change

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide on shielding energy producers from dozens of lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for costs of global climate change.

In the past decade, dozens of cities, counties and states, including California, have joined state-based lawsuits that seek billions of dollars in damages, and they have won preliminary victories in state courts.

But the Trump administration and the energy producers urged the Supreme Court to throw out all of these suits on the grounds they conflict with federal law.

“Boulder Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” lawyers for Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil said in their appeal. They urged the court to rule that “state law cannot impose the costs of global climate change on a subset of the world’s energy producers chosen by a single municipality.”

The justices will hear the case of Suncor Energy vs. Boulder County, but arguments will not be held until October.

The Biden administration had said the justices should stand aside while the lawsuits move forward in state courts, but the Trump administration filed a brief in September urging the court to intervene now.

They said the case has “vast nationwide significance,” and it should not be left to be decided state by state.

Lawyers for Boulder had urged the court against taking up the issue at an early stage of the litigation. “This is not the right time or the right case for deciding” whether municipalities can sue over the damage they have suffered.

But after weighing the issue for weeks, the court announced it will be hear the claims of the oil and gas industries.

TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas is set to invalidate about 1,700 driver’s licenses held by transgender residents and roughly as many birth certificates under a new law that goes beyond Republican-imposed restrictions in other states on listing gender identities in government documents.

The new law takes effect Thursday. Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the measure, but the Legislature’s GOP supermajorities overrode it last week as Republican state lawmakers across the U.S. have pursued another round of measures to roll back transgender rights.

The bill prohibits documents from listing any sex other than the one assigned birth and invalidates any that reflect a conflicting gender identity. Florida, Tennessee and Texas also don’t allow driver’s licenses to reflect a trans person’s gender identity, and at least eight states besides Kansas have policies that bar trans residents from changing their birth certificates.

But only Kansas’ law requires reversing changes previously made for trans residents. Kansas officials expect to cancel about 1,700 driver’s licenses and issue new birth certificates for up to 1,800 people.

“It tells me that Kansas Republicans are interested in being on the vanguard of the culture war and in a race to the bottom,” said Democratic state Rep. Abi Boatman, a transgender Air Force veteran appointed in January to fill a vacant Wichita seat.

Kansas’ new law enjoyed nearly unanimous GOP support. It is the latest development in what has become an annual effort to further roll back transgender rights by Republicans in statehouses across the U.S., bolstered by policies and rhetoric from President Trump’s administration.

Trump and other Republicans attack research-backed conclusions that gender can change or be fluid, which they frame as radical “gender ideology.” GOP lawmakers in Kansas regularly describe transgender girls and women as male, and say that in doing so they are protecting women.

Like other Republicans, Kansas Senate Majority Leader Chase Blasi said Trump’s reelection and other GOP victories in 2024 show that voters want “to return to common sense” on gender.

“When I go home, people believe there are just two sexes, male and female,” Blasi said. “It’s basic biology I learned in high school.”

Kelly supports transgender rights, but GOP lawmakers have overridden her vetoes three of the last four years. Kansas bans gender-affirming care for minors and bars transgender women and girls from female sports teams, kindergarten through college.

Transgender people can’t use public restrooms, locker rooms or other single-sex facilities associated with their gender identities, though there was no enforcement mechanism until this year’s law added tough new provisions.

Transgender people have said carrying IDs that misgender them opens them to intrusive questions, harassment and even violence when they show it to police, merchants and others.

In 2023, Republicans halted changes in Kansas birth certificates and driver’s licenses by enacting a measure ending the state’s legal recognition of trans residents’ gender identities. Though the law didn’t mention either document, it legally defined male and female by a person’s “biological reproductive system” at birth.

However, a lawsuit led to state court decisions that permitted driver’s license changes to resume last year.

Legislators in at least seven other states are considering bills to prevent transgender people from changing one or both documents, according to a search using the bill-tracking software Plural.

But none would reverse past changes.

The extra step by Kansas legislators reinforces a message “that trans people aren’t welcome,” said Anthony Alvarez, a transgender University of Kansas student who works for an LGBTQ+ rights group.

Kansas is likely to notify transgender residents by mail that their driver’s licenses are no longer valid and they need to go to a local licensing office to get a new one, said Zachary Denney, spokesperson for the agency that issues them.

The Legislature hasn’t earmarked funds to cover the cost, so each person will be charged for it — $26 for a standard license.

Alvarez already has had four IDs in four years as he’s changed his name, changed his gender marker and turned 21.

He’s always planned to stay in his native Kansas after receiving his history degree this spring.

But, he said, “they’re just making it harder and harder for me to live in the state that I love.”

Hanna writes for the Associated Press.

At a luncheon this week for L.A. County politicos, Supervisor Kathryn Barger pitched what she framed as a commonsense reform.

Legislators in Sacramento, she argued, need to change a 2019 law that extended the statute of limitations for sex abuse lawsuits, opening the floodgates for decades-old claims that have cost the county nearly $5 billion and counting in payouts.

“I want them in Sacramento to fix it,” she said. “I have to believe that we are the tip of the iceberg.”

The controversial law, Assembly Bill 218, has led to thousands of claims over abuse that took place in schools, juvenile halls and foster homes. Supporters say it continues to give survivors a chance at justice, while Barger and other officials warn the cost of the litigation is driving local governments to the brink of bankruptcy.

Rolling back AB 218, critics argue, is the single most obvious thing state lawmakers can do this legislative session.

The push has gained momentum amid concerns of fraud in the first of two payouts approved last year by L.A. County officials. At $4 billion, it was the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history, with the money set aside for more than 11,000 victims.

The Times reported last fall on allegations of fabricated claims filed by plaintiffs within the settlement, which prompted L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman to open an investigation. Hochman told the supervisors this week that his office is reviewing “thousands of claims” for fraudulent submissions and predicted savings in the “hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars.”

Speaking at the event Wednesday, Barger suggested capping attorneys fees — acknowledging that some high-powered attorneys in the room were involved in the county’s litigation.

Out of the $4-billion payout, she said, “about $1.5 billion will go to attorney fees — present company included.”

Barger referenced a former state Assembly speaker known for bare-knuckle tactics, which she said were needed now in the Capitol.

“If Willie Brown were up there, I’m sure he’d lock everyone in a room and slap some sense into them at this point,” she said.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas has asked California legislators to consider changes to AB 218. Critics say sexual abuse lawsuits are driving local governments to the brink of bankruptcy, while supporters say it is one of the few ways for victims of abuse to get justice. Rivas spoke in Ventura County on Nov. 18, 2025.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

This session, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas has assigned a group of legislators to look at what changes might be made to the law.

A spokesman for Rivas, Nick Miller, said the goal is to provide “meaningful access to justice for all survivors” without forcing service cuts in schools and governments.

“There is a group of members discussing possible solutions that strike the right balance on this critical issue,” Miller said.

It’s a tightrope walk that no legislator has mastered.

Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), who tried last year to increase the burden of proof for these cases, was branded a protector of predators.

Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) got further with a pared-down bill only to watch it blow up last session over concerns he was trampling on victims’ rights.

“I worked hard to strike the middle ground,” Laird said. “It just was too hard.”

Organized labor, a powerful voice in Sacramento, could sway the equation. County unions said they were told repeatedly at the bargaining table last year that they couldn’t get raises because of the massive sex abuse settlements, potentially setting them on a collision course with victim advocates.

Lorena Gonzalez, who wrote AB 218 in 2019 before leaving the Legislature to head up the California Federation of Labor Unions, said lobbying firms had been urging unions recently to take the lead on convincing the Assembly to change the law. The union leaders have yet to take a stance, she said.

“Although there’s some desire to especially fix what happened in L.A., there wasn’t an overwhelming desire to roll it back,” she said.

While serving in the state Legislature, Lorena Gonzalez authored AB 218, a state law that extended the statute of limitations for lawsuits over sexual abuse in government facilities. Gonzalez, now with the California Labor Federation, spoke at Balletto Vineyards in Santa Rosa, Calif., on April 26, 2024.

(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)

A Times investigation last fall found nine clients of Downtown L.A. Law Group, a law firm that represents thousands of plaintiffs in the county’s largest settlement, who claimed that recruiters had paid them to sue. Some clients said they were told to make up stories of abuse that became the crux of their lawsuit.

The firm, also known as DTLA, has denied paying any client to sue. Andrew Morrow, the main attorney on the cases for DTLA, argued in a Feb. 13 court filing that the recent subpoena by the State Bar seeking their court records as part of an investigation into the firm amounted to an “ill-advised fishing expedition.” The firm argued that allowing the State Bar to review its filings violates clients’ privacy.

“No one disputes that these allegations are troubling and, if true, serious,” Morrow wrote. “However, untested allegations printed in a local newspaper — no matter how compelling — do not override the privacy rights” of victims.

Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay), a longtime advocate for sex abuse survivors who vehemently opposed the last attempt at changing AB 218, said that “there’s all kinds of discussions about potential solutions” for fraud underway in the Legislature.

But limiting victims’ ability to sue, as some have called on lawmakers to do, is a clear no-go, she said.

“Silencing victims is not the way to get out fraud,” she said.

Like many legislators, she pinned some of the blame for the alleged fraud on poor vetting by lawyers for L.A. County. The county has said the cost of taking depositions for more than 11,000 cases would be “astronomical,” and that no records exist for many of the older cases, leaving them defenseless.

In a statement to The Times, a spokesperson for the L.A. County counsel’s office said the Legislature created AB 218 “without a single safeguard against fraud.”

“That is their failure to own,” the statement said. “This is the system the Legislature built, and they need to fix it.”

The county maintains it is not trying to squash victims’ rights, but rather keep vital services — pools, parks, health clinics — open.

“I am tired of whenever a government official stands up and says, ‘Hey, there needs to be some reform here,’ that we’re accused of victim blaming, pedophile protecting,” says Joseph Nicchitta, the county’s acting chief executive.

After agreeing to the $4-billion payout in April, county officials opted into a second $828-million settlement in October covering an additional 400 cases. Since then, more than 5,000 cases have been filed that are not part of either settlement and still need to be resolved.

“Let me tell you what will not work for L.A. County,” Nicchitta said. “The nibbles around the edges — ‘Make the procedure a little tighter, we’ll require a couple more documents.’”

He said he believes the Legislature needs to weigh the need to pay survivors against the obligation to keep the social safety net intact. One solution, Nicchitta said, could involve a victims compensation fund that would eliminate the need for someone to hire an attorney in order to submit a claim and receive money.

“Acknowledge the harm, provide real competition, [and] do it fast,” he said. “You don’t need a lawyer.”

John Manly, a lawyer who has represented sex abuse survivors for more than 20 years, sits at his law office in Irvine on Dec. 29, 2023.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

After getting flooded with sex abuse claims related to juvenile facilities following a similar change in the statute of limitations, Maryland capped sex abuse cases against government entities last year at $400,000 and limited attorneys’ fees to 25% for cases resolved in court.

For many California trial attorneys, ideas such as these are nonstarters.

“The reason they’re proposing a victims’ fund is they continue to know that those people don’t have any political power,” said John Manly, a veteran sex abuse attorney who is part of the second L.A. County settlement. “The only power they have is to hire a lawyer and get justice.

“We’re going to fight,” he said.

Shortly before releasing an after-action report on the Palisades fire, the Los Angeles Fire Department issued a confidential memo detailing plans to protect Mayor Karen Bass and others from “reputational harm” in connection with the city’s handling of the catastrophic blaze, records obtained by The Times show.

“It’s our goal to prepare and protect Mayor Bass, the City, and the LAFD from reputational harm associated with the upcoming public release of its AARR, through a comprehensive strategy that includes risk assessment, proactive and reactive communications, and crisis response,” the memo states, referring to the acronym for the LAFD’s report.

The 13-page document is on LAFD letterhead and includes email addresses for department officials, representatives of Bass’ office and public relations consultants hired to help shape messaging about the fire, although it is not known to whom it was eventually distributed. The Times obtained the memo, titled “LAFD AARR: Strategic Response Plan,” from the LAFD through the California Public Records Act.

Labeled “for internal use only,” the memo, which is unsigned, aims to shape news media coverage of the report’s findings, including through efforts to “minimize tough Q&A” by asking to hold closed-door briefings with the Fire Commission and City Council. The memo is undated but notes that “This plan has been updated with the latest timeline as of 10/7.” The after-action report was released to the public on Oct. 8.

The Times disclosed in December that the report had been altered to deflect criticism of the LAFD’s failure to pre-deploy engines and crews to the Palisades ahead of the Jan. 7, 2025 fire, among other shortcomings in the city’s preparations for and response to the deadly disaster.

Mayor Karen Bass joins L.A. City Council and community safety leaders at City Hall in downtown Los Angeles on February 17, 2026.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

Bass has repeatedly denied that she was involved in any effort to water down the report, which was meant to spell out mistakes and suggest measures to avoid repeating them after a fire that killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes. But two sources with knowledge of Bass’ office have said that after receiving an early draft of the report, the mayor told then-Interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva that it could expose the city to legal liabilities.

Bass wanted key findings about the LAFD’s actions removed or softened before the report was made public, the sources told The Times early this month. The mayor has said that The Times’ story based on the sources’ accounts was “completely fabricated.”

Representatives of Bass’ office and the LAFD did not immediately comment this week on the 13-page “strategic response plan” memo.

The disclosure about the effort to protect the mayor’s reputation comes after other records revealed that she was leading damage control efforts around both the after-action report and an announcement by federal prosecutors that the Palisades fire was caused by a rekindling of a smaller blaze.

The LAFD was facing scrutiny over why it failed to put out the earlier blaze.

“Any additional interviews with the Fire Chief would likely depend on the Mayor’s guidance,” LAFD spokesperson Capt. Erik Scott wrote in an Oct. 9 email to a Bass aide, Villanueva and others. “Regarding a press conference, I would be cautious as it could invite a high volume of challenging questions, and this would also be contingent on the Mayor’s direction.”

Before releasing the after-action report, the LAFD formed an internal crisis management team and brought in the public relations consultants, Beverly Hills-based Lede Co., to help shape its messaging about the fire. In the 13-page strategy memo, Lede, whose fee was covered by the nonprofit Los Angeles Fire Department Foundation, is tasked with helping to manage and monitor news media coverage of the report.

The latest set of documents obtained by The Times includes a “Tough Q&A” with proposed answers to questions that news reporters might ask Bass and Villanueva. The questions for Bass centered around the budget and former Fire Chief Kristin Crowley’s claims that budget restrictions hampered the department’s ability to fight the Palisades fire, with the proposed answers emphasizing that the budget was not cut.

Ronnie Villanueva speaks during his appointment as interim LAFD Chief on Feb. 21, 2025.

(Drew A. Kelley / Long Beach Press-Telegram via Getty Images)

Villanueva’s proposed answers focused on the “unstoppable” nature of the fire and improvements LAFD has since made to ensure adequate staffing on red flag days.

Other internal emails reviewed by The Times show that Bass met with Villanueva about the after-action report in mid-July.

The mayor’s role in altering the after-action report and managing its release has become an issue in her reelection campaign. Bass previously said through a spokesperson that her office merely encouraged the LAFD to fact-check references in the report about city finances and the forecast of high winds leading up to Jan. 7. The mayor later told The Times that the report was “technical,” saying, “I’m not a firefighter.”

The changes that ended up in the final report were significant, with some Palisades residents and former LAFD chiefs saying they amounted to a cover-up.

A week after the fire, The Times exposed LAFD officials’ decisions not to fully staff up and pre-deploy all available engines and firefighters to the Palisades and other high-risk areas before the dangerous winds hit. Bass later removed Crowley, citing the failure to keep firefighters on duty for a second shift.

An initial draft of the after-action report said the pre-deployment decisions “did not align” with policy, but the final version said the number of companies pre-deployed “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

Fire fighters work to extinguish flames during the Eaton fire on Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2025 in Altadena, CA.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

The author of the report, Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, declined to endorse the final version because of changes that altered his findings and made the report, in his words, “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

Even with the deletions and changes, the report delivered a harsh critique of the LAFD’s performance during the Palisades fire, pointing to a disorganized response, failures in communication and chiefs who didn’t understand their roles. The report found that top commanders lacked a fundamental knowledge of wildland firefighting tactics, including “basic suppression techniques.”

Fire Chief Jaime Moore, an LAFD veteran whom Bass named as chief in November, has said he is focused on the future and not interested in assigning blame for changes to the report. But he said he will not allow similar edits to future after-action reports.

The after-action report included just a brief reference to the Lachman fire, a small Jan. 1, 2025, blaze that rekindled six days later into the Palisades fire.

The Times found that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to roll up their hoses and leave the Lachman burn area the day after the fire was supposedly extinguished, despite complaints by crew members that the ground still was smoldering.

After the Times report, Bass directed Moore to commission an independent investigation into the LAFD’s handling of the Lachman fire.

LAFD officials have said that most of the 42 recommendations in the after-action report have been implemented, including mandatory staffing protocols on red flag days and training on wind-driven fires, tactical operations and evacuations.

Pringle is a former Times staff writer.

Travel expert Simon Calder warns that dual British citizens with expired UK passports could face £589 certificate fees as new electronic travel authorisation rules come into force from February 25

Travel expert Simon Calder has issued advice to Brits travelling to and from Europe. The alert comes as a significant change affecting UK-bound travellers takes effect on February 25.

From that date, anyone wishing to visit the UK who isn’t British or Irish must register for an electronic travel authorisation (ETA). The Government describes it as delivering ‘a more streamlined, digital immigration system which will be quicker and more secure‘.

An ETA serves as digital travel permission – it’s neither a visa nor a tax and doesn’t guarantee UK entry – rather, it authorises someone to journey to Britain. However, Mr Calder highlighted another aspect that could trip people up.

Speaking to the Independent, he warned that British citizens holding out-of-date passports might encounter problems. He explained: “There’s growing confusion and concern about electronic borders. The first change that’s going to be happening is on the 25th of February.

“It’s going to be mandatory for everyone who is not a British or Irish citizen and who wants to travel to the UK to register for the electronic travel authorisation. This is the online permit that increasingly many countries are demanding.

“That is clear, except that it also means that dual citizens who have the right to live in the UK have to enter on a British passport or have a certificate of entitlement to live in the UK. British passports cost £94.50. That certificate of entitlement is £589. And there is concern that a lot of people who are British citizens but don’t have a valid passport for all sorts of reasons-they’ve never needed one, they had one but it lapsed, they’ve got a perfectly good passport from somewhere else-they are going to have to have either that passport or the certificate of entitlement if they want to come to the UK.

“Again, this does not apply to anybody with the immense wisdom and good fortune to have an Irish passport, because that is the passport with superpowers that will get you in and out of the UK and indeed the European Union without any problems at all.”

READ MORE: Doctor explains ‘really apparent’ problem levothyroxine users need to ‘speak to medical professional’ aboutREAD MORE: AA says ‘more than 10,000’ drivers caught by high-tech AI cameras that spot offences a mile away

According to the 2021 Census, approximately 1.26 million usual residents across England and Wales held multiple passports. The Home Office has cautioned that airlines will be verifying passengers have the correct documentation.

The right of abode that Mr Calder references permits you to live or work in the UK without any immigration restrictions whatsoever. If you possess the right of abode, you do not require a visa or ETA to enter the UK.

There’s no cap on how long you can remain in the country. Concerns have also emerged regarding Europe’s new biometric border system currently being introduced.

Several airports have allegedly experienced delays stretching up to six hours, prompting warnings of potential travel ‘chaos’.

The European Commission indicated it might be feasible to suspend the new system during busy periods until September. Mr Calder explained: “The European Union’s entry-exit system started to be rolled out in October. By the 9th of April, it is supposed to be in a position where everybody is able to enter or exit through those Schengen area frontiers, just being fingerprinted on the first occasion and having a facial biometric taken. After that, it’s going to be the facial biometric all the way.

“Now, the airports and the airlines are saying it’s a terrible thing, it’s not working properly. We’ve already seen two-hour queues; they’re warning of four-hour queues in the summer. They want it to be suspended. No sense that it will be or not at the moment. Europe says it is going well, but don’t be surprised if it is.

“The only advice I can offer, because this is simply something that’s done to you-you don’t need to prepare for it-is when you’re coming back from the Schengen area, I would turn up at the airport really early just to make sure you make your plane, because it applies on the way out as well as on the way in to the Schengen area.”

NEW passport rules being introduced next week are set to affect 1.26million people – but airlines could allow passengers to avoid them.

Currently, dual citizens in the UK, whose other nationality is from a country not subject to a UK visa requirement, can travel into Britain using their foreign passport.

These rules are set to change from February 25, 2026.

From next Wednesday, dual citizens will need to show either a valid British passport, or a new digital certificate of entitlement to attach to their second nationality passport.

Without one of those, travellers could face being denied travel back to the UK.

Getting a British passport costs around £100 for an adult and on average takes between three and 10 weeks to obtain.

DREAMY DEALS

Our pick of the best long haul holidays for short haul prices

FEB-ULOUS TIME

February half term days out for UNDER £10, including free and £1 attractions

Meanwhile, the certificate of entitlement costs £589 and can take three to eight weeks to get.

As many as 1.26million people in England and Wales hold more than one passport and are expected to be affected.

However, the Home Office has now said that travellers may be able to enter the country with an expired British passport.

Due to the tight turnaround of the change in rules, the Home Office has now said that an expired British passport could be used as “alternative documentation.”

A Home Office official told Sun Travel: “We recognise that this is a significant change for carriers and travellers, but we have been clear on requirements for dual British citizens to travel with a valid British passport or Certificate of Entitlement, in line with those for all British citizens.

“At their own discretion, carriers can accept an expired British passport as alternative documentation. Separately, individuals who have previously had a British passport can apply for an emergency travel document if they urgently need to enter the UK.

“In line with current practice, on arrival at the UK border, Border Force will still assess a person’s suitability to enter the UK and conduct additional checks if required.”

The Home Office do “strongly recommend” travellers obtain a British passport or the Certificate of Entitlement for the “smoothest travel experience.”

One airline has heavily hinted that it will accept an expired passport as a form of ID.

Ryanair has suggested it may allow dual nationals to board if they can show other forms of proof that they are British.

It told The Independent that they had been advised by the government that “documents that can be accepted” include an expired British passport.

The airline also told The Times that they “will allow” a passenger to board a UK flight if they are “satisfied” that they are a British or Irish national – or other UK status.

This includes “passengers who hold an old stamp/vignette with indefinite leave to remain.”

Sun Travel has gone to Ryanair for additional comment.

On the GOV.UK website it says that valid documentation should be obtained before travelling to avoid problems like “being denied boarding” when travelling to the UK.

It adds that dual British citizens who don’t have valid British passport or certificate of entitlement will undergo “additional identity checks” and “will not be able to go through UK passport control until their British nationality is verified.”

On the same day of these new rules, ETAs will also become essential.

However British nationals and dual citizens with British or Irish citizenship are exempt from needing an ETA.

Here’s more on ETA rules and who is at risk from being banned from flights.

And here is the big difference between EES and ETIAS – along with everything you need to know about the new travel rules this year.

Most UK visitors will need a key document to enter the UK, but this will depend on your nationality and reasons for travel

Travellers regularly encounter changes in regulations when navigating international borders. Now London Heathrow Airport has issued a reminder regarding new rules coming into force in days

Under the changes an Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA), will be a legal requirement for certain people from this month. This £16 fee allows travellers to enter the UK for tourism, family visits, and other purposes for up to six months.

On X, formerly Twitter, the major airport said this week: “Starting 25 February, whether your final destination is the UK or you are connecting via Heathrow, eligible visitors will need an ETA (Electronic Travel Authorisation). Find out more on http://GOV.UK.”

While most UK visitors will need an ETA or visa to enter the UK, this will depend on your nationality and reason for travel. For instance, an ETA is generally required if you’re coming from Europe, the USA, Australia, Canada and certain other countries.

Each person travelling is required to have an ETA, including babies and children. So, for a family of four, you’ll likely need to pay £64 in total, while a family of six will typically pay £96. Visitors can apply for an ETA on behalf of other people.

Anyone who has a British or Irish passport, or has permission to work, live or study in the UK, will not need an ETA. According to official Government advice, other exemptions include:

It’s important to remember that having an ETA does not guarantee entry to the UK. Those with a criminal record or who have previously been denied entry should consider applying for a Standard Visitor visa instead.

Beyond this, the UK Government highlights exactly what can and can’t be done with an ETA. For instance, the ETA allows:

Meanwhile, these five things are not permitted with an ETA:

• Staying in the UK for longer than six months
• Doing paid or unpaid work for a UK company or as a self-employed person, unless you’re doing a permitted paid engagement or event or work on the Creative Worker visa concession
• Claiming public funds (benefits)
• Living in the UK through frequent or successive visits
• Marrying or registering a civil partnership, or giving notice of marriage or civil partnership – a Marriage Visitor visa is needed

Visitors can apply for the £16 ETA online or via the UK ETA app. To do so, they must have a passport, an email address, and a payment method, including Apple Pay and Google Pay. The payment is non-refundable once an application has been made.

For more information, head to GOV.UK here.

Cable seen by Al Jazeera says the US ‘strongly objects’ to the island nation seeking support for ICJ’s landmark climate ruling.

The United States is urging governments to pressure Vanuatu to withdraw a United Nations draft resolution supporting a landmark International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that countries have a legal obligation to act on climate change.

A US State Department cable seen by Al Jazeera on Saturday says that the Trump administration “strongly objects” to the proposed resolution being circulated by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu in support of last year’s ruling by the ICJ – the UN’s top court.

The Associated Press news agency, which also reported on the cable, said that it was circulated to all US embassies and consulates this week, shortly after Vanuatu announced it was putting forward the draft UN resolution for consideration.

“We are strongly urging Vanuatu to immediately withdraw its draft resolution and cease attempting to wield the Court’s Advisory Opinion as a basis for creating an avenue to pursue any misguided claims of international legal obligations,” a copy of the cable seen by Al Jazeera states.

The ICJ’s 15 judges considered tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and two weeks of oral arguments during the court’s biggest-ever case, before delivering their verdict last year that states have a legal obligation to act on the “existential threat” of climate change.

The ICJ case took place after Vanuatu won the support of 132 countries in the UN General Assembly, which can request opinions from The Hague-based court.

It also came as the Trump administration has sought to undo US action on climate change, both at home and at the UN.

The US cable claims that Vanuatu’s proposed UN resolution in support of the ICJ opinion was based on “speculative climate models to fabricate purported legal obligations that seek to assign blame and encourage baseless claims”.

Louis Charbonneau, Human Rights Watch’s director at the UN, urged support for Vanuatu’s draft resolution on Friday, saying “governments should live up to their obligation” to protect human rights around the world by protecting the environment.

“Responsible governments shouldn’t allow themselves to be bullied by those that reject the global scientific consensus and continue to support reliance on harmful fossil fuels,” he said.

Vanuatu’s UN Ambassador Odo Tevi, who said his country wants a vote on the resolution by the end of March, has stressed that it would ensure that the clarity in the ICJ ruling “strengthens global climate action and multilateral cooperation”.

An article in Vanuatu’s Daily Post newspaper said that the draft resolution has been endorsed by countries including Barbados, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Jamaica, Kenya, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Netherlands, Palau, the Philippines, Singapore and Sierra Leone.

Many of these countries are already experiencing the worsening effects of climate change, including increasingly severe storms.

Trump, who has promised to “drill, baby drill” for oil in his second term, has withdrawn the US from UN climate bodies, including the UN’s top climate change treaty body, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Trump has also threatened to impose sanctions on diplomats who voted for a levy on polluting shipping fuels at the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

Heads of state are arriving in Addis Ababa for the 2026 African Union Summit, with a water-focused theme centred on climate change. Conflicts in Sudan, South Sudan, DR Congo and the Sahel loom, while Israel’s recognition of Somaliland adds pressure over borders.

The Trump administration has unveiled a sweeping set of regulatory proposals that would substantially change health plan offerings on the Affordable Care Act marketplace next year, aiming, it says, to provide more choice and lower premiums.

But it also proposes sharply raising some annual out-of-pocket costs — to more than $27,600 for one type of coverage — and could cause up to 2 million people to drop insurance.

The changes come as affordability is a key concern for many Americans, some of whom are struggling to pay their ACA premiums since the Republican-led Congress allowed enhanced subsidies expired at the end of last year. Initial enrollment numbers for this year fell by more than 1 million.

Healthcare coverage and affordability have become politically potent issues in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.

The proposed changes are part of a 577-page rule that addresses a broad swath of standards, including benefit packages, out-of-pocket costs and healthcare provider networks. Insurers refer to these standards when setting premium rates for the coming year.

After a comment period, the rule will be finalized this spring.

It “puts patients, taxpayers, and states first by lowering costs and reinforcing accountability for taxpayer dollars,” Mehmet Oz, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator, said in a news release Monday.

One way it would do so focuses heavily on a type of coverage — catastrophic plans — that last year attracted about only 20,000 policyholders, according to the proposal, although other estimates put it closer to 54,000.

“This proposal reads like the administration has found their next big thing in the catastrophic plans,” said Katie Keith, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

Such plans have very high annual out-of-pocket costs for the policyholder but often lower premiums than other ACA coverage options. Formerly restricted to those under age 30 or facing certain hardships, the Trump administration allowed older people who lost subsidy eligibility to enroll in them this year. It is not known how many people did so.

The payment rule cements this move by making anyone eligible if their income is below the poverty line ($15,650 for 2026) or if they’re earning more than 2½ times that amount but lost access to an ACA subsidy that lowered their out-of-pocket costs. It also notes that a person meeting these standards would be eligible in any state — an important point because this coverage is now available in only 36 states and the District of Columbia.

In addition, the proposal would require out-of-pocket maximums on such plans to hit $15,600 a year for an individual and $27,600 for a family, Keith wrote this week in Health Affairs. (The current out-of-pocket max for catastrophic plans is $10,600 for an individual plan and $21,200 for family coverage.) Not counting preventive care and three covered primary care doctor visits, that spending target must be met before a policy’s other coverage kicks in.

In the rule, the administration wrote that the proposed changes would help differentiate catastrophic from “bronze” plans, the next level up, and, possibly, spur more enrollment in the former. Currently, the proposal said, there may not be a significant difference if premiums are similar. Raising the out-of-pocket maximum for catastrophic plans to those levels would create that difference, the proposal said.

“When there is such a clear difference, the healthier consumers that are generally eligible and best suited to enroll in catastrophic plans are more motivated to select a catastrophic plan in lieu of a bronze plan,” the proposal noted.

However, ACA subsidies cannot be used toward catastrophic premiums, which could limit shoppers’ interest.

Enrollment in bronze plans, which have an average annual deductible of $7,500, has doubled since 2018 to about 5.4 million last year. This year, that number likely will be higher. Some states’ sign-up data indicate a shift toward bronze as consumers left higher-premium “silver,” “gold” or “platinum” plans following the expiration of more generous subsidies at the end of last year.

The proposal also would allow insurers to offer bronze plans with cost-sharing rates that exceed what the ACA law currently allows, but only if that insurer also sells other bronze plans with lower cost-sharing levels.

In what it calls a “novel” approach, the proposal would allow insurers to offer multiyear catastrophic plans, in which people could stay enrolled for up to 10 years, and their out-of-pocket maximums would vary over that time. Costs might be higher, for example, in the early years, then fall the longer the policy is in place. The proposal specifically asks for comments on how such a plan could be structured and what effect multiyear plans might have on the overall market.

“As we understand it thus far, insurers could offer the policy for one year or for consecutive years, up to 10 years,” said Zach Sherman, managing director for coverage policy and program design at Health Management Associates, a health policy consulting firm that does work for states and insurance plans. “But the details on how that would work, we are still unpacking.”

Matthew Fiedler, senior fellow with the Center on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution, said the proposed rule included a lot of provisions that could “expose enrollees to much higher out-of-pocket costs.”

In addition to the planned changes to bronze and catastrophic plans, he points to another provision that would allow plans to be sold on the ACA exchange that have no set healthcare provider networks. In other words, the insurer has not contracted with specific doctors and hospitals to accept their coverage. Instead, such plans would pay medical providers a set amount toward medical services, possibly a flat fee or a percentage of what Medicare pays, for example.

The rule says insurers would need to ensure “access to a range of providers” willing to accept such amounts as payment in full. Policyholders might be on the hook for unexpected expenses, however, if a clinician or facility doesn’t agree and charges the patient the difference.

Because the rule is so sweeping — with many other parts — it is expected to draw hundreds if not thousands of comments between now and early March.

Pennsylvania insurance broker Joshua Brooker said one change he would like to see is requiring insurers that sell the very high out-of-pocket catastrophic plans to offer other catastrophic plans with lower annual maximums.

Overall, though, a wider range of options might appeal to people on both ends of the income scale, he said.

Some wealthier enrollees, especially those who no longer qualify for any ACA premium subsidies, would prefer a lower premium like those expected in catastrophic plans, and could just pay the bills up to that max, he said.

“They’re more worried about the half-million-dollar heart attack,” Brooker said. It’s tougher for people below the poverty level, who don’t qualify for ACA subsidies and, in 10 states, often don’t qualify for Medicaid. So they’re likely to go uninsured. At least a catastrophic plan, he said, might let them get some preventive care coverage and cap their exposure if they end up in a hospital. From there, they might qualify for charity care at the hospital to cover out-of-pocket costs.

Overall, “putting more options on the market doesn’t hurt, as long as it is disclosed properly and the consumer understands it,” he said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

The United States has revoked a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for its actions to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.

The decision on Thursday is the most aggressive move by President Donald Trump to roll back environmental regulations since the start of his second term.

Under his leadership, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalised a rule rescinding a 2009 government declaration known as the “endangerment finding”.

It is the legal underpinning for nearly all climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet.

Established under the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama, the finding establishes that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare.

But President Trump, a Republican, has called climate change a “hoax” and a “con job”. The endangerment finding, he argued, is “one of the greatest scams in history”, adding that it “had no basis in fact” or law.

“On the contrary, over the generations, fossil fuels have saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty all over the world,” Trump said at a White House ceremony on Thursday.

He hailed the repeal of the endangerment finding as “the single largest deregulatory action in American history, by far”.

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, who also attended the ceremony, described the endangerment finding as “the Holy Grail of federal regulatory overreach”.

Rescinding the endangerment finding repeals all greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks. It could also unleash a broader unravelling of climate regulations on stationary sources such as power plants and oil and gas facilities, experts say.

But Thursday’s new rule is likely to face pushback in the US court system.

Overturning the finding will “raise more havoc” than other actions Trump has taken to roll back environmental rules, environmental law professor Ann Carlson told The Associated Press news agency.

Environmental groups described the move as the single biggest attack in US history against federal authority to address climate change. Evidence backing up the endangerment finding has only grown stronger in the 17 years since it was approved, they said.

As part of Thursday’s decision, the EPA also announced it will end tax credits for automakers who install automatic start-stop ignition systems in their vehicles. The device is intended to reduce emissions, but Zeldin said “everyone hates” it.

Zeldin, a former Republican congressman who was tapped by Trump to lead EPA last year, has criticised his Democratic predecessors, saying that, in the name of tackling climate change, they were “willing to bankrupt the country”.

The endangerment finding “led to trillions of dollars in regulations that strangled entire sectors of the United States economy, including the American auto industry”, Zeldin said, criticising the leadership of Obama and former President Joe Biden in particular.

“The Obama and Biden administrations used it to steamroll into existence a left-wing wish list of costly climate policies, electric vehicle mandates and other requirements that assaulted consumer choice and affordability.”

The endangerment finding had allowed for a series of regulations intended to protect against climate change and related threats.

They include deadly floods, extreme heat waves, catastrophic wildfires and other natural disasters in the US and around the world.

Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator who served as the White House’s climate adviser in the Biden administration, called the Trump administration’s actions reckless.

“This EPA would rather spend its time in court working for the fossil fuel industry than protecting us from pollution and the escalating impacts of climate change,” she said.

EPA has a clear scientific and legal obligation to regulate greenhouse gases, McCarthy explained, adding that the health and environmental hazards of climate change have “become impossible to ignore”.

Thursday’s EPA action follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report on “the legality and continuing applicability” of the endangerment finding.

Conservatives have long sought to undo what they consider overly restrictive and economically damaging rules to limit the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

Democratic Senator Ed Markey said that keeping the endangerment finding should have been a “no-brainer”.

“Trump and Zeldin are putting our lives and our future at risk,” he said in a video statement.

“They have rolled back protection after protection in a race to the bottom. Instead of ‘Let them eat cake,’ Zeldin is saying, ‘Let them breathe soot.’”

Los Angeles County leaders are pushing forward a measure for the November ballot that would remove their ability to have final say on one of the costliest decisions they make: How much to pay firefighters and sheriff’s deputies.

The supervisors voted 4 to 0 on Tuesday to have their lawyers draft a ballot measure that would give final decision-making power in contract disputes regarding pay and working conditions for public safety workers to a three-person panel, a practice known as binding arbitration.

Supporters say the proposal, which the supervisors are pushing to get on the November ballot, would offer a new tool to smooth over disputes and provide a “reset” after recent tumultuous contract negotiations.

“It incentivizes both parties to come to a fair agreement,” said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who introduced the measure along with Supervisor Hilda Solis.

The supervisors are expected to vote again on the proposal in the coming months before putting it on the ballot.

Currently, if contract talks hit an impasse, the five county supervisors can, after a complex mediation process, impose a final offer. Public safety workers, who are not allowed to strike, say they have no leverage with which to fight back, giving the county final word.

Under the new proposal, the power dynamics would shift. An arbitration panel would instead make the final decision on some contract disputes for public safety employees, including firefighters, sheriff’s deputies and county lifeguards. The panel would have one arbitrator chosen by the county, one chosen by the union and one agreed to by both sides.

It’s rare for labor negotiations to get to this point. The county said it has imposed contract terms after reaching impasse over negotiations twice since 2001, once with the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in 2001 and Supervising Deputy Probation Officers in 2024.

“The goal is to never have to get to that step,” Horvath said.

Unions say the measure would give them needed leverage and remove political pressure from the thorniest contract questions. Critics say it shifts financial control away from politicians and into the hands of unaccountable arbitrators, which could lead to bloated labor costs.

“Arbitrators aren’t elected, they’re not required to weigh countywide trade-offs like homeless services, healthcare, capital improvements, all of those things,” said Supervisor Holly Mitchell, the only supervisor to abstain from the vote.

Interim County Executive Officer Joseph M. Nicchitta said he viewed it as a potential “seismic change” in how the county handles labor negotiations.

“Because the arbitrators ‘pick a winner’ as between the parties’ final offers, the decision will no longer be a compromise. One side will win,” Nicchitta wrote in a Feb. 9 letter to the board.

Substantial raises mandated by arbitrators, he wrote, “could, among other things, materially and detrimentally increase the County’s day-to-day operating costs, lead to workforce reductions and program curtailments, balloon our unfunded pension liabilities, and damage the County’s credit ratings.”

The decision of who gets final say over wage increases will become increasingly important as county leaders try to steer the government through financial tumult brought on by federal cuts, booming labor costs and billions in sex abuse payouts. Last week, the supervisors unanimously approved $200 million in homeless service cuts to close the budget gap.

Horvath said more than 20 jurisdictions in California use binding arbitration for public safety workers, including the counties of San Francisco and Sacramento.

Public safety unions are simultaneously gathering signatures to get the proposal on the ballot in case the board decides against moving forward. A coalition of public safety unions has started a campaign arguing that binding arbitration would “remove politics from pay decisions” and leave “pay decisions in the hands of neutral experts.”

“They have every intention and probably all of the resources needed to collect signatures to put something on the ballot that gets them this,” Supervisor Janice Hahn said. “This makes sense to work on something that we can have some input in.”

Feb. 10 (UPI) — Officials for the Environmental Protection Agency said they are working to end a 2009 declaration that says climate change is a danger to public health.

During the weekend, EPA officials submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a proposed rule revoking the 2009 endangerment finding that guided U.S. climate and greenhouse gas regulations.

The EPA did not say when the endangerment finding officially would be revoked, but White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested it would happen this week.

“This week at the White House, President [Donald] Trump will be taking the most significant deregulatory actions in history to further unleash American energy dominance and drive down costs,” Leavitt said in a prepared statement.

Revoking the endangerment finding removes the EPA’s statutory authority to regulate motor vehicle emissions that was provided via Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act of 1970, an EPA spokesperson told The Hill.

The endangerment finding is “one of the most damaging decisions in modern history,” the Leavitt said.

The Clean Air Act forces the EPA to regulate vehicle emissions that produce any pollutant that are reasonably thought to pose a danger to public health or welfare.

A 2007 Supreme Court ruling determined that greenhouse gas emissions that are thought to contribute to global warming meet the standard for air pollutants that require regulation due to their potential for harming public health.

The Obama administration in 2009 issued the endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions, which the prior Supreme Court ruling said requires the EPA to regulate them.

The EPA that year decided that greenhouse gas emissions likely would cause widespread “serious adverse health effects in large-population areas” due to increased ambient ozone over many areas of the United States.

“The impact on mortality and morbidity associated with increases in average temperatures, which increase the likelihood of heat waves, also provides support for a public health endangerment finding,” the EPA said in its endangerment finding.

“The evidence concerning how human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a finding of endangerment,” the EPA said, while acknowledging that the conclusion was based on “consensus.”

The finding said carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are fueling storms, drought, heat waves, wildfires and rising seas, which pose a threat to public health.

Because the finding determined emissions from the burning of coal, gas and oil were said to contribute to climate change, the EPA undertook regulations of power plants, vehicles and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, including gas stoves, ovens, water heaters and heating systems.

Revoking the endangerment finding ends those regulations, which could be reversed if a future administration reinstates the finding.

Londoners can save more money on weekend breaks to five popular UK cities by opting for one particular method of transport over the train, new research has revealed

New research has revealed that anyone travelling from London to five UK cities can save up to £48 per journey, simply by making their journey via coach instead of the train.

The study, conducted by minibus and coach hire company SMC Coach Hire, analysed travel costs from the capital city to major UK destinations, comparing ticket prices against total mileage to identify where passengers are facing the most expensive rail fares.

The research showed Cardiff as the prime location for making travel savings. While a train journey from London Victoria to the Welsh capital costs an average of £61.39, the equivalent coach journey is just £13.35, a staggering saving of £48.04.

At just 10p per mile, opting to travel by coach offers a fraction of the rail cost for the 131-mile trip.

The top 5 best value routes

The North and Scotland also showed significant disparities, with long-distance travellers set to gain the most from making the journey on a coach:

1. Cardiff: £48.04 saving (£13.35 coach vs £61.39 train)
2. Aberdeen: £47.69 saving (£47.80 coach vs £95.49 train)
3. Leicester: £41.74 saving (£7.35 coach vs £49.09 train)
4. Glasgow: £37.34 saving (£39.45 coach vs £76.79 train)
5. Newcastle: £26.79 saving (£19.50 coach vs £46.29 train

However, distance doesn’t always have a direct impact on the savings. Leicester, one of the shortest routes on the list at just 89 miles, ranked third for total savings. Passengers can make the journey for as little as £7.35 by coach, compared to nearly £50 via rail.

1. Cardiff – train price to London – £61.39, train per mile – £0.47, coach price to London – £13.35, coach per mile – £0.10, approx distance (miles) 131.33, price difference – £48.04
2. Aberdeen – train price to London – £95.49, train per mile – £0.24, coach price to London – £47.80, coach per mile – £0.12, approx distance (miles) 398.15, price difference – £47.69
3. Leicester – train price to London – £49.09, train per mile – £0.55, coach price to London – £7.35, coach per mile – £0.08, approx distance (miles) 89.38, price difference – £41.74
4. Glasgow – train price to London – £76.79, train per mile – £0.22, coach price to London – £39.45, coach per mile – £0.11, approx distance (miles) 345.20, price difference – £37.34
5. Newcastle – train price to London – £46.29, train per mile – £0.19, coach price to London – £19.50, coach per mile – £0.08, approx distance (miles) 247.73, price difference – £26.79
6. Derby – train price to London – £38.19, train per mile – £0.34, coach price to London – £11.85, coach per mile – £0.10, approx distance (miles) 113.09, price difference – £26.34
7. Bristol – train price to London – £37.99, train per mile – £0.36, coach price to London – £13.35, coach per mile – £0.13, approx distance (miles) 106.38, price difference – £24.64
8. Leeds – train price to London – £43.89, train per mile – £0.26, coach price to London – £21.30, coach per mile – £0.13, approx distance (miles) 169.47, price difference – £22.59
9. Nottingham – train price to London – £35.89, train per mile – £0.33, coach price to London – £13.35, coach per mile – £0.12, approx distance (miles) 109.35, price difference – £22.54
10. Brighton and Hove – train price to London – £24.69, train per mile – £0.53, coach price to London – £5.40, coach per mile – £0.12, approx distance (miles) 46.89, price difference – £19.29
11. Manchester – train price to London – £31.29, train per mile – £0.19, coach price to London – £12.75, coach per mile – £0.08, approx distance (miles) 163.22, price difference – £18.54
12. Liverpool – train price to London – £30.19, train per mile – £0.17, coach price to London – £11.85, coach per mile – £0.07, approx distance (miles) 178.62, price difference – £18.34

Stephen Chesters, Director at SMC Coach Hire said: “With the cost of living still a major concern for many, these figures highlight just how much ‘rail tax’ people are paying for their commute or weekend breaks.

“Choosing the road over the rail isn’t just about the journey; it’s about keeping nearly £50 extra in your pocket. Whether you’re planning a romantic getaway for Valentine’s or looking ahead to a half-term break for the family, coach travel is a great alternative to save some money.”

The Apprentice has reportedly had to make a change to the format as producers wanted viewers to see more explosive scenes set in the boardroom on the hit BBC series

The Apprentice has reportedly had to make a major change amid BBC budget cuts. Lord Alan Sugar’s hit reality show, which has been on air for more than 20 years, sees its contestants all vying to the next big thing in business trying to get their hands on the grand prize of a £250,000 prize.

In the early years of the show, the winning contestant landed a six-figure job with the magnate himself, and throughout the series, they are treated to luxuries such as spa breaks and helicopter rides if they perform well in various tasks within the competition. However, it’s now thought that these sorts of prizes have been ditched from the format entirely.

Currently on air for its landmark 20th series, it’s thought that producers got rid of the prizes in order to fit more “fiery debates” into the running time. A source said: “The Apprentice is known for laying on lavish gifts for the winning team.”

READ MORE: BBC licence fee set to rise in just a matter of weeks as new cost revealedREAD MORE: The Apprentice’s Lord Sugar fires third candidate who ‘loved being on camera’

Speaking to The Sun, the source added: “Fans love to see them get to celebrate their victory by enjoying themselves. However the producers want the viewers to see more of the fiery boardroom debates this year.”

It comes amid news that the BBC licence fee is set to rise. . From April 1, it will go up to £180 as required by the 2022 Licence Fee Settlement, in line with inflation. The cost of an annual colour TV licence will rise by £5.50, which is the equivalent of 46p per month.

The Mirror has contacted the BBC for comment

Last week, Marcus Donkoh became the third contestant to be axed from the programme this year after failing to impress. The group he was heading up were tasked with creating a book aimed at four top six year olds, and pitched it, along with an audio version, to retailers. Lord Sugar didn’t pull any punches when the team were unable to provide enough product sales. The book, which had missing illustrations, was said to have had “no point” to the story.

Following his elimination, he said: “I feel as though, in the real business world, you have a lot of information – you do have to make quick decisions, but you have a time to think.

“It was really intense in the boardroom, I had to make a decision very quickly on who to bring back. So, changing my mind didn’t help, but I feel as though there were other candidates that performed a lot worse than I did, didn’t do what they were supposed to do, and I feel as though they deserved to get kicked off rather than myself.”

Despite Lord Sugar’s decision, the failed contestant says he wouldn’t change anything. “I think what I did was fine,” he confessed. “I am human. Humans can change their minds, and I feel as though I did get penalised for it, but no, I would not change what I did.”

The first episode saw a double elimination as event manager Georgina Newton was first to go and quickly followed by Nikki Jetha.

Just before the launch of the show’s latest series, Lord Alan explained that the longevity of the programme likely relied on the fact that a new audience are discovering it year on year.

He said: “I think the programme itself brings in a new audience every year, because 20 years ago, I had nine-year-olds watching it who are now 29. And the new generation of 16-year-olds are coming in and loving it. So the audience is growing. The audience is holding up, and that’s why the BBC keeps doing it.”

* The Apprentice continues on Thursday nights on BBC1 and BBC iPlayer.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

TikTok calls European Commission probe ‘meritless’, pledges to challenge findings the video platform harms minors.

Authorities in the European Union said that the video-sharing platform TikTok is in breach of online content regulations, warning the company to change “addictive” features in order to protect minors from compulsive use.

The European Commission shared the preliminary conclusions of a probe into TikTok on Friday, stating that features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and a personalised recommendation algorithm encouraged addiction.

“TikTok has to take actions and they have to change the design of their service in Europe to protect our minors,” EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen told reporters.

European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said the “measures that TikTok has in place are simply not enough”.

“These features lead to the compulsive use of the app, especially for our kids, and this poses major risks to their mental health and wellbeing,” Regnier said, stating that the app is in violation of the Digital Services Act.

The EU regulator has threatened TikTok with a potential fine of as much as 6 percent of the global turnover of ByteDance, the platform’s owner.

TikTok slammed the findings, saying they are without basis.

“The Commission’s preliminary findings present a categorically false and entirely meritless depiction of our platform, and we will take whatever steps are necessary to challenge these findings,” a spokesperson for TikTok said.

The probe comes as EU countries are seeking greater restrictions on powerful tech and social media companies, often with the stated goal of protecting young users.

TikTok stands out among competitors for an algorithm able to craft a precise understanding of the users’ interests, directing related content into their feed.

The investigation into TikTok was first opened in February 2024, with Regnier citing a series of “alarming” statistics compiled during the course of the investigation.

He stated that the app is the most-used social media platform after midnight by children between the ages of 13 and 18, and that 7 percent of children between the ages of 12 and 15 spend four to five hours on the app every day.

COLLINGSWOOD, N.J. — The shawarma, falafel wraps and baklava at Jersey Kebab are great, but many of its patrons are also there these days for a side of protest.

A New Jersey suburb of Philadelphia has rallied around the restaurant’s Turkish owners since federal officers detained the couple last February because they say their visas had expired.

In fact, business has been so good since Celal and Emine Emanet were picked up early in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown that they have moved to a bigger space in the next town over. Their regulars don’t seem to mind.

The family came to the U.S. seeking freedom

Celal Emanet, 52, first came to the U.S. in 2000 to learn English while he pursued his doctorate in Islamic history at a Turkish university. He returned in 2008 to serve as an imam at a southern New Jersey mosque, bringing Emine and their first two children came, too. Two more would be born in the U.S.

Before long, Celal had an additional business of delivering bread to diners. They applied for permanent residency and believed they were on their way to receiving green cards.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began and the delivery trucks were idled, Celal and Emine, who had both worked in restaurants in Turkey, opened Jersey Kebab in Haddon Township. Business was strong from the start.

It all changed in a moment

On Feb. 25, U.S. marshals and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested the couple at the restaurant. Celal was sent home with an ankle monitor, but Emine, now 47, was moved to a detention facility more than an hour’s drive away and held there for 15 days.

With its main cook in detention and the family in crisis, the shop closed temporarily.

Although the area is heavily Democratic, the arrests of the Emanets signaled to many locals that immigration enforcement during President Trump’s second term wouldn’t stop at going after people with criminal backgrounds who are in the U.S. illegally.

“They were not dangerous people — not the type of people we were told on TV they were looking to remove from our country,” Haddon Township Mayor Randy Teague said.

Supporters organized a vigil and raised $300,000 that kept the family and business afloat while the shop was closed — and paid legal bills. Members of Congress helped, and hundreds of customers wrote letters of support.

Space for a crowd

As news of the family’s ordeal spread, customers new and old began packing the restaurant. The family moved it late last year to a bigger space down busy Haddon Avenue in Collingswood.

They added a breakfast menu and for the first time needed to hire servers besides their son Muhammed.

The location changed, but the restaurant still features a sign in the window offering free meals to people in need. That’s honoring a Muslim value, to care for “anybody who has less than us,” Muhammed said.

Judy Kubit and Linda Rey, two friends from the nearby communities of Medford and Columbus, respectively, said they came to Haddon Township last year for an anti-Trump “No Kings” rally and ate a post-protest lunch at the kebab shop.

“We thought, we have to go in just to show our solidarity for the whole issue,” Kubit said.

Last month, with the immigration crackdown in Minneapolis dominating the headlines, they were at the new location for lunch.

The legal battle hasn’t ended

The Emanets desperately want to stay in the U.S., where they’ve built a life and raised their family.

Celal has a deportation hearing in March, and Emine and Muhammed will also have hearings eventually.

Celal said moving back to Turkey would be bad for his younger children. They don’t speak Turkish, and one is autistic and needs the help available in the U.S.

Also, he’d be worried about his own safety because of his academic articles. “I am in opposition to the Turkish government,” he said. “If they deport me, I am going to get very big problems.”

The groundswell of support has shown the family they’re not alone.

“We’re kind of fighting for our right to stay the country,” Muhammed Emanet said, “while still having amazing support from the community behind us. So we’re all in it together.”

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press.

“You buy a player for a lot of money and he is not able to play for a rule I don’t understand. Hopefully they can change it,” he added.

City’s other January signing, winger Antoine Semenyo, arrived at the club from Bournemouth four days prior to their trip to the north east for the first leg against Newcastle, in which he scored.

“Antoine arrived before the first [game] so could play. And now it’s the final. Why should he [Guehi] not play? Why not? We pay his salary, he is our player,” Guardiola added.

“I said to the club, they have to ask, definitely. I don’t understand the reason why he cannot play in the final in March, when I have been here for a long time.

“The rules to buy a player depends on Fifa, Uefa, the Premier League who say, OK the transfer window is open, when you buy a player you have to play, no? It’s logic. Of course we are going to try to ask [for] him to play. Pure logic.

Asked what he thought the answer will be from the EFL, City’s Spanish boss, added: “No. But we will try.”

City have already benefited from one rule change this season that allowed players to play for two teams in the same competition, instead of being cup tied.

That allowed Semenyo and Max Alleyne to feature in the semi-final matches, despite appearing for Bournemouth and Watford respectively in previous rounds.

Christophe Dubi, the IOC executive director for the Olympic Games, added: “We make a point to receive those petitions, and we have to recognise climate is a challenge for all of us.

“What we have to do as an organisation is to be at the forefront of sustainability, and our principles are very clear.”

One area the IOC is aiming to make the Olympics more sustainable is having Games take place over a wider area with more pre-existing facilities, and Coventry said Milan-Cortina is an acid test for whether this is a viable future.

Milan-Cortina takes place in three hubs spread across northern Italy – in Milan, Cortina and Livigno – with only two newly built sporting facilities: the Santagiulia ice hockey arena and Cortina Sliding Centre.

The next two Winter Olympics – French Alps 2030 and Utah 2034 – will also have sports spread more widely, while the 2032 Summer Olympics in Brisbane is will have venues across Queensland.

This has caused issues however, with Brisbane organisers saying, external they will go beyond the originally stated budget of $4.9bn (£3.6bn).

“We are really experiencing a spread out Games here for the first time – we are going to learn a lot,” Coventry said.

“We have taken this decision for sustainability reasons, climate and not having to have new venues. We are seeing there is an impact on National Olympic Committees because of the spreadness [sic], also for broadcast and media, making it harder to get around.

“What is really cool is that you get to see iconic venues in beautiful places – but now we have to weigh this up, the balance between a spread games for sustainability reasons but not shifting complexity and sustainability to different areas.”

While the action got underway on Wednesday with the start of the curling events, the 2026 Winter Olympics will officially start with the opening ceremony on Friday.

Coventry said she hoped all nations would be treated with respect by spectators, including the USA team amid criticism from Italian authorities about the presence of ICE agents in Milan.

“I hope the opening ceremony is seen by everyone as a chance to be respectful,” she said.

“For me, when we went to the Olympic village that is the best reminder of how the Games should be. I hope the opening ceremony will do that.”

For nearly two months, Mayor Karen Bass has repeatedly denied that she was involved in altering an after-action report on the Palisades fire to downplay failures by the city and the Los Angeles Fire Department in combating the catastrophic blaze.

But two sources with knowledge of Bass’ office said that after receiving an early draft, the mayor told then-interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva that the report could expose the city to legal liabilities for those failures. Bass wanted key findings about the LAFD’s actions removed or softened before the report was made public, the sources said — and that is what happened.

The changes to the report, which was released on Oct. 8, came to light through a Times investigation published in December.

The sources told The Times that two people close to Bass informed them of the mayor’s behind-the-scenes role in watering down the report. One source spoke to both of the people; the other spoke to one of them. The sources requested anonymity to speak frankly about the mayor’s private conversations with Villanueva and others. The Times is not naming the people who are close to Bass because that could have the effect of identifying the sources.

One Bass confidant told one of the sources that “the mayor didn’t tell the truth when she said she had nothing to do with changing the report.” The source said the confidant advised Bass that altering the report “was a bad idea” because it would hurt her politically.

According to the source, the two confidants said that Bass held onto the original draft until after the changes were made. The source added that both confidants said they are prepared to testify under oath to verify their accounts if the matter ends up in a legal proceeding.

Both sources said they did not know if Villanueva or anyone else in the LAFD or in the mayor’s office made line-by-line edits at Bass’ specific instructions, or if they imposed the changes after receiving a general direction from her.

“All the changes [The Times] reported on were the ones Karen wanted,” the second source said, referring primarily to the newspaper’s determination that the report was altered to deflect attention from the LAFD’s failure to pre-deploy crews to the Palisades before the fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed more than 6,000 homes and other structures, amid forecasts of catastrophically high winds.

Bass did not respond this week to a request for comment for this article.

The mayor has previously rejected several requests by The Times to be interviewed about the report. In response to written questions, a spokesperson for Bass’ office said in an email in December: “The report was written and edited by the Fire Department. We did not red-line, review every page or review every draft of the report.”

The spokesperson, Clara Karger, said the mayor’s office asked only that the LAFD fact-check any findings regarding the effect of city finances and high-wind forecasts on the department’s performance in the fire.

In a brief interview last month, Bass told The Times that she did not work with the Fire Department on changes to the report, nor did the agency consult her about any changes.

“The only thing that I told them to do was I told them to talk to Matt Szabo about the budget and the funding, and that was it,” she said, referring to the city’s administrative officer. “That’s a technical report. I’m not a firefighter.”

Villanueva declined to comment. He has made no public statements about the after-action report or any conversations he might have had with Bass about it.

After admitting that the report was altered in places so as not to reflect poorly on top commanders, Fire Chief Jaime Moore said last month that he did not plan to determine who was responsible, adding that he did not see the benefit of doing that.

In an interview last month, Fire Commission President Genethia Hudley Hayes said Villanueva told her in mid-August or later that a draft of the report was sent to the mayor’s office for “refinements.” Hudley Hayes said she did not know what the refinements were, but she was concerned enough to consult a deputy city attorney about possible changes to the report.

Hudley Hayes, who was appointed by Bass, said that after reviewing an early draft of the report as well as the final document, she was satisfied that “material findings” were not altered.

But the changes to the after-action report, which was meant to spell out mistakes and suggest measures to avoid repeating them after the worst fire in city history, were significant, with some Palisades residents and former LAFD chiefs saying they amounted to a “cover-up.”

A week after the Jan. 7, 2025, fire, The Times exposed LAFD officials’ decisions not to fully staff up and pre-deploy all available engines and firefighters to the Palisades or other high-risk areas ahead of the dangerous winds. Bass later ousted Fire Chief Kristin Crowley, citing the failure to keep firefighters on duty for a second shift.

An initial draft of the after-action report said the pre-deployment decisions “did not align” with policy, while the final version said the number of companies pre-deployed “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

The author of the report, Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, declined to endorse the final version because of changes that altered his findings and made the report, in his words, “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

Before the report was released, the LAFD formed an internal crisis management team and brought in a public relations firm to help shape its messaging about the fire, though it’s unclear what role each played, if any, in editing the report.

Moore, an LAFD veteran whom Bass named as chief in November, said he is focused on the future and not interested in assigning blame for changes to the report. But he said he will not allow similar edits to future after-action reports.

Asked last month how he would handle a mayor’s request for similar changes, he said: “That’s very easy, I’d just say absolutely not. We don’t do that.”

The after-action report included just a brief reference to the Lachman fire, a small Jan. 1, 2025, blaze that rekindled six days later into the Palisades fire.

The Times found that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to roll up their hoses and leave the Lachman burn area the day after the fire was supposedly extinguished, despite complaints by crew members that the ground still was smoldering. The Times reviewed text messages among firefighters and a third party, sent in the weeks and months after the fire, describing the crew’s concerns, and reported that at least one battalion chief assigned to the LAFD’s risk management section knew about them for months.

After the Times report, Bass directed Moore to commission an independent investigation into the LAFD’s handling of the Lachman fire.

LAFD officials said Tuesday that most of the 42 recommendations in the after-action report have been implemented, including mandatory staffing protocols on red flag days and training on wind-driven fires, tactical operations and evacuations.

Pringle is a former Times staff writer.

Avoid paying a massive fee at the airport gates by checking your cabin bag size before you fly. With half term on the way, here’s the latest sizing regulations for some of the most popular airlines

One thing that often catches passengers out when flying on budget airlines is cabin baggage allowances. On busy flights, it’s common to see the dreaded bag sizer coming out, and being over just a centimetre can mean you end up paying a massive fee to check your bag at the gate.

To make things even more confusing, cabin bag size allowances change all the time, so even if you’re a frequent flyer, you can get caught out. It’s always best to check the size of the cabin bag that’s included with your ticket just before you go, so you can avoid hassle at the gates.

It’s also much cheaper to pay for extra bags when you book your flight, not once you’re at the airport, so always make sure you’ve booked the amount you need in advance.

Cabin bag allowances by airline

READ MORE: Jet2 makes major flight change for July, August and SeptemberREAD MORE: Woman living in the Grand Canyon shares reality of remote life with 1 drawback

Ryanair

Ryanair is notorious for strictly enforcing cabin baggage sizes, and if you’re taking a bag on board, you should make sure you get the tape measure out and check the dimensions before you head to the airport.

However, there’s good news for Ryanair passengers: the free underseat bag included in its basic fare can now be slightly larger. Previously, this small bag had to fit in a sizer with the dimensions of 40 x 25 x 20 cm, but since summer 2025 it can now be up to 40 x 30 x 20 cm. These free bags need to fit under the seat in front of you, and usually people bring a handbag, laptop bag, or small rucksack.

Technically, there’s no weight limit on these small bags, as long as they fit under the seat, but passengers will need to be able to carry and handle them, and an excessively heavy bag could be noticed by flight attendants.

Passengers can also pay to bring a second cabin bag of up to 55 x 40 x 20cm onboard with them, and this bag has a weight limit of 10KG. Passengers will need to lift this bag into the overhead locker above them, so bear this in mind when packing. If you prefer to check a bag, you can add a 10KG, 20KG, or 23KG bag to the hold. Prices vary depending on route and availability.

EasyJet

Budget airline easyJet is also known for strictly monitoring bag sizes, and you’ll see lots of orange sizers around the airport so you can check whether your luggage will fit. However, it’s best to measure bags at home when they’re packed so you can adjust accordingly.

Everyone who flies with easyJet gets one small underseat cabin bag included in the price. This can be up to 45 x 36 x 20 cm in size, and easyJet states it can’t exceed 15KG in weight.

Customers also have the option to book a second cabin bag of 56 x 45 x 25 cm maximum, including handles and wheels. As a bonus, if you book a second bag, you get speedy boarding included. When booking your flight, you also have the option to pay for up to three checked bags of 15KG, 23KG, or a whopping 32KG. Some airports offer a twilight bag drop for passengers on early flights, meaning you can check your luggage the night before heading off and head straight for security in the morning.

Jet2

Whether you’ve booked a package holiday with Jet2, or just a flight, cabin baggage allowances are the same. You get a small bag of 40 x 30 x 20cm, which must fit under the seat, and the price also includes a 10KG piece of hand luggage of up to 56cm x 45cm x 25cm. Again, you must ensure measurements include handles, wheels, and other fixtures.

Package holidays include 22KG of checked baggage, but if you’ve only booked a flight, you can still add a checked bag for a fee. Passengers can buy up to three bags of 22KG in weight, perfect for those who don’t like to travel light.

Families travelling with young kids can also bring a collapsible pushchair, car seat, and/or travel cot free of charge.

British Airways

British Airways (BA)’s economy basic fare includes a handbag and a cabin bag. The former can be up to 40 x 30 x 15cm in size and needs to easily fit under the seat in front, while cabin bags can be up to 56 x 45 x 25cm in size. However, BA can only guarantee that the smaller item will be allowed on board. If there’s not enough space in the overhead locker, your cabin bag may need to go in the hold.

BA also offers a range of options for checked bags, depending on the flight route you take and which classes are available. Economy with checked bag includes a 23KG bag in the hold, and unlike most airlines, BA put a size restriction on these checked bags of 90 x 75 x 43cm. Those lucky enough to fly business or first class get much bigger allowances.

READ MORE: Stay overnight at Alton Towers, Chessington or Legoland and get year’s free entry to top theme parksREAD MORE: PAW Patrol land first look as Chessington seeks children to test rides

TUI

If you’ve booked a flight only on TUI Airways, you’ll get a piece of hand luggage of up to 10KG in weight for free, and this can measure up to 55 x 40 x 20 cm. You can also bring a small personal item like a handbag or laptop bag of up to 40 x 30 x 20cm that’s placed under the seat in front of you. TUI emphasises that passengers must be able to lift their hand luggage into overhead storage compartments themselves.

Customers can also add a checked bag when booking their flight, with prices depending on the route and availability. However, if you book a package holiday through TUI and are flying with its airline, then 20KG of checked luggage is included. Some holiday types, such as TUI BLUE or cruises, have a 25KG allowance, so it’s worth checking your booking confirmation before you go.

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

Cubans are cooking on charcoal and facing worsening power blackouts after the US cut the island off of Venezuelan oil exports. US President Donald Trump promised Cuba will “fail” soon and threatened tariffs on any nations doing business with the island. Can Cuba’s communist government survive the latest US push for regime change?

In this episode:

Episode credits:

This episode was produced by Haleema Shah and Melanie Marich with Phillip Lanos, Spencer Cline, Chloe K. Li, Tuleen Barakat, Maya Hamadeh, and our host, Kevin Hirten. It was edited by Kylene Kiang. 

Our engagement producers are Adam Abou-Gad, Vienna Maglio, and Munera AlDosari. Andrew Greiner is lead of audience engagement.

Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhem. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera’s head of audio. 

Connect with us:

@AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube