concern

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is pitching a plan to help shield local police officers who make immigration arrests from possible financial consequences if they are accused of on-duty misconduct.

The agency is proposing to subsidize liability insurance for state and local officers who are trained and deputized to enforce federal immigration laws, according to a planning document published Friday.

ICE’s partnerships with local departments have soared since President Trump returned to the White House last year and may get an additional boost with liability insurance by removing a hurdle that has made some local police departments reluctant to join. The Associated Press is the first to report on this insurance proposal.

Under the plan, officers would purchase insurance covering up to $500,000 in personal liability, which typically funds legal fees, settlements and judgments. Officers would be reimbursed up to $250 annually — roughly what the insurance is expected to cost.

One prominent critic of ICE’s immigration crackdown said the program would be yet another way for officers to avoid personal accountability for misconduct.

“The concern here is that ICE is going above and beyond to guarantee law enforcement does not have even the slightest risk of liability for violating Americans’ rights while helping ICE arrest people,” said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, who has called on Congress to make it easier to sue ICE agents for wrongdoing.

ICE outlined the plan in a document informing industry officials that it is considering hiring a contractor to help provide outreach, training and communications support for its so-called 287(g) partnerships with local departments, which are named for a section of a 1996 immigration law. The contractor would hire the insurance vendor and process the reimbursements, among other tasks.

ICE has asked for industry feedback by Thursday. The proposed timeline for launching the program and its estimated cost are unclear.

ICE had no immediate comment on the plan.

Arrests by ICE’s local partners have spiked since last year

During Trump’s second term, ICE has offered generous financial incentives to participating local agencies, increasing the number who have partnered with the federal government, as well as the number of arrests.

Nearly 1,600 agencies in 32 states now have agreements to participate in ICE’s task force model, in which trained local officers can interrogate, arrest and charge people suspected of being in the country illegally, according to ICE data.

Departments qualify for funding to help cover expenses like their officers’ pay, equipment and vehicles. With encouragement from state and local Republican officials, agencies in Florida, Texas, Oklahoma and Georgia have been among the leaders.

Arrests made through such programs jumped to an average of 3,000 per month in the first two months of 2026, according to the most recent ICE data provided to the University of California Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project. That compares to a monthly average of 250 in 2024 under President Biden.

Local departments, officers worried about liability for ICE work

As local officers increasingly carry out federal immigration work, they and their departments have expressed concerns about the civil liability that could result from claims alleging excessive use of force, wrongful arrest and illegal search and seizure, among other things.

That’s because insurance policies that cover their local work may not apply. Pennsylvania’s risk pool, for instance, recently made clear that it would exclude “proactive immigration enforcement activities” from coverage, forcing several participating counties to search for other insurance options.

Butler County Sheriff Michael Slupe said he found insurance to cover his 13 deputies participating in the program at a cost of $20,000 in annual premiums.

“I want to make sure the guys are additionally covered, so we had to spend the money,” he said, adding that federal funding would cover the cost.

Federal officers usually enjoy legal immunities and a government-funded defense when they face lawsuits. But those protections may not always apply to local officers, which has heightened their concerns over liability and the need for insurance.

Although civil lawsuits are the main concern, professional liability insurance typically helps cover legal fees for officers facing criminal investigations as well.

Sheriffs’ group says ICE’s insurance idea sounds promising

Justin Smith, a former Colorado sheriff who is executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Assn., said ICE’s plan sounds promising and that he was eager to speak with ICE about how the plan would work.

Smith said he has shared concerns with ICE that some sheriffs are reluctant to join the partnerships because of the potential liability at a time when immigration enforcement faces intense public protests and media scrutiny. Smith said others who are partnering with ICE have already started facing legal claims tied to their immigration work, which can be costly whether or not deputies are ultimately found to have done anything wrong.

“Right now, any time you are working on immigration there is going to be a much higher potential for there being problems and having suits and issues,” he said. “They’re recognizing that it is a different environment. And I think trying to be good partners with us as best they can.”

Under their agreements, ICE warns local departments that they are responsible for the costs of incidents that give rise to liability. But it seeks to reduce the risk by saying local officers performing ICE-authorized functions are “acting under color of federal authority,” which would bar lawsuits against individual officers.

The agreements also state that local officers who face civil lawsuits can ask the U.S. Department of Justice to represent them, and that ICE will generally support their requests. But the final decision on whether to do so rests with the department.

Foley writes for the Associated Press.

Democratic lawmakers and military families are pressing the Pentagon for answers after reports emerged that thousands of sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln have endured food shortages, plumbing failures and severe fatigue during deployment that has stretched more than 260 days.

The roughly 5,000-person crew, which left San Diego in November and has been stationed in the Middle East to support the U.S. war against Iran, has spent a record amount of uninterrupted time at sea. Now, families of those on board have begun speaking out publicly, describing concerns about mental health and supply issues aboard the aircraft carrier.

Since those reports — which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth characterized as “completely misrepresented” — the U.S. military announced plans to send the USS George Washington, a Pacific-based aircraft carrier, to relieve the USS Abraham Lincoln.

But when asked Friday for a reaction, Trump downplayed families’ concerns and characterized the length of the deployment as “not nearly long enough.”

The president’s remarks stand in contrast to the concerns raised by lawmakers and military families, including reports by the Military Times and the Stars and Stripes that sailors tried to jump overboard as the deployment kept going.

“The plans in the works to relieve the USS Lincoln are not enough,” Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Diego) wrote in a letter to Hegseth on Thursday. “We need clear and honest information from the Department of Defense about the operational failures that led to the problems aboard the USS Lincoln to ensure this never happens again.”

Morale aboard a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier already is difficult to maintain without a record-breaking stint, said Julie Roland, a retired veteran Navy lieutenant commander who worked briefly on the USS Lincoln.

Between the lack of sun below deck for some nonpilot personnel and rooms packed with triple-bunk beds, the conditions on vessels like the Lincoln can be difficult to bear. Although service members expect such difficulties, the situation on the USS Lincoln raises additional concern among sailors, Roland said.

“I know what months at sea does to a person even when the ship has hot chow and working plumbing,” Roland said. “The warrior ethos shouldn’t have to include bravely facing water contamination. … Even warfighters need basic care.”

Roland added that she was not surprised to hear complaints of poor living conditions from sailors on board, given that their few days of reprieve for port call constantly were being delayed. She said she received videos showing trash being tossed overboard because of broken incinerators, heard stories of a lack of proper medical supplies and kept in touch with one sailor who detailed his mental health deterioration as days dragged on aboard the Lincoln.

“The magnitude of difference between official information from the Department of Defense and firsthand reports from the crew should be troubling, and may have serious implications about what else the Pentagon may be withholding regarding the conflict in Iran,” Roland added.

In his letter to Hegseth, Levin said the Trump administration needs to answer concerns from military families and loves ones about the conditions aboard. He said he heard concerns about moldy showers, broken toilets, lack of hot water, lack of access to fresh produce and supply shortages.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-San Diego), who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, also demanded answers from U.S. military leaders on what she called “horrific” reports of the conditions aboard the ship.

Tensions over the situation also prompted military leaders to hold in-person and virtual meetings last week with the families of the sailors and Marines. Both meetings were combative, according to a recording obtained by MS NOW.

During the in-person meeting at the Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego, Navy leaders were unable to tell families when their loves ones would be relieved from duty. Spouses, in turn, asked what was being done to address issues of mental health and exhaustion, MS NOW reported.

Concerns about mental health deteriorating on these types of deployments are well-founded.

A study of nearly 1,000 sailors published in the journal Military Medicine in January 2025 found that service members aboard Navy ships suffer the highest rates of “serious psychological distress” compared to other branches of the U.S. military. Among the reasons are “unique stressors, such as poor habitability, noise and demanding scheduled that leave inadequate time for sleep and rest,” the study found.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the USS Abraham Lincoln was not an “isolated case” and demanded an inquiry.

“Recent carrier deployments have repeatedly stretched beyond their original anticipated duration, suggesting that extended deployments may be becoming a feature rather than an exception of the Navy’s force-generation model,” Blumenthal wrote.

Hegseth told reporters on Thursday that “some deployments are longer than others.”

“What they do in those high seas and those austere conditions with less port calls, it’s incredible. And Americans don’t understand what it’s like to do that,” he said, while adding that he wants “folks rotated as quickly as possible.”

In a message to the crew aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, Hegseth said: “We’re going to do everything we can for you. We are so grateful for the dedication of that crew and others.”

Abdul El-Sayed made history this month in Michigan by becoming the first Muslim nominated by the Democratic Party to run for the U.S. Senate. But elation among many of his fellow Muslim Americans was tempered by awareness of persisting and widespread anti-Muslim sentiment across much of the nation.

Some Republicans, including President Trump, swiftly began referring to the nominee by his full name, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, while depicting him as a danger to America. “Every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse, and a threat to both national security and our republic,’’ said U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., in a post on X.

El-Sayed says such attacks betray a weakness in those who launch them.

“We all pray for the same things. … We want what’s good for our kids and our families,” he told MS NOW after his primary victory. “They’re going to use Islamophobia, because their ideas are tired.”

The vitriol extends far beyond the political class. Tensions related to anti-Muslim sentiment have heightened in several communities around the country, where some residents have bitterly opposed proposals to build new mosques.

“American Muslims have made incredible political and societal progress in recent years,” said Edward Ahmed Mitchell, national deputy director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. He cited increased visibility in entertainment and sports and the election of Democrat Zohran Mamdani as New York City’s first Muslim mayor.

“But there also is a very concerted backlash to this progress,” Mitchell said. “You’ve seen this in the resurgence of anti-Muslim hate and rhetoric, the targeting of mosques.”

A Dallas suburb is a flashpoint

McKinney, Texas, a large suburb in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, is one of the flashpoints. Despite angry anti-Islam remarks at a heated city council meeting on Aug. 4, the council voted unanimously to approve a site plan for the McKinney Islamic Association’s proposed new mosque, classroom building and gym.

Among those urging the council to give the plan fair treatment was George Fuller, a former mayor of McKinney, a nonpartisan position. Opponents of the mosque project booed him, and some shouted “traitor” as he left the council chamber. One woman could be seen on video physically accosting him.

“I have never witnessed so much hate, anger and lack of humanity in our beautiful community gathered in one place as I did today at City Hall,” Fuller later wrote on Facebook.

During the hearing, which lasted more than four hours, the speakers included U.S. Rep. Keith Self, a Republican whose district includes McKinney. To loud applause, he urged the council to reject the mosque proposal.

“I know you’re in the accommodation phase, but the intimidation phase follows quickly,” Self said. “Child marriage. Honor killings. Don’t tell me it can’t happen here.”

Fuller also went to the microphone, evoking the broader phenomenon of divisive political rhetoric.

“Sadly, we live in a time when some have discovered that the easiest way to gain attention or win elections is not by offering solutions but by manufacturing fear, dividing communities, demonizing neighbors and turning misinformation into a political strategy,” he said.

In North Carolina, anger flares over approval for a new mosque

The scenario was similar in Mooresville, North Carolina, when town commissioners held a public comment session on Aug. 3 about a proposed mosque that had already been approved, with early phases of construction underway.

Angry residents at the meeting voiced hostility to Islam and assailed the commissioners for not being more forthcoming about the project as it took shape over previous months. One speaker cited violence in Nigeria by Islamist extremists as a reason for concern in Mooresville. Another depicted Islam as “a political regime with the ultimate goal of takeover in regions and nations.”

CAIR’s regional manager, Al Rieder, issued a statement denouncing “the hateful and conspiratorial anti-Muslim rhetoric” that surfaced at the meeting and expressed concern about the safety of Muslims in the area about 25 miles north of Charlotte.

“Muslims are your neighbors, your doctors, your teachers, your local politicians, your police,” he said.

A few hours after the public meeting, the town commissioners released a summary of the mosque project, which calls for a two-building Islamic center on a parcel acquired in 2019 by a local Muslim organization.

The commissioners said that the parcel is in an area zoned to allow religious assembly and that the mosque proposal was handled the same way as a proposal for a new church.

“All decisions must be based on adopted ordinances, objective standards and legal requirements, which do not allow for different rules for different religious groups,” the commissioners said. “We encourage all members of our community to remain respectful in their discussions and interactions as this project moves through the appropriate processes.”

In Oklahoma, Muslim leaders fight against the rebuff of a new mosque

A mosque controversy has been raging for many months in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, Tulsa’s largest suburb.

Back in January, at a stormy meeting attended by hundreds of people, the city council voted 4-1 to reject a rezoning proposal by the region’s Islamic Society to build Broken Arrow’s first mosque. Before the vote, dozens of residents voiced anti-Muslim views while opposing the project.

Council members who rejected the mosque had raised concerns about its potential impact on infrastructure such as roads, sewers and flood plain management.

But the Islamic Society is persisting with its quest. On Aug. 3, it filed a lawsuit against the mayor and four councilors, alleging that the vote reflected “a wave of bigoted opposition from members of the community and local politicians.” The lawsuit contends that the council violated state and federal laws governing religious land use, treating the mosque proposal differently from other comparable rezoning requests.

“They did not want a mosque in their city. They did not want Muslims here,” said Meghan Murphy, an attorney with CAIR’s Legal Defense Fund, at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. ”So they made up a reason, and in doing so they violated the law.”

Some see a terrorism threat while others see baseless scaremongering

Opposition to mosque construction isn’t a new phenomenon: In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, an effort launched in 2010 to block a mosque project dragged on for more than three years. The mosque was built anyway as the case moved through the courts, but members of the Muslim community faced public protests, vandalism, arson and a bomb threat during that span.

The latest anti-mosque campaigns coincide with a broad wave of anti-Muslim rhetoric from Republican officeholders over the past year. In Congress, several bills were introduced targeting sharia, the moral and spiritual framework that guides Muslims in prayer and ethical conduct. Some Republicans say they’re concerned about growing Muslim populations in major cities and potential ties to terrorism — fears that CAIR and other civil rights groups say are unfounded and being exploited for political purposes.

Republican governors in Texas and Florida have endorsed efforts to shut down CAIR, saying it has ties to terrorism. CAIR has denied the allegations and filed lawsuits calling the governors’ efforts unconstitutional.

Muslim American leaders view the vitriol as political scaremongering.

“Every election year, we expect a rise in anti-Muslim hate,” said CAIR’s Mitchell. “It’s been worse this year than it has been in years.”

Crary writes for the Associated Press.

ROD Stewart has sparked concern for his health as he pulled out of a second concert in a week over a mystery medical issue.

It’s been revealed 81-year-old rocker has pulled out of his August 9 gig at the Riverbend Music Center in Cincinnati.

This comes after he cancelled a string of concerts earlier this year due to health setbacks.

The organisers of the event announced the shocking news yesterday – the day of the gig.

They confirmed Rod was undergoing an “unforeseen but minor medical procedure.”

The venue shared a statement on social media, which said: “Due to an unforeseen but minor medical procedure that required prompt attention, Rod Stewart’s performance tonight in Cincinnati has been postponed.

GRANDPA ROD

Rod Stewart, 81, is a grandfather for sixth time as daughter welcomes 2nd child

NO SHOW

Rod Stewart cancels gig hours before he’s due onstage – as fans fume

“Rescheduling is currently underway, with additional information to follow on Tuesday.

“All previously purchased tickets will be honored for the rescheduled date.”

They claimed Rod is expected to be back tearing up the stage soon.

“Rod is expected to make a quick recovery and looks forward to returning to Cincinnati,” said the Riverbend Music centre.

One fan wrote: “I hope he’s okay,” followed by a praying hands emoji.

“Praying he’s doing well the concert hasn’t been cancelled just postponed,” penned another fan.

This isn’t the first time the Scottish-born star has left his fans feeling concerned.

Back in June the hitmaker was forced to pull out of a gig in California, due to a respiratory infection that later triggered a bout of laryngitis.

Just a week later, Rod stopped midway through his Utah concert and was seen using an oxygen tank onstage after nearly passing out.

Following the sad news, Rod also postponed his concerts at Red Rocks Park and Amphitheatre in Morrison, Colorado in June, citing vocal rest.

He has repeatedly told fans that while he is winding down large-scale global arena touring, he has no intention of fully retiring from music or performing altogether.

Rod Stewart, who is married to TV personality Penny Lancaster, shot to fame in 1971 following the release of his debut album, Every Picture Tells A Story.

His biggest hits include Maggie May, Sailing and Da Ya Think I’m Sexy?

Over his six-decade career, he’s sold over 250 million records worldwide, been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice, and received a knighthood in 2016.

Mayor Karen Bass said Thursday that the LAPD should stop working with Flock Safety, warning that the company, which operates AI-enabled license plate readers that allow authorities to monitor vehicles around the city, had lost public trust.

In her most forceful comments to date on the topic, Bass said while she supports license plate reading technology generally as a tool for law enforcement, Flock had “lost the trust of Angelenos and residents across the country, especially in immigrant communities targeted by the federal administration.”

“There are many companies that provide this technology to cities nationwide,” Bass said in a statement. “The LAPD needs to identify another company that doesn’t share data.”

LAPD officials have said Flock’s technology enables investigators to solve crimes, helping to find vehicles that have been reported stolen or linked to suspects. Last month, the department announced it was pausing its relationship with Flock, but police officials later said they were in the process of negotiating a new deal with the company that would include more data sharing and collection safeguards.

Dozens of mostly smaller cities have deactivated their Flock cameras or ended their contracts with the company over concerns that it provides data to the Trump administration that can be used to track down immigrants for deportation.

Bass joined the chorus of activists and local officials calling for the LAPD to end its relationship with the company outright.

Her opponent in the November mayoral election, Nithya Raman, said last week on the social media platform X that the city should “cut ties with Flock Safety.”

“Cities across the country are canceling their Flock contracts over the risks its license plate readers pose to privacy, civil liberties, and immigrant communities,” Raman’s post read.

Last month, Bass signed an ordinance that prohibits city personnel from providing anyone outside local government access to data that can be used to determine someone’s immigration status.

A recent Washington Post report uncovered at least 50 instances nationwide in which law enforcement officials were accused of misusing their access to the cameras, largely to stalk former romantic partners or citizens.

A report issued last month by the LAPD inspector general’s office found numerous “limitations” in the department’s existing agreements with its three plate reader vendors — Flock, Axon and Motorola — including a lack of clear language about how long the data are retained and how they are shared with third parties or other law enforcement agencies.

The inspector general recommended that the department update its current license plate reader contracts to address data security and privacy concerns, conduct regular audits and develop standardized rules for traffic stops based on plate reader hits.

Flock has said its customers decide who can access data from their cameras. The company said it doesn’t have contracts with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, adding that has taken other steps to assuage public concern, such as barring federal agencies from its lookup tools and restricting immigration-related searches to ensure compliance with laws in California, Washington and other states.

In an interview with ABC7 last month, Flock CEO Garrett Langley said the company had to “tighten up the police and make sure everyone’s aligned and then turn it back on. He said the company retains the data from its plate readers for only 30 days and denied that its cameras employ facial recognition software as some of its critics have suggested.

During a virtual listening session hosted last week by the inspector general’s office, dozens of people sounded off on the department’s use of Flock cameras.

Some speakers, mostly from the fire-ravaged community of Pacific Palisades, supported the use of cameras to deter burglars who have repeatedly hit homes and construction sites in the area.

Jennifer Wolfe, who identified herself as a teacher in Altadena, another community devastated by the 2025 wildfires, urged Flock’s supporters to consider how “surveillance systems can grow far beyond their intended purpose.”

Locating stolen cars is important, she said, but people should be more concerned by this newfound and unchecked ability for the government to collect “vastly more information, with far less effort.”

Diversity’s Ashley Banjo expresses concern for future dance stars amid rising costs and program cuts

Next generation of dance stars are being priced out the industry, study reveals.

The next generation of dance stars is being priced out of following in the footsteps of Shirley Ballas, Darcey Bussell and Ashley Banjo, according to a study.

Industry data from ONS revealed the number of people working as dancers and choreographers has fallen by 32 per cent since 2019.

While a separate poll of 2,000 adults found 68 per cent of Brits said dance is an important part of British culture, yet six in 10 believe the next generation of dance talent is being priced out of the industry.

And 55 per cent think only those from wealthier backgrounds can realistically pursue a career in dance.

BANJO NO!

Ashley Banjo breaks silence after appearing in Bonnie Blue documentary

GREATEST SHOW

Ashley Banjo teases very special Dancing On Ice performance

The research was commissioned by The Sky Foundation to mark the launch of the Julia Rausing Sky Arts Bursaries, a new programme providing funding, mentoring and industry support to 20 dance-makers across the UK.

The broadcaster also teamed up with Ashley Banjo MBE, the frontman of the group Diversity, to support the campaign.

Commenting on the poll, the choreographer said: “Dance opened so many doors for me growing up.

“I was lucky my Mum ran a dance school, so I was surrounded by dance from an early age and had access to opportunities that helped shape my future.

“But opportunities are becoming harder to access today, particularly for people who don’t come from an affluent background.

“Creative potential should never be determined by a family’s finances, yet these findings suggest cost is becoming an increasingly significant barrier to pursuing a career in dance.

“That’s a real concern, because talent exists everywhere – and we can’t afford to lose the next generation of dance artists and what they’ll contribute to our culture.”

The study also found 45 per cent feel the UK is missing out on dance talent which could contribute to culture, creative industries and the arts sector.

Participants believe this is due to families not being able to afford the costs of travel, equipment and competitions (63 per cent) and some young people not being able to afford creative careers (57 per cent).

Meanwhile, 67 per cent believe talent is being overlooked because they live in parts of the country with fewer creative pathways.

In total, 80 per cent believe those from less affluent backgrounds face more barriers to pursuing careers in dance.

Just six per cent believe they are on a truly even keel when it comes to making it in the industry according to the OnePoll.com data.

And only 29 per cent believe there are enough opportunities for young people to dance in their area.

This rises to 39 per cent for Londoners yet falls as low as 19 per cent for people of Yorkshire and the Humber – the lowest of any region.

Choreographers, dance-makers and artists have been encouraged to sign up to the bursary on the Julia Rausing Sky Arts Bursaries website.

Phil Edgar-Jones, trustee of the foundation and executive director of unscripted content at Sky, said: “Dance is one of Britain’s great creative strengths. It’s an artform that brings people together, tells powerful stories and reflects the diversity of communities across the UK.

“With public funding under pressure, many dance artists increasingly rely on the support of dance organisations, charities and funders to develop their careers.

“That’s why initiatives like this are so important.”

Ashley Banjo added: “No young person should feel that a career in dance is out of reach because they can’t afford lessons, travel or competitions, or because there aren’t enough opportunities close to home.

“Talent can come from anywhere, and your background shouldn’t determine your future.”

Miami authorities on Tuesday night responded to a residence after a disturbing video was posted on social media that appeared to involve celebrity blogger Perez Hilton.

The Times has not confirmed the authenticity of the video. But the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office said in an emailed statement that authorities had received an influx of calls on Tuesday reporting that an individual was livestreaming acts of self-harm on social media.

After surrounding the Miami residence of a man who was not named, the Sheriff’s Office said around 9 p.m. that he had been “safely recovered and transported by Miami-Dade Fire Rescue to a local hospital, where he is receiving medical attention.”

Deputies had arrived earlier and said they spoke with family members at the scene and confirmed that the man was alone inside the home.

“In many incidents involving a person experiencing a mental health crisis or actively harming themselves, deputies prioritize de-escalation by creating time, distance and opportunities for communication,” the statement read. “Unless there is an immediate threat to others, slowing the situation and utilizing crisis intervention techniques can reduce the likelihood of a suicide-by-cop encounter and minimize the risk of injury to the individual, deputies and the public.”

Authorities said they had “tactically disengaged while continuing to monitor the situation.” In their later update, the Sheriff’s Office said that after the man had been transported to a hospital, mental health professionals were at the scene “providing support and resources to the individual’s family.”

A representative for Hilton did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

In the TikTok live video, a person who seems to be in distress harms himself. The video has since been removed from the platform.

Police and fire personnel converged on the Miami home Tuesday night. NBC6 News reported that some neighbors said Hilton lived at the home, but police would not confirm that.

Hilton, born Mario Lavandeira Jr., has been a pop culture personality since the early aughts when he launched his eponymous celebrity gossip rag. The venture garnered the columnist social status but also made him persona non grata among many celebrities who weren’t fans of his controversial coverage, which was often deemed disparaging, especially toward women.

ARIANA Grande stopped her concert in Chicago last night to address her fans following the news she’ll take a step back from public life after her current tour. 

The 33-year-old is halfway through her Eternal Sunshine world tour and her reps confirmed this week a “much-deserved” break when it wraps in September. 

During her show last night, Ariana read out a statement from her phone and said: “The announcement that was made yesterday was not a reactive or impulsive thing. 

“It is something that I had decided. It’s a plan that I had quietly made a long time ago, and it’s a decision that was made from a thoughtful and empowered place, and I want you to know that many, many things can be true at the same time. 

“I want to share this because I heard that my fans were worried that negativity was ruining things for me.”

Ariana continued: “This is not what that is and I just want to make that very, very clear. Nothing can be ruined. 

GRANDE FINALE

Ariana Grande steps back from public life as fate of London shows revealed

TAKE A BREAK

Ariana Grande pulls out of UK shows as she ‘takes step back from public life’

“Multiple things can be true at the same time. Boundaries can need to be set. Human beings can need a break sometimes. 

“And also, this can be and will continue to be the greatest experience of my professional and creative life.”

Yesterday her reps said: “Ariana will be taking a step back from visibility after she completes the Eternal Sunshine Tour.

“She looks forward to finishing the tour and ending it on a high note, both healthily and happily, and then taking a much-deserved break from public-facing work and appearances, which has led to endless, ongoing public scrutiny.

“This tour has been a beautiful experience for her. She loves her fans and has loved every minute of this tour so much.”

It has been confirmed Ariana will no longer star in the West End revival of Sunday in the Park With George which was set to open next summer. 

And she will not appear on the red carpet with Robert De Niro and her other co-stars to promote their new movie Focker-in-Law.

The three-time Grammy winner’s decision to step back comes amid speculation and comments over her appearance, with one online activist claiming the singer was “possibly dying right in front of us”.

The Trump administration wants to make sure that the Mexican train crews who haul freight over the border can understand key safety information in English and that the common practice of using foreign crews to cross into America doesn’t threaten U.S. jobs.

Two major rail unions praised the proposed rule announced Friday that would also strengthen the standards for certifying that crews can safely operate a train.

The government had concerns after inspecting two Texas rail yards near the border last fall on the two railroads directly affected by these restrictions on Mexican crews — Union Pacific and Canadian Pacific Kansas City, or CPKC. Union Pacific didn’t immediately respond but CPKC and the Assn. of American Railroads trade group declined to comment while they study the rule.

The Federal Railroad Administration sent letters to both CPKC and Union Pacific in December after inspections found that train crews often had trouble understanding English during focused inspections. The government urged those railroads to reexamine their practices and make sure that Mexican crews can speak English and don’t operate a train more than 10 miles inside the United States.

Last fall, federal inspectors found numerous problems in Union Pacific’s Eagle Pass rail yard and CPKC’s facility in Laredo where train crews were having a hard time understanding English-language operating bulletins and U.S. regulations. Information about hazardous materials and emergency responses are required to be in English.

Both Union Pacific and CPKC have pledged to make sure they were following the existing rules, including that the Mexican crews do not travel more than 10 miles into the United States. But now the federal government wants to strengthen the rules “because railroad crews must be able to communicate fully and accurately when crossing into the United States, most notably with dispatchers and emergency responders during a crisis, as a safety-critical function.”

This rail safety effort aligns closely with the Transportation Department’s efforts to ensure that truck drivers can understand English, so they can read road signs and warnings and communicate with first responders after an accident or during an inspection. The government has tried to withhold millions of dollars in highway funding from New York and California because it isn’t satisfied with the steps those states have taken to make sure the commercial driver’s licenses they issue are valid.

Mark Wallace, the national president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen union, has been raising concerns about this practice of using Mexican train crews for several years because of safety, security and job concerns.

The union has said that the handoffs used to happen right at the border, but now Union Pacific and CPKC routinely ask Mexican crews to bring trains several miles over the border to one of their rail yards where the crew switches can be done more safely. But the firm 10-mile restriction in this rule will prevent the railroads from expanding this practice to rail yards farther into the United States. The union said Union Pacific was considering this type of expansion in New Mexico.

Wallace said the language barrier would pose a hazard in the event of issues such as a derailment.

But the railroads have said that this practice of using Mexican train crews to bring the trains into rail yards in America was developed in 2018 with the approval of the first Trump administration to address smuggling concerns. When trains are stopped at the border, smugglers often try to conceal drugs or other contraband aboard them and immigrants might jump aboard to get into the United States.

It is also routine for Canadian crews to bring trains a few miles over the northern border with the United States before handing off to American crews.

The SMART-TD union that represents conductors and other rail workers also said the provisions of the rule that will prohibit train crews from using a system that’s similar to cruise control when they take their certification tests will help ensure they can operate a train safely.

“Railroad certifications should represent proven ability, not simply possession of a certificate,” said Jared Cassity, who is SMART-TD’s top safety expert. “When lives are on the line, the FRA must know that an engineer can safely operate a train, not just supervise a computer doing it.”

Funk writes for the Associated Press.

Roughly six weeks before the first midterm ballots are mailed out, the U.S. Postal Service is emerging as a pivotal player in an election season that will determine control of Congress.

President Trump is seeking greater control over mail balloting through an executive order while a change to how the agency processes mail is leading to criticism that it’s failing to deliver ballots on time.

Democratic officials have raised concerns over the past week about how quickly the Postal Service will process ballots after tens of thousands of them in California and hundreds in Wisconsin arrived at local election offices too late to be counted in elections earlier this year. The top election offices in Kansas and Michigan are urging voters who want to cast their ballots early to avoid the mail and instead drop them off in person.

The Postal Service replied to those concerns by saying it remains “committed to fulfilling our role in the electoral process.”

“We provide a secure, efficient, and effective way for citizens to participate when policymakers decide to use mail as part of their elections,” it said in a statement Tuesday.

Trump’s order puts more focus on mail ballots

The Postal Service faced similar questions about mail delivery in 2024, but the scrutiny this year is heightened because of an executive order Trump issued in March that seeks to create a national voter list to guide the Postal Service in deciding who gets a mail ballot.

The order has sparked multiple lawsuits and federal court orders, leading to a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court in which the administration is asking the justices to allow it to impose its restrictions on mail balloting.

Trump has lied for years about voter fraud to try to explain away his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020, and mail balloting is a favorite target, even though he has used the method himself. During a recent stop in Michigan, he falsely characterized mail balloting as “inherently corrupt” and added, “Hopefully there will be no mail-in ballots.”

A 2025 report from the research group Brookings identified about four cases of fraud for every 10 million mail ballots cast.

Despite Trump’s attacks, the method remains popular with voters of both major parties. In 2024, nearly 30% of U.S. voters cast their ballots by mail, according to federal data. In Michigan, where competitive U.S. House and Senate races could help determine the balance of power in Congress, the state said it has sent out more than 2 million absentee ballots for the state’s Aug. 4 primary.

“We want to keep vote by mail. We want to protect it. We want to expand it,” said Jonathan Smith, president of the 200,000-member American Postal Workers Union, which launched a campaign in April promoting it and is opposed to turning the Postal Service into an election administrator. “Why? Because it works.”

Legal battles intensify over Trump’s order

The Postal Service proposed a rule in June in line with Trump’s executive order that would create a national list of eligible voters, based on databases kept by other federal agencies. Only those on the list would be eligible to receive mail ballots.

Democratic officials in nearly two dozen states filed a federal lawsuit in Massachusetts. A federal judge there blocked Trump’s order last month, and an appeals court upheld that ruling, prompting Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court. But the appeals court for the District of Columbia refused Tuesday to block the order in a separate case, calling a legal challenge premature.

Democratic senators and governors have written to the Postal Service urging it to abandon efforts to implement Trump’s order.

“Donald Trump has shown he’ll stop at nothing to meddle in our upcoming elections,” Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin said in a statement to The Associated Press. “At best, this new push will exacerbate already severe delays for mail-in voters and at worst, it will stop eligible Americans from casting their ballots.”

In a letter to Democratic senators earlier this month, the heads of the Postal Service said they were abiding by the court rulings that had halted the executive order. But Smith, of the postal workers union, told the AP on Tuesday that USPS information technology staffers who are union members are working on a planned portal for the list of eligible voters “behind the scenes.”

The Postal Service declined to respond to Smith’s statements and said it could not comment about whether it’s moving forward with work related to Trump’s order because of the litigation.

The postal workers’ union opposes the plan for a portal, a national list of eligible voters and using that list to determine who can receive a mail ballot. Smith said it shouldn’t be postal workers’ responsibility “to decide who can vote and who can’t vote.”

A plan to consolidate mail processing centers upsets officials

The Postal Service has been under financial stress for years and has been consolidating mail processing into fewer regional centers. Mail travels an average of 139 miles to reach one and sometimes 500 miles, according to a recent Brookings report.

In January, a group of mostly Democratic senators said it was concerned about a decision to end twice-daily mail dispatches from local post offices to regional processing centers. The result is that mail arriving after the only daily dispatch would go out the next day.

California officials said the change was a factor in the state rejecting more than 148,000 ballots from its June primary, with 63% of them arriving too late despite a seven-day grace period. Officials worried that some ballots were postmarked at processing facilities the day after they were dropped off at a post office, possibly invalidating them. Wisconsin officials also said hundreds of ballots from an election in April arrived late.

The Postal Service said postmarks generally are being applied with automated equipment at processing centers, “in the same manner and to the same extent as before.” It said someone who wants to make sure their ballot envelope gets a timely postmark can get a free one applied by a postal worker.

A report on the 2024 election by the USPS Office of Inspector General said the Postal Service handled more than 59 million pieces of ballot mail from Sept. 1 to Nov. 15 that year and that 97.3% arrived on time.

Some state election officials advise voters to avoid the mail

The Michigan secretary of state’s office is advising voters to hand-deliver ballots to their local clerk’s office or a drop box.

“We’ve seen these issues over a number of election cycles now — they’re always concerning, and that’s why we’ve put out that guidance,” said Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie.

The Postal Service said its Michigan centers are not seeing processing delays.

In Kansas, concerns about late ballot deliveries in the state’s 2024 primary election prompted a quip on the social platform X from Secretary of State Scott Schwab, a Republican: “The Pony Express is more efficient at this point.” Asked his view now, spokesperson Whitney Tempel said Schwab still believes “keeping your ballot out of the hands of the federal government is best.”

Jamie Shew, a Democrat elected to oversee elections in Douglas County, home to the main University of Kansas campus, said his office is trying to change voters’ perceptions.

“I think voters are used to, you can drop it off on Friday and we’re going to receive it by Election Day,” Shew said Tuesday. “That’s just not the reality.”

California’s state budget includes $10 million for social media campaigns and other efforts to discourage last-minute ballot mailings.

And the Postal Service said it hasn’t changed its own longstanding advice for voters: They should get their ballots in the mail at least a week before their state’s deadline for receiving them.

Hanna writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., Michael R. Blood in Los Angeles, Michael Casey in Boston, and Jacqueline GaNun in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday passed a defense policy bill that incorporates President Trump’s request for a historic $1.15 trillion in spending for national security and would designate the Department of Defense as the Department of War.

It also would provide for a pay raise next year ranging from 5% to 7% for service members, depending upon their rank.

The National Defense Authorization Act is generally one of the more bipartisan bills that Congress takes up on an annual basis. That’s not the case this year. The vote was 216-212.

Democrats took issue with steep spending increases for the Pentagon as Republicans attempted to cut numerous non-defense programs through other bills. They also opposed some of the conservative social policy riders that were included.

For example, the bill includes a prohibition on gender-related medical care under the military health program known as TRICARE. It also eases hurdles for service members to carry a privately owned firearm on base, following Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s lead on the issue.

Republican leaders’ decision to attach Trump’s elections overhaul bill to the defense bill upon its passing also amplified the partisan divide. Speaker Mike Johnson is working to accommodate Republican lawmakers who are angry that the Senate won’t pass the SAVE America Act and are insisting that it be included in must-pass bills until the Senate relents.

House bill tests a normally bipartisan process

Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he knows there were areas of disagreement, but emphasized that Wednesday’s vote was a step in a long process. He promised to work in a bipartisan manner on a final product that can pass both chambers and be signed into law.

Rogers said the United States needs to reverse decades of underinvestment and neglect in the nation’s armed forces and defense industrial base.

“This bill will do that and much more,” he said. “It will build the ready, capable and lethal fighting force we need to deter China and other adversaries.”

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking Democratic lawmaker on the Armed Services Committee, said the defense spending the administration has asked for this year is approaching $1.6 trillion including separate efforts to pay for the war in Iran and boost weapons stockpiles.

“The American people are struggling to pay their bills and we’re going to put $1.6 trillion into the defense budget. It’s not a reasonable thing to ask,” Smith said.

Smith also expressed concern about the war with Iran and that in supporting the defense bill, lawmakers are “de facto supporting this war with no end in sight.”

“We are in an incredibly, incredibly dangerous time,” Smith said. “I want to maintain the bipartisan nature of this bill. I do. And I know that the chairman does. But if we’re going to do this, we’re going to need some Republicans to stand up to the president of the United States and say, ‘No. No, we’re not going to get you $1.6 trillion. No, we’re not just going to give you a blank check for a war that is totally out of control.‘”

White House backs parts of the legislation

The spending increases authorized in the bill would not take effect until Congress follows up with a separate defense appropriations bill. The Senate has not yet approved its version of the defense measure. It’s possible a final product won’t be ready until after the midterm elections.

The White House applauded the spending levels authorized in the House bill and the Department of War designation that it says recognizes the “willingness to fight and win wars on behalf of our nation.”

The president issued an executive order last year renaming the Defense Department, but it’s up to Congress to make the change official. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the renaming could cost taxpayers as much as $125 million.

The White House’s statement also said that the administration has a number of concerns with certain provisions in the bill and would work with Congress before a final bill is presented to the president. Among those concerns was a section of the bill it said would limit or undermine the president’s ability to name military installations and property.

In 2023, during a national reckoning on issues of race in America, seven Army bases’ names were changed because they honored Confederate leaders. Last year, those bases reverted to their original names, but with different namesakes who share Confederate surnames. The Army found other service members with the same last names to honor.

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration urged Congress on Tuesday to approve roughly $70 billion in emergency defense funding to sustain U.S. military capabilities amid its escalating war against Iran, warning that without it the Pentagon could face “critical shortfalls” disrupting its readiness.

The request comes as the United States and Iran have traded strikes for 10 consecutive days in a renewed conflict, deepening concerns in Washington over an expanding war that could inflame the global economy and trap the president in a quagmire.

The collapse of a ceasefire agreement and the sudden resumption of war have raised alarms within the Pentagon over its ability to protect U.S. forces and assets in the Middle East over a prolonged conflict, with defensive munitions in dangerously short supply, two Defense Department officials told The Times.

Yet the administration is facing bipartisan skepticism from lawmakers over the continuation of a war unpopular with a vast majority of Americans, over which they have had little oversight, and that in recent days has led to deaths of U.S. soldiers.

Those tensions became clear as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee to make their case for the tens of billions of dollars and offer their first in-depth public remarks about the war since May.

Hegseth told senators the United States is at a “moment where we cannot afford inaction,” while Caine argued the funding request is coming to Congress “while time is still on our side.”

“It is critical that we stay ahead of our adversaries and we must have the funds before we are out of time,” Caine said.

Hegseth said the war is now expected to cost Americans $37.5 billion, up from a $29-billion estimate from early May. The war, initially projected by President Trump to last four to five weeks, is now entering its fifth month.

With no end in sight, senators from both parties signaled frustrations with the administration’s plans.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said Democrats will not support more funding for the war.

“This administration’s refusal to explain what it is doing, or how this war is protecting Americans, its refusal to seek authorization from Congress, and its expectations that Americans will just pay for it all without any explanation or transparency is disrespectful,” she said.

Republican lawmakers also confronted Hegseth and Caine on several fronts.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told the Pentagon leaders that lawmakers “need some proper answers and some straight talk” about the administration’s plans to ensure Iran does not choke traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Asked whether Iran would impose tolls on merchant vessels passing through the vital waterway, Caine said it was a “hypothetical” scenario — a response Kennedy rejected.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also put pressure on Hegseth, as she asked him whether the administration was still taking the position that it needed no authorization from Congress to continue hostilities against Iran.

“Senator, I know there’s a long-standing legal debate on this particular topic, but we certainly at the department share the position with the White House that we have all the necessary authorities at this moment,” Hegseth said.

Murkowski’s remarks come just weeks after Republicans joined Democrats in both the House and Senate in voting to reassert Congress’ constitutional role over the war, underscoring the simmering tensions over Trump’s decision to sideline Congress in the matter.

Hours before the hearing, Trump downplayed concerns over the war’s effect on the midterm elections and further threats in the war, as Houthis, the Iran-backed militia in Yemen, declared a maritime blockade Monday on Saudi Arabia.

“So far, it hasn’t happened. It might happen but we take care of things, if something like that happens,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

Trump maintained that Iranian leaders are “desperately” trying to reach a deal to end the war but said he has no interest in meeting with them until he is convinced the talks will be “meaningful.”

“If we left right now, it would take Iran 20 to 25 years to rebuild. We are not finished at all,” Trump said. “We are not leaving right now.”

A protester interrupts Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as he testifies at Tuesday’s hearing.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

Asked if he thought Iran was trying to have an effect on the midterm elections by threatening the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said, “probably.”

“It won’t have any impact on me,” he said. “The election, I can’t think about that having to do with this.”

An agreement reached in June between the United States and Iran proposed an end to a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports and to U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports in exchange for Tehran allowing unfettered commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. But the agreement fell apart, with Iran firing on commercial vessels and pursuing a toll system for transit that had not existed before the war started.

The deal was supposed to set up a structure for more detailed negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, a prime target of the U.S. campaign launched in February in partnership with Israel.

Much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was degraded in a U.S. strike conducted last year that targeted three major facilities. But the fissile material required to build nuclear weapons remains in the country, under the watch of U.S. satellite surveillance. Iran has vowed to continue pursuing civilian nuclear work.

“How about these people? They’re in this because of nuclear weapons, and they’re trying to possibly reconstitute a site? We’ll hit that site. Any site where they’re even thinking about nuclear — we’ll be hitting it very, very powerfully,” Trump said.

As the war expands, there’s been heightened concern about the infrastructure that civilians in neighboring countries rely on for water and power.

Iranian officials said U.S. strikes hit the Bunji desalination plant on Iran’s southeastern coast, leaving 20 villages — where some 10,000 people reside — without water, according to reports from Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim.

Meanwhile, the Kuwaiti government said its power plants and desalination plants were struck by Iran on Monday — the fourth consecutive day of attacks on a key source of drinking water for the small desert nation.

The attacks spurred the Kuwaiti government over the weekend to launch an ad campaign calling on residents to reduce their water and power usage, especially during peak hours between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m.

A concerted campaign targeting desalination plants would be devastating both for Iran and the Persian Gulf nations it has peppered with drones and missiles since the start of the war.

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia are among the world’s eight most water-stressed countries. Israel ranks 9th, while Iran is 14th, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Water Resources Institute.

All of them suffer from “absolute water scarcity,” according to metrics used by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture organization.

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

Southeast Asian countries are highly affected by oil supply shortages caused by the Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz closure.

Southeast Asian nations are “deeply concerned” about the impact of blockades of key maritime trade routes in the Middle East, their top diplomats have said.

Foreign ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and their key ⁠partners met in the Philippines on Tuesday against a backdrop of instability due to the global impact on trade and energy supplies caused by the US-Israel war on Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, as well as territorial disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea.

Southeast Asian countries have a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of $3.8 trillion but are highly exposed to supply limitations caused by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, as they are heavily dependent on Gulf countries for their oil imports.

At the ongoing ASEAN summit in Manila, heads of state and top diplomats from the region are seeking to agree on an oil-sharing mechanism to mitigate the impact of the war on Iran.

Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis announced a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia on Monday, opening a potential new front in the war and risking aggravating the threat to global energy supplies and trade beyond the Gulf.

“We are deeply concerned that these ‌developments severely undermine the ongoing efforts of key mediators and diminish the prospects for a peaceful resolution through dialogue and diplomacy,” ASEAN ministers said in a statement.

Top diplomats from the United States, Russia and China are also attending the ASEAN summit, another reminder of how the war on Iran is reshaping international diplomacy and the global energy supply.

Reporting from Manila, Al Jazeera’s Barnaby Lo said the war has driven up oil and gas prices in Southeast Asia while also stalling manufacturing and exports, causing countries from the region to find new trade partners.

“Southeast Asia is thousands of kilometres away from the Middle East, but it has been one of the most impacted regions by the conflict because of how dependent many of its member nations are on oil from the Middle East,” Lo said.

“Take, for example, the Philippines: it’s the first country in the world to declare a state of national energy emergency, and it still is in this state, so it is fighting problems on two fronts. One on supply, the other on skyrocketing fuel prices,” Lo said. “On supply, it’s gotten oil from non-traditional partners, such as Russia and China, but on skyrocketing prices it has very little it can do because the prices here are driven by market forces.”

Other key issues to be discussed at the ASEAN summit include the civil war in Myanmar, as the bloc’s peace initiatives falter, five years after a military coup plunged the country into a conflict that has killed an estimated 100,000 people.

“Ahead of the summit, ASEAN foreign ministers held an in-person meeting – the first since 2021 – with the foreign minister of the military-backed government in Myanmar in Bangkok,” Lo reported. “This was criticised for legitimising the military junta in Myanmar.”

Top diplomats are also likely to discuss ⁠tensions in the South China Sea, with ASEAN countries and China still trying to conclude a code of conduct to ⁠prevent disputes after nearly 10 years. In advance of the summit, China and the Philippines were engaged in a feud after a confrontation between their vessels in disputed waters left a Filipino sailor injured.

The US Department of State condemned what it described as China’s “dangerous and aggressive” actions, and its “troubling pattern of provocation against lawful Philippine maritime operations”.

WASHINGTON — President Trump appeared poised to question the security of U.S. elections with a planned prime-time speech Thursday night, eliciting fears from Democrats and voting rights advocates that he is planning yet another play for federal control over voting in November’s midterms.

The exact reason for the speech has not been disclosed by the White House, with Trump only characterizing it to reporters this week as “really, really big news.” He confirmed it would have to do with “free and fair elections.”

The Washington Post reported, citing sources, that Trump planned to argue that there are vulnerabilities in the nation’s election infrastructure and claim that China had accessed U.S. voter data. The White House declined to confirm any such details Wednesday.

The announcement of the speech set off concerns among the president’s political opponents, as well as elections experts and voting rights advocates, that Trump could again escalate claims that the nation’s voting system is vulnerable to domestic fraud and foreign attacks.

He has previously said that Republicans should “nationalize” election administration, a job that falls to the states under the Constitution, and has pressured his party to tighten federal voting rules.

“We don’t know anything about what he might say … or what he might try to do with his very limited powers, as the president, over elections,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research. “I expect we’re going to hear a lot of rehashed and debunked claims.”

The president could potentially use new claims to argue that the nation is facing an emergency in upcoming elections that necessitates further federal intervention into voting, Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, which has oversight of elections, said in an interview with The Times.

“This is going to be the rationale for declaring a national emergency,” Morelle said. “It’s transparent that he is creating the emergency and he’s creating the evidence out of whole cloth to suggest there is an emergency.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees federal elections, told The Times on Wednesday that Trump was using a known playbook to “[sow] doubt about the outcome before a single vote has been cast.”

“All signs show that tomorrow’s speech will be more of the same: debunked conspiracy theories offered up not because they’re true, but because chaos and doubt are the only cards he has left to play,” Padilla said.

The speech, which Trump announced on social media Monday, comes four months ahead of midterm elections that will determine whether his party retains legislative control in Washington.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt dismissed news reports about what Trump might say in the 6 p.m. PDT speech as speculation, and said “nobody knows yet what President Trump will ultimately say.”

The address also comes as Trump’s ceasefire with Iran has fallen apart, renewing expectations for increased gas prices, and his approval rating on the economy has steadily dropped. On Tuesday, it also became public that Trump had paid $5.6 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll, as ordered by a jury that in 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.

“What we’re going to be talking about Thursday is, it doesn’t get bigger,” Trump told reporters who asked Tuesday about the speech. “Because without free and fair elections you don’t have a country.”

Trump has spread baseless claims of widespread election fraud for years. But his prioritization of his claims about the voting system — even as much of the nation’s attention is on cost-of-living issues — has been on particularly clear display in recent days.

He has aggressively lobbied reluctant Republican senators to pass his voter ID legislation, refusing to sign a bipartisan housing bill over it; he fired all remaining members of the bipartisan U.S. Elections Assistance Commission; and his Justice Department said it would send election monitors to six states.

Since the midterm primaries began, Trump has also sown doubt about election security — chiefly in California, where he suggested Democrats had cheated or attempted to in the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral primaries.

Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, whose state was often at the center of Trump’s 2020 fraud claims, said the president’s speech posed a threat to voting rights.

“I expect him to use whatever he puts out there on Thursday as a pretext, either for some attempted unconstitutional use of federal power to interfere in the election,” Ossoff said Tuesday on MS Now, “or to give his proxies and loyalists in state and local jurisdictions some cover for whatever they might attempt, or to lay the groundwork for challenging the result.”

Any effort to federalize or take over elections would face serious legal obstacles, said Nahal Kazemi, a Chapman University law professor. Although Congress can pass laws regarding election administration, as it did with the Voting Rights Act, the executive branch doesn’t play a role in running elections.

“You run into essentially a brick wall that is the Constitution, which makes very plain that states run elections,” Kazemi said.

When it comes to concerns about foreign interference, experts say there is little evidence of other countries attempting to hack systems or change votes. Instead, foreign actors have largely operated via disinformation campaigns, as the U.S. determined had occurred in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

“Of the information that is available to us now, there’s no reason to be alarmed about the possibility that a foreign adversary is going to take over election systems,” said Kazemi, who has studied foreign election interference.

One of the things that helps make American elections generally secure, she said, is that they are not centralized but are run by thousands of counties. Hacking into so many voting systems would be extraordinarily difficult for a foreign adversary, she said.

Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, said California “takes elections security extremely seriously” and has one of the most secure systems in the country, subject to strict voter verification measures and intense chain of custody and auditing procedures.

Democrats have worked with elections experts in recent months on attempts to assure the public that U.S. elections are safe and secure. They have also tried to counter claims by Trump that mail ballots and voting machines are unreliable.

A slew of 2020 election reviews, including by Trump’s first administration, concluded that Trump lost and Biden won. Election experts say there is no evidence that widespread fraud determined the outcome of the election.

A judge also found that claims pushed by Trump and his attorneys that the company Dominion Voting Systems manipulated votes cast through its machines in favor of Biden were untrue.

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

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

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

A Paramount representative did not immediately comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ellison also vowed to protect the HBO brand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tehran, Iran – Several days of military attacks by the United States across Iran have marked the most intense rounds of bombardment since the two sides reached a vague memorandum of understanding last month.

US fighter jets and warships have hit hundreds of military targets and a number of civilian ones in nearly a week of strikes, with Iranian authorities reporting attacks in at least 10 provinces, mainly in southern Iran near the strategically important Strait of Hormuz.

In Tehran, life for more than 10 million people has carried on mostly as usual since the capital has not been recently attacked. But the economy is in the doldrums and the outlook is increasingly uncertain, more than four months after the US and Israel began their aerial campaign.

“Everything is too chaotic right now to guess what will happen next but it doesn’t look good,” Farshad, a 21-year-old resident of eastern Tehran, said on Sunday.

“I just really hope all-out war doesn’t start again because I don’t have the nerve for daily bombing on top of everything else,” he told Al Jazeera.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said overnight into Sunday that the Strait of Hormuz was once again considered closed due to US military intervention. Two vessels opting to transit using the Western-backed southern route near Oman, rather than Iran’s designated path to the north of the strait, had been struck, the IRGC added.

Iran said it had also attacked US interests across the region, including in Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar and Oman, in response to US strikes, as prospects for negotiations to replace military escalation remained slim.

Another Tehran citizen, Nastaran, said the overnight escalation felt more serious than previous attacks.

“I didn’t expect it would be this bad when I picked up my phone this morning to check the news,” she said. “I think there will be more attacks soon.”

Growing US aggression

The US military has been expanding its attacks over the past week.

US Central Command said more than 300 military targets were hit during three waves, including coastal surveillance, logistics, communications, as well as missile, drone and naval assets. It has not acknowledged striking civilian objectives.

As with other flare-ups over recent weeks, numerous attacks were launched on the province of Hormozgan, including the major port city of Bandar Abbas, as well as on Siri, Qeshm and Jask overlooking the strait. Port, fishing, coastal-control infrastructure and air defences were extensively bombed, reportedly killing a soldier and leaving multiple fishermen dead or wounded in separate strikes.

US projectiles have also targeted multiple areas in Bushehr province, with one attack impacting the perimeter of Iran’s only nuclear power plant without damaging it.

Provincial authorities in the southwestern province of Khuzestan said three areas were hit, but not the capital, Ahvaz. Local authorities in the provinces of Kohgiluyeh, Boyer-Ahmad and Lorestan also reported projectile attacks.

In Sistan and Baluchestan to the southeast, attacks were reported in Chabahar, Konarak and Iranshahr, where a strike on airport facilities killed a firefighter. Video recorded by a local from Chabahar and shared online showed the destruction of the city’s renowned maritime control tower.

Over the past week, the US military has launched some of its deepest strikes into Iranian territory since full-scale military operations were suspended by the “ceasefire” agreed in April.

One of them was in the northern province of Golestan, where the Aq Tekeh Khan railway bridge was struck on the Gorgan-Incheh Borun line.

Authorities said the bridge, which carries both passengers and cargo, was repaired and services resumed quickly. However, the attack showed that inland corridors could also become targets to increase pressure on Iran by limiting its trade, including imports of essential goods.

The transit route connects Iran to Turkmenistan and onwards to Kazakhstan, Russia, China as well as Eurasian rail networks. Crucially, during the US naval blockade of Iran’s southern ports, it provided an overland alternative to the Strait of Hormuz.

Last week, when assassinated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was being buried in his hometown of Mashhad in northeastern Iran, authorities said the US struck a bridge about 55km (34 miles) from the city, disrupting passenger journeys to the funeral procession.

Iranian authorities say electricity infrastructure – which Trump has repeatedly threatened with more strikes – has also been significantly impacted since the start of the war, worsening the long-running energy crisis.

The attacks have reduced Iran’s capacity for electricity generation by about 4,200 megawatts, just as summer temperatures reached 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) this week, Mohammad Allahdad, head of Tavanir, the government-owned parent company for the operation of Iran’s power grid, said on Sunday.

After the conclusion of the funeral ceremonies for Ali Khamenei, a statement from new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not been seen public since succeeding his father, emphasised the necessity for revenge.

Similar messages continue to be broadcast by state media and hardline religion-backed factions supporting the Islamic Republic, who on Sunday also cheered the death of US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. State television hailed what it called the “dispatching to hell” of a pro-war hawkish politician.

For its part, Israel has effectively undermined the MoU signed between Iran and the US on June 17 by pushing deeper into southern Lebanon and signalling readiness to return to military strikes in Iran.

Speaking to an Israeli programme on Saturday night, Defence Minister Israel Katz, who has threatened to assassinate Mojtaba Khamenei, said “southern Lebanon would become Gaza” and that the Israeli army will “apply the Rafah model” of conquest there.

A new rule proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally overhaul the way federal grants are awarded and overseen — a sweeping change that one scientific society said “would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government.”

Proposed in late May, the rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over federal grants for research, education and infrastructure, and specifies that government funds can only be spent on projects “aligned with administration policies and priorities,” according to a copy of the proposed rule.

The rule would also restrict research topics, limit U.S. scientists’ ability to collaborate with colleagues in other countries and make it easier for the government to suspend or cancel grants at any time.

The changes are intended to improve “transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards” while “ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused,” according to the White House office.

But critics say that if the rule is implemented, the final sign-off for grants will no longer be in the hands of subject-matter experts within individual agencies, but in those of political appointees.

“This touches all parts of American life,” said Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, a psychiatrist who practices at the Veterans Administration and San Diego County’s psychiatric hospital.

“Control of how all of the federal grants and programs are funded will fall under a small group of highly partisan individuals who would have very few limits on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars,” said Rafla-Yuan, who also chairs the Committee to Protect Public Mental Health advocacy group. “This touches everyone’s life, even if they don’t realize it.”

OMB published the proposed rule May 29, opening a 45-day comment period that closes July 13.

Opposition to the proposed rule has mobilized multiple sectors of society. Professional groups representing cancer researchers, civil engineers, county governments, medical schools, housing agencies, city and municipal governments, nonprofits and others have publicly expressed concerns about potential consequences.

By midday Thursday, the Federal Register logged nearly 100,000 comments about the proposal, many of them expressing concern.

“I understand the need for oversight, fiscal responsibility, and accountability. That is not the issue,” wrote Jack Feldman, a neuroscientist who holds the David Geffen School of Medicine Chair in Neuroscience at UCLA. “The issue is whether scientific research is to be judged by scientific merit, or whether it can be approved, denied, or terminated according to broad political criteria that may change from one administration to the next.”

Crucially, the rule converts policies governing federal grants from “guidance” into binding regulations that all agencies would be required to follow. It would give political appointees power to override federal agencies’ merit-based reviews and mandate that a political appointee review decisions to ensure that all awards “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The elevation of political appointees in what were previously merit-based decisions has alarmed many scientists.

“The proposed rule changes would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government,” read a statement from the Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space research.

Researchers and science groups have also expressed concern about a section of the rule prohibiting the promotion of “theories of disparate-impact liability” — a legal concept that refers to policies that appear neutral but cause disproportionate harm to certain groups.

The section’s vague language and many loopholes could have a chilling effect on any research that studies the effects of a disease, policy or public health intervention on any specific group of people, Rafla-Yuan said.

As an example, he said, “if there’s a specific age range that is at higher risk for suicide, and we want to figure out, well, what’s going on with people that are aged 14 to 19 … we can’t do that under the wording in this rule.”

New restrictions on collaborations with scientists in other countries would hinder opportunities for U.S. researchers and limit innovation, said Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.

“Science is a global enterprise. Especially in biomedical and public health fields, diseases don’t care about borders or government policies,” she said.

California’s congressional delegation sent a letter Wednesday asking OMB to rescind the proposal, outlining concerns about its impact on scientific innovation, U.S. competitiveness and the fiscal stability of local governments, many of which rely on federal grants for local services.

The proposed rule grants the federal government broad powers to suspend or cancel grants for any reason, introducing “unprecedented unpredictability into local governance,” the lawmakers wrote, “leaving vital infrastructure projects unfinished and abandoning vulnerable populations who rely on these services.”

Republican Sen. Susan Collins has also asked the White House to withdraw certain parts of the letter and extend the public comment period, saying the proposed rule as written would “harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.”

WASHINGTON — Over the past year and a half, the Trump administration has turned repeatedly to the Supreme Court for clearance on its sweeping immigration enforcement plans. While the administration lost its bid this week to do away with birthright citizenship by executive order, its strategy has, in large part, been a success.

In a White House news release listing 60 actions the administration has taken as part of its America First agenda to restrict immigration, the first four actions were decisions by the Supreme Court.

After the court ruled in June that President Trump can, without judicial review, end temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, his administration celebrated the ruling as a “major victory for American sovereignty.”

The list of accomplishments also noted that the high court had granted immigration officers greater leeway to remove green card holders who are accused but not convicted of crimes; allowed the administration to limit how many people can apply for asylum; and gave it the green light to continue deporting immigrants to third-party countries where they have no connection.

The decisions raise significant consequences for immigrants who have made their lives in the U.S., and stand to reshape public views over the country’s historic position as a place of refuge. The administration has not only tried to restrict illegal immigration, it has also targeted people residing in the country legally and stepped up efforts to drive them out.

The court’s term that ended last week is the most robust judicial affirmation of executive power over immigration in the court’s history, said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. Chishti said the rulings signify that future presidents could continue to change immigration policies at their discretion.

“The biggest impact is that we have now fully understood the power of the presidency, especially in immigration matters,” Chishti said. “Where there is any discretion left to the president or the executive, this Supreme Court has widened the limits of that authority.”

One of Trump’s earliest wins since returning to the White House came last September, when the Supreme Court affirmed that immigration agents can stop anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally on the basis of their perceived race and ethnicity, job or the language they speak.

Afterward, federal officials launched enforcement operations in Chicago, North Carolina and Minneapolis, using increasingly aggressive tactics until two U.S. citizens were shot and killed by immigration agents in January and the administration shifted course.

The Supreme Court’s rulings have landed with particular force in South Florida, which is home to the largest share of Venezuelan immigrants in the country.

The end of Temporary Protected Status — a program intended to protect people in the event of a natural disaster — heightened concerns about deportation to a country that is reeling after twin earthquakes from June 24. More than 100 Venezuelans deported from the U.S. hours before the disaster are among those missing.

Some Florida Republicans called on the administration to renew the legal protections for Venezuelans in the U.S.

“Congress specifically included earthquakes in the TPS statute for moments exactly like this,” said Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.). “I urge the Administration to redesignate TPS for Venezuelans already in the United States because sending them back after this catastrophe is simply not the right thing to do.”

The White House did not respond to a request seeking comment on whether Trump would authorize humanitarian relief for Venezuelan immigrants.

Immigrants from El Salvador are now holding their breath for an upcoming decision on their TPS designation, which is set to expire Sept. 9.

About 1.3 million people from 17 countries were enrolled in the program when Trump took office last year. The administration has already terminated TPS for many of them, and the Supreme Court’s decision last week, which concerned Haitians and Syrians, clears the way for federal officials to continue.

“The implication of this is that at least most of the claims that have been litigated to challenge this administration’s illegal war on TPS are now foreclosed,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA, who presented arguments for the Syria case.

The concern among advocates took on greater urgency after The New York Times and other outlets reported on Thursdaythat immigration officials, seeking to reach a goal of 2,000 arrests per day, had detained more than 10,000 people in less than a week.

Arnulfo De La Cruz, who leads a California union representing thousands of home care workers with temporary protected status, said he is alarmed by the Supreme Court’s many immigration rulings.

“We’re getting into really dangerous territory with, in some ways, the Supreme Court almost legislating the priorities of the administration,” said De La Cruz, who is president of SEIU California and SEIU Local 2015. “That’s the responsibility of Congress.”

In a blow to a centerpiece of the administration’s immigration agenda, the divided Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship — that, with few exceptions, a person born in U.S. soil is citizen.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired Cornell University immigration law professor, called the ruling one setback among Trump’s largely successful restructuring of how the U.S. treats immigrants. He pointed to a tracker led by a Stanford University law professor that lists more than 700 immigration policy actions by the Trump administration so far.

“Despite this seemingly historic loss, the Trump administration is winning its war on immigrants,” Yale-Loehr said.

And now some Republicans, including Trump, are saying Congress should lead the attack on birthright citizenship.

“You can’t have the kinds of immigration programs other countries have when you can just have a baby here, and now that child is an American citizen,” said Stephen Miller, a Trump aide who is behind much of his immigration agenda.

But Chishti, of the Migration Policy Institute, said in reality, “Congress can’t do anything — it was left powerless by the Supreme Court.”

Other conservatives called on the administration to lean on the considerable authority it already has.

Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a hard-line restrictionist group, said the birthright decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”

Democrats, meanwhile, cheered the win while acknowledging that their fight against the administration’s immigration policies continues.

“We cannot rest,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy, and the notion of what it means to be American.”

More immigration-related cases are among those in the Supreme Court’s docket starting in October and could offer further expansions of executive power.

One case concerns more than 50,000 petitions filed in federal courts in hopes of obtaining the release of detained immigrants. Those petitions ballooned after the administration began limiting the ability of many immigrants to seek release through bond hearings in immigration court.

The administration is expected to put up a fierce defense.

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.”

The Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to pull a measure from the Nov. 3 ballot that would have created a pathway to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.

The council, on a unanimous vote, sent the draft ballot language to a committee for additional study after several councilmembers said it had not been properly vetted.

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez acknowledged that he had not done enough outreach on the proposal, and had received letters from members of the Black community voicing concerns.

“I grew up in South Central Los Angeles. The Black and Brown solidarity is deep to me, and means something to me, and I don’t want this to be something that gets pushed through that is seen as a negative, something negative for the city of Los Angeles,” he said.

Soto-Martínez said he would keep pursuing the proposal in a future election so that when it passes, the city can have a “big celebration.”

The noncitizen voting proposal was not the only one dropped by the council at the 11th hour.

In a separate vote, the council scrapped plans for a Nov. 3 ballot measure that would have given council members power over policy at the Los Angeles Police Department. The Board of Los Angeles Police Commissioners, whose members are appointed by the mayor, currently have that responsibility.

The council voted 8-6 to further study the ballot proposal after the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file members, threatened to sue the city, saying labor negotiators failed to meet and confer with them over the proposal.

The plan for expanding voting rights for noncitizens was unveiled by Soto-Martínez two months ago, It would have authorized the City Council to pass an ordinance allowing noncitizens to cast ballots in L.A. city and school board elections.

But many of the details had not yet been worked out, such as which groups would receive the franchise and whether Los Angeles County election officials would be capable of adopting such a system.

These questions were raised again Tuesday by Councilmember Traci Park, who voted “yes” on the proposal two weeks ago, but said this time that too much is still unknown about how it would work. She voiced fears about the city’s ability to protect noncitizen voters if federal immigration agents show up at polling places.

“My concern here is that if this goes to the ballot, the voters won’t really know what they’re voting for, because we don’t really know either,” she said. “These are things that should be figured out well in advance before we put anything in the charter at all.”

Councilmember John Lee held up a print-out of a warning on the San Francisco elections website. San Francisco allows noncitizens to vote in school board elections, and the website includes a notice stating: “Any information you provide to the Department of Elections, including your name and address, may be obtained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies, organizations, and individuals.”

“Given the experience of the only California city that currently allows noncitizen voting, it is not fear mongering to raise these concerns,” he said. “They are real issues that must be addressed before Los Angeles asks voters to approve a similar system.

Soto-Martínez said he viewed the warnings from Lee and Park as fear mongering, noting that immigrant rights groups were ready to move forward with his proposal.

“This country was created by people taking courage and pushing so that everyone can have the right to vote,” he said.

NEW YORK — The Trump administration on Tuesday said it would freeze federal funding for New York’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, a state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting fraud in the safety-net government healthcare program.

In a letter sent to New York officials, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General Thomas March Bell accused the state of not securing enough criminal indictments and said millions of dollars in funding would be suspended through at least Sept. 30.

The move is the second suspension of a state Medicaid fraud unit this year by the Republican Trump administration, and part of a barrage of anti-fraud actions it has aggressively promoted in the healthcare sector. They have included the creation of a new task force, targeted investigations, funding deferrals and demands for revalidation of healthcare providers that have touched all states but are focused largely on Democratic ones.

The pulled funding also comes after the administration admitted a glaring error in figures meant to help justify a fraud inquiry into New York’s Medicaid program this year, a mistake critics said revealed a Trumpian tendency to attack first and verify the facts later.

New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, a Democrat, immediately vowed to fight Tuesday’s funding freeze.

“During my time as Attorney General, my office has recovered over $627 million for Medicaid and was recognized by this very administration for leading the nation in anti-fraud efforts,” she wrote. “We are considering all legal options to stop this outrageous action.”

Letter accuses New York of low performance compared to other states

Bell’s letter to James and New York Medicare Fraud Control Unit Director Amy Held argues that the unit is moving too slowly on cases and amassing too few indictments and convictions for wrongdoing in the Medicaid system. It notes that compared with four similarly sized units in other states, it secured the lowest number of criminal fraud convictions between 2023 and 2025.

The letter acknowledges that one reason the state has fewer criminal convictions than others is that it made a deliberate choice to focus on “high impact, complex fraud cases” rather than smaller-scale individual cases, but says that trade-off didn’t produce sufficient results.

“Enough is enough,” Bell wrote. “The New York MFCU has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of its MFCU grant award.”

Bell said in the letter that the funding suspension could be lifted before Sept. 30 if New York takes corrective action, “showing it has remediated concerns that formed the basis for this suspension.” He said if the state doesn’t fix the problems, the freeze will continue.

New York officials dispute the Trump administration’s claims

New York’s attorney general’s office said in a statement that it has “long been recognized as a national leader in effectively investigating and prosecuting Medicaid fraud schemes,” including by the Health and Human Services inspector general’s office. A 2025 report from the office notes that New York is one of four states that made up half the total civil recoveries in that year.

A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office said most of the unit’s criminal convictions focus on company owners, executives and corporations that would return large amounts to Medicaid.

“This administration’s unprecedented attack on New York is another political distraction,” James said in a statement.

The funding cutoff follows a similar move in Hawaii. In early June, Bell told Hawaii officials that Medicaid fraud funding would be cut off there, saying that it had a three-year stretch without a Medicaid fraud indictment or conviction.

Joan Alker, executive director and co-founder of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, said there’s an irony in the federal government cutting off money intended for prosecuting fraud when its stated goal is to do just that.

“If you want to fight fraud, don’t take away money from states’ fraud control units,” she said. “I chalk this up to more political theater to distract voters from historic Medicaid cuts before the midterms.”

Move follows months of federal warnings and deferrals

For months, the Trump administration has contended that states — especially some Democratic-led ones — have been lax about fraud in social safety-net programs, including Medicaid.

It has demanded that at least five states, four of them governed by Democrats, share information about how they identify, prevent and address Medicaid fraud.

The federal government has also withheld some Medicaid funding from Minnesota and California over fraud concerns. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat who was Kamala Harris’ 2024 running mate, accused President Trump of making cuts because of retribution.

The fraud-busting efforts have also targeted Medicare programs. Dr. Mehmet Oz, who leads the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, announced a six-month moratorium on new enrollments for providers of hospice and home care nationally.

Swenson and Mulvihill write for the Associated Press. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J. AP writer Anthony Izaguirre contributed to this report.