washington has been tightening controls on exports of advanced technology to China for years, citing concerns that know-how meant for civilian use could be deployed for military purposes.

The emergence of China’s DeepSeek AI chatbot in January renewed concerns over how China might use the advanced chips to help develop its own AI capabilities.

In January before Trump began his second term in office, the administration of US President Joe Biden launched a new framework for exporting advanced computer chips used to develop artificial intelligence, an attempt to balance national security concerns about the technology with the economic interests of producers and other countries.

The White House announced in April that it would restrict sales of Nvidia’s H20 chips and AMD’s MI308 chips to China.

Nvidia had said the tighter export controls would cost the company an extra $5.5bn, and Huang and other technology leaders have been lobbying Trump to reverse the restrictions.

They have argued that such limits hinder US competition in a leading edge sector in one of the world’s largest markets for technology.

They have also warned that US export controls could end up pushing other countries towards China’s AI technology.

Nvidia’s US-traded shares slipped 0.5 percent in after-hours trading on Monday, but its shares traded in Frankfurt, Germany, jumped 3.2 percent early on Tuesday.

July 11 (UPI) — T-Mobile announced it will scrap its diversity, equity and inclusion policy on Friday, while it awaits Federal Communications Commission approval to buy U.S. Cellular for $4.4 million.

The company, owned by German company Deutsche Telekom, is the second-largest wireless operator in the United States. It’s trying to buy most of U.S. Cellular and Internet service provider Metronet.

“T-Mobile will no longer have any individual roles or teams focused on DEI,” the company said. “T-Mobile is also removing any references to DEI on its websites and will ensure that company websites and future communications do not have any references to DEI.”

The FCC follows an informal timeline of 180 days to review mergers. The T-Mobile/U.S. Cellular deal is on day 253.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr said on X that the move was “another good step forward for equal opportunity, nondiscrimination, and the public interest.”

In a letter to Carr, Mark W. Nelson, executive vice president and general counsel for T-Mobile U.S., said, “Our belief then and now is that skills, aptitude, and a growth mindset are what contribute to exceptional performance — and that merit is how you advance at our company, regardless of who you are or where you’re from. Equality of opportunity, performance-based rewards, and ensuring we’re a place where everyone can win as ‘One Team, Together’ — that’s what we intended through some of our practices that were labeled as ‘DEI.'”

The letter said the company reviewed its policies and is “ending its DEI-related policies as described below, not just in name, but in substance.”

The letter goes on to list the different areas T-Mobile is making changes, including:

• Leadership and public messaging
• Hiring and recruitment
• Career development, mentorship and training
• Supplier and vendor diversity, corporate sponsorships and memberships
• Employee resource groups

Carr has told Bloomberg News that “any businesses that are looking for FCC approval, I would encourage them to get busy ending any sort of their invidious forms of DEI discrimination.”

Anna M. Gomez, a member of the FCC, disparaged T-Mobile’s decision on X: “In yet another cynical bid to win FCC regulatory approval, T-Mobile is making a mockery of its professed commitment to eliminating discrimination, promoting fairness, and amplifying underrepresented voices,” Gomez said. “History will not be kind to this cowardly corporate capitulation.”

Many companies and organizations have backed off their DEI programs to curry favor with the administration of President Donald Trump. Thursday, the Department of Education launched an investigation against George Mason University and its hiring practices. If the agency determines that the university violated the staff’s civil rights, GMU could lose federal funding.

Gymnast and social media influencer Olivia Dunne was all set to buy her first home. And it wasn’t just any home.

Dunne had a contract in place to buy a $1.6-million apartment that was once owned by baseball great Babe Ruth on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

But it ended up not being a Dunne deal.

The recent Louisiana State graduate known to her fans as “Livvy” won’t be moving into the former digs of the player known to fans as “the Bambino,” because the building’s co-op board rejected her application.

In a video posted to TikTok on Tuesday, Dunne told her 8 million followers that she is “so upset” after coming so close to residing in the same seventh-floor apartment where the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox legend is said to have lived from 1929 to 1940.

“It was Babe Ruth’s apartment,” said Dunne, who grew up less than an hour away in Hillside, N.J. “So naturally, like, I’m telling everybody. I’m excited. I was gonna buy it and I was gonna pay with cash, like I wanted this apartment bad.”

The 2025 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit cover model said her real estate agent “was so confident” the deal would go through that she brought boyfriend Paul Skenes, the Pittsburgh Pirates’ All-Star pitcher and 2024 National League rookie of the year, to see the place.

“I got an interior designer because I didn’t want to bring my college furniture to Babe Ruth’s apartment — that would be like, criminal,” Dunne said. “Then the week that I’m supposed to get my keys to my brand new apartment, I get a call. The co-op board denied me.”

The listing agent confirmed to The Times that Dunne had made an offer on the property that was accepted by the seller and, as the final step in the process, turned in an application for the purchase for the co-op board’s approval. The board rejected that application about three weeks ago, the agent said.

No explanation was given for the rejection, although Dunne has her theories.

“For all I know, they could have been Alabama fans and I went to LSU,” she joked. “I have no clue. Maybe they didn’t want a public figure living there. But I was literally supposed to get the keys, and that week they denied me.”

She added: “Long story short, don’t try to live in a co-op. You might get denied and you won’t get Babe Ruth’s apartment.”

The wireless carrier, which is seeking FCC approval on two deals, bowed the pressure from the White House.

Wireless carrier T-Mobile says it is ending its diversity, equity and inclusion programmes, under pressure from the Trump administration as it seeks regulatory approval for two major deals.

The Washington state-based company said in a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, made public on Wednesday, that the wireless company is ending its DEI-related policies “not just in name, but in substance.”

T-Mobile said it will no longer have any individual roles or teams focused on DEI, is removing any references to DEI on its websites, and has removed references to DEI from its employee training materials.

Carr said he was pleased with the changes. “This is another good step forward for equal opportunity, nondiscrimination and the public interest,” according to the news agency Reuters.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat, criticised T-Mobile’s action, saying, “In yet another cynical bid to win FCC regulatory approval, T-Mobile is making a mockery of its professed commitment to eliminating discrimination, promoting fairness, and amplifying underrepresented voices.”

T-Mobile is awaiting FCC approval to buy almost all of regional carrier United States Cellular’s wireless operations including customers, stores and 30 percent of its spectrum assets in a deal valued at $4.4bn, and a separate transaction to establish a joint venture with KKR to acquire internet service provider Metronet, which reaches more than 2 million homes and businesses in 17 states.

Investors did not respond well to the news.  As of 2:30pm ET (18:30 GMT), the company’s stock, traded under the TMUS, is down 1.3 percent since the market opened.

T-Mobile joins a growing list of companies bowing to pressure from the Trump administration that face regulatory approval.

Last week, Paramount agreed to pay a $16m settlement after the president claimed CBS News’ show 60 Minutes misleadingly edited an interview with then Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris, as Paramount seeks regulatory approval for the proposed merger with Skydance.

SpongeBob SquarePants would, in theory, have little use for stamps. They would get soggy in that pineapple under the sea.

Neither would Patrick Star (no fingers on the ends of those arms), Mr. Crabs (claws) or Squidward Tentacles (his name says it all). One could argue that even the fans of “SpongeBob SquarePants” wouldn’t have much use for stamps. That crowd doesn’t go in for snail mail — although Gary the Snail might.

Nevertheless, the whole gang from Nickelodeon’s long-running animated show — even Sandy Cheeks, the squirrel in the diving suit — is featured on a new set of commemorative Forever stamps, according to the U.S. Postal Service.

But the point isn’t to use them but to collect them, and perhaps look at the yellow, smiling, gap-toothed face of SpongeBob when you need a quick pick-me-up.

If you happen to be in New York City’s Times Square on Aug. 1 from 8 to 10 a.m. Eastern, you can get your hands on the new stamps. The event is free, but the stamps you’ll have to pay for. (A sheet of 16 will cost you $12.48. They’re 78 cents apiece.)

That’s 40 cents more than each stamp would have cost when “SpongeBob” premiered 26 years ago.

The USPS art director, Greg Breeding, designed the stamps with Nickelodeon artwork to guide him, according to the Postal Service. He’ll be on hand for autographs.

The world of Bikini Bottom was introduced in May 1999, and the show began a full run two months later. Creator Stephen Hillenburg, who died in 2018 at age 57 after battling Lou Gehrig’s disease, was — appropriately — a teacher of marine biology in Southern California before switching to animation. He created colorful teaching tools as well as wrote and illustrated stories with the characters who came to populate the show, as The Times wrote in Hillenburg’s obituary.

To set the record straight, stamps have, in fact, been used in Bikini Bottom.

One example: In the Season 13 episode “Patrick the Mailman,” the starfish delivers a letter to SpongeBob and asks him, “Do you know where this Spon-gee-Boob Squir-pa-Nants lives?” He then makes SpongeBob his postal pal.

WASHINGTON — After an overnight session and hours of floor debate, the House voted Thursday to approve the “Big Beautiful Bill” — clearing its final hurdle in a landmark achievement for President Trump, who wrangled Republican lawmakers to pass the most expensive legislation in history by the Fourth of July.

The 218 to 214 vote, which saw two Republican members side with the Democrats in opposition, was delayed by a record-breaking speech on the House floor by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries that lasted eight hours and 44 minutes. “I’m going to take my time,” Jeffries said before launching into a marathon excoriation of the legislation, its Medicaid cuts and its Republican backers. “Shame on this institution if this bill passes.”

The bill encompasses Trump’s domestic agenda, extending tax breaks to millions of American households and businesses that are projected to add trillions to the national debt. The legislation also introduces new tax relief for senior citizens, tip and overtime workers, and new parents.

To offset a fraction of those costs, Republicans approved new barriers to access for Medicaid and cut funding streams under the Affordable Care Act, placing the healthcare of nearly 12 million in jeopardy over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food stamps, was also cut.

It has been a controversial bill within the Republican Party ever since it was conceived at the beginning of Trump’s second term, with fiscal hawks decrying its record contributions to annual deficits, and moderate Republicans fearing its cuts to healthcare would come back to haunt them in future elections.

Speaking with reporters after the vote, senior White House officials said Trump was the “omnipresent force behind the legislation,” crediting his personal relationships with lawmakers on the Hill for its ultimate success.

“I’ve lost count of the number of meetings the president has had,” one White House official said, adding that the bill “satisfies virtually every campaign promise the president made.”

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said that Republicans defied the “doubters and the panicans” to secure passage of legislation that would “add funding for at least 1 million deportations per year.”

Beyond tax relief and healthcare cuts, the bill increases defense spending and adds a historic $150 billion to fund border security and mass deportations, exponentially increasing the budget of Immigration and Customs Enforcement — a fund larger than many national armies.

The president, Leavitt said, would host a “big, beautiful signing ceremony” Friday at 5 p.m. Eastern, marked by fireworks on the National Mall celebrating Independence Day — a deadline he imposed on the Republican caucus to secure passage of the legislation.

It also includes a host of parochial provisions. The bill provides $1 billion for security, planning and other costs for the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles, and $30 million for the construction of a sculpture-laden “American Garden of Heroes” to be built at an undetermined location.

In total, the Congressional Budget Office projects the bill could add up to $3.3 trillion to the debt by 2034. Republicans dispute the figure as inflated, arguing the CBO assumes status economic growth, while still other groups say the projection is conservative.

In a statement after the vote, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which has advocated fiscal responsibility for decades, warned the bill “would add more than $4 trillion to the debt, accelerate the insolvency of Social Security and Medicare, and leave us even more vulnerable to the whims of the Treasury markets.”

“In a massive fiscal capitulation, Congress has passed the single most expensive, dishonest, and reckless budget reconciliation bill ever — and, it comes amidst an already alarming fiscal situation,” the group said. “Never before has a piece of legislation been jammed through with such disregard for our fiscal outlook, the budget process, and the impact it will have on the well-being of the country and future generations.”

And yet, despite issuing scathing criticisms of the Senate language for its historic contributions to the debt, opposition from the House Freedom Caucus, also founded to advocate for fiscal responsibility, all but melted away in the early hours of Thursday under intense pressure from the White House.

Several of the Medicaid provisions kick in only after the 2026 midterms, buying Republicans time to sell the bill without facing its real-world consequences before the next election. But Democrats are already campaigning against the legislation as the greatest attack on healthcare since Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017, which prompted a Democratic wave in midterms the following year.

The legislation introduces a work requirement for Medicaid enrollment that will require extensive new paperwork for applicants, and restricts state taxes on healthcare providers, known as the “provider tax,” an essential tool for many states in their efforts to supplement Medicaid funding.

Several Republican lawmakers fear that provision could have devastating effects on rural hospitals. The Senate added a rural hospital fund to the bill to help mitigate some of the impacts of the funding cuts.

The bill also rolls back green energy tax credits that have fueled an entire manufacturing workforce in wind and solar energy in states across the country.

The bill passed through the Senate despite bipartisan opposition, with three Republicans joining Democrats to vote against it. House approval of the Senate text Thursday morning occurred barely 24 hours after the upper chamber’s vote.

On Wednesday night, a number of House Republican lawmakers had said openly they would not support a rushed process to approve the bill. But a floor vote on debate rules kept open by House Speaker Mike Johnson throughout the night kept conversations active, and ultimately swayed the holdouts.

Two Republican House members, Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, voted against the final bill, citing its effects to the healthcare system and to the national debt, respectively.

“What a great night it was,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform before the final vote. “One of the most consequential Bills ever. The USA is the ‘HOTTEST’ Country in the World, by far!!!”

In the call with reporters, one White House official also credited Vice President JD Vance for his efforts to secure a victory on the legislation, noting his huddle hours before a final Senate vote on Tuesday with Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a lawmaker who secured exceptional carve-outs for her state in the bill and yet still expressed disappointment with its harshest provisions after voting to approve it.

Democrats will welcome the vice president receiving credit. Several expressed hope to The Times they can tie any successor of Trump’s to unpopular healthcare cuts in 2028.

Video game performers and producers have reached a tentative contract agreement, reaching terms that could end a long strike over artificial intelligence.

The Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the game companies came to a resolution on Monday, more than two years after their previous agreement covering interactive media expired.

The deal is subject to review and approval by the SAG-AFTRA National Board and ratification by the membership in the coming weeks, the union said. Specific terms of the deal were not immediately available.

Terms of a strike suspension agreement are expected to be finalized with employers soon, the union said. Until then, though, SAG-AFTRA members will remain on strike.

SAG-AFTRA members must vote on whether to ratify the new contract, which covers roughly 2,600 performers doing voice-acting, performance- and motion-capture work in the video game industry.

Since fall 2022, video game performers have been fighting for a new contract containing AI protections, wage increases to keep up with inflation, more rest periods and medical attention for hazardous jobs.

Game actors went on strike in late July after contract talks broke down over AI. Throughout the walkout, performers demanded a deal that would require video game producers to obtain informed consent before replicating their voices, likenesses or movements with AI.

During the first few months of the strike, SAG-AFTRA reached numerous side deals with individual game companies that agreed to follow the union’s AI rules in exchange for a strike pardon. By Nov. 18, the labor organization announced that it had made AI pacts with the developers of 130 different video games.

“The sheer volume of companies that have signed SAG-AFTRA agreements demonstrates how reasonable those protections are,” Sarah Elmaleh, chair of the union’s video game negotiating committee, said in a statement in September.

While some companies earned the union’s approval, others felt its wrath.

Halfway through October, SAG-AFTRA added the popular computer game “League of Legends” to its list of struck titles in an effort to punish audio company Formosa Interactive for allegedly violating terms of the walkout. SAG-AFTRA also filed an unfair labor practice charge against Formosa, which provides voice-over services to “League of Legends,” according to the union.

Formosa denied SAG-AFTRA’s allegations.

The biggest sticking point for actors under the umbrella of AI involved on-camera performers, whose job is often to disappear into the characters they are bringing to life. They expressed concerns that the companies’ AI proposal would leave them defenseless against the technology.

The game companies argued that their AI proposal already contained robust protections that would require employers to seek prior consent and pay actors fairly when cloning their performances.

“All performers need AI protections,” said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, national executive director and chief negotiator of SAG-AFTRA, in an interview with The Times months ago.

“Everyone’s at risk, and it’s not OK to carve out a set of performers and leave them out of AI protections.”

This work stoppage marked SAG-AFTRA’s second video game strike in less than a decade and second overall strike in roughly a year.

While the walkout persisted, video game performers weren’t allowed to provide any services — such as acting, singing, stunts, motion capture, background and stand-in work — to struck games. Union actors were also barred from promoting any struck projects via social media, interviews, conventions, festivals, award shows, podcast appearances and other platforms.

AI was also a major sticking point during the film and TV actors’ strike of 2023. That walkout culminated in a contract mandating that producers obtain consent from and compensate performers when using their digital replica.