deal

Josh Klinghoffer, the former Red Hot Chili Peppers guitarist, accepted a plea deal after facing a vehicular manslaughter charge.

Klinghoffer, 45, was charged in the death of Israel Sanchez in March after a collision last year in Alhambra. Klinghoffer was driving a black GMC Yukon at the corner of West Main Street and South Meridian Avenue when he turned left at the intersection while 47-year-old Sanchez was walking in a marked crosswalk. Klinghoffer then struck and killed Sanchez.

On Wednesday in court in Alhambra, Klinghoffer pleaded no contest to misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence. He was sentenced to 60 days of community labor and one year of informal probation. He will also have to take a driver safety course and pay restitution.

During the hearing, the prosecutor told Klinghoffer, “If you continue to drive while distracted, and as a result of your driving someone is killed, you can be charged with murder.”

Sanchez’s family sued Klinghoffer for wrongful death after the incident, alleging that Klinghoffer was on his phone at the time of the collision. “Video of the incident shows that defendant Josh Adam Klinghoffer made no braking or slowing motion until after he fatally struck Israel Sanchez, indicating that Defendant was likely driving while distracted.”

“This horrible outcome was foreseeable and demonstrates a willful disregard for the rights and safety of others,” the suit continued.

Klinghoffer’s attorney in the civil suit, Andrew Brettler, said in a statement to The Times last year, “After Josh struck this pedestrian in the intersection, he immediately pulled over, stopped the car, called 911 and waited until police and the ambulance arrived. Obviously, he’s cooperating with the police throughout the traffic investigation. This was purely a tragic accident.”

Klinghoffer played guitar with the Red Hot Chili Peppers from 2009 to 2019, when longtime guitarist John Frusciante returned. Klinghoffer was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame with the band in 2012. He has since performed as a member of Jane’s Addiction and Pearl Jam.

This latest twist in the Trump trade tariff drama has many people asking what it means for the UK’s deal with the US.

The answer is actually not as much as you might think.

For a start, the tariffs that the US court has ruled illegal do not include those on cars, which make up the bulk of what the UK exports to the US, and steel and aluminium, which are the other UK industries most affected.

UK exports of cars are currently attracting 27.5% tariffs while steel and aluminium are hit with 25% tariffs – the same as every other country. Wednesday’s ruling has not changed that.

And although the UK has done a deal with the US to reduce car tariffs to 10% and steel and aluminium tariffs to zero, that deal is yet to come into force.

Sources at Jaguar Land Rover told the BBC that these tariffs were costing them “a huge amount of money” and pushed back on the notion floated by the car industry trade body, the SMMT, that they could run down current US inventories before feeling the pain of the tariffs.

The government said it was working to implement the deal as quickly as possible and that Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds would press the case for speedy implementation when he meets US representatives at a meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development think-tank in Paris next week.

The ruling does block Trump’s imposition of blanket tariffs of 10% on other UK goods entering the US – such as products like salmon and whisky. So how that part of the tariff deal will pan out remains uncertain.

British exporters’ sigh of relief at tariffs being stopped could be short-lived as the White House has said it intends to appeal the decision.

There are also other mechanisms for the President to impose tariffs – through different provisions in trade acts or pushing them through congress.

The UK announced its trade deal with the US to some fanfare, but there are question marks as to how much better off the UK will be than other countries if it turns out that the President is prevented from imposing swingeing tariffs on others by either the courts or his own legislature.

Perhaps the most corrosive effect of all is yet another wild card being thrown into an already unpredictable game of international trade stand-off.

It makes it hard for businesses to plan, to invest, with any confidence.

US President Donald Trump has backed away — for now — from imposing steep levies on the European Union, two days after he threatened the bloc with 50 percent tariffs.

On Sunday, Trump agreed to extend his deadline for trade talks until July 9, from the June 1 deadline he set on Friday, after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the bloc needed more time to “reach a good deal”.

Von der Leyen reportedly told Trump during a phone call that the EU needed more time to come to an agreement and asked him to delay the trade duties until July, the deadline he had originally set when he announced his “reciprocal” tariffs on almost all countries around the world in April.

Trump said that he had granted the request, and that von der Leyen told him, “We will rapidly get together to see if we can work something out.” Von der Leyen said in a social media post that the EU was ready to move quickly in trade talks.

During a trip to Vietnam on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron said that he hoped Washington and Brussels could achieve a deal with the lowest tariffs possible. “The discussions are advancing,” he told reporters.

The US president’s latest salvo comes amid Washington’s stop-and-start global trade war that kicked off in April. Trump’s moves have unnerved markets, businesses and consumers and raised fears of a global economic downturn.

But while his approach has yielded a trade deal with the United Kingdom, and negotiations are believed to be progressing with a range of other nations — from India to Vietnam to Japan — key sticking points complicate the prospects of an agreement with the EU.

Here’s what the tiff is about, and why the US and EU are struggling to reach a trade deal:

What’s the backdrop?

Trump’s recent broadside against the EU was prompted by the White House’s belief that negotiations with the bloc are not progressing fast enough. “Our discussions with them are going nowhere!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

“Therefore, I am recommending a straight 50% Tariff on the European Union, starting on June 1, 2025. There is no Tariff if the product is built or manufactured in the United States,” he wrote last Friday.

By Sunday, however, Trump had changed course. He welcomed von der Leyen’s assertion that the bloc was willing to negotiate but that it needed more time. He added that it was his “privilege” to delay the increased tariffs.

Trump said, “[von der Leyen] said she wants to get down to serious negotiation. We had a very nice call … she said we will rapidly get together and see if we can work something out,” he told reporters.

Trump is thought to be opposed to the idea of mutually cutting tariffs to zero – an EU proposal. The US president has insisted on preserving a baseline 10 percent tax on most imports from America’s trading partners.

On May 8, the UK agreed to a trade deal that kept Trump’s 10 percent reciprocal tariff rate in place.

EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic said the European Commission – the EU’s executive arm – remains committed to securing a deal that works for both sides. But he warned that EU-US trade “must be guided by mutual respect, not threats.”

In 2024, EU exports to the US totalled about 532 billion euros ($603bn). Pharmaceuticals, cars and auto parts, chemicals and aircraft were among the largest exports, according to EU data.

What is the EU offering?

Last week, the US rejected a proposal sent by the European Commission. The EU had offered to remove tariffs on industrial goods, boost access for some US agricultural products and co-develop AI data centres, Bloomberg reported.

It also proposed enhancing economic cooperation in areas like shipbuilding and port infrastructure, as well as by establishing an EU-US energy partnership covering gas, nuclear power and oil.

In exchange, Brussels wants the Trump administration to have more flexibility on lowering the 10 percent baseline tariff — including by potentially lowering it in phases over time.

While the EU has said it wants to find a negotiated solution, it has also been preparing to retaliate if necessary.

Member states have approved a 50 percent tariff on a batch of US products worth 21 billion euros ($23.8bn), including maize, wheat and clothing, which will kick in on July 14 without a deal.

The bloc is also preparing tariffs on other imported products totalling 95 billion euros ($107.8bn), targeting industrial goods like Boeing aircraft and cars, as well as bourbon.

What does the US want?

Trump has long accused the European Union of “ripping off” the US, and is determined that Brussels will adopt measures to lower its 198.2-billion-euro ($225bn) goods trade surplus with the US.

Washington has repeatedly raised concerns over Europe’s value-added tax, as well as its regulations on IT and food exports. Trump contends that these controls act as de facto trade barriers to the EU.

For his part, Sefcovic recently told the Financial Times that he wants to slash the US-EU trade deficit by buying more US gas, weapons and agricultural products.

In addition, the bloc is reportedly open to reducing its dependence on Chinese exports and on erecting tariffs against subsidised Chinese exports, which Trump is keen on.

Sefcovic and his US counterpart, Jamieson Greer, are scheduled to meet in Paris next month to discuss ways of de-escalating the ongoing US-EU trade dispute.

How badly would Trump’s tariffs affect both economies?

In 2024, the EU exported 531.6 billion euros ($603bn) in goods to the US and imported products worth 333 billion euros ($377.8bn), resulting in a trade surplus of almost 200 billion euros ($227bn).

On the flip side, the US runs a surplus of more than 109 billion euros ($124bn) in services as of 2023, with notable IT exports, led by large American tech companies, charges for intellectual property and financial services.

Trump’s tariffs would, in turn, hit both economies hard. According to a 2019 study by the International Monetary Fund, a full-scale US-EU trade war could cost 0.3-to-0.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on both sides.

London, United Kingdom — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has proudly described a new deal with the European Union spanning defence, security, and trade as a “win-win” pact that puts the nation “back on the world stage”.

But nine years after Britain narrowly voted in favour of leaving the EU, the deal announced on May 19 has prompted a sigh of relief for some and stinging criticism from others, underscoring just how divisive the legacy of Brexit remains in the country.

While many sections of British society have welcomed the agreement, Richard Tice, an MP for the anti-immigration party Reform UK, responded to the deal with a single-word post on social media: “Betrayal.”

The deal offers concessions on European visas for British citizens, shorter queues at European airports, and possibly cheaper food in the UK. But on the flip side, the UK has agreed to allow European fishing fleets access to British waters for an extra 12 years.

‘Best news in nine years’

Phil Rusted, who runs a firm called Practical Plants in Suffolk that imports plants from Europe, is among those who are delighted.

“My instinct is it is the best news we have got in nine years,” he said. “It almost gets us back to where were before Brexit. It helps me to take on more staff, to develop my business. The last few years have been very unpredictable; I will be more assured about what my costs are going to be.”

The business sector, more broadly, has also largely responded positively to the agreement.

“In a world where higher US tariffs are threatening to throw globalisation into reverse, trade deals, even if relatively minor, are generally good news,” said Philip Shaw, chief economist at Investec Bank. “The obvious gainer is the food sector, which will benefit from a reduction in checks at the EU border, which could make a material difference to exporters’ and importers’ costs.”

The Federation of Small Businesses, a group that represents small- and medium-sized firms in the UK, described the EU deal as “genuine progress”, crediting it for “untangling the rules for small exporters of plant and animal products”.

“For too long, small businesses have shouldered the burden of unpredictable customs rules and red tape that sap confidence and ambition,” it said.

And popular opinion in the UK appears to be behind the agreement. Polling by YouGov shows that 66 percent want to have a closer relationship with the EU, compared with just 14 percent who do not.

To be sure, experts say the UK has to compromise too. “The devil in a trade deal is of course always in the detail,” said Paul Dales, chief economist at Capital Economics. In addition to accepting EU access to British waters for fishing, the UK has also agreed to pay an unspecified “appropriate financial contribution” to join the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, Dales pointed out.

‘Nothing of value in return’

But the deal has also faced strong pushback.

The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, in a statement on May 19, said the agreement “surrenders the best prospect that the fishing industry and coastal communities had for growth over the coming decade”.

Three days later, it issued a more biting statement, saying the deal “drags UK fishing back into a past we thought had been left behind”.

Shaw conceded that if the food industry had benefitted from the deal, the fishing sector stood “at the other end of the scale”.

And it is not just fishers. The deal has also revived a broader debate over whether the UK, in seeking to realign itself with elements of the EU’s rules and regulations, is violating the mandate of Brexit.

Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, under whom Britain formally withdrew from the EU in 2020, described the deal as an “appalling sell out” in a post on X.

Tony Gabana, a web developer from London who was too young to vote in 2016, holds that view.

“Whether it’s a good deal or not, it does seem an attempt to reverse what a lot of people voted for,” Gabana said. “It doesn’t sit right with me. It feels like a step to further concessions, which, again, no one voted for.

“Are we a democracy or not?”

Former Dodgers utilityman Chris Taylor signed a one-year, major league minimum contract with the Angels on Monday.

Taylor will start in center field against the New York Yankees on Monday and bat eighth.

Angels prospect Kyren Paris, who was struggling at the plate in recent weeks — hitting just .190 — was optioned to triple-A Salt Lake City to make room for Taylor on the roster.

“He’s been through the wars,” Angels manager Ron Washington said of Taylor, adding that the Angels plan to use him in the outfield and the infield. “He’s a good piece for those young guys to talk to about how to handle a grind. He’s been in a grind over there with L.A., every day, winning, and we want that.”

Released by the Dodgers in the final year of his four-year, $60-million contract last week, Taylor was hitting .200 with seven hits in 35 at-bats before entering free agency.

A career .250 hitter and a one-time All-Star, the 34-year-old Taylor has experience playing in the infield and all three outfield positions, adding versatility and depth to an Angels team waiting for outfielder Mike Trout’s return from the injured list (knee). Angels closer Kenley Jansen, who played alongside Taylor on the Dodgers from 2016 to 2021, learned of Taylor’s signing while on his way to Angel Stadium.

“It’s nice to have him back,” said Jansen, who said he spoke to Angels general manager Perry Minasian about Taylor on Sunday. “I think once he gets more playing time here, I think, you know, it’s going to be great for the organization and help us win ball games.”

When asked about Taylor’s release Wednesday, Dodgers manager Dave Roberts said his former longest-tenured position player was looking for an opportunity to play more often rather than accepting a demotion to triple-A.

“He wanted an opportunity, if it wasn’t going to be here to play more, to play somewhere else,” Roberts said. “So that’s kind of the thought behind how it played out, and I respect him for betting on himself and hopefully get an opportunity to play more somewhere else.”

May 26 (UPI) — Dozens of Palestinians were killed overnight by further Israeli air strikes on the war-torn enclave amid a breakdown in a new cease-fire agreement.

An estimated 54 Palestinians sheltering at Fahmi Al-Jargawi School in Gaza City have been killed by airstrikes carried out by the Israeli Defense Forces, the BBC reported Monday.

The scores of dead refugees included children from Beit Lahia after fires were seen engulfing two classrooms fixed as living quarters in the school, which was housing hundreds of people, according to the Hamas-run civil defense authority.

At least 35 were reported to be killed when the school was hit.

Video footage depicted fire engulfing parts of the school and graphic images of severely burned victims, including kids.

On Monday morning, the IDF said it hit 200 “terrorist organizations” across the Gaza Strip in 28 hours as military ops carried on.

The IDF claimed it targeted a “Hamas and Islamic Jihad command and control center” in an area used by “terrorists” to presumably “plan” attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF troops, accusing Hamas of using the Gaza population “as human shields.”

Meanwhile, a senior Hamas official told the BBC that the terror syndicate agreed to the latest cease-fire deal.

The proposal permitted the release in two phases of 10 Israel hostages in exchange for a 70-day truce, a gradual withdrawal of IDF troops out of the territory and release of an undetermined number of Palestinian prisoners.

Hamas further demanded the entrance of 1,000 humanitarian aid trucks a day to aid the ailing population in Gaza.

However, a senior Israeli official said Monday that it had rejected the cease-fire proposal after reports that Israel had agreed to it in principle.

“The proposal received by Israel cannot be accepted by any responsible government,” the official told The Times of Israel without providing further detail, claiming that Hamas was setting “impossible conditions that mean a complete failure to meet the war goals, and an inability to release the hostages.”

On Sunday, IDF officials claimed that since its war began, Israel has “facilitated” the entry of over 1.7 million tons of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

On Monday, Israel’s Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories office — a unit of its Ministry of Defense — claimed that 107 humanitarian aid trucks transporting flour and food were transferred into Gaza “following inspection” via the Kerem Shalom Crossing.

But according to international human rights organizations, Gaza is at a “breaking point” while the United Nations-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification has warned of imminent famine on top of reputable accusations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians.

Nearly 54,000 people, including at least 16,000 children, have been killed in Gaza since Israel began its invasion, according to the territory’s health ministry.

With a battered economy and a restless population, Iran is as desperate as the United States to come together, Johns Hopkins University Professor Vali Nasr argues.

Nasr told host Steve Clemons that US President Donald Trump’s administration is eager to reach an arms control deal with Iran, and Iran is eager to grow economically. “Both of them have arrived, after 40 some years, at a juncture where they need to change the direction of their relationship,” Nasr said.

Join the conversation on Nasr’s latest book, Iran’s Grand Strategy: A Political History, which explains how Iran’s anti-Americanism “is not ideological or theological”.

May 23 (UPI) — The American RedBird Capital Partners private investment firm announced a deal Friday to purchase the British Telegraph Media Group.

RedBird will pay $675 million to become the sole owner of the group, which owns The Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers.

“This transaction marks the start of a new era for The Telegraph as we look to grow the brand in the U.K. and internationally, invest in its technology and expand its subscriber base,” RedBird Founder and Managing Partner Gerry Cardinale said.

RedBird said it aims to expand TMG’s presence in the United States and add new verticals such as events and travel to “maximize the commercial opportunities from a growing international and mass affluent subscriber base.”

“Telegraph Media Group is an award-winning news media organization, with exceptional journalism at its heart, supported by leading commercial expertise, a commitment to innovation and a laser focus on data to drive strategy,” TMG CEO Anna Jones said. “RedBird Capital Partners have exciting growth plans that build on our success — and will unlock our full potential across the breadth of our business.

RedBird’s deal to purchase TMG must still undergo regulatory approval after a previous bid by United Arab Emirates Vice President Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan was rejected by Britain’s last government.

RedBird previously joined with Mansour’s IMI Media Group to purchase the newspapers after they were seized for outstanding debts, seekign to curtail an auction of the assets by the Barclay family.

The government, however, rejected the deal that would have seen IMI take majority ownership of the papers and passed a law barring foreign governments from owning British print media.

If approved, TMG would join other acquisitions of Redbird, which include Skydance Media, which is expected to merge with Paramount, as well as sports-focused broadcasters such as Fenway Sports Group and the YES Network, plus Formula One’s Alpine Racing team. It also owns the Italian professional football club AC Milan.

Investors interpreted Trump’s comments to mean Nippon Steel had received his approval for its takeover of US Steel.

United States President Donald Trump has expressed support for Nippon Steel’s $14.9bn bid for US Steel, saying their “planned partnership” would create jobs and help the US economy.

Shares of US Steel soared 21 percent on Friday after Trump’s comments as investors interpreted the president’s post on Truth Social to mean Nippon Steel had received his approval for its long-planned takeover, the last major hurdle for the deal.

“This will be a planned partnership between United States Steel and Nippon Steel, which will create at least 70,000 jobs, and add $14 Billion Dollars to the US Economy,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Friday.

This week, the Reuters news agency reported that Nippon Steel has said if the merger is approved, it would invest $14bn into US Steel’s operations, including up to $4bn in a new steel mill.

Trump added that the bulk of that investment would occur in the next 14 months and said he would hold a rally at US Steel in Pittsburgh next Friday.

Nippon Steel said it applauded Trump’s decision to approve the “partnership”. The White House did not immediately reply to questions about the announcement.

US Steel share price kept rising after hours and reached $54, just shy of Nippon Steel’s $55-per-share offer price made in late 2023. While no details were released, investors expressed confidence that terms will be similar to those agreed in 2023. Investors said that eventually US Steel will no longer be publicly traded and they will receive a cash payout for their shares.

Politically controversial

The deal has been one of the most highly anticipated on Wall Street after it morphed into the political arena with fears that foreign ownership would mean job losses in Pennsylvania, where US Steel is based. It factored into last year’s election that saw Trump return to the White House.

Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick, who also called the deal a “partnership”, on Friday said it was a “huge victory for America and the US Steel Corporation”, that will protect more than 11,000 Pennsylvania jobs and support the creation of at least 14,000 more.

The last pieces of the deal came together surprisingly fast. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS), which reviews deals for national security risks, told the White House this week that the security risks can be addressed, Reuters reported, moving the final decision to Trump’s desk.

Following an earlier CFIUS-led review, former President Joe Biden blocked the deal in January on national security grounds.

The companies sued, arguing they did not receive a fair review process. The Biden White House rejected that view.

The companies argued Biden opposed the deal when he was running for re-election to win support from the United Steelworkers union in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. The Biden administration had defended the review as essential to protecting security, infrastructure and supply chains.

Trump also initially opposed the deal, arguing the company must be owned and operated in the US.

The United Steelworkers were against the deal as recently as Thursday when they urged Trump to block the deal despite the $14bn investment pledge from Trump.

For investors, including prominent hedge funds, the news spells relief after more than a year of waiting for a resolution. “There were huge high-fives all around today,” one recent investor said, adding, “We understood Donald Trump’s psyche and we played it to our advantage here.”

Investors said Trump appears to have won ground after the pledge for new investments was increased.

“This deal ensures that steelmaking will live on in Pittsburgh for generations,” another investor said.

The DOJ is expected to have a written agreement with Boeing in place by the end of next week.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has struck a deal in principle with Boeing to allow it to avoid prosecution in a fraud case stemming from two fatal 737 MAX plane crashes that killed 346 people, a harsh blow to the families of the victims.

Boeing will pay more than $1.1bn, including the fine and compensation to families, and more than $455m to strengthen the company’s compliance, safety, and quality programmes, the DOJ said on Friday.

The aircraft maker also agreed to pay an additional $444.5m into a crash victims’ fund that would be divided evenly per crash victim on top of an additional $243.6m fine.

“Boeing must continue to improve the effectiveness of its anti-fraud compliance and ethics program and retain an independent compliance consultant,” the DOJ said on Friday. “We are confident that this resolution is the most just outcome with practical benefits.”

The agreement allows Boeing to avoid being branded a convicted felon and is a blow to families who lost relatives in the crashes and had pressed prosecutors to take the US planemaker to trial. A lawyer for family members and two US senators had urged the DOJ not to abandon its prosecution, but the government quickly rejected the requests.

The DOJ expects to file the written agreement with Boeing by the end of next week. Boeing will no longer face oversight by an independent monitor under the agreement.

Boeing did not immediately comment.

No more guilty plea

Boeing had reached a tentative non-prosecution agreement with the government on May 16, as first reported by the news agency Reuters.

The agreement would forestall a June 23 trial date the planemaker faces on a charge it misled US regulators about a crucial flight control system on the 737 MAX, its best-selling jet.

Boeing in July had agreed to plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge after the two fatal 737 MAX crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia spanning 2018 and 2019, pay a fine of up to $487.2m and face three years of independent oversight.

Boeing no longer will plead guilty, prosecutors told family members of crash victims during a meeting last week.

The company’s posture changed after a judge rejected a previous plea agreement in December, prosecutors told the family members.

Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas said in 2023 that “Boeing’s crime may properly be considered the deadliest corporate crime in US history.”

Boeing has faced enhanced scrutiny from the Federal Aviation Administration since January 2024, when a new MAX 9 missing four key bolts suffered a mid-air emergency losing a door plug. The FAA has capped production at 38 planes per month.

DOJ officials last year found Boeing had violated a 2021 agreement, reached during the first Trump administration’s final days, that had shielded the planemaker from prosecution for the crashes.

That conclusion followed the January 2024 in-flight emergency during an Alaska Airlines’ flight. As a result, DOJ officials decided to reopen the 2018-19 fatal crashes case and negotiate a plea agreement with Boeing.

A former senior member of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ staff has struck a plea deal with federal prosecutors, admitting he called in a fake bomb threat to City Hall late last year that was blamed on anti-Israel sentiment, federal prosecutors announced on Thursday.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, Brian Williams, a longtime law enforcement oversight official who served as Bass’ deputy mayor of public safety, agreed to plead guilty to a single count of threats regarding fire and explosives, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years. He is expected to make his initial court appearance in the next few weeks.

“In an era of heated political rhetoric that has sometimes escalated into violence, we cannot allow public officials to make bomb threats,” U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli said in a news release announcing the deal. “My office will continue its efforts to keep the public safe, including from those who violate their duty to uphold the law.”

In a statement to The Times, Williams’ lawyer Dmitry Gorin said his client “has demonstrated his unreserved and full acceptance of responsibility for his actions.”

“This aberrational incident was the product of personal issues which Mr. Williams is addressing appropriately, and is not representative of his character or dedication to the city of Los Angeles,” Gorin said.

Williams was participating in a virtual meeting at City Hall on Oct. 3, 2024, when he used the Google Voice application on his personal phone to place a call to his city-issued cell phone, according to the plea agreement.

Williams admitted he left the meeting and called Scott Harrelson, a top aide to the LAPD chief. According to the plea, Williams falsely stated that he had just received a call on his city-issued cell phone from an unknown male caller who made a bomb threat against City Hall.

At no time did Williams intend to carry out the threat, according to the plea agreement.

About 10 minutes after calling the LAPD, according to the plea, Williams texted Bass and several other senior mayoral officials a message that read: “Bomb threat: I received phone call on my city cell at 10:48 am this morning. The male caller stated that ‘he was tired of the city support of Israel, and he has decided to place a bomb in City Hall. It might be in the rotunda.’ I immediately contacted the chief of staff of LAPD, they are going to send a number of officers over to do a search of the building and to determine if anyone else received a threat.”

Soon after, LAPD officers searched the building and did not locate any suspicious packages or devices, according to the agreement. Williams told the officers that a man called and said: “I’m tired of the city support of Israel, I have decided to place a bomb in City Hall. It might be in the Rotunda.”

Williams showed the officers the record of an incoming call, which appeared as a blocked number on his city-issued phone. According to the plea deal, that call was the one Williams had placed from Google Voice.

Williams followed up with the mayor and other high-ranking officials some time later with several other texts, saying that there was no need to evacuate City Hall.

“I’m meeting with the threat management officers within the next 10 minutes. In light of the Jewish holidays, we are taking this thread, a little more seriously. I will keep you posted,” the text read, according to federal authorities.

Federal authorities revealed they were looking into Williams last December, when FBI agents raided his home in Pasadena. It sent shock waves through City Hall and the Police Department, where many expressed incredulity at the prospect of a respected government official faking a bomb threat.

Before the case was turned over to the FBI, detectives from the LAPD’s Major Crimes Division conducted surveillance that led them to conclude that Williams was responsible for the bomb threat, sources previously told The Times.

Williams, who was the deputy mayor overseeing the police and fire departments, was on leave because of the criminal investigation in January when Pacific Palisades was engulfed in flames, killing 12 people and destroying more than 6,000 structures.

“Like many, we were shocked when these allegations were first made and we are saddened by this conclusion,” said Zach Seidl, a spokesperson for Bass.

Bass named a former FBI official to replace Williams in early April. The official, Robert Clark, led anti-gang efforts in Los Angeles during his time with the Bureau before retiring in 2016 and serving as a law enforcement consultant and director of public safety for the city of Columbus, Ohio, among other roles.

Williams has held a variety of government positions spanning more than three decades. He had spent nearly two years as a deputy mayor in Bass’ office, working on issues such as police hiring, public safety spending and the search for a new police chief.

Previously, Williams was a deputy mayor in the administration of Mayor James K. Hahn, who held office from 2001 to 2005. Before that, he spent several years as an assistant city attorney in Los Angeles.

From 2016 to 2023, Williams was the executive director of the Sheriff’s Civilian Oversight Commission, according to his LinkedIn page.

Working in Bass’ office, Williams oversaw the Police Department, the Fire Department, Port Police, Airport Police and the city’s emergency management agency, according to his hiring announcement. He was also a member of the mayor’s inner circle, playing a key role in the monthslong search for a new police chief that ended with the hiring of Jim McDonnell.

When Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman was sworn in last year, Williams was the city official chosen to address the audience on behalf of the mayor. He was also a fixture at police graduations, news conferences, community meetings and other events across the city, often wearing a well-pressed suit and a bowtie.

Williams’ attorney Gorin called his client “a career public servant who has worked closely with law enforcement, community groups, public safety and prosecuting agencies throughout his many years in local government and has devoted his life to the service of others.”

Akil Davis, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office, said in a statement that Williams “not only betrayed the residents of Los Angeles, but responding officers, and the integrity of the office itself, by fabricating a bomb threat.”

“Government officials are held to a heightened standard as we rely on them to safeguard the city,” the statement read. “I’m relieved that Mr. Williams has taken responsibility for his inexplicable actions.”

WASHINGTON — How can Congress cut Medicaid without explicitly cutting Medicaid?

That has been a years-long dilemma facing fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party who have sought cuts to the country’s deficit-driving social safety net programs, including Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare, without generating political fallout from the tens of millions of Americans who will suffer the consequences.

Now, GOP lawmakers have settled on a strategy, outlined in legislation expected to pass the House in the coming days amid ongoing negotiations over the package that President Trump is calling his “Big Beautiful Bill.”

Rather than lowering the income eligibility limit for coverage — an old policy proposal that would cut off Americans at the higher end of the eligibility range — Trump’s bill will instead require applicants to provide proof of their work hours and apply for specific exceptions, creating new barriers for individuals to maintain insurance.

House passage of the bill is far from assured, and the Senate will still have its say. But if it does become law, the policy would affect more than 71 million of the poorest Americans, more of whom live in California than any other state.

Barriers to entry are the point

If everyone eligible under the new work requirements were to apply for and receive Medicaid coverage, the cost savings to the government would be minimal. But the barriers themselves are the point, making it more likely that people with a right to Medicaid won’t ultimately receive it, experts said.

“If you want to make a substantial cut to the program, how do you do that in a systematic way?” said Matt Bruenig, founder of People’s Policy Project and a former lawyer at the National Labor Relations Board.

“With the work requirements, the number of people who seem to be actually ineligible because of it is quite small — so if it actually is perfectly administrated, you’re not going to see a whole lot of savings,” Bruenig said. “But if it’s not well administrated and it creates all these problems, then you could see significant savings.”

Existing government programs, such as Social Security, unemployment and supplemental nutrition assistance for women, infants and children, determine eligibility for those benefits based on an individual’s income. But creating a new set of criteria for Medicaid based on hours worked will require a new reporting system that is not outlined in the bill.

“We have all these systems that are based around making sure people have the earnings that they can report to all these agencies, but you don’t really report hours in any context,” Bruenig added. “Monthly hours — that’s just not a thing. And it’s not clear how that’s going to work, at all.”

Who counts as ‘waste, fraud and abuse’?

Trump and members of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of Republican fiscal hawks, have argued for a strict hourly work requirement to eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse” in Medicaid by cutting off unproductive individuals from government benefits.

But exemptions suggested in the draft legislation — parents caring for young children or elderly parents, individuals dealing with health issues, those between jobs — reflect the range of reasons why Medicaid recipients may fall below the proposed hourly requirement. And each time an exception arises, individuals will have to refile, increasing the likelihood they will simply let their coverage lapse.

It also will force working individuals who would otherwise be eligible — such as Americans working gig jobs for DoorDash or Uber, for example — to account for hours worked transiting between jobs that don’t generate receipts.

“They just are not finding very much at all,” said John Schmitt, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, when asked whether ineligible individuals are routinely receiving Medicaid.

“The real problems are not with individuals taking advantage of Medicaid,” Schmitt added. “It is with healthcare providers taking advantage of Medicaid, in the sense of the way they bill and provide services to people. And that is not going to be changed in any way, whatsoever, by imposing a work requirement.”

The Congressional Budget Office said it is these Medicaid recipients who will either fall behind or grow fed up with the paperwork, resulting in 7.6 million losing coverage under the plan and saving the federal government roughly $800 billion.

California will be hit hardest

The effects of Medicaid cuts will be felt nationwide, but most pointedly in states that expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act. On that score, Democratic states such as California lead the way.

A state assessment published Sunday found the GOP bill would “cause serious harm to California’s health care system,” possibly resulting in up to 3.4 million residents losing coverage.

No state has more workers on Medicaid than California, where 18% of its workforce receives benefits from the program, according to a study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

“Millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “We must sound the alarm because the stakes couldn’t be higher.”

But the political stakes are high for Republicans as well.

Stephen K. Bannon, a former campaign aide and White House strategist to Trump, warned in recent days that the party has “gotta be careful” with Medicaid, given its widespread use among low-income GOP voters.

“A lot of MAGAs are on Medicaid, I’m telling you,” Bannon said on his podcast. “If you don’t think so, you are dead wrong.”

Trump, for his part, seems of two minds on the matter. Cuts to Medicaid, as well as to food stamp programs and green energy tax benefits, will be required to get the bill passed with support from the Freedom Caucus, which says the renewal of tax cuts initially passed in the first Trump administration must be offset with savings elsewhere.

“Here’s what I want on Medicaid: We’re not touching anything,” Trump said Tuesday, taking questions from reporters on Capitol Hill. “All I want is one thing. Three words. We don’t want any waste, fraud or abuse. Very simple — waste, fraud, abuse.”

But in a private meeting with GOP lawmakers, his guidance was sharper. “Don’t f— around with Medicaid,” the president reportedly said.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: White House pushes for quick approval of ‘big, beautiful bill,’ but key hurdles remain
The deep dive: Villaraigosa blasts Harris and Becerra for not speaking out about Biden’s decline
The L.A. Times Special: Congressional leaders call for streamlined visa process ahead of World Cup, L.A. Olympics

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Decision comes after two British nationals born on Diego Garcia, the largest island in the archipelago, claimed the islands should remain under UK control. 

A British High Court judge has temporarily blocked the government from transferring sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

The last-minute injunction on Thursday morning came hours before the agreement was expected to be signed at a virtual ceremony with representatives from the Mauritian government.

The High Court decision was granted after action was taken by Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, two British nationals who were born at the Diego Garcia military base on Chagos and claimed that the islands should remain under British control.

High Court judge Julian Goose temporarily blocked the British government from taking any “conclusive or legally binding step to conclude its negotiations concerning the possible transfer of the British Indian Ocean Territory, also known as the Chagos Archipelago, to a foreign government”.

“The defendant is to maintain the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom over the British Indian Ocean Territory until further order,” he said.

Another court hearing is set for 10.30am (09:30 GMT).

Earlier this year, the lawyer for the two nationals, Michael Polak, said on his chambers website that the government’s attempt to “give away” the islands without formal consultation with its residents is a “continuation of their terrible treatment by the authorities in the past”.

“They remain the people with the closest connection to the islands, but their needs and wishes are being ignored,” Polak said.

The UK, which has controlled the region since 1814, separated the Chagos Islands in 1965 from Mauritius to create the British Indian Ocean Territory.

In the early 1970s, the government evicted about 1,500 residents to Mauritius and Seychelles to make way for the Diego Garcia airbase on the largest island.

In October, the government announced a draft agreement to hand the islands to Mauritius and allow Britain and the United States to continue using the Diego Garcia base under a 99-year lease.

US President Donald Trump’s administration, which was consulted on the deal, gave its approval. However, finalising the agreement was delayed by a change in government in Mauritius and reported last-minute negotiations over costs.

Bell will return to Waratahs after his sabbatical, with his contract running through to the end of 2027.

Waratahs head coach Dan McKellar said the club were “supportive” of his decision to join Ulster to continue his “personal growth”.

“He’s a young man, who came straight out of school into the Waratahs system, and we think the time at Ulster will be good for his development on and off the field, which ultimately will help the Waratahs long term,” he said.

Bell’s arrival later this year will continue the trend of southern-hemisphere players joining Irish provinces on short-term deals.

New Zealand international Jordie Barrett is nearing the end of his stint with Leinster having joined in December, with his All Blacks team-mate Rieko Ioane set to arrive at the end of 2025.

The announcement of Bell’s short-term deal comes on the same day Ulster confirmed the departure of New Zealand-born fly-half Aidan Morgan by “mutual consent”.

Ulster have already signed South African back row Juarno Augustus from Northampton Saints before next season, while loose-head Andy Warwick was among several departures at the end of the 2024-25 campaign.

The province pulled off a major coup in 2022 when they landed South Africa’s World Cup-winning loose-head Steven Kitshoff, but he left after just one season.

Murphy’s side are hoping to bounce back after a miserable season in which they missed out on the United Rugby Championship (URC) play-offs and qualification for next season’s Investec Champions Cup.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a “landmark deal” with the EU that lays the ground for closer collaboration with the bloc.

Nearly nine years after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, the new agreement includes a new security and defence pact, fewer restrictions on British food exporters and visitors, and a controversial new fishing agreement.

Britain said the reset with its biggest trading partner would reduce red tape for agricultural producers, making food cheaper. The deal would also improve energy security and, by 2040, add nearly 9 billion pounds ($12.1bn) to the economy.

While Starmer sold the deal as a “win-win”, attacks immediately emerged from the opposition Conservative Party, which said the deal would make the UK a “rule-taker” from Brussels.

Nigel Farage, head of the hard-right, pro-Brexit Reform UK party, called the deal an “abject surrender”.

What are the terms of the deal?

As part of Monday’s defence-and-security agreement, the UK and the EU will work more closely on information sharing, maritime issues and cybersecurity.

Crucially for Britain, the bloc committed to exploring ways for the UK to access EU procurement defence funds.

British weapons manufacturers can now take part in a 150-billion-euro ($169bn) programme to rearm Europe – part of United States President Donald Trump’s push for Brussels to spend more on defence.

Meanwhile, both sides have agreed to work on a joint agrifood agreement to remove Brexit-era trade barriers like safety checks on animals, paperwork and bans on certain products.

In 2023, UK food and drink exports to the EU were worth 14 billion pounds ($18.7bn), accounting for 57 percent of all the sector’s overseas sales. Monday’s agreement should raise that.

In exchange, the UK will need to follow EU food standards – a system known as “dynamic alignment” – and accept the European Court of Justice’s oversight in this area.

There have been talks on linking up the UK and EU’s carbon markets (i.e., a tradable price on CO2 emission) and on a joint electricity market.

The deal also paves the way for the UK’s return to the Erasmus student exchange programme, as well as granting young people access to the EU through work and travel.

In a symbolic gesture to please tourists, Britons will be allowed to use border e-gates at most EU airports, reducing queues at passport controls.

Finally, the UK will grant EU fishers access to British waters for an additional 12 years, an eleventh-hour concession from the UK – three times longer than it had originally offered.

Does this amount to backtracking on Brexit?

Critics from the Conservative Party and Reform UK quickly denounced the deal as a betrayal of Brexit, arguing that the price of the trade agreement was excessive.

The fisheries deal drew fierce disapproval, with opposition politicians saying it meant handing over Britain’s fishing waters to European fishers for an extra decade.

Fishing is a key issue in the UK, despite making up just 0.04 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). And Starmer’s deal appears to have reignited tensions last seen during Brexit negotiations.

Offering “12 years access to British waters is three times longer than the govt wanted,” Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch wrote on X. “We’re becoming a rule-taker from Brussels once again.”

Reform’s leader, Farage, told Bloomberg that Starmer’s deal on fisheries “will be the end of the industry”. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation called it a “horror show”.

Elsewhere, there were complaints about Britain having to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice on agrifood policies.

For their part, the Conservatives vowed to reverse all these changes if they got back into power.

Still, Starmer stuck firmly to his election promise of not re-joining the European single market (in which goods and people can move freely) or the customs union (which eliminates tariffs on goods traded between EU countries).

What were the costs of Brexit?

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the Ministry of Finance’s independent forecaster, the UK’s decision to leave the EU will shrink trade flows by 15 percent.

The OBR also that calculated Brexit will lower GDP by 4 percent over the long term. That’s the equivalent of costing the economy 100 billion pounds ($134bn) per year.

For starters, Brexit involved erecting significant trade barriers with Europe. In 2024, UK goods exports to the EU were 18 percent below their 2019 level, in real terms.

The decision to leave the EU also triggered business uncertainty. Lacking clarity over the UK’s future economic relationship with the EU, business investment softened.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimates that business investment was 13 percent lower in 2023 than under a remain scenario.

Brexiteers promised that leaving the EU would allow Westminster to sign global free trade agreements and break away from the EU’s demanding regulatory regime.

“The argument was that doing business at home and abroad would be simplified,” says Gaurav Ganguly, head of EMEA Economic Research at Moody’s Analytics.

“And while the UK has signed several trade deals since 2020, Brexit has not unleashed the potential that was talked about [by its advocates].”

In recent weeks, the UK has signed up to trade agreements with India and the US. But Britain’s average GDP growth was just 0.64 percent between 2020 and 2024.

Elsewhere, public support for Brexit has fallen since the 52-48 percent leave vote in the 2016 referendum.

Earlier this year, polling by YouGov found only 30 percent of Britons now think it was right for the UK to vote to leave the EU, versus 55 percent who say it was wrong.

Roughly 60 percent of people believe Brexit has gone badly, including one-third of leave voters. A majority also believe that leaving the EU has damaged Britain’s economy.

Are the economic benefits from the new agreement?

Ever since last year’s election, the Labour government has pledged to improve Britain’s anaemic levels of growth. It sees lower trade barriers with the EU as crucial to that goal.

Acknowledging the damage inflicted to Britain’s trade by Brexit, Starmer said the deal to remove restrictions on food would give 9 billion pounds ($12bn) boost to the UK economy by 2040.

In a government briefing, Downing Street said it would redress the 21 percent drop in exports and 7 percent drop in imports seen since Brexit.

That said, 9 billion pounds ($12bn) would amount to just 0.2 percent of the UK’s national output. As such, this week’s agreement deal has dismantled only a fraction of the trade barriers erected post-Brexit.

“Yesterday’s deal may lift growth,” Ganguly told Al Jazeera. “But the UK economy continues to struggle from structural weaknesses, including low productivity and limited fiscal space.”

The Centre for European Reform, a London-based think tank, recently calculated that the UK-EU reset would boost Britain’s GDP by between 0.3 percent and 0.7 percent.

Ganguly said he is “not inclined to change my forecast in the short term”, adding “In addition, it’s clear that yesterday’s agreements won’t completely reverse the economic hit from Brexit.”

The upshot is that Ganguly expects modest GDP growth of around 1-2 percent between now and the next election cycle, in 2029.

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy slammed the Israeli government for expanding its war on Gaza, calling comments made by its government as ‘repellent’ and ‘monstrous’. The UK also said it was pausing free trade negotiations with Israel.

A South L.A. recycling plant that has been accused of spewing toxic waste and metal projectiles onto the grounds of Jordan High School will be permanently shut down, according to a plea deal agreed to by the plant’s owners in court Tuesday.

Matthew and Gary Weisenberg — the owners of S&W Atlas Iron & Metal, one of the city’s oldest metal recycling facilities — each pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of unlawful disposal of hazardous waste and public nuisance. The corporation pleaded no contest to five felony counts of failing to properly dispose of hazardous waste.

In addition to shutting down, the company and its owners will pay around $150,000 in fines. They will also owe $1 million in restitution to the Los Angeles Unified School District and an additional $850,000 to the district attorney’s office, which will be split between government agencies and Watts community organizations.

The father and son will serve 200 hours of community service and two years of probation. They must also cease recycling material processing facility operations. The Weisenbergs maintain the right to operate a business on the parcel of land they own, but it cannot involve metal processing or recycling, according to the terms laid out in court.

The school district and city will have the right of first refusal to buy the parcel if the Weisenbergs ever look to sell their land.

L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman was in the courtroom Tuesday morning and held a news conference at Jordan High School later in the afternoon. He used the opportunity to warn “environmental criminals,” saying, “pay heed and notice to what is going on today.”

“They are polluting the land, the sea, the rivers and the air,” said Hochman. “Very often, environmental criminals think they will pay a fine here and there — that’s business. But they are putting their feet to the fire today.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. Benjamin Wright, who worked on the case, said outside the courtroom, “We are very pleased with the plea deal. The facility has been operating for so long. There have been so many instances of shrapnel flying onto school property. It’s very dangerous for the students, let alone all the hazardous waste.”

The Weisenbergs’ attorneys, Benjamin Gluck and Vicki Podberesky, had previously denied all wrongdoing by their clients.

“While it is with sadness that Atlas has agreed to close its recycling operations, this decision reflects the evolving land use along the Alameda Corridor,” wrote Gluck in a statement to The Times. “Our clients hope that the outcome of this case and the financial contributions Atlas is making will help support the Watts community.”

L.A. prosecutors first charged the Weisenbergs with nearly two dozen counts of failing to properly dispose waste in 2023, following years of allegations levied by community activists and school officials that the metal plant was belching poison onto students. Prosecutors alleged the plant exposed students at Jordan High School to several explosions, metal projectiles and lead levels nearly 75 times higher than what federal regulators deem safe.

Pressure on the plant’s owners ramped up last year, after an explosion at Atlas rattled Watts students on the first day of school.

As a result, a judge barred the plant from accepting certain types of canisters that might blow up, warning the Weisenbergs their bail would be revoked if they didn’t comply. In March, an investigation by the state Department of Toxic Substances found containers of acetylene, a highly flammable gas, on the plant’s grounds. L.A. County Superior Court Judge Terry Bork briefly jailed the Weisenbergs and days later order the plant shuttered for failure to comply.

For more than 20 years, community organizers and activists have fought to get the plant shut down.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency previously ordered the company to upgrade its system to stop chemicals from washing into storm drains and going onto campus. Prior soil samples reported from the high school also showed high concentrations of lead and zinc.

Holidaymakers with UK passports are facing a major change at airports after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer outlined the terms of the UK’s new ‘EU reset deal’ – and it could come into effect this year

A major change affecting holidaymakers with British passports is set to come into effect. Sir Keir Starmer announced the news as part of what he described as a ‘common sense’ deal with the EU, reached nine years after the UK first voted to leave the European Union.

Starmer described the deal as a “win-win” as he shook hands with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, in London on Monday (May 19). “Britain is back on the world stage,” he declared. “[The deal] gives us unprecedented access to the EU market, the best of any country… all while sticking to the red lines in our manifesto.”

The PM went on to explain the impact of the “new partnership between an independent Britain and our allies in Europe” on voters’ daily lives.

“Let me set out why it is good for Britain,” he said in a speech posted to X.

“Today’s deal will […] help British holidaymakers. We’re confirming that they will be able to use e-gates when they travel to Europe, ending those huge queues at passport control.”

Since Brexit, British passport holders have been considered “visa-exempt third-country nationals” and have generally had to queue for manual checks at border control to have their passport stamped.

Brits were able to use e-gates at a limited number of airports in Spain and Portugal.

However, the EU has now agreed to ease checks on British travellers more universally.

The deal states that “there will be no legal barriers to e-gate use for British nationals travelling to and from European Union.”

When will I be able to use e-gates?

It has not yet been confirmed when the changes will come into effect.

However, the EU plans to launch its new Entry/Exit System (EES) in October 2025, replacing the need for non-EU citizens to have their passports stamped. It is thought that more EU airports will allow UK passengers to use the e-gates after the new system comes into effect.

The system will require travellers to have their fingerprints scanned and a photograph taken so they can be registered to a database. Their data will then be stored for three years.

Those who do not provide a fingerprint scan and photo will be denied entry.

Some EU airports will still require additional checks and Brits may not be able to use e-gates here.

Brits will also still be subject to the ’90-day rule’, whereby eligible non-EU citizens can spend 90 days in any 180-day period in the EU without a visa.

Travel records will be digitised under the new EES to enforce this rule and increase border security.

The ‘landmark deal’ is also expected to “lower food prices at checkouts”, improve UK defence and put “more money in people’s pockets,” according to Starmer. Von der Leyen described it as “a historic moment […] opening a new chapter in our unique relationship.”

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Sanctions were levied during the rule of Bashar al-Assad, who was toppled in December.

European Union countries have given a green light to lifting all economic sanctions on Syria in a bid to help the war-torn country recover after the ouster of Bashar al-Assad, according to diplomats speaking to news agencies.

Ambassadors from the EU’s 27 member states struck a preliminary agreement for the move, which should be formally unveiled by foreign ministers meeting in Brussels later on Tuesday, diplomats said, noting that the final decision is up to ministers.

This follows an announcement by the United States last week that it is lifting sanctions on Damascus.

Reporting from the EU headquarters, Al Jazeera’s Hashem Ahelbarra described the reported agreement to lift the sanctions as a “really significant” development.

“It’s first of all an acknowledgement that the EU recognises the authority which is operating now in Syria, and that there need to be more financial transactions to pave the way for the creation of financial stability and improve the living standards of the people in Syria,” he said.

Sanctions were levied during the rule of al-Assad in 2012 and 2013 and concern the transport, energy and the banking sectors, Ahelbarra said.

The country’s new leadership has urged the West to ease the restrictions to help Syria recover from years of despotic rule and civil war.

EU diplomats told AFP the agreement should see sanctions cutting Syrian banks off from the global system and freezing central bank assets lifted.

But diplomats said the bloc was intending to impose new individual sanctions on those responsible for stirring ethnic tensions, following deadly attacks targeting the Alawite minority.

Other measures targeting the al-Assad regime and prohibiting the sale of weapons or equipment that could be used to repress civilians were set to remain in place.

The latest move from the EU comes after its first step in February, suspending some sanctions on key Syrian economic sectors.

Officials said those measures could be reimposed if Syria’s new leaders break promises to respect the rights of minorities and move towards democracy.

This is a developing story, more to come…