US State Department Spokesman Tommy Pigott says President Donald Trump ‘holds all of the cards’ in talks with Tehran. Officials from both countries met with mediators on the UNGA sidelines, but so far, there is no deal.
Published On 26 Sep 202626 Sep 2026
Share
To attract patrons, the Los Angeles County Library turned to some of the most familiar faces on earth: Hello Kitty and her friends.
The bet seemed to be paying off Friday, as thousands of adults flocked to local branches to snag library cards featuring the adorable anthropomorphic gang on launch day.
The county’s library director, Skye Patrick, told The Times Thursday evening that they were bracing for “complete mayhem.”
A library spokesperson said they were still tallying the number of card sign-ups, but at least 4,400 had been issued as of Friday afternoon.
One of them went to Mar Vista resident Sisa Salazar.
“I thought it was super cute,” the 22-year-old said as she waited in line at the Marina del Rey branch Friday afternoon.
The florist used to frequent the library in high school, checking out books and watching shows. But she lost her card in recent years.
So when she came across the special Hello Kitty-themed card on Instagram, she took the opportunity to get a replacement.
Shortly after 2 p.m. Friday, the line for Hello Kitty library cards at the Marina del Rey branch stretched out the door.
(Iris Kwok / Los Angeles Times)
The Marina del Rey library remained busy throughout the afternoon, with a steady line of more than 50 people stretching out the door. Across town, dozens of people lined up outside the South Whittier Library before its 10 a.m. opening, hoping to be among the first to snag the card.
The West Hollywood, Carson, West Covina, La Mirada, Marina del Rey and Alondra branches ran out of cards on the first day, library spokesperson Jessica Lee wrote in an email. She noted the cards can still be found at other locations and roving bookmobiles.
In addition to Hello Kitty, the card depicts several other recognizable characters produced by the Japanese company Sanrio: My Melody, Kuromi, Pompompurin, Keroppi, Cinnamoroll, Chococat and Pochacco.
Many people in line in Marina del Rey chatted about their favorite Sanrio characters and exchanged childhood memories.
Playa del Rey resident Rebecca Leach, 43, already has an L.A. County Library card, which she often uses to read e-books on the Libby app.
Playa del Rey resident Rebecca Leach said she wanted to get the Hello Kitty library card because she grew up with the character and finds it nostalgic.
(Iris Kwok / Los Angeles Times)
But for the registered nurse, who dons a Hello Kitty badge reel at work, nostalgia was part of the card’s appeal. She has fond childhood memories of playing with a color-changing Hello Kitty plush toy. Leach visited several branches Friday before finding a manageable line in Marina del Rey.
“I think it’s great that they’re promoting the library more and doing outreach,” said Jolyne Jimenez, 51, a library assistant at the Santa Monica Public Library and fan of My Melody.
She spent her day off at the Marina del Rey library waiting for the card. (The Santa Monica Public Library is independent of the L.A. County Library system.)
Limited-edition library cards aren’t new in L.A. County. Previous popular designs have included cards commemorating the centennial of the 19th Amendment and the FIFA World Cup, Patrick said.
“What is uncommon is this amount of buzz,” Patrick said, adding that she hoped the heavy interest in the card would translate to increased awareness of the library’s offerings — not just books and e-books, but streaming content, household tools, musical instruments and podcast equipment.
The Hello Kitty card is available through Oct. 18, Patrick said. The library has permission to use Sanrio’s characters for one month for free and plans to restock the cards before the collaboration period ends.
California and other Democratic-led states and localities filed a pair of lawsuits Monday challenging new Trump administration rules giving immigration officials more power to deny green cards to applicants whose families have relied on public assistance programs in the past.
The challenge mirrors another by a similar coalition that successfully halted such changes during the first Trump administration.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office is helping lead the states’ challenge, said the rule changes seek to “rewrite more than 100 years of law” by making even brief use of public benefits in years past grounds for the federal government to deny a person’s application for legal permanent residency in the future — which he said was clearly illegal and would push tremendous costs onto states, counties and cities.
“No family should have to choose between accessing healthcare and nutrition assistance today — or protecting their pathway to a green card tomorrow,” Bonta said. “We’re going to court on behalf of the millions of immigrants who call this state home — and we will fight to get this unlawful rule undone.”
San Francisco City Atty. David Chiu, whose office is helping lead a separate challenge from Democratic-led cities and counties, said in a statement that the new Trump administration policies are “a blatant attempt to sow fear and confusion in our immigrant communities and coerce people into withdrawing from critical government services” — which he also said would shift millions in costs to local governments.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which promulgated the new rules, said the lawsuits were proof that immigrants are unlawfully tapping into benefits programs intended for U.S. citizens.
“Sanctuary states are terrified they will lose federal funds because hundreds of thousands of illegals and noncitizens might remove themselves from American welfare programs,” the spokesperson said. “This is the ideological contortion required by left-wing leaders to justify their defrauding of the American taxpayer at the hands of illegal criminals.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
President Trump won office on a promise to rein in illegal immigration. Since taking office, his administration has launched a mass crackdown that has targeted both undocumented and documented immigrants. It has done so in part by targeting federal and state programs that offer immigrant assistance — which Trump has derided as diverting resources away from U.S. citizens.
In their lawsuit, the states acknowledge that federal law enacted by Congress in 1882 allows the U.S. to deny noncitizens entry to the country if they would be a “public charge,” or someone who is unable to support themselves and must rely on the government for assistance.
However, the states argue that Congress, the courts and federal government agencies have for “over 140 years” understood the term “public charge” to mean a person “who has become, or is likely to become, primarily dependent on the government for long-term subsistence” — not someone who has ever taken public assistance of any kind in the past, even in the short term.
And yet, the new policy promulgated by Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services gives immigration officers “unprecedented, sweeping new discretion to deny admission” to families that have tapped any number of public assistance programs for which both Congress and individual states have chosen to make them eligible, the states wrote.
The lawsuit, joined by Bonta, the attorneys general of 19 other states and the District of Columbia, and the governor of Pennsylvania, was filed in federal court in New York.
A separate lawsuit was filed in the same court by San Francisco and Santa Clara County in California, as well as New York City, Chicago, and Seattle and surrounding King County, Wash.
In a morning news conference, Bonta said the Trump administration’s new rules target families in unprecedented ways.
As one example, he said the new rules would potentially allow immigration officials to deny permanent residency to immigrant parents based on their U.S. citizen children accessing public benefits that they are clearly entitled to under the law.
As another, he said the new rules could penalize immigrant families for accessing basic, preventative healthcare that actually helps control the broader public cost of illness to localities and states.
Chiu said federal limits on residency for those who would be a “public charge” have in the past been applied in a “narrow and consistent way,” focusing on certain cash assistance and long-term medical needs. The new rules, he said, make “almost any” kind of government assistance grounds for residency denial.
The states’ lawsuit — California’s 92nd against the current Trump administration — revises a policy battle that began during Trump’s first administration, when it attempted in 2019 to implement similar policies, was sued by California, San Francisco and Santa Clara County, and lost.
The Biden administration later dropped the plans to change the rules.
Tony LoPresti, county counsel for Santa Clara County — which has per capita one of the largest foreign-born populations in the country — said that it was “déjà vu all over again.” and that the Trump administration will lose again because the new “public charge” policy is “outright illegal.”
It “bullies our community members into dropping health insurance, bypassing food assistance and turning their back on critical services out of fear” and constitutes “a wealth test for residents who are lawfully seeking status,” LoPresti said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin met with US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner at the Kremlin on Saturday, before they headed to Kyiv for talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Velensky. Both sides agreed to pause all strikes on the other’s capital while the Americans were in town. Why now? Have we finally reached the point in the conflict where all parties are left without cards to play?
In August 2025, Donald Trump met Putin at a US military base in Anchorage. No Ukraine ceasefire occurred in the aftermath. After discussing the two states’ long history and their efforts in the Second World War, Putin mentioned there was an “agreement” but failed to offer more details. He stressed that the situation in Ukraine was associated with “fundamental threats to our national security.”
Declassified documents from the US National Security Archive noted discussions on NATO expansion during the administration of President Bill Clinton. They show that, in 1993, American officials led Russian President Boris Yeltsin to believe that the Partnership for Peace offered an alternative to NATO expansion, rather than being a precursor to it. By the fall of 1993, discussions between supporters of the expansion of the alliance and those who proposed a more cautious approach and cooperation with Russia and Ukraine led to the formation of a “double track” approach in Washington.
Kyiv has recently been striking more deeply inside Russian territory, bringing the conflict home to ordinary citizens
Dr. Diana Galeeva
On June 22, 1994, Russia joined the program. But on Dec. 1, NATO announced that it would begin considering the admission of new members. Yeltsin later accused the US and NATO of provoking a post-Cold War “cold peace.” Clinton met Putin in the summer of 2000 at the Kremlin. Putin said that Clinton called the idea of Russia joining NATO “interesting.” However, after a conversation with his team, the US leader apparently said that “it’s not possible now.”
Since 2022, the Russian president has repeatedly criticized the expansion of NATO, calling it a threat to his country’s security. In 2024, Putin announced Moscow’s conditions for a ceasefire, including the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions and the recognition of these regions as being part of Russia, along with Crimea.
Zelensky appears open to returning to negotiations after CIA Director John Ratcliffe last month “secretly” visited Moscow and proposed a trilateral Trump-Putin-Zelensky meeting. Zelensky said any ceasefire is set to involve the US proposal for a free economic zone in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region — to be administered by a third party. Earlier, Zelensky was pressured by Trump, who told him “you don’t have the cards.” But is it only Ukraine and Zelensky that ended up with no cards to play, or is it all sides involved?
Kyiv has recently been striking more deeply inside Russian territory, bringing the conflict home to ordinary citizens. It has been using Starlink-guided drones and hastily developed missiles, hitting bombers, oil refineries, air defenses and even retail warehouses.
The Ukraine war, just like the Second World War, has revealed that no party to conflict receives any benefits
Dr. Diana Galeeva
Europe was the first side to lose the Ukraine war. The war revealed a critical weakness at the heart of Europe’s energy system. Reuters reported that the energy shock Europe suffered in the early weeks of the war “revealed a hard truth,” with the crisis reaching the heart of all European capitals. The Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz contributed further to this dynamic, with prices climbing 13 percent at the start of July.
Putin suggested in November 2025 that Russia was ready to fight “until the last Ukrainian dies” if Zelensky does not surrender. But the Iran war has changed the game, with the Kiel Institute publishing a report in June titled “Endgame” that highlighted how Russia’s war economy had “hit its limits.” Russia last week downgraded its oil output forecast for this year to a 17-year low. In June, Putin announced that Russia was ready to discuss a settlement with Ukraine based on the agreements reached in Anchorage and in Istanbul in 2022.
Meanwhile, the US, which committed about $68.2 billion in defense support of Ukraine between February 2022 and June 2026, is unlikely to continue such spending as a result of the Iran war. Washington and Iran have been exchanging strikes since Feb. 28 and, as of June, Iranian attacks had damaged 20 US military sites in the region.
Domestic factors are also pressuring the White House to prioritize peace, as Trump’s approval rate was last month stuck at 33 percent, while some 71 percent of poll respondents disapproved of Trump’s handling of the cost of living.
Is all this surprising? No. The end of the conflict is inevitable, as all sides have ended up with no cards to play. The Ukraine war, just like the Second World War, has revealed that no party to conflict receives any benefits, only military and economic damage. Most importantly, nearly 2 million casualties have occurred since 2022. This war has again demonstrated that a wise government’s approach is always about prioritizing the success of its own nation. A peaceful future for Europe would be a win-win approach for all.
Dr. Diana Galeeva, a former visiting scholar to the Centre of Islamic Studies at the University of Cambridge, is the author of four books, most recently “Islam in Russia: Formations of Tolerance” (Routledge, 2024).