A general view of cargo containers at the Port of Balboa in Panama City, Panama, on Monday, February 23, 2026. The Panamanian government has taken control of two ports near the Canal whose concessions, held by a subsidiary of the Chinese conglomerate CK Hutchison, were annulled by a final court ruling. Photo by Bienvenido Velasco/EPA
Feb. 24 (UPI) — Panama authorities have taken control of two ports operated by a subsidiary of a Hong Kong company, assets that came under scrutiny after President Donald Trump claimed China exerted too much influence over their operation.
Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings condemned the Monday takeover in a statement on Tuesday that said the actions of Panama were “unlawful” and raised risks to the operations, health and safety of the Balboa and Critobal terminals that its subsidiary, Panama Ports, has been operating for decades.
“None of the actions by the Panama State were advised to or coordinate with PPC,” Hutchison Holdings said.
“The Panama State is responsible for harm and damage caused by the confiscatory actions it has taken.”
On Monday morning, Panama’s official gazette published a late-January Supreme Court ruling that made final the court’s decision that the contract law granting Panama Ports Company’s concession extension to operate the ports was unconstitutional.
The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits filed challenging the contract, which was issued by the Maritime Authority of Panama on June 23, 2021. According to a statement from the Panama presidency’s office, the contract was found unconstitutional because it gave a foreign-based company broad rights that limited the state’s control over the use and management of its resources.
After the gazette was published, Panama authorities arrived at the two ports and informed representatives of the Panama Ports Company that it must cease operations, and that those who do not comply with their orders will be prosecuted.
“PPC and CKHH will continue to consult with their legal advisors regarding the ruling and forceful takeover, the purported termination of PPC’s concession and all available recourse, including additional national and international legal proceedings against the Republic of Panama and its agents and third parties colluding with them,” CK Hutchison Holdings said.
The two ports and their Hong Kong connection were thrust into the spotlight on the first day of Trump’s second presidency, when in his inaugural address he said the United States has been “treated very badly” by Panama and that “China is operating the Panama Canal.”
Trump has repeatedly made the claim since, drawing attention to the Hong Kong-based conglomerate that has operated the two ports since 1997.
CAREFREE, Ariz. — Elizabeth H. paused recently outside the post office in this small, high-desert community, not far from where Easy Street meets Nonchalant Avenue.
She felt neither easy nor nonchalant.
“I think the climate imposed by the Trump administration is really sad and scary,” said Elizabeth, who asked to withhold her last name to avoid being attacked for the views she expressed.
For his part, Anthony D. finds little not to like about President Trump. He, too, asked not to use his last name, as did several others who agreed to talk politics.
“We finally don’t have a— in office that are destroying our country and worrying about everybody else in the world,” said Anthony, 66, a plumbing contractor and proudly blunt-spoken New York native. (Just like Trump, he pointed out.) “I mean, his tariffs are working. The negotiations are working. I just see a lot of positive coming out of that office.”
“Most people don’t like what he says, but look what he’s doing,” Anthony said as the late-morning crowd trickled into an upscale North Scottsdale shopping center. “You can hate the person, but don’t hate the message. He’s trying to do the right thing.”
Here in central Arizona, a prime battleground in November’s midterm election, there is precious little agreement about Trump, his policies and motivations.
Supporters see the president turning things around after four disastrous years of Joe Biden. Critics see him turning the country into a place they barely recognize.
There is puzzlement on both sides.
Over what others believe. Over how others can possibly believe what they believe, see the things they see and perceive Trump the way they perceive him.
And although some are eager for the midterm elections as a way to corral the president — “I don’t think they should only impeach, I think they should imprison,” Brent Bond, a 59-year-old Scottsdale artist, said of his hopes for a Democratic Congress — others fear an end to Trump’s nearly unfettered reign.
Or that nothing will change, regardless of what happens at the polls in November.
“The fact is, Trump is going to keep Trumping until he’s done,” said Elizabeth H., who’s semiretired at age 55 after a career in financial services. “My only relief is that he’s an old, old man and he’s not going to be here forever.”
Brent Bond would like to see Trump imprisoned, not just impeached.
(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)
Arizona’s 1st Congressional District climbs from northeastern Phoenix to the mountainous heart of the Sonoran Desert. It takes in the affluent enclaves of Scottsdale and Paradise Valley and — where the urban sprawl finally yields to cactus, palo verde and other flora — Carefree and the Old West-themed Cave Creek.
It is the whitest, wealthiest and best-educated of Arizona’s nine congressional districts, home to numerous upscale resorts, major medical campuses and a large population of retirees comfortably settled in one of many gated communities.
In 2020, Biden carried the district 50% to 49%. Four years later, Trump beat Kamala Harris 51% to 48%.
(The Down Ballot, which crunches election data, rated Arizona’s 1st District the median of 435 congressional districts nationwide, meaning in 2024 half were redder on the presidential level and half were bluer.)
For more than a decade, the area has been represented by Republican Dave Schweikert, a local political fixture since the 1990s.
He’s had to fight hard for reelection in recent years as the district, like the whole of Arizona, has grown more competitive. Rather than run again, Schweikert announced he would give up his seat to try for governor. The result is a free-for-all and one of the relatively few toss-up House races anywhere in the country.
A passel of candidates is running and the result will help determine whether Democrats, who need to flip three seats, will seize control of the House in November.
Despite those high stakes, however, the race doesn’t seem to have generated much voter interest, at least not yet. In dozens of interviews across the district, it was the relentless Trump who drew the most attention, admiration and exasperation.
Moe Modjeski, a supporter, allowed as how the president “is no altar boy.”
Even so, “I’ll take his policies over someone that might be nice and polite,” said the 69-year-old Scottsdale resident, a financial advisor who cited the sky-scraping stock market as one example of Trump’s success. “I mean, gas is about half the price it was a year or two ago.”
“I lived through the ‘60s and 70s and can’t remember a time when I feared so much for the future of our country,” said Liz, a retired medical technologist.
She’ll vote for a Democrat in November — to put a check on Trump, not because the Carefree resident has great faith in the party or its direction.
“I wish the Dems would get it together and maybe we could get more of a centrist that could unite and not get hung up on some of these social issues,” she said. “There’s a lot of economic issues, bread-and-butter issues, and I think that’s why the Republicans won [in 2024], because of the problems with immigration and inflation.”
As a border state, Arizona has long been at the forefront of the political fight over immigration. It was here lawmakers passed — and opponents spent years battling — legislation that effectively turned police into immigration officers, requiring them to demand the papers of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally
Thomas Campbell, with Keegan and Guinness, blamed blue-state politicians for any overreach by ICE agents.
(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)
Now that aggressive approach has become national policy, which is fine by Thomas Campbell, a retired architect and staunch Trump backer. He blamed any enforcement overreach on blue-state lawmakers.
“For some reason, the Democrats have decided they want to side with the criminals, so they don’t allow their police departments to cooperate,” said Campbell, 72, who stopped outside Paradise Valley’s town hall while running errands with his Irish setters, Guinness and Keegan. “If that wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t be any” controversy over ICE’s tactics.
But why, she wondered, are immigration agents scooping up honest taxpayers, parents with children born in the U.S. and others keeping on the straight and narrow?
“I think they’re going after the wrong people,” said the 76-year-old Scottsdale retiree as a friend, Lily, nodded in agreement. The two were sharing a bench in Scottsdale’s pueblo-inspired civic plaza, a nearby fountain burbling in the 80-degree sunshine.
“I think we need to look at our county jails, look at our city jails,” said Cornelison, who made her living selling large appliances. “How many illegal immigrants are, say, in Florence, which is our state prison? Send them back. Don’t go after Mr. Gonzalez who’s doing my lawn. Empty out our prisons.”
Back at the North Scottsdale shopping center, Denise F. was walking Chase, her Shih Tzu, past a parking lot brimming with Teslas, Mercedes and Cadillac SUVs.
The 73-year-old voted for Trump because she couldn’t abide Harris. But she’s disgusted with the president.
“I don’t like the division in the country. I think Trump thinks he’s a king,” said Denise, a retired banker. “He’s poking the bear with Venezuela and Greenland, Iran” — she poked the air as she named each country — “to see who he can engage in a possible war, which is not the way I think the United States should be.”
As Denise was finishing up, Anthony D., her friend and neighbor, strolled up and joined the conversation, offering his laudatory view of the president. “Trump’s a businessman and he’s running the country like a business,” Anthony said, as Denise looked on impassively.
“How did I do?” he asked after saying his piece.
“Great,” Denise replied amiably and the two walked off together, Chase between them.
A day after federal prosecutors announced that the catastrophic Palisades fire was caused by the rekindling of a smaller arson fire days earlier, Los Angeles city officials were in damage control mode.
The ultimate authority on how to handle the deluge of media inquiries was Mayor Karen Bass, according to an internal email reviewed by The Times.
The carefully coordinated approach led by Bass also involved the release of the highly anticipated Palisades fire after-action report, hours after the prosecutors’ announcement and as the Los Angeles Fire Department was facing criticism for not putting out the earlier blaze.
“Any additional interviews with the Fire Chief would likely depend on the Mayor’s guidance,” LAFD spokesperson Capt. Erik Scott wrote in an Oct. 9 email to a Bass aide, then-interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva and others. “Regarding a press conference, I would be cautious as it could invite a high volume of challenging questions, and this would also be contingent on the Mayor’s direction.”
The behind-the-scenes perspective into the city’s media strategy comes as Bass has denied a story published in The Times last week in which unnamed sources said she directed changes to the after-action report over concerns about legal liabilities. Revisions that downplayed failures by the city and the LAFD in handling the disaster were first revealed in a Times investigation published in December.
In one instance, LAFD officials removed language from the “failures” section saying that the decision not to fully staff up and pre-deploy all available crews and engines ahead of a forecast of dangerously high winds “did not align” with the department’s policy and procedures during red flag days.
The final report said that the LAFD “balanced fiscal responsibility with proper preparation for predicted weather.” Elsewhere, it said that the number of engine companies rolled out ahead of the fire “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”
That passage in the “failures” section, which was renamed “primary challenges,” was being revised by LAFD officials up until at least two days before the report was released on Oct. 8, according to emails reviewed by The Times.
“I added Chief Robert’s verbiage to replace CHALLENGES 1 on page 44. I made some other formatting edits,” an LAFD administrative aide wrote in an Oct. 6 email to several people, including an LAFD official named Eric Roberts. Roberts did not respond to an email from The Times requesting comment.
Yusef Robb, an advisor to the mayor, said Thursday that Bass is customarily involved with the decision-making of city departments. She has criticized the LAFD’s pre-deployment decisions and would have no reason to soften the after-action report’s language on that topic, Robb said.
“From Animal Services to the Zoo, the Mayor’s Office is in contact with every city department on issues large and small, and so obviously and appropriately the Mayor’s Office engaged with LAFD about the rollout of the report,” Robb said in an email. “What did not happen is the illogical and false assertion that the Mayor sought to soften critiques in a report that she herself demanded and on issues of which she has been publicly critical for more than a year.”
Scott said Thursday that he did not “have anything further to add beyond what was already shared.”
Two sources with knowledge of Bass’ office said that after reviewing an early draft, the mayor told Villanueva that the report could expose the city to legal liabilities. The sources said Bass wanted key findings about the LAFD’s actions removed or softened before the report was made public.
The sources told The Times that two people close to Bass informed them of the mayor’s role in watering down the report, which was meant to spell out mistakes and to suggest measures to avoid repeating them. One source spoke to both of the people; the other spoke to one of them. The sources requested anonymity to speak frankly about the mayor’s private conversations with Villanueva and others.
Bass last week called the Times story “completely fabricated.”
“There was no cover up on my part,” she said. “There was absolutely no reason or desire that I would want to water down this report.”
She added: “I do not have the technical expertise to make any sort of substantive changes to anything.”
Last summer, LAFD officials formed an internal crisis management team and brought in a public relations firm — paid for by the nonprofit LAFD Foundation — to help shape its messaging about the fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes. The emails reviewed by The Times show that the firm, the Lede Co., had a role in reviewing and suggesting edits to the after-action report.
Other internal emails reviewed by The Times show that Bass met with Villanueva about the after-action report in mid-July.
“The FC had a meeting with the Mayor this afternoon where she discussed the Palisades internal AAR,” Kairi Brown, Villanueva’s chief of staff, wrote on July 17, referring to the fire chief and the after-action report. “She asked for him to put together … answers to other questions.”
Scott’s Oct. 9 email, whose recipients also included at least one member of the LAFD’s crisis management team and the outside public relations consultants, sought guidance on how to manage the “abundance of requests” from news reporters, referencing a shared Google document where all “current inquiries and notes” were compiled.
He suggested a “three-prong approach” to contextualizing the topic of “holdover” fires. The Palisades fire was a holdover from the Jan. 1 Lachman fire, which continued to smolder and burn underground until kicked up by heavy winds on Jan. 7.
Scott said that the team should outline the LAFD’s efforts to extinguish the Lachman fire, define the “holdover phenomenon” and highlight new policies and procedures to prevent it from happening in the future.
LAFD leaders had already been under intense scrutiny for missteps before the Palisades fire, while commanders had insisted that they did everything they could to put the Lachman fire out.
Weeks after the Oct. 8 announcement about the Lachman fire by federal prosecutors, The Times reported that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to roll up their hoses and leave the burn area on Jan. 2, even though crews warned that the ground was still smoldering. The LAFD also decided not to use thermal imaging technology to detect heat underground.
The author of the after-action report, Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, declined to endorse the final version because of changes that altered his findings and made the report, in his words, “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”
Even with the deletions and changes, the report delivered a harsh critique of the LAFD’s performance during the Palisades fire, pointing to a disorganized response, failures in communication and chiefs who didn’t understand their roles. The report found that top commanders lacked a fundamental knowledge of wildland firefighting tactics, including “basic suppression techniques.”
A paperwork error resulted in the use of only a third of the state-funded resources that were available for pre-positioning in high-risk areas, the report said. And when the fire broke out the morning of Jan. 7, the initial dispatch called for only seven engine companies, when the weather conditions required 27.
There was confusion among firefighters over which radio channel to use. The report said that three L.A. County engines showed up within the first hour, requesting an assignment and receiving no reply. Four other LAFD engines waited 20 minutes without an assignment.
As Scott looked to the mayor for guidance on whether Villanueva would participate in more media interviews, he wrote in the Oct. 9 email that on social media, the LAFD should consider highlighting favorable coverage of interviews with the fire chief.
A day later, the LAFD notified The Times that Villanueva and other top fire officials “are not planning any additional interviews regarding the incident.”
Robb said Thursday that Bass did not restrict Villanueva from doing interviews.
“The Mayor’s Office, as it frequently does with all city departments, made it clear that LAFD needed to make sure the information it provides was accurate and that the personnel providing information were well prepared to provide accurate information,” Robb said. “Ultimately, how they did that was up to them.”
Former Times staff writer Paul Pringle and Times staff writer David Zahniser contributed to this report.
Syria’s defence ministry says its forces have taken control of the strategic base amid coordination with the US.
By Al Jazeera and News Agencies
Published On 12 Feb 202612 Feb 2026
Share
Syrian forces have taken control of the strategic al-Tanf military base near the border with Iraq and Jordan, the Syrian defence ministry has said, amid the withdrawal of a longstanding United States troop presence at the base.
The ministry said in a statement on Thursday that Syrian Arab Army units had taken control of al-Tanf, securing the base and its surroundings, “through coordination between the Syrian and American sides”.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Army units had “begun deploying along the Syrian-Iraqi-Jordanian” border nearby, the ministry said, while border guards would be deployed in the coming days.
The base was established during Syria’s civil war in 2014 as a key hub for operations by the global coalition against ISIL (ISIS), which at the time controlled large areas of Syria and Iraq until the group was vanquished in 2017.
The US withdrawal from the base comes months after Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the former leader of the armed group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, who the US once deemed a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist”, joined the anti-ISIL coalition in November.
The US military has not officially commented on the pullout, but Trump has expressed an interest in withdrawing US troops from Syria since his first term.
Syrian government expands control
The pullout also follows a US-brokered deal to integrate the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces – a key US partner in the fight against ISIL – into Syrian government institutions, an agreement the US hailed as a major step towards national unity and reconciliation in Syria.
Last month, as al-Sharaa’s government pushed to expand its control over the country, Syrian government forces captured large areas of previously Kurdish-held territory in northeast Syria, amid deadly clashes with the SDF.
Amid the advance of Syrian forces, the US military has been transferring thousands of ISIL prisoners from jails previously run by the SDF in northeastern Syria, as the facilities were transferred to Syrian government control.
US drawdown
While the size of the US deployment in Syria has fluctuated over the years, with precise figures often unclear due to the classified nature of many operations, a Pentagon announcement in July 2025 said there were about 1,500 American soldiers in Syria.
The size of the deployment currently stands at 900, The Associated Press reported.
Earlier this month, an Al Jazeera correspondent on the ground reported that US military personnel appeared to be drawing down their presence from watchtowers surrounding a military installation in the al-Shaddadi area in northeastern Hasakah province.
Soldiers were also seen lowering the US flag from one tower, while equipment used to manage aircraft takeoffs and landings at the base’s airstrip was no longer visible.
The Palestinian presidency calls the decision a ‘dangerous’ Israeli ‘attempt to legalize settlement expansion’.
Published On 8 Feb 20268 Feb 2026
Share
Israel’s security cabinet has approved new rules aimed at strengthening Israeli control over the occupied West Bank, according to local media reports, drawing condemnation from Palestinian authorities.
The Palestinian presidency, in a statement on Sunday, called the decision “dangerous” and an “open Israeli attempt to legalize settlement expansion” and land confiscation. The office of President Mahmoud Abbas called for the United States and the United Nations Security Council to intervene immediately.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Jordan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also condemned the decision, which it said was “aimed at imposing illegal Israeli sovereignty” and entrenching settlements.
The Hamas group called on Palestinians in the West Bank to “intensify the confrontation with the occupation and its settlers.”
The rules will make it easier for Israeli settlers to buy land in the occupied West Bank and give Israeli officials stronger powers to enforce laws on Palestinians in the area, Israeli media reported.
The West Bank is among the areas that Palestinians seek for a future independent state, along with Gaza and occupied East Jerusalem. Much of the West Bank is under direct Israeli military control, with extremely limited Palestinian self-rule in some areas, governed by the Western-backed Palestinian Authority (PA).
According to the Israeli news outlets Ynet and Haaretz, the new steps include removing rules that stopped private Jewish individuals from buying land in the occupied West Bank.
The measures also include allowing Israeli authorities to take charge of managing some religious sites, and increasing Israeli supervision and enforcement in areas run by the PA, according to the media reports.
The office of far-right Israeli Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich, in a statement said “we will continue to bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.
Palestinian Vice President Hussein Al-Sheikh said the reports about expected Israeli steps to increase annexation and create new facts on the ground in the occupied West Bank are a total violation of all signed and binding agreements, a serious escalation, and a violation of international law, the Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.
He emphasised that these unilateral measures aim to eliminate any political prospects, obliterate the two-state solution, and drag the entire region into further tension and instability.
The reports come three days before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to meet US President Donald Trump in Washington, DC.
DENVER — Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection in 2020. But for more than five years, he’s been trying to convince Americans the opposite is true by falsely saying the election was marred by widespread fraud.
Now that he’s president again, Trump is pushing the federal government to back up those bogus claims.
On Wednesday, the FBI served a search warrant at the election headquarters of Fulton County, Georgia, which includes most of Atlanta, seeking ballots from the 2020 election. That follows Trump’s comments earlier this month when he suggested during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that charges related to the election were imminent.
“The man has obsessions, as do a fair number of people, but he’s the only one who has the full power of the United States behind him,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor.
Hasen and many others noted that Trump’s use of the FBI to pursue his obsession with the 2020 election is part of a pattern of the president transforming the federal government into his personal tool of vengeance.
Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Georgia Democrat, compared the search to the Minnesota immigration crackdown that has killed two U.S. citizen protesters, launched by Trump as his latest blow against the state’s governor, who ran against him as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate in 2024.
“From Minnesota to Georgia, on display to the whole world, is a President spiraling out of control, wielding federal law enforcement as an unaccountable instrument of personal power and revenge,” Ossoff said in a statement.
It also comes as election officials across the country are starting to rev up for the 2026 midterms, where Trump is struggling to help his party maintain its control of Congress. Noting that, in 2020, Trump contemplated using the military to seize voting machines after his loss, some worry he’s laying the groundwork for a similar maneuver in the fall.
“Georgia’s a blueprint,” said Kristin Nabers of the left-leaning group All Voting Is Local. “If they can get away with taking election materials here, what’s to stop them from taking election materials or machines from some other state after they lose?”
Georgia has been at the heart of Trump’s 2020 obsession. He infamously called Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021, asking that Raffensperger “find” 11,780 more votes for Trump so he could be declared the winner of the state. Raffensperger refused, noting that repeated reviews confirmed Democrat Joe Biden had narrowly won Georgia.
Those were part of a series of reviews in battleground states, often led by Republicans, that affirmed Biden’s win, including in Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada. Trump also lost dozens of court cases challenging the election results and his own attorney general at the time said there was no evidence of widespread fraud.
His allies who repeated his lies have been successfully sued for defamation. That includes former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who settled with two Georgia election workers after a court ruled he owed them $148 million for defaming them after the 2020 election.
Voting machine companies also have brought defamation cases against some conservative-leaning news sites that aired unsubstantiated claims about their equipment being linked to fraud in 2020. Fox News settled one such case by agreeing to pay $787 million after the judge ruled it was “CRYSTAL clear” that none of the allegations were true.
Trump’s campaign to move Georgia into his column also sparked an ill-fated attempt to prosecute him and some of his allies by Fulton County District Atty. Fani Willis, a Democrat. The case collapsed after Willis was removed over conflict-of-interest concerns, and Trump has since sought damages from the office.
On his first day in office, Trump rewarded some of those who helped him try to overturn the 2020 election results by pardoning, commuting or vowing to dismiss the cases of about 1,500 people charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. He later signed an executive order trying to set new rules for state election systems and voting procedures, although that has been repeatedly blocked by judges who have ruled that the Constitution gives states, and in some instances Congress, control of elections rather than the president.
As part of his campaign of retribution, Trump also has spoken about wanting to criminally charge lawmakers who sat on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, suggesting protective pardons of them from Biden are legally invalid. He’s targeted a former cybersecurity appointee who assured the public in 2020 that the election was secure.
During a year of presidential duties, from dealing with wars in Gaza and Ukraine to shepherding sweeping tax and spending legislation through Congress, Trump has reliably found time to turn the subject to 2020. He has falsely called the election rigged, said Democrats cheated and even installed a White House plaque claiming Biden took office after “the most corrupt election ever.”
David Becker, a former Department of Justice voting rights attorney and executive director of The Center for Election Innovation & Research, said he was skeptical the FBI search in Georgia would lead to any successful prosecutions. Trump has demanded charges against several enemies such as former FBI Director James Comey and New York’s Democratic Atty. Gen., Letitia James, that have stalled in court.
“So much this administration has done is to make claims in social media rather than go to court,” Becker said. “I suspect this is more about poisoning the well for 2026.”
