decide

WASHINGTON — The hurried push to revise California’s congressional districts has drawn national attention, large sums of money, and renewed hope among Democrats that the effort may help counter a wave of Republican redistricting initiatives instigated by President Trump.

But if Democrats succeed in California, the question remains: Will it be enough to shift the balance of power in Congress?

To regain control of the House, Democrats need to flip three Republican seats in the midterm elections next year. That slim margin prompted the White House to push Republicans this summer to redraw maps in GOP states in an effort to keep Democrats in the minority.

Texas was the first to signal it would follow Trump’s edict and set off a rare mid-decade redistricting arms race that quickly roped in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom devised Proposition 50 to tap into his state’s massive inventory of congressional seats.

Californians appear poised to approve the measure Tuesday. If they do, Democrats potentially could gain five seats in the House — an outcome that mainly would offset the Republican effort in Texas that already passed.

While Democrats and Republicans in other states also have moved to redraw their maps, it is too soon to say which party will see a net gain, or predict voter sentiment a year from now, when a lopsided election in either direction could render the remapping irrelevant.

GOP leaders in North Carolina and Missouri approved new maps that likely will yield one new GOP seat in each, Ohio Republicans could pick up two more seats in a newly redrawn map approved Friday, and GOP leaders in Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas and Florida are considering or taking steps to redraw their maps. In all, those moves could lead to at least 10 new Republican seats, according to experts tracking the redistricting efforts.

To counter that, Democrats in Virginia passed a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would give lawmakers the power and option to redraw a new map ahead of next year’s election. Illinois leaders are weighing their redistricting options and New York has filed a lawsuit that seeks to redraw a GOP-held district. But concerns over legal challenges already tanked the party’s efforts in Maryland and the potential dilution of the Black vote has slowed moves in Illinois.

So far, the partisan maneuvers appear to favor Republicans.

“Democrats cannot gerrymander their way out of their gerrymandering problem. The math simply doesn’t add up,” said David Daly, a senior fellow at the nonprofit FairVote. “They don’t have enough opportunities or enough targets.”

Complex factors for Democrats

Democrats have more than just political calculus to weigh. In many states they are hampered by a mix of constitutional restrictions, legal deadlines and the reality that many of their state maps no longer can be easily redrawn for partisan gain. In California, Prop. 50 marks a departure from the state’s commitment to independent redistricting.

The hesitancy from Democrats in states such as Maryland and Illinois also underscores the tensions brewing within the party as it tries to maximize its partisan advantage and establish a House majority that could thwart Trump in his last two years in office.

“Despite deeply shared frustrations about the state of our country, mid-cycle redistricting for Maryland presents a reality where the legal risks are too high, the timeline for action is dangerous, the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic, and the certainty of our existing map would be undermined,” Bill Ferguson, the Maryland Senate president, wrote in a letter to state lawmakers last week.

In Illinois, Black Democrats are raising concerns over the plans and pledging to oppose maps that would reduce the share of Black voters in congressional districts where they have historically prevailed.

“I can’t just think about this as a short-term fight. I have to think about the long-term consequences of doing such a thing,” said state Sen. Willie Preston, chair of the Illinois Senate Black Caucus.

Adding to those concerns is the possibility that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority could weaken a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act and limit lawmakers’ ability to consider race when redrawing maps. The outcome — and its effect on the 2026 midterms — will depend heavily on the timing and scope of the court’s decision.

The court has been asked to rule on the case by January, but a decision may come later. Timing is key as many states have filing deadlines for 2026 congressional races or hold their primary election during the spring and summer.

If the court strikes down the provision, known as Section 2, advocacy groups estimate Republicans could pick up at least a dozen House seats across southern states.

“I think all of these things are going to contribute to what legislatures decide to do,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice. The looming court ruling, he added, is “an extra layer of uncertainty in an already uncertain moment.”

Republican-led states press ahead

Support for Prop. 50 has brought in more than $114 million, the backing of some of the party’s biggest luminaries, including former President Obama, and momentum for national Democrats who want to regain control of Congress after the midterms.

In an email to supporters Monday, Newsom said fundraising goals had been met and asked proponents of the effort to get involved in other states.

“I will be asking for you to help others — states like Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and more are all trying to stop Republican mid-decade redistricting efforts. More on that soon,” Newsom wrote.

Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun called a special session set to begin Monday, to “protect Hoosiers from efforts in other states that seek to diminish their voice in Washington and ensure their representation in Congress is fair.”

In Kansas, the GOP president of the state Senate said last week that there were enough signatures from Republicans in the chamber to call a special session to redraw the state’s maps. Republicans in the state House would need to match the effort to move forward.

In Louisiana, Republicans in control of the Legislature voted last week to delay the state’s 2026 primary elections. The move is meant to give lawmakers more time to redraw maps in the case that the Supreme Court rules in the federal voting case.

If the justices strike down the practice of drawing districts based on race, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has indicated the state likely would jump into the mid-decade redistricting race.

Shaniqua McClendon, head of Vote Save America, said the GOP’s broad redistricting push underscores why Democrats should follow California’s lead — even if they dislike the tactic.

“Democrats have to be serious about what’s at stake. I know they don’t like the means, but we have to think about the end,” McClendon said. “We have to be able to take back the House — it’s the only way we’ll be able to hold Trump accountable.”

In New York, a lawsuit filed last week charging that a congressional district disenfranchises Black and Latino voters would be a “Hail Mary” for Democrats hoping to improve their chances in the 2026 midterms there, said Daly, of FairVote.

Utah also could give Democrats an outside opportunity to pick up a seat, said Dave Wasserman, a congressional forecaster for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. A court ruling this summer required Utah Republican leaders to redraw the state’s congressional map, resulting in two districts that Democrats potentially could flip.

Wasserman described the various redistricting efforts as an “arms race … Democrats are using what Republicans have done in Texas as a justification for California, and Republicans are using California as justification for their actions in other states.”

‘Political tribalism’

Some political observers said the outcome of California’s election could inspire still more political maneuvering in other states.

“I think passage of Proposition 50 in California could show other states that voters might support mid-decade redistricting when necessary, when they are under attack,” said Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School where he directs the New York Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute. “I think it would certainly provide impetus in places like New York to move forward.”

Similar to California, New York would need to ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment, but that could not take place in time for the midterms.

“It might also embolden Republican states that have been hesitant to redistrict to say, ‘Well if the voters in California support mid-decade redistricting, maybe they’ll support it here too,’” Wice said.

To Erik Nisbet, the director of the Center for Communications & Public Policy at Northwestern University, the idea that the mid-decade redistricting trend is gaining traction is part of a broader problem.

“It is a symptom of this 20-year trend in increasing polarization and political tribalism,” he said. “And, unfortunately, our tribalism is now breaking out, not only between each other, but it’s breaking out between states.”

He argued that both parties are sacrificing democratic norms and the ideas of procedural fairness as well as a representative democracy for political gain.

“I am worried about what the end result of this will be,” he said.

Ceballos reported from Washington, Mehta from Los Angeles.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide if “habitual drug users” lose their gun rights under the 2nd Amendment.

The Trump administration is defending a federal gun control law dating to 1968 and challenging the rulings of two conservative appeals court that struck down the ban on gun possession by any “unlawful user” of illegal drugs, including marijuana.

Trump’s lawyers say this limit on gun rights comports with early American history when “common drunkards” were prohibited from having guns.

And they argue this “modest, modern” limit make sense because well-armed drug addicts “present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired.”

The government says the ban applies only to addicts and “habitual users of illegal drugs,” not to all those who have used drugs on occasion or in the past.

Under this interpretation, the law “imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction — one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use,” the administration’s attorneys told the court.

The appeal noted that California and 31 other states have laws restricting gun possession by drug users and drug addicts, all of which could be nullified by a broad reading of the 2nd Amendment

The court said it will hear the case of a Texas man and a Pakistani native who came under investigation by the FBI for allegedly working with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

When agents with warrant searched the home of Ali Denali Hemani, they found a Glock pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. He told the agents he used marijuana about every other day.

He was charged with violating the federal gun control law, but the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans ruled this ban on gun possession violates the 2nd Amendment unless the defendant was under the influence of drugs when he was arrested.

The 8th Circuit Court based in St. Louis adopted a similar view that gun ban for drug users is unconstitutional.

The Trump administration asked the justices to hear the case of U.S. vs. Hemani and to reverse the two lower courts. Arguments are likely to be heard in January.

Last year, the justices rejected a gun rights claim in another case from Texas and ruled that a man charged with domestic violence can lose his rights to have firearms.

Historically, people who “threaten physical harm to others” have lost their legal rights to guns, Chief Justice John G. Roberts said in an 8-1 decision.

HEINZ has revealed three new flavours of its iconic beans after letting tens of thousands of Brits have their say.

The saucy creations were selected after the beloved firm received more than 26,000 entries from eager fans.

8

8

8

The latest trio of tinned goods are anything but traditional, featuring inspiration from across the globe.

With more than 1,000 votes, the winning flavour was Pizza Beanz.

The twist on the iconic Italian dish includes beans with rich tomato, creamy cheese and a hint of basil.

Heinz urged its fans to enjoy the latest flavour with the classic accompaniment of garlic bread.

Crossing over to the north of Africa, another flavour which has tongues wagging is Tagine Beanz.

A Moroccan-inspired mix, it is packed with typical flavours including cumin, harissa and cinnamon.

Brits looking to make this into meal have been told to switch out the classic toast for couscous or flatbread.

Also landing on supermarket shelves will be Sweet & Sour Beanz.

For those of us looking for a Chinese takeaway in a can, these beans are packed with zingy, punchy flavour.

The fakeaway can be completed with a decent serving of rice and some crispy chicken.

Shoppers can find these in stores from October 8.

Aside from seeing their flavours come to life, the competition winners took home £5000 and secured a lifetime supply of beans.

Alessandra de Dreuille, Director of Meals & Infant UK at Heinz said: “We love seeing the creativity of our fans.

“The entries from our Beanz of your Dreamz competition show just how much fun mealtimes can be.

“The flavour combinations they’ve dreamed up are inspired by cuisines from all over the world.

“And our three new flavours, chosen by the public, bring the same great taste and quality of Heinz Beanz…

“… proving once again that Beanz really do go with anything.”

The latest flavours will join the popular flavours range, which includes BBQ, Chilli, and Cheesy Beanz.

Heinz has also confirmed the return of fan-favourite Monster Munch flavour mayonnaise.

The limited edition bottles of pickled onion-flavoured sauce has landed in selected stores for the second-year running.

8

8

8

Last month, the beloved brand launched a brand new range of “beans based meals” for the first time in UK supermarkets.

The bean and pulse based meal pouches are available to buy across all Sainsbury’s stores and online with Ocado.

Among the flavours on offer are Chilli Black Beanz, Curry Chickpeaz and Tomato Cannellini Beanz.

Each 250g pouch is made from natural ingredients and provides at least one of your five a day.

Last year, the can connoisseurs teamed up with cheese maker Cathedral City to recreate one of Britain’s favourite combos.

The odd tins featured cheese already mixed into the bean sauce, and they’ll be available in stores from February 21.

Research released by Heinz said Brits eat baked beans more than once a week, with a quarter of Brits eating them more than that.

Two-thirds of baked bean fans like to put cheese on top.

Heinz also sells Beanz Filled Hash Browns and Heinz Beanz Pizza.

The firm previously created a step-by-step guide to making beans on toast — because one in five people have no idea how to do it.

8

8

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide if licensed guns owners have a right to carry their weapons at public places, including parks, beaches and stores.

At issue are laws in California, Hawaii and three other states that generally prohibit carrying guns on private or public property.

Three years ago, Supreme Court ruled that law-abiding gun owners had a 2nd Amendment right to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon when they leave home.

But the justices left open the question of whether states and cities could prohibit the carrying of guns in “sensitive locations,” and if so, where.

In response, California enacted a strict law that forbids gun owners from carrying their firearm in most public or private places that are open to the public unless the owner posted a sign permitting such weapons.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down that provision last year as going too far, but it upheld most of a Hawaii law that restricted the carrying of guns at public places and most private businesses that are open to the public.

Gun-rights advocates appealed to the Supreme Court and urged the justices to rule that such restrictions on carrying concealed weapons violate the 2nd Amendment.

The court agreed to hear the case early next year.

Trump administration lawyers urged the justices to strike down the Hawaii law.

It “functions as a near-complete ban on public carry. A person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot,” said Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

Gun-control advocates said Hawaii had enacted a “common sense law that prohibits carrying firearms on others’ private property open to the public.”

“The 9th Circuit was absolutely right to say it’s constitutional to prohibit guns on private property unless the owner says they want guns there,” said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation, at Everytown Law. “This law respects people’s right to be safe on their own property, and we urge the Supreme Court to uphold it.”

The Supreme Court has scheduled to hear the case in November, lightning fast by its typical standards.

The United States Supreme Court has granted an unusually quick hearing on whether President Donald Trump has the power to impose sweeping tariffs under federal law.

The justices said on Tuesday that they will hear arguments in November, which is lightning fast by the typical standards of the nation’s highest court.

The small businesses and states that challenged the tariffs in court also agreed to the accelerated timetable. They say Trump illegally used emergency powers to set import taxes on goods from almost every country in the world, nearly driving their businesses to bankruptcy.

The justices also agreed to hear a separate challenge to Trump’s tariffs brought by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources.

Two lower courts have found that most of the tariffs were illegally imposed, though a 7-4 appeals court has left them in place for now.

The levies are part of a trade war instigated by Trump since he returned to the presidency in January, which has alienated trading partners, increased volatility in financial markets and driven global economic uncertainty.

Trump has made tariffs a key foreign policy tool, using them to renegotiate trade deals, extract concessions and exert political pressure on countries. Revenue from tariffs totalled $159bn by late August, more than double what it was at the same point a year earlier.

The Trump administration asked the justices to intervene quickly, arguing the law gives him the power to regulate imports and that the country would be on “the brink of economic catastrophe” if the president were barred from exercising unilateral tariff authority.

The case will come before a court that has been reluctant to check Trump’s extraordinary flex of executive power. One big question is whether the justices’ own expansive view of presidential authority allows for Trump’s tariffs without the explicit approval of Congress, which the US Constitution endows with the power to levy tariffs.

Three of the justices on the conservative-majority court were nominated by Trump in his first term.

Impact on trade negotiations

US Solicitor General D John Sauer has argued that the lower court rulings are already impacting those trade negotiations. Treasury might take a hit by having to refund some of the import taxes it has collected, Trump administration officials have said. A ruling against the tariffs could even hamper the nation’s ability to reduce the flow of fentanyl and efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, Sauer argued.

The administration did win over four appeals court judges who found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, lets the president regulate importation during emergencies without explicit limitations. In recent decades, Congress has ceded some tariff authority to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

The case involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency: the tariffs first announced in April and the ones from February on imports from Canada, China and Mexico.

It does not include his levies on foreign steel, aluminium and autos, or the tariffs Trump imposed on China in his first term that were kept by former President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Trump can impose tariffs under other laws, but those have more limitations on the speed and severity with which he could act.

To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.

SACRAMENTO — Ratcheting up the pressure in the escalating national fight over control of Congress, the California Legislature on Thursday approved November special election to ask voters in November to redraw the state’s electoral lines to favor Democrats and thwart President Trump’s far-right policy agenda.

The ballot measure, pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state and national Democratic leaders, is the latest volley in a national political brawl over electoral maps that could alter the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections and the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.

If voters approve the redrawn lines on Nov. 4, Democrats in the Golden State would see the odds tilted further in their favor, while the number of California Republicans in the House could be halved.

Newsom initially said that new electoral districts in California would only take effect if another state redrew its lines before 2031. But after Texas moved toward approving its own maps this week that could give the GOP five more House seats, Democrats stripped the so-called “trigger” language from the amendment — meaning that if voters approve the measure, the new lines would take effect no matter what.

The ballot measure language, which asks California voters to override the power of the independent redistricting commission, was approved by most Democrats in the Assembly and the Senate, where they hold supermajorities.

California lawmakers have the power to place constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot without the approval of the governor. Newsom, however, is expected later Thursday to sign two separate bills that fund the special election and spell out the lines for the new congressional districts.

Democrats’ rush to the ballot marks a sudden departure from California’s 15-year commitment to independent redistricting, often held up as the country’s gold standard. The state’s voters stripped lawmakers of the power to draw lines during the Great Recession and handed that partisan power to a panel of independent citizens whose names are drawn in a lottery.

The change, Democrats said, was forced by an extraordinary change in circumstances: After decades of the United States redrawing congressional lines once a decade, President Trump and his political team have leaned on Republican-led states to redraw their district lines before the 2026 midterm elections to help Republicans retain control of the House.

“His playbook is a simple one: Bully, threaten, fight, then rig the rules to hang onto power,” said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. “We are here today because California will not be a bystander to that power grab. We are not intimidated, and we are acting openly, lawfully, with purpose and resolve, to defend our state and to defend our democracy.”

Republicans in the state Assembly and the state Senate criticized Newsom’s argument that Democrats must “fight fire with fire,” saying retaliation is a slippery slope that would erode the independent redistricting process California voters have chosen twice at the ballot box.

“You move forward fighting fire with fire, and what happens? You burn it all down,” said Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City). He said Trump was “wrong” to push Gov. Greg Abbott to redraw Texas’ lines to benefit Republicans, and so was California’s push to pursue the same strategy.

Democratic Assembly member Marc Berman speaks during a meeting of the California State Assembly at the California State Capitol on August 21, 2025 in Sacramento.

(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

State Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), who co-authored the bill drawing the proposed congressional districts, said Democrats had no choice but to stand up, given the harm the Trump administration has inflicted on healthcare, education, tariffs and other policies that affect Californians.

“What do we do? Just sit back and do nothing?” Gonzalez said. “Or do we fight back and provide some chance for our Californians to see themselves in this democracy?”

Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) said the effort is “a corrupt redistricting scheme to rig California’s elections” that violates the “letter and the spirit of the California constitution.”

“Democrats are rushing this through under the guise of urgency,” Jones said. “There is no emergency that justifies this abuse of process.”

Three Assembly Democrats did not vote in favor of the constitutional amendment. Jasmeet Bains (D-Delano), who is running for Congress against Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) in the San Joaquin Valley, voted no. Progressive Caucus chair Alex Lee (D-San Jose), and Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay), did not vote.

Democrats will face an unusual messaging challenge with the November ballot measure, said Matt Lesenyie, an assistant professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach.

The opponents of mid-decade redistricting are stressing that the measure would “disadvantage voters,” he said, which is “wording that Democrats have primed Democrats on, for now two administrations, that democracy is being killed with a thousand cuts.”

“It’s a weird, sort of up-is-down moment,” Lesenyie said.

How did we get here?

Trump’s political team began pressuring Abbott and Texas Republicans in early June to redraw the state’s 38 congressional districts in the middle of the decade — which is very uncommon — to give Republicans a better shot at keeping the House in 2026.

“We are entitled to five more seats,” Trump later told CNBC.

Some Texas Republicans feared that mid-decade redistricting could imperil their own chances of reelection. But within a month of the White House floating the idea, Abbott added the new congressional lines, which would stack the deck against as many as five Texas Democrats in Congress, to the Legislature’s special session in July.

By mid-July, Newsom was talking about California punching back. In an interview with the progressive news site the TN Holler, Newsom said: “These guys, they’re not f—ing around. They’re playing by a totally different set of rules.”

Democrats in Texas fled the state for nearly two weeks, including some to California, to deny Republicans the quorum they needed to pass the new lines. Abbott signed civil arrest warrants and levied fines on the 52 absent Democrats while they held news conferences in California and Illinois to bring attention to the fight.

While the Texas drama unfolded, consultants for the campaign arm of House Democrats in California quietly drew up maps that would further chop down the number of Golden State Republicans in Congress. The proposed changes would eliminate the district of Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) and dilute the number of GOP voters in four districts represented by Reps. Doug LaMalfa, Kevin Kiley, David Valadao and Darrell Issa.

The Democrats agreed to return to Texas last week and pointed to California’s tit-for-tat effort as one measure of success, saying the Golden State could neutralize any Republican gains in Texas.

Since then, other Republican-led states have begun to contemplate redistricting too, including Indiana, Florida and Missouri. Trump’s political allies are publicly threatening to mount primary challenges against any Indiana Republican who opposes redrawing the lines.

In California, the opposition is shaping up as quickly as the ballot measure.

California voters received the first campaign mailer opposing the ballot measure a day before the Legislature voted to approve it. A four-page glossy flier, funded by conservative donor and redistricting champion Charlie Munger Jr., warned voters that mid-decade redistricting is “weakening our Democratic process” and “a threat to California’s landmark election reform.”

Republicans have also gone to court to try and stop the measure, alleging in an emergency petition with the state Supreme Court that Democrats violated the state Constitution by ramming the bills through without following proper legislative procedure. The high court Wednesday rejected the petition.

A wave of legal challenges are expected, not only in California but in any state that reconfigures congressional districts in the expanding partisan brawl.

Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) said Thursday morning that a lawsuit challenging the California ballot measure would be filed in state court by Friday evening. He said Republicans also plan to litigate the title of the ballot measure and any voter guide materials that accompany it.

And, he said, if voters approve the new lines, “I believe we will have ample opportunity to set the maps aside in federal court.”

SUN MOTORS’ bank of trusted used car reviews can help you bag a used car bargain.

Even better, its advanced functionality, like AI search and easy finance options, can make purchasing your new car as simple as possible.

8

Sun Motors Reviews

Whether you’re shopping for a low-cost family car or a new convertible, buying a new motor involves a lot of decisions.

What make, model, size, and specification is best for you? 

To help narrow down the options and bring clarity to chaos, Sun Motors contains real-world reviews of thousands of vehicles.

You’ll learn everything about the make and model with insights from top automotive experts at AutoCar, Parkers & WhatCar.

Armed with these reviews, you can make the best buying decision.

Here’s why you should ditch other websites, magazines, and social media and check out Sun Motors reviews.

Which car should I buy? Sun Motors Vehicle Reviews

8

We know you’re probably sick of searching for a new car, which is why Sun Motors’ reviews are essential.

The whole system has been designed to be as simple as possible to find the reviews you need, so what are you waiting for? 

Start by selecting the make, model, and series of your car. You’ll narrow down your search to the car you want to learn about in a few seconds. You can also search by rating, review age, and other filters.

Every used car review includes in-depth information on:

• Pros: A realistic review of the good points of this used car.
• Cons: An honest appraisal of any bad points you need to know about.
• Driving experience: Learn what the car is like on the road from someone who has driven it, including handling, performance, and fuel economy.
• Safety: The safety features of the used car will be listed with details on what’s included and what’s not – and why that matters.
• Specifications: Learn about the specs, covering everything from engine size to in-car entertainment.
• Alternatives: See a handpicked selection of other used vehicles you should consider that are a similar size, specification, and cost.
• Pricing: And, finally, you’ll get industry insider advice on the all-important price range for the car according to our experts.

Find Your Next Car by What You Can Actually Afford

Sun Motors has created the UK’s First Finance-First Marketplace

*Finance Powered by DSG Finance who are a Credit Broker Not A Lender. Representative 21.6%. Your rate may differ depending on individual circumstances

You can check in less than 60 seconds if you are eligible for financing, and then search for your dream used car within your monthly budget.

Here’s how…

• Soft credit check, with no impact on your score
• 60-second decision, get a real finance decision in less than a minute
• Instant match, only see cars that fit your real budget
• AI-powered help, get tailored advice, suggestions, and instant answers from an AI advisor called Theo

Find out what you can afford in just 60 seconds here.

Once you’ve picked … shop by what you can afford 

In the used car world, it’s all about the money.

Sun Motors makes it simple to see financing options available, enabling you to compare monthly payments, overall costs, and affordability. 

When you’re serious about securing your new car, you can use the fast and straightforward finance search option to see how much you can borrow, your monthly repayments, and any final lump sum you may need to make at the end of the term.

It makes it easy to:

• Check your budget first: Add some personal details and you’ll get a personalised finance quote in less than a minute.
• Get your approval upfront: Securing a finance approval in principle means you can relax and browse with the knowledge you’re in the driving seat.
• Browse cars in your budget: You can use Sun Motors’ intelligent search only to display cars you can afford, reducing temptation.
• Drive away happy: Secure your new car, sort out finance, and drive away happy!

Access to information on budget and repayments gives you the power to shop for a new car with total confidence you can afford it.

8

Five used-car favourites selected by a Sun Motors expert

Low-cost family favourite: KIA Venga 1.4 

8

This 5-door family-friendly KIA Venga 1.4 is for sale at a few quid under £2500. OK, so it’s a diesel and it’s nearly 10 years old, but if you’re looking for a reliable runaround, this compact MPV is a great choice. 

For the budget-busting price, you’ll get a no-frills motor that’s spacious, safe, and (hopefully) reliable enough for thousands more miles.

Smooth operator – BMW 2 SERIES 220D XDRIVE

8

A bit of a step up from the KIA is the BMW 2 SERIES 220D XDRIVE. It’s a confident, capable, spacious, and safe grand tourer. OK, so this low-mileage model is diesel, but it’s Euro-6, so it’s not going to cost you a fortune in a congestion zone.

The elevated driving position is comfortable, and BMW’s reputation for reliability makes this a great family car that’s also a little fun once you’ve dropped the monsters off somewhere.

Approved & Awesome: Volkswagen Golf 1.5 TSI EVO Match Edition

8

The Volkswagen Golf 1.5 TSI EVO Match Edition is a bit of a beast. The TSI engine is smooth and super-reliable. Inside the car, the Match Trim feels like a real step-up from the standard spec.

The Volkswagen Golf 1.5 TSI EVO Match Edition is a super-hot-hatch that comes used-approved. That means it’s been checked by the experts at VW to ensure it’s ready for the road. 

Europe’s most popular car: 2018 Dacia Sandero 1.0 SCe Laureate

8

Would you believe that the basic Dacia Sandero is Europe’s top-selling car? Seems everyone from Scots to Swedes loves a bargain. This 2018 Dacia Sandero 1.0 SCe Laureate has fewer than 50,000 miles on the clock, which is nothing for the low-power, high-reliability powertrain.

Bodywork is up together, and it comes in Dacia’s classic gun-metal-gray. This is no-frills motoring available at £100 per month. We love it.

Superior and sporty: LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER SPORT 3.0

8

Be honest, the Dacia isn’t going to impress anyone, but the LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER SPORT 3.0 will. Buy a used model and you’re getting a high-class motor without taking a massive hit on depreciation. 

OK, so £36,000 isn’t cheap, but class costs and the Range Rover Sport have both in spades. It’s a luxury city car that’ll pull jealous looks at the school gate, but a capable off-roader too. We know you won’t want to get it dirty though.

Buying a used car? Check out Sun Motors and find your next vehicle today. Whether you’re looking for automatic, manual or electric, use Sun Motors to decide on your next model.

Shohei Ohtani was four weeks into his major league career when former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt pitched a gondola from Union Station to Dodger Stadium. Ohtani, then a rookie with the Angels and now a global superstar with the Dodgers, was 23.

Today, Ohtani is 31, and McCourt still has no official response to his pitch.

In an effort to accelerate a decision, as The Times reported last month, McCourt’s lobbyists latched onto a state bill designed to expedite transit projects and persuaded legislators to add language that would put an even speedier timeline on potential legal challenges to the gondola.

That bill is scheduled for consideration by an Assembly committee Wednesday, and more than 100 community members rallied Monday in opposition to the bill — or, at least, to the part that would benefit the gondola project.

The Los Angeles City Council last week approved — and Mayor Karen Bass signed — a resolution urging state legislators to drop the gondola part of the bill or dump the bill entirely.

“We are fighting a billionaire,” City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez told the crowd. “How you doing today?”

There were snacks and stickers, T-shirts and tote bags, even bandanas for dogs (and there were lots of very good dogs). There were signs, both earnest and amusing (“Frank McCourt and the Aerial Cabins of Doom”).

Even if McCourt wins in Sacramento, Hernandez said, the City Council must approve the gondola project. In 2024, the council authorized a Dodger Stadium traffic study, intended to evaluate alternatives to the gondola, which could include expanding the current bus shuttles from Union Station and introducing the park-and-ride buses such as the ones that have operated for years at the Hollywood Bowl.

Last month — 16 months after the council authorized the study — the city’s department of transportation invited bidders to apply to conduct the study, via a 56-page document that explains what the city wants done, how to do it, and when the work should be completed.

Sixteen months?

Colin Sweeney, spokesman for the transportation department, said the preparation of contracts requires compliance with various city rules, coordination with several city departments, and availability of city staff.

“This process can take up to 24 months,” Sweeney said.

An artist’s rendering of the Dodger Stadium landing site of a proposed gondola project that would ferry up passengers to games.

(Aerial Rapid Transit Technologies / Kilograph)

The traffic study is due next fall. If it is delivered on time, that could be nearly a three-year wait for one study in advance of one vote for one of the several governmental approvals the gondola would require.

Is the city — or, at least, the elected representatives opposed to the gondola — slow-walking the project?

“We’re not slow-walking nothing,” said Hernandez, whose district includes Dodger Stadium. “This is how the city moves.”

The councilmember pointed to the tree behind her.

“It takes us 15 years to trim a tree,” she said.

Excuse me?

“We’ll trim this tree this year,” Hernandez said, “and we won’t get to it again for 15 years.”

The industry standard, she said, is five years.

In L.A. she said, it can take 10 years to fix a sidewalk, three to five years to cut a curb for a wheelchair, nine months to one year to repair a street light.

“When you have enough resources, you can do things like put a new section into a bill to fast-track your project,” Hernandez said. “When you have money, you can do that.”

But I wanted to flip the question: If McCourt can spend half a million bucks on lobbyists to try to push his project forward, and if he is approaching a decade with no decision, what hope do the rest of us have?

We need housing. We need parks. We need shade. And, yes, we need better ways to get in and out of Dodger Stadium.

Los Angeles Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez speaks during a news conference in December.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“Do I believe we need to fast-track really good projects that have shown that there are financial plans behind them that will benefit the community?” Hernandez said. “If there are ways to do that ethically, let’s do it. But, if we’re talking about fast-tracking a project because you’ve got access to change state law, that’s not something we should be doing.

“Do I think there’s a lot of barriers to achieving good projects, whether they are housing developments or other transportation? I do. I think we can cut through some of that. I think we should.

“We need to deliver quicker for our people.”

It’s not just the city of Los Angeles. The gondola project has slogged through Metro since 2018.

Love him or loathe him, like the gondola or hate it, does Hernandez believe McCourt — or any other developer — should be able to get a yes or no on his proposed project within eight years?

“I believe he should, yeah,” Hernandez said. “One hundred percent. I think he should.”

Even if the gondola is approved, who knows whether any fan would be able to ride it to see Ohtani play? For now, the gondola is not approved, not financed, and not under construction. Ohtani’s contract with the Dodgers expires in another eight years.

Do undocumented immigrants count as people?
Anyone watching as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents increasingly bypass due process to detain and deport unauthorised immigrants might assume the Trump administration’s answer is a resounding “no”. Now, regardless of deportation policies, the approximately 11 million unauthorised immigrants in the United States could soon disappear, statistically at least, if Republicans have their way.

President Trump recently instructed the US Department of Commerce to prepare for a new census that excludes undocumented immigrants. This marks the latest and boldest attempt by Trump and his congressional allies to alter how the census accounts for unauthorised immigrants. Although not explicitly stated, Trump may be trying to push this off-cycle census through ahead of the 2028 presidential election or even before next year’s midterms, which he appears intent on influencing.

Assuming Trump was being literal in his social media declaration that “People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS,” millions could effectively vanish from the official population count. If this incomplete census were used for congressional apportionment, it would reduce representation in Congress and the Electoral College for states with large numbers of unauthorised immigrants.

The immediate partisan impact is unclear. According to the Pew Research Center, if non-citizens had been excluded before the 2020 election, California, Florida and Texas would each have lost one congressional seat and Electoral College vote, while Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio would each have gained one. Political gerrymandering would likely shape who benefits from redistricting. Republicans are already aggressively redrawing maps in states like Texas, with possible retaliatory moves in California and other Democrat-led states. Beyond electoral shifts, the broader goal appears to be marginalising undocumented people and punishing “sanctuary” jurisdictions. This reinforces the Republican narrative that Democrats deliberately tolerate illegal immigration for political gain.

Legally, how to count unauthorised immigrants depends on interpreting the Constitution, the framers’ intent and the scope of executive authority in conducting the census. Non-citizens have historically been included in the count, and the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on excluding them. However, with a conservative supermajority on the court, there is a real chance the justices could allow it – either by reinterpreting the Constitution’s language or deferring to the executive branch.

Even if Trump fails to push through a new census, his administration could still suppress the count by other means. During his first term, he tried to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The Census Bureau stopped collecting this data from all respondents in 1950 and removed the question entirely by 2000, instead gathering it through separate surveys such as the American Community Survey. Many feared its return would deter participation from undocumented, and even legal, immigrants, leading to an undercount. The Supreme Court blocked the effort in 2019, citing insufficient justification. But it left the door open to future attempts with more credible rationales.

Socially, the question of how to count non-citizens recalls earlier and sometimes shameful practices in the United States. For much of its early history, significant groups were denied full recognition in the political system despite living in the country. The Constitution’s original enumeration formula stated that state populations would be calculated “by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Slave and free states struck the infamous “three-fifths” compromise, counting enslaved people as three-fifths of a person for congressional and Electoral College apportionment. Meanwhile, “Indians not taxed” were excluded altogether, as most Native Americans were not considered US citizens despite residing within the country’s borders. They were instead seen as members of sovereign nations – such as the Cherokee, Creek or Iroquois – even as their land, rights and dignity were stripped away. Only with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 were Native Americans granted birthright citizenship and formally included in the population count.

These examples show two marginalised non-citizen groups, enslaved Black people and Indigenous Americans, treated in opposite ways: one partially counted, the other excluded. With history offering no clear precedent, today’s debate raises valid questions about how non-citizens, including the undocumented, should be represented. One view holds that because only citizens vote, non-citizens should not affect apportionment. The opposing view argues that excluding undocumented immigrants worsens their vulnerability and denies their very existence, even as government policies directly affect their lives.

Unauthorised immigrants both use and support public systems. While they are barred from most federal benefits such as Social Security and Medicare, they still access emergency healthcare, school meal programmes and limited housing support. They also factor into education and policing budgets in the communities where they live. At the federal level, immigration policy disproportionately affects states where undocumented residents make up a larger share of the population. At the state level, policies must be shaped with their presence in mind. For example, California now offers food assistance to all elderly residents regardless of immigration status.

Undocumented immigrants also contribute to public finances, paying nearly $100bn annually in federal, state and local taxes. This includes more than $30bn for programmes they largely cannot use, such as Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. In 40 of 50 states, they pay higher state and local tax rates than the wealthiest 1 percent. States’ economic contributions to the federal budget are directly influenced by these residents. It makes sense, therefore, to acknowledge them through accurate enumeration.

The Trump administration is instead enforcing a skewed, incomplete and politically motivated interpretation of its constitutional duties regarding census-taking and apportionment. This approach could also affect other debates with far-reaching implications. The Department of Justice is urging the Supreme Court to fast-track a ruling on Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship. This is another area where the Constitution appears clear. The 14th Amendment affirms that anyone born in the US is a citizen, with few exceptions, such as the children of diplomats. Trump is also seeking to expand the grounds for revoking naturalised citizenship, a penalty currently applied only in rare cases that usually involve fraud.

A narrower definition of who “counts” in the census could fuel arguments for a narrower definition of who counts as a citizen. Similarly, a policy of excluding non-citizens could encourage efforts to strip citizenship from naturalised or US-born residents in order to exclude them as well.

The presence of millions of undocumented immigrants reflects an immigration system that has failed under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Until meaningful reform is enacted, pretending these individuals do not exist is a misguided, politicised and harmful response to the reality of their lives within US borders, regardless of how they arrived.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The ruling might set a precedent to allow prosecution of other government leaders linked to atrocities.

France’s highest court is set to rule on whether it can strip the state immunity of Bashar al-Assad, the toppled Syrian leader in exile in Russia, because of the sheer brutal scale of evidence in accusations documented against him by Syrian activists and European prosecutors.

If the judges at the Cour de Cassation lift al-Assad’s immunity on Friday, it could pave the way for his trial in absentia over the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta in 2013 and Douma in 2018.

It could also set a precedent to allow the prosecution of other government leaders linked to atrocities, human rights activists and lawyers say.

Al-Assad has retained no lawyers for these charges and has denied he was behind the chemical attacks.

The opposition has long rejected al-Assad’s denial, as his forces were the only side in the ruinous, nearly 14-year civil war to possess sarin.

A ruling against al-Assad would be “a huge victory for the victims”, said Mazen Darwish, president of the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression, which collected evidence of war crimes, quoted by The Associated Press news agency.

“It is not only about Syrians; this will open the door for the victims from any country and this will be the first time that a domestic investigative judge has the right to issue an arrest warrant for a president during his rule.”

He said the ruling could enable his group to legally go after government members, like launching a money laundering case against former Syrian Central Bank governor and Minister of Economy Adib Mayaleh, whose lawyers have argued he had immunity under international law.

Brutal crackdown

For more than 50 years, Syria was ruled by Hafez al-Assad and then his son, Bashar.

During the Arab Spring, rebellion broke out against their rule in 2011 across the country of 23 million, igniting a brutal civil war that killed more than half a million people, according to the the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). Millions more fled to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkiye and Europe.

The al-Assad dynasty also fomented sectarian tensions to stay in power, a legacy driving renewed recent violence in Syria against minority groups, despite promises that the country’s new leaders will carve out a political future for Syria that includes and represents all its communities.

As the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for leaders accused of atrocities – such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza, and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines – the French judges’ ruling could empower the legal framework to prosecute not just deposed and exiled leaders but those currently in power.

The Syrian government denied in 2013 that it was behind the Ghouta attack, but the United States subsequently threatened military retaliation, then settled for a deal with Moscow for al-Assad to give up his chemical weapons stockpile, opening the way for Russia to wield huge influence in the war-torn nation.

Al-Assad survived more than a decade longer, aided militarily by Russia and Iranian-aligned groups, including Hezbollah, before being overthrown by rebel groups.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to weigh in on the growing controversy over transgender athletes and decide if federal law bars transgender girls from women’s school sports teams.

“Biological boys should not compete on girls’ athletics teams,” West Virginia Atty. Gen. JB McCusky said in an appeal the court voted to hear.

The appeal had the backing of 26 other Republican-led states as well as President Trump.

In recent weeks, Trump threatened to cut off education funds to California because a transgender athlete participated in a women’s track and field competition.

Four years ago, West Virginia adopted its Save Women’s Sports Act but the measure has been blocked as discriminatory by the 4th Circuit Court in 2-1 decision.

Idaho filed a similar appeal after its law was blocked by the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco. The court said it would hear that case together with the West Virginia case.

At issue is the meaning of Title IX, the federal education law that has been credited with opening the door for the vast expansion of women’s sports. Schools and colleges were told they must give girls equal opportunities in athletics by providing them with separate sports teams.

In the past decade, however, states and their schools divided on the question of who can participate on the girls team. Is it only those who were girls at birth or can it also include those whose gender identity is female?

West Virginia told the court its “legislature concluded that biological boys should compete on boys’ and co-ed teams but not girls’ teams. This separation made sense, the legislature found, because of the ‘inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females’.”

California and most Democratic states allow transgender girls to compete in sports competitions for women.

In 2013, the Legislature said a student “shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions…consistent with his or her gender identity.”

The Supreme Court had put off a decision on this issue while the divide among the states grew.

McCusky, West Virginia’s attorney general, said he was confident the court would uphold the state’s law. “It is time to return girls’ sports to the girls and stop this misguided gender ideology once and for all,” he said in a statement.

Lawyers for Lambda Legal and the ACLU said the court should not uphold exclusionary laws.

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Sasha Buchert, director of Non-Binary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal.

“Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

Two years ago, the justices turned down a fast-track appeal from West Virginia’s lawyers on a 7-2 vote and allowed a 12-year old transgender girl to run on the girls’ cross country team.

Becky Pepper-Jackson and her mother sued after the school principal said she was barred by the state’s law from competing on the girls’ teams at her middle school in Bridgeport, W. Va.

She “has lived as a girl in all aspects of her life for years and receives puberty-delaying treatment and estrogen hormone therapy, so has not experienced (and will not experience) endogenous puberty,” her mother said in support of their lawsuit.

ACLU lawyers said then the court should stand aside. They said B.P.J. was eager to participate in sports but was “too slow to compete in the track events” on the girls team.

Last year, West Virginia tried again and urged the Supreme Court to review the 4th Circuit’s decision and uphold its restrictions on transgender athletes.

The state attorneys also claimed the would-be middle school athlete had become a track star.

“This spring, B.P.J. placed top three in every track event B.P.J. competed in, winning most. B.P.J. beat over 100 girls, displacing them over 250 times while denying multiple girls spots and medals in the conference championship. B.P.J. won the shot put by more than three feet while placing second in discus,” they told the court.

Last year, the court opted to rule first in a Tennessee case to decide if states may prohibit puberty blockers, hormones and other medical treatments for young teens who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

On June 18, the court’s conservative majority said state lawmakers had the authority to restrict medical treatments for adolescents who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria, noting the ongoing debate over the long-term risks and benefits. The ruling turned aside the contention that law reflected unconstitutional sex discrimination.

On Thursday, the justices released their final orders list before their summer recess granting review of new cases to be heard in the fall. Included were the cases of West Virginia vs. BJP and Little vs. Hecox.

In response to the appeals, ACLU lawyers accused the state of seeking to “create a false sense of national emergency” based on a legal “challenge by one transgender girl.”

The lawsuit said the state measure was “part of a concerted nationwide effort to target transgender youth for unequal treatment.” The suit contended the law violated Title IX and was unconstitutional because it discriminated against student athletes based on their gender identity.

West Virginia’s lawyers saw a threat to Title IX and women’s sports.

They said the rulings upholding transgender rights “took a law designed to ensure meaningful competitive opportunities for women and girls—based on biological differences — and fashioned it into a lever for males to force their way onto girls’ sports teams based on identity, destroying the very opportunities Title IX was meant to protect.”

Consumer rights magazine Which? has surveyed 3,800 members of the British public to find out what is the overall best seaside town, with Bamburgh in Northumberland hitting the topspot again

A ‘unique’ coastal spot that is variously loved and loathed has been named one of the best seaside towns in the country.

Dungeness in Kent has been named the seventh-best beach town in the UK in Which?’s annual survey of the British public. The consumer organisation surveyed more than 3,800 people about their experiences of UK seaside destinations and their opinions on beaches, scenery, food and drink offerings, accommodation, tourist attractions, and value for money.

The elevation of Dungeness into the top ten is a major scoop for the Kentish settlement, which languished in 35th place last year.

Not everyone is a major fan of Dungeness. It is a curious place long haunted by rumours that it is technically the UK’s only desert—something that the Met Office has previously confirmed is pure myth. You’d be forgiven for believing the lie, given the way random shacks, homes and cafs stretch out across the shingled headland.

READ MORE: Tourists on Spanish island directed to fake beaches in ‘dirty’ ploy by fed-up locals

It is a place that feels like it should be the setting for an American Western dystopian flick, rather than somewhere that sits on the south coast of England. Bikers whizz along the roads that wind through its flat, marshland extremities; a constant breeze ruffles the pampas grass; wildfowl bleat mournfully. To add to the end-of-days feel of the place, boats filled with asylum seekers regularly make land here.

Inarguably, the bleak jewel in the Dungeness crown is its twin nuclear power plants, which once whipped a patch of nearby sea into a whirlpool but have lain dormant and decommissioned for the past 19 years.

The unique feel of the place has been best captured by artist, filmmaker, gay rights activist, and gardener Derek Jarman, who turned his home into Prospect Cottage—a point of pilgrimage for his fans and those who love the way he carefully manicured the garden into a concentrated miniature form of Dungeness.

But not everyone is a fan. In fact, many are left cold by Dungeness’ charms.

“Bleak is an understatement,” one detractor of the place recently wrote on Reddit. Another added: “Bleak to Dungeness is like ‘a wee bit cold’ in Antarctica. The missus loved it though…” A third wrote: “I find it dismal down there. Old nuclear power station for a view.”

Others love Dungeness and how different it feels from other parts of the UK.

The science writer Ben Goldacre recalled his experience of riding through Dungeness on the small railway that takes day-trippers down the coastline.

READ MORE: Major European cities crack down on unruly Brits after rowdy stag do surgeREAD MORE: Brits travelling to Benidorm told to avoid making ‘huge mistake’ when using taxis

“The Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway has a strange, dreamlike existence, on the border between fantasy and reality. You leave toytown in a cute miniature train, surrounded by excited children. But Disney, this is not. Suddenly you’re riding through real life: past clothes lines, collapsing breezeblock walls, an abandoned washing machine in a back garden, chuffing along behind a miniature steam train. Finally, you’re ferried across a beautiful, windswept shingle peninsula, spotted with railway carriage houses and abandoned shipping containers. Then you are delivered to the foot of a nuclear power station,” Ben wrote.

“This meeting of toy train sets and grim industrial purpose is what makes the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway so perfect.”

What do you think about Dungeness? Let us know in the comments below.

Top 20

Bamburgh: 84%

Beer: 80%

Portmeirion: 79%

Saint David’s: 79%

Sidmouth: 79%

Tynemouth: 79%

Dungeness: 78%

Tenby: 78%

Aldeburgh: 77%

Wells-Next-The-Sea: 77%

Whitby: 77%

Lynmouth: 76%

Nairn: 76%

Saint Andrews: 76%

St Mawes: 76%

Swanage: 76%

Broadstairs: 75%

Bude: 75%

Lyme Regis: 75%

Robin Hood’s Bay: 75%

Bottom 20

Ilfracombe: 55%

Littlehampton: 54%

Mablethorpe: 54%

Ramsgate: 54%

Skegness: 54%

Fishguard: 53%

Barton on sea: 52%

Cleethorpes: 52%

Lowestoft: 52%

New Brighton: 52%

Ayr: 51%

Great Yarmouth: 50%

Weston-super-Mare: 49%

Blackpool: 48%

Burnham-on-Sea: 46%

Fleetwood: 46%

Southend-on-Sea: 43%

Clacton-on-Sea: 42%

Bangor: 38%

Bognor Regis: 36%

The United States Supreme Court has ended its latest term with a host of blockbuster decisions, touching on everything from healthcare coverage to school reading lists.

On Friday, the court issued the final decisions of the 2024 term before it takes several months of recess. The nine justices on its bench will reconvene in October.

But before their departure, the justices made headlines. In a major victory for the administration of President Donald Trump, the six-person conservative majority decided to limit the ability of courts to issue universal injunctions that would block executive actions nationwide.

Trump has long denounced court injunctions as an attack on his executive authority.

In two other rulings, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority again banded together. One decision allowed parents to opt out of school materials that include LGBTQ themes, while the other gave the go-ahead to Texas to place barriers to prevent youth from viewing online pornography.

But a decision on healthcare access saw some conservative justices align with their three left-wing colleagues. Here is an overview of their final rulings of the 2024 term.

Court upholds preventive care requirements

In the case of Kennedy v Braidwood Management, the Supreme Court saw its usual ideological divides fracture.

Three conservative justices – Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts – joined with the court’s liberal branch, represented by Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, for a six-to-three ruling.

At stake was the ability of a government task force to determine what kinds of preventive healthcare the country’s insurance providers had to cover.

It was the latest case to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation passed under former President Barack Obama to expand healthcare access.

This case focused on a section of the act that allowed a panel of health experts – under the Department of Health and Human Services – to determine what preventive services should be covered at no cost.

A group of individuals and Christian-owned businesses had challenged the legality of that task force, though.

They argued that the expert panel was a violation of the Appointments Clause, a section of the Constitution that requires certain political appointees to be chosen by the president and approved by the Senate.

The group had previously secured an injunction against the task force’s decision that HIV prevention medications be covered as preventive care.

That specific injunction was not weighed in the Supreme Court’s decision. But writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh affirmed that the task force was constitutional, because it was made up of “inferior officers” who did not need Senate approval.

Court gives nod to Texas’s age restrictions on porn

Several states, including Texas, require users to verify their age before accessing pornographic websites, with the aim of shielding minors from inappropriate material.

But Texas’s law came under the Supreme Court’s microscope on Friday, in a case called Free Speech Coalition v Ken Paxton.

The Free Speech Coalition is a nonprofit that represents workers in the adult entertainment industry. They sued Texas’s attorney general, Paxton, arguing that the age-verification law would dampen First Amendment rights, which protect the right to free expression, free association and privacy.

The plaintiffs noted the risks posed by sharing personally identifying information online, including the possibility that identifying information like birthdates and sensitive data could be leaked. The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, warned that Texas’s law “robs people of anonymity”.

Writing for the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged that “submitting to age verification is a burden on the exercise” of First Amendment rights.

But, he added, “adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification” altogether. The majority upheld Texas’s law.

Court affirms children can withdraw from LGBTQ school material

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority also continued its streak of religious freedom victories, with a decision in Mahmoud v Taylor.

That case centred on the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland, where books portraying LGBTQ themes had been approved for use in primary school curricula.

One text, for example, was a picture book called Love, Violet, which told the story of a young girl mustering the courage to give a Valentine to a female classmate. Another book, titled Pride Puppy, follows a child searching for her lost dog during an annual parade to celebrate LGBTQ pride.

Parents of children in the school district objected to the material on religious grounds, and some books, like Pride Puppy, were eventually withdrawn.

But the board eventually announced it would refuse to allow parents to opt out of the approved material, on the basis that it would create disruptions in the learning environment.

Some education officials also argued that allowing kids to opt out of LGBTQ material would confer a stigma on the people who identify as part of that community – and that LGBTQ people were simply a fact of life.

In the majority’s decision, Justice Samuel Alito asserted that the education board’s policy “conveys that parents’ religious views are not welcome in the ‘fully inclusive environment’ that the Board purports to foster”.

“The curriculum itself also betrays an attempt to impose ideological conformity with specific views on sexuality and gender,” Alito wrote.

Court limits the use of nationwide injunctions

Arguably, the biggest decision of the day was another ruling decided by the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority.

In the case Trump v CASA, the Trump administration had appealed the use of nationwide injunctions all the way up to the highest court in the land.

At stake was an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office for his second term. That order sought to whittle down the concept of birthright citizenship, a right conferred under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Previously, birthright citizenship had applied to nearly everyone born on US soil: Regardless of their parents’ nationality, the child would receive US citizenship.

But Trump has denounced that application of birthright citizenship as too broad. In his executive order, he put restrictions on birthright citizenship depending on whether the parents were undocumented immigrants.

Legal challenges erupted as soon as the executive order was published, citing Supreme Court precedent that upheld birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of the parent. Federal courts in states like Maryland and Washington quickly issued nationwide injunctions to prevent the executive order from taking effect.

The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh the merits of Trump’s order on birthright citizenship. But it did evaluate a Trump administration petition arguing that the nationwide injunctions were instances of judicial overreach.

The conservative supermajority sided with Trump, saying that injunctions should generally not be universal but instead should focus on relief for the specific plaintiffs at hand. One possible exception, however, would be for class action lawsuits.

Amy Coney Barrett, the court’s latest addition and a Trump appointee, penned the majority’s decision.

“No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” she wrote. “But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”

This year’s presidential race will be won or lost in a handful of states that have swung between Democrats and Republicans over the years. Here’s our guide to the battlegrounds and how their political landscapes could hand them to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

For each state we’ve included the estimated percentage of the electorate that is white (a group that favors Trump overall), the percentage of white college-educated voters (a subset typically won by Republicans but now leaning toward Clinton) and the results in 2008 and 2012. The figures come from the Cook Political Report.

Florida is where close presidential contests are won or lost, sometimes by razor-thin margins. (See: Bush vs. Gore and the hanging chad).

There are signs that Clinton is positioned to edge out a victory here. For starters, the state’s significant Latino population is changing — there are more Puerto Ricans, who often lean Democratic, and fewer Cuban Americans, who are more reliable Republican voters.

Could Trump still win here? The part-time Floridian, whose Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach has been the site of numerous campaign events, needs turnout among black and Latino voters to lag behind previous elections.

Influx of Puerto Ricans could be game-changer in country’s biggest swing stateTrump’s climate science denial clashes with reality of rising seas in Florida

Ohio has a well-earned reputation as a political bellwether — it’s voted for the winner in every presidential contest except one since 1944.

But this year could be different. First, the state’s population is less representative of the nation than before, becoming older and whiter as the rest of the country diversifies. That should be a boost for Trump.

However, he’s been unable to unify the state’s Republican Party around his candidacy, and not even the state’s popular governor, John Kasich, voted for him. 

North Carolina tends to be out of Democrats’ reach in presidential elections — Obama won, barely, in 2008, then lost in 2012. But Clinton seems intent on turning the state blue with the help of high-profile supporters such as President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. 

A major issue has been protests in Charlotte after police fatally shot a black man, pulling the city into a nationwide debate over race and criminal justice. It’s possible the political ripples could benefit Clinton, who has pushed for policing reforms and is counting on strong support from black voters.

 As one of the whitest states in the country, Iowa is fertile terrain for Trump, who has struggled with black, Latino and Asian voters. He could also benefit from a united Republican front that has eluded him in some other battlegrounds.

Clinton doesn’t have a strong track record in the state. She lost the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses in 2008 when she ran against Obama, then narrowly edged out Bernie Sanders this year.

Pennsylvania has been a blue state for more than two decades,but there were concerns among Democrats that Trump could boost his numbers with white, working-class voters.

That doesn’t seem to have materialized, and Clinton has maintained a strong base of support among black voters in places such as Philadelphia. The city is such a Democratic bastion that Mitt Romney didn’t earn a single vote in 59 precincts in 2012.

In addition, Clinton’s campaign has set its sights on the Philadelphia suburbs, where Republicans are usually more competitive but Trump has struggled.

It wasn’t long ago that Democrats were ready to write off Colorado.  But the state has been rapidly transformed by an influx of Latinos and young, highly educated transplants — demographics that make it a much safer bet for Clinton.

Also hurting Trump is his low support among women disgusted with his sexist remarks. Even though he may be able count on support from conservative strongholds such as Colorado Springs, the growing suburbs around Denver could be slipping out of Republicans’ reach.

Trump’s name already looms over Las Vegas from the candidate’s hotel, but winning the state is another matter. Nevada is home to an increasing number of Latinos who have been turned off by Trump’s hard-line immigration stance and his derogatory comments about Mexicans and other immigrants.

The Clinton campaign has invested heavily in a state organization to balance out the enthusiasm among Trump supporters. Voters here have a strong anti-establishment streak, something the New York businessman and first-time candidate could turn to his advantage.

Democrats have regarded Georgia like a big, fat, juicy peach, just waiting to ripen and fall. Their expectation has been the increased clout of the state’s growing black, Latino and Asian populations would turn this reddest of states blue sometime over the next decade or so.

Some hope that day could come this year if Trump repels enough minority and women voters. However, it’s less than an even-money bet for Clinton. 

Donald Trump’s steady slide in the polls has made this normally Republican state vulnerable to turning blue this year. He’s lost the support of Sen. John McCain, and he was never endorsed by the state’s other senator, Jeff Flake.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is trying to take advantage of a rare opportunity, with appearances by First Lady Michelle Obama, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and the candidate herself. A Democratic victory would likely rely heavily on Arizona’s growing number of Latinos, who have heavily favored Clinton over Trump.

[email protected]

Twitter: @chrismegerian

ALSO:

Here’s what we know so far about voter fraud and the 2016 elections

Red vs. blue states: Check out our interactive Electoral College map

Updates on California politics

Updates from the campaign trail

BEERSHEBA, Israel — As Israel and Iran exchanged more attacks on Thursday, President Trump sought to keep open the door to diplomacy on Tehran’s nuclear program, saying he would make up his mind within two weeks on whether the U.S. military will get directly involved in the conflict.

“Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, told reporters, reading out Trump’s statement.

Trump has been weighing whether to attack Iran by striking its well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is buried under a mountain and widely considered to be out of reach of all but America’s “bunker-buster” bombs.

Earlier in the day, Israel’s defense minister threatened Iran’s supreme leader after Iranian missiles crashed into a major hospital in southern Israel and hit residential buildings near Tel Aviv, wounding at least 240 people. As rescuers wheeled patients out of the smoldering hospital, Israeli warplanes launched their latest attack on Iran’s nuclear program.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz blamed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for Thursday’s barrage and said the military “has been instructed and knows that in order to achieve all of its goals, this man absolutely should not continue to exist.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he trusted that Trump would “do what’s best for America.”

“I can tell you that they’re already helping a lot,” Netanyahu said from the rubble and shattered glass around the Soroka Medical Center in Israel’s southern city of Beersheba.

The open conflict between Israel and Iran erupted last Friday with a surprise wave of Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear and military sites, top generals and nuclear scientists. At least 639 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 1,300 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group.

Iran has retaliated by firing hundreds of missiles and drones, killing at least 24 people in Israel and wounding hundreds.

More than 200 wounded, including dozens in the hospital strike

At least 240 people were wounded by the latest Iranian attack on Israel, including 80 patients and medical workers wounded in the strike on the Soroka Medical Center. The vast majority were lightly wounded, as much of the hospital building had been evacuated in recent days.

Israel’s Home Front Command said that one of the Iranian ballistic missiles fired Thursday morning had been rigged with fragmenting cluster munitions. Rather than a conventional warhead, a cluster munition warhead carries dozens of submunitions that can explode on impact, showering small bomblets around a large area and posing major safety risks on the ground. The Israeli military did not say where that missile had been fired.

Iranian officials insisted that they had not sought to strike the hospital and claimed the attack hit a facility belonging to the Israeli military’s elite technological unit, called C4i. The website for the Gav-Yam Negev advanced technologies park, some 2 miles from the hospital, said C4i had a branch campus in the area.

The Israeli army did not respond to a request for comment. An Israeli military official, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with regulations, acknowledged that there was no specific intelligence that Iran had planned to target the hospital.

Many hospitals in Israel, including Soroka, had activated emergency plans in the last week. They converted parking garages to wards and transferred vulnerable patients underground.

Israel also has a fortified, subterranean blood bank that kicked into action after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack ignited the latest war in the Gaza Strip.

Doctors at Soroka said that the Iranian missile struck almost immediately after air raid sirens went off, causing a loud explosion that could be heard from a safe room. The strike inflicted the greatest damage on an old surgery building and affected key infrastructure, including gas, water and air-conditioning systems, the medical center said.

The hospital, which provides services to around 1 million residents of Israel’s south, had been caring for 700 patients at the time of the attack. After the strike, the hospital closed to all patients except for life-threatening cases.

Iran has fired 450 missiles and 1,000 drones at Israel since the conflict began, according to Israeli army estimates, though most have been shot down by Israel’s multitiered air defenses.

Iran rejects calls to surrender or end its nuclear program

Iran has long maintained its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. But it is the only non-nuclear-weapon state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%.

Israel is widely believed to be the only country with a nuclear weapons program in the Middle East, but has never acknowledged the existence of its arsenal.

In the last few days, the Israeli air campaign has targeted Iran’s enrichment site at Natanz, centrifuge workshops around Tehran, a nuclear site in Isfahan and what the army assesses to be most of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers. The destruction of those launchers has contributed to the steady decline in Iranian attacks since the start of the conflict.

On Thursday, antiaircraft artillery was clearly audible across Tehran and witnesses in the central city of Isfahan reported seeing antiaircraft fire after nightfall.

In announcing that he would take up to two more weeks to decide whether to strike Iran, President Trump opened up diplomatic options with the apparent hope Iran would make concessions after suffering major military losses.

Already, a new diplomatic initiative seemed to be underway as Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi prepared to travel Friday to Geneva for meetings with the European Union’s top diplomat, and with his counterparts from the United Kingdom, France and Germany.

But at least publicly, Iran has struck a hard line.

Iran’s supreme leader on Wednesday rejected U.S. calls for surrender and warned that any American military involvement by the Americans would cause “irreparable damage to them.”

Parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf on Thursday criticized Trump for using military pressure to gain an advantage in nuclear negotiations.

“The delusional American president knows that he cannot impose peace on us by imposing war and threatening us,” he said.

Iran agreed to redesign Arak to address nuclear concerns

Israel’s military said Thursday its fighter jets targeted the Arak heavy water reactor, some 155 miles southwest of Tehran, in order to prevent it from being used to produce plutonium.

Iranian state TV said there was “no radiation danger whatsoever” around the Arak site, which it said had been evacuated ahead of the strike.

Heavy water helps cool nuclear reactors, but it produces plutonium as a byproduct that can potentially be used in nuclear weapons. That would provide Iran another path to the bomb beyond enriched uranium, should it choose to pursue the weapon.

Iran had agreed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers to redesign the facility to alleviate proliferation concerns. That work was never completed.

The reactor became a point of contention after Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018. Ali Akbar Salehi, a high-ranking nuclear official in Iran, said in 2019 that Tehran bought extra parts to replace a portion of the reactor that it had poured concrete into under the deal.

Israel said strikes were carried out “in order to prevent the reactor from being restored and used for nuclear weapons development.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency has said that due to restrictions imposed by Iran on inspectors, the U.N. nuclear watchdog has lost “continuity of knowledge” about Iran’s heavy water production — meaning it could not absolutely verify Tehran’s production and stockpile.

Mednick, Melzer and Gambrell write for the Associated Press. Melzer reported from Tel Aviv, and Gambrell from Dubai. AP writer Melanie Lidman in Tel Aviv and Ellen Knickmeyer in Washington contributed to this report.

United States President Donald Trump will decide on whether his country will join the Israel-Iran conflict in the next two weeks, the White House has said, amid growing speculation of US involvement and fears of wider escalation.

On Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump had shared a message: “Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks. That’s a quote directly from President Trump,” she said.

“The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution … he is a peacemaker in chief. He is the peace through strength president. And so if there’s a chance for diplomacy, the president’s always going to grab it. But he’s not afraid to use strength as well,” the press secretary added.

The US described its ally Israel’s initial June 13 strike on Iran as a “unilateral action”. But Trump himself has signalled that he knew of the attack in advance and supported Israel’s military campaign.

At the same time, according to the Reuters news agency, which cited three unnamed diplomats, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff has spoken to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi several times on the phone since Israel began its attacks.

Amid the talk of diplomacy, Tel Aviv and Tehran have continued to trade attacks.

On Thursday, Israel targeted Iran’s Arak heavy water nuclear reactor. Iran, in turn, hit the Soroka Medical Centre, which it claimed was near an Israeli military and intelligence centre.

At the same time, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz threatened to eliminate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “Such a person is forbidden to exist,” he said in a statement cited by the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

‘Camouflaged’ intentions

Over the past few days, Trump has hinted at joining Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, but at the same time has proposed a swift diplomatic solution in a confusing message from Washington.

Following a report by the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday night that Trump had already signed off on striking Iran but had not decided on when they would do it, the president took to his Truth Social social media account to deny the report.

“The Wall Street Journal has No Idea what my thoughts are concerning Iran!” Trump wrote.

But Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst Marwan Bishara said that Leavitt’s comments could well be a ploy, and if so, Trump would be able to use it as a “pretext in order to camouflage whatever his intentions are and attack tomorrow”.

As Araghchi is expected to meet his British, French and German counterparts in Geneva on Friday, along with the European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, to discuss Tehran’s nuclear programme, Bishara said Trump could be waiting to hear the outcome of those talks before making his decision to attack.

“If one has to over-interpret, I would say the following: He’s giving the Europeans some time so that everyone could save face,” Bishara said.

Al Jazeera’s Doha Jabbari, reporting from Doha, said the lack of trust between Tehran and Washington will make it difficult for the Iranians to fully believe Trump is open to diplomacy.

“Assuming that the Israelis have the green light from the Americans to carry out these attacks inside Iran, there is going to be very little trust there,” Jabbari said.

“But really, this is the diplomatic game they have to play,” she added, referring to the upcoming talks in Geneva. “If they [Iran] don’t go, they’re going to be accused of basically saying we’re not going to talk, we just want war. They’re going to have to travel, and the Europeans are acting as a mediator between Iran and the US.”

At the same time, Russia and China have repeatedly warned against the US’s involvement in the conflict and called for a ceasefire.

A White House spokesperson has delivered a message from President Trump, saying he will decide whether to attack Iran “within the next two weeks”. Karoline Leavitt says US and Iranian officials are still in contact and US action rests on the outcome of talks.

As Canada hosts the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, from June 15 to 17, 2025, an orchestra of economic collapse plays across free economies like Canada, the United States, and the European Union. The conductor is not war or scarcity but a silent plague: Anti-Job Creation Syndrome, fueled by a job-seeker mindset where individuals, driven by a quest for stability, prioritize secure careers over the daring act of building enterprises.

Job creators, those rare alchemists who forge businesses from dreams, are the antidote, yet they are stifled by a culture that clings to caution. Canada’s G7 presidency must spark a global shift toward job-creating prosperity or risk a financial collapse that reverberates across continents.

The spark of entrepreneurial mysticism—a primal force weaving prosperity from village squares to global markets—has long defined human progress. From the wheel’s invention to Steve Jobs’ digital revolution, this unexplainable drive has birthed enterprises, from humble workshops to towering giants.

In Canada, small and medium-sized enterprises account for 50% of GDP, yet too many falter under job-seeker policies that favor bureaucracy over risk. In contrast, China’s job creators drive 60% of GDP; their billion entrepreneurs are a symphony of innovation. Canada’s G7 stage must champion this mysticism to counter the syndrome’s chokehold, lest free economies fade into a dissonant fog.

Free economies suffer because 99% of their economic teams are job seekers, trained to support enterprises, not start them. Job creators, wielding tacit knowledge—the intuitive brilliance of innovation—face a world that prizes explicit skills like accounting or law. Canada’s education system, like its G7 peers, churns out resume-builders, not enterprise-builders, leaving small businesses to wither.

Across the European Union, 50% of small enterprises have closed since 2020, while India’s multi-million startups thrive on risk-taking. This divide fuels the Anti-Job Creation Syndrome, where job seekers caution against starving the entrepreneurial flame. Canada must lead the G7 in nurturing job creators, not coddling job seekers.

The global economy splits into abstract and real realms. Abstract economies, like those of Canada and the United States, indulge in financial games—stock manipulations and debt bubbles—while real economies, grounded in value creation, flourish in job-creator nations.

Canada’s enterprises, burdened by $1.3 trillion in national debt, struggle in this abstract haze, unable to match China’s relentless advance. G7 elections, despite bold promises, fail to launch grassroots prosperity, blinded by job-seeker policies. The summit’s focus on digital resilience and climate change risks missing the primal need for enterprise creation. Canada’s leadership must shift this narrative to real economies, where job creators forge lasting wealth.

Canada’s G7 presidency is a clarion call to host a global summit, uniting nations to forge strategies for real economies rooted in value creation. The absence of bold economic debates to address declining productivity demands this reckoning. When 99% of economic teams lack the spark to grow small and medium-sized enterprises, the damage is profound.

How long will Canada’s enterprises languish in debt’s shadow? A summit could draw lessons from job-creator nations, rekindling the entrepreneurial mysticism embedded in every community.

Five steps chart the path: promote entrepreneurial education to inspire job-creators; incentivize small and medium-sized enterprises with tax breaks; invest in training that blends tacit and explicit knowledge; foster public-private partnerships to break dependency; and convene a summit to share value-driven strategies.

The world watches as Canada stands at Kananaskis, its G7 baton poised to conduct a new symphony. Free economies teeter on collapse, their job-seeker mindset a weary colossus crumbling under caution.

Why is Expothon Worldwide gaining global attention? An international platform for entrepreneurial innovation and authority on National Mobilization of SME protocols, now so focused on 100 countries. Why is it challenging to use immediately deployable methodologies for all massive SME sectors within the GCC, OIC, European Union, African Union, Commonwealth, BRICS, and ASEAN for national mobilization of entrepreneurialism as pragmatic solutions? Over the last decade, these insights have been shared weekly and reached approximately 2000 selected VIP recipients at the National Cabinet-Level senior government officials across 100 free economies. This track record of expertise and trust forms the foundation of its proposed strategies.

Population-rich nations like India and China play a vibrant melody; their billion entrepreneurs are a testament to the reward of risk. Canada must lead the G7 in unleashing job creators, not job seekers, by forging enterprises that light up the global stage. Free economies and G& have some bigger challenges, like facing the anti-job creation syndrome.

Without this mega-shift, the old economic model risks a grand financial collapse, leaving free economies in darkness. Canada’s summit is the last stand to ensure job-creators triumph, creating a future of prosperity for all.

The rest is easy.

June 3 (UPI) — Closing arguments got underway Tuesday after former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein‘s legal defense team rested in the retrial of his vacated rape conviction in New York.

The retrial began six weeks ago with Weinstein, 73, charged with rape and sex crimes against three women accusers, who accused him of attacking them while in Manhattan between 2006 and 2013.

He had been convicted of rape and criminal sexual assault by a New York jury five years ago and was sentenced to 23 years in prison.

An appellate court overturned the conviction a year ago with a 4-3 ruling due to a trial judge improperly allowing “irrelevant” and “prejudicial” testimony and other evidence.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said his office would refile charges against Weinstein.

The current trial accuses Weinstein of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual act and one count of third-degree rape.

A jury of seven women and two men likely will begin deliberations by the end of the day on Tuesday.

Prosecutors have argued Weinstein used his position in Hollywood to control the three alleged victims, who were trying to find work in television and film.

His accusers are Miriam Haley, Jessica Mann and Kaja Sokola, who testified against Weinstein and said they were young and seeking careers in Hollywood with Weinstein’s help.

Prosecutors brought 24 witnesses before the court to testify against Weinstein, whose legal team has argued his accusers engaged in consensual acts.

The witnesses included former assistants to Weinstein; relatives and friends of his accusers; and hotel workers at locations where he is accused of assaulting the alleged victims.

None of the witnesses who triggered the appellate court’s ruling overturning Weinstein’s conviction testified in the current trial.

Weinstein also did not testify in the current or prior trial. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

If found guilty on any of the charges, Weinstein likely will spend the rest of his life in prison.

Even if found innocent, Weinstein would remain imprisoned for his 2022 conviction on similar charges in a separate case in California. His legal team has appealed that conviction.

Weinstein’s downfall significantly contributed to the rise of the #MeToo movement in 2017 after The New York Times and the New York Daily News reported details of the accusations against him.

Others formerly accused of sexual misconduct include actor Kevin Spacey, comedian Louis C.K., and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Rapper and music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs is being tried in federal court in Manhattan on similar charges.