ban

July 13 (UPI) — The European Union plans to implement a social media ban on users younger than 13-years-old, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Monday.

The ban would still allow users younger than 13 to use social media with parental supervision. Von der Leyen presented an expert report on the harms of social media use on children that recommended the ban to limit time spent on the platforms.

“It is very clear that we need age-appropriate restrictions to platforms,” von der Leyen said. “This is not about whether children can access social media. It is about whether and when social media can access our children.”

The report, written by child psychiatrist Jorg Fegert and epidemiologist Dr. Maria Melchior, also recommends that social media use be limited to platforms that have certain features such as limits to infinite scrolling. They also recommend that children under the age of 3 have no screen time.

Von der Leyen is expected to announce a law outright banning children and teens from using some social media sites in the coming months. Monday’s report is the first step toward that law.

The European Union is just one body that has considered banning children and teens from accessing social media in recent years. Australia was the first country to implement a ban, barring children under 16-years-old from using social media last year.

Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, India, Indonesia and Malaysia are either considering similar restrictions or have adopted them.

Along with efforts to restrict access to social media, governments and coalitions across the globe have been encouraging major social media companies to change their policies to make their sites safer for children. Among the features they are pushing for are greater control of the data of children, the elimination of features that encourage compulsory use like infinite scrolling and control over age-inappropriate content.

A POPULAR destination in Europe is cracking down on tourists – with fines dished out to rule-breakers.

The small village of Varenna, near Lake Como, is banning anyone from walking around its historic streets either bare-chested or wearing swimwear.

The new rules come as the village, which is home to only 650 people, is experiencing high levels of tourism each summer.

Tourists heading to the town will still be able to have a bare chest or wear their swimwear if they are at one of the lake’s beaches or if they are enjoying a boat trip on the lake itself.

However, if they are caught in the wrong place in the swimwear or with no shirt on, they could be fined between €50 (£42.74) and €200 (£170).

Varenna isn’t the only Italian spot to ban being shirtless and wearing swimwear in the town centre.

Read more on travel inspo

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

STAYCAY

Our travel experts’ best-kept-secret UK holiday spots for summer – from £37 a night

It is also banned to walk shirtless, barefoot or in a bikini in the town centres of Sorrento and the Amalfi Coast, with fines ranging from €25 (£21.37) to €500 (£427.48).

Varenna has also introduced a number of other rules impacting tourists.

There’s also a clampdown on crowds, as tour groups are now capped at 25 people.

The aim of this is so that the village’s lanes will not be blocked.

Guides have been banned from using speakers as well.

According to The Guardian, Mauro Manzoni, Varenna’s mayor, said: “Varenna is a wonderful village, and we are proud to welcome hundreds of thousands of visitors from all over the world every year.

“However, our residents’ quality of life cannot be sacrificed on the altar of mass tourism.”

Ten European and Western countries have barred Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich from entering their territories, according to Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

The ministry said the ten countries had imposed entry bans on the two far-right ministers, who have faced widespread criticism over statements seen as advocating the extermination of the Palestinian people.

In a statement, the ministry said it was monitoring the diplomatic development and urged the countries to reconsider what it described as their “unjustified” decisions.

The countries that have imposed the bans are the UK, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand and France.

Ben-Gvir was already banned from entering France and Ireland at the end of May after publishing a video showing detained activists from the Gaza-bound aid flotilla kneeling with their hands tied behind their backs following the interception of their vessel at sea. The activists were later held in southern Israel, prompting international condemnation.

READ: Smotrich announces retaliatory measures against Palestinian Authority after ICC developments

Several countries, including France, Spain and Italy, have called for European sanctions against Ben-Gvir. Judicial authorities in both France and Italy have also opened investigations into allegations that he was responsible for the torture of the activists.

On Tuesday, Ben-Gvir cancelled a planned trip to New York to attend the United Nations Chiefs of Police Summit amid concerns over planned protests by human rights groups, as well as growing calls for his arrest and investigation.

The Hind Rajab Foundation had previously asked the US Department of Justice to launch an urgent criminal investigation into the Israeli National Security Minister and arrest him upon his expected arrival in New York next month.

The legal request was backed by a broad case file prepared by the pro-Palestinian rights organisation, which said it was presenting the case to US judicial authorities as a test of Washington’s commitment to upholding international law.

READ: Ben Gvir attacks Trump-Iran deal: Israel ‘not bound by US agreement’

Edwin Díaz insists he did nothing wrong.

After facing live batters for the first time Sunday since undergoing elbow surgery in April, the Dodgers’ reliever pushed back against allegations linking him to illegal cockfighting in Puerto Rico.

“I’ve been doing that before because, like the story said, that’s legal in Puerto Rico,” Díaz said.

USA Today published a story in May highlighting social media posts advertising cockfighting tournaments that picture Díaz in his Dodgers uniform. The story also referenced a story in El Nuevo Día, the largest circulating newspaper in Puerto Rico, quoting Díaz.

No one from Major League Baseball has reached out to Díaz about a possible suspension, he said.

“They didn’t reach out to me because I wasn’t doing anything illegal,” Díaz said.

In 2019, a federal law banning cockfighting took effect in Puerto Rico. Before the law, the blood sport had been made illegal in all 50 states, but not U.S. territories. Many Puerto Ricans saw the ban as an attack on their culture and vowed to defy the law.

Puerto Rico responded by passing a law saying that it’s legal to host cockfights as long as people don’t export or import the animals or any goods or services related to cockfighting. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2021 declined to hear a challenge to the federal law brought by a group that argued Congress exceeded its power by applying the ban to Puerto Rico.

Anyone found guilty of taking part in cockfighting faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Spectators could receive a one-year prison sentence.

Still, some Puerto Ricans such as Díaz view the topic as part of the island’s history, initially brought to the Caribbean by 16th-century Spaniards when the island was first colonized.

“It’s a pastime I’ve followed since I was a child,” Díaz told El Nuevo Día in March. “It’s legal in Puerto Rico, thank God. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be here.”

Diaz is on track to return to the Dodgers after the All-Star break, although his exact return date remains unclear. His fastball felt good, so locating his slider was the next step toward his return.

Times staff writer Hannah Fry contributed to this report.

U.S. Navy sailor Chase Humes is moving back to his dad’s house in Texas.

Last month, the 25-year-old was notified that his “voluntary separation” from the Navy, which he’d applied for in May 2025, had been approved — he would be released from service. He and his wife must be out of their military housing in San Diego by mid-July.
Humes, a transgender man who’s been taking testosterone for seven years, was among at least 1,000 service members who chose to leave on their own terms rather than face involuntary separation following the military’s February 2025 ban on transgender service members. By choosing a voluntary separation, he’s been approved for an “honorable discharge,” which preserves access to benefits like Veterans Affairs healthcare that others worry they might not have access to.
Humes is one of about 4,200 transgender service members the Department of Defense estimates have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and could be subject to the policy. Advocates say the transgender service member population could exceed 15,000, according to a UCLA study from 2014.
A new California bill, Assembly Bill 1775, is intended to assist people who don’t have the certainty of Humes’s honorable discharge and worry about their future prospects if they were forced out of the military. Proponents say the bill, by San Diego Democratic Assemblymember Chris Ward, could help people who are given less than honorable discharge for hiding their transgender identity by helping them restore access to services.

In the meantime, service members like Humes are scouting their next move. The sailor and his wife have been searching for jobs near his dad’s house outside Houston. They can’t afford to start their life in San Diego, despite having fallen in love with the city’s accepting atmosphere.
“The whole reason I joined was for a better future for myself and my family, and it just got torn away,” Humes said of the separation.

Over a year in limbo

Among the flurry of executive orders President Trump issued at the start of his second term was the Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness order.

It rescinded President Biden’s policy permitting transgender people to openly serve in the forces, and asserted that gender dysphoria and using pronouns different than one’s biological sex at birth were inconsistent with the country’s “high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.”

What followed the Jan. 27, 2025 order was a series of legal challenges, some of which are still ongoing. Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump’s ban on transgender people in the military was likely unconstitutional, allowing a group of 28 plaintiffs from across the country to continue serving while their case proceeds.
Transgender troops were faced last spring with the choice of either voluntarily leaving the military, and in some cases receiving separation pay, or saying nothing and hoping they were not found out and “involuntarily separated” from the forces.

Humes is choosing to voluntarily leave the Navy after the Trump administration announced a policy banning transgender troops.

(Adriana Heldiz / CalMatters)

Kat Koehlmoos, who was in active duty for eight years and is now in an inactive Army Reserve status, said the military chain of command does not know she is transgender.
“Anyone could use my testimony today to report me to the Army Reserves here, and they would be required to take action to involuntarily discharge me from the U.S. military,” she told lawmakers during a hearing on the legislation last month.
Koehlmoos is a board member for SPARTA Pride, which advocates for transgender service members and co-sponsored the legislation. She said the bill came about in part because supporters are concerned the federal government might replicate the actions it took during its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which allowed gay, lesbian and bisexual troops to serve if they concealed their sexual orientation. Some 2,000 troops were given less than honorable discharges in connection to the policy, and were shut out of some veterans’ benefits, according to a class-action lawsuit that was settled in 2025.

Koehlmoos said the group anticipates some people who are “involuntarily separated” under the 2025 transgender ban will be punished by the Department of Defense for not complying with the law.

“They may pursue other charges: accusing them of falsifying records or lying on federal documents, and attempt to get them a less than honorable discharge because of that,” she said, although SPARTA Pride does not know of any such cases so far.
If that happened in California, Ward’s bill would help those people qualify for expedited professional licensing in civilian careers like contracting and nursing and prioritize them for discharge upgrades as well as housing and support services.

Ward said he believes the benefits of all service members should be secured, whether they leave voluntarily or involuntarily.

“They have served honorably, and this was a separation that was involuntary, and they would deserve the full benefits that they otherwise would have been due had they been cisgender,” he said.

Unknown number affected

It’s unclear how many people could be affected by the legislation. Ward has repeatedly told fellow lawmakers that 2,900 of the federal government’s estimated 4,200 transgender troops — 69% — are either from California or are currently stationed in California. In an emailed statement in response to a question from CalMatters, Ward said the figures were mistakenly adopted after conversations with veterans’ advocates, and he would no longer use them to describe the number of affected California service members.
The bill would also require the state’s Department of Veterans Affairs to create a new housing and supportive services grant for veterans, which Ward said would fill a gap in existing housing support for veterans experiencing imminent homelessness. But the budget Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Monday does not include funding for that program.
Instead, it directs $2 million toward the state’s existing Veteran’s Military Discharge Upgrade Grant Program, which provides legal assistance for veterans fighting for a discharge upgrade.
As Humes prepares to leave San Diego, Ward’s bill is still pending in Sacramento. The legislation has cleared policy committees in both houses and awaits a hearing in the Senate appropriations committee.
Koehlmoos said the moment is stressful for most transgender troops — those being removed voluntarily, who have few options; the people who haven’t notified the chain of command, who may be living in fear; and the service members who will delay their transition, or never transition, because of the federal government’s ban on transgender troops.

“For me that’s heartbreaking, because that really is putting your life on hold,” she said.

Kate Wolffe writes for CalMatters.

California Democratic senators failed to advance a proposal Tuesday that would have barred registered sex offenders from running for office.

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) voted against Assembly Bill 2753, while fellow Sens. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) and Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) abstained from a vote that ultimately failed 2-1-2 in the Senate Elections and Constitutional Committee.

The committee’s lone Republican, Steve Choi (R-Irvine), and Sen. Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) voted in favor of the bill, which is likely dead because it failed to get support from a majority of the five-member panel.

AB 2753 could be reviewed in a floor session Thursday, but staff from the office of Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria (D-Fresno), who authored the bill, are conceding that’s unlikely.

The defeat comes on the heels of unanimous support, including a 60-0 vote in favor on the Assembly Floor on May 7.

“I am deeply disappointed and disheartened after the Senate Elections Committee has failed to advance AB 2753, a bill that would have prohibited any registered sex offender in the State of California from running for local or state public office,” Soria said in a statement.

The bill’s wording said the legislation would “prohibit a person from being a candidate for, or elected to, any state or local elective office if the person has ever been required to register as a sex offender.”

Inquiries to the offices of Sens. Wiener, Umberg and Allen were not immediately returned.

Sex offenses in California are broken up into three tiers. First-tier offenses call for a minimum of 10 years placement on the sex offender registry. Second-tier offenses call for a minimum of 20 years and third tier crimes could result in a lifetime on the registry.

The types of offenses for each tier vary. Tier 1 offenses range from indecent exposure to misdemeanor child pornography and sexual battery. Tier 2 includes incest and penetration with a foreign object, and Tier 3 includes felony possession of child pornography, rape and pimping and pandering of a minor.

Wiener asked for amendments to the bill during the bill’s review and in the committee meeting, including that the lifetime ban only be applied to Tier 3 members.

He pointed to committee analysis of the bill that could affect so-called “Romeo and Juliet” couples — those close in age, for instance with one partner being 19 and the other being 17. If the younger partner sent sexually explicit digital content to the older partner (a misdemeanor), this law could ban the older partner from public office for life.

There were also concerns listed in the analysis that the registry, which dates back to 1947, could include LGBTQ+ offenders from decades ago who were convicted of offenses that are no longer crimes.

Wiener mentioned in the committee meeting civil rights strategist and fighter Bayard Rustin being placed on the California sex offender’s registry list after being arrested by Pasadena Police for having consensual sex with another man in 1953.

“Without the amendment contained in the analysis, I will be voting ‘no’ on this bill and recommending that the committee vote ‘no,’” Wiener said at the committee hearing.

He added that the sex offender list was “not punishment,” but instead “a tool for law enforcement to monitor who may potentially cause a risk.”

While Soria agreed to one bill amendment, she did not accept other provisions, including the elimination of lifetime bans on Tier 1 or 2 offenses.

“The bottom line is this: I was not willing to make additional amendments to this bill,” she said. “I made a promise to my community that I would do everything in my power to ensure they would never have to go through something like this again. Accepting additional amendments to this bill would have jeopardized that promise.”

Some of the impetus behind her bill revolved around the June 2 Fresno City Council election. Registered sex offender Rene Campos fell short of the necessary votes in his bid to run for Central Valley Council.

He was charged with possession of child pornography in 2018 and hosted his campaign kickoff in front of an elementary school.

Nelson Esparza, Fresno City Council President, spoke at the Senate Elections and Constitutional Committee meeting in favor of AB 2753.

“My office received dozens of calls from our residents asking how this could be allowed,” Esparza said of Campos’ candidacy. “AB 2753 closes this loophole.”

It’s unclear if this bill will be reintroduced next year at least at the Assembly level, as Soria is running for the state senate in November.

California’s effort to restrict sales of handguns that can be converted into fully-automatic machine guns drew an immediate federal challenge Wednesday, with the Trump administration suing the state over its new “Glock ban” law just hours after it took effect.

The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking a court order to block the controversial state law that limits where most Glock and Glock-style pistols can be sold. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, also aims to invalidate key parts of the state’s handgun roster — a list that dictates the types of firearms that Californians may legally purchase. In a statement Wednesday, acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said that both policies “trample” the rights of law-abiding Californians.

“The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California,” Blanche said. “California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America.”

California’s Assembly Bill 1127 does not explicitly name the Glock brand, but instead targets any handgun with a specific mechanism that can easily be converted by a black market device. These simple “Glock switches” convert semiautomatic handguns into a weapon capable of firing 20 rounds per second with a single squeeze of the trigger.

Advances in 3D printing have made the conversion devices widely available and cheap to produce. Federal authorities reported recovering 11,088 of them from crime scenes between 2019 and 2023. Switches have been used in several mass shootings, including one in Sacramento that resulted in six deaths and 12 injuries in 2022.

The new law does not prohibit the possession of affected handguns already owned by Californians, and includes exemptions for gun dealers, as well as law enforcement and military agencies.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill in October, and has maintained that firearm laws are responsible for California’s declining crime rates and gun deaths.

“The Trump administration is once again trying to dismantle California’s commonsense gun safety laws,” Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for the governor, said in a statement. “Our response is simple — these laws save lives.”

The federal government argues in its complaint that California can’t ban legal semiautomatic handguns simply because they could be illegally altered, adding that state and federal law already prohibit such pistol converters. The U.S. compared California’s approach to banning ordinary shotguns because they can be illegally shortened.

The lawsuit also challenges California’s decades-old handgun roster, which requires new handgun models to pass certain safety tests before they can be approved for retail sale. A federal judge tentatively blocked portions of the roster requirements in a separate 2023 case, which is being appealed before the 9th Circuit. That lawsuit was filed by the California Rifle & Pistol Assn. and other gun rights supporters following a landmark 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that set new standards for evaluating firearm restrictions.

Under those new guidelines, the Trump administration wants a judge to find that California’s gun restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment, and is seeking an order to bar the state from enforcing them.

The Trump administration is relying on a federal civil rights law typically used against police departments accused of repeated constitutional violations, arguing that California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and state Justice Department agents qualify as peace officers and therefore violate gun owners’ rights whenever they enforce handgun restrictions.

Bonta, who is named in the suit, has a winning court record over the Trump administration, and has secured at least 12 final court rulings and more than 35 preliminary injunctions or emergency orders.

“We won’t be intimidated by another politically motivated lawsuit,” said Crofts-Pelayo, Newsom’s spokesperson. “We’ll continue defending the laws that protect Californians and keep dangerous weapons off our streets.”

“I am temporarily relocating to Kumalia.”

When Kaka Ali said those words over the phone on June 8, I nearly asked him to repeat himself. I had been speaking to him about farming and survival in northern Borno for nearly two years. Kumalia was where he was born, but it was also a place that most people had long stopped calling home.

The community is located within Monguno Local Government Area (LGA) in Borno State, northeastern Nigeria. The Boko Haram insurgency had emptied it in 2016, forcing residents to flee to Monguno town and Maiduguri, the state capital. The government never formally reopened the community. In the years that followed, its name surfaced mostly in conversations about what the insurgency had taken.

“Why would you go back there?” I asked. 

“The negotiations did not go through,” Kaka replied. 

I did not fully understand what he meant until weeks later.  

On June 21, I reached him again. I learnt that he had returned to Monguno to attend the funerals of four friends who were killed the previous day by suspected Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) terrorists while working on a farm near Kartari, a remote settlement close to Cross Kauwa town in Kukawa LGA, on the shores of Lake Chad. Twelve other farmers were also killed in the incident. 

The men had travelled to Kartari from different parts of northern Borno, drawn by the search for land to cultivate after farming had been disrupted closer to home. That same day, in Zabarmari, a farming community in Jere LGA, another 11 farmers were reportedly killed. By then, Kaka’s explanation about Kumalia finally made sense.

The warning had come months earlier at the onset of cultivation in February, when farmers across parts of northern Borno began receiving warnings from ISWAP terrorists not to farm this season. The message spread among returning farmers and community leaders through word of mouth.

“They approached farmers who had gone to Kartari and told them we must not cultivate this year,” said Musa Abubakar, a farmer from Cross Kauwa. “They also informed community leaders in villages close to them, and those leaders passed the message to us in other towns,” he said. 

According to Musa, farmers who wished to cultivate were instructed to relocate with their families to terror-controlled territories, locally known as Daula, and farm there instead. Many initially assumed it was another extortion attempt because for years, cultivating in parts of northern Borno had meant paying terror groups for access to land. In 2024, HumAngle documented how farmers in the region paid millions of naira in levies and so-called farming permits to ISWAP. This season, farmers pooled their money together, some contributing at least ₦50,000 each, hoping to negotiate their way back to their fields. However, the effort failed, and the warning held.

So they began looking elsewhere. Some moved toward the Lake Chad region. Others returned to abandoned communities. More than 100 farmers from Monguno, according to Kaka, relocated to Kumalia, where they erected makeshift shelters from sticks and dry grass to plant their crops. They plan to stay until the harvest season in November or December.

The women were not left behind either. 

“My sister is there,” Kaka, the 30-year-old father of two, said. “Many women went with their children. The older ones trekked with their parents. The younger ones are carried on their backs or transported in push carts.” 

Kaka’s older sister, Yabusam Ali, travelled with one of her children and left the others with their grandmother in Monguno. Other women made similar calculations, weighing which children could endure the walk and which would be safer left behind. Yabusam said conditions remain basic but manageable. 

“There is drinkable water there,” she told HumAngle. 

For now, that is enough. Kumalia has no schools, no health facilities, and no visible state presence. It is a settlement held together by necessity. Over the coming months, the community will once again have residents, not because it is safe, but because it has become the least dangerous option left.

Across Borno, the farming ban, enforced through violence and the threat of it, is reshaping how rural families survive. Some have abandoned cultivation entirely. Others have confined themselves to plots within sight of military positions. A growing number are returning to communities the state had given up on, betting that the promise of a harvest is worth living beyond its protection. Together, these choices are accumulating into something larger than disrupted planting seasons: a food security crisis taking shape incrementally, in the daily calculations of people who can no longer be certain what the harvest will bring, or whether there will be one at all.

The consequences extend far beyond the communities where cultivation has been disrupted. Agriculture remains one of Nigeria’s largest employers and a critical source of food for millions of households. The World Bank estimates that nearly four in every five rural households in Nigeria depend on farming, while livestock rearing is especially common across the country’s northern regions. When insecurity forces farmers off their land, harvests decline, market supplies tighten, and food prices rise.

The Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), a food security monitoring and forecasting initiative, estimates that between 21 and 22 million people across northern Nigeria will require humanitarian assistance during the June-to-August lean season, driven by escalating conflict, lower-than-expected household food production, and constrained access to food. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) similarly projects that more than six million children across northern Nigeria will experience acute malnutrition this year, with conflict, displacement, and reduced access to food among the principal drivers.

Kaka had already made these calculations. “Are you not afraid of attack from the terrorists, or of being mistaken for one by troops?” I asked him. “We will die even if we don’t go,” he replied. “So, it is all the same.”

Flags on the farm

Just as Kaka mentioned, several farmers in northern and central Borno say the people who first heard the warnings were often those who had gone ahead of the rains to clear their fields. 

In Monguno, Koso Abubakar said farmers preparing their land were approached and warned against cultivation. They returned to town carrying the news, and from there, the message spread from household to household. In Cross Kauwa, a farming and fishing community on the shores of Lake Chad, the warning reached those working near Kartari, a remote settlement under Kukawa LGA. Community leaders received it and relayed it to surrounding towns.

In Lassa, a farming community in Askira-Uba LGA in southern Borno, it arrived with violence. Andrew Adamu, a farmer there, said suspected terrorists attacked and flogged women they found working on their fields at the beginning of the season. “They said nobody should farm there,” he said. “They [the women] said they had mounted their flags on those lands.” 

The flags, a territorial marker used by terror groups across the region to signal control, were understood immediately. Few people in Lassa are now willing to venture beyond the land immediately surrounding the town.

Musa, a farmer in Cross Kauwa, said the warning came with an additional condition in the northern Borno community. He said that farmers willing to cultivate were instructed to relocate permanently with their families to terror-controlled territories and continue to farm there while paying levies instead. The requirement to relocate permanently was new. The levies were not. But this time around, levy negotiations failed in some places. 

However, in parts of southern Monguno, some farmers were reportedly permitted to cultivate after paying ₦50,000 each. The inconsistency stirred speculation that the restrictions reflected internal disagreements among ISWAP commanders rather than a unified policy. 

“It was said that two Amirs controlling two farming villages had a dispute over farming fees,” Kaka explained. “The Amir controlling where we farm said he would not allow anyone to farm this season. The other Amir said farmers were welcome to cultivate in his territory after paying this year’s levy.”

HumAngle could not independently verify the claim.

When negotiations collapsed, the consequences began to accumulate. In Lassa, Andrew said, women were beaten while working on their farms. In Auno, Konduga LGA, a 55-year-old farmer was attacked and killed while working on his land earlier in February, according to residents. News of his death, Aja Bukar, another farmer, said, spread quickly through surrounding communities, confirming what many had hoped was merely a threat. 

Then, on June 20, 15 farmers were killed near Kartari while working on their fields. Bashir Suleiman, a farmer from Doron Baga, said the victims included four farmers from Monguno, six from Kukawa town, three from Baga, and two from Cross Kauwa. 

In Cross Kauwa, Musa said most farmers have stayed away from their fields since. The few still cultivating have been permitted by the military to plant low-growing crops, such as beans and groundnuts, within a fixed distance of the community’s defensive trench. Beyond that line, he said, most no longer believe the harvest is worth the risk.

The return to Kumalia

For the first time in nearly a decade, Kumalia has residents again. Not many, and not enough to resemble the farming community it once was before the insurgency emptied it in 2016, but enough to bring movement back to a place which has long given up — children’s voices have returned. Smoke rises from cooking fires in the morning. The fields are being planted. And temporary shelters made from sticks, ropes, and dry grass stand across parts of the settlement. 

Getting there, however, is not easy. According to Modu Baluye, a farmer who also relocated to Kumalia, reaching the settlement takes five hours of walking over terrain most vehicles cannot cross. “We travel by foot,” he said. “There is no means of transportation except push carts.” The shelters, he said, are simple: stick frames with dry grass roofing, which offers little protection from rain or wind, but they are enough to house families for the months between planting and harvest.

For years, displacement pushed families out of places like Kumalia and into towns where security forces could better protect them. Now, insecurity around farming is pushing some of those same families back, not into safety but into a different kind of exposure: too far from the state to be protected, yet close enough to armed groups to be noticed.

Communities across northeastern Nigeria have learned, often through grief, that living or farming in remote and ungoverned territories can attract a different kind of violence during military operations. Aerial surveillance, in vast terrains where terror groups move through civilian spaces, collect levies, and use local markets, must be able to distinguish between farmers and fighters. In places like Kumalia, unrecognised by the government, absent from any official resettlement record, populated by people living in makeshift shelters on cultivated open land, that distinction is not guaranteed.

In April 2026, reports showed that more than 30 civilians were killed when a Nigerian Air Force strike hit a village market in Jilli, a remote settlement between Gubio LGA in Borno State and Geidam LGA in Yobe State. Military authorities described it as an active terrorist enclave. Borno State Governor Babagana Zulum later acknowledged that the area’s market had been officially closed due to terrorist activity, yet civilians were among the dead. It was not the first such incident. In 2017, a military aircraft bombed a displaced persons camp in Rann, Kala-Balge LGA, killing more than 100 people including aid workers. And in 2024, HumAngle documented cases in which fishermen around Lake Chad were reportedly misidentified during military operations.

Farmers in Kumalia are aware of this history. It sits alongside the warnings from ISWAP, the distance from town, and the inadequacy of their shelters. It is part of what they weighed before they went.

The price of survival

Every morning before sunrise, Esther Danjuma sets up her stall on the roadside outside the Divisional Council Church (DCC) Internally Displaced Persons’ camp in Shuwari, Maiduguri. She heats cooking oil, prepares her bean paste, and waits for the first customers. By the time most people in Maiduguri are awake, she is already working. 

The 26-year-old was displaced from Amuda in Gwoza LGA years ago. Until recently, she measured time by farming seasons, not calendar months. Before the warning reached Chabbal, a farming community in Magumeri LGA where she and thousands of others from the DCC displacement camp cultivate each season, she grew sorghum, sesame, and groundnuts. Last year, she harvested five bags each of sorghum and sesame and three bags of groundnuts. This year, she planted nothing.

“I never thought I would sell kosai,” she told HumAngle. She earns at least ₦3,000 daily. This helps her care for herself and her elderly grandmother at the camp, she said.

A few shelters away from Esther lives Andrawus Yakubu. While Esther replaced farming with a small business, Andrawus has replaced it with whatever work presents itself each day. On some days, he works at construction sites. On other days, he digs pits, cuts logs, or takes on manual labour wherever opportunities arise. The work is irregular and physically demanding, but Andrawus says he cannot afford to be selective. “I will do whatever legal thing that my strength can do,” the father of nine told HumAngle.

For years, Andrawus supplemented his household income through farming in Limanti, a rural community in Konduga LGA. Like many displaced residents of the DCC Shuwari camp, he relied on the farming season to feed his family and reduce their dependence on the market. Last season, he cultivated four hectares of land, harvesting five bags of millet, 12 bags of groundnuts, and eight bags of beans. This season, however, the farming restrictions have forced him to abandon farming. 

Others have chosen to leave Borno altogether. In Auno, Aja Bukar said the killing of a farmer earlier this year convinced many residents that remaining in the area was no longer worth the risk. Some households, including his, have since relocated to Damaturu in neighbouring Yobe State, hoping to find safer opportunities elsewhere.

These different responses – the roadside stall, the day labour, and relocation to another state – all lead back to the same question: what can replace a harvest, if anything?

Agriculture remains the backbone of rural livelihoods across Borno and the wider North East. In Borno, farming is not only an occupation but also a source of sustenance for families; it is how they feed themselves, pay school fees, buy medicine, and prepare for the long dry season. Yet years of conflict have steadily eroded that foundation, limiting access to farmland, disrupting markets, and deepening food insecurity.

When farmers abandon their fields, the consequences ripple far beyond the households directly affected: Harvests decline, local markets receive fewer supplies, and children and other vulnerable groups bear the greatest nutritional burden. The effects are felt not only in the villages where cultivation stops, but across communities that rely on those harvests for food and trade.

The region has been here before. In 2023, HumAngle documented how repeated attacks on farming communities forced many residents to abandon cultivated fields, leaving crops worth millions of naira to wither or be destroyed. A year later, the trend persisted, contributing to worsening food insecurity and malnutrition among vulnerable households, particularly children.

What is unfolding this season is not unique to Borno. Across the North West and North Central, terror groups have used similar tactics to control access to rural farmland, taxing farmers, threatening communities, and displacing those who resist. In Zamfara, HumAngle reported in June that farmers were displaced despite paying millions in levies. Another report the same month showed that 17 farmers were killed in Maradun while working their fields. In 2024, Reuters reported from Katsina that attacks on farmers were driving up food prices. According to SBM Intelligence, a Lagos-based consultancy, 1,356 farmers have been killed across Nigeria since 2020.

The scale of what is at stake is significant. UNICEF estimates that around three million children may require treatment for severe wasting in 2026, with conflict-affected northeastern states carrying a disproportionate share.  

Across Borno, people are making decisions whose consequences they cannot yet fully see.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld laws in West Virginia and Idaho that forbid transgender athletes from competing on girls’ sports teams.

In a 6-3 decision, the court said the federal Title IX law envisioned separate teams for girls and boys based on their biological sex at birth.

“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable,” wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition.”

Kavanaugh, who has coached girls’ teams for many years, said 27 states have adopted laws prohibiting transgender athletes on girls’ teams.

But his opinion does not say states such as California must change their laws that forbid schools from discriminating based on gender. Instead, he stressed states are free to make their own decision.

“Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the states may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America,” Kavanaugh said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in part. She said the state should have considered transgender students on a case-by-case basis to decide whether they had an unfair advantage. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented as well.

The court’s decision is likely to bolster the Trump administration’s drive to pressure states, schools and universities that permit transgender athletes to compete on girls’ and women’s sports teams.

Because the Education Department provides federal funds to these states and schools, it can require them to comply with Title IX.

The sole plaintiff in the court case was Becky Pepper-Jackson. Now 15, she has carried on a lonely legal fight to compete on her school’s track team in Bridgeport, W.Va.

Designated male at birth, she says she is the only transgender girl competing in her state and has been the target of complaints and protests.

Her case drew strong reactions on both sides of the issue.

West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey hailed Tuesday’s decision as “one of the most important victories for women’s athletics” since the passage of Title IX in 1972.

“We defended a simple principle most Americans instinctively understand — that women’s sports exist to provide women and girls a fair opportunity to compete and succeed,” he said.

Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, said “it is self-evident that males and females are biologically different, and the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed this truth. It is fundamentally unfair for a male who feels like a female to demand that biological categories be ignored to accommodate his desire to compete among females.”

Joshua Block, the ACLU attorney who argued the case, called it “a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers,” he said.

“The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls.”

“This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers,” said Sasha Buchert, senior attorney with Lambda Legal. “Countless studies have demonstrated the myriad benefits that come with participation in team sports.”

The sports career of Becky Pepper-Jackson reflects some of the difficulty of the issue.

In sixth grade, she participated in cross country and described herself as slow. She “routinely placed near the back of the pack,” her attorneys told the court.

Her court appeals focused on a wish to participate in sports, not to win. But upon reaching high school, she has been winning.

In 2024, she “placed in the top three in every track event in which B.P.J. competed, winning most,” the state’s attorneys said. In the spring of 2025, “focusing on strength events, B.P.J. bumped female competitors out of the state tournament, then placed third in the state in discus and eighth in shot put while competing against much older female athletes,” they told the court.

Her ACLU attorney explained she has been winning in the shot put and discus “through hard work and practice,” not because of an advantage based on biology.

He said she “received puberty-delaying medication and gender-affirming estrogen that allowed her to undergo a hormonal puberty typical of a girl.”

June 30 (UPI) — The Trump administration has lifted export restrictions on artificia lintelligence company Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models, the company said Tuesday evening.

“We’ve received notice that the Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5,” Anthropic said in a statement, CNN reported. “We’ll begin restoring access tomorrow, and will share an update soon.”

The statement came not long after Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick posted on social media about Anthropic, saying “we have worked closely with Anthropic to analyze and approve Fable 5 to ensure alignment across the U.S. government and strengthen America’s leadership in AI.”

Anthropic disabled customer access to Fable, a consumer version of its Mythos AI model with more safeguards, and Mythos itself several weeks ago after the export ban June 12. The ban required the company to suspend all use by foreign nationals inside or outside the United States, including Anthropic employees.

In a statement then, Anthropic said its understanding was that “the government it has become aware of a method of bypassing, or ‘jailbreaking,’ Fable 5.”

“We reviewed a demonstration of this specific technique being used to identify a small number of previously known, minor vulnerabilities,” the company said. “These vulnerabilities all appear relatively simple, and we have found that other publicly available models are able to discover them as well without requiring a bypass.”

The government loosened some of the restrictions on Mythos on Friday, Politico reported.

Anthropic and the U.S. government have had a rocky relationship. Anthropic leaders’ concerns about military and intelligence usage of its products caused issues with the Department of Defense.

President Donald Trump called it a “radical left, woke company” and ordered federal agencies to stop using Anthropic products, while Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, called the company a supply chain risk to national security.

Anthropic has sued the Trump administration to reverse the blacklisting, and that lawsuit is ongoing.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will hear a 2nd Amendment challenge to the gun laws in Connecticut and Cook County, Ill., that ban most semiautomatic assault weapons.

Before leaving for the summer recess, the justices issued orders on new cases that will be heard in the fall. The new 2nd Amendment case figures to be a major test of what kinds of firearms and ammunition are off-limits to state or federal regulation.

The outcome will affect California and all the states led by Democrats that strictly regulate or prohibit semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15.

Gun-rights advocates say these are among the most common and popular weapons in the country, and they should not banned in some states.

In response, Connecticut state attorneys said only about 2% of Americans own assault weapons, and they rarely use them for self-defense.

Since 1989, California has prohibited the sale and possession of most semiautomatic rifles and pistols that can fire more than 10 shots before reloading. Nine other states led by Democrats have similar laws.

State lawmakers said these rapid-fire guns are not needed for self-defense but can be a weapon of mass murder. All of the blue-state bans could be struck down next year if the court’s conservatives rule in favor of the 2nd Amendment claim.

Gun-rights advocates say firearms in “common use” by law-abiding owners cannot be prohibited by the government.

Four of the court’s conservatives have said in past dissents they believe the state bans on assault weapons run afoul of the 2nd Amendment. They are Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

That suggests the fate of those state laws depends on Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Joining in support of the gun-rights challenge were the state attorneys for Montana, Idaho and 25 other Republican-led states.

They urged the court to prevent liberal judges and states led by Democrats from “rewriting the 2nd Amendment … to allow hostile jurisdictions to continue infringing on their citizens’ core constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

In 2016, California’s voters approved a ballot measure that makes possession of large-capacity magazines illegal. At least 10 states have similar laws, but they apply only to the manufacture and sale of large-capacity magazines.

Gun-rights advocates sued in San Diego, leading to nearly a decade of back-and-forth litigation. A federal judge struck down these restrictions under the 2nd Amendment, but the state appealed. They were eventually upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in an en banc ruling.

Meanwhile, the 7th Circuit Court in Chicago has upheld an Illinois law and the Cook County ordinance prohibiting semiautomatic rifles and pistols. Its opinion said rapid-fire guns do not differ significantly “from machine guns and military-grade weaponry,” which can be banned under the 2nd Amendment.

Before Tuesday, the justices had repeatedly refused to weigh in on whether the 2nd Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” includes the right to semiautomatic “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines.

Since 2015, the court has turned down gun-rights appeals from blue states like Illinois and Maryland over their bans on “assault weapons,” despite dissents from Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.

As an appeals court judge in Washington, D.C., Kavanaugh voted to strike down the city’s ban on assault weapons.

Three years after John Roberts became chief justice, the court ruled for the first time in 2008 that the 2nd Amendment protected individual gun rights, not just state militias. But the 5-4 decision simply struck down a city’s ban on having a hand gun at home for self-defense.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller said the Constitution gives law-abiding persons a right to have weapons in “common use” for self-defense, but not “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Ever since, advocates for gun rights and gun control have been arguing over whether semiautomatic guns with large-capacity magazines can be regulated because they are uniquely dangerous or are protected because they are very common.

In the past two years, the Supreme Court has a mixed record on gun regulation.

Last year, the justices in a 6-3 decision struck down a federal regulation that banned “bump stocks,” which allow rapid-fire shooting with a semiautomatic rifle.

That regulation was adopted in the first Trump administration in response to the mass shooting at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas where a lone gunman fired as many as 1,000 shots from a hotel window.

The conservative majority ruled the bump stock devices did not fit the definition of a prohibited machine gun.

Earlier this year, however, the court in a 7-2 decision upheld a regulation prohibiting unregistered “ghost guns” that were made by parts kits.

Skaters from Russia and Belarus banned “exclusively in the interests of the safety of participants and the integrity of the competitions” can return to world championships and Grand Prix events next season.

The International Skating Union said Tuesday that the ban triggered by Russia’s 2022 military invasion of Ukraine is over. But skaters and officials from Russia and Belarus may compete only as neutral athletes, meaning without their national symbols of flag and anthem.

The figure skaters, speed skaters and short track speed skaters will be allowed to participate as long as they have not supported the war in Ukraine. A neutral skater is not eligible if they are in active service with the armed forces or a national security agency of Russia or Belarus; have taken active part in military operations in the war against Ukraine; and-or have actively and publicly supported that war.

In announcing the decision, the ISU council described the ban as a “protective measure” and emphasized that “those measures were expressly stated not to be a sanction, disciplinary measure or ineligibility decision.”

The war in Ukraine is in its fifth year since the full-scale Russian invasion began in February 2022. According to Global Conflict Tracker, Russia occupies roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory and fighting persists with ongoing Russian missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities. Meanwhile, Ukraine has launched retaliatory drone strikes deep into Russian territory targeting energy and military infrastructure.

Nearly 56,000 civilians have died or been injured, while 3.7 million people are internally displaced. Through 2025, Ukraine had received about $188 billion in aid from the United States and $197 billion from the European Union.

“The ISU continues to condemn all armed conflict around the world,” the ISU said in a statement. “The ISU continues to provide financial support to Ukrainian skaters through various initiatives, including the ISU Development Program, contributions to the Ukrainian Skating Federation, and a support program for displaced skaters.”

The ISU council’s decision to lift the ban on Russian skaters took into account “developments across the Olympic Movement and the differing approaches of other International Federations.”

While acknowledging that the lifting of restrictions had given rise to occasional protests at competitions, the participation of neutral Russian and Belarusian athletes in 2025-2026 Olympic qualification events and at the 2026 Milan Cortina Olympic Winter Games were completed “without related incident.”

Russian figure skaters Adeliia Petrosian and Petr Gumennik were cleared to compete with neutral status in Milan and both finished sixth in their events. Viktoriia Safonova of Belarus also competed as a neutral athlete.

“Skaters should not be held responsible for the actions of their governments,” the ISU posted. “Safety remains the guiding consideration for any further easing. The ISU will continue to monitor conditions at ISU events and will relax restrictions further only when satisfied that no safety or integrity issues arise, and reserves the right to reintroduce or increase restrictive measures should such issues emerge.”

Neutral athletes could face difficulty obtaining entry visas from countries hosting ISU events. The 2027 figure skating, short track and speed skating world championships will be hosted by Finland, South Korea and China, respectively.

The International Olympic Committee was instrumental in the ISU decision, advising sports bodies to readmit athletes from Belarus on May 7 without vetting for neutral status.

From this week, there will be strict rules on the consumption of alcohol in two popular UK seaside towns, and anyone not careful could face a fine of up to a staggering £1,000

Two popular UK seaside towns have introduced a ‘booze ban’, with the risk of £1,000 fines for anyone caught flouting the rules.

In a bid to help manage anti-social behaviour in Kent, a new Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) has been approved for three years. Under this order, which will be in force from Wednesday, 1 July, there will be a year-round blanket ban on the consumption of alcohol in Margate and Ramsgate high streets.

Anyone caught breaking a PSPO, which is a criminal offence, could be fined up to around £100. This can be reduced if it’s paid within 10 to 14 days; however, if anyone avoids paying the fine, they could face prosecution and be fined up to a staggering £1,000.

Margate has long been a popular destination in Kent, thanks to its traditional Victorian charm, stretches of golden beach and close link to London, often earning the nickname of ‘Shoreditch-on-Sea’. Ramsgate is just as popular with its sprawling beaches, Royal Harbour and thriving independent food scene.

But it’s not just these seaside towns taking the brunt of the new order.

The PSPO also sets out that in areas across Broadstairs, Cliftonville West, Margate and Ramsgate, there will be bans on anti-social behaviour related to the consumption of alcohol and not handing over alcohol when asked by authorities. It comes after Kent Police said fights had erupted on Broadstairs and Margate beach last week, while people were also assaulted at Margate Railway Station.

Some businesses in Thanet told BBC Radio Kent that they had been forced to close early on occasions due to anti-social behaviour in the area. One even said they were planning to move out of the area as it had become intimidating.

The aim of the order is to “introduce targeted restrictions to curb alcohol-related disorder, public urination, and defecation for a period of three years”, the Thanet District Council website noted. According to the BBC, East Thanet MP Polly Billington said following approval on Thursday: “It’s vital for our economy that people feel confident about keeping their doors open to their shop, and actually, [it’s vital] for the wellbeing of our residents and our visitors that everybody feels safe.”

Meanwhile, before the order was approved, Councillor Heather Keen, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, highlighted: “We are incredibly grateful to everyone who took the time to share their views. Our communities deserve safe, clean, and welcoming public spaces, and this overwhelming support shows how passionate local people are about protecting their environment.

“If Cabinet agrees to implement these proposals, our safety teams and the police will have an effective tool to address persistent issues impacting our towns. We have listened closely to feedback, and while enforcement would always be a last resort, these measures could significantly improve the quality of life across Thanet.”

Do you have a travel story to share? Email webtravel@reachplc.com

Canberra says tech platforms are still letting too many children bypass its under-16 social media ban.

Australia says it will double fines on social media companies that fail to keep children off their platforms, accusing Big Tech of dodging the spirit of its under-16 ban.

The government said on Saturday that new legislation would raise the maximum penalty for systemic breaches from 49.5 million to 99 million Australian dollars ($31m to $68m) and give the eSafety Commissioner stronger powers to force platforms to comply.

The regulator is investigating possible breaches by Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.

“It’s clear Big Tech are not doing enough to comply with the law – there are still too many children on social media,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said.

“These changes reflect the seriousness with which we take any failure by social media companies to comply.”

The ban, which came into force on December 10, made Australia a global test case for countries trying to curb children’s access to social media. The United Kingdom, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates and New Zealand are among those watching or considering similar restrictions.

But children have continued to evade the rules by using accounts registered to older people, creating fake profiles or logging in through private browsers.

A peer-reviewed evaluation published this month in the British Medical Journal found “insufficient evidence” that the ban had sharply reduced social media use among young people. Researchers surveyed more than 400 children before the measure took effect and again three months later, finding “substantial circumvention” of the rules.

The government says more than five million accounts held by under-16s have been blocked, but Communications Minister Anika Wells said platforms were still falling short.

“Based on the regular updates I receive from the eSafety Commissioner, it is clear to me that social media platforms are adopting tricks straight out of the Big Tech playbook and doing the bare minimum to get by,” Wells said.

“Social media platforms are some of the richest and most powerful companies in the world, and we’re serious about holding them to account,” she added.

The new powers would allow the eSafety Commissioner to demand documents and evidence from platforms, age-checking companies and app stores.

Platforms must show they have taken “reasonable steps” to keep under-16s out. Some use artificial intelligence to estimate ages, while users can also verify their age with a government ID.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has issued a warning to passengers about the dangers of packing power banks in hold luggage after a surge in lithium battery incidents on UK flights

UK-based airlines have prohibited a common electrical device labelled the ‘number one safety risk to aircraft’ after footage emerged showing it erupting into flames inside a cabin. Passengers on flights are being urged not to place power banks or vapes in their checked luggage as the busy summer holiday travel season gets underway across parts of the UK.

Several carriers have begun implementing outright bans on power banks that travellers use to charge their phones and tablets amid mounting safety concerns. Generally, power banks are permitted only in hand luggage, not checked baggage, because of worries they could explode and catch fire mid-flight.

Power banks house rechargeable lithium batteries, which pack a considerable amount of energy into a compact space, and when defective can trigger fierce fires that spread rapidly.

On BBC Breakfast today, correspondent Katy Austin described it as a ‘terrifying situation’ on a recent flight. She said: “Flames broke out in the overhead baggage compartment of an Air China plane last October. The cause is thought to have been a lithium battery. They’re in loads of commonly used devices like laptops, vapes, phones, and power banks. They can store a lot of energy in a small space, but if they overheat or are defective, this video of a test in a lab shows just how quickly a fire can start.

“Last year, UK authorities were informed of 643 incidents where lithium batteries were detected packed in hold bags. That’s nearly twice the number the year before. Reports of devices overheating or malfunctioning also nearly doubled to more than 200. Most were in the cabin where crew could deal with the situation. The fear is that incidents in the hold could not be discovered until it’s too late to control.”

“It contains a lot of energy in a very small space, which is fantastic for, you know, our devices. It means we can use them for longer. But the problem with that is when things go wrong, the fires can be quite ferocious and you can’t put these fires out in the way you can with a normal fire that you might have because these fires are like self fueling.

“The advice for plane passengers is to take items like mobile phones, vapes, and power banks on board with you. Never charge power bank on a flight and turn off laptops completely if they’re going to be put in check-in bags.”

The CAA revealed that reports of passenger devices overheating or malfunctioning last year were almost double the figure from 2024. Instances of lithium battery-powered gadgets being wrongly packed in hold baggage surged by 91% during the same timeframe.

CAA director of aviation safety Giancarlo Buono said: “Pack right for a safe flight, and that means don’t put your batteries in your checked bag. Take them into the cabin with you. This simple tip will make your flight safer for you, and the other passengers you’re flying with.”

Research involving airline passengers revealed that 36% have no idea about the risks associated with packing batteries in hold luggage.

easyJet

EasyJet enforces stringent rules stipulating that all lithium-ion batteries, spare batteries and power banks must be carried in cabin hand luggage only, with a blanket ban on hold luggage due to the risk of fire. Power banks below 100Wh (approximately 27,000mAh) are permitted without prior approval; those between 100-160Wh require authorisation from the airline.

Portable electronic devices containing batteries must be transported exclusively as carry-on baggage.

Should any of these items find their way into checked baggage, steps must be taken to prevent accidental activation and to safeguard the devices from harm; all devices must be completely powered down (not left in sleep or hibernation mode). EasyJet imposes a limit of 15 portable electronic devices per passenger.

Portable electronic devices housing non-spillable batteries must not exceed 12V or 100Wh, and passengers are permitted to carry a maximum of 2 spare batteries. When bringing smart baggage into the cabin, travellers must be able to quickly and easily detach and remove the lithium battery/power bank, although it may remain inside the bag.

Smart baggage will not be accepted for travel if the lithium battery/power bank cannot be readily detached and removed by the passenger. If smart luggage is to be checked into the hold, the lithium battery/power bank must be removed from the smart luggage at Bag Drop and taken into the cabin.

Any exposed terminals must be protected against short circuits. The lithium battery/power bank must be detachable, so if it cannot be removed from your luggage, the bag will not be permitted on board.

For more information, click here.

Ryanair

Passengers may carry up to 15 personal electronic devices (this includes but is not limited to: smartphones, tablets, laptops, cameras, handheld game consoles, headphones, power banks). Spare lithium batteries (including power banks) must be individually protected to prevent short circuits by placing them in their original retail packaging, or by otherwise securing terminals by taping over any exposed terminals or putting each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch, and must only be transported in carry-on baggage.

Passengers are also permitted to bring up to 20 spare lithium batteries, as long as they don’t surpass 100Wh each. Spare lithium batteries, including power banks taken into the cabin, must not go beyond 100Wh and mustn’t be used to charge or power other portable electronic devices during taxi, take-off or landing.

They must not be placed in cabin baggage stored in the overhead locker. Rather, they ought to be kept in cabin baggage under the seat in front of you, or carried on your person.

Devices or batteries exceeding 100Wh are banned in both the cabin and hold, apart from electric wheelchair batteries. Spare batteries, including power banks, are not allowed in checked baggage.

For more information click here.

TUI

TUI’s regulations forbid passengers from packing loose lithium batteries, power banks, or spare batteries in checked-in luggage. These items must only be carried in hand luggage.

Power banks must generally not exceed 100Wh, and terminals must be safeguarded against short circuits. Devices shouldn’t be recharged while on board.

Dry AA(A) batteries (type Alkaline, NiMh, NiC) for small personal items such as a pocket torch or a radio are permitted, provided they’re inside the device or contained in sturdy packaging. When devices are placed in hold baggage, measures must be taken to protect the device from damage and prevent accidental activation; the device must be completely switched off (not in sleep or hibernation mode).

Spare batteries and power banks should be individually protected against short circuits by keeping them in their original packaging, with terminals covered in tape or placed in a plastic bag in hand luggage.

Airline approval is always required for medical devices. For further information, see section Baggage – Medical baggage.

TUI fly requires that all power banks must be carried in hand luggage, never in checked baggage. They must be packaged to prevent short circuits (original packaging or terminals covered with tape).

Generally, capacity is limited to 100 Watt-hours (Wh) per battery, with power banks not permitted to be used for charging devices or recharged while onboard.

• Hand Luggage Only: Due to fire risk, all lithium-powered battery packs must be in the cabin. Capacity Limits: Power banks up to 100 Wh (roughly 27,000 mAh at 3.7V) are generally permitted.
• Safety Requirements: Terminals must be protected against short circuits, such as by taping them or keeping them in individual plastic bags.
• In-flight Usage: Power banks cannot be used to charge phones or laptops during flight, nor should they be recharged using aircraft power outlets.
• Storage: Keep them in your seat pocket or under your seat, not in overhead bins

For more information click here.

Kibiwott Kandie initially faced an eight-year ban split evenly across two violations, but received a one-year reduction.

Former half-marathon world-record ‌holder Kibiwott Kandie has been banned for seven years by the ⁠Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) ⁠for two anti-doping violations, the body has said.

The 30-year-old Kenyan, a 2022 Commonwealth Games bronze medallist, was provisionally suspended in ⁠March 2025 for refusing to provide a sample and was later charged with an additional violation of tampering or attempted tampering with doping control.

“This ⁠case serves as a reminder that no athlete is above the rules in the sport of athletics. If an athlete refuses a test, it places the integrity of the sport at risk,” AIU head Brett Clothier said in a ‌statement on Thursday

“The AIU has a strong forensic capability and will thoroughly investigate such cases to ensure the truth comes out,” he added.

Kandie, who initially faced an eight-year ban split evenly across the two violations, received a one-year reduction after accepting the sanctions early.

His ban is backdated to March 14, 2025, the date of his provisional suspension, and ⁠will run until March 13, 2032, when he ⁠will be 36.

On March 1, 2025, Kandie delayed and ultimately refused an out-of-competition test at his home in Kenya, citing an urgent payment before leaving despite being warned of ⁠the consequences.

AIU analysis of his phone and financial records showed multiple calls and payments linked to a ⁠nurse, with 11 transfers identified in the 12 ⁠months prior to the test, after coordination with the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya.

Kandie’s initial explanations for refusing to provide a sample were later found to be false, while Kenyan authorities ‌confirmed that documents he submitted were fake.

Kandie, a three-time Valencia Half Marathon champion, set a then-world record of 57:32 in 2020 and ‌remains ‌the third-fastest man in history over the distance, with two of the six quickest performances of all time.

June 18 (UPI) — Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., introduced a bill Thursday called the Protect Our Polls Act that would block the president from sending soldiers or federal agents to voting sites during elections.

The bill comes after President Donald Trump said he wouldn’t rule out sending the National Guard or Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to polling places in November.

“I’d do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections,” The Hill reported Trump told reporters in May.

Slotkin said the bill would prevent Trump from “weaponizing our military and armed federal officers to interfere in our elections.”

The legislation, if passed, would require approval from Congress before a president could send uniformed military or federal law enforcement to polling sites. It would also require 48 hours’ notice to lawmakers, intel, legal justification and evidence that proves a state can’t handle a threat on its own.

The bill is backed by senators Tammy Baldwin, Wis.; Ruben Gallego, Ariz.; Mark Kelly, Ariz.; Amy Klobuchar, Minn.; Alex Padilla, Calif.; Jacky Rosen, Nev.; and Raphael Warnock, Ga.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told NBC, “If Democrats really cared about securing our elections, they would pass the SAVE America Act which includes commonsense election integrity measures supported by the vast majority of Americans.”

Federal and state laws already ban deployment of troops and agents from elections, except “to repel armed enemies of the United States.”

“The idea that a president would send troops or armed agents to polling places to intimidate voters is un-American and illegal,” Kelly said in a statement. “Federal law has protected polling places from military interference since the Civil War for a reason. President Trump has made clear he thinks he can ignore those limits. We’re making sure he can’t.”

Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin said in March that he wouldn’t send agents to polling places without good reason.

“The only reason why my officers would be there is if there was a specific threat for them to be there, not for intimidation,” Mullin said. “There will be a reason for us to be there, and it’ll be known why we’re there.”

SACRAMENTO — Compelled into action by recent shootings, the state Assembly on Thursday narrowly approved legislation to ban the manufacture and sale of unsafe handguns in California.

For the first time, handguns made in, sold in or imported into the state would have to meet certain consumer safety standards to ensure that they don’t misfire.

The bill, similar to one vetoed last year by Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, is expected to win swift approval in the Senate and be signed into law by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.

California would then be the second state in the nation, after Massachusetts, to impose consumer safety measures on gun manufacturers.

“Now, we can say to the people of the state that we’ve kept our promise to get rid of cheap and unsafe handguns. These so-called Saturday night specials are the weapons of choice on the streets of Los Angeles,” said Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa after the vote.

Supporters credited last-minute arm-twisting by the Los Angeles Democrat, along with a strong declaration of support Thursday from Davis, for helping Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles), the bill’s author, push the measure through the 80-member lower house on a 43-26 vote. All 43 votes in favor came from Democrats.

Support for the measure was also spurred by a series of violent eruptions, from the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado last spring to last week’s assault on the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills. Thursday’s vote came on the heels of other major anti-gun action by the Legislature, including a ban on assault weapons signed into law last month by Davis.

Before Thursday’s Assembly move, Davis described the handgun bill “as a reasonable measure which simply holds guns to a reasonable safety standard. I don’t think that’s asking too much of weapons. We ask it of automobiles and many other products in society. I am going to do my level best to help it pass and sign it into law.”

Opponents, including the National Rifle Assn., said the California measure is ill conceived and will create a massive black market in used guns that fail to meet the new safety protections.

Lawmakers in the past attempted to outlaw handguns based on size or the content of their metal frames. By contrast, Polanco’s bill turns gun safety into a consumer protection issue, requiring gun makers to certify that the concealable weapons they sell are not “unsafe.” The goal of reducing the availability of cheap handguns remains unchanged, although Polanco said that no guns will be confiscated under his bill.

Under the measure, the state attorney general’s office would be required to certify independent laboratories to test the weapons. Three sample guns would be subjected to two tests at the labs.

As outlined by supporters, the first would be a firing test, in which each weapon could misfire no more than six times in 600 rounds. In addition, each gun would have to fire its first 20 rounds without a misfire.

Many low-quality models would fail such tests, gun control advocates say, keeping tens of thousands of guns off the streets.

Next, the lab would be required to drop the same three guns onto a concrete slab from a height of one meter. Each gun would be dropped six times in six different ways. Any gun to go off in any of the drops would fail.

Loopholes Criticized

The measure would exempt guns sold, loaned or otherwise transferred between private parties or through police agencies; curios or relics; and those on consignment with a pawnbroker.

Some county sheriffs, primarily from rural areas, voiced concerns, especially about those loopholes.

For example, Yuba County Sheriff Virginia R. Black was quoted in a Democratic legislative analysis of the measure as saying, “This bill exempts law enforcement agencies from the requirements of the bill, allowing us to provide officers with firearms defined by statute as unsafe. If the firearms are ‘unsafe’ then they should be ‘unsafe’ for anybody–regardless of occupation.”

For hours before the bill was taken up on the Assembly floor, Polanco, vote card in hand, prowled the chamber attempting to cement support, especially from wavering moderate Democrats.

Once the hourlong debate started, perhaps the most charged moment came when first-term Green Party member Audie Bock of Oakland assailed the measure as doing nothing to get rid of guns.

“The emperor has no clothes, colleagues. I’ve never met a Republican who liked a reasonable gun bill. And I’ve never met a Democrat who didn’t like a stupid gun bill,” she said.

“It’s common knowledge around here that in order to get reelected you have to write a gun bill,” she said, contending that members sometimes seek the help of the NRA in drafting legislation.

“Then you go back to the district and say, ‘I defeated the NRA.’ . . . It’s sheer political grandstanding.”

Majority Leader Kevin Shelley of San Francisco scolded Bock, even as he said many Democrats want tougher laws than Polanco’s bill envisions.

“Member Bock, I represent San Francisco. . . . I too would love to see guns banned. I can say that. I can even vote that way and win reelection.”

However, he said, most of his colleagues couldn’t take that political stand. “We’re not there yet, so we vote on measures now that we can support and then we move society along.”

Republicans voiced strong objections to the measure. Assemblyman Jim Battin (R-Palm Desert) called Polanco’s proposal “a boon” for manufacturers because it will be harder to sell older guns, resulting in a boost in new gun sales.

Assemblyman Rod Wright (D-Los Angeles), his voice straining with emotion, declared that the measure “masquerades as a Saturday night special ban.”

“This is a fraud,” he said.

Change of Role for Davis

The governor’s role in pushing the gun legislation represents a change in practice for Davis since taking office. Except during the special session he convened on education earlier in the year, his office has refrained from taking public positions on pending bills.

Davis has acknowledged that his office “fell behind the curve” in its legislative activity because of the challenges of starting a new administration.

He promised to put his muscle behind many more bills in the few weeks that remain in this year’s lawmaking session, particularly those regarding health care reform.

“We are definitely becoming more active,” he told reporters Thursday. “And we will weigh in on many important issues between now and the end of the year.”

Davis also announced Thursday that he has signed an executive order prohibiting state agencies from selling their used firearms and risking the chance that they will be used in future crimes. In the future, state agencies will be required to destroy their weapons or trade them in toward the purchase of new guns.

Since 1992, Davis said, 15 separate state agencies have sold about 6,000 used firearms.

The used gun issue was first raised last fall when the state Department of Corrections reconsidered its policy of selling or trading in old firearms, including assault rifles.

In June, Davis ordered the department to stop selling its used weapons. On Thursday, he extended that ban to all other state agencies.

The governor said the issue was heightened recently when it was reported that the gunman who allegedly shot five people last week at a Jewish community center in Granada Hills and killed a mail carrier in Chatsworth had a weapon formerly owned by a police force in Washington state.

“I’m here to tell you today that is not going to happen in California,” Davis said.

The governor later tempered his remarks by saying it is possible that guns traded in to weapons manufacturers might still end up on the streets.

He said that is less likely than with weapons sold directly from law enforcement to gun dealers. But he also offered to toughen his executive order–so that all weapons from state agencies would be destroyed–if problems continue.

The governor also said he would consider future legislation that might require similar policies for all local government firearms. At this point, however, Davis said most agencies have already restricted the sale of their used guns.

*

Times researcher Patti Williams contributed to this report.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Highlights of Gun Safety Bill

The highlights of Sen. Richard Polanco’s (D-Los Angeles) SB 15 include:

* Making it a misdemeanor, effective Jan. 1, 2001, to manufacture, sell or import an “unsafe handgun.”

* Requiring pistols and revolvers to meet certain consumer safety standards, including passing firing and drop tests to ensure they won’t misfire.

* Mandating that the testing be conducted by an independent laboratory certified by the state Department of Justice.

* Exempting certain firearms, including those sold between private parties, through police agencies, or as curios or relics, from the provisions of the measure.

* Requiring that on Jan. 1, 2002, the Department of Justice publish a list of all “unsafe handguns” capable of being concealed.

The Foreign Office has lifted its warning against travelling to the United Arab Emirates including Dubai and Abu Dhabi

The Foreign Office has lifted its travel ban to the United Arab Emirates.

The FCDO has had a warning against all but essential travel to the UAE in place since March, due to the Middle East war, but today (Thursday 18th June), it updated its advice and no longer warns against travel to the region. It has also issued updates for 14 countries including Cyprus and Turkey.

However, the government body still has a stark warning in place for Brits. As part of an update on ‘regional tensions’ it warns:

“The US and Iran have announced a memorandum of understanding in relation to the conflict in the Middle East. The situation remains unpredictable and attacks could resume at short notice.

“Should hostilities resume, British nationals should:

• read If you’re affected by a crisis abroad – GOV.UK. This includes guidance on “how to prepare for a crisis” with suggestions on what you might include in your emergency supplies and “what to do in a crisis”
• follow advice from the local authorities
• sign up to FCDO Travel Advice email alerts
• monitor local and international media for the latest information
• stay away from areas around security or military facilities
• keep your departure plans under review, and ensure your travel documents are up to date
• if you are advised to take shelter, stay indoors or find the nearest safe building or designated shelter. An interior stairwell or a room with as few external walls or windows as possible may provide additional protection. The greatest risk is from falling debris caused by intercepts, and you are safest inside a secure structure

“Before the 8 April ceasefire, the Iranian regime had stated its intention to target locations in the Gulf associated with the US and Israel. This included US or Israeli-linked organisations, businesses, facilities and institutions. Iran has previously targeted civilian infrastructure across the region such as ports, hotels, roads, bridges, energy facilities, oil production sites, water systems, and airports.”

DUBAI holidays can now go ahead as the UK Foreign Office has lifted the travel ban.

All non-essential travel to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was banned back in March.

This was due to the Iran conflict which saw Dubai caught up in the attacks, which included a drone strike on Dubai International Airport.

However, the US and Iran have since signed a peace plan that ends the ongoing war.

In response, the UK Foreign Office has updated their travel advice earlier today.

It now says: “FCDO no longer advises against all but essential travel to UAE.”

BETTER TOGETHER

Multigeneration Dubai holidays save money and simplify childcare

FLIGHT-MARE

Dubai travel warning: How the Israel-Hamas war is affecting UAE flights

It still warns that the situation is “unpredictable and attacks could resume at short notice”.

However, the lifting of the ban means holidays can resume to the region.

Last year, 1.4million Brits visited Dubai alone, which have since massively dropped due to the travel ban.

British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have already suspended flights to Dubai until October 2026 and winter 2027, respectively.

However, Emirates continues to operate flights between the UK and the UAE.

The travel ban being lifted also affects Abu Dhabi, where holidays can also resume.

The UK Foreign Office has lifted the travel ban for Qatar as well, which includes flights going through Doha.

In response, Qatar Airways has increased the number of flights operating between the UK and Doha, including 49 flights a week from London Heathrow and 14 a week from Edinburgh.

This affects long-haul holidays to places like Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Australia, who often use these Middle East hubs as stopover destinations.

Many destinations have seen a drop in tourism because of the war – Thailand predicted as many as 11million long-haul arrivals this year, but has since dropped this to 10million.

This method of transport is a cheap and easy way to get around the city, but it has caused hundreds of accidents in the past year. Now there are calls for a ban across the European Union

A European city has banned a mode of transport that’s popular with tourists on day trips, after a huge number of accidents were reported in the past year alone.

Brussels will rid its streets of shared e-scooters as of January 2027, with authorities in the Brussels-Capital Region announcing the move last week. Currently, the Belgian capital has two remaining scooter operators offering shared e-scooters, Bolt and Dott, and once their licences expire at the end of 2026, they will not be renewed, according to the Brussels Times.

Authorities voiced their safety concerns around the use of e-scooters and the nuisance they can cause to local residents. The move means Brussels follows other European cities who’ve removed shared e-scooters, including Paris, Madrid, and Prague.

Brussels mobility minister Elke Van den Brandt and minister-president Boris Dilliès made a shared statement about the ban, calling shared e-scooters a “growing nuisance to other road users”, and pointing out that 666 accidents involved e-scooters in 2025, a year on year increase of 26%.

They also highlighted that rental scooters were often used for criminal purposes, and were involved in the cases of 25 shootings in Brussels last year.

Boris Dilliès said: “The decision to exclude self-service scooters from the Brussels urban landscape is part of a clear and consistent policy. Often synonymous with disorder, self-service scooters are a source of nuisance, cause serious injuries, clutter the streets and are, unfortunately, increasingly being used by organised criminals. Self-service bicycles, on the other hand, remain for us an essential part of a mobility policy.”

However, in a statement, e-scooter rental firm Bolt argued: “When scooters are the subject of public debate, whether regarding road safety or parking, private and shared scooters are almost always lumped together, even though they are fundamentally different.

“Banning [shared scooters] will not stop people from getting around. It will drive users towards private, unregulated, untraceable and genuinely dangerous scooters, or towards more polluting modes of transport. Neither of these scenarios serves Brussels’ objectives regarding safety, congestion or the climate.”

Since the ban was announced in Brussels, the Benelux Union, a partnership between Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, has called for the European Commission to create a single framework for all EU countries, which could make it easier for other countries to make their own regulations.

Benelux pointed out there are inconsistent safety standards among member states, and not all vehicles on the market were safe and suitable to be used on public roads. The lack of guidelines also make it difficult to prevent unsafe vehicles from being put out for hire.

The UK has banned privately owned e-scooters from public roads and pavements, meaning the only legal place to ride your own e-scooter is on private land. There are a handful of legal rental schemes in some areas of London, Birmingham, and other cities, with strict criteria such as limiting the e-scooters to 12.5mph, banning riders under 18, and requiring a provisional licence to hire one.

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com