TV station ownership groups may finally get their wish to own more outlets.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr announced Wednesday that the agency will vote next month to end the rule that allows companies to own no more than two TV stations in a single market. The cap also limits the national coverage of any station owner to 39% limit of the U.S.
Carr said the agency will consider a “case by case” review on station merger and acquisition deals that would result in exceeding the current limits. The commission, which has two Republicans and one Democrat, will vote on Aug. 6.
“Previously, the cap operated as a blanket prohibition on any and all deals that would combine stations in [excess] of the 39% limit — regardless of whether it was a good deal or bad deal for the country,” Carr wrote on the right-wing website Breitbart. “Our new proposal would allow the FCC to approve deals that exceed the 39% cap, but only if doing so would promote the public interest.”
TV station owners and its lobbying group the National Assn. of Broadcasters have been clamoring for a change in the rule, citing the changes in technology that have occurred since the ownership limit. The 39% threshold was set in 2004 when streaming video was still a nascent business.
The station groups say the ability of tech companies such as Google and Netflix to reach every consumer in the U.S. puts them at a disadvantage. At the same time, streaming now accounts for more than 40% of all viewing, according to Nielsen, pulling consumers away from traditional TV. TV stations are also seeing their share of carriage fees from cable and satellite companies shrink due to cord-cutting.
But proposed changes to the cap limits have been met with push back from consumer groups and state government officials. They have said station consolidation will result in journalist layoffs and fewer voices for the communities they serve.
Earlier this year, a group of attorneys general filed suit to block Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2-billion acquisition of Tegna, arguing it violates a 112-year-old U.S. antitrust law by knocking out a major competitor. The deal would give Irving, Texas-based Nexstar control of 265 television stations across the country, up from 164. And, in dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple TV network affiliates.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley issued a preliminary injunction in April that forbids Nexstar — which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles — and Tegna, from combining operations. Nexstar is appealing.
Carr’s proposal would largely put the FCC in charge of picking winners and losers on a case-by-case basis.
When faced with a merger proposal, Carr said the commission would consider such issues as commitment to local journalism and “viewpoint diversity.”
Carr also questioned whether ABC’s daytime show “The View,” where negative Trump commentary is rampant, should qualify as a bona fide news program that is exempt from giving equal time to qualified candidates.
Carr’s Breitbart column also reiterated his view that large media companies such as Disney and NBCUniversal parent Comcast hold too much sway over their affiliates.
“New York and Hollywood interests have steamrolled those local TV stations and the broader media market in recent years in ways that run directly counter to the regulatory framework that Congress and the FCC put in place,” he wrote. “Their national programs naturally reflect the values of the New York and Hollywood executives that produce them. This power imbalance has contributed to a steady decline in locally produced news — and with it, a weakening of the public’s trust in the media.”
How owning more stations would give groups leverage in their dealings with networks is unclear. The networks control the rights to the NFL — the No. 1 TV ratings attraction for broadcast television by a mile. Stations pay the networks compensation for those games, which they use when negotiating the carriage fees they receive from cable and satellite companies.
Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.
England reached their fourth World Cup semi-final with an extra-time victory against Norway in the quarter-finals, and were victorious in the Atlanta stadium in the last 32, when they came from behind again to defeat DR Congo.
Meanwhile, reigning champions Argentina have managed to score three times in each of their knockout matches so far, with Lionel Messi set to face England for the first time in his career.
Mark was joined by regular pundits Wayne Rooney, Joe Hart and Micah Richards during the build-up to the anticipated match, with BBC viewers quickly noticing a huge change.
Up until now, BBC stars Mark, Kelly Cates and Gabby Logan have hosted the coverage live from a state of the art immersive studio in Salford, which transported viewers to 16 cities across three host nations.
But for the latest encounter, the team travelled to Atlanta Stadium in person, after the BBC announced that it would be leaving its domestic studio to head across the pond.
Viewers were quick to share their verdict on X (formerly Twitter), as Mark introduced the coverage from inside the spacious stadium for the first time.
“The BBC finally arrive at the World Cup. Only about a month late,” one person wrote, with another adding: “I see that the BBC pundits have finally bothered to travel out for the World Cup.”
A third said: “Remember all that nonsense about the BBC presenting the World Cup from Salford while ITV1 was actually IN one of the host countries?! Tonight, one of them presents LIVE from a stadium for the first time. What one? Yes, the BBC!”
Someone else wrote: “BBC actually made it to the World Cup. Crazy.”
Mark began the coverage by saying: “Evening, don’t look back in anger. Sometimes it’s hard not to.”
A montage of some of England’s most devastating footballing moments against Argentina was then played, including Diego Maradona’s Hand of God moment and David Beckham’s 1998 red card.
Some viewers weren’t impressed with the negative start to the coverage, with one angry fan writing: “The BBC could not hate us more! We play Argentina tonight in the World Cup semi-final and how does the [BBC] open its coverage?
“Some inspiring footage of England’s past triumphs? Of course not. They open with a montage of some of our most devastating footballing moments. With the soundtrack of a post apocalyptic horror movie playing in the background.”
Someone else wrote: “The rest of the build up is just one big [Lionel] Messi love in! It’s sickening, FFS if I was Kane or Bellingham I’d be fuming, let’s have some god damn positivity please BBC.”
Meanwhile, former Football Focus host Dan Walker praised the BBC team’s build-up, writing on X: “Brilliant build-up from the BBC. Pundits all on it, Chappers superb, in the stadium, on the pitch… best of the World Cup so far.”
Coverage of the FIFA World Cup 2026 airs on the BBC and ITV
The travel expert has a message to anyone who has booked easyJet flights
Simon Calder has issued a message to anyone flying with easyJet(Image: Ashley Cooper/Getty)
Travel expert Simon Calder has issued a message to anyone with flights booked with easyJet. Last week, it was reported that the budget British airline has agreed to be bought by a US investment giant for £5.7billion.
EasyJet announced it had reached an “agreement in principle” with Apollo Global. It comes after a series of approaches by another American giant, Castlelake, which could come back with a counter offer.
It is unclear what the deal, if it happens, would mean for easyJet customers and employees. However, Simon has given his expert verdict on the situation.
Explaining the deal on the Travel Expert with Simon Calder podcast, he said: “easyJet for a fair while was the biggest budget airline in Europe, then Ryanair gradually overtook.
“We are now at the stage where Ryanair is almost twice as big as easyJet but its market capitalisation, in other words what investors think it is worth, is about five or six times easyJet.”
If the deal goes through, Simon explained the best case scenario would be if not much changes.
He said: “That easyJet continues on its trajectory which is one of steady growth and of course, offering great service, incredible safety standards and delivering very good value for the traveller.”
Many passengers are worried about what the potential deal could mean for flights and holidays already booked, especially in the coming weeks as we enter peak summer travel season.
Simon’s co-host Greg Dickinson urged: “Let us stress that if you have a holiday booked with easyJet this summer or a flight with easyJet, it is going ahead as normal.
“These changes are going to take months to get the deal completed, and it will be a year until we start seeing anything different.”
Simon agreed as he said: “I think that is absolutely right, do not fret. I’ve had some people say to me, ‘Is it alright to book with easyJet?’ Well, of course it is.”
The travel expert said that if you have flights booked next year and the potential takeover means the flight won’t run, passengers are entitled to ask the airline to find them an alternative at the airline’s expense.
He added: “It would not be a problem, carry on booking easyJet and the interesting element will be whether it goes through.”
A stock market statement said: “Apollo has followed easyJet for many years and continues to regard it as one of the most attractive businesses in the global aviation sector and a highly differentiated franchise with significant long-term growth potential.”
It added: “Apollo places a high value on people and believes that identifying and retaining key staff within the easyJet Group will be of paramount importance.” It also said other investments by Apollo in airlines had led to it “growing the employee bases”.
EasyJet was founded by entrepreneur Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou in 1995 to offer low-cost fares in Europe. The first inaugural flights took off in November 1995, flying from Luton to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Sir Stelios and his family still own 15.3% of the airline.
Aarin Chiekrie, equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: “EasyJet shareholders are strapping in for an exciting ride as Apollo enters the race to land the orange airline company.
“Apollo’s offer is now the preferred option and the one that easyJet’s management would recommend to shareholders. But the deal’s not off the runway yet, with Apollo having until August 7 to decide whether to make a formal bid. In that time, rival bidder Castlelake could still come to the table with improved terms.”
Delta Air Lines Inc. Chief Executive Ed Bastian said travelers care more about their seat than extras like lounge access or limousine shuttles often thrown into costly tickets, as he defended a stripped-down premium product that has irked some customers.
“Consumers want different value decisions to take,” Bastian said in a Bloomberg Television interview on Monday. “If you can give people the opportunity to sit in first class, they may not want different elements and they may not need to go in the lounge.”
Delta is bringing the basic-economy playbook to Delta First, Delta Premium Select and Delta One, offering passengers the same onboard seats, meals and service at a lower price in exchange for fewer benefits. Depending on the product, restrictions can include reduced mileage earnings, lower checked-bag allowances, fees for changes or cancellations and limits on lounge access and advance seat selection.
“What consumers care more about than anything is the seat,” Bastian said. “All the other things are nice, but it’s the seat and the comfort of the seat that’s most important.”
Bastian’s comments contrast Delta’s recent investments in its ground amenities. The airline has spent years opening and expanding swanky Sky Clubs and Delta One lounges, which remain in such high demand that crowding and lines have prompted tighter access rules.
Delta last month opened the first phase of a second Delta One Lounge at Los Angeles International Airport, a 4,000-square-foot space with table-service dining, showers and a premium bar. By 2028, Delta plans to operate four lounges at LAX spanning 60,000 square feet and seating more than 1,000 guests, part of a global network that now includes five Delta One Lounges and more than 50 Sky Clubs.
“One of the things we’re disappointed about is the continued segmentation of the fare structure,” Jefferies analyst Sheila Kahyaoglu said in an interview with Bloomberg Television, referring to how Delta has refined its premium offering into different, sometimes hard-to-follow groups. “You could accidentally get locked out of a lounge if you don’t pick that main business fare.”
Delta last week reported second-quarter earnings that beat Wall Street expectations despite recording the highest quarterly fuel expense in its history. The airline earned an adjusted $1.56 a share, topping analysts’ estimate of $1.51, while revenue rose 14% from a year earlier and capacity increased just 1%. Delta also reaffirmed its full-year profit guidance.
Bastian said strong demand for premium, corporate and international travel helped offset the surge in fuel prices caused by fighting in the Middle East. Although fuel costs eased as the war in Iran appeared to be winding down, renewed US military strikes have raised the risk of another escalation and kept energy markets volatile.
The CEO reiterated that Delta would continue pricing tickets to recover those higher costs and did not expect airfares to decline. The new basic premium fares give the airline another way to appeal to price-conscious travelers without broadly discounting its most valuable seats.
The strategy also allows Delta to widen the pool of passengers who can afford premium cabins while still charging more to corporate travelers and frequent fliers who value flexibility, loyalty benefits and lounge access. It reflects how airlines are increasingly selling each component of the travel experience separately.
But it risks alienating premium and loyalty travelers by introducing complexity or making it seem harder to get the same level of access.
“Delta’s change to its premium-seating offerings suggests competition is weighing on pricing at the front of the cabin, a negative for earnings,” Bloomberg Intelligence analyst George Ferguson said.
Despite being close to terming out of office, and also otherwise occupied with his ever-emerging presidential run, Gov. Gavin Newsom last week found time to announce a consequential, if controversial, move that has the potential to vastly improve educational outcomes for California kids: switching out an independent, voter-chosen leader for a hired gun.
In legislation signed last week, Newsom basically eviscerated the role of the elected superintendent of public instruction and instead shifted oversight of our K-12 schools to a newly created education commissioner — to be appointed by the governor.
It’s to Newsom’s credit that he’s setting up his successor to helm a system that at least has a chance at coherence, even if it raises the stakes for the next governor to deliver.
For years — decades, really — streamlining the governing structure of schools “has been proposed by Republicans and Democrats and bipartisan and nonpartisan commissions,” Linda Darling-Hammond told me. She’s a professor emeritus at Stanford University, an advisor to the governor and, by any measure, one of the preeminent education policy experts in the country.
“It’s not at all political. It is really about making the system run well,” she said. “The world is changing, the economy is changing. There’s just a need to be very efficient and effective in making policy and then implementing that policy.”
“Run well” is the key there. California operates the biggest and most diverse school system in the country. We’ve got roughly 10,000 regular schools (depending on how you count), including about 1,200 charter schools, around 1,00 school districts and 58 counties, each with their own slice of local control over those schools, according to the Department of Education.
That’s about 5.7 million students, nearly 300,000 teachers and $150 billion in costs (counting the new funding in the next budget).
To be kind, this system does not always run well. That’s in no small part because oversight and control are fragmented, overlapping and confusing. Currently, the State Board of Education sets policies, but the elected superintendent implements them through the Department of Education. Then control runs downhill to individual school districts, filtering through local school boards and even principals.
The board can’t control how the superintendent does their job, and vice versa. In fact, they don’t always agree, despite (or because of) the shotgun wedding nature of their relationship. At times, it can feel like they are working against each other. Never mind the complexities of local control.
This has been especially true in recent years as Newsom and the Legislature have pushed through big changes, such as the new prekindergarten grade, that have required massive coordination and effort. At the local level, administrators often complain there is little clarity on what is expected of them and, too often, outright conflict.
“The idea of having policy in one place and implementation in the other is really crazy,” Michael Kirst told me. He’s professor emeritus of education at Stanford and the longest-serving president of California’s State Board of Education, serving under both of Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial stints.
Newsom’s proposed system promises “much clearer, cleaner accountability,” Kirst said.
Expertise counts
It also has the benefit of putting an actual education expert in charge of schools. Because the superintendent role is elected, it has too often been coveted by career politicians looking for a landing spot. Its incumbent, Tony Thurmond, had a background in social work before running for various offices, but that kind of experience isn’t always the case. Neither is experience running a major organization with thousands of employees.
While Newsom’s plan leaves many, if not most, of the details to be ironed out later (a frustrating strategy he’s used more than once to keep the ball rolling on policy without having the drag of actual detail), it does promise to put in someone with the kind of high-level educational policy experience that should be required when managing this vast and important endeavor.
Kirst points out that this will be a “powerful position” charged with making sure our schools are indeed run well, and at the end of the day, it gives us one person to blame if they don’t: the governor.
So if schools don’t improve and our kids don’t learn, voters will know exactly who failed.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Palm Beach International Airport has officially been renamed President Donald J. Trump International Airport, with new signage installed throughout the terminal. The move has prompted mixed reactions, with supporters welcoming the tribute while critics argued it was ‘in poor taste.’
President Trump’s administration is threatening to withhold some federal funding from states that don’t make changes to voting practices and is warning state election officials that they face arrest if they don’t remove noncitizens from voter rolls.
Letters to states and grant application details are the latest in a line of actions by Trump’s administration to shape details of running elections that have long been the job of states.
Courts have largely rejected the administration’s previous efforts, which reflect untrue claims about widespread voting fraud and come less than four months ahead of crucial midterm elections where Democrats seek to take control of one or both chambers of Congress and check Trump’s power.
“The overall point is that Trump is trying to use whatever levers of power and persuasive power that he might have to try to interfere with how states and localities are going to conduct the 2026 election,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor and the director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project. “Some of this is aimed at changing how the rules are conducted. Some of it appears to be aimed at undermining voter confidence in the integrity of the election process.”
Justice Department warns election officials of prosecution
In letters sent Tuesday, to election officials for all 50 states and the District of Columbia — often secretaries of state — the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division said they and other election administrators could face criminal charges if they knowingly allow nonvoters to vote or remain on voting rolls.
It also called on the states to tell the federal government within five days how they intend to comply with the law.
Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in election law, said it’s not clear the 50-state letter means anything except to restate some parts of the law, with a request to follow up, “which I’m sure many states will ignore.”
The letter also warns that anyone who knowingly and willfully gives false information in registering to vote or voting would face criminal prosecution.
Antiterrorism grants include election requirements
A Federal Emergency Management Agency antiterrorism grant announcement in June includes a list of election-related requirements, saying that 20% of grants for states and urban areas would be withheld until they comply.
The program includes more than $1 billion for states and local and tribal governments for a variety of programs aimed at preventing terror at crowded places, online, with border security — and around elections. FEMA expects to award 56 grants.
“Recipients can ensure that their efforts contribute to a secure, transparent, and resilient electoral process, thereby reinforcing public trust and the integrity of democratic institutions,” the grant announcement says, noting that securing election infrastructure is a national security priority.
The list of items for states includes verifying the citizenship of all registered voters and election workers.
Places that use electronic voting systems that use bar codes or QR codes to count votes would have to submit plans to switch to hand-marked paper ballots. Every jurisdiction would have to show it audits results.
UCLA’s Hasen said it could be difficult even for states that want to comply. It’s too close to the midterm election to make some of the changes, he said, and some would require state legislatures to pass new laws.
The White House on Wednesday referred questions to FEMA, which did not immediately respond to an interview request.
Response from states appears to be partisan
Some states are pushing back, while others are defending the latest actions.
They seem to be breaking along party lines.
Oregon’s secretary of state, Democrat Tobias Read, accused the Justice Department of “knocking on our door again with more threats and no evidence to back up their fever dreams about non-existent voter fraud.”
Oregon elections are secure, accurate, and fair, he said, adding that he isn’t “intimidated by political threats or manufactured controversy.”
The Michigan secretary of state’s office, headed by Democrat Jocelyn Benson, said it has discussed its work repeatedly with the Justice Department and in public statements, congressional hearings and court testimony — information that it said “is either in the DOJ’s possession or easy reach.”
“We will be happy to provide it again to help address any confusion,” the office said in a statement.
In a statement, Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose defended the Justice Department’s missive to states, saying it’s reminding them of their legal obligation regarding election integrity. A lot of states aren’t taking it seriously, he said without giving examples or citing evidence. He said Ohio has worked with the federal government to ensure that its voter rolls are accurate and that only U.S. citizens vote.
Georgia’s secretary of state’s office says the state has already taken many of the actions required in the FEMA grant, including a citizenship audit of voter rolls.
Several of Trump’s election actions have faced resistance
Trump has repeatedly and wrongly asserted that fraud cost him reelection in 2020, and his administration has put forth a series of policies and actions aimed at how elections are run.
In recent days, courts have rejected the Justice Department’s effort to collect the names and contact information for every election worker in Georgia in the 2020 election and others trying to force New Hampshire and Pennsylvania to turn over detailed information about registered voters. With those rulings, the federal government has lost similar cases more than 10 times around its requests for details from 30 states and the District of Columbia.
Last week, a group of Democratic governors asked the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw its proposed rule seeking to implement an order from Trump to create a list of eligible voters — and potentially limit who can receive a ballot in the mail. A court previously put the order on hold, saying it was unconstitutional.
Also last week, the Supreme Court rebuked Trump and ruled that states can count mailed ballots that arrive after Election Day.
Mulvihill and Levy write for the Associated Press. AP writers Gabriela Aoun Angueira, Bill Barrow, Kate Brumback and Josh Kelety contributed to this report.
Travellers have reacted with anger after the change was made to services on flights
09:38, 09 Jul 2026Updated 10:40, 09 Jul 2026
TUI passengers have been told their bookings have changed – and offered a small refund(Image: Getty)
TUI has emailed passengers telling them of an ‘important change’ to holidays already booked. Travellers have reacted with anger after the change was made to services on the flight – with alcoholic drinks off the menu.
In messages posted on Facebook pages from holiday travel companies, it emerged TUI is making the change from November 1. Anyone travelling long-haul with the company has been told that complimentary drinks will no longer be service in economy class.
Instead travellers will receive one complimentary beer or wine with the main meal. All other drinks will now have to be paid for – however, passengers travelling in Premium will continue to receive complimentary alcoholic drinks as part of their experience.
Anyone already booked is being offered a small amount of money back: “If you’ve already booked and paid for a long-haul holiday departing after 1st November, TUI has announced a £12.50 per person, each-way goodwill refund for affected customers.” Many have been sent an email with the subject in caps saying ‘IMPORTANT NEWS REGARDING A CHANGE TO YOUR HOLIDAY’.
The travel operator said: “Everyone will have their own opinion, but for some travellers this could take away a little of that ‘holiday starts on the plane’ feeling.”
Jamie thought it was a good thing: “Probably a good thing with the number of alcohol related incidents onboard these long-haul holiday flights. “ However, Nigel was taking his trade elsewhere: “Plenty saying book with another airline, good luck with that, particularly if you do not have easy access to London airports.” One user said: “That is a tiny amount of refund.”
Some have not had nice experiences. Charlotte said: “Last time we did long haul paid premium it wasn’t loads of drinks it was moderated and disappointing for the amount of money we spent and rudeness of staff.” A user added: “It would make me consider another airline first. But I’ve had issues with TUI when we were supposed to go to Jamaica last year so already not in my good books. If the £12.50 was ongoing, that’s actually reasonable, but to have to pay for drinks moving forward sucks a bit.”
Graeme added: “This is a total joke.” Olive said: ”TUI can ram that nonsense. The whole idea of long haul is getting smashed.”
June added: “The drinks were never ‘free’…they were complimentary. There’s a difference. The complimentary drinks were meant to be limited, but people just take the proverbial’ **** Not surprised it’s been pulled.”
TUI responded to one user: “Thank you for your comment. We’re sorry to hear of your disappointment with the changes to our long-haul service. This change helps us focus on the things that matter most, like keeping fares competitive, maintaining great value overall, and giving customers more flexibility in how they spend onboard.
“Soft drinks will remain free, customers will still get a complimentary beer or wine with their main meal, and there’ll be a wider range of alcoholic drinks available to buy, so people can choose exactly what they want during their flight. Thanks!”
Last month, it emerged that TUI Airways was ranked among the worst airlines for UK flight punctuality, with one route having an average delay of more than three-quarters of an hour.
The leisure carrier’s departures from UK airports were an average of 20 minutes and 24 seconds behind schedule in 2025, according to analysis of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) data.
The least punctual of its routes with at least 100 flights was from Birmingham to the Greek island of Zante, which had an average delay of 46 minutes.
Rory Boland, editor of consumer magazine Which? Travel, said it was “unacceptable” that airline passengers “continue to face unreliable service” amid fare rises. He went on: “Airlines must do more to support travellers during delays, including clearly communicating their rights and eligibility for compensation.
“It’s worth putting in a claim with your airline if you think it’s responsible – and escalating the complaint if it refuses to pay.” TUI Airways is owned by TUI Group, which also operates the UK’s second-largest package holiday company.
Many of its holiday customers use the airline, which serves more than 20 UK airports.
The punctuality analysis took into account all scheduled and chartered departures from UK airports by the 34 airlines which operated more than 2,500 of these flights last year. Cancelled flights were not included.
Aage Dunhaupt, TUI Group’s director of communications, said: “We fully understand that for holidaymakers, every minute counts. Minimising delays remains a top priority, and our teams work continuously to improve operational performance across our network.”
Mr Dunhaupt said the airline makes “a conscious choice” to operate flights “wherever possible, even if they are delayed, rather than cancelling them”, as this ensures passengers reach their destination “rather than facing the risk of extended disruption”.
He added: “If we were to follow broader industry practices of cancelling flights more readily, our punctuality ranking would improve significantly.
“However, this would come at the expense of our customers.”
The police marksman who shot Chris Kaba may no longer face misconduct proceedings after the government changed the rules on how officers’ use of force is judged.
Sgt Martyn Blake shot 24-year-old Kaba in Streatham, south London, in 2022 after he tried to ram his way past police cars.
Blake was cleared of murder following a trial in 2024 but was subject to a separate disciplinary hearing, which the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) paused while it waited for the changes to be published.
The legal test for misconduct in officers’ use-of-force cases has been raised to the same used in criminal law, meaning conduct that would not amount to a crime should not amount to misconduct either.
After Blake’s acquittal, then home secretary Yvette Cooper said she would raise the legal test used to decide whether to charge officers over use of force.
On Wednesday, the watchdog said it now believes the case should not go ahead. It will consult the Kaba family, who argue there are exceptional circumstances why it should still proceed.
Dozens of other non-fatal use-of-force cases could also be affected if forces take the same approach.
IOPC director of strategy and policy Andrew Johnson said: “We carefully considered the law change and its stated intent to address the perceived unfairness and lack of proportionality of the civil law test.
“We believe this position provides consistency across impacted cases and is fair to officers who are facing potential dismissal for misconduct, which if it occurred now, would not amount to misconduct under the new law.
“We expect the number of relevant cases that are affected by this law change to be relatively small.”
Metropolitan Police deputy commissioner Matt Jukes, referring to Blake by his cypher NX121, said: “We have consistently said since the criminal trial that there is no basis for further action against this officer and that remains our position.
“That is why I welcome the recent changes to the law, introducing a presumption of anonymity for firearms officers during court proceedings until conviction, and restoring the criminal test for the use of force in misconduct cases.”
The family of Chris Kaba said the decision had a damaging impact on bereaved families in cases involving use of force by the police, and that “it gives every appearance that the IOPC has a closed mind on this specific case”.
Temi Mwale and Kayza Rose from the Justice for Chris Kaba Campaign said they were “appalled” by the IOPC’s decision.
They added: “The only just approach would have been to conclude all existing cases under the rules that were in place when those proceedings began.
“Instead, the rules have been changed mid-process to ensure that Martyn Blake will face no professional accountability.”
The campaigners described the decision as a blow to public confidence and said Britain was “moving backwards on police accountability”.
On the night Kaba died, police had followed and boxed in the Audi he was driving because it had been linked to three firearms incidents in the previous five months.
Officers did not know his identity at the time. He was later reported by police to have links to a street gang and to two shootings in the six days before his death.
Imagine Cruising has launched its new Americas Collection for 2027-28, featuring five luxury tailor-made holidays combining cruises with land excursions to destinations including New York, South America and Antarctica – with prices starting from £2,999 per person including flights, accommodation, transfers and tours.
If you want to get a sense of the fuel crisis gripping Russia, all you need to do is spend a day driving around Moscow. At almost every petrol station we passed there was a queue of cars and lorries. Some lines were long, some short; some static, others moving steadily.
If there was no queue, that meant the garage had run out of fuel entirely and was closed.
Remember: this is Moscow, the wealthy, populated capital that draws in so much of Russia’s vast resources. Even here the authorities cannot ensure there is enough petrol and diesel to keep Muscovites on the road.
Yet, in the queues, the mood was more frustrated than angry. Yekaterina told us she was “not happy” and there was “panic because everybody thinks there will be no oil”. But it would OK, she said, “we just need to reorganise the oil distribution”.
The situation according to Elmar was “very bad” and he complained prices were going up as fuel stocks ran low. “You are wasting hours to fill up,” he said. “At the moment I am planning a trip to Dagestan but I don’t know if I should drive there or not because there are so many problems with petrol.”
I asked him who was to blame. “In our country, you can’t say what is to blame and who is to blame,” he said, with a knowing smile.
In Russia, criticism of the president, or even the Kremlin, is not something most feel they can do in public.
Valery said it was strange having to queue in a country that extracts so much oil. He blamed the lack of Russian preparedness as much as Ukrainian missiles. “I have no desire to get used to queues,” he said. “I hope the situation will change soon and won’t be continued.”
So the war is coming closer to home for many across Russia.
President Vladimir Putin has worked hard to insulate most people from the consequences of what he calls his special military operation, now well into its fifth year. On the streets of Moscow, one can see little sign of the war, just a few posters about heroic soldiers.
NEW YORK — A White House report brands the leadership of the Smithsonian Institution, especially at the National Museum of American History, as radical activists who cannot be trusted, indicating that President Trump may be preparing to install his own team.
The report released late on Independence Day by the White House Domestic Policy Council comes in the midst of Trump’s aggressive campaign to overhaul some of Washington’s most sacred cultural and historic institutions. Trump in March revealed his intention to force changes at the Smithsonian Institution with an executive order that targeted funding for programs that advanced “divisive narratives” and “improper ideology,” as he continued a broadside against culture he deems too liberal.
“The Smithsonian Institution, and the National Museum of American History in particular, under its current leadership and current interpretive ideology, cannot be trusted to tell America’s story honestly and in a way that is inspiring, unifying, and worthy of our great republic,” according to the report by the council, which is led by a former top Trump speechwriter.
The authors added: “As this report shows, confirmed in the words of Museum leadership, this ideological capture has moved the Museum’s mission away from straightforward historical education and scholarship toward an extreme political activism that seeks to transform our country.”
The Smithsonian did not immediately respond to requests for comment Sunday.
Historian Lonnie Bunch, the Smithsonian’s current secretary, is the first African American to lead the institution. In an unrelated interview that aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Bunch said “the notion of being a more perfect union, not the perfect union, is really what motivates me.”
“I think what I want people to understand is that there is a responsibility to continue to make those aspirations available, accessible, meaningful to a whole range of people,” Bunch said. “And that, in essence, America’s greatest strength, it’s not running away from its history, but it’s understanding how that history shaped us and continues to shape us.”
Historian Anthea M. Hartig is the first woman to serve as director of National Museum of American History.
Trump’s escalating effort to force changes at the Smithsonian marks the Republican president’s latest move to transform cultural pillars of society, such as universities and art, that he considers out of step with conservative sensibilities. Trump had himself installed as chairman of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts with the aim of overhauling programming, and his handpicked board voted to add his name to the building, only to have a federal judge later order the signage to be removed.
The administration also forced Columbia University to make a series of policy changes by threatening the Ivy League school with the loss of several hundred million dollars in federal funding.
Trump has also imposed changes on historical sites beyond Washington, including in Philadelphia, where the administration won a court ruling last week allowing it to reinstall interpretive panels that critics say whitewash the history of slavery at the site of President George Washington’s home. Advocates, academics and officials have been concerned for months that the version that complies with Trump’s order could give a history that plays down the pain in the nation’s past in favor of a more triumphant view.
Gov. Josh Shapiro, D-Pa., accused Trump and his allies of trying to “rewrite history.”
“There’s not one individual narrative that a president gets about our history,” Shapiro, a potential presidential prospect, said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And any president should want to make sure that that full history is shared, that the American people are able to draw their own conclusions.”
Shapiro added, “If we understand where we came from, we’re going to have a better path forward.”
Trump’s Domestic Policy Council does not necessarily agree.
The National Museum of American History “confronts visitors with materials intended to undermine faith in American institutions and the longstanding shared ideals of the American people,” the council’s report said. “We must be committed to restoring truth and sanity in how American history is presented and taught.”
In seeking to fulfill Trump’s order, which he called “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” the review concluded by finding that the museum “by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”
Heathrow Airport has issued a reminder to travellers
Heathrow is the country’s busiest airport(Image: Jason Alden/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
A major UK airport has issued a reminder to travellers ahead of what is anticipated to be an exceptionally busy summer period for international travel.
Hundreds of thousands of people transit through Heathrow Airport daily, and a message on the airport’s official X account is encouraging those with upcoming trips to “just remember”. The social media post reads: “With over 100 touchless water stations at Heathrow, you’re never too far from staying hydrated. Just remember to empty your reusable metal or double-walled water bottle before security, and top it up before you fly.”
Heathrow scrapped the 100ml rule earlier this year, meaning travellers passing through the nation’s largest airport can now keep liquids in containers up to two litres in their bags while going through security, following the completion of its deployment of new advanced CT scanners.
Content cannot be displayed without consent
Electronics such as laptops can also remain in luggage, while transparent plastic bags for liquids are no longer required. The regulation change only applies to departures from Heathrow, and travellers must verify restrictions on baggage at the airports they are flying back from before boarding flights to the UK.
Back in January a DfT spokesperson said: “Heathrow is the latest UK airport to complete its rollout of next-generation security equipment for passengers, helping ensure security checks remain robust and can be completed smoothly.
“Airports are responsible for the installation and operation of security equipment. Passengers should continue to check security requirements with airports before they travel and come prepared with liquids in containers no larger than 100ml in hand baggage unless advised otherwise.”
But England do not have to remove direct play from their game entirely.
By managing the space and speed of the game, they can pick their moments to release the likes of Noni Madueke, Anthony Gordon, Marcus Rashford and Jude Bellingham.
If England do opt to play more slowly, they will also be hoping these ‘boring’ spells of play work to silence the Mexican home crowd.
The decision to pick a squad of similar profiles might be one of the more astute decisions Tuchel has made as England boss when it comes to this game too.
With a tactical plan in mind, making five substitutions that do not alter the dynamic of the game greatly, but instead reinforce the plan with freshness and energy as Mexico begin to tire could be the difference.
This could indeed be a match full of mini-games and picking moments in which to change things will be key.
Tuchel, as we’ve seen throughout his club career, and most recently against DR Congo, has a knack for getting mid-game tweaks right but the many variables of the game against Mexico make this one of his toughest challenges yet.
It was a traumatic moment for much of Southern California, as federal immigration agents snatched undocumented workers from car washes, garment factories and Home Depot parking lots.
Angelica Salas, who heads one of Los Angeles’ most influential immigrant rights groups, met regularly last summer with City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez — himself the son of Mexican immigrants — as they formulated a response. The two kept circling back to a singular issue: the lack of political power wielded by noncitizens.
“A lot of this is happening because immigrants don’t have the right to vote,” said Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights.
Those conversations helped fuel Soto-Martínez’s decision in late April to push for a ballot proposal aimed at giving noncitizens the right to vote in city and school district elections. The proposal quickly gained momentum, with two-thirds of the council voting in mid-June to draft a measure for the Nov. 3 ballot.
Los Angeles City Council member Hugo Soto-Martínez attends a City Council meeting following elections at City Hall June 3.
(Etienne Laurent / For the Times)
But the effort collapsed on Tuesday, with the council reversing course and sending the proposal to a committee for more study. Before the vote, Soto-Martínez acknowledged that he had not performed sufficient outreach, particularly to the city’s Black community leaders.
By then, critics were accusing the council of failing to do its homework, leaving voters to fill in the blanks on such questions as whether undocumented immigrants would be covered by the expanded franchise. Some worried the proposal would endanger the very people it was designed to help, making them a fresh target for the Trump administration.
Even community leaders who have worked on civil rights issues were urging the council to slow down.
Mobilizing Preachers and Communities, a national nonprofit that represents clergy and civil rights advocates, asked for a delay, citing concerns about President Trump. Rev. K.W. Tulloss, the group’s western regional director, said he was also hearing concerns from Black residents and their religious leaders about the potential for weakening Black voting representation.
That, in turn, could reduce the overall number of Black elected officials in Los Angeles, he said.
“That’s a major concern among our community,” Tulloss said. “And we can’t be afraid to have that dialogue.”
In L.A., Black residents make up about 8% of registered voters, according to the Sacramento-based firm Political Data, Inc. That figure has been gradually declining over the past few decades. An influx of noncitizen voters — Latinos, Asians and others — could cause it to shrink even more.
At the end of the year, L.A.’s 15-member City Council will have two Black representatives, down from three, all in South L.A.-based districts. Two Latinos are running in this year’s election to replace Councilmember Curren Price, who is Black and retiring after serving the maximum three terms.
The county’s five-member Board of Supervisors has one Black member. Voters have given the go-ahead to add four more members, which some fear could leave the board with one Black member out of nine.
Tulloss said his organization supports creating a pathway to citizenship for the city’s undocumented immigrants. At the same time, he worried that Soto-Martínez’s proposal could in the short term divide Black and brown residents, who share a common struggle on a wide range of issues.
“At the end of the day, we don’t want any type of deal that will be divisive in the community,” he said.
Soto-Martínez, who represents an Echo Park-to-Hollywood district, said in an interview Wednesday that noncitizen voting was part of his platform when he first ran for City Council in 2022. He said he first thought about the issue seriously a decade ago, when San Francisco voters passed a measure allowing noncitizen parents to cast ballots in school board elections.
Since its formation, the United States has repeatedly redefined the right to vote, broadening it to include women, Black people and other groups, he said.
“To me, it just seemed very natural to expand it,” he said. “It’s part of our history.”
The idea of noncitizen voting has been circulating in L.A. for years. School board member Kelly Gonez persuaded her colleagues to begin exploring it in 2019. But the effort was set aside after the onset of COVID-19, which caused massive disruptions across the Los Angeles Unified School District, said Michael Trujillo, a political strategist for Gonez.
Last summer, as the Trump administration was launching immigration raids across Southern California, the city was convening a 13-member citizens commission to come up with proposals for rewriting the City Charter, L.A.’s governing document.
The commission took up noncitizen voting in March, narrowly rejecting it. Several commissioners said they were worried about unintended consequences, like the Trump administration taking aim at newly registered voters, said Raymond Meza, who served as the commission’s chair.
“I thought those concerns were not fully addressed,” Meza said, “so I actually switched my vote” and opposed the proposal.
A month later, with the deadline for placing items on the Nov. 3 ballot fast approaching, Soto-Martínez introduced a motion calling for a two-step process for expanding voting rights. First, voters would be asked to give the City Council the authority to grant noncitizens the right to vote.
The council would then examine the details surrounding the change before passing an ordinance expanding those voting rights.
Soto-Martínez said his motion was based on a simple idea: Those who live in the city, raise their families there and pay taxes “deserve to have a voice” in local decision-making. He did not offer many specifics, saying those would be worked out at a later date.
Critics, and even some supporters, said Soto-Martínez was making his move at the wrong time. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who voted against the proposal in mid-June, voiced fears that the list of noncitizen voters would immediately be seized by federal immigration authorities.
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said he opposes noncitizen voting in city elections. He does favor it for L.A. Unified — but only for parents of children attending those schools.
Villaraigosa, who led the city from 2005-13 and recently ran for governor, argued that this is not the right time to make even that change.
“With Trump ferreting through every record he can find looking for undocumented people, I just think it’s the wrong time,” he said. “I think these people would be exposing themselves to deportation, and the well-intentioned would be exposing them as well.”
Soto-Martínez portrayed such arguments as “fear mongering,” saying undocumented immigrants take risks every day in their quest to create a better future for their families.
Salas, the head of CHIRLA, echoed that idea.
“At end of day, we are already targets,” she said. “This is not going to make it worse. Don’t tell me voting against this was for the protection of immigrants.”
The Trump threat was not the only reason council members hesitated.
Rodriguez, who has expressed some interest in the proposal, said city leaders had not determined how county election officials would issue separate ballots for voters who would be barred from state and national contests. They also had not determined the cost of such a service, she said.
Twenty-two local jurisdictions across the country have approved and implemented noncitizen voting, according to Megan Dias, who is co-author of “Immigrant Voting and the Movement for Inclusion in San Francisco,” a report examining that city’s push to allow immigrants to vote in school board elections.
Dias said that backers of noncitizen voting need to build a broad coalition — grassroots organizations, election officials, lawyers for the city — before taking the proposal to voters.
Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said he is confident that noncitizen voting will get a much more extensive review in the coming months, and make the ballot in 2028. First, he said, the council will need to provide voters with specifics on how the changes would work.
Harris-Dawson said he heard from people who wanted more time to understand the proposal, to “make sure that it was done in a way that protected Black voting districts in particular.”
During the deliberations on the proposal, it also was not clear whether the change would apply to green card holders, recipients of Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals or other categories of noncitizens.
“When something goes to the ballot, we need the details to be figured out — like how much something is going to cost, exactly how it’s going to work, and what the parameters are,” Harris-Dawson said. “All of that needs to be defined.”
NEW ORLEANS — Louisiana’s attorney general has been indicted over accusations she threatened the jobs of New Orleans leaders who fought a Republican-led overhaul of local courts in the heavily Democratic city.
The 16-count indictment against Republican Liz Murrill, handed up Thursday by a New Orleans grand jury, charges Louisiana’s first female attorney general with intimidation and malfeasance.
At the center of the case are deepening rifts between state leaders in Louisiana, which is heavily Republican, and Democrats who control the state’s most prominent city.
Republican Gov. Jeff Landry promised a swift pardon, saying Murrill would not have her reputation tarnished by an “Orleans kangaroo court.” Mayor Helena Moreno, a Democrat, was among those who had accused the state’s top law enforcement official in May of making threats against public officials.
Murrill called the case against her “retaliatory, meritless, and unconstitutional.” Late Thursday, Murrill said she had filed for an emergency stay with the Louisiana Supreme Court.
“I will not back down. I will continue enforcing the law, fighting corruption, and doing the job the people of Louisiana elected me to do,” she wrote on X.
For months, political tensions intensified between Louisiana Republicans and New Orleans officials over a new law that abolished a court clerk office won by an exoneree, Calvin Duncan, who spent nearly three decades in prison. The change consolidated that job with another clerk’s office, which Republican supporters said would make the local judicial system more efficient.
The change was staunchly opposed by New Orleans leaders, and in May, the City Council set a special election that would have given Duncan a chance to win the newly combined job. Murrill responded by warning local officials in letters that they could lose their offices for violating state “usurper” laws, which forbid support for an unauthorized officeholder.
“We’re very interested in elected officials in New Orleans not being intimidated or threatened by letter or any other way,” special prosecutor Laurie White told reporters.
Bond for Murrill was set at $400,000 on Thursday, according to court records.
Landry said he was ordering state police to investigate what he called “alleged improprieties” of the grand jury and those who ran it.
“The criminal justice system is a circus at its finest in Orleans and we will not have any of that!” he wrote on X.
The Republican Attorneys General Assn. said that making statements to local officials — in writing — was simply “issuing a legal opinion and warning public officials about the law” as part of her official duties. It called the indictment “as outrageous as it is dangerous.”
Moreno, who was elected in January and was defiant after Murrill sent the letters, on Thursday called it a “matter for the courts” and did not directly address the allegations.
“My focus, as always, remains on fulfilling the responsibilities the people of New Orleans elected me to carry out,” Moreno said.
Duncan has said he believes state officials were retaliating against him in eliminating the job he won with 68% of the vote. Murrill and Landry have long refused to acknowledge his innocence, though he’s listed on the National Registry of Exonerations.
Republicans have said the change was not personal and supporters have noted that the offices of criminal and civil clerks of courts are combined in other parishes.
Duncan was a jailhouse lawyer who later graduated from law school. He founded a nonprofit dedicated to expanding incarcerated people’s access to the court system and was the driving force behind a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ended nonunanimous jury convictions.
Duncan spent more than 28 years in prison over a fatal shooting during a robbery in 1981.
The night before a 2011 hearing to consider new evidence, prosecutors offered to reduce Duncan’s sentence to the time he’d already served in prison if he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and armed robbery. Duncan took the deal and was freed but didn’t give up on clearing his name.
In 2021, a judge agreed that Duncan had been unjustly convicted and vacated his sentence altogether. Landry and Murrill have pointed to the 2011 plea deal in objecting to Duncan calling himself exonerated.
Riddle and Hanna write for the Associated Press. Associated Press reporter Jack Brook in New Orleans contributed.
WASHINGTON — President Trump has spent months waging an unusually aggressive campaign to reshape how states run elections, leveraging federal agencies in ways no previous president has attempted.
He has pushed the Department of Homeland Security to compile a list of citizens in each state to help determine voter eligibility. He is seeking to give the Postal Service a role in deciding who can receive mail ballots. He has threatened to withhold federal funding from states unless they phase out electronic voting machines. And he is pressuring Republican lawmakers to overhaul voting laws, claiming without evidence that elections are being rigged.
The efforts have run into resistance in court and within his own party. They have also left postal workers and local election officials bracing for an election cycle marked by deepening doubts about election integrity, and uncertainty about how the federal government may challenge the post-election results.
“It’s an unprecedented power grab to reshape how our elections work so that he and his allies can maintain and expand power,” said Eric Kashdan, director of federal advocacy at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan government ethics organization.
The White House defends the effort as fulfilling a campaign promise, and argues the administration is “lawfully enacting the agenda President Trump was elected to enact.”
One of Trump’s defining efforts to assert some federal control over state elections has been his insistence on passing the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register, require Americans to show identification when casting a ballot and require states to send voter data to the Department of Homeland Security.
His relentless push for the measure has prompted him to derail a bipartisan housing bill and threaten to forgo signing any piece of legislation unless the voting measure is approved. He says he considers the matter a “national emergency.” Despite the pressure campaign, Senate Republican leaders maintain there is not enough support to pass the measure.
The political stakes ahead of the midterms have been laid out more bluntly by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), whose chamber has approved the SAVE America Act. Last month, Johnson warned conservatives gathered at the Faith & Freedom Coalition that if Democrats win back control of the House, they will “go after the president’s family, the Cabinet, his donors, friends,” and supporters.
“I run the protection program,” Johnson said. “I will take care of you.”
Setbacks in court
The administration’s ambitions have hit numerous snags in court in the last month, with judges reaffirming in many cases that the Constitution gives states — not the federal government — primary authority over elections.
In one case, U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, who was appointed by President Biden, went further.
She said a federal immigration database the Department of Homeland Security was compiling to determine voter eligibility violated privacy laws. She added that the database has resulted in states actively removing U.S. citizens from voter rolls based on inaccurate information.
“All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan wrote. “This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.”
James Percival, the general counsel for Homeland Security, said the ruling was the latest example of “how hard the Left will fight to stop us from solving problems they insist do not exist.”
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority this week also dealt a blow to the GOP and upheld state laws that allow for counting mail ballots that are postmarked by election day but arrive late.
The decision left Trump fuming. He said it was a “a little bit surprising” to see the court’s decision, claiming without evidence that the result will inevitably give “people more time to vote illegally.”
Democrats, in turn, saw the ruling as a necessary check on the Trump administration’s efforts.
“While we continue to see unprecedented efforts to interfere with elections from the Trump administration, it is a relief to see federal courts make clear that these attacks on mail and absentee voting are clearly illegal and unconstitutional,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Los Angeles) said in a statement after the ruling.
Trump is still eyeing changes to voting by mail. In March, he issued an executive order that seeks to limit who can receive mail ballots. Under the proposed rule, the Postal Service would not deliver mail ballots to states that don’t turn over sensitive voter data to the federal government, Postmaster General David Steiner told a Senate panel last month.
The admission drew immediate condemnation from Democratic lawmakers. They argued the regulation is an illegal attempt to coerce states into handing over their voter rolls.
“Please push back on being a pawn in this authoritarian playbook,” Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) told Steiner. “The Postal Service is one of the most important institutions in our country. Don’t taint it with the obsession of this one man.”
A day after that back-and-forth, U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by President Obama, blocked those plans — at least for now.
“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” the judge wrote, while adding that the Postal Service does not have the legal authority to determine who can vote by mail and how.
The White House said Wednesday that the administration remains confident the executive order will be in place by the November election.
Taken together, the administration’s efforts are unprecedented, UCLA law professor Rick Hasen said. That’s because the Constitution puts control over elections in the hands of the states and grants Congress the ability to pass laws, he said.
“The president really only has authority through federal statutes that have already been passed,” Hasen said. “It’s not surprising that many courts have struck down or stopped him from doing things to try to interfere with how elections are being run.”
Postal workers waiting for clarity
The legal setback for the Postal Service proposed rule was welcome news to the union representing postal workers.
“We believe that what we’re being asked to do is in violation of the oath that we took,” said Jonathan Smith, the president of the American Postal Workers Union, which represents more than 200,000 postal workers.
Following the ruling, the union called on the agency to abandon the rule, arguing it “will crush mailers’ trust in the Postal Service” and undermine “one of the most important functions the Postal Service and postal workers perform in service of the United States and its remarkable democracy.”
In several states, the union has run ads promoting mail voting as safe and a needed option for Americans. The ads were planned before Trump signed his executive order in March seeking to limit who can receive mail ballots, Smith said.
Now, the ads are taking a different meaning. Smith argued that “sometimes God works in mysterious ways.”
“The ad was then and is now intended as a piece to educate America about how good vote by mail is, how much it has been working out,” Smith said. “It’s an educational piece, not a response to the White House.”
Ahead of the election, Smith said postal workers are waiting for clarity on how their duties may change. But right now, he says, there isn’t much.
Orange County Registrar Bob Page said his office is monitoring any changes to existing federal and state election laws to ensure any changes, if needed, are implemented without disruptions. But he acknowledged the timing crunch could create some hurdles the closer the election gets.
“In many ways, any change to how California voters cast their ballots made between now and election day would create a challenge and may even be disruptive,” Page said.
He said many counties have ordered outgoing and return ballot envelopes for the election to ensure envelopes for more than 23 million California voters are ready to use by the Oct. 5 mailing deadline. Any change to how ballots should be prepared or mailed could present an issue.
“Our office has received calls from voters asking about potential changes to vote-by-mail procedures usually tied to media coverage about proposed changes,” he said. “We inform these voters that our procedures have not changed because the law has not changed and that we will mail their 2026 General Election ballots by Oct. 5.”
L.A. County prepares for possible voting changes
In Los Angeles County, election officials are also in a battle to bring clarity to the process as the administration ushers in a series of proposed changes to the election.
Dean Logan, the head of the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s office, said his office is fighting to contain a wave of election misinformation, including some that is amplified by the White House.
“It’s not something that we’ve seen happen before, and certainly not at the level we’ve seen,” Logan said.
Rather than respond to every claim, Logan says his office picks its battles, intervening only when a falsehood appears likely to reach a wide audience. Even then, the office tries to avoid engagement with whoever is spreading it.
If the administration imposes a new rule closer to the election, Logan said his office is ready to follow the law.
“It’s really been about finding this balance of staying alert and prepared for the possibility [of change] but also not getting sucked into the political distraction,” he said.
Trump has also continued to claim Democrats are trying to rig or cheat in the upcoming election, remarks that have faced rebukes from members of his own party.
“I think it is ironic that we control the House, Senate, Supreme Court and the White House and we are yelling election fraud. I mean, we won all the damn elections,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) told reporters last month.
At the national level, Senate Democrats have said they plan to send election observers to polling places on behalf of Congress in reaction to Trump’s efforts.
“We are not waiting for chaos to arrive,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said last month. “We are preparing now.”
Times staff writer Justine McDaniel contributed to this report from Washington.
As CNN prepares for change under a new owner, the network’s chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, is heading for the exit and expected to jump to MS NOW.
The Washington-based Reid’s contract with CNN is up in several months and she has told the network she does not plan to renew. She is expected to sign on with CNN competitor MS NOW, according to people familiar with her plans who were not authorized to comment publicly.
A representative for MS NOW said the network does not comment on personnel matters but added, “as everyone in Washington knows, Paula Reid is an exceptional reporter, and any news organization would be fortunate to showcase her journalism.”
Reid‘s planned departure comes ahead of the impending merger of CNN parent Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount. The combination has led to speculation over who will run CNN, and the uncertainty is said to have played a factor in Reid’s decision.
Reid joined CNN from CBS News in 2021.
CNN and Paramount’s CBS News will be combined after the merger, but the management structure is still under discussion. Paramount put Bari Weiss, founder of the heterodox digital news site the Free Press, in charge of CBS News in October, with a mandate to move the network’s coverage more to the political center. Based on the chaos that has ensued at CBS News under her watch, many CNN insiders are concerned over her possible stewardship of an even larger and more complex organization.
CBS News executives and on-air talent have pushed back at Weiss’ efforts to make changes at the division, which many insiders have viewed as an attempt to placate the Trump White House while Paramount seeks regulatory approvals needed ahead of closing the $111-billion Warner Bros. Discovery deal.
Internal resistance to Weiss has been strongest at the venerable news magazine “60 Minutes.” The program’s star correspondent Scott Pelley was fired last month after he confronted management over the dismissals of executive producer Tanya Simon and his on-air colleagues Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega.
CNN anchor Anderson Cooper has reportedly told colleagues he does not want to work for Weiss if the cable network is put under her purview. He already rejected an offer from Weiss to anchor the “CBS Evening News” and declined to renew his deal as a “60 Minutes” contributor after nearly two decades with the program.
The chaos at CBS has given pause to people at CNN. Larry Ellison, the tech billionaire and father of Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison, has reportedly promised Trump there will be sweeping changes to CNN after the merger.
Reid, 43, is among the many TV news correspondents and anchors that Trump has disparaged over the years, claiming they are unfair in their coverage. As White House correspondent for CBS News, Reid was known for asking tough questions of Trump during his White House briefings on the coronavirus.
Reid was a lawyer before becoming a journalist at CBS News in 2010. In addition to serving as White House correspondent for the network, she covered the Justice Department and the Supreme Court.
Reid would be another significant hire for MS NOW, the progressive-leaning channel that is rebuilding its roster after separating from NBC News and its parent, Comcast. The network formerly known as MSNBC is now part of Versant, a company with a stable of cable networks spun off by Comcast.
Dine-in movie theater chain Alamo Drafthouse Cinema is launching a new initiative to show unreleased independent films that had successful festival runs, a move that comes as specialty films have struggled to gain distribution.
The Alamo Exclusives program, announced Wednesday, will give limited theatrical runs to films that showed at festivals including Sundance, the Toronto International Film Festival, Tribeca Festival and South by Southwest festival, as well as Alamo’s own Fantastic Fest.
The idea is to help showcase films that received critical acclaim, but did not secure distribution or acquisition deals. The chain will not acquire these films, but instead will enter into agreements with filmmakers to exhibit their films on Alamo Drafthouse screens. By showing these films to audiences on the big screen, these films could get the momentum they need for further opportunities.
The program’s first film will be the documentary “Butthole Surfers: The Hole Truth and Nothing Butt,” which debuted last year at South by Southwest and chronicles the history of the punk rock band.
The film will be shown in Alamo Drafthouse theaters for a limited time later this summer.
The Austin-based chain, which is owned by Sony Pictures, has a long history of curating indie films for its audiences, giving Alamo Drafthouse confidence that its viewers want to see these kinds of movies, company chief executive Michael Kustermann said in a statement.
“Time and again, they’ve shown they’ll come out to support bold, original films when given the opportunity,” he said. The new Alamo Exclusives “gives us another way to champion filmmaker-driven films that deserve to be discovered and connect them with the wider Alamo Drafthouse audience.”
The initiative comes at a difficult time for indie films. Since the pandemic upended the movie business, traditional studios and distributors have had less appetite for risk, including betting on smaller indie films out of festivals.
And as the 2023 dual writers’ and actors’ strikes thinned out theatrical lineups, that aversion to uncertainty became a push for reliable and profitable hits.
“Too many incredible films premiere at festivals and then never receive the theatrical life they deserve,” Lisa Dreyer, director of Fantastic Fest and film innovation at Alamo, said in a statement. “We are actively searching for films across all genres, from horror to comedy, to everything in-between, to champion in this new, exciting way.”
The just-approved state budget strips authority from the elected state superintendent of public instruction, transferring power in January to an appointee of the governor, dramatically changing the oversight and management of a public school system serving more than 6 million students from preschool through 12th grade.
The change was pushed through by Gov. Gavin Newsom at the urging of academics and education reformers who have long criticized how the state’s $149 billion public education system is governed.
In essence, the change consolidates increased power within the governor’s office — streamlining and largely replacing a diffuse system in which the state superintendent has significant influence, but no direct control over budget and policy.
Supporters hail the move as bringing accountability and coherence — through the governor — to all the departments and agenices involved in education.
“The approval of education governance reform, over a century in the making, is a monumental victory for California’s students that finally establishes a sensible system to best support them,” said Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, an Oakland-based research and advocacy organization. “We commend Governor Newsom for his leadership in making this much needed change a reality.”
Critics called the change an unjustified, undemocratic side-stepping of the state constitution and the will of voters.
“California’s constitutional architecture deliberately established an independent schools chief to ensure that public education answers directly to the voters,” wrote a labor coalition that included the two largest statewide teacher unions. “Replacing an elected constitutional officer with a partisan bureaucrat serving strictly at the pleasure of the executive branch breaks that model, permanently muting the public voice when democratic transparency matters most.”
The critics noted that voters have defeated every attempt to eliminate the elected state superintendent.
The latest effort bypasses the ballot box by keeping the elected position, but stripping most of its powers. The bill did not go through the typically lengthy legislative process; it was instead folded as a trailer bill into the state budget.
School district management groups, such as the one representing county superintendents, were more supportive of the changes.
The Legislature passes laws related to education. The governor chooses which to sign. The governor also proposes what to pay for in education through his budget plan. The Legislature can amend the plan and has the responsibility to approve it.
The elected state superintendent runs the state Department of Education and serves as the administrative lead for the state Board of Education, whose members have been appointed by the governor to four-year terms. The superintendent does not have a vote on the board and must follow board authority in some areas but not others.
The board approves state education policy and curriculum.
“The current state system of support and accountability for local districts is uneven,” resulting in “islands of high quality surrounded by deserts where nothing much has improved,” said former State Board of Education President Michael Kirst, an emeritus Stanford professor of education. Instruction across the entire state was “unlikely to improve” under the status quo, he said.
How the office will change
All of the state superintendent’s authority will transfer to the education commissioner, who will be named by the governor and then approved by the state Senate.
That means the next governor will gain direct control or control through appointees over developing and spending the education budget — including state and federal grants — and developing education policies.
Under the old system, the state superintendent has overseen grants while also interpreting state education law and making sure schools complied.
The new law sets out the superintendent’s role instead as the “independently elected nonpartisan voice for the public interest in the governance of the state’s educational systems.” This role includes reporting to the Legislature “on the condition of education based on statewide engagement and travel to identify significant trends, challenges, and emerging issues.”
Critics worry that amounts to a whole lot of nothing.
That may be literally the case initially, as the new law gives governor’s new education commissioner until Oct. 1, 2027 to propose further reforms including “the future role and staffing” of the elected superintendent.
Until then, the new law provides for the superintendent to have several deputies and a skeleton clerical staff.
The superintendent also becomes one of 11 members of the state Board of Education and one of 19 members of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.
Change opposed by candidates for the office
The overhaul occurs as two candidates vie to become the elected superintendent in November. Both have strongly opposed the change.
The race pits Republican Sonja Shaw, who finished first in the primary, against Democrat Richard Barrera.
Shaw, who decried the change as a “blatant power grab” that “silences voters,” said she had a game plan for how she intended to use the previous powers of the office if elected.
Sonja Shaw candidate for state superintendent
(Photo courtesy of Sonja Shaw)
“An outsider serving as state superintendent who refuses to simply defer to Sacramento could use the office’s authority over grants, contracts, federal programs, accountability systems, fiscal standards, parent resources, and administrative functions to prioritize results over ideology,” Shaw said.
“In practice, that could mean focusing resources on proven reading and math instruction, increasing transparency, fostering increased parental involvement, protecting fairness and safety for girls in sports,” she said.
If elected, Barrera said he hopes to work immediately to fill in the blanks with a meaningful role for the superintendent and to bring in important education voices that he said have been left out so far.
Richard Barrera, a candidate for state schools superintendent
(Sam Hodgson/The San Diego Union-Tribune)
“The whole purpose of this restructuring is bringing people into alignment, with the focus on goals for student learning, and I’d say we have a long way to go,” Barrera said.
Both candidates said there was potential grounds for a legal challenge to the rewritten duties.
California Teachers Assn. President David Goldberg also was among the opposing voices.
“There’s always tons of issues going on for a governor, and education issues are likely to be put on the back burner.” State voters, he added, “have really wanted an independent voice around public education,” someone willing at times to stand up to the governor.
Supporters of the change counter that the governor — who has to answer to a broad base of interests — would be less susceptible to education special-interest groups, including teacher unions.
The central tenets of the new framework are based on a December 2025 report from Policy Analysis for California Education, a nonpartisan center that brings together researchers from Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Davis and USC.
The Inside Soap Awards are back and they have announced a major change to this years’ event to mark the 30th anniversary
The Inside Soap Awards are back!(Image: PA)
The Inside Soap Awards are back – and are making the move up North for the first time ever.
This year’s event will take place in Manchester and will be the only soap awards ceremony held this year.
Coronation Street, EastEnders, Emmerdale and Hollyoaks will all go head to head whilst Australian soap Home and Away has also been nominated as well as dramas like Casualty and Waterloo Road.
Up for nomination this year is the epic Coronation Street and Emmerdale crossover episode – Corriedale – as well as Nigel’s sad death in EastEnders, amongst other dramatic and heartbreaking scenes.
“The Inside Soap Awards are still going strong after 30 years, and we’re proud to be championing all the wonderful work the soaps produce day in, day out. Our readers are just as passionate and loyal now as they were back in 1996, with over 90,000 of them voting each year – and the Inside Soap Awards remain the only accolades of their kind to be voted for entirely by the true experts, the soap fans themselves,” Inside Soap magazine editor Sarah Ellis said.
To mark the awards’ 30th anniversary, there will be their very own Hall of Fame and the first inductee will be announced during the ceremony. She added: “The soap star who receives this prestigious accolade will be someone who’s been closely associated with the Inside Soap Awards since they began in 1996.
“In addition, fans will also be able to nominate their Soap Superstar of 2026, a person they feel has gone above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to providing entertainment.”
Voting opens midday on Tuesday 30 June, and the winners will be revealed in Manchester in September.
The full list of nominations are as follows:
Best Actress
Sue Devaney (Debbie Webster, Coronation Street )
Vicky Myers (Lisa Connor-Swain, Coronation Street )
South Korea’s dismal World Cup first-round exit has prompted fury at home, and calls for a complete overhaul at the top have not been silenced by coach Hong Myung-bo’s resignation.
South Korea, World Cup semifinalists as cohosts in 2002, limped out of the tournament after failing to squeeze into the knockout rounds as one of the top eight third-place finishers.
They had the last 32 within their reach only to suffer a shock 1-0 loss to lower-ranked South Africa.
Their early exit prompted coach Hong to quit on Sunday and cast doubt over the international future of captain Son Heung-min.
It also earned the team a rebuke from the country’s president, Lee Jae Myung, who pointed the finger at “incompetent people” and apologised to the nation.
The president’s comments reflect public anger that has reached a boiling point after years of simmering discontent with South Korean football chiefs.
South Korean fans at the Gwanghwamun Square in Seoul react after their team lost against South Africa [Jade Gao/AFP]
Former captain Park Ji-sung said, “We may have expected this outcome years ago.
“We have to look back and ask ourselves why things have come to this,” the former Manchester United player said after the team’s elimination was confirmed.
“Even after spending a decade learning how to prepare for the World Cup and develop Korean football, we have forgotten those lessons once again.”
South Korea was expected to emerge from Group A that included cohosts Mexico, South Africa and Czechia.
The team were expected to arrive home on Tuesday morning, but local media reported that the Korea Football Association (KFA) were not planning to organise an event to welcome them back.
In 2014, angry fans pelted the team with Korean candies – seen as a deeply offensive insult – when they returned from the World Cup in Brazil, where they went out in the group stage during Hong’s first spell as coach.
South Korea’s head coach Hong Myung-bo stepped down after the team failed to reach the World Cup 2026 knockouts [Ulises Ruiz/AFP]
‘Message to change’
Hong has been a lightning rod for criticism since he returned to the job in July 2024, five months after his predecessor, German World Cup-winner Jurgen Klinsmann, was axed.
The KFA came under fire for the process that led to Hong’s reappointment, with questions asked over its transparency and fairness.
Hong, who was regularly booed by fans, did himself no favours at the World Cup by dropping star player Son for the South Africa game, in which South Korea needed only a point to progress.
Hong admitted afterwards that he was struggling to understand what had gone wrong, as the nation nervously waited for results in other games to decide their fate.
Son Heung-min was benched against South Africa, a game South Korea went on to lose and ultimately exit from the World Cup [Eloisa Sanchez/Reuters]
Lee Chun-soo, a member of the 2002 World Cup team, said he “felt pathetic and frustrated rooting for Uzbekistan” against the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the hope that the result would send South Korea through.
“This is a message to change,” Lee said on his YouTube channel. “Everyone should be ready to step down.”
South Korean fans reserved a sizeable chunk of their anger for KFA President Chung Mong-gyu.
Chung said before the World Cup that he would quit after the tournament, blaming his “lack of virtue” following fierce criticism of his 13-year tenure.
The 65-year-old, who is in his fourth term as KFA president, came under fire for trying to pardon former players who were banned for life for match-fixing.
Chung and Hong might not be the only ones to bow out, with captain Son yet to comment on his future.
The skipper, who turns 34 next month, had previously hinted at retiring from international football.
Former captain Park said South Korea needed to learn from the past.
“It’s unfortunate that this kind of cycle keeps repeating,” he said.
“We must dream of and shape a better future, and move forward step by step so that we don’t repeat these mistakes.”
