begins

A ceasefire between Thailand and Cambodia has come into effect along the border, where almost three weeks of deadly clashes have forced nearly one million people from their homes.

In a joint statement, the defence ministers of the two countries agreed to freeze the front lines where they are now, ban reinforcements and allow civilians living in border areas to return as soon as possible.

The ceasefire took effect at noon local time (05:00 GMT) on Saturday. Once it has been in place for 72 hours, 18 Cambodian soldiers held by Thailand since July will be released, the statement said.

The breakthrough came after days of talks between the two countries, with diplomatic encouragement from China and the US.

The agreement prioritises getting the displaced back to their homes, and also includes an agreement to remove landmines.

Thailand’s Defence Minister Natthaphon Narkphanit described the ceasefire as a test for the “other party’s sincerity”.

“Should the ceasefire fail to materialise or be violated, Thailand retains its legitimate right to self-defence under international law,” he told reporters.

UN human rights chief Volker Türk said he hopes the ceasefire will “pave the way” for peace, while an EU spokesperson urged “good faith” in its implementation.

Thailand had been reluctant to accept the ceasefire, saying the last one was not properly implemented. They also resented what they saw as Cambodia’s efforts to internationalise the conflict.

Unlike the last ceasefire in July, US President Donald Trump was conspicuously absent from this one, although the US State Department was involved.

That ceasefire agreement collapsed earlier this month, when fresh clashes erupted. Both sides blamed each other for the breakdown of the truce.

The Thai army said its troops had responded to Cambodian fire in Thailand’s Si Sa Ket province, in which two Thai soldiers were injured.

Cambodia’s defence ministry said it was Thai forces that had attacked first, in Preah Vihear province, and insisted that Cambodia did not retaliate.

Clashes have continued throughout December. On Friday, Thailand carried out more air strikes inside Cambodia.

The Thai Air Force said it had hit a Cambodian “fortified military position” after civilians had left the area. Cambodia’s defence ministry said the strikes were “indiscriminate attacks” against civilian houses.

How well the ceasefire holds this time depends to a large extent on political will. Nationalist sentiment has been inflamed in both countries.

Cambodia, in particular, has lost many soldiers and a lot of its military equipment. It has been driven back from positions it held on the border, and suffered extensive damage from the Thai air strikes, grievances which could make a lasting peace harder to achieve.

Disagreement over the border dates back more than a century, but tension increased early this year after a group of Cambodian women sang patriotic songs in a disputed temple.

A Cambodian soldier was killed in a clash in May, and two months later, in July, there were five days of intense fighting along the border, which left dozens of soldiers and civilians dead. Thousands more civilians were displaced.

Following intervention by Malaysia and President Trump, a fragile ceasefire was negotiated between the two countries, and signed in late October.

Trump dubbed the agreement the “Kuala Lumpur Peace Accords”. It mandated both sides to withdraw their heavy weapons from the disputed region, and to establish an interim observer team to monitor it.

However, the agreement was suspended by Thailand in November after Thai soldiers were injured by landmines, with Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul announcing that the security threat had “not actually decreased”.

Dec. 19 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Friday released records from the Jeffrey Epstein case in accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act signed into law last month by President Donald Trump.

The DOJ has made the files publicly available online on the Justice Department website’s section on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but the names of victims and other identifying information have been redacted. Congress overwhelmingly approved the legislation and it was signed by Trump on Nov. 19 with a 30-day deadline to release files.

“By releasing thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena request, and President Trump recently calling for further investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends, the Trump Administration has done more for the victims than Democrats ever have,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement shared with NBC News.

Friday’s files release gives the public access to hundreds of thousands of records, with more to be released over the next several weeks, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a letter to members of Congress, as reported by CBS News.

“We are looking at every single piece of paper that we are going to produce, making sure that every victim, their name, their identity, their story to the extent it needs to be protected is completely protected,” Blanche added.

The DOJ had 187 attorneys review the documents ahead of their release and 25 more on a quality control team, he said.

“Protecting victims is of the highest priority for President Trump, the Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice,” Blanche said in the letter.

He also said Trump has said he wants full transparency on the matter and has supported the release of the Epstein case files for several years.

The president signed the supporting legislation in November to expedite the release of the Epstein case files.

The documents include information that was already made public, along with files that are “very likely to have never seen the light of day before,” CNN crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz said.

The records are in addition to the tens of thousands of files already released regarding the federal case against former financier Epstein.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have also released files and photos from Epstein’s estate.

On Aug. 10, 2019, Epstein hung himself while jailed in Manhattan and awaiting a federal trial that accused him of sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors.

The release of hundreds of thousands of pages of the case files and other information will keep news outlets busy going through them well into the foreseeable future.

The released files include documents, telephone records, audio recordings and photographs, but many lack context that explains why they are included in the case files.

PHOENIX — Turning Point USA, the conservative youth organization that Charlie Kirk turned into a political juggernaut, will convene its flagship conference on Thursday for the first time since the assassination of its charismatic founder, testing the durability of a fractious movement that helped return President Donald Trump to the White House.

Kirk served as a unifying figure on the American right, marshaling college students, online influencers and Republican politicians. But now the party’s populist wing is skirmishing over the meaning of “America First” and the future of a decade-old movement defined more by the force of Trump’s personality than loyalty to a particular ideological project.

Thousands of people are expected to gather for the four-day meeting in Phoenix. Vice President JD Vance, media personalities and a handful of Trump administration officials are slated to appear, plus Christian rock bands and pastors. Attendees will have the chance to take selfies with popular figures and participate in discussions about political organizing, religion and conservative critiques of American culture.

Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, will have a prominent role as the organization’s new leader. The conference promises to be an extended tribute to her husband, who many on the right see as a martyr for conservatism and Christianity after he was slain at only 31 years old.

Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old charged with shooting and killing Kirk while he spoke at Utah Valley University in September, appeared in court last week. Robinson has not entered a plea. Authorities say he told his romantic partner that he killed Kirk because he “had enough of his hatred.”

The last time Turning Point held its AmericaFest conference, weeks after Trump’s comeback victory one year ago, the MAGA movement was ebullient as Republicans prepared for a new era of total control in Washington.

Now the party faces challenging midterm elections, with Trump constitutionally prohibited from running again and his more ideologically motivated acolytes positioning to steer the movement after he leaves office. Meanwhile, conservatives have been roiled by conflicts over antisemitism in its ranks, which Trump has declined to mediate.

A lineup of MAGA influencers

Turning Point is known for highly produced events that feel more like rock concerts or megachurch services than political rallies, complete with pyrotechnics and floor-shaking bass.

The speaker lineup is a who’s who of conservative influencers and pastors, including some who have openly feuded with each other in recent weeks. It includes some of the biggest names in MAGA media, including Donald Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Jesse Watters, Steve Bannon, Ben Shapiro and Jack Posobiec.

The jockeying for influence has accelerated since Kirk’s death, which left a void in the organization he founded and in the broader conservative movement.

“Charlie was the unifying figure for the movement,” conservative commentator Michael Knowles said at a Turning Point event just weeks after Kirk’s death.

“The biggest threat right now is that without that single figure that we were all friends with, who could really hold it together, things could spin off in different directions,” Knowles said. “We have to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

Among the fissures that has deepened since Kirk’s death is whether Republicans should continue its unflinching support for Israel and the war in Gaza. There are also concerns about whether the movement should accommodate people with anti-Jewish views.

The schism burst into the open when the head of the influential Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, defended Carlson for conducting a friendly interview with podcaster Nick Fuentes, whose followers, known as “groypers,” see themselves as working to preserve a white, Christian identity in America. Roberts’ comments sparked outrage from some Heritage staffers, senators and conservative activists.

Fuentes had long feuded with Kirk, who worked to marginalize Fuentes within the conservative movement. Groypers enjoyed crashing Turning Point events to spar with Kirk.

Carlson and Shapiro, who has sharply criticized Fuentes and Carlson, are both scheduled to speak on Thursday, the first day of the conference.

Turning Point has also faced turmoil over conspiracy theories spread by Candace Owens, a former employee who hosts a top-rated podcast. Owens has alleged without evidence that Israeli spies were involved in Kirk’s death and that he was betrayed by people close to him. Authorities say Robinson acted alone.

Asked about Owens and others spreading conspiracy theories during a CBS News town hall, Erika Kirk responded with one word: “Stop.” She said Owens is making money off her family’s tragedy, adding that conspiracy peddlers risk tainting the jury pool and allowing her husband’s killer to get away with it.

Last weekend, with the Turning Point conference looming, Kirk and Owens agreed to a temporary detente until a private meeting. It didn’t last long.

After the meeting on Monday, Owens said on her show that she and Kirk spoke for 4 ½ hours but she still doubted that Robinson acted alone. Kirk wrote on X that they had “a very productive conversation” and it was “time to get back to work.”

While grieving her husband, Erika Kirk has slowly stepped up her public appearances. She spoke at the funeral, memorably forgiving her husband’s alleged killer, and at a Turning Point event in Mississippi in October.

An entrepreneur and podcaster, she often appeared with her husband at Turning Point events. The former 2012 Miss Arizona USA has also worked as a model, actress and casting director, and she founded a Christian clothing line, Proclaim, and a ministry that teaches about the Bible.

Before her husband’s death, she talked openly about prioritizing her family ahead of her career and described a marriage with traditional gender roles. Now she’s taking on the demanding job leading Turning Point, an organization that resonated in particular with young men.

At a memorial for her husband, Erika said “Charlie and I were united in purpose.”

“His passion was my passion, and now his mission is my mission,” she said. “Everything that Turning Point USA built through Charlie’s vision and hard work, we will make 10 times greater through the power of his memory.”

Cooper writes for the Associated Press.

Dec. 15 (UPI) — The trial for Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan began Monday, with prosecutors playing audio of the judge saying she’ll “get the heat” by showing an undocumented defendant how to leave her courtroom to avoid immigration officials.

Dugan pleaded not guilty earlier this year to federal charges including one count of obstructing and official proceeding and concealing a person from arrest and another of concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest.

The case stems from an incident on April 18, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials came to her courtroom and notified her they planned to arrest undocumented immigrant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. They said she sent the agents to the chief judge’s office before going back to her courtroom, pushing Flores-Ruiz’s case to the front of her docket, then helped him and his lawyer leave from a private jury door.

The ICE agents ultimately found and arrested Flores-Ruiz.

During Monday’s trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Keith Alexander played audio from the day appearing to depict Dugan speaking with the court reporter, Joan Butz, who offers to show Flores-Ruiz the private door. Dugan says, “I’ll do it. I’ll get the heat.”

Alexander said Dugan’s actions were tantamount to formulating an escape plan for Flores-Ruiz, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

“The judicial robe the defendant wore that morning did not put her above the law,” Alexander said in his opening statements.

Dugan’s lawyer, former U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic, said the private jury door Dugan showed Flores-Ruiz wasn’t hidden and was less than 12 feet away from the public doors of the courtroom. He said she didn’t seek to thwart ICE agents.

“Not even as far as your jury box,” he said. “There was a federal agent to the left and to the right.”

Biskupic said that instead of arresting Flores-Ruiz, the federal agents chose to follow him outside and arrest him after a foot chase, NBC News reported.

“Now, after the fact, everyone wants to blame Judge Dugan,” he said.

Republicans and Democrats squared off in court Monday in a high-stakes battle over the fate of California’s Proposition 50, which reconfigures the state’s congressional districts and could ultimately help determine which party controls the U.S. House in the 2026 midterms.

Dozens of California politicians and Sacramento insiders — from GOP Assembly members to Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell — have been called to testify in a Los Angeles federal courtroom over the next few days.

The GOP wants the three-judge panel to temporarily block California’s new district map, claiming it is unconstitutional and illegally favors Latino voters.

An overwhelming majority of California voters approved Prop. 50 on Nov. 4 after Gov. Gavin Newsom pitched the redistricting plan as a way to counter partisan gerrymandering in Texas and other GOP-led states. Democrats admitted the new map would weaken Republicans’ voting power in California, but argued it would just be a temporary measure to try to restore national political balance.

Attorneys for the GOP cannot challenge the new redistricting map on the grounds that it disenfranchises swaths of California Republicans. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that complaints of partisan gerrymandering have no path in federal court.

But the GOP can bring claims of racial discrimination. They argue California legislators drew the new congressional maps based on race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment, which prohibits governments from denying citizens the right to vote based on race or color.

On Monday, attorneys for the GOP began by homing in on the new map’s Congressional District 13, which currently encompasses Merced, Stanislaus, and parts of San Joaquin and Fresno counties, along with parts of Stockton.

When Mitchell drew up the map, they argued, he over-represented Latino voters as a “predominant consideration” over political leanings.

They called to the stand RealClearPolitics elections analyst Sean Trende, who said he observed an “appendage” in the new District 13, which extended partially into the San Joaquin Valley and put a crack in the new rendition of District 9.

“From my experience [appendages] are usually indicative of racial gerrymandering,” Trende said. “When the choice came between politics and race, it was race that won out.”

Republicans face an uphill struggle in blocking the new map before the 2026 midterms. The hearing comes just a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas to temporarily keep its new congressional map — a move that Newsom’s office says bodes poorly for Republicans trying to block California’s map.

“In letting Texas use its gerrymandered maps, the Supreme Court noted that California’s maps, like Texas’s, were drawn for lawful reasons,” Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, said in a statement. “That should be the beginning and the end of this Republican effort to silence the voters of California.”

In Texas, GOP leaders drew up new congressional district lines after President Trump openly pressed them to give Republicans five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. A federal court blocked the map, finding racial considerations likely made the Texas map unconstitutional. But a few days later the Supreme Court granted Texas’ request to pause that ruling, signaling they view the Texas case, and this one in California, as part of a national politically-motivated redistricting battle.

“The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California),” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued, “was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

The fact that the Supreme Court order and Alito’s concurrence in the Texas case went out of their way to mention California is not a good sign for California Republicans, said Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

“It’s hard to prove racial predominance in drawing a map — that race predominated over partisanship or other traditional districting principles,” Hasen said. “Trying to get a preliminary injunction, there’s a higher burden now, because it would be changing things closer to the election, and the Supreme Court signaled in that Texas ruling that courts should be wary of making changes.”

Many legal scholars argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Texas case means California will likely keep its new map.

“It was really hard before the Texas case to make a racial gerrymandering claim like the plaintiffs were stating, and it’s only gotten harder in the last two weeks,” said Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Marymount University.

Hours after Californians voted in favor of Prop. 50 on Nov. 4, Assemblymember David J. Tangipa (R-Fresno) and the California Republican Party filed a lawsuit alleging that the map enacted in Prop. 50 for California’s congressional districts is designed to favor Latino voters over others.

The Department of Justice also filed a complaint in the case, arguing the new congressional map uses race as a proxy for politics and manipulated district lines “in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.”

Mitchell, the redistricting expert who drew up the maps, is likely to be a key figure in this week’s battle. In the days leading up to the hearing, attorneys sparred over whether Mitchell would testify and whether he should turn over his email correspondence with legislators. Mitchell’s attorneys argued he had legislative privilege.

Attorneys for the GOP have seized on public comments made by Mitchell that the “number one thing” he started thinking about” was “drawing a replacement Latino majority/minority district in the middle of Los Angeles” and the “first thing” he and his team did was “reverse” the California Citizens Redistricting Commission’s earlier decision to eliminate a Latino district from L.A.

Some legal experts, however, say that is not, in itself, a problem.

“What [Mitchell] said was, essentially, ‘I paid attention to race,’” Levitt said. “But there’s nothing under existing law that’s wrong with that. The problem comes when you pay too much attention to race at the exclusion of all of the other redistricting factors.”

Other legal experts argue that what matters is not the intent of Mitchell or California legislators, but the California voters who passed Prop. 50.

“Regardless of what Paul Mitchell or legislative leaders thought, they were just making a proposal to the voters,” said Hasen, who filed an amicus brief in support of the state. “So it’s really the voters’ intent that matters. And if you look at what was actually presented to the voters in the ballot pamphlet, there was virtually nothing about race there.”