Courts

Court order rules that Pentagon acted illegally, punishing AI company for criticism of government.

A United States judge has blocked the Pentagon’s blacklisting of technology company Anthropic.

In a 59-page written order issued on Thursday night, District Judge Rita Lin ruled that the Department of Defense had acted illegally when it designated the company a supply chain risk to national security.

The decision marks the latest turn in the Claude maker’s high-stakes fight with the US military over artificial intelligence safety on the battlefield. The government is expected to fight the ruling.

The judge’s order rebuked the Pentagon, saying it had targeted and punished Anthropic for the company’s public criticism of the Defense Department’s stance on AI deployment on the battlefield.

“The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics,” Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, wrote.

Autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance

Anthropic’s lawsuit in a California federal court alleges that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth overstepped his authority when he designated the company a national security supply-chain risk.

Hegseth’s move, which blocked Anthropic from military contracts, followed the company’s refusal to allow the military to use its Claude AI models for US surveillance or autonomous weapons.

Anthropic argues that AI models are not reliable enough for autonomous weapons and opposes domestic surveillance. The Pentagon maintains that private companies should not constrain military action.

Executives have said the ban could cost the company billions of dollars in lost business.

During a hearing on July 30, Lin described the government’s position as “really troubling” and “at odds … with the First Amendment”, adding that the record had “gotten worse for the government” over time.

In the same hearing, Department of Justice lawyers argued that the nature of AI models is “so staggeringly enormous and opaque” that the Pentagon cannot evaluate them like physical hardware.

First use of obscure statute

Anthropic welcomed the ruling, stating it remained “focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology”.

The designation was the first time a US company has been publicly labelled a supply-chain risk under an obscure procurement statute aimed at protecting military systems from foreign sabotage.

In its lawsuit, Anthropic alleged the government violated its constitutional rights to free speech and due process by retaliating against its views on AI safety without allowing it to dispute the claim.

The lawsuit called the decision unlawful, unsupported by facts, and inconsistent with the military’s past praise of Claude.

There was no immediate comment from the Pentagon on the ruling.

Meta has agreed to a landmark $18bn settlement in a major US federal case accusing it of endangering children, the terms of which will force the social media giant to introduce new safety features to platforms including Instagram and Facebook.

The social media giant has faced an avalanche of legal cases against it this year, mostly arguing that it deliberately designed its platforms to be addictive and that they have harmed children. It has already lost two of these and been forced to pay damages.

Under the agreement, child users under the age of 18 will see a slew of changes to their Facebook and Instagram accounts, ranging from night curfews to two-hour usage limits, which Meta must implement as part of the settlement reached on Wednesday with 48 US states.

The agreement could have a global ripple effect as several countries around the world are already taking regulatory action against Meta and other social media companies over their platforms.

So, what is in the settlement Meta has reached in the United States, and how will Instagram and Facebook change for users?

What was the lawsuit about?

Twenty-nine US states sued Meta, accusing it of designing its platforms in ways that “encourage addictive behaviour, fail to verify users’ ages, encourage adolescents to bypass parental controls, and inadequately safeguard against harmful content and/or intentionally amplify harmful and exploitative content”, according to filings at the Court of Appeal in California.

The first four of the states that originally filed their federal lawsuit against Meta in 2023 – California, Kentucky, Colorado and New Jersey – began their cases in a California federal trial last week.

The attorneys general bringing the case also asked the court to order that changes be made to Meta’s platforms to protect young social media users. In particular, they demanded that Meta introduce a process of parental verification for teenage users; change its “dopamine-manipulating” algorithms; remove image filters for users’ personal images; forbid the creation of multiple accounts; and end “disappearing” messages and posts.

The lawsuit also alleged Meta had violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting, ⁠retaining and using personal data from children under 13 without proper parental consent.

In February this year, Meta lost a multimillion-dollar case brought on similar grounds by a young woman referred to as KGM in Los Angeles, over platform features linked to addiction in younger users.

In March, a US jury ordered Meta to pay $375m for endangering children in a case brought by the state of New Mexico.

Last month, a judge in New Mexico also ordered Facebook and Instagram owner Meta to pay a further $567m in a second phase of the trial.

Meta denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle after evidence was heard that Meta knew its products harmed children’s mental health. The total payout – to be paid over 10 years – is a fraction of Meta’s 2025 revenue of $201bn.

The company, which was originally founded as Facebook in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, agreed to make maximum payments totalling $16.7bn to 47 US states as well as Washington, DC; Puerto Rico; American Samoa; and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Among those, California could receive a $2.2bn payout, while New York could receive $1.1bn. Texas reached a separate settlement worth more than $1bn. Some states will deposit funds they receive in general accounts, while others will earmark portions to address children’s mental health services.

The settlement does not require Meta to discontinue personalised recommendations or targeted advertising.

It also does not address some content researchers found particularly problematic, including posts that made Instagram users uncomfortable with their body image.

“Ensuring teens have a safe and productive experience on our platforms is an absolute imperative for Meta,” Meta said in a blog post. “We want to get this right for parents and teens.”

What changes will be seen on Instagram and Facebook?

Under the agreement, children under 18 using Meta platforms will be restricted to two hours’ use per day, with a night curfew in place from midnight to 6am. Meta will limit “social comparison” features by hiding likes and reactions to children’s accounts, and will ban “cosmetic procedure filters” that alter the appearance of a user’s image, as a default setting. These settings will only be able to be overruled by parental consent.

The company also agreed to disable the majority of push notifications from the platforms during school hours – 8am to 3pm – for teenage users.

It will also facilitate much closer parental supervision of social media accounts by giving designated adults the ability to more extensively monitor and change settings on a social media account.

Parents and guardians will be able to receive information about time spent on platform apps, and usernames of social connections and accounts sending messages to children.

Supervising parents will also receive daily notifications from Meta any time the teen account messages an adult account for the first time, as well as a link to the adult’s account. Parental accounts will also be notified any time the teen account searches for keywords related to suicide, self-harm or eating disorders.

Meta also agreed to improve the technology used to check children’s ages, using its own as well as third-party tools, with regular outside audits on how well this monitoring is working. This measure is particularly notable because Australia banned under-16s from using social media platforms in December last year. However, the Australian internet watchdog, eSafety, found in August this year that more than eight in 10 young Australian teens and preteens continue to use them – largely because age-check procedures are ineffective.

So far, Meta has only agreed to pay 70 percent of the settlement, or roughly $12.7bn, over the next 10 years. It will only pay the remaining amount, about $5bn, if its rivals – including Snapchat, TikTok and Alphabet-owned YouTube – adopt similar measures and agree to pay the same. It also said it would reduce time restrictions to one hour per day if other platforms do the same.

These changes would be phased over time. Once the court approves the settlement, non-personalised feeds would be introduced within four months; broader compliance measures within six months; and major age-assurance requirements within one year.

While these changes will apply to users in the US, it is unclear if Meta plans to introduce them worldwide. However, Meta is already under rising regulatory pressure in European Union countries and those elsewhere to implement similar changes.

How much difference will these changes make?

Critics and child safety advocates have acknowledged that this settlement has forced landmark changes by Meta, the world’s biggest social media company, which owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger, each of which has more than two to three billion monthly active users.

However, critics say the central plank of Meta’s latest settlement deal is the move to restrict teens to two hours per day on platforms, rather than fundamentally changing their addictive algorithms.

Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project, which campaigns for youth safety online, said the deal is a “historic settlement that will have a lasting impact, but we cannot truly protect all children and teens until these protections are required on every platform and are permanent – that’s something only Congress can do”.

Ella Bradshaw, policy officer for child safety online at the NSPCC, a UK children’s charity, welcomed moves to rein in “addictive” design features like personalised algorithms and likes. “These are the things that we know keep children hooked and feeling out of control of their screen time, so action here is necessary and welcome. However, important gaps remain,” she told Al Jazeera.  

Bradshaw described the settlement as taking “piecemeal action” on tackling risky features and addictive design choices which drive harm of children.

“This means features like disappearing messages, infinite scroll, the ability to gift and livestreaming remain unaddressed. Similarly, little has been announced on how Meta’s AI chatbots will be made safer – better guardrails are needed, particularly when children raise safeguarding concerns.”

Bradshaw also called for stronger protections for younger children as well as protections that “don’t suddenly drop away the moment a teenager turns 18.”   

Furthermore, she said: “Not all children have families they can rely on to oversee their online worlds and help them to stay safe. We know that the issue of patchy online protections extends across the online world.

“This settlement must spur governments and regulators to go further faster; taking stronger action across the online ecosystem including private messaging, AI tools and online gaming. Without that wider shift, children will continue to face avoidable harm.”

What action are other countries taking against Meta?

While action against social media giants in the US is mostly taking the form of lawsuits, elsewhere it is regulators who are leading the charge.

In the European Union, regulators are pursuing several legal and regulatory cases against Meta, covering antitrust rules for artificial intelligence (AI) on WhatsApp, as well as child safety protections and addictive platform features under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The EU specifically accused the group of designing Facebook and Instagram to be “addictive”, adding that Meta has failed to adequately assess the danger its products pose to users’ physical and mental health.

On Thursday, a European Commission spokesperson said it is waiting on Meta to present changes to limit the addictive designs of its social networks.

“We have been very clear … Meta knows what we are expecting from them. … the ball is in Meta’s court,” Thomas Regnier said. “Now it is for the company to offer these commitments in the European Union to protect our kids here, too.”

In June, the UK government also announced a sweeping ban on social media for those below 16 to come into force next year, following a global trend after Australia pioneered it. The UK is also considering overnight curfews and ways to prevent infinite scrolling for those under 18.

In Brazil, a prominent consumer rights organisation, the Collective Defence Institute, filed twin lawsuits for three billion reais ($525m) in damages against the Brazilian subsidiaries of Meta, TikTok and Kwai in October 2024.

Those lawsuits also accuse the groups of failing to implement safeguards against addiction and use by children and adolescents. Since March this year, platforms have been required to link the accounts of children below 16 to legal guardians under Brazil’s Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents.

South Korea’s media regulator also reacted on Thursday to Meta’s settlement, calling for better protections for young users to be ideally applied worldwide, rather than just in specific markets.

ICE agent Christian Castro faces criminal charges for shooting a Minnesota man in the leg during an immigration raid.

A United States judge has denied a request to compel the extradition of a federal immigration agent charged with shooting a man during an immigration raid in the state of Minnesota and lying about it.

Wednesday’s decision concerns the case of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Christian Castro, who has been detained in a county jail in Texas since May.

Minnesota has sought his extradition as he faces charges of assault and falsely reporting a crime in Hennepin County, which covers Minneapolis.

Under Texas law, the state cannot hold the subject of an extradition order for more than 90 days. At that point, the suspect must either be transferred or released. The deadline for Castro is set to expire on Thursday.

Minnesota argued in a lawsuit this month that Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, has refused to authorise the extradition for political reasons.

But in Wednesday’s ruling, Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr wrote that he could not intervene because Abbott has not yet acted – and has therefore not yet violated any law.

“The record reflects only that Governor Abbott has neither agreed nor refused to sign the rendition warrant as to Castro,” Rodriguez wrote.

Castro has been charged in connection with the non-fatal shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis during an immigration raid in Minnesota on January 14, part of a mass deportation effort under President Donald Trump.

Starting in December, Trump oversaw a large-scale deployment of federal agents to the Midwestern state, dubbed Operation Metro Surge.

The operation, which lasted less than three months, sparked protests and allegations of civil liberty violations from residents and watchdog groups.

Prosecutors say Castro fired a gun through the front door of a Minneapolis home, shooting Sosa-Celis in the leg.

Afterwards, he and another agent accused Sosa-Celis and another man of assaulting federal authorities with a broom handle and snow shovel. Those allegations were later disproven after video of the incident emerged. Criminal charges against Sosa-Celis were subsequently dropped.

Todd Lyons, then-acting director of ICE, confirmed in February that the agents appeared to have made “untruthful statements”. Castro and the second agent were placed on administrative leave.

Castro is currently in custody in Brownsville, Texas. Minnesota officials have warned that he may flee the country if released, citing calls he made from jail to a woman in Mexico.

During those calls, Castro talked “about marrying her and buying a house in Mexico when he is released”, according to Minnesota’s lawsuit.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a request for a temporary restraining order last week to stop Castro’s anticipated release and force Governor Abbott to sign the extradition warrant.

Ellison has framed Abbott’s decision not to take action as a way of supporting Trump’s mass deportation campaign and skirting federal extradition law.

“For nearly three months, Greg Abbott has refused to return ICE agent Christian Castro to Minnesota, where he’s charged with shooting a Minnesotan in his own home,” Ellison wrote in a social media post.

“Abbott has a legal obligation to return him. Instead, he’s chosen to ignore the law.”

Meta settles $16.68bn lawsuit over child addiction claims, agreeing to major changes in Facebook and Instagram features.

Meta Platforms has agreed to settle a lawsuit that accused the company of designing Facebook and Instagram in a way that addicted children, misled consumers about safety, and collected personal data of children on the platform.

On Wednesday, the social media giant agreed to pay a maximum of $16.68bn as part of a settlement to resolve claims brought in the United States case, championed by a coalition of 29 US states. The case, which started on August 18, was expected to last six weeks.

Meta, based in Silicon Valley in California, has also agreed to make changes to Facebook and Instagram nationwide as part of the settlement. Among these are daily usage limits of two hours for those under the age of 18, which can only be removed by a parent, and nighttime blocks.

The California State Attorney General’s Office said that the Mark Zuckerberg-led company would also identify and remove children under the age of 13 from the platform.

Meta denied any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, which still needs court approval. It had faced up to $1.4 trillion in fines in the case, but the coalition had been seeking a penalty closer to $200bn.

The settlement comes after a loss in a comparable landmark case in New Mexico, where a jury ordered Meta to pay $375m in March and another $567m in August.

Meta’s stock tumbled in early trading on Wall Street, down 0.1 percent since the market opened.

Meta, parent company of Instagram and Facebook, is on trial over claims it sought to hook young users on its platforms despite mental health concerns.

The top executive at Instagram has admitted that few teenagers have used a feature meant to counter addiction before it was turned on by default, as hearings in a landmark trial against its parent company, Meta, continue in the United States.

Adam Mosseri testified on Tuesday as Meta’s trial – over accusations that it designed its platforms, including Facebook, to be addictive to young people – entered its second week.

Mosseri, who has led Instagram since 2018, denied any suggestion by US states suing Meta that Instagram had stalled by not making the “Take a Break” feature the default setting for teenagers until September 2024, nearly three years after its launch.

“Most teens didn’t want it,” Mosseri said. “We decided to push forward with it anyway.”

Mosseri is a central witness in the lawsuit brought by 29 US states, in what experts call the biggest legal test yet of social media’s effects on young users.

Four of the states – California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey – have accused Meta of designing the platforms to hook young users, driving anxiety, depression and even suicide, while misleading consumers about the platforms’ safety.

All 29 states say Meta violated US federal law by improperly collecting and employing the personal data of children under 13 while they used its platforms.

The states are seeking approximately $200bn in damages from Meta.

‘Designed to fail’

Meta has rejected accusations that it sought to addict children, saying its research showed no clear link between adolescents’ social media use and a lack of wellbeing.

Under questioning from Jason Slothouber, a lawyer for Colorado, Mosseri acknowledged that the percentage of teenagers using Take a Break was in the low single digits before Instagram made it ⁠the default.

Take a Break encourages teenage users to close the app after a certain amount of time. Mosseri had estimated in a December 2021 blog post that more than 90 percent of teenagers who turned the feature on kept it on.

That number, however, referred to the number of those who had turned on the feature.

When asked whether Meta had disclosed its low adoption, which had reached only 1 or 2 percent of accounts, Mosseri admitted the company had not, but said the safety features were later turned on by default in Teen Accounts, which launched in 2024 and have parental controls.

Former Meta employees have said that features such as Take a Break and Quiet Mode were difficult to find and not widely used, casting doubt on whether they represented a serious effort by the company to limit screen time for young users.

“In my experience, Take a Break is a feature that’s designed to fail,” Arturo Bejar, a former Meta engineering director, testified last week.

George Volichenko, a data scientist who worked on safety features at Instagram in 2022 and 2023, likewise stated on Monday that adoption rates of such features were “very low” and that company leadership had declined to approve turning on Quiet Mode by default for young teenagers.

He added that turning on such features automatically would have had a “notable negative impact” on user engagement.

The trial could last six weeks.

Jurors are expected to issue an advisory verdict. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will decide whether Meta is liable and, if so, determine any civil penalties and changes to Facebook and Instagram.

Court cuts Infowars founder’s penalty for false claims that school shooting was a ‘hoax’ from $50m to $1.5m.

A court in the US state of Texas has slashed a fine that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was ordered to pay for capitalising on false claims that the deadly 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school mass shooting was a “hoax”.

The unanimous opinion by the Texas Third Court of Appeals on Friday reduced the $50m judgment to $1.5m. The court found that parents Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose six-year-old son was one of 20 children and six staff killed in the shooting, did not provide enough evidence of harassment to pass the state’s $750,000 cap on damages.

“The families care not at all about this irrelevant ruling which affects only two of the 19 claims they all share. Jones still faces over a billion dollars of liability, so this changes absolutely nothing. All it does is highlight the absurdity of Texas law,” said Mark Bankston, an attorney for Heslin and Lewis in Texas.

The decision does not affect a separate ruling against Jones in Connecticut that ordered him to pay $1.25bn for his claims that the shooting was a hoax perpetrated by the government to justify gun regulations.

The case centred on the allegation that Jones knowingly pushed false claims about the victims and their families – including that the children who were killed were actors – to capitalise on attention around the shooting for his Infowars platform, even as his claims led to a torrent of abuse for the families of victims. Many said they faced death threats and were forced to relocate as a result.

Jones and his company have filed for bankruptcy, and he gave up the Infowars brand in April. He has continued to broadcast online and share his shows on the social media platform X.

Jones called the Friday ruling a “gigantic victory for the First Amendment”, which protects freedom of expression in the US Constitution, adding that he will continue to appeal the case to the Texas state Supreme Court in a bid to have the remaining charges dismissed.

“I got lawyers who are good constitutional lawyers and they are not backing down,” Jones said.

The transfer is the first from Lebanon involving a Syrian military officer who fled after al-Assad’s government was toppled in 2024.

Lebanon has handed over a former senior Syrian army officer to Damascus to face charges related to murder and torture, the first such transfer since former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was toppled in 2024.

The transfer involved Major-General Adel Issa, a former commander of the Syrian army’s 17th Division who later led ground forces in the eastern province of Deir ez-Zur.

Syria’s Ministry of Interior confirmed his delivery into Syrian custody in a statement on Wednesday.

“Today, Syrian authorities received from the Lebanese authorities the former officer in the defunct regime army, Major-General Adel Issa,” the ministry said.

It added that a Syrian arrest warrant had accused Issa of charges including intentional homicide, facilitating a felony, killing more than two people, torture leading to death, and crimes aimed at inciting civil war and sectarian strife.

A Damascus referral judge will hear his case, which could then be sent to a criminal court for trial, the ministry added.

Issa, 67, has denied the accusations, the Reuters news agency reported, citing two people familiar with his arrest and extradition.

He was detained on August 8 after going to the Syrian embassy in Beirut to complete paperwork.

Embassy officials alerted the prosecutor’s office in Lebanon that he was wanted in Syria, and Lebanese investigators took him into custody, Reuters reported.

His transfer follows months of pressure by Damascus for Lebanon to act against former government officers, as well as security and military officials, who sought refuge in Lebanon after the Assad regime collapsed in December 2024.

President Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former rebel leader, has led the country since.

In January, Syrian authorities gave Lebanese security officials a list of more than 200 former senior officers wanted by Damascus.

Earlier this month, a Damascus court sentenced al-Assad to death in absentia on charges including murder, arbitrary detention and torture. Al-Assad lives in exile in Moscow.

Social media giant Meta is facing a landmark trial that could impact its future.

Opening statements began on Tuesday in a US federal court case brought by 29 state attorneys general, who have accused Facebook and Instagram’s parent company of designing platforms to encourage infinite scrolling and keep their youngest users hooked, despite allegedly knowing they could fuel addictive behaviour. The company is also accused of collecting data on minors.

The case is expected to last as long as six weeks. If the attorneys general get their way, the Silicon Valley-based tech company might have to make structural changes to its platform and pay as much as $1.4 trillion in fines.

While Meta denies the allegations, the potential consequences of this case could be significant for the company, which is already facing low employee morale, waves of layoffs and a series of lagging investments.

Significant financial impact

The potential exposure to Meta is significant. State penalties could reach as high as $1.4 trillion, Meta has said, although that is unlikely, as the coalition of states said it is seeking $200bn in damages.

To put that in context, the amount is roughly the equivalent of Meta’s revenue last year. In 2025, the tech giant generated nearly $201bn in revenue, and it had $83.2bn in operating income.

The $200bn ask is significantly higher than any penalty the company has had to face so far. In March, a jury in a separate New Mexico lawsuit ordered Meta to pay $375m in civil penalties, and another $567m was ordered by a judge earlier this month.

At the time of the March penalty, financial services firm Morningstar said it was not overly concerned about the impact of the looming court cases on Meta’s valuation, even if governments around the world use these cases as a reason to push for structural changes to the business.

“We think that any algorithmic changes imposed on the firm via legislation are also a manageable risk, given the firm’s monetizable user base, which is overwhelmingly adult, thereby insulating the firm against such legislation,” a Morningstar analyst note said.

While no one can predict which way the coalition case will go, Meta’s problems extend to concerns about significant financial exposure in some of its investments and business units.

For instance, Reality Labs, the division responsible for Meta’s virtual and augmented reality tools and software like the metaverse, has lost $70bn since 2020.

Meta has also ramped up spending to build out AI infrastructure as growing concerns about an AI bubble loom over the sector.

Cash flow for the business fell significantly, from $12bn in the first quarter to $784m in the second quarter, although it did not go into negative territory as some analysts had expected.

“I think it’s [Meta] in an unenviable spot, because it’s facing pressure from multiple fronts,” Aleksandar Tomic, associate dean for strategy, innovation, and technology at Boston College, told Al Jazeera.

“These verdicts are going to put pressure on their advertising business. The AI development seems to have stalled, and the virtual reality thing seems to be dead on arrival, at least for now. So the only bright spot is that they might be able to get into the AI infrastructure game, but that is no guarantee.”

Meta itself is worried about the financial strain. “There can be no assurances that a favorable final outcome will be obtained in all our cases, and defending any lawsuit is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and employees,” the company said in a January Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing.

Can the lawsuit impact its core product?

While financial penalties might be a strain, a legal requirement to fundamentally alter the machinery that makes Instagram and Facebook so valuable to advertisers would be much harder for Meta to absorb.

The lawsuit calls for changes to its business model, including eliminating the infinite scroll that allows users to continually look at new posts. Meta’s advertising business is dependent on impressions, or the number of times a content appears on a user’s screen. The longer someone is on the app, the more impressions they can see.

“Our financial performance has been and will continue to be significantly determined by our success in adding, retaining, and engaging active users of our products that deliver ad impressions, particularly for Facebook and Instagram,” the company said in an SEC filing.

“User growth and engagement are also impacted by a number of other factors, including competitive products and services, such as TikTok, that have reduced some users’ engagement with our products and services,” the filing added.

In 2025, Meta reported 12 percent more advertisement impressions than in 2024, while the average price per advertisement jumped by 9 percent.

The plaintiff states want the company to make other changes, including getting rid of algorithms and AI models made from data compiled from minors. The states are also asking the court to compel the company to promote the wellbeing of its users and set time restrictions for its youngest consumers.

Meta has introduced features that have reminded teens of their time use on their platforms. In January 2023, it gave teens ways to manage the kinds of advertisements they could see on Instagram and Facebook. In June 2023, it introduced a feature to notify teen users that they have spent more than 20 minutes on the platform and to set daily time limits.

“We stand by our record of creating strong protections for teens, and look forward to making our case in court,” Stephanie Otway, a Meta spokesperson, told Al Jazeera.

But the lawsuit says that is not enough, alleging that teens could easily dismiss the notification and continue scrolling.

How will this impact future lawsuits?

Meta is currently facing lawsuits from more than 100,000 different parties, according to its SEC filings, including individuals, cities, states, and school districts around the US.

“These first few cases going out are really going to set the standard,” Tre Lovell, a Los Angeles-based media law and entertainment lawyer, told Al Jazeera.

Lovell predicted that, ultimately, there will be a combined settlement.

“We’re going to get close to some type of global settlement, a global resolution. I think, ultimately, that’s where this is going to end.”

Snap, TikTok, and Google’s YouTube have also faced litigation amid allegations that their products are built to encourage compulsive use by young people, Tomic told Al Jazeera. The claims could open the floodgates to the type of litigation that challenged the tobacco industry in the late 1990s, he said.

“This is the tobacco litigation of the information age. They [the plaintiffs in the Meta lawsuit] have identified this addiction component of social networks. Now that there is a judgement against Meta, I would be shocked if we don’t see everybody else getting sued, and once they get sued, it will be pretty much the same,” Tomic said.

In 1998, 46 states settled lawsuits with major cigarette makers over health costs and forced the companies to impose restrictions on advertising, especially targeting younger audiences.

New Delhi, India – In a crowded ward of New Delhi’s All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), India’s premier public hospital, a mother sits quietly beside her 29-year-old son, Piyush Singh*.

Diagnosed with stomach cancer a year ago, Singh has already undergone five rounds of chemotherapy. He now lies in the hospital’s palliative care unit, where the goal is no longer to cure the disease but to relieve pain and preserve his dignity.

“The world comes to AIIMS when they are not well. But where shall we go?” asks his mother. “My son has already received five doses of chemotherapy, but his condition has not improved. The doctors are not telling us anything. I don’t know what to do next.”

Piyush’s family is not asking for his life to end. They simply don’t know what comes when treatment fails.

A few floors away, Aryan* has come to AIIMS from Auraiya, a small town in Uttar Pradesh state, to accompany his 40-year-old brother Amit (name changed), who has been battling mouth cancer for four years. Two surgeries, radiation and two rounds of chemotherapy later, doctors say there is little hope of him surviving. The final checkup has been done. There is nothing more left to try.

“There is no duvidha [dilemma in Hindi],” says Aryan. “The doctors have said no. So it is clear now.”

He plans to take Amit to his rented flat in Gurgaon and give him whatever painkillers he has been prescribed. Beyond that, he has no plan, because no one has given him one.

“I don’t know about palliative care. I don’t know how to ease his pain. I have nothing apart from the medicines I got today,” he said.

Piyush and Amit are no exceptions. They represent a reality that many Indians are coming to terms with – with little institutional help.

India recorded an estimated 1.56 million new cancer cases in 2024, according to an Indian Council of Medical Research study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. But cancer patients are not alone. Families of patients with traumatic brain injuries and degenerative neurological conditions also hit the same wall.

According to a 2025 analysis by ecancermedicalscience, an open-access medical journal, an estimated seven to 10 million people require palliative care in India, but only about 4 percent receive it.

Such families find themselves with little or no awareness or preparedness for what comes next. Many have never heard of palliative care, or that the law gives them the right to document their treatment preferences before a crisis arrives.

The problem is also rooted in how many Indians confront death – a phenomenon that is one of the least-discussed subjects within families or societies. In many households, conversations about dying are considered inauspicious.

In such a worldview, to think of interventions in how or when someone dies carries a moral weight that goes beyond medicine or law. Families often avoid discussing medical wishes until a loved one is critically ill, leaving relatives to make deeply personal decisions during moments of grief and uncertainty.

From caregiving to court

The answers are increasingly being shaped not just by medicine, but also by the law.

In 2018, India’s Supreme Court recognised that the “right to die with dignity” was part of the fundamental right to life, enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The court also allowed such patients to record their wishes about life-sustaining treatment if they lose the capacity to decide in an advanced stage of their ailment.

The top court’s ruling was in response to a petition filed by Common Cause, an NGO, which called for legal procedures allowing terminally ill individuals to execute Advance Medical Directives, commonly known as “living wills”, to refuse life-prolonging medical treatment.

A living will is a legal document that highlights an individual’s preferences for medical treatment when they cannot voice their choices. The provision allows them to nominate a loved one to decide for them.

“It [judgement] broadens the scope of Article 21. It now affirms, kind of completely, that the right to life includes the right to die with dignity. That is the bottom line for us,” Vipul Mudgal, director of Common Cause, the organisation behind the 2005 petition, told Al Jazeera.

Yet, for most Indians, that right largely existed on paper – until six years later.

In 2024, a family in Ghaziabad, an industrial district on the outskirts of New Delhi, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court and later in the Supreme Court, asking for a decision on the fate of a 32-year-old patient who was in a vegetative state for nearly 13 years.

Harish Rana’s case was a first in India where passive euthanasia, or withdrawal of life support, was permitted by the top court. On March 11, the Supreme Court directed the withdrawal of his life support at AIIMS, New Delhi. He passed away two weeks later.

But the journey from caregiving to courtroom was not easy.

Rana’s family managed his feeding tube, tracheostomy and urine bag every day for 13 years, and it had drained them.

“A family reaches such a decision when it sees no scope for improvement. Harish Rana could not speak, we were his voice,” Rana’s father Ashok told Al Jazeera. “He was not in that state for 13 days or 13 months, but for 13 years.”

All those years, said Ashok, he watched his son breathe but not recover, with only one question on his mind: “I am around 63 years old, and my wife is 58 years old. If something happens to either of us, who would take care of him?”

That is when they decided to approach the court.

While the Rana case is a landmark, experts say it is unlikely to set an immediate precedent in a country where death is an uncomfortable topic. That is why, despite being legalised in 2018, living wills remain uncommon and largely unheard of.

As a result, terminally ill patients do not discuss their wishes while they still can, and families end up making decisions for them without preparation or guidance.

A 2019 survey across seven cities, including New Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata, by Healthcare at Home (HCAH), a health advocacy group, found that 73 percent of urban Indians were unaware of their right to a living will. Even among people aware of their right, only 6 percent had actually drafted such a will.

“The Harish Rana case was made more complex because there was no living will,” said Manish Jain, the lawyer who represented the family in court. “Living will clinics are absent across India.”

There are only two such clinics in India. The first opened in Mumbai last year, followed by one in New Delhi – both operated by private hospitals, which are beyond the reach of most Indians.

Fears of misuse of living wills

Concerned over a likely misuse of living wills, the Supreme Court made its guidelines complex. However, in the process, the court ended up making it difficult to navigate for most people.

To make a living will legally valid, an individual would sign it before two witnesses and get it countersigned by a magistrate. If the patient later became terminally ill, the treating doctor would be required to form a board of specialists with at least 20 years of experience each, whose findings then had to go to a district magistrate, who would form a second medical board. Only after both boards agreed could the process move forward, and any disagreement meant the matter went to the regional High Court.

In 2019, the Indian Society for Critical Care Medicine, a nonprofit group of physicians, approached the Supreme Court, arguing its guidelines were unworkable. In 2023, a five-judge top court bench simplified the process, removing the requirement of a magistrate’s countersignature, reducing the minimum medical experience requirement for review boards from 20 years to five, and allowing multiple nominees instead of one.

“Decisions are being made every day, sometimes by the family members, sometimes by the doctors, sometimes because of paucity of money,” said Mudgal.

He said if the families, doctors and courts can make end-of-life decisions for an individual, why cannot the individuals make those decisions for themselves? This recognition, while respecting individual autonomy, also relieves family members from the guilt of deciding for their loved one, he added.

“If there is no meaning left in life, somebody is kept alive artificially, just beating the heart with some mechanical device, that life has no meaning,” he said.

Yet, such questions remain unanswered by law. Living wills and the right to die exist entirely through judicial interpretation. There is no parliamentary law governing the same.

“There is no framework [of parliamentary law] passed by the parliament,” Jain said. “The Supreme Court of India itself requested the government to pass legislation regarding this issue,” he added, first in 2018 and again in 2023.

But lack of a law is only one part of the challenge.

For families, the absence of palliative care means little or no guidance on what comes after treatment options run out. Even families like Piyush’s, who have access to palliative care, don’t know what comes next.

“There are many patients like this who don’t have legal awareness of passive euthanasia. Not only patients, but their doctors also do not have full awareness about palliative care,” Dr Saipriya Tewari, principal consultant and unit head of pain management and palliative care at Max Super Speciality Hospital in New Delhi, told Al Jazeera.

She said families often look confused when told there is no treatment left, and that they should take the patient home.

“What will they do after taking the patient home? Nobody tells them. It is only discussed if the palliative care doctor is involved in the treatment,” Tewari said. “And even if the end is coming, then how do we maintain dignity in time? That is the question.”

Piyush’s mother has a different question.

“If he is sick, then we have to get treatment. We have to do something to keep him alive. What should we do? We are not able to think of a way out of this. Nobody is giving us any suggestions about where to go.”

*Names changed to protect the identity of the patients and their families.

Judge previously found US government brought charges against Abrego Garcia as retaliation for case that embarrassed it.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump is seeking to revive criminal charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man whose wrongful deportation became a source of embarrassment for US immigration authorities.

The US Department of Justice asked a federal appeals court late on Monday to throw out a previous ruling by a judge that slammed the administration’s prosecution of Abrego Garcia as a form of political retaliation.

In his May ruling, US District Judge Waverly Crenshaw found the government’s efforts to bring criminal charges against Abrego Garcia to be an “abuse of prosecuting power”.

Federal prosecutors argued in a brief filed with the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals that Crenshaw’s ruling was flawed in a push to revive criminal charges the Trump administration brought against Abrego Garcia after being forced to return him to the US.

The Salvadoran national was brought back to the US after the government admitted that it had wrongfully deported him to El Salvador, where he was held in a detention facility that was operated by the Salvadoran government and that was notorious for abusive conditions and alleged use of torture.

The Trump administration initially fought efforts to return the 31-year-old Abrego Garcia to the US, even after admitting that he had been wrongfully deported despite a 2019 order from an immigration judge that he had a “well-founded fear” of being targeted in El Salvador.

The administration then filed criminal charges against Abrego Garcia when he arrived back in the US, accusing him of human trafficking.

Crenshaw found that there was evidence of “presumptive vindictiveness” on the part of the US government and that the charges would not have been brought if Abrego Garcia’s case had not been a public setback for the government.

Abrego Garcia has previously said that he is willing to agree to be deported to Costa Rica. But the Trump administration has instead fought to have him deported to the African nation of Liberia, to which he has no connection and where he would be far from friends and family.

Opening statements in a landmark US case brought by a bipartisan coalition of 29 states against Meta – the parent company of Facebook and Instagram – began on Tuesday, with Colorado, California, New Jersey and Kentucky arguing that the company’s popular social media apps were designed in ways that harmed the mental health of young users.

The trial, which is expected to last several weeks, began in a US federal court in California before District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. While there is an eight-person jury, the group is serving in an advisory role as Judge Rogers will ultimately decide the case.

Megan O’Neill, a deputy California attorney general, in her opening statement said that the company designed its products to “hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public”.

She added that it worked “especially well for kids”.

The lawsuit, which was first filed in 2023, alleges that Meta made decisions to design its apps to hook users and facilitate excessive use among the platforms’ youngest users. The coalition also alleges that the company collected data on children under the age of 13 in violation of federal law.

“Meta needed kids, and it needed to reassure the people who cared about those kids that the kids are safe,” O’Neill said.

‘Limited claims’

Meta has long pushed back on allegations against the Silicon Valley social media behemoth.

In a statement before the trial, a Meta spokesperson said the states’ claims are unsubstantiated, and the company stands by its record of creating strong protections for teenagers, including launching Instagram Teen Accounts in 2024, which limit who can contact underage users, as well as a feature that allows parents to set time limits on usage.

“The State AGs may call this a landmark case, but their limited claims are unsubstantiated and their financial demands are vastly disproportionate,” Stephanie Otway, a Meta spokesperson, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

“The AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled, claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification. Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout.”

The potential impact on Meta’s bottom line is existential. The company could face fines as high as $1.4 trillion, which is just shy of its $1.5 trillion market cap. However, the coalition is seeking fines of roughly $200bn.

Meta has already been ordered to pay $942m in fines in a separate New Mexico lawsuit – $375m in civil penalties in a March jury verdict and $567m ordered by a judge earlier this month.

Meta has acknowledged that the lawsuits it faces, including those related to youth social media addiction, could lead to “substantial monetary damages or fines” in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing in January.

A long time coming

Meta, along with other social media giants, has faced a growing slate of cases across the United States, including from cities, states, school districts and even individuals.

The coalition of states is asking Meta to make changes to its platforms, including introducing new age restrictions and cutting the infinite scroll.

The case’s impetus came from a US Senate committee hearing in 2021, when whistleblower Frances Haugen, a former data scientist at Facebook, claimed that the company knowingly pushed products that could impact the health of young users as the Mark Zuckerberg-led company pursued higher profits.

Meta has repeatedly tried to end the coalition lawsuit, including in 2024 and as recently as June, when it sought summary judgement – a decision that a court might make without going to trial – which would have ended the lawsuit.

The case is impacting the company’s stock. On Wall Street, the social media giant is down more than 3 percent in midday trading.

FCC faces scrutiny as Disney claims licence renewal order is tied to political motives against ABC’s coverage.

Disney has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) amid efforts to stop an early licence review for eight ABC-owned and -operated stations around the United States.

In the lawsuit filed in a federal court in Washington, DC, the media giant alleged the early renewal is an effort by the administration of US President Donald Trump to intimidate the company after infuriating the president.

In April, the FCC ordered the network’s stations, which include its affiliates in New York and Los Angeles, to file their licence renewals ahead of schedule despite the fact that for six of its stations, the current term isn’t even halfway finished. The station with the closest deadline is WTVD in Durham, North Carolina, but that is not until December 2028. The network says the move is part of a political “retaliatory campaign”.

“Again and again, the Administration has attacked ABC’s speech – the stories its journalists report and the viewpoints its network programs air. Over time, those attacks have escalated into express demands that ABC be stripped of its broadcast licenses because of its speech,” the 46-page complaint said.

The suit presented a wave of Truth Social posts that the president posted in 2025 threatening the network, among them one saying that the network “should lose their Licences for their unfair coverage of Republicans and/or Conservatives”.

The FCC said the April licence renewal call was a result of diversity, equity and inclusion practices at ABC’s parent company, Disney, and an investigation into the ABC network’s talk show programme The View.

In March, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened broadcasters, saying stations airing “fake news” could lose their licences amid Trump’s frustration with coverage of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Not long after, Trump demanded that ABC fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over comments he made before the White House correspondents dinner shooting in which he called first lady Melania Trump an “expectant widow”. Trump responded to them after the shooting, characterising them “a call to violence”.

Free speech advocates have praised ABC for the lawsuit.

“It’s about time for someone to take Brendan Carr and his FCC to court over their endless campaign of intimidation and retaliation against journalism that displeases Carr’s thin-skinned boss,” Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told Al Jazeera.

“No matter what pretexts he asserts, Carr’s modus operandi is clear: to serve as Trump’s censorship tsar and abuse his office to repeatedly and exclusively target Trump’s perceived adversaries in the media, whether through sham proceedings or threatening letters and X posts.”

The network called for a “speedy hearing” in the complaint as well as a temporary restraining order.

News of the lawsuit sent Disney’s stock surging in morning trading by 1.1 percent.

The decisions mark both a victory and a setback for President Emmanuel Macron, who had championed both policies.

France’s Constitutional Council has upheld a law passed by parliament to legalise assisted dying in specific circumstances, while striking down a separate bill that sought to ban under-15s from using social media.

The council, France’s highest constitutional authority, issued its rulings on Friday. The decisions mark both a victory and a setback for President Emmanuel Macron, who had championed both policies.

France is set to join several European countries that have already legalised assisted dying, including Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg, among others.

“This decision marks the culmination of a long democratic and parliamentary effort, conducted with listening, respect, and rigour,” Elisabeth Borne, MP and former French prime minister, said in a post on X about the assisted-dying decision.

“I welcome this definitive validation of a text that guarantees everyone the freedom to choose, within a strict and protective framework.”

The council upheld the law in its entirety while clarifying three provisions, including the so-called conscience clause, under which pharmacists may refuse to assist a patient in ending their life.

Private treatment centres can also refuse to participate in the procedure if it goes against their mission, and other centres can serve local needs. Lastly, in the case of protected patients, the opinion of the person responsible for their welfare must be taken into account.

French citizens and legal residents can request medical support in ending their lives under strict conditions. The legislation stipulates that the patient must be “suffering from an incurable, life-threatening illness in an advanced or terminal phase”, and that the illness must cause “constant physical or psychological suffering that is untreatable or unbearable”. Lastly, the patient must exercise free and informed consent.

The French National Assembly passed the bill last month by a majority of 50, with 291 voting in favour and 241 against.

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court struck down legislation banning under-15s from social media, citing freedom of expression.

“By prohibiting minors under the age of fifteen from accessing certain online services, the law inherently requires every person, even an adult, to prove their age before accessing them,” the court said in its decision.

“However, by failing to specify the conditions and limits under which such proof must be provided, the legislature has not established the legal safeguards necessary to ensure compliance with these requirements,” it added. The court also said that the law fails to safeguard people’s privacy.

The bill was one of Macron’s flagship policies and was passed by parliament last month.

It stipulated that everyone in France would have to verify their age to access social media sites, and it was supposed to come into effect in January 2027. Macron was eager for the bill to be passed before the presidential election next year.

After Friday’s ruling, Macron asked Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu to work on a new “legally robust draft” of the legislation.

Last month, Amnesty International responded to the French parliament’s decision to impose the social media ban on teens, urging lawmakers to focus their efforts on forcing companies to redesign their apps, including what it described as “addictive features”.

“There is no doubt that regulating platforms to protect children is an imperative of our time. We commend states for taking social media harms seriously but rather than pursuing blanket bans, efforts should be on forcing platforms to abandon their reckless pursuit of profit to the detriment of human rights,” Secretary General Agnes Callamard said.

“Building safe platforms requires a robust response. To ensure platforms are spaces where children can access community, connection and knowledge in a healthy and safe way, governments should first focus on banning the features that drive harm, including engagement-based algorithms that Amnesty International’s research has shown can draw children into rabbit holes of depressive and suicidal content.”

NICK Reiner has been indicted in the deaths of his parents after they were found fatally stabbed in their family home in December.

Nick, 32, previously pleaded not guilty to the murders of his film director dad Rob Reiner and his mother Michele, but a newly unsealed indictment reveals an additional allegation.

Rob and Michele were found with their throats slashed on December 14 inside of their Los Angeles home.

Nick, the couple’s youngest son, was indicted by a grand jury on the updated murder charges, replacing the initial charges filed against him in 2025.

He has since pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder with special circumstances allegations of lying in wait and personally using a knife, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The indictment was returned on July 20 and unsealed on Wednesday after Nick entered his plea.

NO PICNIC

Inside Nick Reiner’s horrid jail conditions from ‘repulsive meals’ to ‘solitude’

The new lying in wait allegation carries the possibility of a life sentence without parole or the death penalty.

The indictment allows prosecutors to speed up the process for Nick’s case to go to trial, avoid a preliminary hearing and avoid witnesses testifying about the circumstances and Nick’s history.

“This was a profound betrayal by someone who was loved and trusted by the very people he is accused of killing,” said Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman.

“We hope that by having a grand jury return an indictment in this case it will bring us one step closer to a trial and achieving justice.”

Rob and Michele attended a holiday party hosted by comedian Conan O’Brien with Nick on December 13, and later got into a heated argument with their son.

Their daughter Romy found them dead inside their home on December 14 around 3:30pm PST.

Nick, who has a history of substance abuse and mental illness, was arrested later that night and has since been held inside the Twin Towers jail in California.

His arraignment in January was postponed after his star lawyer Alan Jackson, who represented Karen Read, withdrew from the case abruptly, saying he had “no choice” but to leave.

Nick is scheduled to appear in court on September 15.

Prosecutors have not yet decided whether they will seek the death penalty in his case.

A family friend told The U.S. Sun that Nick’s siblings Jake and Romy want him to avoid the death penalty.

“Rob & Michele’s family, despite everything, do not want Nick to get the death penalty, as they insist this horrific incident was the byproduct of a mental health crisis,” the insider said.

Jake released a lengthy Substack post in April titled “Mom and Dad,” where he revealed the moment he learned of his parents’ deaths.

“It was at that moment I received a call from my sister Romy telling me our father was dead,” the 34-year-old wrote.

“Minutes later, she called back telling me our mother was also dead.”

Jake took an “unendurable” 45-minute Lyft ride to his parents’ home, writing in his Substack post, “My world, as I knew it, had collapsed.”

Timeline of Rob and Michele Reiner’s death

Rob Reiner and his wife of Michele Singer Reiner were found dead in their Los Angeles home on December 14, 2025.

Timeline:

• December 13, 2025: Reiner and his wife Michele attended a holiday party on the evening of December 13 with their son, Nick.
• Sources conveyed to The U.S. Sun that the couple and their son were engaged in a heated public argument while at the event.
• December 14, 2025: Reiner and Michele were found dead in their Brentwood home in Los Angeles at around 3:30 pm PST.
• The couple’s daughter, Romy, reportedly discovered her parents’ bodies.
• Online police records show Reiner and Michele’s 32-year-old son, Nick, was arrested at 9:15 pm PST on December 14.
• December 15, 2025: Authorities in Los Angeles announce that Nick Reiner was arrested and charged with murder.
• Nick was booked into a Los Angeles jail at 5:04 am and was being held on $4 million bail, which was later revoked.
• December 16, 2025: Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman formally charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder.
• Hochman said his office would consider the death penalty in Nick’s case.
• Nick’s scheduled court appearance on December 16 was postponed due to what his attorney said was a procedural issue.
• December 17, 2025: Nick Reiner briefly appeared in court. A plea was not entered.
• December 23, 2025: The death certificates of Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner disclosed that the couple died of multiple sharp force injuries caused with “a knife, by another.”

Jake did not name Nick in his writing, referring to him only as his “brother.”

“We lost more than half of our family that night in the most violent way imaginable,” Jake said.

“Sure, any loss of a parent is devastating, but nothing compares to losing both of them at the same time and, on top of that, having your brother be at the center of it.”

Rob was a famous Hollywood filmmaker, known for directing films like The Princess Bride and When Harry Met Sally.

He famously rewrote the ending of When Harry Met Sally after meeting his wife.

Nick and Rob worked together to create the film Being Charlie in 2015, with characters that thinly resembled versions of the father and son.

The film explored how drugs could harm a relationship between a successful actor and his son.

Jake remembered his mother as “the engine, the backbone, and the heart of our entire family,” in his Substack post.

“My dad is my hero. I love how he would analyze my dreams or how I felt I could come talk to him about anything. No subject was ever off-limits,” Jake said of his father.

“He was authentic, passionate, and his sense of humor has always been my sense of humor.”

The White House defended reports it planned to spend nearly a $1bn on controversial construction projects.

The Trump administration has responded to controversy over construction and expansion projects at the White House by saying the work was “long-overdue and necessary” and “inextricably tied to the security of the President, the White House grounds and the certain security infrastructure assets”.

US President Donald Trump’s administration has long insisted construction is being funded by private donors and is necessary for security reasons. But on Wednesday, The Washington Post cited documents it obtained that showed the administration was planning to spend nearly $1bn on the construction work, which includes a large new ballroom to replace much of the White House’s East Wing.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle, in a statement to Al Jazeera, cited recent security incidents, including attempted attacks on the president and events around the 250th anniversary of US independence, as reasons for the work.

Ingle said the work was being done in coordination with the Secret Service and White House Military Office. He also said approximately $400m in funding for the new ballroom was coming from “President Trump and generous American patriots”.

About $875m has been put into the White House Repair and Restoration account, which typically has only several million dollars and is used for routine maintenance and upkeep. Some $500m of that money came from the Secret Service and the White House Military Office, tasked with securing the president and his family, as well as top US officials. Another $305m, according to The Post, came from private donations, while the provenance of another $70m was not indicated.

The White House reconstruction project has faced scrutiny from lawmakers, as well as courts, over concerns that vested interests, including private businesses seeking government contracts, are paying for the work in exchange for government favours. A federal judge in Washington, DC, last week ordered a halt to work specifically for the ballroom, saying it needed Congressional approval under existing law. In June, the advocacy group Public Citizen said it found corporate donors to the project had received more than $50bn in government contracts during the previous six months.

Paramount CEO David Ellison may pull his operations out of California if the state does not end its attempt to block the company’s merger with Warner Bros Discovery and agree to settlement talks as soon as October.

The rumours were first reported by the publication Variety on Tuesday. They signal Ellison may be willing to leverage economic pressure on California’s ailing film industry in order to push through the merger.

Al Jazeera was not able to independently confirm the validity of the report.

In July, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that he was leading a coalition of 12 state attorneys general in an antitrust lawsuit to block the consolidation.

Should Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery combine, Bonta warned that the resulting company would control 27 percent of theatrically released films in the United States and a third of the country’s basic-cable output.

“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices,” Bonta said. “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.”

But Variety reported that Ellison told Paramount’s senior executives that he would begin the process of moving the company out of California on October 1 if Bonta does not agree to settlement talks.

There could be downstream effects as well. The report also alleged that Ellison would pull Warner Bros Discovery out of California, too, if the $110bn merger goes through.

Variety indicated that Paramount is considering relocating to the US states of Tennessee, Texas or Georgia — none of which are involved in the ongoing antitrust lawsuit.

A growing enterprise

The dispute over Warner Bros Discovery’s fate stretches back to late 2025, when the company’s sale was first announced.

Critics quickly observed that the sale had the potential to shift the balance of power in Hollywood, with Warner Bros Discovery wielding influential properties including the news channel CNN, the production company New Line Cinema and the television-streaming service HBO.

The streaming giant Netflix initially emerged as a frontrunner to take over Warner Bros Discovery, but by February, Paramount succeeded in inking an agreement.

It was the second major merger Paramount had lined up in less than a year. In 2025, it had also succeeded in consolidating with the media production company Skydance, in a deal that generated scrutiny about the editorial independence of its subsidiaries.

Paramount’s decisions that year to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and enter into a $16m settlement with US President Donald Trump were widely perceived as efforts to curry government favour for the merger.

Paramount is considered a titan in US filmmaking and media production, as one of the oldest studios in the country. Its portfolio includes CBS News and Paramount Pictures.

A pair of lawsuits

The impending merger with Warner Bros Discovery has led to a fresh round of scrutiny for Ellison and the Paramount leadership.

Last week, Ellison addressed some of those concerns in an opinion column in The New York Times.

In it, he questioned whether the states’ antitrust lawsuit was “really about market share”, speculating that it was instead about control over major news outlets like CNN. He also sought to portray himself as politically independent.

“I have regularly voted for candidates of both parties; I hold some views that would be called conservative and others that would be called liberal, just like most Americans,” Ellison wrote.

“When it comes to our news operations, I do not aspire to lead these companies to bend their newsrooms to my views.”

But the states have argued that combining Warner Bros Discovery and Paramount would create a monopoly, stifling competition.

If the merger succeeds, the states say that only four distributors would control 86 percent of the country’s films.

The merger could also mean job losses. As of the end of 2025, the headcount at Paramount stood at 17,600, while Warner Bros Discovery had 35,500 employees.

A day after the 12 states filed their lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) followed suit.

In its July 14 complaint, the guild argued that the merger would mean fewer jobs and more pressure on writers to accept less favourable working terms, owing to reduced competition in the media market.

“Writers will be paid less and have fewer employment opportunities,” the WGA complaint said.

In Los Angeles County alone, the merger could result in a loss of nearly 2,500 jobs, according to an analysis by the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity, published in June.

As many as 6,000 employees around the world could also see their positions cut.

By comparison, when the Paramount and Skydance merger was completed in 2025, the company laid off roughly 2,000 people.

Costly standoff

On July 24, Paramount Skydance agreed to pause the merger until a ruling in the states’ case is ultimately made or until June 1, 2027 — a move the WGA celebrated.

“It remains our view that this merger is unlawful, and we will continue the fight to block it,” WGA said at the time.

The WGA did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Slowing the merger could be costly for Paramount Skydance. Under the terms of the merger, the company would have to pay a so-called ticking fee of $7m per day, or $650m per quarter, if the deal does not close by September 30.

But the standoff with Ellison could also be costly for California, which is experiencing a downturn in the number of productions filmed in the state. New York, another state involved in the lawsuit, could see a backlash, as it houses studios for CBS News and Paramount’s executive offices.

Representatives for the state of California and Paramount Skydance did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Paramount Skydance’s stock is trending upward on the heels of Tuesday’s report. The stock was up 0.4 percent in midday trading, while Warner Bros Discovery was up 1.1 percent.

Baka’s confirmation is the latest repudiation of Viktor Orban’s legacy by Hungary’s new leaders

Hungary’s parliament has confirmed Andras Baka, a former Supreme Court chief and critic of former Prime Minister Viktor Orban, as the country’s next president.

The National Assembly voted in a secret ballot on Tuesday to confirm him as president with 140 votes in favour, six opposing and no abstentions.

He had been nominated on Saturday by the Tisza party, which holds a constitutional majority of more than two-thirds of parliament. During the nomination, Tisza lawmakers said Baka’s experience would represent “a significant asset” as the party lays “the foundations for Hungary’s new constitutional order”.

Opposition party Fidesz – which dominated Hungary’s politics until a landslide electoral defeat in April – boycotted the vote. They accuse Tisza of using authoritarian tactics to reshape the country’s political system, a charge the party denies.

Baka, 73, served two terms as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg before being elected head of Hungary’s Supreme Court in 2009. He was removed two years later after publicly criticising Orban’s government reforms, which he said threatened judicial independence. He will assume office on August 19.

Baka replaces ex-President Tamas Sulyok, an Orban appointee who weeks ago was ousted from the role by constitutional amendment, part of Tisza’s wide-reaching campaign to dismantle the political power structures built by Orban during his 16 years in power.

Tisza has also used its majority to reform the media, establish an anticorruption task force and impose an eight-year term limit on prime ministership, effectively barring Orban’s return to the office.

While Hungary’s presidency carries mostly ceremonial powers, with limited authority to veto or refer legislation, Baka’s is appointment is seen by many as the latest repudiation of Orban’s legacy.

The pro-Kremlin nationalist party Rodina accused Yabloko of receiving undeclared campaign support, notably from Western sources – an allegation Yabloko denied.

Russia‘s Supreme Court has barred the only officially registered party opposing Moscow’s war in Ukraine from running in next month’s parliamentary elections.

The court upheld a suit on Monday brought by the small pro-Kremlin nationalist party Rodina to annul the registration of Yabloko, stripping voters of the chance to express their discontent with the four-and-a-half-year conflict at the ballot box.

Last month, the Central Election Commission had initially allowed Yabloko on the ballot along with 10 other parties.

“The claims seeking to annul the registration of the federal list of candidates for the State Duma of the ninth convocation, nominated by the Yabloko political party, were granted,” Judge Vyacheslav Kirillov said.

Rodina alleged that Yabloko had received undeclared campaign support, including from Western sources, among other accusations.

During a day-long hearing, Yabloko leader Nikolai Rybakov said there was no evidence to support the allegations and described the case as an unconstitutional attack on freedom of thought by political opponents seeking to clear the field of rivals.

About 100 supporters, mostly young people, gathered outside the courthouse as police stood by, chanting “Shame! Shame!” after the ruling was delivered. Some carried apples to display their affiliation with Yabloko, which means “apple” in Russian.

Addressing them after the hearing, Rybakov said the party would appeal the decision.

“We have a long way ahead, and we have a big and important task: to stop deaths and bring the peace back,” he said. “Everything we do should be dedicated to that.”

With most of President Vladimir Putin’s opponents jailed, exiled or dead, Yabloko is the only liberal party still operating in Russia.

The party has received the backing of several exiled opposition figures, including Yulia Navalnaya, the widow of the late opposition leader Alexey Navalny. Both are listed as “extremists” in Russia.

A poll conducted earlier this year showed Yabloko at just three percent support – short of the five-percent threshold needed to enter Russia’s lower house.

With the Kremlin tightening its control over elections, Yabloko has failed to win seats in the State Duma since 2003.

Since then, every parliamentary vote has been won by the ruling United Russia party, which backs Putin.

Efforts to end the Ukraine war through diplomacy have so far failed, with Putin pushing hardline territorial demands to end the fighting and ruling out talks with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Independent polls show most Russians favour peace negotiations with Kyiv.

Andras Baka, a strong advocate for judicial independence, becomes Tisza’s pick for Hungary’s next president.

Hungary’s governing Tisza party has nominated Andras Baka, a former Supreme Court chief removed from his post by Viktor Orban’s government in 2012, as its candidate for the country’s presidency.

The nomination, announced Saturday by Prime Minister Peter Magyar, marks the latest step in Tisza’s effort to dismantle Orban’s influence over state institutions since the party’s landslide election victory in April ended his 16-year rule.

The decision to nominate Baka for the presidency comes weeks after Tisza used a constitutional amendment to remove Orban-era President Tamas Sulyok from office.

On Tuesday, Baka, 73, is expected to be elected by parliament, where Tisza holds a constitutional majority.

Magyar wrote on Facebook that the nomination, made by secret ballot within the party’s parliamentary group, was “one of its most important decisions so far”.

Tisza lawmakers said Baka had always “attached paramount importance to the principle of separation of powers, consistently standing up for the rule of law and judicial independence”, adding that his experience represented “a significant asset” as the party lays “the foundations for Hungary’s new constitutional order”.

Fidesz, the party now in opposition, said it would boycott the vote, accusing Tisza of authoritarian tactics – allegations it denies.

Baka served two terms as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg before being elected head of Hungary’s Supreme Court in 2009.

He was removed two years later after publicly criticising Orban’s government reforms, which he said threatened judicial independence. The European court later ruled that his dismissal had violated his rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression, a judgement the Council of Europe said Hungary failed to fully implement.

Hungary’s presidency carries mostly ceremonial powers, with limited authority to veto or refer legislation, though the nomination is being treated as a heavily symbolic move.

The rulings allow the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for nationals of the two countries.

Two federal judges have cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s administration to end temporary protections from deportation for people who have come to the United States from South Sudan and Myanmar.

Judges in Boston, Massachusetts and Chicago, Illinois on Friday rejected last-ditch efforts by immigrant-rights advocates to maintain the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for the two countries after the US Supreme Court in June allowed the administration to end similar protections for thousands of people from Haiti and Syria.

TPS shields people from deportation and grants work authorisation when their home countries are affected by armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions. The terminations would end protections for about 232 South Sudanese nationals and roughly 4,000 people from Myanmar, according to the Reuters news agency.

The Supreme Court decision had limited lower courts’ ability to block the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to end TPS for people from roughly a dozen countries, arguing the executive branch maintained broad authority to make decisions on the programme.

After the Supreme Court’s ruling, immigrant-rights lawyers made a new challenge, arguing that DHS lacked the authority to terminate TPS.

But US District Judge Patti Saris in Boston rejected the argument, saying it would not only call into question DHS authority to end TPS but also its longstanding authority to extend the protections.

Judge Matthew Kennelly in Chicago made a similar conclusion in the Myanmar case hours later.

Advocates have warned the rulings leave TPS recipients, who had been given an “administrative stay” amid the ongoing legal battle that allowed them to continue to work and live in the US, exposed to possible deportation to countries still gripped by conflict and instability.

DHS had moved in November 2025 to end TPS for South Sudan, which has held the designation since 2011 amid ongoing conflict, and Myanmar, in political turmoil since a 2021 military coup.

James Percival, General Counsel of DHS, said the new rulings leave only TPS terminations for Ethiopian and Somalian nationals, which are still blocked by courts.

“Every day these ‘administrative stays’ are in effect is a day the American people are denied what they voted for,” he wrote on X.

The US president has clashed with Federal Reserve members over his bid to rapidly slash interest rates despite inflation.

The White House has revived its efforts to remove Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a governor at the Federal Reserve, the United States’ central bank.

On Friday, media reports emerged that the administration of President Donald Trump had sent Cook a letter threatening her position at the Federal Reserve.

“You are hereby provided notice that the President is considering removing you from your position,” the letter read.

Signed by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, the letter gave Cook a deadline of three weeks to respond to unproven allegations that she had committed mortgage fraud.

It also warned that the crime she was accused of was punishable by up to 30 years in prison. Her conduct, the letter added, constituted negligence that calls into question her trustworthiness as a Federal Reserve governor.

Trump first unveiled the claims against Cook in August 2025, in a push to fire her from her role.

No other president since the central bank’s founding in 1913 has sought to oust a Federal Reserve governor.

The central bank has historically been insulated from political pressure, and under the law, Federal Reserve governors can only be removed by the president “for cause”. A full term runs 14 years.

Such laws aim is to shield the central bank from making economic decisions based on political pressures.

But Trump has undertaken an aggressive campaign to slash interest rates, which are elevated as a means of combatting inflation.

He has also sought to rid the federal government of appointees aligned with his Democratic predecessors. Cook was nominated in 2022 under President Democrat Joe Biden, Trump’s two-time election rival.

Trump’s claims against Cook centre on the idea that she listed two homes as her primary residence: one in Georgia and the other in Michigan. That could have made her eligible for favourable mortgage rates.

But there is no conclusive evidence so far that Cook sought to deceive lenders, making a successful fraud prosecution unlikely.

In June, a US Supreme Court ruling also blocked Trump’s attempt to fire her, though it did clear the way for the president to fire the heads of other independent agencies.

The letter sent to Cook this week was dated August 5. That same day, Cook spoke at an economic luncheon in Alaska, saying inflation is “too high” and indicating that she is “prepared to act” by raising interest rates, a position shared by others at the Federal Reserve.

Trump has long sparred with the Federal Reserve over interest rates, repeatedly threatening to fire former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for refusing to bow to his demands.

Kevin Warsh, a Trump appointee, took over Powell’s position as chair in May. He has yet to deliver Trump’s wished-for rate cuts, amid stubborn inflation.

“We should have the lowest interest rate in the world,” Trump said after last week’s decision by the Federal Reserve to hold interest rates steady for the fifth consecutive time.

In a statement, Cook’s legal team said “there is no valid cause” for removing her from her position.

“As we did before, we will challenge this latest pretext and preserve her position and the historic role of the Fed,” lawyer Abbe D Lowell said.

A federal appeals court has ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to halt construction on a $400 million ballroom project at the White House. President Trump has vowed to appeal to the US Supreme Court. Aljazeera’s Mike Hanna reports.