ban

“The Voice of Hind Rajab,” a heartbreaking retelling of the efforts to save a 6-year-old Palestinian girl amid Israel’s attacks on Gaza, will be honored at the 98th Academy Awards on Sunday — without one of its star players.

Actor Motaz Malhees, who stars in the film as Red Crescent dispatcher Omar, confirmed Thursday that he will be absent from the festivities because of President Trump’s travel ban against Palestinians. “I had the honor of playing one of the lead roles in a story the world needed to hear,” Malhees said on Instagram, “but I will not be there.”

“I am not allowed to enter the United States because of my Palestinian citizenship,” he added.

Trump announced his widened travel ban in December, noting his decision to “fully restrict and limit the entry of individuals using travel documents issued or endorsed by the Palestinian Authority,” along with people from countries including South Sudan and Syria. The president issued the order months after he presented his 20-point peace plan for the Gaza strip — efforts that some Palestinians feel have been now brushed aside amid U.S. and Israeli attacks against Iran.

Malhees said in his post that the restriction “hurts” but offered his followers and supporters a kernel of truth: “You can block a passport. You cannot block a voice.”

“The Voice of Hind Rajab,” directed by Tunisian filmmaker Kaouther Ben Hania, is nominated in the international feature category. The film is set in a Red Crescent call center in Ramallah and centers the 70-minute phone recording of Hind’s pleas for help as she waits with her family in a trapped car for emergency responders. She and two medics dispatched to her location were killed in February 2024 in Israeli attacks in Gaza.

The film earned the grand jury prize at the Venice Film Festival.

Though unable to celebrate the film at the Oscars on Sunday, Malhees said he stands “with pride and dignity” and that his “spirit will be with the Voice of Hind Rajab that night.”

“Our story is bigger than any barrier, and it will be heard,” he said.

A representative for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

As Malhees publicized his absence, fellow stars including Oscar winner Riz Ahmed and Emmy-nominated “Succession” star Arian Moayed rallied in support.

“Your work in the film and the film itself are both incredible and will live on forever,” Ahmed commented.

“You are brilliant, azizam,” Moayed replied to Malhees. “And this is heartbreaking and unjust.”

Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola is facing a two-game touchline ban after being booked for the sixth time this season during Saturday’s FA Cup win at Newcastle.

Guardiola was shown a yellow card after confronting fourth official Lewis Smith on the touchline at St James’ Park after Kieran Trippier had fouled City’s Jeremy Doku.

New regulations introduced this season mean Premier League managers are suspended for one game once they have received three yellow cards, while six cautions will result in a two-match ban.

The ban applies to league and FA Cup games but not European games or domestic cup finals, meaning Guardiola will be on the touchline for the Carabao Cup final with Arsenal on 22 March.

However, the Spaniard will have to sit out next Saturday’s Premier League fixture with West Ham and City’s FA Cup quarter-final clash on the weekend of 4-5 April, with the draw yet to be made for that round.

After the win at Newcastle, Guardiola said of his angry reaction that led to his booking: “I will tell you something – we have all the records in this country, all of them, despite everything.

“We have the record of the manager with the most yellow cards. I want all records and now I have it, two-game ban now and I will go on holidays the next two games.

“There are things after 10 years I cannot understand. Review the action. Of course I’m going to defend Doku and all my teams.”

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin man who allegedly told police he tried to set fire to a Republican congressman’s office last year because he was angry that the lawmaker backed a bill requiring TikTok’s Chinese owner to sell off its U.S. operations was sentenced Thursday to seven years in prison.

In addition to the prison time, Fond du Lac County Circuit Judge Tricia Walker sentenced 20-year-old Caiden Stachowicz to seven years of extended supervision, court records show.

Stachowicz, of Menasha, pleaded no contest to an arson charge in November. Prosecutors dropped burglary and property damage counts in exchange for Stachowicz’s no contest plea, which isn’t an admission of guilt but is treated as such for the purposes of sentencing.

According to a criminal complaint, a police officer responded to a fire outside Republican U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman’s office in Fond du Lac, about 55 miles northwest of Milwaukee, at around 1 a.m. on Jan. 19, 2025, and saw Stachowicz standing nearby.

He told the officer that he started the fire because he doesn’t like Grothman, according to the complaint. He initially planned to break into the office and start the fire inside. But he couldn’t break the window, so he poured gas on an electrical box behind the building and around the front of the building, lit a match and watched it burn, according to the complaint.

He said he wanted to burn down the office because the federal government was shutting down TikTok in violation of his constitutional rights and peace was no longer an option, the complaint states. He added that Grothman voted for the shutdown, but he didn’t want to hurt Grothman or anyone else.

Grothman voted for a bill in April 2024 that required TikTok’s China-based company, ByteDance, to sell its U.S. operation. The deadline was Jan. 19, 2025, but President Trump has issued multiple executive orders prolonging it. TikTok finalized a deal two months ago to create an American version of the social video platform. Trump praised the deal.

Danielle Gorsuch, one of Stachowicz’s attorneys, told the Associated Press after the sentencing that the incident was the culmination of a mental health crisis for her client and stressed that no one was hurt.

“Caden took every caution to make sure no one was present in the building at the time of the incident, as he only wanted to hurt himself,” Gorsuch said. “He took responsibility from night one.”

A spokesperson for Grothman’s congressional office didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Richmond writes for the Associated Press.

South Korea imposed a travel ban on all of Iran amid rising security concerns linked to the escalating conflict in the Middle East, the foreign ministry said Thursday.

A Level 3 travel alert, which advises nationals to leave the country, was upgraded to a travel ban effective at 6 p.m., the ministry said, amid escalating tensions in the Middle East following U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran.

The ministry warned that Korean nationals who visit or stay in Iran without authorization may face punishment under relevant laws, advising those planning to travel to the region to cancel their trips and urging those currently there to evacuate.

The ministry said it issued the ban as “the worsening situation in the Middle East has raised serious concerns over the safety of Korean nationals visiting or staying in Iran.”

“The government will continue to closely monitor developments in the Middle East and take necessary measures to ensure the safety of Korean nationals,” it said.

The latest measures come as South Korea is continuing to evacuate its citizens from the Middle East after about 140 nationals were brought to safety in earlier operations, as U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran escalate into a wider regional conflict.

The government is actively considering sending a chartered plane to the region, including the United Arab Emirates, where more than 2,000 South Korean short-term travelers remain stranded due to flight disruptions.

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

The judge was perplexed.

“Why were state law enforcement officers excluded?” U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder wanted to know.

The judge pressed California Deputy Atty. Gen. Cameron Bell to explain the thinking behind a pair of trailblazing new laws meant to unmask the federal immigration agents patrolling Golden State streets and compel them to identify themselves.

One of the laws required all law enforcement operating in the state to visibly display identification while on duty, with narrow exclusions for plainclothes, undercover and SWAT details. It applied to everyone else, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

But the other law, a ban on masks worn by on-duty law enforcement officers, applied only to local cops and federal agents, with a broad exemption for the California Highway Patrol and other state peace officers.

Snyder wanted to know: Why were the laws different?

She never got an answer. Bell said she couldn’t comment on the actions of the Legislature.

State Sen. Scott Wiener attends the California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco in February.

(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)

In the halls of the statehouse last year, Sen. Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) No Secret Police Act and Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez’s (D-Alhambra) No Vigilantes Act were referred to as “legislative twins,” a nod to their shared gestation and conjoined legal fate. If passed, both would immediately be challenged by the Trump administration.

That’s precisely what happened. Both measures became law — but only the ID law survived its first court battle, sending state legislators back to the drawing board on the mask ban.

Polls show unmasking ICE is overwhelmingly popular with voters, and both Wiener and Gov. Gavin Newsom took credit for getting the bill passed.

But behind the scenes, according to nearly two dozen sources familiar with the legislative process who spoke to The Times, a fight had been brewing between the two Democrats.

Days before the amendment deadline last summer, Newsom’s office proposed changes to Wiener’s mask ban that, according to legal experts and opponents, would have exempted most ICE and Customs and Border Protection operations from the bill. The governor’s team denies that was the intent of their proposal. The resulting compromise exempted state peace officers from the law instead.

Snyder struck it down on Feb. 9, writing that she was “constrained” to do so because the exemption of state police “unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”

Interviews with more than 20 lawmakers, policy advisors, law enforcement and legal experts show how the Labor Day weekend deal came together, ensuring both Wiener and the governor a political victory that in short order became a court triumph for the president.

There are now more than a dozen similar bills winding through statehouses from Olympia, Wash., to Albany, N.Y., as legislators try to rein in a practice the majority of Americans see as dangerous and corrosive. In Sacramento, similar efforts are underway to pass a narrower version of the law, and both Newsom and Wiener have said they were proud to make California the first state to pass an ICE mask ban.

Both sides said the legislative process is messy, and that eleventh-hour amendment fights are inevitable in a statehouse where more than 900 bills were passed and close to 800 signed into law last year.

Yet neither the governor’s office nor the legislator’s team has offered clear answers for why both accepted a last-minute change on a nationally watched bill that each was informed could kneecap the law’s constitutional standing in court.

“Seeing the carve-out, I was immediately really surprised,” said Bridget Lavender, staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative, the nation’s leading expert on the myriad legal efforts to unmask ICE across the U.S. “That’s ultimately what doomed it.”

Others were more blunt.

“When I saw the final bill I said, ‘What happened here?’” said one prominent constitutional scholar, who asked not to be identified because they were advising several other state legislatures on similar mask ban efforts. “I can’t believe this happened.”

Legally, the mask ban was always going to be a cat fight. Law enforcement groups loathed it. Constitutional scholars were wary. The Justice Department contends both the mask ban and the ID law illegally interfere with the operation of the federal government, a violation of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, while California likens them to highway speed limits, which apply to everyone equally.

“There is a very strong argument that the law is constitutional so long as it applies to all law enforcement,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berekely Law School and an early champion of the original No Secret Police Act, known in Sacramento as SB 627.

Others saw it differently.

“It’s a very complicated question as to whether states can enact law enforcement policies that bind the federal government,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “The answer [here] is probably not. I regret that’s the law, but I’m pretty sure that’s the law.”

Everyone agreed, the Golden State would set the precedent.

“All eyes were really on California,” Lavender said.

Judge Snyder agreed with the state, upholding the ID law. Judges for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned both the federal government and California in a hearing Tuesday, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of clear precedent and constitutional uncertainty of the law.

“California has done something that we just haven’t seen before,” said Judge Jacqueline Nguyen.

Most scholars believe it will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.

The mask ban would be on the same track now, if not for the state police exemption.

“We knew we really had to thread that needle very carefully,” said state Sen. Patricia Fahy of New York, whose mask ban bill could soon be fast-tracked in Albany. “You had to put all law enforcement in it. I say that as a non-lawyer, but I knew that.”

Wiener knew it too. A Harvard-trained lawyer and a former deputy city attorney for San Francisco, he’d rebuffed early requests to exempt state and local officers from the bill and circulated Chemerinsky’s July 23 op-ed in the Sacramento Bee explaining the necessity of a universal ban, including to the governor’s team.

The state’s powerful law enforcement unions were livid. They railed against the bill in public and in the Legislature, testifying relentlessly about the harm that would flow to them from a ban — including being required to enforce it against armed federal agents.

“The last thing you want is two people with firearms on their hips getting into an argument,” said Marshall McClain, a regional director in the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, among the state’s richest and most powerful lobbying groups.

Law enforcement objections shaped the changes the governor’s legislative office sought just days before the Sept. 5 amendment deadline, according to a stakeholder involved in those discussions.

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference in Los Angeles in 2024.

(Eric Thayer / Associated Press)

The most controversial ask from Newsom’s team was an exemption for all types of officers engaged in “warrant and arrest related operations” — precisely the type of enforcement Alex Pretti was filming when masked CBP agents tackled him to the ground and shot him to death in Minneapolis last month.

The governor’s office also sought an exemption for all officers engaged in “crowd management, intervention, and control” — the work ICE agent Jonathan Ross was doing when he shot and killed Renee Good less than three weeks earlier.

“We were working to ensure state officer safety and operational effectiveness, not exempt ICE,” said Diana Crofts-Pelayo, Newsom’s chief deputy director of communications.

Yet California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Mica Moore told the 9th Circuit on Tuesday that the state’s ID law only applies to officers engaged in “arrest or detention operations or … crowd control” — activities she characterized as central to its purpose.

Rather than swallow bad terms or risk Newsom’s veto, Wiener countered with the state police carve-out — a move constitutional experts advised him would leave the law at least some chance of survival.

The governor’s legislative team quickly accepted, leaving Bell and the attorney general’s office on the hook to defend the exemption.

Boosters argue that even with its fatal flaw, California’s law advanced such bans nationally in a pivotal moment last September.

“The politics have changed dramatically,” said Hector Villagra, vice president of policy advocacy for MALDEF, one of the mask ban’s sponsors. “[Today] people realize this is not normal in a democracy like ours.”

Beirut, Lebanon – Hezbollah raised the stakes for the Lebanese government on Tuesday, when it launched an attack on Israel’s Ramat Airbase and a barrage of rockets another military facility in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, a day after Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s cabinet announced a ban on Hezbollah’s military and security activities.

Analysts said that the Lebanese government’s decision, while difficult to implement, might have a decisive impact on the future of Lebanon. Some say it was a necessary step to bring decisions related to security and defence under the central government’s control, while others argue it raises the spectre of internal strife.

Imad Salamey, a political scientist at the Lebanese American University, said that implementation of the government’s decision to disarm Hezbollah was “more plausible today than in previous years because the decision reflects unusually broad national backing, including from within the Shia political sphere”.

“Amal’s vote in favour signals that support for consolidating arms under state authority is no longer framed purely as a sectarian or anti-resistance demand, but increasingly as a state-stabilisation necessity – especially amid economic collapse and regional escalation,” he said, referring to the other Lebanese Shia Muslim group headed by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.

But Michael Young, a Lebanon expert at the Carnegie Middle East Center, said the decision was easier said than done.

“Implementation is going to he much more complicated. The army is not enthusiastic to enter into a fight with Hezbollah,” Young told Al Jazeera.

“It’s good that the state has taken this decision, but it is not good that the army seems very reluctant to implement this decision,” he added.

The Iran-backed Hezbollah effectively joined the war that the United States and Israel started against Iran on Saturday when it launched a barrage of rockets and drones towards northern Israel on Monday, saying it was acting to avenge the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran and Israel’s near-daily attacks on Lebanon.

Israel responded by hitting Beirut’s southern suburbs with loud attacks that woke many of the city’s residents up, and issued evacuation warnings for more than 50 towns, displacing tens of thousands of people from their homes.

Hezbollah’s military actions banned

As this unfolded, Salam’s cabinet met and debated the events before the prime minister called an emergency news conference.

“We announce a ban on Hezbollah’s military activities and restrict its role to the political sphere,” Salam said in a news conference on Monday after the meeting.

“We declare our rejection of any military or security operations launched from Lebanese territory outside the framework of legitimate institutions.”

He added that all of Hezbollah’s military or security activities are “illegal” and said security forces would “prevent any attacks originating from Lebanese territory” against Israel or other states.

“We declare our commitment to the cessation of hostilities and the resumption of negotiations,” he said.

The statement was the strongest stance against Hezbollah to date and even gained the support of Parliament Speaker, and longtime staunch Hezbollah ally, Nabih Berri, who leads the Amal Movement.

Justice Minister Adel Nassar, meanwhile, ordered the arrest of the people who ordered the attack.

A ‘landmark’ decision

Hezbollah has been Lebanon’s strongest political and military force for decades. But the 2023-2024 war with Israel devastated the group. Hezbollah lost the majority of its military leadership, including longtime Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.

Since the end of that war, a debate over Hezbollah’s weapons and role has ensued. Salam’s government has promised to disarm Hezbollah, while the group itself only accepted giving up its arms south of the Litani River that cuts across southern Lebanon.

Despite a November 2024 ceasefire agreement, Israel continued to attack south and east Lebanon almost daily. But since Hezbollah’s retaliation, Israel has started bombing Beirut’s suburbs again. On Monday alone, Israel killed more than 52 people, wounded more than 150 others, struck targets all over Lebanon, and gave evacuation orders for more than 50 Lebanese towns.

While Hezbollah’s first attack on Israel in over a year took many by surprise, Israel’s violent response did not.

Critics of Hezbollah pointed out that the group had acted recklessly and gave Israel an excuse to unleash its fury on Lebanon. Israel has also spoken about a potential ground invasion.

For analysts, the Lebanese government’s decision was a clear indication of how far the group has fallen since 2024.

“The government’s decision to officially ban all Hezbollah activities represents a landmark shift in the position of the government toward disarming Hezbollah,” Dania Arayssi, a senior analyst at New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy, told Al Jazeera. “This is a further reaffirmation that Hezbollah has lost a lot, if not all, its political power and influence in the Lebanese government.”

Arayssi said Hezbollah’s diminished status since 2024 also meant that the likelihood of a clash between the group and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) was minimal.

“I don’t think there is a possibility of this leading to internal strife,” she said.

Hezbollah challenges Salam’s government

Hezbollah did not welcome the announcement.

The head of Hezbollah’s Parliamentary Bloc, Mohammad Raad, dispelled rumours of his assassination on Monday evening when he released a statement dismissing the government’s decision.

“We see no justification for Prime Minister Salam and his government to take bombastic decisions against Lebanese citizens who reject the occupation and accuse them of violating the peace that the enemy itself has denied and refused to uphold for a year and four months,” Raad said in a statement. “[Israel] has imposed a state of daily war on the Lebanese people.”

“The Lebanese were expecting a decision to ban aggression, but instead they are faced with a decision to ban the rejection of aggression,” Raad added.

Jawad Salhab, a political researcher and analyst, called the government’s move “a grave betrayal of the Lebanese people and a grave betrayal of the Lebanese state, whose sovereignty has been violated for 15 months.”

“Fifteen months of strategic patience have cost us more than 500 martyrs, while this Zionist enemy has persisted in its aggression against Lebanon and its sovereignty by air, land, and sea,” he said.

Overnight on Monday, leading into Tuesday, Israel struck targets around Lebanon, including the southern suburbs of the capital Beirut. In one strike, Israel targeted al-Manar, Hezbollah’s television station.

Then, on Tuesday morning, Hezbollah attacked Israel again, in what will be interpreted as a clear challenge to Salam’s announcement.

The Lebanese army had been tasked with an earlier government decision to disarm Hezbollah and said in January that it completed the first phase south of the Litani River. But Hezbollah has refused to move along with phase two, set to take place between the Litani and the Awali River, which is near the city of Sidon.

Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident senior fellow with the US-based Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera that the government’s move was a “bold step” but one that might be difficult to enforce.

“How can they implement the decision?” Blanford asked, adding that it increased the potential for internal conflict.

March 1 (UPI) — The Supreme Court will determine whether people who regularly smoke marijuana will be allowed to own guns.

In United States v. Hemani, which goes before the Supreme Court on Monday, the Trump administration will attempt to uphold their prosecution of Ali Danial Hemani, who lives in Texas.

In 2022, FBI officials found that Hemani, who is a dual citizen in the United States and Pakistan, owned a pistol while in possession of marijuana and cocaine.

When Hemani said that he engaged in marijuana use approximately every other day, he was indicted, facing up to 15 years behind bars, but the charge was dismissed.

The 1968 law he allegedly violated was meant to disarm people who used drugs.

An appeals court stated that there was not enough “tradition of gun regulation” to “support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage,” USA Today reported.

“I think what the court is being asked to decide, and I would imagine the reason it took the case, is to give some more guidance about what kinds of people can be disarmed without violating the Second Amendment,” said Joseph Blocher, one of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, CBS News reported.

Fundamentally, that’s what this case is about,” Blocher said.

IT was supposed to be the glittering triumph of Lacey M’ ‘s very short, but highly lucrative career. 

A lavish, red-carpet bash at Boxpark Liverpool, complete with DJ sets, special guests, and endless designer makeup, all to celebrate the young beauty influencer’s 12th birthday. 

But less than a month later, the glitter has well and truly settled, and the reality of internet fame has come crashing down. 

Lacey M – the self-described “Queen of Chaos” who gained 1.7 million followers since launching in 2024 – has been unceremoniously banned from TikTok.

Now, a bitter war of words has erupted online. The internet finds itself divided between loyal super-fans who believe a talented young girl’s dreams are being crushed, and deeply concerned critics who fear this is a textbook case of child exploitation in the digital age.

And if you thought a permanent ban would be the end of the drama, think again. 

Within days of her original account vanishing from the platform, lo and behold a brand-new profile – @Laceym.xandmum – popped up. 

Billed as a “joint account” and stamped “PARENT MANAGED,” Lacey is back on our screens, this time flanked by her mother, Laura, and her auntie, Natalie.

But behind the scenes, tech bosses are seething. For TikTok insiders have pulled no punches regarding the controversial comeback, warning that the family is walking on very thin ice.

One source told me: “TikTok bosses are really not happy with the way the Lacey M drama played out.”

“They take a very dim view of people trying to break their rules, particularly when the company is being scrutinised amid concerns about child safety.

“They are keeping a really close eye on this new account with Lacey and her mum Laura, and also her aunty Natalie. They are pushing their luck and TikTok are ready to step in and shut them down if they keep abusing the system. Enough is enough.”

The stark warning highlights a massive headache for social media giants as they wrestle with the dilemma of how to police the murky world of child influencers. 

TikTok’s terms of service are clear. They strictly dictate that users must be at least 13 years old to hold an account. 

Also amid politicians calling for the age to be lifted to 16, TikTok confirmed that they are launching new technology “to help us better detect people who may not be old enough to use our app.” 

‘Boiling point’

Yet, loopholes involving “parent-run” accounts have long been exploited by ambitious families eager to cash in on their children’s viral appeal.

And cash in, they have. Lacey M is not just a kid making lip-sync videos in her bedroom. She is a bonafide brand ambassador. 

She is closely tied to the wildly successful UK cosmetics giant P. Louise, run by businesswoman Paige Williams – who herself boasts 4.3 million TikTok followers on her personal and business account. 

She signed up Lacey to be an “official P.Louise Bestie”, and now the youngster even boasts her own custom makeup bundles including a Lacey In A Sticky Situation with my Bestie Box. 

The pack sells for £55 and features customisable drink cups alongside high-end cosmetics. 

For a child to be the face of a brand that also sells items with risqué names like “Bad B*tch Energy” lip kits, certainly raises some ethical questions. 

The backlash reached a boiling point following Lacey’s recent birthday extravaganza – tickets for the party cost £38, and organisers reportedly raked in £54,000 after thousands attended.

For a child to be the face of a brand that also sells items with risqué names like “Bad B*tch Energy” lip kits, certainly raises some ethical questions

Critics accused P. Louise of inappropriately sponsoring a child’s party – something she denies – and turning a young girl’s birthday into a corporate branding exercise.

Taking to Instagram, the beauty mogul was forced to address the scandal and defended her relationship with the young influencer and slammed the “assumptions” made by online trolls.

She wrote: “This is exactly what’s wrong with the internet, assumptions being made instead of truth being checked.

‘Cash cow’

“So let me be clear: I never took a penny from Lacey’s party, and I did not sponsor the event. What I did do was gift goody bags to a little girl who has shown nothing but loyalty, love, and passion for my brand over the years. She’s someone who dreams big.

“Someone who supports every launch, never misses a moment, always pays in full, and proudly shares my brand because she genuinely believes in it.”

The makeup boss went on to argue that ambition should not be gatekept by age. Then baffled fans by saying it was an issue of female empowerment rather than child safety.

She said: “That kind of dedication deserves to be celebrated, not questioned.”

“Dreams don’t come with an age limit. There is no expiration date on hope, ambition, or becoming the person you’ve always imagined. Whether you’re young or grown, you deserve encouragement, support, and people who believe in you.” 

“Supporting dreams will always matter to me. And once again, it’s disappointing to see women in business judged by a different standard, measured with a different ruler simply for showing kindness, generosity, and heart. We rise by lifting others. Always.”

She’s 12 years of age and she’s making money for her parents, for her auntie and her mom. And P. Louise is using her as a cash cow

User

While many applauded P Louise for her fiery stance, many accused her of ignoring the core issue for child safety and exploitation. 

One wrote: “I think it’s absolutely amazing that Lacey’s got banned because she shouldn’t be on here.”

“She’s 12 years of age and she’s making money for her parents, for her auntie and her mom. And P. Louise is using her as a cash cow.”

Another chimed in: “She’s twelve. Twelve year olds cannot sign contracts, fully understand brand exploitation, consent to any legal or long term digital footprint.”

“So why are we acting like she’s a 25 year old influencer who has lost her livelihood?

“She’s a child. And if she’s devastated. I do feel for her because that emotion will be real. But the responsibility, that sits squarely with the adults, parents, guardians, managers.”

And the hurt of the ban was not just felt by Lacey, but also her very large, young fanbase. One teenager named Riley, who attended Lacey’s birthday party, started a petition to get her reinstated. 

He said: “Let’s get her account back, cause honestly, she actually worked so hard for them. She’s got 1.7 million followers at the age she is. She built such, like, a community and such, like, a massive following, and we can’t let her account stay banned.” 

Others rallied to “show their support” by inundating P Louise website with orders for Lacey’s make-up bundles. 

The controversy surrounding Lacey M taps into a growing, global anxiety about ‘sharenting’ and the monetisation of children. 

I think it’s absolutely amazing that Lacey’s got banned because she shouldn’t be on here

User

Experts point out there are no limits on how many hours a child can spend filming content, no psychological support for dealing with online trolls, and crucially, no legal framework in the UK to ensure that children actually see a penny of the revenue their faces generate.

Critics point out that while Mum Laura and Auntie Natalie are officially “managing” the new @Laceym.xandmum account, it is ultimately Lacey’s face, Lacey’s personality, and Lacey’s childhood that is being sold to the masses. 

For now, Lacey and her mum are continuing to post on their new joint account, which has amassed 50,000 followers in a week, while trying to stay one step ahead of the moderators. 

But with insiders saying TikTok are “ready to step in and shut them down,” the clock is ticking.

A major airport sparked debate around airport dress codes when it announced it wanted to become the “world’s first Crocs-free AND pyjama-free airport”, and travellers have been left divided by the X post

A major airport has ignited controversy over appropriate airport clothing with an X post declaring “We’ve had enough.” Tampa International Airport took to X (formerly Twitter ) yesterday (February 26) with an announcement claiming it aspired to become the “world’s first Crocs-free AND pajama-free airport”.

The post opened with the declaration “We’ve seen enough. We’ve had enough.” before stating “The madness stops today.” The airport took aim at travellers sporting pyjamas in broad daylight, encouraging people to have a “difficult conversation” with relatives who might be guilty of such a fashion misstep, reports the Express.

While the airport went on to confirm to USA Today that the post was lighthearted, it nevertheless triggered a discussion about appropriate flying attire and whether dress codes ought to be enforced.

Its statement explained: “Tampa International Airport regularly shares lighthearted, satirical social media content as part of our ongoing effort to engage with our followers. Today’s post about ‘banning’ pajamas was another playful nod to day-of-travel fashion debates. We encourage our passengers to travel comfortably and appreciate our loyal followers who enjoy the online humor.”

While airports typically don’t enforce dress codes, there have been cases where passengers have been refused boarding or removed from planes based on their attire. In 2024, two women sporting crop tops were removed from a Spirit Airlines flight leaving Los Angeles after declining to cover up with their jumpers.

In 2025, the budget carrier updated its contract of carriage, warning that travellers who are “barefoot or inadequately clothed” could face boarding refusal or removal from the aircraft. Spirit’s terms and conditions specify this includes “see-through clothing; [being] not adequately covered; exposed breasts, buttocks, or other private parts”.

The airline also prohibits clothing and body art deemed “lewd, obscene, or offensive in nature” and states it may refuse boarding to passengers with “an offensive odor unless caused by a qualified disability”.

British airlines and airports haven’t yet introduced clothing regulations, apart from suggestions to dress comfortably, though certain airport lounges do have dress codes. No1 Lounges, which operates facilities at major hubs including London Gatwick and Heathrow, states on its website: “Yes, we have a dress code in place. We ask all our guests to wear smart-casual clothing.

“Our dress code stipulates that we reserve the right to refuse admission to anyone wearing clothing which we deem to be unsuitable. This includes themed or fancy-dress outfits, clothes with slogans that may cause offence, sports shirts, beach flip flops, vests, and clothing that exposes midriffs or upper thighs.

“Our My Lounge spaces are designed to be a little more relaxed and informal, encouraging guests to dress comfortably and express their individuality. Casual clothing, trainers, flip flops, and athleisure are welcome at My Lounge.” The policy does clarify, however, that unsuitable items such as fancy dress are still banned in these areas.

Despite its tongue-in-cheek tone, Tampa International Airport’s social media post ignited discussion about appropriate flying attire. One commenter enthused: “I love this! Let’s go back to the way it was in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s!”, accompanied by vintage photographs showing impeccably dressed passengers from bygone eras.

READ MORE: Little-known passport rule could see you turned away at the airportREAD MORE: Brits in holiday hotspot face ‘blood rain’ as Saharan dust cloud batters Europe

Another countered: “I’ll dress nice again when we’re not treated like cattle at the airport and on the plane.” While contributor questioned: “How are you even classifying clothing as pajamas to begin with? Are sweatpants, yoga pants, children wearing soft clothes pajamas?”.

Would you back dress codes at airports and on airplanes? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Ensure our latest stories always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.

Currently anyone found with five types of food – even bought in duty free – will have the seized, destroys and face £5,000 fines

A government minister has given an update on a ban on anyone bringing food into the UK on aircraft. Since last April passengers face being stopped at the UK border and having items confiscated and could face fines of £5,000.

The ban is in place because of a food and mouth outbreak in Europe. The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) banned items like sandwiches, cheese, cured meats, raw meats or milk into Great Britain.

Travellers are not allowed to bring cattle, sheep, goat, and pig meat, as well as dairy products, from EU countries into Great Britain for personal use, to protect the health of British livestock, the security of farmers, and the UK’s food security.

And yesterday the government issued an alert about a new outbreak in UK holiday hotspot Cyprus, meaning more restrictions have been brought in on commercial imports.

UK Chief Veterinary Officer Dr Christine Middlemiss said: “Foot and Mouth disease has now been confirmed in Cyprus, we remain in contact with our European counterparts to understand the latest situation.

“Robust plans are already in place to minimise the risk of disease incursion to support Britain’s farming community and food security.”

Those found with these items will need to either surrender them at the border or will have them seized and destroyed. In serious cases, those found with these items run the risk of incurring fines of up to £5,000 in England.

In a new parliamentary written question Labour MP Ben Goldsborough asked if enough was being done to inform the public and asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Emma Reynolds “If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of funding public awareness campaigns, including advertisements at airports and ports, on (a) foot and mouth disease and (b) African swine fever.”

DEFRA minister Dame Angela Eagle said extensive efforts have been made recently to highlight the ban: “ Biosecurity is a priority for this Government. To protect UK farmers and animals from serious diseases like Foot and Mouth Disease and African Swine Fever, we used the Christmas period as an opportunity to remind the public about the personal imports ban on travellers from the EU and EEA countries bringing dairy and meat products to GB, that came into force last year.

“This included promoting awareness of the rules to the travelling public and extending our reach through partnership channels across Government and with industry. Our insights survey results indicate that over 90% of respondents are aware that they should not bring back meat and dairy products from these countries.

“Any decisions on funding paid campaigns will be made based on the current threat level, evidence of effectiveness and available resources, ensuring maximum impact in protecting UK biosecurity.”

Restrictions on meat, dairy and animal products for human consumption

You cannot bring in any of the following:

• cheese, milk and dairy products like butter and yoghurt
• pork
• beef
• lamb
• mutton
• goat
• venison
• other products made from these meats, for example sausages

You can bring the following into Great Britain from any country without any restrictions:

• bread, but not sandwiches filled with meat or dairy products
• cakes without fresh cream
• biscuits
• chocolate and confectionery, but not those made with a lot of unprocessed dairy ingredients
• pasta and noodles, but not if mixed or filled with meat or meat products
• packaged soup, stocks and flavourings
• processed and packaged plant products, such as packaged salads and frozen plant material
• food supplements containing small amounts of an animal product, such as fish oil capsules

Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.

UEFA announces suspension of Gianluca Prestianni after accusations he racially abused Real Madrid’s Vinicius Junior.

The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) said on Monday it has provisionally suspended Benfica player Gianluca Prestianni for one match following accusations he racially abused Real Madrid star Vinicius Junior.

The decision means that Prestianni will miss Wednesday’s second leg of the Champions League playoff between Real and Benfica at the Bernabeu. Madrid won the first match in Lisbon last Tuesday with Vinicius scoring a second-half winner for a 1-0 victory.

The game was halted for nearly 10 minutes after the Brazil forward scored and celebrated by the Benfica corner flag, upsetting local fans and players. After being confronted by Prestianni, Vinicius accused the Argentine player of calling him “monkey.”

Prestianni has denied racially insulting Vinicius.

The anti-racism protocol was activated but no further action was taken during the match as there was no evidence against Prestianni, who covered his mouth with his shirt while talking to Vinicius. The Madrid forward was shown a yellow card after his celebration.

UEFA said the decision from its control, ethics and disciplinary Body (CEDB) is related to a discriminatory behavior.

“This is without prejudice to any ruling that the UEFA disciplinary bodies may subsequently make following the conclusion of the ongoing investigation and its respective submission to the UEFA disciplinary bodies,” it said in a statement.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino said after the match he was “shocked and saddened to see the incident of alleged racism” and praised the referee for activating the anti-racism protocol.

Benfica showed support for Prestianni, with the Portuguese club claiming that Madrid players who said they heard the insult were too far away. Benfica later released a statement saying it welcomed UEFA’s investigation and that it “fully supports and believes the version presented” by Prestianni, “whose conduct while with the club has always been guided by respect” toward everyone.

Benfica fans had reacted angrily to Vinicius celebrating his 50th-minute goal by dancing at the corner flag, throwing bottles and other objects toward the Madrid players. Prestianni then confronted Vinicius and said something while covering his mouth with his jersey.

Prestianni insisted that Vinicius misunderstood what was said, while Benfica players after the match reportedly said the Argentine provoked the Brazil forward but never racially insulted him.

Kylian Mbappe was among the Madrid players who strongly defended Vinicius and posted on X: “Dance, Vini, and please never stop. They will never tell us what we have to do or not.”

The France star also said Prestianni should never play in the Champions League again.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi declared a triumph against California on Friday, touting an appellate court ruling that she said blocked a state ban on immigration agents and other law enforcement officers wearing masks.

“The 9th Circuit has now issued a FULL stay blocking California’s ban on masks for federal law enforcement agents,” Bondi posted on the social media site X, calling the Feb. 19 decision a “key victory.”

Bondi, however, appeared confused about which case the court was ruling on this week.

A federal judge in Los Angeles blocked California’s first-in-the-nation mask ban 10 days earlier, on Feb. 9.

At the time, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder said she was “constrained” to block the law because it included only local and federal officers, while exempting state law enforcement.

The state did not appeal that decision.

Instead, on Wednesday, the law’s author Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a new mask bill without the problematic carve-out for state officers.

With the initial legal challenge already decided and the new bill still pending in the legislature, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has no reason to revisit the mask ban.

The ruling that Bondi appeared to reference involves a separate California law requiring law enforcement officers to display identification while on duty.

Snyder had previously ruled the “No Vigilantes Act” could take effect because it did not exempt state police, a decision the Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit.

The appellate court is set to review the matter early next month. Until then, the court issued an injunction that pauses the state law from taking effect.

Issuing a temporary administrative injunction is a common procedural move, allowing judges to freeze things in the status quo until the court has a chance to weigh the law and come to a decision.

Thursday’s order set a hearing in the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals in Pasadena for March 3, indicating the case is far from over.

Bill Essayli, who leads the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, also celebrated with a post on X, calling Thursday’s order “another key win for the Justice Department.” He too suggested the injunction somehow involved the mask case.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The law requiring officers to show ID is less controversial than the mask ban. But it may still face an uphill battle in the appellate court. A three-judge panel is set to hear the case, comprising two judges nominated to the bench by President Trump and one by President Obama. One of the Trump appointees, Judge Mark Bennett of Hawaii, has previously signaled skepticism over the administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

At issue in the ID case is whether California’s law interferes with or controls the operations of the federal government, actions prohibited by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Snyder ruled that the identification law was more akin to speed limits on the highway, which apply equally to everyone, a decision the appellate court could reject.

A ruling is not expected before mid-March, and would not directly affect the push by state lawmakers to pass a revised mask ban.

Recent polls show more than 60% of Americans want U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and other federal agents unmasked. More than a dozen states are pursuing laws similar to California’s.

In Washington, congressional Democrats have made a mask ban for ICE a key issue in the ongoing partial government shutdown, vowing not to fund the Department of Homeland Security until one is enacted.

Legal experts have said the issue likely will not be resolved until it reaches the Supreme Court.

CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert shot back at his network Tuesday over its handling of his interview with Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico of Texas.

Colbert told viewers Monday he was instructed by CBS “in no uncertain terms” that Talarico could not appear on his “Late Show” program because it would require offering equal time to the candidate’s opponents in the Democratic senate primary. The host also said he was told by CBS not to discuss the matter on the air, a demand he ignored.

CBS contradicted Colbert’s account in a Tuesday statement, saying “‘The Late Show’ was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Rep. James Talarico,” and that Colbert was only advised the program would have to make the time available to Talarico’s opponents.

In his Tuesday “Late Show” monologue, Colbert described the CBS denial as “crap.” He said the CBS legal department cleared his Monday comments and even advised him on his language on the matter.

“They know damn well that every word of my script last night was approved by CBS’ lawyers, who for the record approve every script that goes on the air whether it’s about equal time or this image of frogs having sex,” he said.

Colbert took a paper copy with the CBS statement, crumpled it, and put it in a plastic bag typically used to collect dog feces.

The showdown centers on the Federal Communications Commission’s equal-time rule — which applies only to broadcast TV and radio. The rarely enforced regulation requires broadcasters who interview qualified candidates for office to offer equal time to other contenders on the ballot. Exceptions are typically given to interviews on news programs and talk shows.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has called to end the exception for talk shows. Experts say such a change would be difficult to enforce and even chill free speech by limiting which guests programs can book.

Carr’s move is largely seen as an accommodation to President Trump, whose animus toward late-night programs that frequently lampoon him is well-known.

Colbert conducted the interview with Talarico and posted it on YouTube, which is not under the FCC’s jurisdiction, where it attracted several million views.

On Tuesday, Colbert claimed CBS management is kowtowing to Carr and showing a lack of corporate courage. He noted that the talk show exemption in the equal time rule is still in place

“I’m just so surprised that this giant global corporation would not stand up to these bullies,” he said.

A CBS representative did not respond to a request for comment.

Colbert has little to risk by publicly taking on CBS management as his program is ending in May. The company cited financial losses as the reason for the cancellation, but the timing of the decision in July came before CBS parent Paramount Global closed its merger deal with Skydance Media, which required regulatory approval from the Trump administration.

Trump celebrated the announcement that Colbert’s program is ending and has called for the firing of late-night hosts Jimmy Kimmel of ABC and Seth Meyers of NBC.

Colbert is under contract through May and has been kept on the air since the cancellation announcement last year. But if CBS execs lose their patience, it’s conceivable that the network can pull him off the air and use guest hosts until the end of the program’s run.

CBS has yet to decide on a replacement for “The Late Show,” which was launched in 1993 when David Letterman joined the network.

Published on
17/02/2026 – 8:00 GMT+1

Four years after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European Union is still importing Russian steel – and not everyone is happy about it.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Next week, MEPs and EU member states will begin negotiations on whether to ban Russian steel outright. What began as a sanctions debate has morphed into a high-stakes political fight.

Swedish lawmaker Karin Karlsbro is preparing to take on the EU council, which represents the member states, with Belgium, Italy, the Czech Republic and Denmark all arguing that they still need imports of unfinished steel for major construction projects.

“It is a big provocation that we haven’t done everything possible to limit Putin’s war chest,” Karlsbro told Euronews. “The Russian steel industry is a backbone of Russian war, it is the Russian war machinery.”

Finished Russian steel was banned in 2022, but semi-finished steel, a key input for further processing, was spared after a number of countries secured an exemption until 2028 to cushion the blow to their industries.

“Unfinished steel can’t be produced anywhere in the EU,” a European diplomat from one of those countries told Euronews, “while it is required for big infrastructures.”

Three million tonnes

Karlsbro says she was astonished to learn that EU imports of Russian steel amount to nearly 3 million tonnes a year, roughly equivalent to Sweden’s entire annual output and worth around €1.7 billion.

For her, the type of steel is beside the point.

“There is absolutely no argument that this is special steel or highly qualified steel with any essential quality. There is simply no additional reason to buy this steel,” she said.

To bypass the unanimity required for the adoption of EU sanctions by the member states, Karlsbro inserted a ban on Russian steel into a separate European Commission proposal aimed at shielding the bloc from global steel overcapacity, as US tariffs divert excess supply toward Europe.

The European Parliament’s trade committee approved the move on 27 January.

The procedural shift is crucial. Unlike sanctions, the trade file requires onlythe support ofa qualified majority of EU countries, potentially sidelining governments that might otherwise veto a full ban.

“The Parliament is playing politics on this,” an industry source familiar with the file told Euronews.

Another diplomat from a country dependent on Russian semi-finished steel said the ban was important for his government, which is why the 2028 deadline has been set – highlighting the dilemma the EU faces as it balances industrial needs with the need to confront the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The talks are beginning as the fourth anniversary of Russia’s invasion approaches, and the clock is ticking. By June, the EU must adopt the Commission’s plan to shield its market from a glut of global steel.

One diplomat insisted the two files – banning Russian steel and protecting the EU market from overcapacity – pursue “totally different goals”.

Still, the same diplomat acknowledged the ban could pass, as there are not enough member states pushing to maintain a phase-out only by 2028.

WASHINGTON — President Biden is considering a ban on imports of Russian oil while weighing actions that would boost energy production by autocracies in the hopes of mitigating the effects on American consumers and global energy markets, U.S. officials said.

“What the president is most focused on is ensuring we are continuing to take steps to deliver punishing economic consequences on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin while taking all action necessary to limit the impact to prices at the gas pump,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Monday.

Until now, the economic strangulation of Russia by the West over its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has avoided its robust energy sector, with administration officials suggesting that such a move could weaken the global economy.

But as Russia increases its unrelenting bombardment of Ukrainian cities, political pressure on the West has grown to do more to put pressure on Putin to stop the onslaught. U.S. officials said the Biden administration is considering easing restrictions on imports of oil from Venezuela to alleviate the void left by Russian oil bans, a politically problematic step.

It has also sought to convince Saudi Arabia, which has been under fire from U.S. and European officials over its human rights record, to boost oil production.

Biden spoke Monday for more than an hour with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, although the official White House readout of the conversation did not explicitly state that they discussed a ban on Russian energy.

According to the White House, “the leaders affirmed their determination to continue raising the costs on Russia for its unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine. They also underscored their commitment to continue providing security, economic and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine.”

Psaki said administration officials were also discussing whether the U.S. would send military aircraft to Poland should its leaders provide Soviet-era bombers to support Ukraine, but noted that the White House was not “preventing or blocking or discouraging” officials in Warsaw. “They are a sovereign country. They make their own decisions, but it is not as easy as just moving planes around,” she said.

The U.S. has been reluctant to get ahead of European allies in responding to Putin’s aggression. And while an oil embargo from Washington would have some effect, doing so in concert with Europe would deliver a far greater impact. Europe imports 4 million barrels of Russian oil a day, compared with 700,000 barrels imported daily by the U.S.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said Sunday during an interview with CNN that the administration was indeed exploring the “prospect” of an energy ban “in a coordinated way” with allies, although he did not rule out the possibility that Washington could act on its own to bar Russian oil.

The administration may not have much of a choice. Members of both political parties have introduced bills in both houses of Congress to block such imports.

“We may have to pay more at the pump because of this attack and our bipartisan response, but it is worth it to ensure that Putin pays the price for his paranoid adventurism and his attack on a peaceful democracy,” Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Carmel Valley), who has co-sponsored a bill to ban Russian oil, said in a statement.

Rep. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), who supports the measure, said a Russian oil ban may only have limited success if the U.S. cannot persuade other countries to join the effort.

“I don’t believe Europe and some of the other countries are ready to say no to Russian energy, so that’s the challenge right now,” Correa said in an interview. “Not only does Russia have nukes, but also people have to buy their energy from the Russians.”

Congress is weighing an oil ban as it pushes to pass a measure to send Ukraine billions of dollars in emergency assistance. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Monday called for passage of a $12-billion aid package this week, saying it “will provide both humanitarian and military assistance for Ukraine: funding for refugees, medical supplies, emergency food supplies, as well as funding to support weapons transfers into Ukraine, and help for our eastern flank NATO allies.”

In a letter to House Democrats on Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said Congress intended to pass $10 billion in emergency aid for Ukraine as part of a larger government funding measure. The House is also exploring legislation that would “further isolate” Russia from the world economy, Pelosi said.

Banning Russian oil imports would probably lead to higher prices at the pump in the U.S. and globally. Gas is averaging $4 a gallon nationwide, up from $2.77 a year ago, according to AAA. The average price of gas in California during that same period has risen from $3.75 to $5.34.

In a clear signal of how seriously the Biden administration is considering a Russian oil ban, U.S. officials traveled over the weekend to Caracas, Venezuela, for talks about potentially easing sanctions imposed on the South American nation by the Trump administration in 2019. President Trump took that step after declaring President Nicolas Maduro’s election victory a sham and recognizing another politician, Juan Guaido, as the country’s rightful leader, a position Biden has affirmed.

Those measures built upon similar sanctions imposed by President Obama, signaling the long history of trouble Washington has had with Caracas and its socialist leaders.

The Venezuela economy is reeling, despite sitting on some of the world’s largest oil reserves, and Maduro is likely eager to be free of the sanctions. However, his economy and many of his government agencies are deeply intertwined with Russian assets and advisors. Any lenience by the White House toward Maduro, even if it’s driven by a desire to crack down on Putin, could undercut Biden’s messaging about the existential threat that autocracies present to democracies.

Psaki on Monday batted away questions about a potential rapprochement with Caracas, telling reporters that any easing of sanctions was “leaping several stages ahead” of where talks currently stand.

Complicating matters has been Venezuela’s decision to imprison six executives from the Citgo oil company for the last four years. Five are U.S. citizens and the sixth a U.S. permanent resident. They were convicted in show trials on trumped-up embezzlement charges and other crimes, according to their families and human rights activists.

Psaki said discussions about the release of the men and sanctions relief were taking place “in different channels,” and not tied together.

Republicans, who have seized on the potential energy crisis to call for stepping up domestic fossil fuel production, have already made clear that they will hit the White House hard should it look to offset any ban on Russian oil by looking to foreign suppliers.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio criticized Biden in a tweet Sunday, saying: “Rather than produce more American oil, he wants to replace the oil we buy from one murderous dictator with oil from another murderous dictator.”