block

When I moved into my Leimert Park apartment about two years ago, an older woman rushed downstairs to greet me.

“I’m so excited,” she said, introducing herself as Cassandra. She had lived in the tight-knit apartment building for more than 20 years and watched plenty of people come and go. “I was worried about getting a crazy neighbor, but you seem great,” she added, hugging me tightly and handing me a tray of sandwiches to share with my friends who were helping with the move.

Over the next few days, I met my other neighbors, including Miss Rosita and Mr. Art. After a few shared meals, long conversations and traded favors, all of them became more than just the people next door — they became family.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

There’s a quiet comfort in knowing your neighbors, especially in a sprawling, sometimes lonely city like Los Angeles. That kind of connection is fading. A study by the Stanford Center on Longevity showed that the percentage of Americans who frequently interact with their neighbors — meaning they spend time with or talk to their neighbors more than once a week — declined among all age groups from 2017 to 2023.

We wanted to find people who are bucking the trend, so we asked readers to nominate the neighbors who make their corners of Southern California feel like home. The stories that folks shared are poignant, inspiring and might just make you want to walk over to the porch next door (or welcome mat across the hall) and introduce yourself immediately.

One of my favorite neighbors, Mr. Art, died last fall. He was a sweet retiree who’d tell me about his weekly fishing adventures and close my garage whenever I was in a hurry and would forget. Another neighbor called me the day he died, and we cried together, sharing our favorite memories of him. I’ll always be grateful to Mr. Art, who made my life better all because he once took the time to meet his new new neighbor.

Here are some of our favorite reader responses, edited for length and clarity. Each of the neighbors featured in this story will receive an L.A.’s Most Neighborly Neighbor certificate, illustrated by Cristina Spanó, whose art is shown above. Do you have a neighbor who goes above and beyond? Download and print your own certificate (PDF) and share it as a token of your appreciation.

He’s saved us from many, many parking tickets. She hosts the sweetest front porch chats.

Bill and Linda Melber.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

Neighbor: Bill and Linda Melber

Nominated by: Corrinne Harol

When were you neighbors? 1994 to now

What neighborhood did you live in? Santa Monica

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Corrinne, on how Bill and Linda show up as neighbors:

Linda and Bill are the most generous neighbors imaginable. Bill has taken out my trash bins for decades. It started when I was living in Canada for most of the year, but he still insists on doing it. He makes it his personal mission that no one gets a parking ticket for street cleaning on our block, going up and down the block twice a week to remind anyone who forgot. One time he called me about my car, but I was too far away to get back to move it. Bill had a key to my house, but the gate was locked. He climbed over the fence, got my car keys and moved my car for me! He also makes children’s toys that he distributes to any children on the block or that he encounters out and about.

His wife, Linda, is equally neighborly, hosting regular chat sessions on their lovely front porch and checking in on me whenever I have been ill, as she does to anyone in her orbit. They are truly a gift to the neighborhood.

He made me feel welcome when I was in culture shock

Tommy Bui and Hector Chavez.

(Tommy Bui)

Neighbor: Hector Chavez

Nominated by: Tommy Bui

When were you neighbors? 1996 to 2022

What neighborhood did you live in? Pacoima

Tommy, on how Hector has shown up as a neighbor:
The greatest neighbor I ever had was my childhood friend, Hector. I’m the child of Vietnamese refugees, and when they claimed asylum in Los Angeles, we were plonked into the cultural collision that was Spanish-speaking Pacoima. I was seemingly the only Asian child in a five-mile radius. I certainly stood out among the perfectly creased khaki pants and palm combs and top-buttoned flannels contrasted with my clueless bowl haircut and Ninja Turtle suspenders.

Confounding the astronomical unlikeliness, we got along like two peas in a pod. I got a crash course on Angeleno aesthetics and the ins and outs of the rough and tumble San Fernando Valley hurly-burly. I was a regular staple at his welcoming household. Simpatico and simply siblings by circumstance. Sunday dinners and holidays and “Sandlot”-like weekend street shenanigans. My youth was alarmingly idyllic with the hopped fences, bicycle slaloms through traffic and occasional near-misdemeanor mischief. Shoulder to shoulder alongside Hector, I wouldn’t trade a single moment of it.

Though no longer neighbors, we’re still navigating life’s milestones in our own corners of Los Angeles. We’re both new fathers and hurtling toward middle age completely agog at how quickly the time gallops by.

She gave me a gold turtle to make me feel better after my breakup

Fatine Ait-Haddou and Raynette Syfu.

(Fatine Ait-Haddou)

Neighbor: Raynette Syfu

Nominated by: Fatine Ait-Haddou

When were you neighbors? Since 2021

What neighborhood did you live in? Historic Filipinotown

Fatine, on how Raynette has shown up as a neighbor:

I had just moved into my new apartment after breaking up with a long-term ex. I was sobbing every single day. During my first intro with Raynette, she gave me a little gold turtle and said it would bring me safety, luck and calmness. I named it Lucky and I still have it. Raynette brings me meals all the time and checks on me whenever she hasn’t seen me for a few days. She even gave me a huge bag of her vintage clothes. One of the most insane things she’s done for me is give me a fake baby, one that was heavy and realistic. She said that because I lived alone and didn’t live near family, it could be nice to have additional family. [Laughs] Honestly, it was a very “her” move. She’s truly amazing and looks out for me. I couldn’t be more grateful.

He taught me new chess strategies — and life lessons

Ali Ras and Jemimah Yamamoto.

(Jemimah Yamamoto)

Neighbor: Ali Ras (born Fitz Albert Thomas)

Nominated by: Jemimah Yamamoto

When were you neighbors? From 2021 until his death in 2025

What neighborhood did you live in? Arlington Heights

Jemimah, on how Ali showed up as a neighbor:
I moved to Los Angeles in the summer of 2021. I was in my late 20s, and I was a bit unsure of my move. Even more so, I was unsure of the neighborhood I ended up in thanks to Facebook Marketplace. But as fate would have it, it revealed to me that I was destined to be there. I’d see an old man with his gray dreads and sing-songy voice as I would walk from parking my car on the street. One day, he introduced himself and over time we developed a relationship. Him, as my chess teacher, and me as his eager student. I’d bring over my chessboard and we’d play for hours on his porch. He’d always say I was too aggressive with my pawns and that I wasn’t afraid to lose them. He’d play slowly and deliberately. I never won a single game against him. I’d like to think that that itself was a lesson.

During my Saturn return, I was depressed and felt a bit lost. On days that felt the darkest, he would call. He would ask me how I was doing, and it would cut through all the facade of “I’m good.” It was the tone of his voice that made you want to be honest. His way of caring felt like a miracle because you don’t even have to explain anything to him, he would just know. At the time, his presence was exactly what I needed.

He was the only person I gladly let walk into my house unannounced

Eric Pendleton

(Kim Quitzon)

Neighbor: Eric Pendleton

Nominated by: Kim Quitzon

How long were you neighbors? More than 20 years

What neighborhood did you live in? San Fernando

Kim, on how Eric showed up as a neighbor:
“Uncle Eric” was more than just a neighbor; he was family. Walking through the door unannounced yelling “Hi, family!” across the living room. “I came to check on the backyard.” Every week he would mow the yards after he lost his job and took pride in landscaping the grass, but that was just the surface of what he meant to us. On the popular street of Orange Grove in San Fernando where crowds line up during Halloween, Uncle Eric was our honorary neighborhood watch. Rolling up and down the street on a new bike every day, checking in on every neighbor that would give him the time of day.

From watching the dogs when we were away to helping set up family parties, he was one of us. He just happened to live three doors down. Unfortunately, Eric passed away from cancer last year. The whole block was devastated, and we all held a potluck in his honor. We will miss him, and he truly is the epitome of an amazing neighbor.

She sat with me after my mom died while I cried

Pamela Yeh and Hilah Johnson.

(Pamela Yeh)

Neighbor: Hilah Johnson

Nominated by: Pamela Yeh

When were you neighbors? From 2017 until mid-2020 when she and her family moved to Austin, Texas. Over the years, we’d become close friends, so I was gutted by their move. The most amazing thing happened, though. In 2022, they moved back to L.A., just a few blocks away from us. They live about 10 minutes away from us now, but we still see each other all the time.

What neighborhood did you live in? West L.A.

Pamela, on how Hilah has shown up as a neighbor:
Hilah has shown up for me and my family in hundreds of ways over the years, but I want to tell you this one story. In September 2025, my mom, who had been living in an ADU we built in our backyard, died. She was my heart, and I was utterly crushed. I lived in a fog of grief and shock. Hilah came over and just sat with me while I cried and cried. She made the video montage of my mom for her memorial, which was extra difficult because a family member had all sorts of unreasonable demands. Eventually, she got me to go to a dance class, and we’re still dancing, one step at a time, at the wonderful local Flow Motion.

He’s the beloved ‘Fairy-Car-Father’ on our street

Rodrigo Mangrobang

(Leigh Ann Jackson)

Neighbor: Rodrigo Mangrobang

Nominated by: Leigh-Ann Jackson

How long have you been neighbors? Since I moved to Northeast L.A. 15 years ago

What neighborhood did you live in? Northeast L.A.

Leigh-Ann, on how Rodrigo has shown up as a neighbor:
Rod, as most of the block calls him, is a retiree who lives with his wife across the street from me. He spends a lot of time outside gardening and working on his cars and can seemingly sense whenever a neighbor is having car trouble. He’ll stop what he’s doing, bring over his tools and get to work, no questions asked. He’s not very chatty, but he speaks auto fluently! He saw me pull out of my driveway once and flagged me down to tell me I was headed for a blowout soon. He then instructed me to pull back into the driveway and patched the tire for me on the spot. I even watched him go outside to help a stranger whose car had broken down in the middle of the road. He’s our street’s Fairy-Car-Father.

She had the best local recs. Yelp couldn’t come close.

Sofie Ringold and Eileen Ogle

(Sofie Ringold)

Neighbor: Eileen Ogle

Nominated by: Sofie Ringold

When were you neighbors? From 2020 to 2025

What neighborhood did you live in? Sherman Oaks

Sofie, on how Eileen showed up as a neighbor:
When my husband and I bought our first home, the COVID vaccine hadn’t been released yet, and we didn’t meet any of our neighbors. A few days later, an older woman wearing a mask knocked at our door. She said that a package had been delivered and she didn’t want it to get stolen. The package had arrived only minutes earlier, so it was pretty clear she wanted to scope out her new neighbors, and during a time of social distancing, this was the perfect excuse. She introduced herself as Eileen. She lived next door with her partner, Judith. We exchanged numbers and said a friendly goodbye.

As the world slowly became more comfortable with social interaction, Eileen began introducing us to everyone on the block. Soon, while we were walking our dog around the neighborhood, people would stop us and ask if we were new. When we told them we lived next to Eileen and Judith, their eyes lit up. It was clear they were local legends. Like all first-time homeowners, we quickly ran into our share of problems. But who needs Yelp when you have neighbors who have already vetted every home service you could possibly need? Need a gardener? Call Eileen. HVAC needs maintenance? Call Eileen. Going away for the weekend and need someone to check on your cats? Call Eileen.

Sadly, Eileen passed away in December. A cloud hung over our street for weeks. Then on Christmas morning, the sun broke through and a rainbow appeared. My husband took it as a sign from Eileen.

He went from my flirty neighbor to my husband of 16 years

Brett Boyd and Sara Mortimer-Boyd.

(Sara Mortimer-Boyd)

Neighbor: Bretton Boyd

Nominated by: Sara Mortimer-Boyd

When were you neighbors? We became neighbors in 1996 until 1997, when we moved in together

What neighborhood did you live in? Silver Lake

Sara, on how Bretton has shown up as a neighbor:
Bretton would come to my door asking for things (cigarettes, food, etc.) while trying to flirt. I was very intrigued by him, but I didn’t think he was “my type” at the time. It was confusing at first. One day, he invited me upstairs to his apartment for coffee and breakfast, which became a regular thing. He got me addicted to coffee and to his amazing cooking. He started coming over to my apartment more and we became really close friends before becoming romantic. I remember one time he left for a few weeks to visit his parents, and I realized in his absence that I loved him and wanted to spend every day with him. We moved in together in 1997, got engaged in 2002 and have been happily married with children for the last 16 years. He still cooks dinner for our family every night at our home in Highland Park.

He helped organize a food train when my son was diagnosed with leukemia

Scott Marshall-Miller

(Scott Marshall-Miller)

Neighbor: Scott Marshall-Miller

Nominated by: Mev Blount

When were you neighbors? From 2006 to 2017

What neighborhood did you live in? Studio City

Mev, on how Scott has shown up as a neighbor:
My husband and I moved next to Scott and his husband when I was pregnant with our first child. Scott welcomed home his daughter nine months after mine was born, so we were new stay-at-home parents together. His husband is an incredible baker, and he and Scott were always bringing over plates of deliciousness. The chocolate croissant bread pudding is legendary! I was raised that you never return a plate empty so I’d bake something or add some homegrown veggies to the plate. That plate went back and forth through the hedges between our houses for years.

Both of our husbands traveled for work a lot, so Scott and I spent hours together, especially before bedtime and during the “witching hour” with our little ones. We’d sit on my front lawn, nursing half-glasses of Trader Joe’s finest Two Buck Chuck wine while his daughter and my two kiddos rolled around, wearing themselves out. Scott and I would knock on each other’s doors when the parenting was too much. He and I would always answer the door with an “Oh, it’s you. Come in. No one else can see me as a hot mess.”

When my youngest got leukemia at 7, Scott was part of my core group who ignored me when I said we didn’t need help. They organized a food train, and Scott was the one who set up a cooler on my front porch and insisted people drop food without knocking, knowing we were overwhelmed. He was always there when I needed to laugh or cry, and he made our L.A. suburb feel like the small Ohio town where I grew up. I still find glitter ground into our kitchen tiles from the Halloween when he made his daughter a purple witch costume. Sadly, Scott died suddenly in his sleep a few years ago. Tiny bits of glitter are embedded in our tiles, a bright reminder of Scott and the beauty and joy he brought to even the most mundane tasks. He made L.A. feel like home.

California filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration Monday — one to block President Trump’s latest round of tariffs on international trading partners, the other to block his administration from sharing needy families’ personal data with immigration officials.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office brought the lawsuits alongside other Democratically led states, said they were both intended to rein in a lawless president pushing policies that threaten American families already struggling to afford basic necessities.

Bonta said the new tariffs are part of a “failed and illegal economic policy” that has previously been blocked in court. He alleged that the proposed data sharing was part of a broader and illegal “mass surveillance effort” by the Trump administration to target its political opponents.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the two lawsuits. But it has previously defended both tariffs and data-sharing policies as part of Trump’s “America first” agenda to improve the economic standing of American families.

Trump has defended his tariffs, and a previous set that was ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court, as necessary to fix years of unfair trading practices in which international partners took advantage of the U.S. However, many economists have determined that the cost of the tariffs are being passed on to U.S. consumers and contributing to the persistent inflation causing economic pain nationwide.

Trump, the White House and top officials in his administration have also defended the sharing of personal data among U.S. agencies, and from individual states to the federal government, as a commonsense way to reduce waste and fraud and to identify and remove people who are in the country illegally and consuming benefits intended for American families.

The administration has previously sought the personal data of Medicaid recipients, SNAP food assistance recipients, immigrants who have filed taxes with the Internal Revenue Service and registered voters in states across the country. All of those demands have also been challenged in court, with varying degrees of success.

Bonta’s office has now filed 82 lawsuits against the current Trump administration.

Tariff lawsuit

Trump’s latest tariffs, levies of between 10% and 12.5%, took effect late last month and apply to more than 80 countries, including some of the closest U.S. allies and largest trading partners such as Canada, Mexico and the European Union. They followed a Trump administration announcement of new 50% tariffs on many Canadian products, set to go into effect this month.

“Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the president’s failed and illegal economic policy — no matter how much the president wants them to,” Bonta said in announcing the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Two previous attempts by the Trump administration to unilaterally levy tariffs on trading partners were rejected by the courts in the face of similar legal challenges by California and other states. In February, the Supreme Court rejected a sweeping slate of tariffs Trump had imposed on an emergency basis. In May, the Court of International Trade turned back another set.

The Trump administration has said the president’s latest tariffs are authorized by a separate law not considered in the previous litigation — one related to combating forced labor in global trade.

The states’ lawsuit argued that the reliance on labor law was simply a “guise” used by Trump to impose new tariffs, and that “there is no rational fit between the purported problem of forced labor in international supply chains and the blanket global tariffs” imposed.

Bonta brought the case alongside the attorneys general or governors of 24 other states.

Data-sharing lawsuit

California joined a similar coalition of Democrat-led states to file a lawsuit challenging the sharing of needy families’ data, in federal court in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit challenges a notice the Trump administration issued last month announcing the Administration of Children and Families would begin sharing the personal information of recipients in the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to outside agencies — including with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other immigration enforcement units.

A spokesperson for the Administration for Children and Families said it does not comment on ongoing litigation.

The program provides $16 billion in grants annually to the states, which use it to provide cash assistance to low-income families. Some 350,000 families in California receive support through the program each month, Bonta’s office said.

Bonta said the sharing of program data with Homeland Security would be a clear violation of the law establishing the fund.

“The Trump Administration is exploiting a program designed to ensure children do not go hungry and to help needy families get back on their feet in order to fuel its mass surveillance effort. It’s cruel, unnecessary, and illegal,” Bonta said in a statement.

During a morning news conference, Bonta said one of his concerns is that immigration officials will use data to target the undocumented parents of U.S. citizen children who are legitimately receiving assistance through the program.

“They’re seeking Social Security information, marital status, income information,” he said. “We think that they might be interested in that information to potentially target parents.”

He said he also believes the data sharing is part of a much broader effort by the Trump administration to gather up as much data as possible in order to target individuals who do not conform with the administration’s political agenda, including on immigration policy and on issues such as abortion and gender-affirming care.

“While the Trump Administration continues to break the law in order to amass an ever-greater trove of people’s personal information, we’ll continue stepping in to protect the privacy of our people,” Bonta said.

The lawsuit is just the latest in a much broader legal war over the Trump administration’s drive to force all kinds of federal and state social services and financial programs to share the personal data of benefit recipients and other program users.

California is fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from sharing personal data of Medicaid recipients with Homeland Security, though some of that data have already been shared.

California is also fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over the personal data of millions of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, recipients. The demand came with a threat from USDA that it would cut off funding to states that don’t comply. Courts have blocked the suspension of funds, but some data have been shared.

Immigrant rights groups, including Los Angeles-based Inclusive Action for the City, are also suing to block a Trump administration plan to share IRS taxpayer data with Homeland Security. The Trump administration has said the data sharing would be used to target only criminals, but immigrant rights advocates have denounced it as an attempt to do just the opposite — to target immigrants who have been in the country and paid taxes for years.

WASHINGTON  — California and 22 other Democratic-led states urged the Supreme Court on Monday to block President Trump’s plan to take control of voting by mail through the U.S. Postal Service.

They said it is too late in the election year to impose a new set of regulations for mail ballots.

Doing so, they said, would lead to mistakes, including eligible and registered voters being told they are not on the federal government’s approved list.

“Because of the high risk of errors and the limited window for correcting mistakes, many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas — would likely be denied mail ballots and disenfranchised,” they told the court.

More broadly, they argued that the Constitution “entrusted the states and Congress — not the president — with the responsibility to set rules for federal elections.”

The justices are likely to act in a few days on whether to allow the Trump administration‘s plan to proceed pending the adoption of new and detailed guidelines.

Last week, Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court contending judges in Boston moved too quickly to halt the administration’s new federal restrictions on voting by mail.

He argued judges should stand back for now, even though the midterm elections are only three months away.

Trump’s executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to use state-by-state lists of eligible voters who may send a ballot by mail.

Until now, states have had the constitutional authority to register voters for federal and state elections. And nearly a third of Americans now vote by mail.

Trump, however, has insisted that voting by mail leads to fraud, including by allowing noncitizens to vote.

Congress has refused to adopt new voting restrictions at Trump’s behest.

Instead, he issued an executive order on March 31 to enlist the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections.”

The order called on Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote. And it told the postal service that it must use those lists to restrict who may vote by mail.

“The USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list,” the order said.

But a federal judge and the 1st Circuit Court in Boston ruled Trump’s new regulations may not be enforced this year, at least in the 23 Democratic-led states which sued.

On Monday, they told the court that USPS delivered nearly 100 million mail ballots to or from voters in 2024, with roughly 30% of all voters nationwide casting ballots by mail.

July 31 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday turned down a request by Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, xAI, to block a Minnesota law banning nudification technology.

Minnesota in May became the first state in the nation to pass legislation banning the practice of using AI to digitally remove clothing from a pictured individual.

xAI, which develops the chatbot and image generator Grok, filed the suit over the ban Tuesday.

“The court respectfully denies the request for a temporary restraining order before tomorrow,” U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank ruled on Friday. “xAI filed the motion on July 29, 2026, nearly three months after the law was signed, and only three days before the law is set to take effect.

“Such a delay in bringing the action and the motion suggests that harm is not immediate.”

The federal judge set a hearing on Aug. 19 to evaluate the lawsuit.

“See you in court, creep,” Gov. Tim Walz said in a statement on X, referring to Musk.

In its lawsuit, xAI argues that the Minnesota law “imposes an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression in a clumsy attempt to prohibit ‘nudification.'”

“xAI accordingly does not contest Minnesota’s interest in prohibiting the dissemination of artificially generated nude images of real people without their consent,” the company wrote in court documents. “But the statute Minnesota enacted extends far beyond that goal, exposing a wide array of protected speech to civil liability and government sanctions.”

Minnesota’s law would apply fines of $500,000 to websites and apps providing nudification technology.

Musk’s company has faced intense scrutiny since a version of Grok, released in December, began generating thousands of sexualized images, including some that appeared to be of minors.

The company in January changed its policies, but Grok continued to generate sexualized images as late as April.

A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling that in nearly half of U.S. states halted President Trump’s executive order to create a federal list of eligible voters and limit delivery of mail ballots only to people on that list.

The ruling Saturday by judges of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s effort to move forward with the mail-in voting restrictions in 23 U.S. states that sued ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Trump issued an executive order in March for the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to create a “state citizenship list” of eligible voters. It also ordered the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on that list.

Trump has claimed the proposed changes are necessary safeguards to keep non-U.S. citizens from voting, but state election officials argued they were ripe for abuse and could cause chaos.

Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia challenged Trump’s order in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston. They argued that Trump’s order was unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the authority to set election rules.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani agreed and halted Trump’s order from being implemented for the Nov. 3 elections, but only in the states that have sued.

Trump’s executive order is part of his ongoing campaign to restrict voting access and raise doubts about the integrity of the election system before the November midterms.

The White House and the Justice Department did not immediately return an email seeking comment Sunday about the court ruling.

Bynum writes for the Associated Press.

Russian military bloggers have published what appears to be the first imagery showing the remains of a Ukrainian-operated Ruta Block 1 low-cost cruise missile following an operational strike. The weapon is another addition to an increasingly diverse arsenal that can hold targets even deep inside Russia at risk.

Photos that began circulating on Russian Telegram channels show wreckage consistent with the Dutch-produced Ruta Block 1. While the exact location and target of the strike remain unclear, the images represent the first publicly available evidence that the new long-range weapon has entered combat use.

The recovered debris includes fuselage sections, internal components, and part of the missile’s tailfin assembly. Although the imagery has not been independently verified, the remains appear consistent with the known design characteristics of the Ruta Block 1. The possibility cannot be ruled out entirely that the wreckage represents a previously undisclosed Ukrainian cruise missile design with broadly similar characteristics. Russian military bloggers claimed air defenses intercepted the missile, though that cannot currently be independently verified.

Footage purportedly showing a Ruta Block 1 missile flying toward its target has also appeared.

The Ruta Block 1 is a product of the Netherlands-based Destinus company, founded by the Russian exile Mikhail Kokorich. Earlier reporting indicated that the Block 1 was already being manufactured in the Netherlands and had been delivered to Ukraine since at least 2024.

A lot of people would be very surprised to learn how many of these Ukraine has received since at least 2025.

Also, whether or not you think it was the right call, the Dutch government has been extremely effective at keeping deliveries of these missiles, and especially their… https://t.co/3PESUlzE7U

— Fabian Hoffmann (@FRHoffmann1) July 23, 2026

Last month, then-Ukrainian Minister of Defense Mykhailo Fedorov announced that the Netherlands was paying for approximately 700 cruise missiles for Ukraine — almost certainly referring to the Ruta Block 1 — as part of a wider package worth more than $500 million.

According to the manufacturer, the Ruta Block 1 has a range of more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) and carries a payload of 150 kilograms (330 pounds).

The missile is ground-launched via a booster, then flies to its target at low altitude, using a combination of inertial, satellite, and visual navigation systems, providing resilience also in GPS-contested environments. The weapon is intended to strike high-value fixed targets and features pre-programmed terminal guidance.​

Unlike larger and more expensive cruise missiles, Ruta has been presented as a mass-producible weapon optimized for deep strikes against military infrastructure. The missile is designed around affordability and production scale, enabling Ukraine to conduct sustained long-range precision attacks while reducing reliance on scarce, more exquisite Western-supplied weapons. The Block 1 also comes with the major advantage that its turbojet engine is also manufactured by Destinus, so the company doesn’t rely on the United States for this part.

Engine No. 1000: Destinus reaches industrial-scale turbojet production in Europe

Ukraine has generally remained silent regarding operational use of many of its newest indigenous strike systems until well after they have entered service. Confirmation of the introduction of other long-range weapons often came first from Russian photographs of intercepted missiles or strike aftermath before official acknowledgment from Kyiv.

For Ukraine, the Ruta Block 1 forms part of a broader effort to diversify its expanding arsenal of deep-strike capabilities, alongside long-range drones, indigenous cruise missiles, as well as missile-drone hybrids. As production ramps up, these systems are playing an increasingly important role in sustained attacks against Russian energy infrastructure, as well as command centers, logistics hubs, airbases, ammunition depots, and defense-industrial facilities far behind the front lines. Ukraine is currently ramping up its long-range strikes on all fronts and doing major damage.

Destinus is also working on additional members of the Ruta family.

Earlier this year, the company presented the Ruta Block 2, which increases the missile’s range to over 800 kilometers (around 500 miles) and boosts its payload capacity to 250 kilograms (550 pounds).

Ruta B2 Flight Test | European Canister-Compatible Cruise Missile | Destinus

Meanwhile, the Ruta Block 3 will have a range of 2,000 kilometers (around 1,200 miles) with a 550-kilogram payload. Block 3 is expected to enter flight testing in 2027 and is also suitable for air launch.

As well as bolstering the Ukrainian arsenal, the Ruta Block 3 has relevance for European nations looking to build up their long-range conventional strike capabilities.

Ruta B3 and the Future of European Deep Strike

Russia’s extensive use of ground-launched missiles in Ukraine, along with its deployment of long-range weapons in Kaliningrad, has highlighted the deficiencies in Europe’s deep-strike capabilities as NATO seeks to strengthen conventional deterrence against Moscow. The Block 3 could be part of the answer to emerging requirements, including the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA), which involves France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and which seeks to bring new systems into service in the 2030s.

Destinus is also working to expand its production capacity, including through a joint venture with Rheinmetall that will make use of that company’s manufacturing facilities in Germany.

Overall, the Ruta series is part of a wider trend toward lower-cost, highly producible cruise missiles, something also evidenced in the United States. Examples of these include CoAspire’s Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile-Extended Range (RAACM-ER), which you can read more about here, and the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles-Beyond Adversary’s Reach (FAMM-BAR) effort, which is seeking lower-cost designs with maximum ranges of 1,000 nautical miles or more.

Whether this particular missile reached its intended target or was intercepted remains unknown. What is clear, however, is that we have the strongest evidence to date that the Ruta Block 1 has transitioned from an announced development program into an operational weapon being employed against Russian targets.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

July 13 (UPI) — The attorneys general of 12 states sued Monday to block the proposed merger of Paramount and Warner Bros., saying it would undermine competition in the entertainment industry.

A news release announcing the lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James said Paramount Skydance Corp.’s purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. “would combine two of the five major film studios and two of the five major basic cable companies, creating a massive conglomerate in markets for basic cable and theatrical film releases.”

“For over a century, Paramount and Warner Bros. have competed to create movies and television that bring people together, inspire and sustain generations of artists, and help us understand the world,” James said. “This merger would destroy that competitions, creating a massive company with unprecedented power and influence over news and entertainment across the globe.”

The release said the merger would increase costs for consumers and put jobs at risk.

The lawsuit comes one month after the Justice Department approved the planned merger, saying it doesn’t harm consumers in the United States.

Warner Bros. shareholders gave their blessing to the merger in April after Paramount offered to buy the company for $31 per share — a deal worth $110 billion.

Joining New York in the lawsuit were Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington.

Deadline reported that Paramount could threaten to leave California in retaliation for the state’s involvement in the lawsuit. California Attorney General Rob Bonta described the two companies as “behemoths” in the entertainment industry and said their merger would lead to higher prices, lower quality and less content for consumers.

“California’s film and entertainment industry touches the lives of Americans daily — it comes into the living rooms of families, has a starring role in many young people’s first dates, and is a point of immense pride and employment for Californians up and down our state,” he said in a news release.

“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices — it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and 11 other Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Monday to block Paramount Skydance’s proposed $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — a last-ditch effort to derail a deal that would transform Hollywood.

Tech scion David Ellison’s proposed merger has been hurtling toward the finish line after securing approvals from the U.S. Justice Department and numerous foreign governments. President Trump, an ally of Ellison’s billionaire father Larry Ellison, favors the deal. He is eager for a big shakeup at CNN, which is currently controlled by Warner Bros.

David Ellison now faces his biggest challenge yet as he attempts to build a new entertainment behemoth.

A Paramount representative did not immediately comment.

The suit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, alleges that the proposed merger would violate the U.S. Clayton Act, a century-old antitrust law to prevent mergers that weaken competition and increase costs for consumers.

“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices — it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences,” Bonta said in a statement.

“California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets,” he said.

California and the 11 other states, including New York, New Jersey, Washington and Colorado, allege the merger would devastate the theatrical film business by combining two historic film studio rivals. The Ellison family would control such storied franchises as Harry Potter, Bugs Bunny, Batman, “Top Gun” and “Game of Thrones.”

The proposed purchase also would unite two prominent news organizations — CNN and CBS News.

The states have asked Paramount to delay the closing of its Warner Bros. takeover until the litigation can be resolved.

If Paramount refuses, Bonta said the coalition would seek a temporary restraining order asking a judge to hold up the merger, a move that would cause costly delays and escalate legal expenses for Paramount in their quest to finalize the deal.

Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle, is bankrolling his son’s ambitions to acquire a second major entertainment company in less than a year. The Ellison family acquired control of CBS-owner Paramount in August and, at the time, David Ellison touted the move of Paramount’s headquarters from New York’s Times Square to Hollywood.

Now, Paramount is reportedly threatening to leave California in the face of Bonta’s legal action.

If the merger goes through, Paramount would own four streaming services, including Warner’s HBO Max and the dominant U.S. cable TV channel owner with HBO, TBS, HGTV, Animal Planet, Food Network, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.

The U.S. Justice Department last month approved the merger, saying the combination would likely bolster competition — not harm it. The agency’s decision had been expected because of Larry Ellison’s strong support of Trump.

In a show of confidence earlier this year, the Ellisons agreed to increase the payout to Warner investors should the regulatory approval process drag on. Those extra 25-cent-per-share payments begin with the October-December quarter, and would add more than $650 million in deal costs each quarter — giving David Ellison an increased incentive to quickly close the deal.

The proposed merger has sparked fears in Hollywood that it will bring thousands of job losses — similar to past consolidations, including Walt Disney Co.’s 2019 takeover of Fox entertainment properties.

Some theater owners, hard hit by the pandemic and production slowdowns, have expressed concerns the merger would lead to fewer films being made.

The new colossus would significantly dampen competition, Bonta and the other Democrat prosecutors argue. They pointed to the wide-release movie film distribution business, where Warner Bros. and Paramount control about 27% of the market.

After the merger just four companies — Paramount-Warner, Disney, NBCUniversal and Sony Pictures — would control 86% of the films that were widely released, Bonta said.

Paramount has said the deal will boost competition — not hamper it. Ellison has promised to continue releasing 30 films a year with a combined Warner Bros.-Paramount studio, roughly the current output of the two studios.

Ellison also vowed to protect the HBO brand.

Another concern is the licensing of basic cable TV channels, including CNN and HGTV, to pay-TV providers such as Charter’s Spectrum, DirecTV and Google’s YouTube TV. Warner Bros. is the second largest cable channel owner and Paramount is the third largest. Together their channels would represent about 27% of the market.

The typical threshold for antitrust concerns is at least 30% marketshare.

More than 5,000 entertainment industry workers, including Jane Fonda, Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston, Javier Bardem, Lin-Manuel Miranda and Mark Ruffalo, signed an open letter calling on Bonta to block the merger.

Some have expressed concerns about marrying CNN and CBS News following months of turmoil at CBS News since David Ellison hired journalist Bari Weiss as CBS News editor in chief. Last month, Weiss orchestrated a dramatic shakeup at the iconic “60 Minutes” news program, with top executives and three well-known correspondents tossed out.

The Ellison family recently shed its movie theater chain, which it picked up as part of the Paramount acquisition, to clear the way for the Warner deal.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is leading an effort by state attorneys general to block Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)

The deal also faces opposition outside the U.S.
. The British culture minister in late June said she was weighing whether to intervene in the deal due to concerns about maintaining a competitive media market. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority also has opened an investigation into Paramount’s proposed merger.

In April, a federal judge in Sacramento granted a request from Bonta and seven other attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, which freezes the merger of Nexstar Media Group, which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5, and Tegna. The deal was designed to create the nation’s largest TV outlet group .

A larger group of state attorneys general also won a New York jury verdict against Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster. Jurors found that Live Nation had illegally monopolized the live concert industry.

Bonta also has an ongoing case against Amazon for price fixing, which the company denies.

Still, legal experts say the states may face an uphill climb to detrail the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger because the arrival of Netflix, Amazon and Apple dramatically shifted the landscape.

The tech giants, which introduced consumer-friendly streaming options, have lessened the influence of traditional companies like Paramount and Warner Bros.

Paramount’s deal would mark the third time Warner has changed hands in the last decade.

AT&T bought the company in 2018 and then sold it to the smaller Discovery four years later. That deal left Warner Bros. burdened by debt, leading to deep cost cuts and setting the stage for the Ellison takeover.

On my way through Skid Row to meet up with Estela Lopez, things looked pretty much as they did when I spent time there more than 20 years ago and first heard the promises that things would be better soon.

Tents lined some of the sidewalks, making them unpassable. Some people wore the damage of physical or mental disease, addiction, poverty, or all of the above. Outreach workers with ID lanyards strode through the trash-strewn landscape like lifeguards working against endless tides of fresh emergencies.

When I arrived at Lopez’s office in the 700 block of Crocker Street, where she runs a business improvement district on behalf of 600 or so beleaguered merchants, she had just completed a tour of the neighborhood with John McKinney, a candidate for city attorney.

She held a note card in her hand and shared some numbers, telling McKinney that by her latest count, 131 of the 702 streetlights in the district were out, 27 children were living on Skid Row, and 72 RVs were parked in the area.

“I came out here because I think this symbolizes the greatest failure in government,” McKinney said. “I think it’s the result of bad law and bad policy. I think it’s the result of a lack of leadership and indifference to the way people are living out here. To me, it’s completely untenable.”

But will anything ever change?

It’s a question two people in particular need to address, and I’ll get to that in a minute.

A lot of people I trust and admire work tirelessly to make a difference on Skid Row, and they’re always eager to share the success stories of those who move through and move on. (I’ve got a column on that coming up soon.)

The long-standing problem is that Skid Row is both a social service center and a mecca of drugs and other vices, with traps on every block. And so it’s a neighborhood at war with itself, with some viewing Skid Row as one of the largest recovery centers in the country while others see a snapshot of social collapse.

Estela Lopez has reached out to me several times over the years. About illegal dumping. Typhus. Calls to City Hall that don’t get answered. About the relentless plague of fires, overdoses and assaults.

“Can you imagine, in 24 years, how many people I’ve seen dead on these streets?” Lopez asked me near her office last week.

Estela Lopez runs a business improvement district on behalf of 600 or so beleaguered merchants.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

When the local post office closed recently in part because of security issues, Lopez told The Times’ Melissa Gomez that “we have reached a point in this city where we are unable to address criminal activity. … It’s surrender.”

We walked to the corner of 8th Street, where paramedics had just pulled away from a medical emergency. Cars and pedestrians stopped at tents for brief transactions, leaving little doubt as to the nature of the business being conducted.

We passed a caged dog and saw a puppy on a short leash being loaded into a vehicle. There’s a lot of talk about dogs being bred and sold, and Lopez said she’s seen evidence of animals being mistreated.

On 7th Street we passed the charred residue of a recent fire. A half block east, four men were slumped on the sidewalk, hitting pipes. Lopez gets calls from exasperated merchants dealing with vandalism and with people blocking their storefronts.

“I’ve never seen so many people overdose right here,” said Sergio Moreno, who runs a check-cashing business and said his family has been in business going back to the ‘70s. He said he’s seen paramedics use naloxone to revive opioid users, only to see the same people go down again just days later.

“How can you run a business?” asked Moreno, who chairs the board of the business improvement district Lopez runs. “This business is our life. This is how we got through school, this is how we put our kids through school.”

And yet despite paying city taxes and BID fees, Moreno said, problems persist and his customers fear for their safety.

Dr. Susan Partovi, a street medic for 22 years, has been advocating for more proactive intervention for those in obvious distress. Partovi told me she recently saw a man rise from a gutter, pull down his pants and defecate in front of her. She called to get help for him but said neither paramedics nor police determined him to be gravely disabled.

Lopez walks past residents of Skid Row last week. By her latest count, 131 of the 702 streetlights in the district were out, 27 children were living on Skid Row, and 72 RVs were parked in the area.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“We have become complacent with having people lying in the gutter, having diarrhea, speaking nonsensically and putting their lives at risk,” said Partovi, whom I once accompanied as she administered long-acting anti-psychotic injections, arguing that people need clear heads to make better choices.

One sore point for Lopez is the Skid Row Care Campus in the 400 block of Crocker Street, which opened a little more than a year ago and offers all sorts of social services, meds that reduce drug cravings, and supplies that allow for safe use of drugs.

Lopez said she understands the theory of harm reduction: Engage people with a goal of getting them into treatment and back on track. But she wonders how successful such programs are, and argues that they become magnets for lawlessness.

As we talked, a young man approached and told Lopez he’d seen her airing her grievances on TV news.

“I’m wondering, what would be your solution?” he asked.

“I would hope that people could return to life in sobriety,” Lopez responded.

The man said he is “trying to elevate” himself, but that he’d been on a waiting list for housing for six months.

Lopez is tired of being on a waiting list, too.

“If something is working down here,” she told me, “you can’t prove it by me.”

Progress is undeniable, said Sieglinde von Deffner, a social worker and Skid Row coordinator for the Los Angeles County Department of Homeless Services and Housing. But given the “highly vulnerable” nature of the population, “the need is colossal,” she said.

A man stands among his belongings along 7th Street in Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“I have not yet met someone here who doesn’t want housing of some kind. We just don’t have enough affordable housing for everyone,” Von Deffner said, and long-term homelessness makes people harder to reach. “Now, if we could just stop the inflow.”

Dennis Culhane, a University of Pennsylvania professor who researches homelessness and served as an L.A. County consultant, said there are other ways to get people indoors than investing billions of dollars in new housing that takes years to build. Culhane said single adults who are not veterans, including the elderly and disabled, constitute a majority of the homeless population. But assistance is scarce.

“It’s like you have a famine, and you’ve only got food for 15% of the people,” Culhane said.

Rapid rehousing is critical for the newly homeless, he said. But it can take two years for them to qualify for Social Security disability, and once they do, the $1,000 a month “is completely deficient in the face of rising rents.”

Culhane recommends faster approval of SSI benefits and supplementing that income with additional sources of rental assistance. He believes there are enough vacancies at the low end of the housing market to make a sizable dent in homelessness without new construction.

Judy Mauricio, 65, who has been homeless for nine years, rests inside her tent next to her walker. She says her drug addiction has kept her on the street. She receives state disability funds and says she has cancer.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

As campaign season warms up, I’d like to know if Mayor Karen Bass and her challenger, Councilmember Nithya Raman, agree.

The mayor of L.A. is limited by a power split with the City Council, and the county oversees most addiction and mental health services. But Skid Row sits just a few blocks from the seat of city authority, and nobody has more power or responsibility to address the decades-long human catastrophe on Skid Row than the mayor.

Estela Lopez and the merchants deserve better. The people on the street deserve better. Thousands of housed residents deserve better.

Does Bass have a plan other than what’s currently in place? Does Raman have a better one?

If so, I’d like to hear the details, and I’m available.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

The Times says senior officials in the Trump administration have urged Andy Burnham not to appoint the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, as chancello, externalr – because of his opposition to further drilling in the North Sea. The paper notes that Miliband’s allies insist he is the only candidate to lead the Treasury who is radical enough to turn around the economy. The Daily Telegraph carries a warning from the City, external that Burnham risks stifling investment unless he names his chancellor soon. The i Weekend says the former Greater Manchester mayor is being urged by some Labour MPs to “introduce a wealth tax on home owners in the South”, external, by replacing council tax and stamp duty with a proportional charge based on property values.

The Daily Express reports that armed police have formed a “ring of steel” around the England football team’s hotel, external in Mexico City. The Sun says the authorities there “seem determined” to prevent a repeat of the disorder that greeted Ecuador’s World Cup squad – who were kept awake by crowds “setting off fireworks, playing drums and chanting”. The Daily Mirror quotes a Mexico fan who warns England “will get a traditional Mexican welcome”., external

The Daily Mail says the family of the late Bobby Moore have launched a High Court “crusade” to get back the red football jersey he wore, external when he led England to their 1966 World Cup victory. According to the paper, his former wife, Tina Moore, has lodged a case against a businessman she believes either “has or has had possession of the shirt, or can help her recover it.” He denies having the garment.

The Guardian has a double-page spread on Taylor Swift’s wedding to Travis Kelce., external It notes the celebration “caused the closure of 11 streets” in Midtown New York – and says that on Friday the “first class lounges of Heathrow and JFK airports were crawling with celebrities” who were on their way to to the event.

The FT Weekend reports that two World War II foes have united, external, after a German defence company bought a firm that supplied gears for Spitfires. The paper says Huddersfield-based David Brown has been purchased by Renk, which created gearboxes for tanks in Nazi Germany.

NEW YORK — They started their pro careers in Spain and now two Real Madrid prospects are taking on L.A. Baba Miller doesn’t have to look far for inspiration with Luka Doncic playing in the same city.

After admiring Doncic’s path from Real Madrid to the top of the NBA, Miller hopes to carve his own path in L.A. after the Clippers drafted the late-blooming Spanish forward 36th overall in the NBA draft on Wednesday.

The versatile big man was just 6 feet 2 when he was 14. Now standing 6-11 as a mature 22-year-old, Miller called that kid “chubby.” But once he started growing rapidly, Miller slimmed down. When he struggled to hold up against more physical players, his youth coach started playing him at the wing. The position change, along with his developing body, set the stage for his creative style of play.

As a senior at Cincinnati, Miller averaged 13 points, 10.3 rebounds, 3.7 assists and 1.2 blocks per game. He was just one of three players nationally to average at least 13 points, 10 rebounds and three assists last season. He was the first Bearcat to lead the team in points, rebounds and assists since Oscar Robertson in 1959-60.

Miller has not yet developed his three-point shooting, averaging just 29% during his college career, which began with two seasons at Florida State. His career-best for three-point shooting was 34.2% (39 for 114) during one season at Florida Atlantic.

The Clippers waited until late in the second round to get their knockdown shooter and used a trade to get the rights to Northwestern forward Nick Martinelli with the 55th pick. The Clippers got the pick from the Houston Rockets in exchange for cash, according to ESPN reports, and added the two-time Big Ten scoring champion. Averaging 23 points, 6.2 rebounds and two assists last season, Martinelli shot 51% from the field and 41.7% on threes.

The Clippers traded their 52nd pick to Atlanta for the Hawks’ No. 57 pick and cash, according to reports. After sending the rights to North Carolina’s Henri Veesaar to Atlanta, the Clippers will get French prospect Narcisse Ngoy, a 7-foot, 235-pound center who played for a second-tier team in France and figures to be a long-term project.

Nearly half of Wednesday’s second-round picks changed hands on draft day. Some, like the 56th pick that went from Chicago to the Lakers to the Dallas Mavericks, bounced around multiple times.

Nick Martinelli drives against Maryland forward Solomon Washington during a game last season.

(Nam Y. Huh / Associated Press)

Ohio State guard Bruce Thornton, one of 10 prospects who attended the second round, walked across a stage lit up in New York Knicks blue and orange and put on a Knicks cap as the 31st pick, but was told shortly before the photo opportunity with NBA deputy commissioner Mark Tatum that he would be traded. By the time he spoke with reporters at a news conference, he was wearing a bedazzled Rockets hat.

“No state tax,” Thornton said with a wide smile, “so even better.”

The Clippers already bolstered their backcourt during the draft by taking Illinois guard Keaton Wagler fifth in the first round Tuesday. Wagler is expected to pair with former All-Star guard Darius Garland, with the Clippers trying to win their first playoff series since 2021.

The Clippers added frontcourt depth during last year’s draft with Yanic Konan Niederhauser, but the 6-11 center suffered a Lisfranc injury in March and missed the end of the season. After trading starter Ivica Zubac to the Indiana Pacers midseason, helping the Clippers secure the draft pick that turned into this year’s top-five selection, the team had only 38-year-old Brook Lopez at center. The Clippers have a team option on Lopez’s $9.2-million contract.

In his meetings with the Clippers, Miller could sense that the organization was hoping to add impact role players to help take the franchise that has had 15 consecutive winning seasons over the hump to postseason glory.

“They got guys like Darius and Kawhi [Leonard] that are already established stars in the league,” Miller said. “So I feel like just coming in and trying to help the team be better is the main goal. Every team’s goal is trying to win a championship eventually, so just trying to stay the course on that and be part of that.”

Attorneys general in seventeen states are suing California over its landmark single-use plastic law, which went into effect on June 1.

The lawsuit comes after a coalition of environmental groups sued the state over the same law this month, arguing the new final regulations create loopholes so large they gut the law.

The states are led by Nebraska Atty. Gen. Mike Hilgers, and the plaintiffs include the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors. The coalition is asking the court to block enforcement of the law immediately.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country,” said Hilgers in a news release. “If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities.”

The other states in the coalition are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Eastern California in Sacramento on Monday.

State Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022. It was considered landmark legislation because it requires plastic and packaging companies to use less single-use plastic and ensure by 2032 that all food packaging is either recyclable or compostable.

Accumulating plastic waste is overwhelming waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.

The intent was not only to reduce single=use plastic, but also to put the onus and cost of dealing with it on packaging producers and manufacturers, not consumers and local governments. It was supposed to incentivize companies to consider the fate of their products and spur innovation in material redesign.

Plastic bottles of dishwashing liquid at Compton’s Market in Sacramento on June 17, 2022.

(Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed during 2023 in California.

The single-use plastic law is what is known as a producer responsibility law. It emphasizes the idea of a “circular economy” in which the producer of a material must consider its fate — making sure it can be reused or recycled, or at least reduced.

In California, all producers of single-use packaging and plastic foodware (plates, knives, spoons, etc.) join a private entity known as a producer responsibility organization. Only one such organization has been approved in California: the Circular Action Alliance.

The states and the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors say the plastic law discriminates against businesses selling into the state in two ways: by making them change or alter their plastic packaging and by conferring government authority upon the alliance, enabling a private entity to regulate and impose taxes and fees on businesses selling into California.

“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, president and chief executive of the wholesalers group, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

In addition, the attorneys general say the law suppresses their free speech by compelling companies to join and fund the speech of an organization with which they may disagree.

Hoplin and his organization filed a similar suit in Oregon in February. Oregon has a comparable single-use plastic law. A federal judge blocked enforcement of that law. A trial begins on July 13.

Heidi Sanborn, executive director and CEO of the National Stewardship Action Council, which advocates for the producer responsibility laws and a more circular economy, said in May that both SB 54 and the Oregon law are public policies that were “passed by legislatures and implemented with government oversight.”

She said the laws create clear and consistent rules so all producers contribute fairly to the cost of recycling and waste management.

Meanwhile, environmental groups are also unhappy.

On June 2, Oceana, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Californians Against Waste Foundation filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court.

They allege that the final regulations for the law, drafted and approved by the state’s waste agency, include exclusions for large categories of plastic packaging that companies could use indefinitely. In addition, they say, the regulations also allow for recycling technologies that pollute, such as chemical recycling, which the law as originally drafted forbids.

“While SB 54 remains a monumental achievement as the nation’s strongest single-use plastic reduction law, some of the final regulations implementing the statute undermine the law’s ambitions,” Christy Leavitt, Oceana’s senior campaign director, said in a statement.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Six months after President Trump warned states not to regulate artificial intelligence, they are increasingly doing just that.

Congress has stalled on producing federal regulations of artificial intelligence as states forge ahead and scrutinize how chatbots interact with children, how AI systems are used by employers and what developers must do to try to prevent an AI-caused catastrophe.

State lawmakers have stepped back from earlier, wider-ranging attempts to regulate AI that were vetoed or otherwise derailed by governors who viewed the measures as too onerous toward the industry’s development, including efforts to hold developers accountable for bias in AI systems.

But they are returning with legislation that is more targeted and, often, probes the corners of life where Americans interact with AI but may not know it.

Presidential power versus state power

Trump’s move to restrain states’ actions on AI drew criticism from members of both political parties and civil liberties and consumer rights groups who worried that banning state regulation would amount to a gift to AI giants, who enjoy little to no oversight.

Trump has made AI a top national and economic security priority, and he said that letting states clutter the regulatory playing field for an industry that’s spending trillions of dollars and driving the economy is too risky in the race with China for AI superiority.

Trump issued an executive order that directed the attorney general to create a task force to challenge state laws that are more than “minimally burdensome,” and directed the Commerce Department to draw up a list of problematic regulations. It also threatened to restrict funding from a broadband deployment program and other grant programs to states with AI laws.

The White House said it wouldn’t target state laws that seek to prevent fraud and protect consumers and children.

In the meantime, the Trump administration released a “national policy framework” in which it urged Congress to preempt state AI laws that are out of step with its regulatory worldview and to pass legislation to protect children, intellectual property rights and free speech. A recent bipartisan draft proposal in the House was met with withering criticism from key Democrats and Republicans.

The White House has given no indication that it has made good on its threat to enforce the president’s executive order by going to court against a state’s AI law or withholding money. In a statement, it said the Trump administration is “eager to work with partners” to enact its policy framework.

States seem largely unrestrained by Trump

Trump’s executive order didn’t seem to discourage states from trying to regulate how AI is used. More bills have been introduced this year than last, including by Republicans, said Justine Gluck, policy director of the Future of Privacy Forum, a nonprofit that advocates for data privacy in technology and whose members are from industry, academia and civic groups.

In Illinois, legislation on the desk of Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker piggybacked on elements of laws passed last year in California and New York that require developers of large advanced AI models to create protocols to prevent their systems from causing catastrophes such as a biological weapons attack, power outage or large-scale hack.

Illinois added a requirement that AI developers must get an independent auditor to review whether they are complying with their own policies. Analysts see it as a step toward requiring AI developers to take greater accountability for their products.

The bill’s sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Mary Edly-Allen, brushed aside Trump’s threat.

“I don’t know if you’ve met Illinois, but we’re pretty independent,” Edly-Allen told the Associated Press.

The bill drew nearly unanimous support, signaling a willingness by members of Trump’s party to cooperate with Democrats in filling the AI regulatory vacuum left by the federal government.

This kind of legislation is expected to expand to other states.

Regulating chatbots, especially for children

A growing number of states are imposing restrictions on how AI chatbots can interact with people, especially children. A mix of Republican- and Democratic-led states have passed such laws this year, including Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska and Oregon.

In many cases, states want companies to tell people when they are interacting with AI instead of a human. Many want chatbots to be restricted in how they interact with minors, parents to have control over their child’s access, and data given to chatbots to be kept private.

In recent weeks, Connecticut enacted provisions for companion chatbots that sustain an ongoing relationship with a human. Under them, a chatbot must not be able to interact with someone under 18 unless it is programmed against encouraging self-destructive behavior and provides parents with tools to manage the child’s use.

Transparency in AI and decision-making

In California, lawmakers are advancing the “No Robo Bosses Act of 2026” to prohibit employers from relying solely on AI to fire or discipline workers, and an expansion of how the state regulates AI chatbots, including banning chatbot outputs to children from being used for advertising.

Colorado in May required companies that deploy AI systems in important areas such as employment, education, housing or banking to tell people when AI is being used to influence a decision made about them.

It was a stab at regulating what researchers say is the bias inherent in AI systems that sort through a consumer’s data and render consequential decisions — including who gets hired, a home loan or medical care. But it watered down a 2024 law aimed at preventing AI’s penchant to discriminate, amid pressure from Democratic Gov. Jared Polis.

In Connecticut, lawmakers required employers who are using employment-related AI systems to tell employees or job applicants that they are interacting with AI.

Meanwhile, Connecticut, Washington and Utah required AI developers to embed data into digital content that will allow users to determine whether the content — such as photos or video — has been created or altered by AI.

More laws are possible this year.

Some Republican-led states hold back

In Florida, the state House refused to advance what Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis called his AI “Bill of Rights” legislation. It included provisions to give parents control over their children’s access to companion chatbots and to require companies that use chatbots to tell consumers when they are interacting with AI instead of a human.

Florida House Speaker Daniel Perez, a Republican, said Trump had made it clear that the federal government should be in charge of AI regulation. DeSantis panned that idea, noting that the federal government isn’t acting.

In Utah, progress stalled on legislation modeled on laws in New York and California after the White House sent a one-sentence memo to lawmakers there to warn that it was “categorically opposed” to the bill.

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

A federal judge on Friday rejected former President Biden’s attempt to block the Trump administration from releasing to a conservative group the recordings that Biden made with a ghostwriter.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich found that the public interest in the material outweighed whatever privacy rights Biden had.

The recordings were obtained by special counsel Robert Hur in the course of his investigation into whether Biden improperly retained classified documents while a senator and vice president. Republicans in Congress demanded them after Hur declined to file charges against the then-president.

Biden’s Democratic administration refused to turn over the 2017 recordings and transcripts, leading congressional Republicans to hold his attorney general, Merrick Garland, in contempt.

President Trump’s Department of Justice authorized the release of the materials. That led Biden last month to sue to seek to block the release to a staffer at the conservative Heritage Foundation who had formally requested the records.

Biden objected to the release as an invasion of privacy, saying the recordings included him discussing sensitive personal matters such as the death of his older son, Beau Biden. But Friedrich found that the administration redacted that material.

The judge wrote that the materials “contain no mention of highly sensitive topics like illness or death, nor do they mention any non-public persons, including members of Biden’s family.”

Representatives for Biden did not immediately comment but asked Friedrich to bar release of the material while they appeal her decision. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Friedrich was nominated by Trump, a Republican, in 2017.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

June 12 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday extended an order to indefinitely block President Donald Trump‘s $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund because she does not trust the administration’s word that it will not attempt to enact it.

The fund was announced last month and meant to compensate people the Trump administration alleged were targeted by the Biden administration, including people who were convicted for their actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia in her ruling blocked Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr., and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent from taking “any action to create or operate” the fund and that they not proceed with the concept “in any manner, or under any name.”

Brinkema’s ruling builds atop one from Washington, D.C., Judge Richard Leon that they do not believe the administration will not attempt to distribute money in the scheme.

Both judges indicated that they do not believe that the Department of Justice will back off from the plan because no officials from the agency have said they would do so while sworn in and under penalty of perjury.

“When the President of the United States says” that he wants something, referring to Trump, Brinkema said “that’s a pretty good indicator there will be an incentive and motive to make it happen,” CNN reported.

Even with the fund having been on hold for the last week, at least one person already has attempted to file a claim, to which the federal court responded that it is “not accepting applications”

Cameron Brink said she’d appreciate some grace. She really would.

Sparks fans should give her some, because where else is she going to get it?

Certainly not from WNBA refs. Not from opponents with more to play for than ever. Certainly not from the game itself; basketball moves fast, and a bummer can become a bust in a blink.

But Brink, 24, is not on the brink of bust territory, no. Block that thought. Technically, it’s Year 3, but after a torn ACL derailed her as a rookie two summers ago, it’s practically like Year 2 for the former Stanford star. And by design, the WNBA is testing her confidence, her decision-making and her patience as she tries to reestablish herself as one of the WNBA’s best young players.

So, grace.

The recognizable 6-foot-4 forward — she’s the long-blond-haired hooper in the New Balance ads — was the No. 2 overall pick in 2024.

Now she’s her team’s No. 3 option in the post. She’s coming off the bench behind Nneka Ogwumike and Dearica Hamby for the Sparks, who are a modest 6-6 after wins this week over the expansion Portland Fire and the struggling Seattle Storm.

Against the Fire, Brink scored two points and picked up four fouls in nine minutes. Then she went to Seattle and had 15 points in 18 minutes but was pulled with more than five minutes left in the fourth quarter after getting her third, fourth and fifth fouls in 86 seconds. (WNBA players get six fouls before being disqualified.)

For the season, Brink has been called for 49 fouls in 208 minutes. A foul about every four minutes!

They’re silly fouls and they’re phantom calls. Egregious and ticky-tack. Costly and common. A real fouled-up buffet. She sets screens that get scrutinized as if by the most vigilant TSA agent. And sometimes, yes, she’s doing the accidental tripping. Other times, the officials are.

Her reputation precedes her, so everyone gets a superstar’s whistle when being defended by Brink. Opponents bake it into their game plans.

That can’t continue.

All that fouling is hindering Brink’s development because it’s robbing her of important in-game reps — which she needs, foremost, to figure out how to stop fouling.

Sparks forward Cameron Brink, left, blocks the shot of the Tempo’s Laura Juskaite during a game last month.

(Jeff Lewis / Associated Press)

“At the pro level,” said Tara VanDerveer, Brink’s coach at Stanford, “every young player always has a lot of work to do. And I saw her make a three. I see her block shots. She rebounds, she can handle the ball, she’s unselfish, she’s a terrific talent. But there’s always things players need to work on.”

We know what Brink’s thing is.

“She has to be disciplined,” VanDerveer said. “And if you want something so badly, if you want to be an All-Star someday or make the Olympic team, you’ve got to be dependable … and I think anyone can change, if it’s behavior they recognize is not in their best interests or not in their team’s best interests. It’s hard, but it’s something I think people can do.

“That’s what Cam is working on.”

And, VanDerveer added, “I’m really so excited that Nneka is there, because she will give her such great guidance and mentorship.”

And grace. Brink is getting that from Ogwumike — also a former Stanford star, the Sparks legend returned to L.A. this season after two seasons in Seattle — and her other teammates.

“I just do my best to lead by example,” Ogwumike, 35, said. “But then also let [Brink] know that she’s very capable, that she’s more than capable, which is exactly why she’s here with us and it’s exactly why we need her on this team.”

Sparks forward Cameron Brink, wearing a facemask, controls the ball while defended by Sun forward Raegan Beers.

(Joe Buglewicz / Getty Images)

But how long will Brink get grace from the Sparks in the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately business of basketball?

The foul trouble tells us why a win-now team wouldn’t trust her, why the Sparks would give meaningful minutes to two veteran post players ahead of her. Why they wouldn’t prioritize Brink’s development alongside winning as they strive to snap a previously unthinkable five-year playoff drought.

And what about fans? How patient will you all be with a player who was drafted immediately after Caitlin Clark and five spots in front of Angel Reese?

These days, that might depend on what the parlay calls for.

Or, preferably, whether you remember Brink’s first 15 WNBA games. All starts, all signs pointing to stardom. She showed up in 2024 throwing lavish block parties. Her 2.3 blocks per game were message-sending spikes, like what Lisa Leslie used to enthrall Sparks crowds with.

From the jump, she had guys coming to games at Crypto.com Arena wearing her No. 22 jersey and little girls arriving in groups with No. 22 painted on their cheeks and “I love Cam Brink” signs in hand.

And then the torn ACL cost her 25 games of her rookie season and another 25 last season, plus her spot on the United States’ Olympic 3×3 women’s basketball team in Paris in 2024.

She had to start over. Lost a lot of ground. But you see that masked woman stuck on the Sparks’ bench for all but 17 minutes per game?

You can’t miss her. She’s looking uncomfortable in protective facial gear that either hinders her breathing or her peripheral vision, her only options to protect the torn septum she suffered in a victory over the Las Vegas Aces last month.

She’s the one with the 6-8 wingspan who’s averaging 9.2 points, 4.3 rebounds and 1.5 blocks while shooting 52.1% from the field in her limited minutes.

She’s still Cameron Brink. Between fouls, she’s fluid and fast and covers more of the court than almost anyone in the WNBA, able to leap from defending guards to centers in a single bound.

“It’s just looking at every day as a new opportunity to learn and grow and not getting too bogged down when things don’t go exactly as you planned,” Brink told me. “Because more times than not, things are not going to go how you want them to. And that’s life. So I just want to be able to put my best effort out there every single night.

She knows what the Sparks need from her: “To perform, just come on the floor and compete.”

To prove she can stay on the floor to compete.

Justice Department had walked back controversial plan after meeting backlash from lawmakers and lawsuits.

A federal judge in the United States has indefinitely blocked the Trump administration from moving forward with plans for a $1.8bn “anti-weaponisation” fund, meant to offer payments to those who experienced alleged “lawfare” and “weaponisation” of the government.

The ruling on Friday represents another setback for the scheme, which has faced heavy resistance from lawmakers and has been walked back by the Department of Justice previously.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had issued a temporary halt to the fund last week and issued a preliminary injunction as it was set to expire on Friday.

The fund was the product of a settlement between Trump and the Justice Department of a $10bn lawsuit the president had brought against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The Justice Department set up a $1.776bn fund that would have been helmed by a five-member commission to distribute funds to those they deemed victims of “weaponisation”, a term that Trump has used to describe investigations and criminal cases into himself and his allies.

Attorney General Todd Blanche walked back the plans earlier this month amid growing criticism, and government attorneys have argued that lawsuits challenging the scheme are now irrelevant.

Even before the administration announced it was dropping the fund, the Justice Department did not form the five-member commission to decide on payout criteria, so no money was paid out or claims accepted.

Many of the Republican president’s allies are opposed to compensating rioters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. In May, however, Blanche would not rule out the possibility that Capitol rioters who engaged in violence could be eligible to apply for payments from the fund.

Trump issued mass pardons to Capitol rioters on his first day back in the White House last year. More than 1,500 people were charged in the January 6 attack before Trump erased every case with his sweeping act of clemency.

Plaintiffs who sued to block the plan argued that the scheme diverted taxpayer funds into what was essentially a slush fund and have expressed doubt about Blanche’s assurances that the fund will not move forward.

While the administration has moved away from the scheme, Trump himself has not endorsed its cancellation and has continued to discuss it positively in comments to the press.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge agreed on Friday to extend a court-ordered block on the Trump administration’s creation and operation of a $1.8 billion settlement fund for compensating people who claim to be victims of a weaponized government.

Earlier this month, acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche told Congress that the government is scrapping its plans for the fund in the face of a fierce bipartisan backlash. Government attorneys have argued that lawsuits challenging the fund are now moot, but plaintiffs’ attorneys aren’t satisfied by Blanche’s assurances that the fund won’t move forward.

Neither was U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who ruled that the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” will remain blocked until further notice from the court.

“The (government’s) mootness argument, in my view, doesn’t go anywhere,” the judge said.

President Trump, meanwhile, has not publicly and unequivocally endorsed its cancellation. He has continued to express support for the fund in remarks to reporters.

Brinkema gave the parties a week to negotiate an agreement for Blanche to submit a sworn declaration that the administration won’t revive the fund.

Brinkema previously agreed to temporarily block the administration from proceeding with the fund for at least two weeks. Her May 29 order was due to expire on Friday.

Trump’s Republican administration created the fund to resolve his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

Plaintiffs who sued to block fund payouts argue that the government can’t legally divert taxpayer money into what they argue is a slush fund for compensating Trump’s allies.

In a separate case on Wednesday, a different judge in Washington, D.C., rejected a government watchdog’s parallel request for a court order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from forging ahead with the fund. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said he accepts Blanche’s representation that the fund is now moot.

Leon had asked Justice Department attorney Andrew Block why Blanche doesn’t formally rescind his May 18 order establishing the fund. Block said he didn’t know. He still didn’t have an answer to that question when Brinkema posed it two days later.

“It’s a huge gap in the record that we don’t have an answer to that question,” the judge said.

In the Virginia case, attorneys from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward asked for an order to temporarily suspend the fund’s implementation and stop the Trump administration from disbursing any payouts from it.

The plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest.

Even before the administration said it was dropping the fund, the Justice Department did not form the five-member commission that would decide on payout criteria, so no money was paid out nor claims accepted.

Many of the Republican president’s allies are opposed to compensating rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In May, however, Blanche wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Capitol rioters who engaged could be eligible to apply for payments from the fund.

Trump issued mass pardons to Capitol rioters on his first day back in the White House last year. More than 1,500 people were charged in the Jan. 6 attack before Trump erased every case with his sweeping act of clemency.

Brinkema was nominated to the bench by President Clinton, a Democrat.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

The 52 clubs involved have outlined in the letter an agenda they hope to discuss at the meeting with the FA.

Among the issues they raise are:

The letter asks that the FA is bound by a notice period to agree the meeting and confirm an agenda, which is believed to be between seven and 14 working days.

Anthony Shaw, operations manager at Hashtag United FC, pulled the 52 clubs together and signed the letter on their behalf.

All clubs were listed. Among them were Middlesbrough, Derby County, Halifax, Doncaster Belles and Hull City.

Former Women’s National League chair Carol West has strongly opposed the proposals, writing on social media: “The damage being done here should not be underestimated. I can’t quite believe it’s being allowed to happen.

“The overriding issue with all of this is that the vast majority of clubs do not want PGA (Professional Game Academy) teams in their league but have repeatedly been denied their democratic right to vote to formalise this once and for all.

“Instead, they’ve been told it’s happening regardless which isn’t right.”

The Angels flipped the script on the Dodgers, preventing a Freeway Series season sweep with a 13-5 win Sunday afternoon at Dodger Stadium.

Emmet Sheehan’s start only lasted 1 ⅓ innings, as he struggled to keep his pitch count low. He threw 35 of his 49 pitches in the second inning alone. Many of those went to Nick Madrigal, who battled Sheehan in a 14-pitch at-bat in which Madrigal won two ABS challenges.

“I thought the stuff was good coming in,” said manager Dave Roberts about Sheehan. “After the first inning, I just didn’t feel comfortable getting him past the 40-pitch mark in one inning. I’m not going to put this guy in harm’s way.”

The Angels third baseman drew a walk, marking the beginning of the end for Sheehan, who already allowed a single. The 26-year-old pitcher loaded the bases with another walk. Angels catcher Sebastián Rivero drove in two runs with a center-field single.

“Frustrating,” Sheehan called his outing. “Couldn’t put guys away, not efficient.”

The game shifted into an unexpected bullpen game, and the Dodgers shuffled through seven pitchers. Edgardo Henriquez retired five consecutive batters. But the Dodgers’ spiral continued. Jo Adell reached first after a ball deflected off the glove of Miguel Rojas. Adell then moved to second on a passed ball by catcher Dalton Rushing. Reliever Blake Treinen then gave up a walk and before Rivero hit another two-run single.

Madrigal beat the Dodgers (42-24) in another double-digit pitch plate appearance in the fifth. Home plate umpire Dan Iassogna called a third strike, but Madrigal argued with the umpire, emphatically slapping his head. After an ABS review, the pitch was determined to be a ball. Rushing, seemingly not pleased with a borderline check-swing call, argued with Iassogna. In the end, a 12-pitch at-bat resulted in another walk.

Coupled with a missed call for a walk on a foul-tip earlier in the game, the check-swing call added to a frustrating afternoon for the Dodgers.

“It should be reviewable,” Roberts said of the foul tip. “That changed the game, and obviously the Madrigal check-swing. I felt that he went. That did impact the game.”

Dodgers manager Dave Roberts walks on the field during the seventh inning Sunday against the Angels.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Roberts replaced Alex Vesia with Jonathan Hernández, who gave up a two-run single to Jose Siri. Miguel Rojas threw out Madrigal at home on the hit to limit the damage.

In the third inning, Kyle Tucker drove in a run on a groundout that landed a foot away from home plate, but it gave Shohei Ohtani just enough time to sprint home after Rivero threw to first.

Still, the Dodgers, who had outscored the Angels 41-5 in games this season before Sunday, struggled. Twice, Rushing hit singles. Twice, Ryan Ward, the next batter, grounded into a double play, dashing any momentum. Rushing and Ward hit back-to-back home runs to right field in the sixth, but the Dodgers couldn’t capitalize on the momentum.

Rushing received more playing time than predicted this series, but he said he embraced the opportunity. He matched his career-high with four hits on Sunday. His home run was his first since April 20.

“This year, my whole goal was make sure if there’s an opportunity that I can pick a day that Will [Smith] needs rest, make sure that I can provide just as much as he does with the bat as well as behind the plate,” Rushing said Saturday. “He knows I’ll catch every game if he can’t go back there.”

Catcher Will Smith did not play Sunday because of neck stiffness, despite Roberts predicting the catcher would return for the series finale. Imaging on Smith’s neck came back negative, though it’s unclear if he’ll play Tuesday against Pittsburgh.

“It’s not anything serious, but it’s something that is preventing him from playing,” Roberts said. “It’s kind of a day-to-day thing.”

Rushing’s and Ward’s home runs were quickly negated when Adell hit a two-run homer to left-center field. Zach Neto also hammered a seventh-inning, three-run home run. By the time the game concluded, the bottom of the Angels lineup batted 13 for 15, walking four times. The Angels (25-41) could’ve scored more if not for Neto and Mike Trout, who hit a combined one for 12.

“The bottom half of the order, they were fouling off a lot of balls, we couldn’t put those guys out,” Roberts said. “But, yeah, the Madrigal at-bat really was a difference today.”

Glasnow talks about his injury

Dodgers starting pitcher Tyler Glasnow (back spasms), who was put on the 60-day injured list Saturday, attributed his slow recovery to trying to come back too soon. He plans to rest a few days before building back up.

“It’s uncomfortable,” Glasnow said. “When I get into my load, something feels weird. The more I go, the more it starts to aggravate it. Generally, before I start to throw, as long as it’s completely gone, it gets over the hump, it’s gone, and then I can get back to full speed. I just feel like I haven’t gotten there yet.”

June 5 (Asia Today) — Protesters who had blocked a polling station in Seoul’s Songpa district for two nights and three days moved Friday to a vote-counting center, demanding a new election after ballot shortages disrupted voting in the June 3 local elections.

The ballot boxes from the No. 2 polling station in Jamsil 7-dong were transferred and counted after about 1,000 police officers were deployed. But protesters said they could not accept the result and effectively occupied the entrance area of the counting center, calling for a revote.

About 300 people, including citizens and conservative YouTubers, gathered near the entrance of the Olympic Park handball arena, according to an unofficial police estimate.

Even after the counting was completed, protesters chanted slogans including “revote” and “invalidate the vote.” Some protesters have alleged election fraud, but election authorities have attributed the disruption to a shortage of ballot papers during voting.

The atmosphere grew tense as access for election workers and arena employees was effectively blocked. Some arena employees who tried to leave were reportedly stopped by protesters and remained inside.

Police continued to guard the area around the arena after the vote count ended. Officials at the scene were considering sending election commission workers home first and removing vote-counting materials separately.

The protest followed a broader ballot shortage controversy in South Korea’s local elections. The National Election Commission said ballot shortages occurred at 50 polling stations nationwide and temporarily halted voting at 22 sites. The disruption drew public criticism and led the commission’s chairman, Roh Tae-ak, to announce his resignation Friday.

Earlier, protesters blocked the removal of ballot boxes from Jamsil 7-dong’s No. 2 polling station after a ballot shortage left voters waiting for hours. Police later escorted officials to retrieve the remaining ballot boxes, and the final count ended Friday afternoon.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260605010001909

The state of California is leading an effort to prepare a possible lawsuit that could thwart Paramount Skydance Corp.’s planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, a potential obstacle for the $111 billion deal.

The lawsuit, which could be filed as early as this month, would likely involve multiple states, according to a source familiar with the deliberations who was not authorized to comment publicly.

The litigation would seek to challenge the proposed merger on antitrust grounds, arguing it would thwart competition, lower wages and lead to widespread job losses.

“The Paramount acquisition of Warner Brothers remains an active investigation, and we do not have any updates to share at this time,” said California Atty. General Rob Bonta’s office in a statement.

In a statement, Paramount said it “will continue to fight against any attempt to derail a deal that plainly benefits consumers, creators and the industry as whole.”

“Opposing this deal means opposing expanded consumer choice, new opportunities for creators and workers, and greater competition throughout the creative ecosystem — the opposite of what antitrust law is meant to achieve,” the company added.

Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders in April approved the sale of the company to Paramount after Netflix dropped out of the auction.

Under Paramount Chairman David Ellison’s proposal, Warner investors would receive $31 a share, nearly four times the price of the company’s stock in April 2025. He also said he will keep both studios’ release schedules of 15 movies a year for a total of 30 films a year.

Nonetheless, Ellison and his team have vowed to make $6 billion in cuts following the merger, which requires regulatory approval. The combined company would have to contend with $79 billion in deal debt.

The prospect of substantial job cuts during a period of downsizing in Hollywood has ignited widespread opposition to the sale.

Thousands of people who work in the TV and film industry, including actor Joaquin Phoenix and director-writer-producer JJ Abrams signed an open letter opposing Paramount’s planned acquisition of WBD, saying it would lead to fewer production jobs and fewer choices for consumers. Others have also raised concerns about the impact it could have on content.

“The consequences would be felt nationwide, from destroying CNN the way that Ellisons have devastated CBS to entertainment industry job losses and consumers losing access to independent voices and a competitive market,” said Norm Eisen, executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, one of the groups that organized the open letter. “State attorneys general have both the authority and the responsibility to act when a transaction of this scale directly threatens the public’s interest, and I hope states across the country will join any effort to challenge this deal,” Eisen said in a statement.

The potential lawsuit, first reported by Bloomberg and Reuters, is being considered by other states, including New York and Colorado.

“Paramount and Warner Bros. haven’t cleared regulatory scrutiny,” Bonta told The Times in March. “My office has an open investigation into [the deal] and we intend to be vigorous in our review.”

Despite the potential obstacle, Raymond James equity analysts said in a note on Thursday that they “still believe the deal is likely to close.”

Last month, Paramount hired antitrust attorney Jeffrey Kessler to defend its planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. Kessler recently led a case for state attorney generals against concert promoter and ticketing firm Live Nation, resulting in a win for states, including California.

“We also think there are win/win solutions to be had particularly in California given exodus of production from CA in recent years and efforts to bring production back to Hollywood,” the analyst said in their note.