ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what we know about the ruling:

What has the Court of Appeal ruled?

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

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

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

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

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

Why was this case brought?

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

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

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

Why did the UK proscribe Palestine Action?

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

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

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

Other previous actions the group has taken include:

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

How has Palestine Action responded to the ruling?

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

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

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

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

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

How have others reacted to the ruling?

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

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

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

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

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer says the UK will ban social media for teens under the age of 16 and impose tighter rules on gaming and livestreaming platforms, with regulations to follow by the end of the year. He says the move is aimed at protecting children, and will curb the power of big tech companies through tough online safety measures.

BBC Breakfast viewers were left in hysterics after a schoolgirl’s response to the social media ban.

A schoolgirl has gone viral for her response to a BBC presenter’s question about the social media ban.

Sir Keir Starmer announced on Monday, June 15, that under-16s will be banned from using social media to protect their health and safety.

He said the ban would give children more time, freedom and opportunities, adding: “That is all any parent wants. They want to know that Britain will be better for their children, that they will get a fair chance.”

If passed in parliament, the ban will come into force by spring 2027, the Prime Minister added.

Not everyone has been left thrilled with the announcement, including several children who will see their social media usage taken away.

One teen appeared on BBC Breakfast, and had a reaction that left viewers “howling”.

While presenters Jon Kay and Sally Nugent were in the studio, BBC journalist Fiona Lamdin broadcast live from a school in Tarleton, Lancashire.

She began: “I’m just outside Preston at Tarleton Academy, as I arrived this morning, I watched the pupils. These pupils are from year seven to year nine so aged 11-14.

“Like many schools across the country, they put their phone in a pouch which is then locked, a magnetic lock and they cannot then get to that throughout the whole school day.

“This school is completely phone-free. I have to say, we have asked with the permission of the head for the pupils to get their phones out this morning so we can get their screen time.”

Fiona then spoke to various students whose screen times from the weekend were several hours.

One child thought his would be between two and four hours, but actually had ten hours of screen time on one day, which, he said, was mostly spent on TikTok, “scrolling because I’m bored”.

“I’ll just have to adapt, maybe go read a book or go outside,” he admitted, if the changes were to come in force. “I’ll feel quite disappointed, because I’ve got nothing else to do throughout the day, so I’ll just have to do other things that will be fun.”

While he had given options of things he could do if he were to be banned from social media, another school child wasn’t so convinced.

Just hours later, BBC Breakfast returned to Fiona in Lancashire, after Sir Keir’s announcement, as she caught up with the children after the ban had been announced.

Most of the students revealed their disappointment, and schoolgirl Isabella shared: “I didn’t think it would actually happen, l kind of thought he would chicken out of it and give it more time or more consideration but he seems pretty sure of it and I’m not sure if I agree with him.”

She said she was most worried about not being able to contact her friends, adding that she mainly used social media to speak to her family.

After revealing her screen time over the weekend was nine hours, Isabella was asked by Fiona what she would now do with her spare time.

Isabella’s dead pan response followed: “Stare at a wall.”

Viewers were left in hysterics, re-sharing the clip on social media as one person captioned it: “This diva’s got the best reaction to the social media ban x.”

“Icon,” one person replied, as another said: “SCREAMING.” “HOWLING,” another wrote, while one person added: “Nahh she’s jokes.”

BBC Breakfast airs daily from 6am on BBC One and iPlayer.

British PM warns social media platforms are exposing children to content that is ‘dangerous’ and ‘designed to be addictive’.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a ban on social media sites ⁠⁠for under-16s as the United Kingdom plans to join a growing list of countries that place online restrictions on children.

The sweeping changes will reflect Britain’s values, help to protect children online and push back against the power of big technology companies, Starmer said at a ⁠⁠news conference on Monday.

“It is clear to me a full ban is the right choice,” he told reporters.

“This will change the conversations that parents have and the expectations of children over time. It will make a huge difference. It will make our children safer. It will make our children happier. It will give them more time, more security, more freedom to grow up, more opportunity.”

As well as a ban on sites ‌‌such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram, he said his government would take action against gaming and livestreaming services that allow children to talk to strangers.

“Is there a situation in the offline world where you would just let your child pair up with a stranger, an adult that you don’t know anything about? No, so we’re taking action on that,” Starmer said.

The prime minister warned that social media platforms are “exposing them to content that is dangerous” and “designed to be addictive”.

Timeline

Starmer said he hoped to pass the regulation by late December so the ban could come into force in the spring next year.

The government said in a statement it will also consider overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for under-18s and will announce more details in July.

Starmer said the upcoming ban was influenced by the experience of Australia, which in December became the first nation to ban people under 16 from social media.

Canada’s culture minister last week put forward a bill that would prohibit anyone under 16 from having social media accounts and oblige AI chatbot platforms to curb the creation of harmful content.

The UK announcement followed government-led consultations in which British teenagers trialled social media bans and time limits on apps.

A spokesperson for YouTube responded with a warning that such a blanket ban would push children towards “less safe services”.

This being California, Hollywood celebrities sometimes jump into battles over state legislation in Sacramento.

Last week, a group of singers and actors went up against the plastics industry over a bill that would have banned single-use plastic grocery bags from California stores.

“I’ve been bombarded by phone calls by folks who live in Malibu and stars who live in Hollywood,” Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) told colleagues during the floor debate.

An aide to the senator said he was contacted in support of the bill by entertainers including singers Bonnie Raitt, Bette Midler and Jackson Browne, and actress Rita Wilson, the wife of Tom Hanks.

Midler also went to Twitter before the vote, writing “California getting ready to vote on a statewide ban of non re-usable plastic bags! HELP BAG BAN SB 405!!!!!!”

But De Leon said he opposed the bill because it could cost 500 jobs in his district, many of them, he said, held by immigrant women — “Women head of households, women who have to work to put food on the table.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima), the bill’s author, countered that working families are already paying a cost as government agencies have to spend money removing bags littering beaches, streets and the oceans.

This round went to the industry. The bill fell three votes short of the tally needed for passage, killing it for the year.

In a statement to The Times after the vote, Midler was critical of the legislators who voted against the bag ban. “Plastic bags are a scourge to the planet and everything that tries to live on it,” Midler said. “Shame on them all for caving.”

ALSO:

California lawmakers OK a dozen gun-control measures

California Assembly approves hike in state’s minimum wage

California Senate seeks to shed more light on campaign cash

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

Scottish Rugby has imposed a 12-month ban on Alloa RFC president Alan Stewart attending matches following an after-dinner speech, described as “racist, homophobic and sexist” by some present.

Stewart has also been suspended from holding any role within the game over the same time period.

Multiple objections were made following remarks by Stewart during Musselburgh RFC’s annual dinner on 18 April and an independent disciplinary panel has upheld a misconduct complaint.

Stewart, who can appeal against the decision, has also been instructed to undergo equality, diversity and inclusion training.

Charges against Musselburgh RFC and their president were not upheld.

In April, the board of Musselburgh RFC issued an apology to those who attended, saying: “We particularly wish to recognise and acknowledge the hurt caused to our women’s team, who we are extremely proud of and to whom we are committed to providing a safe and nurturing environment.”

The club criticised the “very poor judgement of the speaker” and said he had sent a written apology.

In a statement issued at the same time, Scottish Rugby said it is “committed to equality, diversity and inclusion at every level of the game”, adding: “There is no place for discriminatory behaviour in our sport, or in wider society.”

BBC Scotland has approached Stewart and Alloa RFC for comment.

Irish Taoiseach Martin says the far-right ministers have shown ‘a desire to see the elimination of Palestinians from Palestine’.

Ireland has barred Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, from visiting the country, citing their conduct towards pro-Palestinian activists and support for policies that would displace Palestinians from their homeland.

Ireland’s Prime Minister Micheal Martin – known as the Taoiseach – confirmed the move on Friday, saying the two far-right ministers had advocated positions that amounted to “a desire to see the elimination of Palestinians from Palestine”.

Both Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have repeatedly called for Israel to annex Palestinian territories and push Palestinians out of Gaza, provoking condemnation from rights groups and several foreign governments.

Martin also referenced the treatment of pro-Palestinian activists who were part of a Gaza-bound aid flotilla last month.

Ben-Gvir provoked widespread condemnation when he shared video of himself mocking the detained activists as they knelt on the floor, blindfolded, with their hands bound.

In a statement, Ireland’s justice ministry said Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan had instructed immigration officers to refuse entry to Ben-Gvir and Smotrich should they seek to enter the state.

Ben-Gvir became a minister in 2022, after an alliance with Smotrich’s far-right Religious Zionist party came third in legislative elections.

Smotrich, who himself lives on an illegal Israeli settlement, has been a vocal advocate of Israel annexing the occupied West Bank, saying he hopes to “kill the idea” of a Palestinian state.

Together, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich form a cornerstone of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition.

‘Justifies EU sanctions’

Addressing Ireland’s travel ban at a summit in Montenegro, Martin said the two Israeli ministers should also be subject to EU sanctions.

“In my view, their behaviour justifies sanctions at EU level as well, and that’s something that we will raise, whether we can get sufficient support across the European Union is a different matter,” Martin was quoted by Irish broadcaster RTE.

Since Israel’s genocidal attacks on Gaza, Ireland has been among the most outspoken critics of Israel.

In 2024, Ireland officially recognised the Palestinian state, after which Israel ordered the closure of its embassy in Dublin.

Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have faced bans from other European countries over their conduct, including Britain, Spain and Slovenia. Last month, France banned Ben-Gvir from entry.

WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.

Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.

It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.

The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.

The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.

The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.

The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.

Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.

On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.

“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.

The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.

In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.

The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.

But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”

After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.

The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.

“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.

The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.

Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.

Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.

“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”

Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”

Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”

“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.

ANOTHER Brit was banned from boarding his flight home due to confusing passport rules recently introduced.

Dad-of-two, Kyle Harris, was refused boarding onto his booked Jet2 flight from Kefalonia in Greece back to the UK due to only having an American passport.

The 39-year-old had been on holiday with his wife and two sons and was unaware that new passport rules impacting dual-national Brits was introduced back in February.

Dual-national Brits used to be able to fly back to the UK on their second passport, which in Kyle’s case is his American passport.

However, now, a UK or Irish passport must be shown at the border or the traveller can get a digital ‘certificate of entitlement’, but this would cost a steep £589.

Ruth – Kyle’s wife – wrote on Facebook: “Imagine being told your husband can’t come home to the UK – despite living there for 39 years, paying 24 years of tax and national insurance, attending nursery, primary and secondary school, raising British children and building his entire life there.

Read more on travel inspo

TRAVEL TIP

The £2.99 SIM hack that can save Brits HUNDREDS abroad

STAYCAY

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

“That’s exactly what happened to us on Saturday.

The family has had to extend their time away and has reached out to the British consulate in Greece as well as the Foreign Office in London.

Ruth added: “Not once during booking, travel, or check-in were we warned this could happen.

“Nor have we seen any of a large campaign that has apparently taken place to ensure people travelling this way know. This situation needs attention.

“How can a system be rolled out with so little communication that someone who has lived in the UK virtually their entire life suddenly feels unwelcome, forgotten, and forced to prove they belong?

“Right now my husband feels more like a foreigner than a citizen of the country he calls home.”

A Jet2 spokesperson said they were “sorry” for the situation but added: “Our cabin crew acted in accordance with government legislation and sought guidance from the Home Office, as the passenger did not have the correct documentation at the time of travel.

“We advise all customers to check Foreign Office travel requirements before travelling.”

The change comes as new Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) has been introduced, which requires all Brits to enter the UK on their British passport.

The change comes as the new Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) has been introduced, which is a £20 digital travel permit required from all non-British travellers entering the UK.

Dual-national Brits are not able to apply for one.

He also isn’t the first person to fall victim to the new rules – back in April, 26-year-old Natasha Cochrane De La Rosa was left stuck in Spain after trying to return to the UK without a British passport.

A British-French student was stuck in Madrid for the same reason, as well as an 18-year-old British-Danish student who was banned from her return flight to the UK from Mumbai.

AFTER returning to Instagram Katie Price has found herself with one less loyal follower – her husband Lee Andrews.

Katie was previously left fuming after her account with a whopping 2.6 million followers was removed from the platform.

The ban came at a tumultuous time for the former glamour model, following a man hunt for Lee, who is currently thought to be jailed in Dubai’s Al Awir prison.

But after regaining access to her page earlier today, she was met with a mystery.

Katie’s conman hubby Lee has hit the unfollow button on the star, something that usually points towards trouble in paradise.

Lee now follows nobody over on the app.

NO SHAME

I was first to interview Lee Andrews — his reaction proves he’s out for himself

PRICEY IS BACK

Katie Price RETURNS to Instagram after being locked out & investigated

Things between the pair have certainly been a rollercoaster these past few weeks as she claimed to have told him he was the “most hated man in Britain” over the phone.

The reality TV legend told fans last week that she and Lee had a two-minute phone call from which he dialled in from a prison call box.

Lee claimed he’d been detained on suspicion of spying but that lie was quickly debunked.

Authorities confirmed to us he was NOT being held over spying charges and we understand he’s behind bars over claims relating to a private, civil matter.

Lee, who has “three phones” and bragged about being an “arms dealer,” is due for release today but must pay a four-figure fine.

The self-confessed “businessman” has certainly fuelled speculation on his relationship with Katie after savagely unfollowing her.

She was furious with Lee when he “made her look a d**k” after failing to show up for their joint GMB interview but this could be the ultimate betrayl.

Podcast host Katie had her Instagram account taken away over the weekend due to her flashing her boob in one post, alongside a flurry of promotions for CBD products.

Meta, the company behind the social media giant, removed her entire profile as it investigated.

Execs are understood to have analysed her posts and stories, and found no wrongdoing, hence why her profile has now returned.

ONE of the UK’s prettiest islands has been forced to ban people travelling there once a week.

Ulva is home to just 16 people but after it starred on a TV show, has experienced ‘unprecedented interest’ by tourists.

In a bid to control the number of people visiting the small Scottish island, the local and only ferry service has announced it will not run on Sundays.

Ulva is an island in the Inner Hebrides of Scotland found off the west coast of the Isle of Mull.

The island receives an influx of visitors during the spring and summertime – but this year has had more than ever.

This is a result of the TV show, Banjo & Ro’s Grand Island Hotel being aired on BBC Scotland and iPlayer.

BUDGET BREAKS

The stunning Europe beach resorts you can fly to for £15.99 – plus £34 hotels

SPLASH OUT

Top UK waterparks mapped with spas, private cabanas & rollercoasters – from £5pp

Banjo and Ro who hail from Australia appeared on the series renovating Ulva House – a Regency home that will open as a hotel.

Since the show aired, the island has become much busier – so much so that the ferry operator has decided to close on certain days.

The ferry is the only way to get to Ulva as it crosses the strait from Mull in around 5-minutes.

The foot passenger ferry operates on weekdays from 9am to 5.30pm and does not operate on Saturdays.

In recent news, the ferry announced it will no longer carry passengers across on Sundays either.

In a recent post, it said: “None of us could have predicted how significant the increase in the numbers of visitors would be, so to give ourselves, the Boathouse [restaurant] and fellow islanders the chance to recharge and prepare for the week ahead, we have made the difficult decision not to open Sundays this summer.”

For those who have already pre-booked a trip to the island in June, July or August, the ferry operator has said that it will still help visitors across.

Banjo and Ro already run The Boathouse on Ulva, a restaurant where visitors can pick up a coffee or local fish dishes.

The island is car-free island with cliffs, moorlands, woodland as well as quiet beaches and bays.

Talking to Sun Travel about the island, Banjo described it as “another world” and there’s plenty of wildlife to spot too.

Banjo said: “We’ve got otters, dolphins and seals swimming by, and one ferry you can take from Ulva is called Turus Mara which goes to the Treshnish Isles, it’s home to puffins.

“Often we go there for a puffin picnic just to sit with them, that’s one of our favourite things to do.

“There are more cows than people too so you’re likely to see a lot of them. And you’ve got a great chance of seeing the Northern Lights when the sun goes down.”

When it comes to activities on the island, of course Banjo suggests stopping at The Boathouse for a “pre-walk coffee” then a walk to Ormaig.

Here is where there are ruins of the island’s villages.

Another attraction is Livingston’s Cave, and nearby you’ll see “gorgeous view of Inch Kenneth where the Mitford sisters used to live”.

Then Banjo said: “Head back to The Boathouse for lunch – we serve fresh langoustines, crab and lobster which you can enjoy with a fresh bottle of wine.”

Officials are considering measures that would allow UK airlines to block disruptive passengers with a history of serious misconduct from travelling, amid a sharp rise in onboard incidents since the pandemic

Ministers are exploring proposals that could result in persistent troublemakers being banned from future flights amid growing alarm over disruptive behaviour on aircraft.

Officials are weighing up a system that would enable airlines to identify passengers with a track record of serious misconduct and potentially deny them the ability to travel. Under the plans, which are still at an early stage of consideration, details of blacklisted passengers could be shared throughout the aviation industry.

Should someone attempt to book a flight after being added to the list, the airline or tour operator could receive notification and be given the choice to block the reservation, effectively grounding that individual indefinitely.

Civil liberties campaigners have, however, raised alarm about the proposals, cautioning they could set a “dangerous precedent” through the sharing of personal data and limitations on access to transport, reports the Express.

Currently, airlines have the power to ban passengers who have displayed violent or abusive conduct while travelling with them. Yet existing restrictions only extend to the specific carrier involved in the incident, meaning offenders can frequently sidestep penalties by simply booking with a different airline.

The primary hurdle facing any new system is current data protection law, which prohibits carriers from exchanging passenger details with one another, even where criminal offences have taken place.

Who is calling for some passengers to be banned from all flights for life?

Calls for stricter measures have grown louder following a string of high-profile mid-air incidents that have gone viral online, reports the Daily Mail. These have included episodes where cabin crew faced death threats and violent clashes erupted between passengers in aircraft aisles.

Such incidents are among hundreds logged annually and have often led to expensive flight diversions that wreck holidays and travel arrangements.

There appears to be widespread public backing for harsher punishments, with recent polling indicating most Britons support restrictions on passengers who commit serious misconduct while airborne.

Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary has previously urged limits on airport alcohol sales, including curbs on early morning pints, in an effort to cut the number of disruptive passengers getting on planes.

Ministers aren’t attempting to stop travellers from having a drink before their flight. Rather, they’re hoping any future system would promote better conduct while helping to safeguard cabin crew, families and fellow passengers.

It’s understood the proposals are being worked on by the Home Office and Department for Transport but remain in the early stages and require additional consultation with the aviation sector. Any system would need to tackle existing privacy regulations, which currently stop airlines from sharing passenger data.

Ministers are expected to sit down with industry bosses later this month to thrash out the details of the plans. A government source said: “Everyone should be able to enjoy a pint at the airport, but anti-social behaviour on flights is totally unacceptable.

“It threatens the safety of passengers and crew and disrupts hard-earned holidays.

“There are already tough laws in place to deal with offences committed on flights, but we are exploring with industry how we can better address this issue, ensuring we crack down on people who persistently cause chaos. Everyone should be able to fly without fuss.”

Department of Commerce issues guidance on chip restrictions amid concerns about loopholes in export control regime.

The United States has issued a notice affirming its restrictions on shipments of semiconductors to subsidiaries of Chinese companies located outside China amid concerns about loopholes in Washington’s export control regime.

The Department of Commerce said in the guidance issued on Sunday that its licensing requirements for the export of advanced AI chips applied to all businesses with headquarters or a parent company in China.

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which falls under the Commerce Department, said it issued the clarification in response to questions about whether it was enforcing preexisting licence requirements after it had overturned former President Joe Biden’s AI Diffusion Framework.

“The answer is yes,” the BIS said in the notice.

Unveiled in the final days of the Biden administration, the AI Diffusion proposed the implementation of a globe-spanning framework to control access to AI chips, including export caps for all but the closest US allies.

The framework drew backlash from tech firms, including Nvidia, the world’s most valuable chip company, which cast the proposal as a threat to innovation and cross-border collaboration.

President Donald Trump’s administration scrapped the framework last May, ahead of its implementation, citing the “burdensome new regulatory requirements” and the harm it would do to Washington’s diplomatic relations with other countries.

Chip giant Nvidia, whose top-of-the-line Blackwell GPUs are banned for export to China, said it had already been operating in keeping with the clarified rules.

“The guidance reaffirms that NVIDIA’s sales and vetting process is correct – consistent with our existing approach, licences are required to ship controlled products to PRC headquartered companies,” a Nvidia spokesperson told Al Jazeera, using the acronym for the People’s Republic of China.

AMD and Intel, Nvidia’s main competitors in the GPU space, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

TSMC, which manufactures the most advanced chips on behalf of clients such as Nvidia, did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The BIS also did not respond to inquiries.

Chris McGuire, a former State Department official who worked on technology policy in the Biden administration, accused the Trump administration of providing Chinese companies a loophole to buy export-controlled chips.

“Chinese companies have been buying these chips, very likely at scale. And because BIS has not updated export control regulations to clearly state what it IS enforcing, all of this was legal,” McGuire said in a post on X.

“This clarification does make clear that Blackwell shipments to China-headquartered companies outside of China are now illegal again – which is good, although obviously we have to see how many shipments have already gone to assess how much damage was done,” McGuire said.

“BIS’ statement acknowledges these shipments have been happening when it says companies who bought chips under this loophole don’t have to stop using them.”

The US has rolled out numerous restrictions on the supply of high-end technology to China, as Washington and Beijing battle for dominance in AI.

In December, Trump announced that he would allow Nvidia to sell its H200 chip to China, in a major loosening of Washington’s export controls.

While not Nvidia’s most advanced chip, the H200 is about six times as powerful as the H20, the most advanced chip previously allowed for export to China.