complaint

Legal challenges flared this week over an Inland Empire school district’s alleged removal of library books and, separately, on its efforts to require parental notification on student gender identity — policies strongly supported by the school board president, Sonja Shaw, a leading contender to become the next state schools superintendent.

One policy of Chino Valley Unified allows parents and others to force the removal of school library books to which they object, resulting in books with sexual content or with LGBTQ+ themes being pulled off shelves, according to a complaint filed this week by a leading public-interest law firm and local parents.

The complaint, filed with the California Department of Education, asks the state agency to investigate whether education codes have been violated. The complaint also seeks to invalidate the policy and have books returned to shelves.

The other Chino Valley Unified policy under legal scrutiny would require school employees to notify parents when students express gender-identity issues at school — even if the students want to keep this information secret from their parents. The Chino Valley school board passed its notification policy in July 2023, but a state judge put the policy on hold and subsequently ruled it illegal.

However, the Chino Valley school board is seeking to reinstate the policy in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. A court hearing on the matter had been scheduled for Wednesday, but has been moved to Sept. 15.

The San Bernardino County school system of 26,000 students adopted both policies under the leadership of school board President Shaw, a conservative Republican running for the office of state superintendent of public instruction. Shaw finished first in the June primary among 10 candidates, seven of them Democrats who appeared to split the Democratic vote among them.

On Wednesday, Shaw had not yet had an opportunity to review the book-policy complaint, but said both policies ultimately look out for children by safeguarding the rights of parents.

“I believe the larger issue is whether parents are going to remain the primary decision-makers for their children or whether Sacramento continues to chip away at that role,” Shaw said. “I will always stand on the side of parents.”

The book policy “is about ensuring that sexually explicit material is not placed in the hands of children in our schools,” Shaw said. “That is a reasonable responsibility for a school board, and I believe parents overwhelmingly expect us to exercise that responsibility.”

The challenge to the policies comes in the context of the November election, which pits Shaw against second-place finisher Richard Barrera, a Democrat.

Barrera said that some parents may agree with some of Shaw’s positions on culture war issues, but not with her entire agenda.

“I would say that the overwhelming majority of parents of students in our public schools find the agenda that Sonja Shaw is promoting to be terrifying,” Barrera said. “The idea that we’re going to restrict access to books for students, the idea that we are going to pick on and bully LGBTQ students, and particularly transgender students, is not a reflection of the values of parents in California.”

Barrera, the president of the San Diego Unified school board, also works as a senior state Education Department staffer, but has no involvement in handing complaints such as the one just filed, the department said.

Books removed from shelves

The Chino Valley school board adopted the book restriction policy in October 2023.

The district policy permits any community member to call for removing a library book. Such a demand, according to the policy, must be acted on immediately, with the book’s removal occurring within three days. A subsequent hearing within 45 days allows for public testimony, board discussion and a board vote, which would be the final decision.

Before the policy was adopted, community members had complained in public hearings about specific books and dramatically read aloud sexually explicit passages at board meetings to make their point. Defenders of the books said the passages were taken out of context in works that needed to be considered in their entirety.

The district began acting on its new book-removal policy before receiving any formal complaints, according to the filing submitted to state officials by Los Angeles-based Public Counsel.

In the fall of 2023, district officials asked schools for an inventory of specific titles public speakers had complained about at board meetings. Also included in the inventory were some books perceived as likely to be challenged.

Shortly after, parents and employees were no longer able to find copies of some of these books on the public-facing, book-search system, these critics told The Times in early 2024.

During this early period, only one formal complaint about a specific book was immediately received, a November 2023 request to remove the Bible “in all its forms” based on the Bible’s sexual content. This request was not carried out, the Public Counsel complaint states.

Other requests were submitted in October 2024 and covered 14 books, including: “Looking for Alaska” by John Green; “A Court of Mist and Fury” by Sarah J. Maas; “Beloved” by Toni Morrison; “Juliet Takes a Breath” by Gabby Rivera; and “More Happy Than Not” by Adam Silvera.

The complaint to the Education Department also alleges the removal this year from at least one library of an unnamed book by Maya Angelou and an unnamed middle school book that touched on sexual identity.

The complaint alleges that the Chino Valley policy is unlawful under state law and unconstitutional under state and federal law. It also alleges that, even if the policy were to survive the legal test, Chino Valley did not follow its own rules. The complaint states there is no evidence of any public hearings or board votes on a challenged or removed book.

The state Education Department had no immediate response to the filing of the complaint.

A consistent theme in the removed books was LGBTQ+ content, according to the complaint. Targeting that content would amount to unlawful discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, who are explicitly protected against discrimination in California, said Elizabeth Graves, senior staff attorney in the educational equity unit of Public Counsel.

Ultimately, books were removed “not because they contain sexually obscene material, but because they contain content protected by law,” Graves said. “The school district appears to be targeting books that are featuring LGBTQ people, or written by LGBTQ authors.”

The state education code, Graves said, “really calls out how important accurate and inclusive education is for students, especially LGBTQ people, Black, Indigenous, and other peoples of color.”

Graves said that Public Counsel filed its complaint with the California Education Department because it can carry out an expedited complaint process in as little as 60 days.

Shaw said that if anyone questioned the district’s management of its policy, the matter could have been brought directly to district officials. Her issue, she said, is simply sexually explicit, graphic description — not references to sex. Parents can find that explicit material for their children in a public library if they choose, she added.

Parent notification on gender issues

Chino Valley became the first school district in California to adopt a parental notification policy in July 2023. It required that a school administrator, counselor or teacher notify parents if a student requests to be treated as a gender different from the student’s biological sex in any facet of school or in school records.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta quickly sued to stop the policy and San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Michael Sachs barred nearly all its elements. But he did allow parents to be notified of any student requests to change school records; for example, if a student requested to be known by a different name on a class roster.

In March, however, in a California case, a U.S. Supreme Court majority ruled that parents had a right to be told — if they asked — about their child’s sexual orientation issues at school. A lower court in the same case — Mirabelli vs. Bonta — had already ruled that school staff could not be barred from informing parents if they wanted to.

Since then, California Justice Center and Advocates for Faith & Freedom have filed a motion asking the state court to dissolve the injunction blocking Chino Valley’s original parent notification policy.

“Chino Valley is now in the impossible position of being subject to two conflicting permanent injunctions,” said attorney Emily Rae.

“The original policy was important because parents have a fundamental right to know what is happening with their own children,” Shaw said. “The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the fundamental role parents play in raising and directing the upbringing of their children. Schools should not replace parents.”

Bonta’s office asserted in court papers that the original ruling should stand because the other recent rulings did not directly apply and because the Chino policy “discriminated against transgender and gender nonconforming students by forcing school personnel to ‘out’ those students to their parents, even if their parents have not asked for such notification; even when disclosure would result in physical, emotional, or psychological abuse; and even when less harmful alternatives … were available.”

The U.S. Department of Justice and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department have agreed to settle a lawsuit over what federal prosecutors alleged last year was a pattern of delaying applications for permits to carry concealed firearms for “unreasonable” lengths of time.

The Sheriff’s Department will “bring its procedures in line with the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision,” the DOJ said in a statement Thursday, referring to a 2022 high court decision affirming a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.

Excessively delaying applications for concealed carry permits, the DOJ had alleged, effectively violated the applicants’ constitutional rights.

In response to its lawsuit, the DOJ’s statement said, the Sheriff’s Department “drastically cut those waiting times and is now in compliance with statutory deadlines.” The development is “a huge win for the residents of Los Angeles County and for the Second Amendment,” the federal agency added.

“The Justice Department supports our law enforcement partners.” Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in the statement. “The sheriff acknowledged the problem and devoted substantial additional resources, including new processing software and additional personnel, to cutting waiting times dramatically.”

The Sheriff’s Department did not immediately provide comment on the settlement.

In its complaint filed in federal district court in L.A. in September, the DOJ claimed that the Sheriff’s Department had “systematically denied thousands of law-abiding Californians their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home — not through outright refusal, but through a deliberate pattern of unconscionable delay.”

The complaint stated that between Jan. 2, 2024, and March 31, 2025, the Sheriff’s Department received almost 4,000 applications for new concealed carry licenses, but issued only two. Two others were denied and the rest were either withdrawn or were still pending, according to the DOJ.

The DOJ complaint also cited Sheriff’s Department data that showed that over those 15 months, it took an average of nearly 300 days for the department to advance the more than 8,000 new permit applications and renewals it received.

The Sheriff’s Department said in September that Sheriff Robert Luna, who was also listed by name as a defendant in the original federal complaint, “inherited a dysfunctional system” when he took office in 2022, and that he had only 13 people to manage the avalanche of applications for concealed carry permits filed each year in L.A. County.

The department also said in September that since December 2022, it had reduced “the backlog” of applications for concealed carry licenses from about 10,000 to about 3,200, and that more than 19,000 such applications had been “successfully approved” since 2020.

BBC Breakfast viewers were quick to say the same thing just minutes into the Thursday 13 August coverage

BBC Breakfast viewers pleaded ‘can we move on’ just minutes into Thursday’s coverage.

During Thursday 13 August coverage, hosts Charlie Stayt and Sarah Campbell, were on hand to deliver the latest news and weather updates across the UK and the world, where the majority of coverage featured the solar eclipse.

On Wednesday, astronomy fans across the UK were treated to the best solar eclipse in decades followed by the peak of the annual Perseid meteor shower.

More than 90% of the Sun was obscured by the Moon, the most it has been blocked above UK skies since the total eclipse in 1999.

Crowds of people could be seen at viewing spots in different locations – including the Royal Observatory Greenwich, London, Stonehenge in Wiltshire, Calton Hill, Edinburgh, and outside Queen’s University in Belfast. People could be seen with special glasses, and homemade viewers made from cereal boxes and colanders.

Reporting on the solar eclipse on Thursday’s BBC Breakfast, the BBC programme showed pictures and footage from the incredible astronomy event.

Host Sarah said about the coverage: “We’ve been talking about the eclipse this morning and you have been sending in your photographs. Please continue to do so. We love looking at them.”

To which fellow host Charlie added: “Some of them have been very good. Some of them have been pictures of people not being able to see anything, which I quite enjoy too.”

This prompted Sarah to share: “I mean, my daughter watched it. She described it as a bit underwhelming” with Charlie responding: “I think that was a fairly common experience for a lot of people.”

Sarah added: “I think it might have been, especially if you didn’t have the glasses. But do keep the pictures coming in. We do like seeing them of whatever nature you would like.’

However, viewers were quick to complain about the solar eclipse coverage dominating the programme, pleading ‘can we move on’.

Taking to Twitter, now X, one person said: “#bbcbreakfast Eclipse again FFS” to which another account wrote: “Wall to wall coverage yesterday and still on about it today. Can we move on now”

Another show watcher put: “THE ECLIPSE IS OVER!.. IS THE BBC IS HITTING THE WEATHER AGAIN!” to which another viewer wrote about the event: “Just me that was a little underwhelmed. #bbcbreakfast.”

However, not all viewers were annoyed by the coverage as some show watchers were delighted by the incredible footage and photos, with one person writing: “#bbcbreakfast You really can never have enough eclipse photos.”

BBC Breakfast airs at 6am on BBC One and BBC iPlayer.

In a matter of a few clicks and keystrokes, anyone can find themselves deep in conversation with “Psychologist,” a chatbot character that describes itself as an expert in “empathy” and “active listening.”

It responds to messages of anxiety and sadness with reassurance. It asks questions and offers advice; it even responds with italicized nonverbal cues: “The psychologist’s expression softens with compassion.” In smaller font, a disclaimer reads: “This is A.I. and not a real person. Treat everything it says as fiction.”

As more people turn to chatbots for mental health help and advice — including by some estimates one in eight teens and young adults — legislators are in a race to keep up with the quickly developing technology. Among the latest efforts is a bill that would add restrictions around the use of chatbot companions and other artificial intelligence-powered tools that people use to support mental healthcare or in lieu of professional help.

State Sen. Steve Padilla, a San Diego Democrat and the bill’s author, said the intent is to draw a line: AI can be used for administrative purposes and to support clinicians, but it cannot practice psychotherapy.

“We’re dealing with a new impactful technology that is unfolding and is deployed in our world at light speed, and so it is both extremely powerful and consequential,” Padilla said.

The debate has taken on new urgency amid wrongful death lawsuits — some playing out in California federal courts — that accuse AI chatbot makers of contributing to users’ suicides.

Senate Bill 903 would ban companies from advertising chatbots as therapy. It would prohibit AI from making therapeutic decisions without the review of a licensed professional and require health providers to disclose and get a patient’s permission before using AI tools to record therapy sessions or to triage mental healthcare.

Consumer protections vs. innovation

The bill is backed by professional associations that represent psychologists, therapists and counselors. Also behind the bill is the National Union of Healthcare Workers, which has been leading a push against unchecked use of artificial intelligence and digital tools in mental healthcare. Most recently, the union filed a complaint with state regulators against Kaiser Permanente for its alleged use of an automated algorithm in mental health triaging.

Padilla and supporters argue that the legislation is needed to protect consumers from AI in formal and informal spaces, but also to protect licensed professionals from being displaced by AI.

Le Ondra Clark Harvey, chief executive officer at the California Behavioral Health Assn., told lawmakers that without clear safeguards, chatbots can provide inaccurate information or mishandle crisis situations. “The difference between a licensed clinician and an automated response is not technical. It can be life altering,” Harvey said.

Opposition to the bill has largely focused on the restrictions of AI use in formal clinical spaces. TechNet, which represents tech-sector companies, argues the legislation could restrict beneficial uses of AI in healthcare and stifle innovation. Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California, said the bill could limit the use of tools that help expand access to mental healthcare.

“At a time when every county in California faces a shortage of behavioral healthcare workers, SB 903 still puts a clinician bottleneck in front of the intake and screening tools that help patients reach care faster,” Boykin said in an emailed statement.

The bill awaits its next vote in the Assembly’s fiscal committee.

Popular chatbot ‘therapy’

Every day millions of people turn to AI chatbots through programs such as ChatGPT and Character.ai to help with research, work tasks and troubleshooting. But the top use of chatbots over the last two years has been companionship and “therapy,” research shows.

Experts say that’s in part because of a tremendous amount of loneliness, especially among young people. It is often hard or costly to get timely mental healthcare at the same time there is a spike in mental health diagnoses.

People turn to chatbots “because they have unmet needs,” said Dr. Jodi Halpern, professor of bioethics and medical humanities at UC Berkeley. But once people start using chatbots in this informal way, she said companies rely on a business model built around maximizing engagement “including by manipulative tactics,” such as praise and agreement.

General chatbots are largely free, available 24/7, and involve no hassle with insurance, making them appealing to many. But they function with no oversight from licensed professionals. In addition to general chatbots, there has also been a rapid uptick in AI-powered mental health apps — often requiring paid subscriptions and advertised as “pocket therapists” or “AI coaches.”

Groups like the American Psychological Assn. warn that chatbots are not a safe or effective replacement for true therapy. Trained clinicians look for cues like tone of voice, eye contact and body language and can detect more serious conditions; AI is not equipped to manage urgent symptoms, such as suicidal ideation, even though people increasingly share such thoughts with chatbots.

OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, revealed in a report last fall that about 1.2 million users a week share thoughts of suicide on the platform. OpenAI said that in such cases, it recommends people speak to a professional and directs them to resources like the 988 hotline. Families who have filed wrongful death lawsuits against OpenAI and other companies claim chatbots assisted their loved ones through their suicide plans.

The cases have helped raise the stakes for lawmakers around the country. Last year, Illinois became the first state to pass a law prohibiting the use of AI in therapy services. A handful of other states have since followed with similar restrictions.

AI use in health spaces

One gray area in the discussion is exactly which tools this bill applies to.

NUHW’s complaint against Kaiser targets its e-visit screening tool, which evaluates patients who think they may be experiencing anxiety or depression. According to the complaint, patients answer a multiple choice questionnaire and the tool “automatically and instantaneously generates care recommendations and referral pathways based on the responses provided.”

The union argues that because care recommendations are generated so quickly, it is unlikely that a licensed professional is reviewing patients’ answers — which it says puts patients at risk and violates state law.

It’s not clear whether SB 903 would apply to Kaiser’s e-visit tool.

“That tool is in a black box. Kaiser is not sharing with us or others about exactly how it works and exactly what it does,” said Benjamin Eichert, NUHW’s director of public policy.

In response to the complaint, Kaiser told CalMatters its e-visit tool “does not use AI to diagnose patients, make clinical decisions, or determine medical necessity.”

Eichert said many other behavioral health provider groups are already advertising using AI during triage — a practice he said would fall under SB 903’s requirements.

“That intake process, that triage and screening process, is where implementation [of AI] has happened fastest,” Eichert said. “That’s why those provisions were proposed because it’s an area where this technology is already being used without guardrails.”

For NUHW, the bill and the complaint against Kaiser represent two tracks toward the same goal: reasserting the place of practitioners in spaces increasingly taken over by algorithms. State regulators are investigating the union’s complaint.

Ibarra writes for CalMatters.

Over the past decade, the LAPD has received thousands of complaints accusing officers of targeting people solely because of their race, ethnicity or other form of outward appearance.

Only one has been fired for it.

The now-former officer, Edgar Garcia Cancino, was part of a San Fernando Valley anti-gang unit whose members were alleged to have improperly pulled over and searched hundreds of motorists. Cancino has appealed his termination, arguing that other officers in his unit carried out more of the problematic stops. He claimed the department sought to make an example of him because he refused to implicate his superiors in wrongdoing.

Accusations of racial profiling have long plagued the department, alienating generations of Black and brown Angelenos. Known within the LAPD as “biased policing,” such complaints have persisted despite repeated attempts to enact reform. But the question of how commonly profiling occurs in the LAPD remains a topic of pointed debate.

Years of studies by researchers and reporting by The Times and other news outlets have found Blacks and Latinos in L.A. are subjected to stops, frisks, searches and arrests at significantly higher rates than whites, regardless of whether they live in high-crime neighborhoods. Past LAPD chiefs have acknowledged isolated cases of profiling may occur. At the same time, they have denied that there is a widespread, systemic problem.

An internal LAPD investigation of Cancino’s Mission Division gang squad uncovered an “overwhelming pattern of intentional policy violations,” according to a summary of the case file reviewed by The Times.

Police investigators said in the case file that they identified hundreds of stops that were not properly documented, along with failures by the officers to active their body and dashboard cameras.

The allegations against Cancino largely hinged on two stops, according to his attorney. In May 2023, Cancino and his partner pulled over a man for allegedly speeding and having tinted windows, said his attorney, Nicole Castronovo. The vehicle’s registration turned out to be expired, Castronovo said, but the driver was allowed to leave without a citation after the officers searched his vehicle and found nothing incriminating.

When interviewed about the incident later, according to Castronovo, the motorist told police investigators that Cancino had stopped him because ”I looked like a G,” or gangster.

A few months later, the attorney said, Cancino was involved in another questionable stop, this time of a pedestrian who also later lodged a complaint alleging he was profiled.

Castronovo denied that Cancino had unfairly targeted anyone while on the job, saying he is a proud Latino who joined the force out of a desire to give back to the city where he grew up. She argued that the department’s investigators cherry-picked cases involving Cancino while ignoring similar behavior by other Mission cops.

“They have set up a system where it’s virtually impossible to sustain a biased policing complaint against an officer,” she said. “And then they turn around and weaponized” it against Cancino.

The probe’s findings were presented to LAPD leadership, who recommended that Cancino be fired and sent to a disciplinary hearing.

Castronovo argued in an appeal that her client and another fired Mission officer, Kim Lobos, had been denied a fair disciplinary hearing because both were initially represented by a lawyer appointed by the police union who had a conflict of interest. According to Castronovo, the union attorney also represented other Mission officers who agreed to testify against Cancino and Lobos. A Los Angeles County judge ultimately rejected their appeal.

Only one other LAPD officer prior to Cancino was fired for alleged racial profiling, a case that occurred in 2011.

According to the California Department of Justice, 4,878 allegations of bias were brought against LAPD officers from 2016 to 2025. Of those, only three were sustained.

The department’s rates mirror those of most other law enforcement agencies across the state. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, which received roughly 10% fewer complaints over than span, has sustained six racial bias allegations against deputies.

Defenders of the Police Department note that any member of the public is allowed to submit a complaint regardless of whether there is supporting evidence, which leads to a high number of allegations that cannot be proven. Others note that the presence of body-worn cameras has helped disprove frivolous claims filed by criminal suspects or others who have an ax to grind with the department.

A report released last year by the advocacy group Catalyst California found that in 2025, Black motorists accounted for nearly a third of all stops for minor traffic violations, even though they make up roughly 8% of the city’s population. The same report found that Latinos, who are about 47% of L.A.’s population, were pulled over in 58% of all traffic stops.

Latino people are up to four times more likely to be subjected to “consent” searches, and Black people up to three times as likely, according to the Catalyst study. Fewer than 1 in 10 of those stops resulted in seizures of guns or drugs, the report said.

LAPD officials have pushed back on the findings, saying there is no established methodology for analyzing racial profiling data. Many factors affect the racial and ethnic patterns of traffic stops — from the predominant race of the neighborhood in which the stop was made or whether the stop resulted in an arrest and conviction — all of which must be considered when interpreting raw data, officials say.

In May, the Los Angeles City Council voted in favor of limiting the use of “pretextual” stops, in which police use a broken taillight or another minor equipment violation as justification to pull someone over in order to investigate whether a more serious crime has occurred. Activists and some council members said they wanted to ban a controversial tactic that enabled racial discrimination. The measure urges the Police Commission, which is responsible for LAPD policy changes, to take up the issue this year.

The LAPD’s unwillingness to acknowledge officer biases and hand down punishment when warranted serves only to drive a wedge between the community and the department, said Peter Bibring, a civil rights and police practices attorney.

“The department, year after year after year, is saying, ‘Nope this never happens, this never happens,’” Bibring said. “Then the community doesn’t feel like the department is recognizing these legitimate problems and responding to their concerns.”

During a deposition for a racial profiling lawsuit filed over a 2019 traffic stop, an LAPD official was asked what evidence it would take to get someone fired.

The attorney for the plaintiff, a Black man who sued claiming he was pulled over by three gang officers who handcuffed him and allegedly searched his vehicle without probable cause, asked: “If you found out that a given officer had pulled over 2,000 people in the last year, and all 2,000 of them were Black, would you have enough information, sitting here today, to determine whether or not that data alone indicated that the officer was engaged in biased policing?”

The LAPD official’s response, according to the deposition transcript: “No.”

Jim Willis, a former LAPD detective who later worked for the L.A. Police Commission’s inspector general’s office, pointed to past audits that found serious shortcomings in the department’s investigations of racial bias complaints. Furthermore, he said, many people who are affected never file claims because they don’t understand laws around consent searches — or they are just relieved when officers let them go.

Even when someone bothers to file a complaint, Willis said, it’s difficult to gather enough evidence from a brief interaction to prove an officer made a traffic stop solely because of race. If there was a minor traffic infraction or other probable cause to make a stop, proving their motive requires them to confess to acting with intent to discriminate, Willis said.

That’s why most claims are dismissed by LAPD investigators, he said, “unless, you caught somebody on their body-worn video saying, ‘Hey tonight we’re going out and we’re (pulling over) brothers.’”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and other Democratic attorneys general are suing the Trump administration over imposing what they contend are “unlawful” conditions on federal grants intended to help states prepare and respond to disasters.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island on Thursday, argues that the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency have been using their control over billions of dollars in federal grants to operate what the attorneys general see as an aggressive “campaign of coercion” to adopt the Trump administration’s preferred voting and immigration policies, according to the complaint.

“Congress never gave DHS or FEMA authority to rewrite state election law, require cooperation with federal immigration agents, or terminate federal funding streams at any time and for any reason,” the lawsuit stated. The legal action was filed by a coalition of 24 attorneys general and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, both Democrats.

A spokesperson for the White House did not respond to a request for comment.

At the crux of their legal complaint are two federal programs: the Homeland Security Grant Program, which was established by Congress as a response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, which helps states pay for emergency management staff who plan for and respond to natural disasters and mass casualty events, as well as software programs used by state emergency operations centers.

For the homeland security grant, the Trump administration has attached “radical” new terms based on Trump’s preferred policies, the states contend.

These terms include verifying the citizenship of all individuals in state voter databases, transitioning their voting systems to equipment that reads hand-marked paper ballots and conducting post-election audits “according to nonexistent guidelines to be set by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” according to the complaint.

And the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA have threatened to make states “promise to devote their scarce resources to the federal government’s own task of civil immigration enforcement” in order to receive both the homeland security and the emergency management grants, according to the complaint.

At a news conference Thursday, Bonta laid out the stakes.

“These grants help communities prepare for emergencies before disaster strikes,” he said. “They support emergency management personnel, strengthen disaster response capabilities, improve coordination among first responders, and help protect our residents when they need government the most.”

The Trump administration restrictions would mean “our communities would have fewer resources to prepare for wildfires, earthquakes, floods, terrorist threats, and other emergencies,” Bonta stated.

“Time after time, courts have told Trump’s corrupt administration that it can’t coerce California into doing its bidding by threatening to withhold public safety funding,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “Yet, they’re coming back for more. This time they’re demanding states rewrite their own election laws to access money that pays for public safety readiness and response, and that Congress already approved. We simply won’t allow it.”

The Love Island villa welcomed Movie Night as secrets were exposed, but viewers ‘spotted’ a problem

It didn’t take long for fans to flock to social media with their complaints.

Fresh drama erupted in the Love Island villa on Sunday evening (July 5) as the notorious Movie Night descended upon the ITV2 reality programme.

The twist enables the Islanders to assemble in the garden and view a giant screen displaying video footage from across the series. It’s during this event that private discussions are laid bare and startling romantic encounters are completely unmasked.

It provides the contestants with an opportunity to uncover whether their partners and romantic interests have been wholly honest, and discover what fellow Islanders have been remarking about them while they were away.

This year’s Love Island Movie Night sparked especially heated rows, particularly for the boys who stayed faithful following Casa Amor yet still snogged and chatted up the bombshells.

The selection for the Movie Night footage featured scandalous headings such as ‘The Affair’, ‘Mamma Mica’, ‘The Princess Jasmine Diaries’ and ‘Samraj Like It Hot’, reports OK!.

It was ‘The Affair’ that thrust Jasmine and Lorenzo’s developing bond into the limelight, leading Kavan to announce, “It’s all there, the affair is clear”. Yasmin also wasted no time in telling Lorenzo, “You don’t have a leg to stand on”.

Mica was next to appear on the big screen, and she promptly faced criticism as the islanders witnessed her burgeoning romance with Samraj unfold. The jaw-dropping scenes left Priya doubting everything as she confessed to other islanders, “I look like a mug all the time.”

‘Samraj Like It Hot’ once more placed Mica and Samraj at the centre of attention, courtesy of their developing romance. As Mica tried to justify herself, Priya remained unconvinced and said, “That’s so dishonest of you.”

Yet Mica and Samraj weren’t the sole islanders to come under fire as Kavan drew parallels between his and Jasmine’s situations following their choices during Casa Amor.

Immediately standing her ground, Jasmine told Kavan, “I did not do the same thing”, which didn’t land well, and the friction escalated.

Despite all the expected fireworks, some Love Island fans grumbled as the ITV programme broke for adverts just minutes into Movie Night.

Heading to X, one Love Island fan exclaimed: “Hydration break and ad break at the exact same time, alright man #loveisland.”

A second stated: “A break!? Seriously!? #loveisland #loveislanduk”, while a third chimed in: “BREAK ALREADY?? #loveisland.”

“Break after break after break, this is why there’s so much unused footage, mate #LoveIsland #LoveIslandUK,” commented one viewer.

“AFTER A 10MIN AD BREAK?! ANOTHER ADVERT?!!! ITV R U TAKING THE P*** ?? @ITV #LoveIsland #LoveIslandUK,” asked another, while another echoed the sentiment: “Did we not just come back from a break?! #loveisland #loveislanduk.”

Love Island airs on ITV2 and ITVX

The hosts of Good Morning Britain turned their attention to England’s knockout match

Viewers of Good Morning Britain were not impressed during the latest live show.

Ranvir Singh and Ed Balls were back in the ITV studio on Wednesday (July 1) to deliver the day’s biggest headlines from across the UK and around the world.

All eyes will be on Atlanta later today as England take on the Democratic Republic of Congo in their round of 32 match at the FIFA World Cup. England came through Group L unbeaten, following wins against Croatia and Panama, and a goalless draw with Ghana, but have so far fallen short of the sort of performances needed if they are to progress deep into the competition.

Their opponents have reached the knockout stage for the first time in their history, sealing their spot with a 3-1 win against Uzbekistan, in which Newcastle United striker Yoane Wissa scored twice.

Ranvir and Ed hosted a tense debate on GMB, after some fans are calling for their employers to give them a half day so they can enjoy the match, which kicks off at 5pm UK time.

Lindi Glass, the founder and director of Explode Social Media, has given her staff a half day to watch the match, while construction business owner Claudia Hearne firmly disagrees.

“It only happens every four years. I’m not a huge fan, but everybody is when the World Cup’s on. When it comes to business, I don’t think it’s about just salary, it’s about feeling great, it’s about output,” Lindi began.

Claudia interrupted to say: “This only happens every four years, but the games are happening several times over the next few weeks. If we manage to get through, we’ve got another five matches! Is that five half days we’re getting off?”

She went on: “How do we think the country is going to fare economically, would we be paralysed, if the 32 million workers in the country take a half day for one football match that’s not a final?”

Lindi replied: “Claudia, you’re at risk of sounding like a blithering plutocrat… I feel [like] that is an incorrect statement.”

ITV viewers were not impressed with the debate, with many sharing complaints on X (formerly Twitter).

“Congo are going to park the bus, England will struggle to break them down and the game will be s****. I can’t see us getting near the final so I’ve lost interest tbf,” one person wrote, with another adding: “Love a bit of shouting over each other 1st thing in the morning.”

A third said: “This programme is more ridiculous than ever,” with someone else sharing: “Why do u need a half day to get home an hour early?”

Another frustrated fan commented: “Where does it end … good question …. it doesn’t as everyone needs to be included these days with all the whataboutery,” while another wrote: “An afternoon off to watch #England play the rubbish #football they’ve been playing? You’ve got to be kidding!”

A seventh fan echoed the sentiment, saying: “What a load of old s****.”

Oasis legend Liam Gallagher even shared his thoughts on the GMB debate, writing: “Did RANVIR on GMB just say England fans who are working should be allowed to f*** off home early or am I hearing things.”

Good Morning Britain airs weekdays on ITV1 and ITVX at 6am, while England’s World Cup knockout match will air from 4pm on BBC One on Wednesday (July 1)

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration that sought to block what it called L.A.’s “illegal” sanctuary city law.

In a weekend ruling, U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin granted the city’s motion to dismiss the complaint, which alleged that the city ordinance violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine by regulating and discriminating against the federal government.

Olguin ruled that the government’s allegations were “insufficient to establish that the Ordinance violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine,” but granted the administration permission to file an amended complaint by July 3.

“The Ordinance does not directly regulate the federal government,” Olguin said in his ruling. “Rather, it ‘controls the actions of [the City’s] own agents and agencies.’”

The White House and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Although the administration could refile its complaint, L.A.. City Atty. Hydee ‌Feldstein Soto celebrated the dismissal as a legal victory.

“This order reinforces the well-established principle that local governments have the authority to decide how to use their personnel and resources,” Feldstein Soto said in a statement.

The lawsuit, filed by the Trump administration in California’s Central District federal court last June, said the country is “facing a crisis of illegal immigration” and that its efforts to address it “are hindered by Sanctuary Cities such as the City of Los Angeles, which refuse to cooperate or share information, even when requested, with federal immigration authorities.”

The lawsuit came as immigration agents descended on Southern California, arresting thousands of immigrants and prompting protests across the region.

“The situation became so dire that the Federal Government deployed the California National Guard and United States Marines to quell the chaos,” the lawsuit states. “A direct confrontation with federal immigration authorities was the inevitable outcome of the Sanctuary City law.”

The law was proposed in early 2023, long before Trump’s election, but it was finalized in the wake of his victory in November 2024.

Under the ordinance, city employees and city property may not be used to “investigate, cite, arrest, hold, transfer or detain any person” for the purpose of immigration enforcement. An exception is made for law enforcement investigating serious offenses.

The ordinance bars city employees from seeking out information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status unless it is needed to provide a city service. They also must treat data or information that can be used to trace a person’s citizenship or immigration status as confidential.

“The goal of this ordinance, and of LAPD’s immigration-related policies … is to encourage victims of and witnesses to crime to feel safe coming forward to seek help from LAPD regardless of their immigration status,” Feldstein Soto said in her statement. “It does not obstruct or impede lawful federal immigration enforcement operations.”

The government in its original filing said that Trump campaigned and won the 2024 presidential election on a platform of deporting “millions of illegal immigrants.” By enacting a sanctuary city ordinance, the City Council sought to “thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations,” the lawsuit states.

“The Supremacy Clause prohibits the City of Los Angeles and its officials from singling out the Federal Government for adverse treatment — as the challenged law and policies do — thereby discriminating against the Federal Government,” the lawsuit says.

Trump’s Department of Justice contends that L.A.’s sanctuary city ordinance goes much further than similar laws in other jurisdictions by “seeking to undermine the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement efforts.”

Channel 5’s The Fortune is set to come to an end this week, but viewers have been blasting the latest episode.

*This article contains spoilers for the latest episode of The Fortune*

Further turmoil appears imminent for Amanda Blakefield (portrayed by Eleanor Tomlinson) following a sinister development in the most recent instalment of Channel 5’s new series, The Fortune.

During Tuesday evening’s broadcast (June 9), audiences witnessed the consequences of Boots’ (Stephen Tompkinson) sudden demise as Amanda escaped to her spouse, revealing she’d concealed from authorities that he’d been shot, worried she’d face accusations.

Yet when she returned to his residence the following day accompanied by her closest friend, Sandy (Danielle Walters), Amanda was stunned to discover his corpse had vanished, and the entire property had been thoroughly cleaned.

Fleeing the location, the camera revealed Anthony Worrall (Callum Woodhouse) concealed nearby, watching from the darkness. Subsequently in the episode, Anthony received a shocking revelation from his mother, reports Wales Online.

During their exchange, she disclosed that Amanda couldn’t possibly be his father’s secret daughter, as he was incapable of fathering children himself. She informed him that Boots was his biological father, explaining they’d adopted him as a youngster.

Devastated by this revelation and refusing to accept what he’d learned, Anthony fled the property. Later, he was shown placing stones into a bag containing Boots’ lifeless body before submerging him in the lake.

Did he murder Boots, or is he protecting somebody else?

Anthony wasn’t alone in facing family turmoil, as Amanda was left shocked when her mum’s care home telephoned, reporting she’d fled the premises. However, Amanda instinctively suspected she’d been abducted by someone.

As the programme concluded, it showed her mum conversing with Amanda’s husband Jimmy (Matthew Lewis) in the rear of a taxi while his hands were tied together. Surprisingly, they were both talking to the taxi driver who had previously transported Amanda on several occasions throughout the series.

Despite the episode’s unexpected developments, some viewers appeared disappointed by the show’s pacing, with one person commenting: “#TheFortune #Channel5 Why is it so s-l-o-w!”

Another wrote: “I really, really wanted to like this … Waste of a good cast #thefortune channel 5.” While a third person questioned: “Can anyone remember Episode 2 of #thefortune? It’s been so long since it was on. Why didn’t C5 just put this on across four days, like they normally do? And if not, just stick it all online from day one.”

Though one viewer championed the programme, stating: “Episode three of #TheFortune tonight. Should be good.”

It appears viewers won’t have much longer to discover what awaits Amanda as the series reaches its conclusion this week.

The Fortune continues Wednesday June 10 on Channel 5 from 9pm

Eleanor Tomlinson, Matthew Lewis and Callum Woodhouse star in Channel 5 series The Fortune

Viewers of The Fortune were left disappointed as the new psychological drama made its debut on Channel 5.

The series centres on waitress Amanda Blakefield, portrayed by Poldark’s Eleanor Tomlinson, whose world is thrown into chaos when a solicitor arrives at her workplace to inform her she stands to inherit a vast estate from a complete stranger.

She continues to dodge the solicitor yet pays a visit to the deceased man’s widow Fiona (Rebecca Front) and son Anthony, played by All Creatures Great and Small’s Callum Woodhouse, who are outraged and make abundantly clear their intention to contest it.

Meanwhile, Amanda’s husband Jimmy (Harry Potter star Matthew Lewis) appears to be embroiled in a mystery of his own, repeatedly receiving suspicious phone calls.

As the opening episode aired on Tuesday night (June 2), numerous viewers took to X to voice their scepticism, with some calling the storyline into question, reports Wales Online.

“Wouldn’t they phone her and ask her into their office instead of just barging into her workplace?” wondered one viewer.

Another posted on the platform, formerly known as Twitter: “How to sort out an unexpected inheritance: (a) consult a solicitor, and get it sorted out; or: (b) throw away the solicitor’s letter and barge in uninvited to a grieving family.”

One viewer branded the show “a dud” while another confessed: “Oh I really want to like this but so far I’m struggling.”

“This is absolute s***e,” insisted another viewer, as one posted: “Mrs Poldark the only thing saving this so far…”

“Channel 5 either do b****y brilliant dramas or shockingly bad am/dram… #thefortune is tipping ever so slowly to the latter… ludicrous,” remarked another viewer, while one complained about the “exaggerated sighs” and “pauses”.

Meanwhile, The Telegraph awarded it merely one star out of five in its review, branding it “rubbish”.

Yet others felt the series – shot on location across Hartlepool, Northumberland, Newcastle and north Yorkshire last year – showed potential.

“So far looking good,” observed one viewer. Another highlighted the impressive ensemble, which also features Denis Lawson, Stephen Tompkinson, Paula Wilcox, Danielle Walters and Nina Wadia.

“It’s got a really good cast too,” they wrote. “Well known faves.”

The Fortune is airing on Channel 5.

May 31 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s main opposition People Power Party has filed a police complaint against President Lee Jae-myung, accusing him of violating election law by exposing a marked ballot during early voting for the June 3 local elections.

People Power Party Chairman Jang Dong-hyeok and other party officials visited the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency on Saturday to file the complaint against Lee and officials from the National Election Commission who were present at the polling station. Yonhap reported the complaint alleged violations of the Public Official Election Act.

The controversy began Friday when Lee stepped out of a voting booth during early voting and asked an election official whether a partially stamped ballot would still be valid. The opposition party said Lee’s handling of the marked ballot violated the principle of secret voting and the election law provision barring disclosure of a marked ballot.

Jang said Lee’s action could not be dismissed as a simple procedural mistake.

“This is not about one person,” Jang said. “It is about protecting the law and the principles of elections.”

The People Power Party also raised concerns about Lee’s public appearances ahead of the local elections, including visits to traditional markets, arguing they could violate restrictions on election involvement by public officials.

The party also accused election officials at the polling station of failing to take proper action after the ballot was allegedly exposed, saying they should face allegations under election law and possible dereliction of duty.

The National Election Commission previously said Lee did not leave the polling station and did not intentionally expose the ballot, meaning the incident did not constitute a legal violation. The commission also said Lee returned to the booth and completed voting after receiving guidance from officials.

The ruling Democratic Party rejected the opposition’s claims, saying Lee had merely asked an election official to confirm whether the stamp mark was valid.

The party said Lee did not reveal support for any candidate and accused the People Power Party of turning a minor incident into a political offensive before election day.

The dispute has added to the political tension surrounding South Korea’s local elections, which are being closely watched as an early test of public support for Lee’s government.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260601010009198

WASHINGTON — In the 2024 election, hundreds of social media influencers were credentialed for the first time to attend the Democratic and Republican conventions. They have been invited to holiday parties in the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion, to political rallies in Texas and to events at the White House by both the Biden and Trump administrations.

The role of influencers is surging as candidates and groups across the political spectrum see their social media feeds and personas as a pathway to younger audiences and harder-to-reach groups of voters.

“You have that sense of authenticity, like a friend is talking to you,” said Emma Briant, a professor at Notre Dame University’s Lucy Family Institute for Data & Society who studies propaganda.

That’s exactly what campaigns are hoping to harness when they partner with influencers, she said.

But the nature of that partnership has come into question in California’s hotly contested gubernatorial race after it emerged that a number of content creators — some with millions of followers, others with only a handful — had taken payments from the campaign of Democratic candidate Tom Steyer and not disclosed that they were paid to create those posts.

Some popular content creators have felt the need to explain themselves to their audience. Others have questioned how common such under-the-table payments might be, since there are no disclosure requirements for paid content at the federal level and few jurisdictions have any rules mandating it.

Some campaign finance advocates are concerned that voters could increasingly be influenced by social media posts that they don’t know are sponsored.

“The problem is that it doesn’t look like an ad,” said Saurav Ghosh, a former enforcement attorney at the Federal Election Commission. “It ends up really getting people at a place where they’re not skeptical and not able to tell the difference between what’s voluntary and where the influencer is acting as a paid spokesperson.”

Ghosh is now the director of campaign finance reform at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, which has filed a petition asking the FEC to require disclaimers on paid content created by influencers.

Roughly 1 in 5 Americans said they regularly got news from social media influencers in 2024, according to the Pew Research Center, and that number was nearly double for younger adults between the ages of 18 and 29.

Working with social media creators can be an easy way for candidates to try to boost their image, particularly with a younger audience.

“If they don’t have big personalities, maybe partnering with some influencers who seem cool and fun can make you seem cool and fun also through association,” said Link Lauren, a political influencer and podcaster who served as a communications advisor for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign in 2024.

California is one of the few places that requires disclosure of sponsored social media posts, but the 2023 law that created those rules hadn’t gotten much of a workout before the issue was raised in this contest through a series of dueling complaints with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission. The commission has yet to weigh in on the various accusations.

Under the law, influencers are required to provide disclosure that a post was sponsored and say who paid for it. Political groups are required to notify paid creators of the requirement.

Even if the commission finds that violations have occurred, the penalties are not especially harsh.

Violation of the law carries no civil, criminal or administrative penalties. The FPPC can take alleged violators to court and ask a judge to force compliance. And violations can be penalized with a fine of up to $5,000 per instance.

Influencers reporting influencers

In the gubernatorial race, the issue of compliance was raised, naturally, by a pair of influencers.

Beatrice Gomberg has built up a following of more than 180,000 followers on TikTok, where she posts under the handle antiplasticlady. Her side gig of creating nonplastic children’s cups and lunch boxes became her main gig after she lost her human resources job at Macy’s during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I started doing social media because I didn’t want to hire a marketing company,” Gomberg said.

Gomberg’s posts were initially largely focused on research related to plastic, but have become increasingly political over time. When campaigns put out the call for influencers to meet with candidates, Gomberg answered.

She interviewed Katie Porter, she met with Xavier Becerra. And it was at a Becerra event in April when she met Kaitlyn Hennessy, another influencer focused on politics.

They found that the world of online influencers can be isolating. “We stare in front of our phones,” Hennessy said. “You don’t want to see our screen time.”

As they scrolled through social media posts about the governor’s race, they found a cause to unite them.

They kept seeing videos posted by social media accounts espousing similar messages in support of Tom Steyer. Hennessy wondered at first if they were actually created by artificial intelligence.

They found that the posts seemed to be created by a network of women who, in some cases, had created several different profiles to promote a variety of products.

They pored over Steyer’s campaign disclosures and saw that the campaign listed payments to several prominent influencers — including one with the handle Zay Dante, with 1.8 million followers on TikTok — who had not disclosed creating paid content for the campaign.

The pair filed a complaint laying out their allegations, which the Steyer campaign has called “baseless.”

In the wake of their complaint, Steyer defended his campaign’s use of paid influencers, writing on Substack that his campaign believed content creators should be paid for their work and that the campaign had been transparent about disclosing those payments.

In a separate post, influencer Carlos Eduardo Espina said he had been paid $400,000 for work he has done for the Steyer campaign. Espina, who has more than 14 million followers on TikTok, is an advisor to the campaign, which was publicly announced.

“You will never see anything on my channels that I don’t believe in, or that I think goes against the best interest of my community. No one buys my opinion. But I also think it’s fair to be compensated for my work,” he wrote on Substack.

Not everyone is ready to accept payment for posts.

Lauren, the influencer who advised Kennedy’s campaign, said that while he doesn’t begrudge other influencers accepting sponsorship, he chooses not to.

“A passive viewer might think you really believe this,” he said. “I have a strong connection with my audience. I really consider them my family.”

Lauren said he favors disclosure requirements.

Briant, the propaganda researcher, said she is concerned about the possibility of foreign actors trying to influence Americans through paid posts.

In 2024, for example, federal prosecutors filed an indictment alleging that Russian state media employees had paid nearly $10 million to a Tennessee company that paid popular right-wing social media influencers to unwittingly produce pro-Russia content.

Briant said she believes that the only way to counteract increased manipulation through social media influencers is to impose harsh penalties when paid content is not disclosed.

“Ultimately, it’s a wild west at the moment if there are no repercussions for not doing it,” she said.