bans

July 29 (UPI) — The United States announced a ban on imports of humanoid robots from China and other countries, citing “unacceptable risks” to national security and the safety of Americans.

The advanced robots ban, including humanoid, four-legged robots and bipeds, was part of a Federal Communications Commission update on Tuesday to a list of equipment and services “deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of U.S. persons” under the 2020 Secure Networks Act.

Power inverters that convert DC electricity to the AC electricity that flows across the country’s power grid were also banned.

The bans come after government agencies with “appropriate national security expertise” convened by President Donald Trump to look at the issue designated both technologies as national security threats.

“The networked capabilities of advanced robotic systems create extensive vulnerabilities and vectors for attacks that can manipulate the data and physical operation of the advanced robotic system. Relying on foreign-produced advanced robotic devices presents unacceptable supply chain and cybersecurity vulnerabilities,” the group said in its National Security Determination.

“Advanced robotic devices collect data that could be leveraged by malign actors to surveil Americans, enhance the capabilities of foreign intelligence services, or to remotely commandeer the robots,” it added.

China is the world’s largest producer of humanoid robots, with the United States its largest market.

Power-inverters, a critical kit which converts DC electricity from solar panels, batteries and other alternate energy sources into AC electricity enabling it to be fed into the U.S. energy grid, were also banned over fears overseas supplies could be manipulated or disrupted, compromising the United States’ electricity supply.

Any threat to electricity supply constituted a threat to the economy and national security, the FCC said, adding that in addition to supply chain vulnerabilities it was concerned increasingly networked inverters posed cybersecurity risks, including the possibility they could be switched off or used to harvest data as well as “facilitating remote access and surveillance by foreign government actors.”

Both bans only apply to new models and exempt overseas manufacturers with existing conditional waivers from the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau or, in the case of robots, the Defense Department, with the FCC saying it encouraged suppliers to apply for “conditional approval.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said he welcomed the measures from the White House.

“I am pleased that the FCC has now added foreign produced advanced robotics and power inverters to the FCC’s Covered List. Following President Trump’s leadership, the FCC will continue to do our part to secure America’s critical supply chains and, with today’s action, the FCC is acting in lock step with our national security agencies to do just that,” said Carr.

China criticized the move, accusing the United States of overreach and erecting trade barriers.

“China firmly opposes the U.S. overstretching the concept of national security and going after Chinese companies. Protectionism does not make the U.S. more competitive and will only hurt the interests of U.S. companies and consumers,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning told a news conference in Beijing on Wednesday.

“China will continue to do what is necessary to firmly defend the legitimate and lawful rights and interests of Chinese companies,” she added.

China’s Commerce Ministry called for the global community to combine forces to develop technologies “for the positive and for good,” saying Beijing resolutely stood against the “politicizing” of trade issues and the use of “groundless pretexts” to justify sanctions.

“China urges the United States to heed the objective and rational voices of the business communities in both countries, abandon its hegemonic mindset, and stop smearing Chinese companies and threatening them with sanctions,” a spokesperson for the ministry said.

The Trump administration on Tuesday announced a ban on new foreign-made humanoid robot imports to the US over “unacceptable risks” to the country’s national security.

The move applies to advanced robots – including humanoid and four-legged machines. Many of them are made in China, which is competing with the US to develop robotics and artificial intelligence (AI).

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also banned imports of power inverters – a device used in data centres and solar panels – which it said could also pose a risk to the US economy.

The Chinese embassy in Washington said China has long opposed the US’ “politicising” of trade issues and sanctions based on “groundless pretexts”.

FCC chairman Brendan Carr said the agency was doing its part “to secure America’s critical supply chains”.

The FCC has added the items to its Covered List – a register of goods and services that are deemed a risk to US national security.

The ban applies to new foreign-produced advanced robotic devices and power inverters and does not prevent the sale or import of any existing models that had been previously authorised by the FCC.

The FCC cited concerns that the use of foreign-made inverters could allow overseas firms to turn them off, steal data, facilitate remote access and surveillance by “foreign government actors, or be otherwise exploited through a cyberattack.”

It added that the use of robots made outside the US could allow “malign actors to surveil Americans, enhance the capabilities of foreign intelligence services, or to remotely commandeer the robots.”

The Chinese embassy in Washington also said Beijing will “take all necessary measures” in response to any moves that harm its interests, urging all countries to work together to develop AI “for the positive and for good”.

It called on the US to “abandon its hegemonic mindset, and stop smearing Chinese companies and threatening them with sanctions.”

The BBC has contacted major Chinese robot manufacturers Unitree, UBTech and AgiBot for comment.

The move lands as EU foreign ministers remain deadlocked over a bloc-wide ban on illegal settlement trade

Belgium’s federal government has approved a ban on importing goods produced in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

It is the latest among a small but fast-growing group of European countries acting alone on a question still unresolved at EU level.

The decision came at the government’s final cabinet meeting before the summer break, the Belgian News Agency (Belga) reported on Saturday.

The move fulfils a commitment made last year over the scale of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza and its death toll.

Earlier this week, Belgian foreign minister Maxime Prevot pressed EU counterparts at a closed-doors meeting in Brussels for a bloc-wide ban, accusing the European Commission of offering ministers “a bone to chew on” rather than a genuine plan to act.

Belgium’s ban arrives as both a domestic pledge fulfilled and a signal to the EU leadership.

The case for tighter controls was strengthened this year by a Global Echo Litigation Center investigation, which examined more than 30,000 export documents covering thousands of Israeli agricultural shipments to Europe.

Roughly one in six contained goods grown in settlements in the occupied West Bank or Golan Heights, rising to nearly one in five among shipments bound for EU countries.

Investigators found exporters routinely obscured the true origin of the produce, labelling it Israeli, blending it with genuine Israeli stock, or shipping it under addresses unconnected to where it was grown.

Similar moves by others in Europe

The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner, buying close to 30 percent of its exports and accounting for nearly a third of its total trade in goods, worth 43 billion euros ($49bn) last year.

Belgium joins a list of states no longer waiting for EU-wide action.

Spain enshrined a ban in law last September, the Netherlands agreed to one in May and Slovenia adopted a similar measure earlier this year, though it has dramatically shifted its approach to Israel following the election of a more pro-Israel government.

Differences between the EU’s 27 member states have made it difficult for the bloc to act decisively on the issue.

Ireland’s parliament passed its own prohibition on July 15 , days before Belgium’s move.

The wave of national bans follows efforts earlier this month by the EU to coordinate action among its member states.

The European Commission reportedly circulated a paper to EU capitals setting out three options: an import ban, a licensing scheme, or high tariffs on settlement goods. However no decision was reached.

Five former European officials, including ex-Italian prime minister Enrico Letta and former German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, published a joint call for the EU to adopt a bloc-wide ban.

They argued that national bans like Belgium’s carry limited weight alone, since goods cleared through customs in one member state can move freely across the rest of the bloc.

A ban, they wrote, would not amount to a sanction against Israel but would simply bring EU trade policy into line with restrictions it has applied before, including on conflict minerals and goods made with forced labour.

Several EU countries, including Spain, Italy and Germany, have also acted to restrict arms exports to Israel over the war in Gaza.

ONE rail operator is banning a popular item onboard all its trains to ensure passenger safety.

Merseyrail has announced that e-bikes will be banned onboard from January 1, 2027.

The ban has been announced after a safety review as e-bikes pose a fire risk.

E-bikes run on lithium batteries, which can be flammable and there have been cases where they’ve caught fire before.

The ban won’t just apply on trains – it will apply at all stations on the Merseyrail network.

This will also include station buildings, car parks, and cycle storage facilities.

SAVE BIG

UK theme parks and attractions offering FREE return visits and 89p kids tickets

DIVE IN

Mega waterpark hotels with EVERYTHING you ever wanted & all inclusive from £189pp

Anyone travelling with a banned item on or after January 1 may be refused access to Merseyrail trains or stations.

From the commencement of the ban, the following items will not be allowed anywhere on the Merseyrail network:

• Non-folding e-bikes
• Modified or adapted e-bikes
• E-bike conversion kits
• Lithium-ion e-bike batteries that have been detached and are being carried separately

Pedal bikes, folding e-bikes, certain mobility scooters, and powered wheelchairs will still be allowed.

The move follows the ban on e-scooters which was announced on Merseyrail services in 2023.

Non-folding e-bikes are already banned across London transport, which includes the Tube, Overground, Elizabeth line and DLR.

E-scooters are banned on all TFL services will all ebikes are banned on the cable car.

The incident is the latest in a pattern of Israeli measures in the occupied territory since the Gaza genocide began.

Israel has barred the grand mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine from entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound for one week.

The Jerusalem Governorate said in a post on Facebook that Sheikh Muhammad Hussein was detained by Israeli forces after delivering his Friday sermon at Al-Aqsa Mosque. Later, the governorate confirmed that Hussein had been released, but was temporarily banned by Israeli authorities from entering Islam’s third-holiest site in occupied East Jerusalem for one week, with the possibility of the ban being renewed.

According to the Quds News Network, Hussein was arrested for the contents of his sermon, during which he prayed for mercy for Palestinians killed by Israel and relief for those held in Israeli prisons.

In a message to Al Jazeera, the Jerusalem Governorate said “the arrest was carried out in order to serve him [Hussein] with an order banning him from entering Al-Aqsa Mosque for one week, with the possibility of renewal. This is not the first time such a measure has been taken against him.”

Israel has not commented on Hussein’s brief arrest or banning.

The incident is the latest in a pattern of escalating Israeli measures in occupied Palestinian territory since the start of the genocide in Gaza in October 2023.

More than 1,100 Palestinians have been killed in the occupied West Bank since then, including at least 243 children, amid what rights groups say is an intensifying campaign of military raids, settler violence and expanding Israeli control.

On Friday, six Palestinians, including children, were reportedly injured during an attack by settlers in Huwara, Nablus.

Local sources said settlers set upon a Palestinian family, including an elderly man, using pepper spray and physically beating them.

The attack took place on land belonging to the family. Israeli forces were reportedly present and protected the settlers during the attack.

Israeli forces then allegedly assaulted residents and arrested three members of the family, including 80-year-old Ibrahim Ismail al-Jabour.

The incident comes amid growing international concern over violence in the occupied West Bank. Last month, Amnesty International released a report accusing the Israeli government of carrying out a campaign of ethnic cleansing in the territory. The report concluded that the campaign was state-led and not the result of rogue settlers or far-right ministers.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — She refused to ban books, many of them about racism and the experiences of LGBTQ+ people. And for that, Suzette Baker was fired as a library director in a rural county in central Texas.

“I’m kind of persona non grata around here,” said Baker, who had headed the Kingsland, Texas, library system until she refused to take down a prominent display of several books people had sought to ban over the years.

Now, Baker is fighting back. She and two other librarians who were similarly fired have filed workplace discrimination claims with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And as culture war battles to keep certain books from children and teens put public and school libraries increasingly under pressure, their goal is redemption and, where possible, eventual reinstatement.

So far, it’s a wait-and-see whether the claims will succeed — and set new precedent — in the struggle between teachers and librarians around the country who oppose book bans and conservative activists who say some books are inappropriate for young minds.

The fight has involved a record number of book-banning efforts, some libraries cutting ties with the American Library Assn. — which opposes book bans — and even attempts to prosecute librarians for allowing children to access books some consider too graphic.

At least one terminated librarian has gained a measure of success.

Brooky Parks, who was fired for defending programs on anti-racism and LGBTQ+ stories she organized for teens at the Erie Community Library north of Denver, won a $250,000 settlement in September. Reached through the Colorado Civil Rights Division, the settlement requires her former employer to give librarians more say in decisions involving library programs.

Parks’ settlement with the High Plains Library District capped a stressful eight-month period without work, when community donations helped her avoid losing her home. And it will probably resolve Parks’ claim with the EEOC, said attorney Iris Halpern, who represents Parks and the other two librarians.

“I just wasn’t going to back down from it. It was just the right thing to do,” said Parks, now a librarian at the University of Denver.

After her firing in 2022, Baker filed an EEOC claim against her employer, the Llano County Library System in Kingsland. And in September 2023, Terri Lesley filed a claim over her firing last summer as executive director of the Campbell County Public Library System in Gillette, Wyo.

Halpern, with the Denver firm Rathod Mohamedbhai, compared the wrongful-termination claims to civil rights-era legal battles.

“It is honestly sad that we’ve gotten to this point. But history is a constant struggle, and we have to learn from our past,” she said.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act established the EEOC to enforce laws against workplace discrimination. One legal expert thinks the librarians might be able to prevail on the grounds that, under those laws, employees may not be discriminated against for associating with certain classes of people.

“With any case, the devil can be in the details in terms of how the facts come out and what they can present. But these are definitely actionable claims,” said Rutgers University law professor David Lopez, a former EEOC general counsel.

An EEOC investigation can take more than a year. After that, the EEOC may attempt to reach a settlement with the employer out of court, sue on the employee’s behalf or issue a letter saying the employee has grounds to sue on their own.

The librarians haven’t yet received an EEOC response and none is expected before the end of next year.

“I would love to be optimistic,” Baker said. “I know there are a lot of people in this community who are just absolutely behind the library being open and free and equal for all. And there’s a lot of people who aren’t. So it’s a hard, hard situation.”

EEOC spokesperson Victor Chen declined to comment on specific filings, saying, “We can’t even confirm or deny we have these complaints.”

The county attorney offices and other representatives of the government officials who fired Parks, Baker and Lesley did not return phone and email messages seeking comment, or declined to comment.

At her Texas library, Baker displayed several books that have been targeted in recent book bans and a sign that read: “We put the ‘lit’ in literature” — a reference to a Tennessee pastor’s recent burning of books.

Baker was fired after refusing to take down the display and signs — considered the last straw after she resisted book banning in her library.

In March, a federal judge ordered 17 books returned to Kingsland library shelves while a citizen lawsuit against book banning proceeded. The works ranged from children’s books to award-winning nonfiction, including “They Called Themselves the K.K.K: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group,” by Susan Campbell Bartoletti; and “It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health,” by Robie Harris.

“Content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny,” Texas U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman wrote in his March 30 ruling. He cited a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that barred communities from banning signs because of what they say.

The Llano County Commissioners Court decided against closing the county’s three libraries in response to the ruling. Closing the libraries would have echoed the history across the U.S. of closing swimming pools rather than desegregating them, Halpern said.

Like Baker, Lesley had trouble finding work after being fired from the library system she directed in Gillette, Wyo. Her dismissal followed two years of turmoil over challenges to the books available and library programs.

Some of the same county officials who opposed a transgender magician’s plans to perform at the library went on to join local residents in seeking to ban books, according to Lesley’s EEOC filing.

Baker and Lesley both were fired after local officials appointed new library board members willing to be more aggressive about pulling books.

“Our county commissioners appointed board members who were sympathetic to the people who wanted to remove the books. And it was a long dance to try to get it there. And in the end they had to fire me, I think, in order to be able to meet their goal,” Lesley said.

The Campbell County Commission skirted a deputy county attorney’s recommendation not to appoint past applicants for the board without reinterviewing them along with new candidates, according to Lesley’s EEOC claim.

“I saw this as a well-executed attack on the library by a group of citizens and elected officials. It was an attack on the LGBTQ+ community as well,” she said. “And it was an attack on the books.”

Salzburg has begun enforcing a summer ban on visitors driving into its historic centre, picking up a policy modelled by other car-choked European cities plagued by overtourism.

Authorities in Austria’s fourth largest municipal area said they hoped the “less traffic, more city” restrictions in July and August would reduce the number of vehicle entries by 1,000 a day.

As part of the campaign against gridlock, park-and-ride facilities are offering a day ticket including travel on local public transport for five people for €7.50 (£6.45).

“We don’t want chaotic traffic situations like we saw last year,” said the mayor, Bernhard Auinger, when he announced the measure in May. “It is aimed at day trippers who travel by car from farther afield. It is important to me that residents of the central Salzburg area and business-related traffic are not affected by this.”

Auinger said tourists themselves, drawn to attractions such as Mozart’s birthplace and the baroque-style 17th-century cathedral, would also benefit from the policy. “It’s certainly much better than spending hours stuck in traffic. And it also makes life a lot easier for the people who live and work in the city of Salzburg.”

The mayor said mounting complaints by residents about traffic during the summer months had prompted the city to take action. “We basically allowed tourists to drive into our sitting room,” he told the news website Salzburg24.

Patrolling police officers will impose fines of up to €80 on any drivers with numberplates from outside the Salzburg region entering the old town in the radius around the Staatsbrücke (state bridge) spanning the Salzach River.

Exceptions will be granted to commuters, delivery vehicles, taxis and rental cars, as well as disabled visitors and hotel guests with a reservation confirmation in the restricted zone. German motorists from the neighbouring Bavarian areas of Berchtesgaden and Bad Reichenhall are also exempted.

Heidi Strobl, of the local tourism board, said Salzburg’s policy, approved by the city council in May, had taken a page from the zona a traffico limitato (limited traffic zones) in Italian cities such as Rome, Florence and Pisa as well as a ban in Dubrovnik, Croatia, after they had become inundated with tourist vehicles during the summer months.

Salzburg, whose historic centre is a Unesco world heritage site, has just over 158,000 residents but records more than 3m overnight stays each year. Last year’s celebrations of the 60th anniversary of The Sound of Music, the classic movie filmed in the Salzburg region, spurred an extra tourist boom.

June 30 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday announced that it will decide if states and cities can bar people from owning semiautomatic weapons, including AR-15-style rifles.

The court had previously declined to hear this challenge in 2025 and other times previously, CNN reported. It includes an appeal from two Illinois residents who want to buy AR-15 rifles but cannot because of a county ordinance making it illegal to buy or possess some assault weapon types. The case will be combined with one involving Connecticut residents who challenged the state’s ban on the weapons.

The high court’s current 6-3 conservative majority often backs gun rights, NBC News reported. When the court declined to hear a similar case last year, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion that the court “should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon,” CNN reported. He said most states do not ban the weapons and those that do are “something of an outlier.”

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia ban the weapons.

People have used assault weapons such as AR-15 rifles and other semiautomatic rifles in multiple mass shootings, including the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Twenty children and six adults died in that shooting, leading to the change in Connecticut’s laws to ban the weapons. Nineteen children and two adults died in a similar shooting involving semiautomatic weapons in 2022 at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

The court will hear the challenge in its next term, which starts in October.

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.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that states can ban transgender women from competing in female school and college sports.

The court considered cases from students in two different states who had challenged bans on participation. The two states, Idaho and West Virginia, enacted laws that required public school and college sports teams to compete in accordance with their sex recorded at birth.

One of the two challenges said the ban violates equal rights protections in the US Constitution. The other said it contradicts civil rights laws.

More than two dozen states have enacted bans since Idaho did so in 2020.

Under those state bans, a transgender woman – a biological male who identifies as a woman – is not permitted to compete in female sports at schools and colleges.

All nine justices on the court decided the state bans do not violate a civil rights law called Title IX which prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools.

But the judges were split along ideological lines on whether the bans contravene the constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

The six conservative justices said it did not violate the constitution but the three liberal justices disagreed.

“The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh who authored the ruling.

In her partial dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority opinion had applied “a diminished view of equal protection” to sports.

The challenge launched in Idaho came from a transgender woman, Lindsay Hecox, a long distance runner, who lodged it shortly after the law was enacted. She was later granted an injunction by both a district court and an appeals court.

State lawmaker Barbara Ehardt, who introduced the law, said at the time of its passing that it would ensure “boys and men will not be able to take the place of girls and women in sports because it’s not fair”.

But in the appeals ruling, a panel of three judges found that the Idaho law violated constitutional rights. They said the state had failed to provide evidence that its ban protects “sex equality and opportunity for women athletes”.

President Donald Trump made the issue of transgender athletes in women’s sports a regular focus of his 2024 election campaign. Last year, he signed an executive order that aimed to ban transgender women from competing on female sports teams in schools and colleges.

Following that decision, the NCAA, the governing body for US college sports, banned transgender women from competing in women’s sports.

Supporters of the bans argued that transgender women had a biological advantage over athletes who were recorded female at birth.

When the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced in March it was going to limit the women’s category of Olympic sports to biological females, it said its working group reviewed the latest scientific evidence over the previous 18 months and had concluded there was a “clear consensus”, external that “male sex provides a performance advantage in all sports and events that rely on strength, power and resistance” .

Those who opposed the bans argue that they unfairly discriminated against transgender students and dispute whether there is a scientific consensus that transgender women and girls have an inherent advantage.

June 26 (UPI) — Authorities in Paris implemented restrictions on drinking in public and takeout alcohol sales on Friday for the second time in five days, amid one of the most severe June heat waves on record.

In an effort to reduce stress on the capital’s hospitals, public consumption of alcohol will be banned from noon through 7 a.m. Saturday, local time, and from noon on Saturday through 7 a.m. on Sunday, and can only be sold in bars and restaurants between 6 p.m. and 7 a.m on both days.

Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu said the health alert level was being raised to its highest, to boost hospital staffing and protect the vulnerable while Paris police chief Patrice Faure said the the capacity of hospitals to cope was “reaching a saturation point.”

“As you know, drinking alcohol with the sun beating down can have a devastating effect,” said Faure.

The bans coincided with a France-Norway game at the FIFA World Cup in Boston, due to kick off in the early hours of Saturday, local time.

Paris Pride, which was due to run Thursday through Sunday, was moved to September, and the Solidays music festival, scheduled to be held over the same period, was canceled because police felt going ahead with either amid the searing temperatures posed a major public health risk.

On Thursday, a three-year-old child died in a hot car in Saint-Gratien in the northern Paris suburbs.

As Paris baked in record temperatures that peaked at 40.9 degrees Celsius earlier in the week, Health Minister Stephanie Rist warned the health impacts of the heat were not restricted to the elderly, infants and other vulnerable groups.

“Even if you are young and in good health with no underlying medical issues, this heat will affect you too. Young people are also suffering from cardiac arrests,” she said, explaining that the Paris ambulance responded to a four-fold jump in cardiac arrests, compared with normal, during a 24-hour period.

Paris mayor Emmanuel Gregoire said the mortality rate was on the increase and urged people, especially the young, to suspend normal physical activity such as jogging.

“We must not believe we are invulnerable. It’s fine to take a couple of days off from exercising,” he said.

June 23 (UPI) — A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration cannot allow states to bar federal food assistance recipients from using their benefits to buy soft drinks, snacks and candy, finding the Agriculture Department lacked the authority to approves such restrictions.

About 42.1 million low-income individuals across the nation receive federal food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP, which allows recipients to use the benefits to purchase most foods, excluding alcohol, tobacco and hot prepared foods.

Amid soaring obesity rates across the United States, 22 states received waivers from the Trump administration to exempt certain foods and beverages from the federal definition of food to ban SNAP recipients from using the benefit to purchase these items. Though the waivers vary by state, they all target high-calorie, sugary foods, such as soft drinks, energy drinks, candy and others.

In March, five SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, West Virginia, Tennessee and Nebraska sued the Trump administration over its approval of waivers, saying the restrictions were vague, complicated and counterintuitive, causing significant confusion for both them and retailers, while harming SNAP recipients who rely on sugary beverages to manage chronic health conditions, such as diabetes.

In her ruling Monday, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson found the Agriculture Department’s waivers violated the Administrative Procedure Act, stating the department acted in excess of its authority and without following public input noticed procedures as required by law.

“The secretary purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of ‘food’ as it was laid down by Congress,” the President Barack Obama appointee wrote in her 68-page ruling.

“Neither the USDA nor the states can force this square peg into a round hole to avoid the plain language of the statute and the requirement of 2026(k),” which requires SNAP projects to be consistent with the program’s food-assistance purpose.

The National Center for Law and Economic Justice, which filed the lawsuit, celebrated Monday’s ruling as “a major step in restoring essential food assistance to the millions of families that rely on SNAP nationwide.”

“This decision makes clear that the USDA cannot bypass the legal guardrails that establish how SNAP must operate across the country,” Katie Deabler, senior attorney at the NCLEJ, said in a statement.

“It affirms that families deserve a program that works without confusion.”

June 21 (UPI) — French police issued a ban on certain alcoholic drinks Sunday amid unusually high temperatures coinciding with one Paris’ largest street parties.

The order banned people from consuming certain high-alcohol content drinks after 8 a.m. Sunday along areas of Canal Saint-Martin and along riverside zones along the Seine.

Businesses were also banned from selling takeaway drinks after 1 p.m., with exemptions for restaurants and bars, Politico reported.

Paris hosts the Fête de la Musique (World Music Day) one of its largest street festivals, Sunday. Free concerts are held throughout the city, and residents are encouraged to play music outside in public spaces and neighborhoods.

This year’s festival is taking place during a heatwave that could see temperatures break 100 degree Fahrenheit in the coming week. The country issued Level 1 and Level 2 heat alerts Sunday for an area encompassing about 75% of its population.

“Very high temperatures are setting in for the long term,” the national meteorological service, Météo-France said, as cited by The Guardian. The agency said the heat would be of “exceptional severity and duration” and will likely break records.

Officials also put wildfire crews on alert in case of fire, and canceled some outdoor events. Some locations in France canceled concerts scheduled to take place before 7 p.m.

Begona Gomez is accused of using her position as the prime minister’s wife ⁠to secure work contracts.

The wife of Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has been barred from travelling abroad as she prepares to face trial on corruption charges.

Investigating judge Juan Carlos Peinado issued the ruling on Saturday, ordering Sanchez’s wife, Begona Gomez, to hand in her passport and appear in front of court twice per month until a verdict is issued. She is charged with embezzlement, influence peddling, corruption in business dealings and misappropriation of funds.

Gomez has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the case, which stems from a complaint filed by an anticorruption group with far-right ties. It focuses on the creation and management of a chair at Madrid’s Complutense University that was co-directed by Gomez, as well as the alleged use of public resources and personal connections to advance private interests.

Sanchez has dismissed the allegations against his wife as an attempt by the right wing to undermine his government. Sanchez’s Socialist Party has said Gomez is innocent and subject to a years-long campaign of political persecution

No date has yet been set for the politically explosive trial.

The case is one of several corruption investigations involving Sanchez’s allies that are approaching trial or already before the courts, increasing pressure on the prime minister.

Several close allies, including the Socialist Party’s number three ⁠and Sanchez’s former transport minister, are under investigation in cases involving alleged ⁠kickbacks linked to public works, oil ⁠and gas contracts, and the procurement of masks during the pandemic. They deny wrongdoing.

Separately, Spain’s High Court said it was investigating former ‌Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero over allegations he led a network that profited from lobbying public authorities ‌on ‌behalf of third parties, including airline Plus Ultra. He denies the claims.

Sanchez, who has not been named in any of the cases, has rejected opposition calls to step down and call early elections.

IT’S NO lie that Brits love a European break but behaving badly could turn your trip into a holiday nightmare.

Across Europe, countries have their own rules relating to tourists – from banned beach items to strict curfews.

And if you want to avoid a hefty fine this summer, you’ll want to know what the rules are for each country.

France

A number of major cities in France and holiday hotspots ban drinking alcohol between 4pm and 8pm, including along the Paris riverbanks and the French Riviera.

When it comes to heading to the beach, make sure to not take any of it home with you as a souvenir.

Taking shells for example, is considered environmental theft and you could be fined €250 (£216.60) for doing this.

Read more on travel inspo

STAYCAY

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

CHEAP BREAKS

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

Swimming is always a fun activity, but men heading to the pool need to make sure you leave the swimming shorts at home.

Due to health and hygiene laws in the country, men in France must wear Speedos.

Spain

Most cities in Spain have banned drinking alcohol on the streets, such as Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia.

Also don’t jump from your hotel balcony into a pool – you can get kicked out of the hotel and fined.

Across Spain, make sure to not smoke or vape on the terraces of bars or restaurants or at pools.

But in Barcelona and popular Balearic and Canary Islands spots, smoking and vaping are banned across all beaches.

Fines for this range from €30 (£25.99) to €2,000 (£1,732.79).

In Barcelona, Malaga and Majorca, make sure not to walk through the streets in a bikini or swimming trunks. If you do, you could face a fine of up to €300 (£259.92).

Also when you are at the beach in Cullera, Calpe or Tenerife, don’t reserve a spot with a towel as you could have your belongings confiscated and be fined up to €3,000 (£2,599.18)

Portugal

In Portugal, there are some rules to be aware of when visiting.

Portable speakers are not allowed to be loud on beaches or you could be fined or it could be confiscated from you.

Fines vary between €200 (£173.28) and €4,000 (£3,465.58) for this.

Also in Albufeira, a Code of Conduct introduced last year is still in place for tourists this year.

The rules basically reinforce that visitors must act respectfully, with public nudity and drinking alcohol on the street banned.

Italy

There are a number of different rules across Italy you’ll need to follow.

In Florence, there are a number of streets where you can’t sit and eat outdoors.

The rule has been introduced to ease congestion.

Also in Florence, e-scooters are banned in the city centre.

In Liguria, Portofino, over the summer, travellers who walk the cobbled streets either barefoot, in swimwear or topless can be fined.

You could also get fined between €50 (£43.32) to €2,500 (£2,165.99) if you are caught hiking Cinque Terre in flip flops.

Drinking alcohol in the streets is also banned with fines up to £2,568.

And make sure not to sit or lie down on a path, wall or park as this can also get you fined. Fines range from £22 to £433.

Over in Milan, you cannot smoke outdoors unless you are 10 metres away from other people. If caught breaking the rule, you could be fined between €40 (£34.66) to €240 (£207.93).

In Rome, you cannot drink out of a glass bottle on the streets after 10pm and all outdoor drinking is banned after midnight.

While in the city it is also worth being aware that when you visit the famous Spanish Steps, not to sit, eat or drink on them.

This is to protect the 18th century marble from damage and stains and if you are caught doing this, you could get a fine between €250 (£216.60) and €400 (£346.56).

And if you are visiting the Italian island of Sardinia, make sure you don’t dig a hole, build a sandcastle or take sand or shells from the beach as you could be fined up to €3,000 (£2,599.18).

Heading to Venice? Make sure you don’t feed the pigeons – it is illegal and you can be fined between €25 and €500.

Greece

In Greece, there are some different rules compared to other countries.

For example, at archaeological sites like the Acropolis and the Parthenon you cannot wear high heels.

If you are caught with high heels, you could be fined up to £760.

Drinking on the streets is also not allowed.

And if you are caught topless in public you could face a fine of up to £250.

Even though it may be tempting, make sure you don’t take pebbles from Greek beaches either as you could be slapped with a £771 fine.

It is also worth knowing that across Greece, sunbeds and umbrellas have been banned on 251 beaches and the beaches that do have sunbeds allowed, at least 70 per cent of the sand must be without sunbeds.

Malaysia has introduced new regulations preventing children under the age of 16 from registering accounts on social media platforms as part of a broader effort to improve online safety and protect minors from harmful digital content.

Under the new rules, major social media companies including Meta Platforms, TikTok, and Alphabet will be required to verify users’ ages using government issued records before allowing new account registrations.

The policy took effect on Monday and is being enforced by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission. Companies that fail to comply could face fines of up to 10 million ringgit, equivalent to approximately 2.5 million dollars.

Authorities emphasized that the measure is not intended to block children from using the internet entirely, but rather to ensure greater responsibility among technology companies, parents, and guardians in protecting young users online.

How the New Rules Will Work

The new framework requires social media platforms to implement age verification systems that cross check user information against official government records.

While the restrictions immediately apply to new account registrations, existing users will also be subject to age verification measures during a six month implementation period.

The move places greater responsibility on technology companies to ensure that underage users are not able to bypass age requirements through inaccurate information during the registration process.

Growing Concerns Over Children’s Online Safety

Malaysia’s decision reflects increasing global concern about the impact of social media on children and teenagers.

Governments around the world have raised alarms over issues including exposure to harmful content, cyberbullying, online exploitation, misinformation, and the effects of excessive social media use on mental health.

Policymakers argue that stronger safeguards are needed as digital platforms become a central part of daily life for younger generations.

Malaysia’s Wider Crackdown on Online Content

The age restrictions are part of a broader effort by Malaysian authorities to regulate online platforms more aggressively.

Officials have reported a significant increase in harmful online content in recent years and have intensified monitoring of material that could inflame racial or religious tensions. Authorities have also targeted content viewed as insulting or critical of the country’s monarchy.

The government says social media companies must play a more active role in preventing harmful content from reaching vulnerable audiences.

Why It Matters

Malaysia’s decision places it among a growing group of countries seeking stricter regulation of social media platforms and greater protections for children online.

The policy could become a model for other governments considering similar measures, particularly as concerns over digital safety continue to grow worldwide. It also increases pressure on technology companies to develop more reliable age verification systems while balancing privacy concerns and user accessibility.

The move highlights the growing debate over who should bear responsibility for protecting children online, governments, technology firms, or parents.

Key Stakeholders

Children and Teenagers

Young users will face stricter age verification requirements before being allowed to create social media accounts.

Parents and Guardians

Families are expected to play a larger role in monitoring children’s online activities and ensuring compliance with age restrictions.

Social Media Companies

Major technology platforms must implement and maintain age verification systems while ensuring compliance with Malaysian regulations.

Malaysian Government

Authorities aim to reduce children’s exposure to harmful content and strengthen oversight of online platforms.

Digital Rights and Privacy Advocates

Advocacy groups will closely monitor how age verification systems are implemented and whether they affect privacy and data protection standards.

What Happens Next

Social media companies now have six months to complete age verification checks for existing users and fully integrate compliance systems for new registrations.

Regulators are expected to monitor implementation closely and may impose penalties on platforms that fail to meet requirements. The effectiveness of the policy will likely be assessed based on whether it reduces underage access and limits exposure to harmful content.

Other countries in the region may also watch Malaysia’s experience as they consider similar online safety measures.

Analysis

Malaysia’s new restrictions reflect a broader global shift toward stronger regulation of digital platforms, particularly where children are concerned. Governments are increasingly moving away from voluntary industry guidelines and toward legally enforceable requirements that place direct responsibility on technology companies.

The success of the policy will depend largely on the effectiveness of age verification systems. If implementation is weak, underage users may still find ways to access platforms. If verification measures are too strict, however, concerns about privacy, data security, and accessibility could emerge.

The regulation also signals a growing willingness among governments to intervene in how social media platforms operate. As concerns about online safety continue to rise, Malaysia’s approach may become an important test case for balancing child protection, digital rights, and platform accountability in the years ahead.

With information from Reuters.

The Spanish destination has banned all new holiday rental properties — including houses and villas — as local authorities move to protect struggling residents from being pushed out of their own neighbourhoods

A beloved holiday destination popular with British tourists is cracking down on new holiday rental properties, after they were found to be forcing local residents out of their own communities.

Local politicians in Palma de Majorca are poised to bring in the measure to boost housing availability for hard-pressed residents. New licensed apartment holiday lets have already been prohibited there for several years, and now local politicians are moving forward with a ban on houses and villas.

Local councillor Óscar Fidalgo insisted the move was one that simply had to be made. He described it as proportionate and fair, adding that it should have been implemented sooner in order to protect those living on the island from spiking property prices.

He was openly critical of holiday rentals growing ‘like never before’, and warned that they were causing integration issues between tourists and locals.

According to Majorca Daily Bulletin, Fidalgo said: “The expansion of tourist accommodation reduces the available residential supply and makes it harder to access housing. The current model presents problems of legal certainty and complicates inspections, which allows for fraud. More inspection capacity is needed.

“There are also urban sustainability reasons. It affects neighbourhood coexistence. We must protect neighbourhoods and prevent the displacement of residents.”

A town hall technical report concluded that the Spanish holiday hotspot is unsuitable for the opening of new holiday rental properties.

In April this year, more than 8,000 illegal Airbnb listings in Majorca were removed from the website, totaling a withdrawal of more than 40,000 illegal tourist beds.

The move was part of a coordinated effort between Airbnb and the Spanish authorities to reduce the number of active rental properties.

The fines for running an unlicensed holiday let in Palma de Majorca are steep. Landlords face fines of up to €40,000 (£34,700) and the government has employed a group of inspectors to ensure compliance. There is also an online reporting system for the public to report suspected rule-breakers to the authorities.

Nearly a third of tourists visiting Spain opt to stay in short-term rentals. The number of homes listed for holiday rentals in May dropped 6% from the previous summer to 1.43 million, after regulations were tightened to ease the housing crisis, data from the National Statistics Institute showed.

According to campaign group Affordable Majorca, since 2013, rents in Palma have increased by a whopping 40%.

Approximately 2.3 to 3.6 million British tourists visit Mallorca each year. The UK consistently ranks as the second-largest source of international visitors to the island, making up about 20% to 26% of all tourist traffic, trailing just behind Germany, according to Road Genius.

The decision in Palma de Majorca comes as another holiday island has also cracked down on beach regulations, banning nearly 700 loungers. Authorities imposed the ban on Formentera in the Balearics, effective immediately until 2029. A further 339 parasols have also been ordered to be removed from beaches.