decision

A national panel of the Democratic Socialists of America decided Monday to once again delay voting on whether to uphold or rescind the Los Angeles chapter’s endorsement of Nithya Raman in the L.A. mayor’s race over concerns that Raman hadn’t taken a sufficiently tough stance against Israel.

The left-wing group’s National Political Committee had begun a review of the DSA-L.A.’s endorsement of Raman after some members pointed out that Raman hadn’t been asked for her position on “R22,” a DSA resolution that requires local chapters to inquire about a candidate’s support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel before they are endorsed.

The committee met last week and again Monday, when it voted to work with DSA-LA to organize an Oct. 31 meeting with Raman to assess her position on BDS and other issues related to the Gaza conflict.

If she fails to “provide clear and unequivocal commitments” to their questions, the national committee will vote on whether to rescind DSA-LA’s endorsement, a spokesperson confirmed.

If Raman wins the Nov. 3 election, the group also wants a commitment by her to oppose weapons being shipped to Israel out of Los Angeles International Airport.

If Raman has not “expressed support for BDS and condemned weapon shipments out of LAX” by Jan.1, the National Political Committee will “compile the documentation of fair and ample opportunity for education about the Palestinian struggle for liberation necessary to begin a disciplinary process under R22 and thereafter schedule a vote on expelling Nithya Raman on those grounds,” according to a resolution approved by the committee.

The Raman campaign sent a statement to DSA on Monday during the national committee meeting that outlined her stance on BDS.

“I believe the best way for working Angelenos to stand in solidarity with Gaza is through non-violent protest, legislative action, and diplomatic pressure, including BDS,” Raman said in the statement.

The Raman campaign declined to say whether the council member personally supports BDS, and pointed The Times back to the statement she sent to the DSA and other statements she has made in the past. Raman has said she does not plan to make BDS part of her mayoral platform.

Some Angelenos in DSA were frustrated with the move to rescind the endorsement.

“I feel that this is unnecessary, but that I am encouraged that Nithya has actually expressed support for Palestine and our priorities and that she is compliant with R22,” said Clayton Ryles, a member of DSA-LA who also serves on the 27-person national committee, after the meeting. “Not everybody agrees on that.”

Ryles — one of a few DSA-LA members on the committee — plans to vote against rescinding the endorsement. He also supported Raman’s endorsement as a member of DSA-LA.

Revoking DSA-LA’s endorsement of Raman would have represented a major incursion by the national organization into the local chapter’s politics, invalidating a democratic vote to endorse Raman that passed 937 to 484 in September.

The co-chairs of DSA-LA acknowledged that they had failed to include a question about BDS on their candidate questionnaire, though they said they had inquired about Palestine both on the questionnaire and during a candidate interview.

“This was an oversight,” Leslie Chang and Sean Wakasa, the co-chairs of DSA-LA, wrote in an email to members.

“Nithya had strong answers on Palestine in her DSA-LA questionnaire, in public forums … and in her response to the NPC today,” Chang said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “We are disappointed that the members of the NPC passed their resolutions without reading the materials we sent them, which clearly answer the many questions that are posed to us in the two resolutions.”

“In these last few days of the election, we would like to focus on electing our entire slate and continuing to fight for working Angelenos,” Chang said.

Shaun Wright-Phillips on Instagram: “Last night was a challenge, but as always, we dance, we smile, and we keep going! Thank you to all those who voted and supported as always 🙌🏾🕺🏾 #strictly”

5,020 likes, 64 comments – shaunwp98 on October 25, 2026: “Last night was a challenge, but as always, we dance, we smile, and we keep going! Thank you to all those who voted and supported as always 🙌🏾🕺🏾 #strictly”.

instagram.com

President Trump illegally usurped Gov. Gavin Newsom’s command of the California National Guard by ordering a surge troops deployed into Los Angeles and across the state amid protests against the White House’s mass deportation program last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

The two-one decision split the president’s own appointees to the court, with Judge Eric D. Miller of Seattle siding with Judge Jennifer Sung of Portland, a Biden pick, and Judge Mark J.Bennett of Honolulu dissenting.

“The order exceeded the President’s statutory authority and encroached on Congress’s calling forth power, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers,” Sung wrote for the majority, calling Trump’s order “unconstitutional.”

The decision also appeared to foreclose what California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta called “the Trump Administration’s transparent attempt” to preserve its right to call up California troops again under the same obscure statute — a novel legal maneuver administration lawyers said let the president seize command without invoking the far stronger Insurrection Act.

The 9th Circuit trio was among the first to weigh the law last June, after Trump federalized 4,000 National Guard soldiers in response to unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

California sued. US District Judge Charles R. Breyer quickly ruled to block the deployment. But Sung, Bennett and Miller stayed his order, finding that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

That decision set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments, meaning courts had very little power to test the president’s rationale for sending troops into American streets.

At the time, the decision represented one of the president’s most sweeping second-term victories: a plug-and-play legal mechanism to deploy soldiers against civilians in cities across the country.

In Portland that fall, another 9th Circuit panel stayed U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut’s order to stand down troops, using the first trio’s precedent.

The Portland decision — based in part on data the Department of Justice later admitted was false — prompted an extraordinary filing by Judge Jay Bybee, who all but pleaded with the court to rehear the case and interpret the law differently.

“There is no greater threat to the sovereignty of the states than an assertion of federal control over their domestic affairs,” Bybee wrote.

The issue quickly found its way to the Supreme Court, after a 7th Circuit panel found the president had provided “insufficient evidence” for deployment even under the 9th Circuit’s deference standard.

On Dec. 23, the Justices adopted a celebrated Georgetown scholar’s academic reading of the statute, saying it only allowed the president to commandeer national guard troops if the situation had already outmatched the standing army.

Federalized troops were ordered to leave Los Angeles in December.

On Friday, the 9th Circuit held that Trump’s claim that Los Angeles was in the grips of a rebellion last June “did not reflect a colorable assessment within a range of honest judgment.”

Using “the plain text of the statute,” and “dictionary definitions of the disputed term,” the majority found the president had not furnished evidence of a “a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole” — nor anything close to it.

Instead, Justice Department lawyers had relied on subsidiary definitions of “rebellion” that the 9th Circuit warned would allow the president to call up troops to quell almost any resistance, including peaceful protests.

“Resistance that is not violent, armed, organized, and against the government as a whole generally does not require a military response,” Sung wrote.

“Because Defendants have failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to legally execute the laws in California, they have not carried their burden to show that the President had the authority to federalize California’s National Guard,” Sung wrote.

Rams receiver Puka Nacua will not practice Friday because of a calf injury and will be listed as questionable for Sunday’s game against the Las Vegas Raiders, coach Sean McVay said Friday.

Nacua took part in the majority of practice on Thursday but did not finish it. McVay indicated that tests revealed “a little minor thing in there,” and that Nacua would be a game-time decision Sunday.

“I don’t think he knows exactly when it occurred,” McVay said, adding, “he felt it where he wasn’t able to have some of the power and full explosion … but i don’t think he was aware of any sort of specific play that led to it.”

Nacua played in the season-opening loss to the San Francisco 49ers and then sat out two games because of a hip injury that caused abdominal soreness. He returned and produced more than 100 yards receiving in each of the next two games, and then caught six passes for 80 yards in last Sunday’s 18-16 defeat by the Arizona Cardinals.

Nacua, the NFL receptions leader in 2025, has 37 catches for 417 yards and a touchdown, and he also has rushed for a touchdown this season.

Nacua’s injury is the latest in a series suffered by a Rams team that opened the season as the favorite to win Super Bowl LXI at SoFi Stadium, but has lost its last two games to fall to 2-4.

Receiver Davante Adams is expected to be sidelined six to 10 weeks because of a hamstring injury suffered against the Cardinals.

Jordan Whittington, Konata Mumpfield, Tutu Atwell and rookie CJ Daniels are other Rams receivers.

“It’s our job to figure out, all right, what are some of the spots we can put them in that accentuate their skillsets,” McVay said.

Inside linebacker Nate Landman is out because of a concussion, McVay said. So veteran Eric Kendricks, who was signed to the practice squad a few weeks ago, will be activated to the roster against the Raiders.

Cornerback Trent McDuffie, who sat out against the Cardinals because of a groin injury, did not practice this week and will be listed as questionable against the Raiders.

Burnham announced the decision to approve the drilling of the Jackdaw gas field earlier this week.

Jackdaw is situated 150 miles (241km) east of Aberdeen and is operated by Adura, a joint venture between Shell and Norwegian state energy firm Equinor.

Ministers said the first gas could be produced by the end of this month, helping heat millions of homes, and also announced the creation of a new energy wealth fund.

Environmental campaigners say the decision would hamper efforts to tackle climate change and make “no meaningful difference” to UK energy security.

Based on official forecasts for the amount of gas the UK will need over the next decade, that suggests Jackdaw has the potential to meet around 1.6% of total projected national gas demand between 2026 and 2036.

Operators say it could be connected to the Great British gas network within weeks and could produce gas for the next 11 years.

Trump responded to the decision on Friday, but appeared to confuse oil and gas.

He said: “They’re opening up the North Sea oil. I’ve been after them to do that for two years.”

Trump added: “Andy is getting it done, and I guess it’s against the liberal principle, but he knows what’s right. It’s going to make UK a very wealthy country.”

Earlier this week, on Wednesday, Trump said the decision was “great news for the wealth and prosperity” of the UK.

Writing on his Truth Social platform, Trump urged the UK to go “full blast” and called the North Sea “one of the greatest and most prosperous areas of oil in the world”.

A decision is yet to be taken on whether production can begin at Rosebank, the UK’s largest known untapped oil field, which is located off the coast of Shetland in the North Atlantic.

Christmas has come early for me because two of my favourite artists, Aitch and Tom Grennan, have teamed up for a telly collab.

I can exclusively reveal that the good pals secretly recorded scenes together for next year’s series of The Voice.

New judge Aitch, who has been shooting the 2027 show in Salford in recent weeks, invited Tom down to ITV studios to film the Battle stages of the popular competition.

And Tom’s guest role went down so well with producers, they are now eyeing him up as a full-time coach in the future.

My source said: “They have been friends for years, so it was a no-brainer for Aitch to give Tom a call and invite him to be a guest judge.

“While he has never appeared on reality TV, Tom has worked his way up from the bottom, so knows how contestants are feeling.

UNDER INFLUENCE

Harry Styles ‘disorientated’ after WiFi cuts out during video call hypnosis

RITA’S AURA

Rita Ora’s hubbie Taika Waititi reveals what it’s really like to work with her

“Sometimes, guests are quite wooden, but Tom really impressed bosses with his time on the show. They are now talking about him possibly becoming a regular coach.”

Earlier this month, fans watched as will.i.am brought Cheryl out of her self-imposed retirement to help him pick his final three.

Meanwhile, in pre-recorded scenes which aired last weekend, fellow coach Kelly Rowland drafted in Delta Goodrem.

In 2023, Aitch revealed on Instagram that he had recorded a “banger” with Tom, although the song is yet to be released.

But, back in February, Aitch gave fans a taste of the track, called Home, after streaming it live on social media.

A source added: “Tom and Aitch actually have a couple of songs together.

“But they are still working out when best to release one.”

Tom was due to return last night with the release of his comeback single, Wrapped In Gold, from his upcoming fifth album, which is due out next year.

I’ll keep my fingers crossed that one of their collaborations ends up on there.

The U.S. Air Force says any decision on whether or not to acquire new production F-16 Viper fighters is likely a year or more away. The service’s top officer in charge of force structure planning has also now raised the prospect of using a “spectrum of capability” to eventually supplant aging older-model F-16s. All of this comes as the Air Force has laid out a new vision to have 1,509 combat-coded fighters in inventory, hundreds more than it has now, by 2035, amid questions about whether industry and budgets can keep up.

Inside Defense and Air & Space Forces Magazine were among the first to report on the Air Force’s latest long-term fighter force structure plan late yesterday. This followed a roundtable with Lt. Gen. David Tabor, the service’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs. At the time of writing, an unclassified copy of the report, which was submitted to Congress last week, has not been released publicly. TWZ has reached out for more information.

Tabor said yesterday that the target fleet of 1,509 combat-coded fighters by 2035 would be approximately 40 percent F-35s, 40 percent F-15s (inclusive of F-15E Strike Eagles and F-15EX Eagle IIs) and F-16s, and 20 percent F-22 Raptors and F-47s, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. As an aside, the final expected F-47 fleet size remains unclear, though the Air Force continues to say it plans to acquire at least enough of those jets to replace its 185 F-22s on a one-for-one basis.

The current breakdown of the service’s fighter force structure is 45 percent F-16s, 30 percent F-35s, 15 percent F-15s, and 10 percent F-22s. Last year’s long-term fighter force structure report said the service was aiming for an eventual inventory of 1,558 combat-coded fighters and hoped to hit a milestone of 1,369 aircraft by Fiscal Year 2030. As of the start of Fiscal Year 2026, the Air Force had 1,168 combat-coded fighters, not including 103 A-10 Warthog ground attack jets, which have been part of this force structure planning in the past. The plan now is for the last of the A-10s to be retired by 2030. The new 2035 figure also does not include the hundreds of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones the service wants to have acquired by that time, something we will come back to later on.

Currently, the Air Force expects fighter fleet expansion to be driven by the acquisition of new F-35As, F-15EXs, and F-47s. This was also the case when last year’s fighter force structure report was released. The possibility of the Air Force also acquiring new-production F-16s has come up several times in recent years. Most recently, there were several reports last month that prime contractor Lockheed Martin had made a new pitch to the service for a version of the latest Block 70 version of the fighter, tentatively dubbed the F-16G. New Block 70 and Block 72 F-16s, which differ in what engine they use, are being actively produced at Lockheed Martin’s plant in Greenville, South Carolina. At that time, TWZ did a deep dive into the benefits that this could offer the Air Force.

“There is a spectrum of capability that we might want to replace the F-16s with,” Lt. Gen. Tabor said amid a discussion about the prospect of acquiring new Vipers at the roundtable yesterday, per Air & Space Forces Magazine. “It’s not urgent, frankly. What we don’t want to get to is a point where it is urgent, and we haven’t done the homework and decided ‘hey, this is really the right place to be.’ We do have time to churn through that and make sure that we have a good option going forward.”

“We’re not in a position where that decision has to be made immediately,” Tabor added, while acknowledging that “we are very conscious” that older-model F-16s are set to begin reaching the end of their lifespans in the 2030s. He also said any such planning was unlikely to be part of the process of developing the service’s Fiscal Year 2028 budget proposal, which will be released sometime early next year.

The Air Force is “in the initial phases of analyzing options for the next Future Years Defense Program,” a spokesperson for the service had told us last month without specifically mentioning any particular type of aircraft. “At this stage, we have neither defined the precise mission requirements nor the spectrum of options that could fill it.”

When it comes to the current F-16 fleet, the Air Force had 774 Vipers in inventory at the start of Fiscal Year 2026 and expected that number to drop to 768, according to past budget documents. This includes a mixture of subvariants, and not all of them are assigned combat-coded units. The Air Force has been substantially upgrading at least a portion of its existing F-16s, including with the addition of new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars and electronic warfare suites, to ensure their operational relevance for years to come.

The Air Force has also already been taking newer F-16s from squadrons transitioning to the F-35 and using them to replace older Vipers in other units. Last year’s fighter force structure report explicitly highlighted plans to supplant Block 30 F-16s in five Air National Guard formations – three combat-coded squadrons and two training units – with Block 40 and 50 types in this way.

As we’ve previously written:

“A new F-16 offers a fresh and highly mature airframe — one with a full service-life ahead of it, on the order of 12,000 flight hours without the need for structural upgrades — double that of the original F-16. This is compared to existing F-16s in the inventory with the decades of wear and fatigue already accumulated on them, with structural upgrades keeping them in the air. That difference in remaining structural life is arguably the single biggest advantage a new-build aircraft has compared with extending an existing one.”

“Dumping more money into existing F-16s is becoming questionable. Service life extensions and technical upgrades can only go so far and supporting these jets is becoming harder as parts dry up and suppliers who made them are long gone. A new airframe would give the Guard many decades of highly efficient service and the piece of mind for future force planning that goes with it.”

…

“The new [F-16G] proposal would let some Guard and Reserve units swap their F-16s for vastly improved F-16s — the same logic that drove the F-15EX buy — while also keeping the Greenville line hot, which is a significant benefit in its own right. And it accomplishes both in the most efficient way possible: not just in acquisition cost, but in sustainment cost, which is really the more problematic burden of the two. In the end, this points to another glaring reality check for the all-stealth-force concept, a vision the Air Force has effectively already abandoned.”

“The Air Force has spent years describing the F-35 as the replacement for its F-16 fleet, yet it now has to contend with aging F-16s, delayed or constrained fighter production, a larger stated requirement for total fighter capacity, and the lengthy transition toward the F-47 and uncrewed combat aircraft. In that environment, a new-build F-16 provides an option that sits between extending legacy aircraft and buying the most sophisticated — and expensive — fighters available.”

You can read our full prior deep analysis on this topic here.

Lt. Gen. Tabor acknowledged many of these exact same points at the roundtable yesterday. He notably described acquiring new F-16s as “maybe the lazy” option, but also one that would benefit from “practically a ready-made aircraft” that is in production now, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine.

“The question is, can industry produce at those levels?” he also said, speaking more generally. “They’ve assured us that they can, and we believe them, but we also actually need to see it manifest.”

In the context of acquiring new F-16s, especially, it is important to note here that Lockheed Martin order books are very full already as a result of demand for these fighters from U.S. allies and partners. The company’s capacity, at least at present, to add a substantial new Air Force acquisition program on top of that is a real question. This, in some ways, mirrors questions that surround Boeing efforts to meet surging Air Force demand for F-15EXs.

On top of all this, the Air Force’s still-evolving CCA plans remain something of a wildcard in these discussions. The Air Force has ordered General Atomics FQ-42 Vengeance and Anduril’s FQ-44 Fury CCAs into production, and is now aiming to have a combined fleet of at least 500 of these drones in inventory by 2032. The service is also still expecting to acquire additional CCAs, which could be of entirely different types, through a second iterative development cycle, or Increment 2, under this program. This is influencing the service’s crewed fighter force structure plans, but the full scale and scope of those impacts remain to be seen.

“CCA is very much a reality,” Tabor said yesterday, per Air & Space Forces Magazine. “It is going to be a part of our future, and there is absolutely a world in which the incorporation of CCAs into the force will mitigate the requirement for the number of fighters. That’s not the CCA that we have right now, but it is advancing very, very rapidly. We’re confident that it will play a major role in future versions of the fighter force structure report.”

The Air Force’s F-22s are currently set to be its first ‘aerial quarterbacks’ for CCAs, with F-35s and F-47s expected to follow. At the same time, TWZ has highlighted previously how CCA could offer particular value when paired with fourth-generation fighters like the F-16. This, in turn, could actually bolster the case for new Viper acquisitions as a more affordable force multiplier.

The Air Force’s ability to secure necessary funding and other factors will play in all this, too. 2035 is a long way off from a budgetary perspective. It also stretches across multiple election cycles, including the one that will decide the next presidential administration, all of which could lead to major changes in defense spending priorities. Congress can and routinely does demand that the U.S. military alter major procurement plans. Just in the past two years or so, legislators have intervened to force the Air Force to move ahead with the acquisition of new E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control planes and to save the U.S. Navy F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter program.

In the meantime, the Air Force clearly faces many continued questions about how to balance the need to modernize its fighter fleets while ensuring it retains enough tactical airpower to meet current and future operational demands. Even so, the service says it sees no need to rush to make a decision about whether to choose the “lazy” route of just buying new F-16s.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The Angels have fired manager Kurt Suzuki after he lost 100 games in his only season in charge of the long-struggling club.

Baseball operations consultant John Mozeliak announced Wednesday that the Angels declined the option on Suzuki’s contract and would open a search for a new manager in 2027. Suzuki has been offered the opportunity to stay with the organization as a special assistant.

“Kurt has earned tremendous respect in our clubhouse, and I’ve seen firsthand how much he cares about our players,” Mozeliak said in a statement. “I do not believe our record this year was a true reflection of his true abilities as a manager.”

Mozeliak indicated he made the decision in coordination with Kroenke Sports & Entertainment, which reached a deal to purchase controlling ownership from Arte Moreno on Sept. 1. The sale is not expected to close until next year, but the sports conglomerate run by Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke is already making significant changes to its beleaguered baseball team.

The Angels went 62-100 — the first 100-loss season in franchise history — and finished last in the AL West in their only season under Suzuki, who ended his 16-year major league playing career as a catcher for the Angels in 2021-22. Suzuki had never been a manager at any level before he was given the job by general manager Perry Minasian, who had employed Suzuki as his special assistant for the previous three seasons.

Minasian was fired by Moreno last June, and longtime St. Louis Cardinals GM Mozeliak stepped in on a temporary basis to run the front office while leading the search for a permanent GM to replace him. That transition plan has been thrown into flux by Moreno’s decision to sell, and Mozeliak didn’t indicate whether he has a long-term future in his own job, although he said he had been looking “toward 2027 and beyond” while reaching the decision to fire Suzuki.

Mozeliak also indicated that Suzuki’s entire coaching staff is not expected to return in its current positions, but some members had been offered staff positions in the organization.

Mozeliak already fired Suzuki’s pitching coach, Mike Maddux, and two staffers in August because he felt the team wasn’t making sufficient use of the technology and analytics available to its pitchers. Mozeliak promoted Tim Leveque, the Angels’ Double-A pitching coach, to the major league staff at the time.

Suzuki’s replacement will be the seventh manager, including interims, to lead the team in nine seasons since it parted with Mike Scioscia after the 2018 season. The Angels have had 11 consecutive losing seasons and 12 straight non-playoff seasons, both the longest active skids in the major leagues.

The Angels now have MLB’s third current managerial vacancy, all in the AL West. The Seattle Mariners and the Houston Astros also parted ways with their managers after the season.

A decorated Air Force service member of 15 years died after a rappelling accident that took place during a salute to the military Saturday before the Navy-University of Texas at San Antonio game at the Alamodome.

U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Ian Patterson was a Tactical Air Control Party instructor assigned to the 6th Combat Training Squadron, Detachment 2, Joint Base San Antonio, according to a news release by Nellis Air Force Base Public Affairs.

“This tragedy is felt deeply across the 57th Wing,” U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Scott C. Mills, 57th Wing commander, said in the release.

“Tech. Sgt. Patterson and his service mattered immensely to our wing, and to the family, friends, and teammates who had the privilege of knowing and serving alongside him. Our team is now focused on standing beside Ian’s family, loved ones, and fellow Airmen as we navigate this profound loss together.”

Patterson received several medals for his service and achievements, according to the Nellis Air Force Base Public Affairs, including the Air and Space Commendation Medal with three oak leaf clusters. In 2022, he was named the Air Force Special Warfare Enlisted Instructor of the Year at the Headquarters Air Force level.

Details surrounding the accident are under investigation, according to the news release.

Video on social media appears to show Patterson rappelling from the arena’s rafters on a rope, and plummeting fast to the ground. He was treated on the field for several minutes and then taken away on a gurney.

Patterson later died at a local hospital, according to Nellis Air Force Base Public Affairs.

The football game between the two American Conference teams proceeded after a brief delay. The decision to play was made after a meeting that included conference commissioner Tim Pernetti, representatives from Navy and UTSA, Alamodome management and local authorities, according to a statement released by the American Conference.

“At the time of those discussions, Nellis Air Force Base Public Affairs had not publicly confirmed the service member’s condition,” the statement reads. “… In accordance with conference bylaws and with the support of both participating member institutions, the conference made the decision to continue the game. Respect for the family’s privacy and adherence to the military’s notification process guided the decision to mitigate speculation about the service member’s medical status and avoid additional distress for his family.”

The conference added that it extends “our deepest condolences to his family, friends, teammates and members of the 57th Wing who had the privilege of serving with him. We honor his service and join the military community in mourning his loss.”

UTSA president Taylor Eighmy also released a statement expressing “profound sadness.”

“In moments like these, words can offer only so much comfort,” Eighmy wrote. “But I hope the service member’s family, his fellow airmen and all those grieving know that they are in our thoughts and prayers. We stand together in sadness, united by our compassion for one another and our heartfelt support for all those whose lives have been touched by this tragedy.”

The UTSA vice president for intercollegiate athletics, Lisa Campos, said in a statement: “Moments like these remind us that we are all part of something much greater than a game. They remind us of the importance of standing together, supporting one another and finding strength in the bonds that unite us, especially in times of profound sadness. Today, our hearts are with this service member’s family, his fellow airmen and everyone impacted by this heartbreaking tragedy.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport will announce its verdict on the title after it was awarded to Morocco by CAF.

A decision on Senegal’s appeal ‌‌after being stripped of this year’s Africa Cup of Nations title will be made ⁠⁠at the end of ⁠⁠November, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has confirmed.

“This process will require several weeks, with the CAS Award expected at the end of November 2026,” the court said in a statement on Monday.

Senegal are contesting the decision by the Confederation of African Football (CAF) to declare Morocco champions, despite Senegal beating the hosts ⁠⁠1-0 after extra time in January’s final in Rabat. Their arguments, plus those of Morocco and CAF, were heard by CAS in Lausanne on October 8.

At the time, CAS said ⁠⁠it expected a decision within days but has now decided to issue a complete ruling, including legal grounds, known as a CAS Award.

Senegal walked off the pitch for 14 minutes ‌‌after a penalty was awarded against them late in regulation time, with several players returning to the dressing room in protest before they resumed play.

Morocco missed the spot kick, sending the match into extra time, where Senegal scored the winner to secure victory.

However, they were stripped of the title two months later after CAF’s Appeal Board ruled that Senegal had forfeited the match by walking off the pitch, overturning the result and awarding a 3-0 victory to ⁠⁠Morocco.

Senegal quickly followed with an appeal to CAS, ⁠⁠which was lodged on March 25 but heard some six months later. The basis of their arguments is that the referee’s decision is final and he allowed the match to be completed.

“I know it’s a long wait for the fans, ⁠ ⁠a few months after the final between Senegal and Morocco,” CAS Director General Matthieu Reeb said outside the hearing earlier this month.

“The facts are set, are clear and the discussions will be on some procedural issues and legal aspects,” he added.

The CAS panel is presided over by French sports law expert Gerald Simon, with the assistance of Italian international law ‌‌professor Luigi Fumagalli and Hamburg-based lawyer and professor of law at the University of Zurich, Ulrich Haas.

CAS decisions are called awards and hold the same value as a national court judgement. CAS awards may be enforced by sports federations or state courts, depending on the circumstances.

Oct. 17, 2026 8:31 AM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s abrupt decision to waive sanctions on Russia days before they were to take effect drew outrage Saturday from members of Congress, which had overwhelmingly passed the legislation in a bipartisan display of American support for Ukraine in the war with Russia.

Lawmakers from both parties blasted the executive order late Friday, the latest in a series of steps that the Republican president has taken drawing the United States closer to Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Trump recently announced a diesel deal with Putin to import Russian energy in a long-shot effort to curb high gas prices in the U.S. that are roiling the midterm elections on Nov. 3.

“Beyond irresponsible,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), on social media, hours after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed hope that the sanctions that were supposed to take effect Sunday targeting Russian’s economy could be revived.

“What part of enforcing a law passed 86-11 by the Senate does the President and his advisors not understand?” Tillis said. “It’s unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator who illegally invaded Ukraine.”

Tillis said that if Trump wants to actually bring down energy prices, he should resolve the Iran war, which is largely blamed for the spike at the pump, and “not by doing a solid for Vladimir Putin.”

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said, “Lindsey would be appalled,” referring to the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who worked endlessly on the bill before he died this summer. The bill is known as the Lindsey Graham Russian Sanctions Act.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Trump is “thumbing his nose” at Congress and “enabling Vladimir Putin to continue his war of aggression.” She urged her colleagues to take action to reverse course.

Trump’s actions come as Ukraine is bracing for a stark winter confronting Russia’s ongoing attacks on its energy infrastructure to heat homes and keep the lights on. Zelensky, who has endured a rocky relationship with Trump but stayed close to the U.S. lawmakers, urged supporters to speak out on behalf of the sanctions.

The next steps are highly uncertain with the House and Senate on recess until after election day. Trump said he was waiving the sanctions indefinitely, citing national security concerns. It is unlikely Congress would be in a position to take any action to challenge Trump’s moves until lawmakers return to Washington.

It took almost a year for Graham to persuade Trump to agree to the Russian sanctions package. It was designed to impose steep tariffs on countries that import large amounts of Russian oil and energy products and was promoted as way to halt the flow of funds fueling Putin’s four-year war against Ukraine.

But even as Zelensky had watched from the visitor gallery as the Senate advanced the package after Graham’s death, skeptics in Congress warned Trump would be unlikely to follow the bill once he had signed it into law a month ago.

Last week, a bipartisan group of senators urged the Trump administration to more quickly clamp down on Russia, particularly the “shadow fleet” of tankers that Moscow is using to transport oil and bypass America’s sanctions. The senators noted that the bulk of the new law’s provisions were to be effective Sunday.

Instead, Trump soon announced the diesel deal with Putin, saying that Russia had agreed to supply tons of fuel to the U.S., where gas prices have skyrocketed in some areas and voters saying affordability issues are a top concern.

Outraged lawmakers have pledged to stop the Trump-Putin deal.

New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee who had led opposition to the Graham bill — warning that Trump would flout the law — introduced legislation Friday that would block Trump’s diesel deal with Putin.

“At a time when the United States should be increasing pressure on the Kremlin, Donald Trump is cozying up to Putin and striking self-enriching deals instead of standing with Ukraine,” Meeks said in a statement.

He called the deal “corrupt” and said it “goes against everything the United States stands for.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

IT IS two years to the day since Liam Payne’s family – and his millions of fans – had their hearts broken when the pop star plunged to his death from a third-floor balcony at the Casa Sur Hotel in Buenos Aires.

Now, a bombshell update has ripped through the investigation. Argentinian businessman Rogelio ‘Roger’ Nores, 38, once facing the terrifying prospect of prison for negligent homicide, has been officially cleared of all criminal liability. Two hotel workers have also walked free.

Meanwhile, two defendants charged with selling cocaine to Liam await their fate, but case sources now think a full trial over his death will never take place.

For Liam’s grieving family and millions of devoted fans, Roger being cleared does not bring closure.

It simply shines a spotlight on the agonising black holes still in the official narrative as a UK inquest into Liam’s death is still ongoing, despite a series of setbacks. 

Here are the chilling questions that still demand answers:

Who really delivered the fatal dose?

While Nores and two hotel workers, Gilda Martin and Esteban Grassi, have had manslaughter charges dropped, the drug trail hasn’t gone cold. Toxicology reports confirmed a lethal cocktail of “alcohol, cocaine, and a prescription antidepressant” in Liam’s system.

Two men, Ezequiel Pereya, 22, and Braian Paiz, 26, are currently languishing in an Argentine jail awaiting trial, accused of selling Liam the narcotics. 

Braian Paiz was working at a high end restaurant in Buenos Aires when he first met the One Direction singer on October 2, 2024. 

He has claimed as Liam was leaving he asked the starstruck waiter if he had any cocaine and the pair exchanged Instagram handles. 

Over a week later Liam, who was still in the Argentine capital, contacted him to ask for drugs. 

Braian admitted in his witness statement: “He ended up convincing me to get [drugs] for him. And, in all honesty, I didn’t want to miss the opportunity to see him again. That’s why I agreed to do it.”

In a later newspaper interview, he said: “I’ve suffered so much psychological damage due to all this and the social condemnation, and of course I’m worried now I might be in prison for many years. But I don’t regret meeting Liam. I was a fan.”

But it has become clear Liam was getting drugs from many sources, so the question remains: how did a global superstar, supposedly in a secure VIP suite, become a target for local dealers? Was there a wider network exploiting vulnerable guests at the Casa Sur?

When will the trial of the two accused take place? 

The two defendants charged with selling cocaine to Liam in the lead up to his death are still awaiting trial. 

Restaurant waiter Braian Nahuel Paiz, 26, and hotel worker Ezequiel David Pereyra, 22, served over one year in police precincts and in a federal prison until they were released in March.

The Sun understands that there have been negotiations for a plea deal for the two young men. 

That could mean that a full trial over Liam’s death never takes place.

The pair are accused of selling drugs to Liam but if the plea deal goes ahead that charge could be reduced to supply of drugs for free, which carries a maximum sentence of six months.  

According to legal experts, given the pair have no prior criminal convictions, the sentence would already be covered by time served. 

Pereyra’s defense attorney, Augusto Maria Cassiau, told The New York Post: “We would be inclined to accept the offer.”

What part will Cheryl play in the ongoing investigation? 

Another heartbreaking chapter involves Cheryl, who shares 9-year-old son, Bear, with Liam.

Since Liam tragically passed away without leaving a will, his entire £25.7 million estate will eventually pass to his young son.

In May 2025, Cheryl was officially named as a co-administrator of his massive estate alongside attorney Richard Mark Bray. 

However, her power is strictly administrative. She and Bray can “manage the money” but cannot distribute it without further legal authority. 

Shortly after Liam’s passing, Cheryl issued a searing statement condemning the “abhorrent reports and media exploitation” surrounding his death, begging for Liam to be given “the little dignity he has left”. 

Cheryl is a plaintiff, on behalf of their son Bear, in the case against the waiter and the hotel worker, who are charged with supplying Liam drugs.

The Sun understands that she could ultimately have the last say over any plea deal agreed with the Argentine authorities – but she, or her lawyers, have so far not objected to the rulings in Roger’s favour. 

Now as the inquest stalls, how much longer will Cheryl and Bear have to wait for the final legal chapter to close?

What happened on the balcony? 

The most haunting mystery of all. We know Liam fell from the third floor of the hotel, where he was staying in Room 10. 

But the moments leading up to that fatal plunge are still shrouded in silence. The UK coroner, Crispin Butler, has been desperately chasing “eyewitness statements” from Argentina since late 2025. 

Following his death, it was reported that Liam jumped off his balcony, perhaps trying to reach the swimming pool below that it was claimed he had been denied access to because of his intoxicated state. 

But it later became clear he had fallen backwards, possibly after falling unconscious, causing unsurvivable injuries to his head and dying instantly.

The toxicology report read: “Due to the position in which the body was found and the injuries from the fall, it is presumed that Payne did not adopt a reflexive posture to protect himself and may have fallen in a state of semi or total unconsciousness.”

After forensic experts studied the singer’s hands, they did not find any defensive injuries, which led them to believe that “the injuries on the body were vital and produced at the same time, and that no injuries were observed that could suggest the intervention of third parties”.

Are there witnesses who saw the build-up? Were there warning signs ignored by hotel management before he stepped onto the balcony? And why did they let him back into his room? 

Why are the Argentine authorities not working more closely with their UK counterparts? 

For Liam’s family, the wait for justice is becoming a cruel joke. 

The UK inquest has been delayed repeatedly, first pushed to May 2026, and now stalled again because British coroners are still waiting on fully translated case files and evidence disclosures from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

Coroner Crispin Butler told a pre-inquest hearing there had been no updates since a last review in January 2025, when he said he would seek full reports and eyewitness statements before a final inquest.

He added: “We have had no further disclosure of evidence from Argentina via the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.”

It has been 24 months. Why are the Argentine authorities dragging their heels in handing over the final, unredacted timeline?

Formula One returns to Africa for the first time in more than three decades, but DR Congo slams decision to race in Rwanda.

Formula 1 will “polish the image of an authoritarian leader” if it goes ahead with plans to hold an African Grand Prix in Rwanda, the foreign minister of neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, said Thursday.

Rwandan President Paul Kagame joined F1 Chief Executive Stefano Domenicali and FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem on Tuesday to announce the race. It will be held at a circuit yet to be built at Bugesera, near Rwanda’s capital Kigali, in “the early 2030s,” F1 says. The series last raced in Africa in 1993.

The DRC, the United States and UN experts accuse Rwanda of backing M23 rebels in eastern DRC. Rwanda says its security measures are intended to protect it against threats from armed groups operating across the border.

“In February 2025, I warned Stefano Domenicali and the F1 authorities that allowing Rwanda to host a Grand Prix would be morally indefensible,” Kayikwamba Wagner said in a statement. “[The DRC] welcomes Formula 1’s return to Africa, but giving Paul Kagame this platform would help polish the image of an authoritarian leader whose government has helped fuel a devastating war in our country.”

Kayikwamba Wagner said the DRC backs rival efforts from South Africa to host a race instead.

“This is also an opportunity for F1 to show its audiences and supporters what the sport truly stands for,” she added. “It should require credible, independent guarantees that no money used to host the race comes from conflict-linked minerals or the exploitation of Congolese resources.”

The DRC has previously objected to other Rwandan efforts to promote its brand through sports, especially a string of high-profile sponsorship agreements with leading European football clubs.

The US imposed sanctions on Rwanda’s military and four senior officers in March over their support for M23 rebels in eastern DRC. Rwanda rejected the sanctions as one-sided and said they misrepresented the conflict.

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of six senators — four of them Republicans — called Sunday for the Trump administration to “immediately reverse course” on a plan to purchase diesel from Russia as part of an effort to lower high fuel prices.

President Trump shocked lawmakers when he announced on social media Friday that he had struck a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call. He said Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel to the American and global market, followed by an additional 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons “immediately thereafter.” Russia will deliver an additional 3 million tons “within a short period of time” after that, he wrote.

Four Republican senators and two Democratic senators signed onto the statement released Sunday protesting the deal. They said the administration failed to consult with Congress or submit any explanation to justify its decision as required by statute.

“The United States should not provide Putin with a financial lifeline while Russia continues to kill Ukrainian civilians. The Administration must immediately reverse course,” they wrote.

The Republican senators who signed onto the statement are Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Curtis of Utah. The Democratic senators are Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

Tillis, in an interview that aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said there’s a legitimate case for saying the president is not following the law if the administration goes through with its diesel purchase plan.

“We were very clear that Russia is the aggressor. Russia is the one who can end this war by backing out of territory that they occupied,” Tillis said.

Trump’s announcement came just a few weeks after Congress passed legislation that directed Trump to impose substantial tariffs on the top importers of Russian oil or natural gas, with an exception for countries that import less than 15% of Russia’s natural gas exports and have taken significant steps to reduce those imports.

The congressional effort was aimed at cutting the flow of money Russia receives from oil and gas sales to finance its war against Ukraine.

The lawmakers also noted that Congress explicitly banned Russia energy imports in 2022 — after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine — to prevent the United States from financing the war.

“Congress was clear: the U.S. should not import oil from Russia until it ends its aggression against Ukraine and ceases threats against our NATO Allies,” the six lawmakers wrote in their statement. “President Trump’s decision to allow Russian diesel imports to the U.S. runs directly counter to that law.”

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), when asked whether the president’s action would be in violation of U.S. law, said Trump is focused on reducing the cost of energy.

“The president is balancing and has to make tough decisions,” Barrasso said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

He also encouraged Trump to enforce the sanctions law that Congress passed last month.

“This is just another point of leverage for the president to use against Putin in an effort to get a long-term solution in that part of the world,” Barrasso said.

Trump has recently sought to blame record U.S. diesel prices on Ukraine rather than the U.S.-led war in Iran, which has elevated world energy prices.

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 10, 2026 7:06 PM PT

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating whether the decision of the White House television press pool to halt coverage of President Trump last month violated antitrust law, an agency spokesperson said Saturday.

Emily Covington, a spokesperson for the department, said group boycotts among business competitors might violate U.S. law. “The Antitrust Division is simply investigating to determine whether these news organizations have violated the antitrust laws,” she said.

The announcement came after the television pool of five broadcasters last month ceased presidential coverage after the administration barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House because of coverage Trump disliked.

Messages were sent late Saturday to the five outlets seeking comment: ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC.

The White House press pool, which is a rotating cast of news outlets that covers the president, has become a proxy for the wider fight over whether the president, or anyone, can control the content of news reports — a type of free speech, a pillar of American democracy.

Last month’s developments marked an extraordinary escalation in Trump’s efforts to restrict news reporters and outlets that he finds insufficiently supportive.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued over the days-long ban. It was lifted after a judge handed the three news organizations a reprieve, which is in place until Tuesday.

Television pool coverage of the White House has also resumed.

Jose Zamora, the Committee to Protect Journalists’ regional director of the Americas, on Saturday criticized the administration’s decision to investigate.

“The government should not use antitrust investigations to intimidate news outlets defending press access,” Zamora said on X. “The public’s right to know depends on that access.”

Durkin Richer and Taxin write for the Associated Press. Taxin reported from Santa Ana.

Nimesh Patel’s stock in comedy has been on an upswing lately. From sold-out shows to a skyrocketing social media following and the release of his first Netflix special, “Buy the Dip,” last month, it’s been amazing the difference a year makes. The new hour filmed in Washington, D.C., delivers surgically precise, dryly delivered jokes and personal stories about America falling apart from the heart of our nation’s capital.

Despite the dire circumstances, it’s in our country’s DNA to believe in the power of the rebound. So does Patel, who’s seen one play out with his own career after taking an unexpected hit. Last fall, the comedian faced public backlash for his decision to accept — and then reject — a spot on the controversial Riyadh Comedy Festival, for which he’d been offered $125,000 to perform along with major names like Dave Chappelle, Bill Burr, Sebastian Maniscalco, Whitney Cummings and many more. The rollout of a comedy festival in Saudi Arabia, a nation whose government has been accused of human rights abuses and, according to U.S. intelligence, the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at its consulate in Turkey, lead to a war of words on the internet aimed at the comedians on the lineup. Hearing the scrutiny loud and clear and ultimately deciding the money wasn’t worth it, Patel decided to pull out and tell the world via Instagram that he wasn’t going, opting instead (and somewhat grudgingly) to make up for the lost bag with 40 extra shows added to his nationwide theater tour. The response to his video announcement drew even more ire from comedy fans. Looking back on it now, he admits his delivery at the time, looking tired and somewhat annoyed by his own decision, wasn’t the greatest.

“People read that as sarcasm and like woe is me,” Patel said in a recent conversation with The Times over Zoom. “I can see why they thought that I was a poor actor in the video that I posted. But everyone acts better than the person they see on the screen until it becomes their life and then they’re like, ‘Oh s—, yeah, I probably would have done the same thing.’ So, f— them!”

Despite the roasting he received, Patel stuck to his word and did the shows. Stepping on stage night after night to earn the money he had planned on making last year from one canceled gig in Saudi Arabia gave him the reps he says he needed to perfect the new hour of material. The title “Buy the Dip” is a nod to the remnants of his former career in finance — it’s stock market terminology about buying a failing asset with the hope that it will go up in value again. But it also describes the optimism from which he now makes his decisions as a parent and as someone who still believes that things can get better, even at their lowest.

“I have to be an optimist, I have to believe the world is getting better, because otherwise, what the f— did I do by having a kid?” he said.

In his Netflix debut special, “Buy the Dip,” comedian Nimesh Patel turns personal setbacks and a troubled America into sharply observed jokes grounded in unexpected optimism.

(Courtesy of Netflix)

His belief in positivity followed him to D.C. to record the special, the town where he says he got his first big breaks as a comedian opening for major acts like Maz Jobrani at the Warner Theatre, headlining the Bier Baron and the DC Improv and even the Kennedy Center — “or the now-defunct Trump whatever you’re supposed to call it,” he joked. When it comes to his comedy trajectory, taking the long view is essential to realizing that Patel’s path to this special started over a decade ago when Chris Rock discovered him while on stage in Brooklyn and helped him get writing gigs on “Saturday Night Live” and the 2016 Oscars ceremony, two opportunities that solidified his resolve to go into comedy full-time after he lost his job in finance.

As an Indian American comedian, he knows there is a spotlight of cultural representation on him, which he notes in the special and even makes fun of. That kind of attention isn’t on just him but also on Indian Americans in even higher-profile jobs, such as, say, the first Indian American director of the FBI, the chronically embattled Kash Patel.

“Let me be clear, it’s really difficult to both be proud of Kash and despise him at the same time,” Patel says. On the one hand, there’s the astonishing feat of going from being one of the few Indian kids in Virginia amid post-9/11 racism to becoming head of the nation’s domestic intelligence agency. On the other there’s a career riddled with gaffes and allegedly immoral conduct that makes him an easy punching bag for the writers at “SNL” with the help of his late-night TV doppelganger Aziz Ansari.

“For him to go from that to then be serving the country at this level, that is an incredible achievement, and it’s just so sad that that is who our representative is at the moment,” Patel said. “Just like when an Uber driver says to me, ‘Your last name is Patel? Like Kash?’ I’m like, ‘Yeah, just like that, but not like that at all, you know?’”

Patel revisits the backlash he faced after accepting, then withdrawing from, Saudi Arabia’s Riyadh Comedy Festival, and how dozens of extra tour dates helped shape his new material.

(Courtesy of Netflix)

While trying to distance himself from one person who shares his family name, when it comes to his actual family, Patel has plenty of jokes of being too close to them. Like many millennials, he’s squeezed tight between caring for aging parents and raising a child. At 40, he says in the special that people in his age bracket have become the “Sandwich Generation.” Though, to be fair to his toddler, keeping track of his parents is a much harder task at times.

“They won’t take help. They’re very independent, and I imagine I was the same way when I was growing up,” Patel said. “So it’s that in itself is just like the Progressive commercial that we’re all becoming our parents, but in real life and not driven by a corporate marketing team. It’s just funny to see that play out.”

Whether the obstacles he faces in life are laugh-out-loud funny or career hurdles that threaten to topple him into the abyss, the idea that he can always bounce back is the key to staying unfazed during the highs and the lows of life. And to the extent that anyone can take a lesson from Patel in the art of staying even-keeled, he hopes the special will make people feel a little less bad about the country being on the brink of destruction.

“Everyone knows that we’re not in a good spot right now,” he said. “The dip is here now. I fully believe that we can recover, I hope that we can. It’s going to be a lot of pain. I don’t know if we’re at the bottom just yet, but I’m optimistic, and I have to be. Otherwise, I don’t know what I’m doing.”

And now we present the forecast for the Atlanta Braves, brought to you by Yogi Berra: It gets late early out there.

The Dodgers can cloud the outlook for anyone. The Braves left Dodger Stadium in an uneasy spot Saturday, with one big decision to make: Do they risk putting themselves in the uncomfortable position of facing three consecutive elimination games without using their best pitcher in the first two games of this National League Division Series, or do they start Chris Sale on Sunday?

“We’re expecting to see him,” Dodgers infielder Tommy Edman said.

The Dodgers have four aces. The Braves have one.

“We’ve got the ace of all aces in Chris Sale,” Braves pitcher Brent Suter said.

So why were the Braves publicly noncommittal about using him?

The Braves deployed him Thursday, for the final four outs of the deciding game of the wild-card round. He started and pitched into the seventh inning on Tuesday.

The four days between starts is traditional — as is throwing once between starts, albeit generally in a pregame workout — but the 37-year-old Sale has not done that since April.

“The deciding factor is always going to be how Chris is feeling,” Atlanta manager Walt Weiss said. “When we came in the other night, the first words out of his mouth were ‘I feel amazing.’ If he were to come in [Sunday] morning and say ‘I feel amazing,’ there’s a chance he pitches.”

Sale, a 10-time All-Star, posted a 2.16 earned-run average this season, trailing only projected Cy Young winners Jacob Misiorowski and Cam Schlittler. In two appearances against the Dodgers, he posted a 1.13 ERA, with no walks and 18 strikeouts in 16 innings.

“He’s the ace over there, and we’re ready to see him two times this series, regardless of whether he is starting or coming out of the bullpen,” Dodgers infielder Miguel Rojas said. “We all know he is going to be out there at some point.

“If it’s [Sunday], we will be ready. If it’s Game 3, we will be ready. If it’s [Sunday] out of the ‘pen, we will be ready.”

Weiss should be concerned. If he is, he would not publicly admit to it.

“To me, it’s not that big a deal when he pitches,” Weiss said. “He’s going to pitch in this series.

“Dodgers can’t win it in two.”

The Braves risk overthinking this. If Sale starts Sunday, he also could start on traditional rest in a potential Game 5. If the Braves hold him back until Game 3, he presumably would not start a potential Game 5 on two days’ rest.

So, if the Braves get that far, would they want to limit Sale to, say, four outs?

“Even if he throws Game 3, I think he’s still available for Game 5 in some way, shape, or form,” Weiss said.

The Dodgers could push Yoshinobu Yamamoto to Game 3 because they had Tarik Skubal and Blake Snell to start the first two games. Money buys you the best of options.

The Braves’ most likely options for Game 2, if Sale does not start: a second consecutive bullpen game, or Grant Holmes, 30, a Dodgers first-round draft pick in 2014, and three years later, part of a three-prospect package sent to the Oakland Athletics for Rich Hill and Josh Reddick.

The way Weiss looks at it, he can win three out of the next four games with his top two starters (Sale and Tyler Mahle) yet to be used, and all his high-leverage relievers fresh.

The way we look at it, who says the series extends to four or five games? The Braves either try to win with Sale on Sunday, or risk needing to sweep three games started by Yamamoto, Tyler Glasnow and Skubal, in that order. Wouldn’t be prudent.

“We know Sale is their best pitcher,” Rojas said. “So we are ready for him, at some point.”

That point should be Sunday, a little after 5 p.m.

WASHINGTON — More than three weeks have passed since the deadline for extending or revoking temporary protections against deportation for around 170,000 immigrants from El Salvador.

The Trump administration still hasn’t reached a decision, plunging the Salvadoran community into uncertainty and raising questions about what has prompted the delay.

The deportation reprieve is known as Temporary Protected Status. About 1.3 million people from 17 countries had TPS when President Trump returned to office last year, and Salvadorans make up the largest group of remaining beneficiaries.

When the TPS expiration deadlines approached for other groups, the administration reached a decision within days of a deadline. Haitians lost their TPS protections and were encouraged to leave the country. Some have been deported.

For now, Salvadoran immigrants are stuck. Many have been able to keep their jobs, though others were laid off in the absence of an official work permit extension.

Last month, administration officials said an announcement on TPS for Salvadorans would come “at the appropriate time” and that they would retain work authorization in the meantime. Asked for updated guidance Friday, a Homeland Security spokesperson provided the same statement.

The Department of Homeland Security had been prepared to end TPS protections for Salvadorans but was stopped from doing so by the White House, Politico reported.

So what’s causing the limbo?

One theory focuses on political considerations — that extending the deportation reprieve could have made the administration appear weak on immigration to its conservative base, just ahead of next month’s consequential midterm election.

Another theory holds that ending TPS would shock El Salvador’s economy, which is heavily reliant on remittances from Salvadorans in the U.S. President Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally, advocated for more time, according to Politico.

In addition, the White House was warned that canceling TPS for Salvadorans would disrupt construction projects in Washington, D.C., the New Yorker reported and a source with knowledge of the warnings confirmed they had occurred.

A White House official, in a statement, said that “any assertion Washington D.C. construction projects had anything to do with a decision about El Salvador TPS are false.”

The Washington region has the second-largest Salvadoran population in the U.S., after Los Angeles, and the construction industry relies significantly on workers with TPS.

Trump is overseeing a sweeping aesthetic makeover of the nation’s capital, including his controversial 90,000-square-foot, $600-million ballroom complex at the White House. The president also ordered a facelift for the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, renovations at Lafayette Square, a public park across from the White House and the application of 23.75 karat gold leaf to four bronze and granite statues.

Contracts at sensitive locations such as the White House typically include requirements that workers be U.S. citizens. A White House official said there is no one with TPS status working on the East Wing Modernization construction project.

Asked about those working on the president’s other projects around the district, a Department of Interior spokesperson said contractors are obligated to ensure everyone working on any project is legally permitted to work in the U.S.

“The Department has not had any conversations about TPS or how it relates to construction projects around the city,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement.

People with TPS do work in other federal facilities.

Lauren Truslow is chief executive of 3D Enviro, a Virginia company that does hazardous materials abatement with a handful of workers affected by the TPS expiration for El Salvador. She said that after her employees’ federal badges expired last month, they were eventually reinstated until Oct. 9 — but not before missing several days of work.

TPS allows immigrants to obtain work permits and other documents. The uncertain status of TPS has led to sometime conflicting actions by government agencies or employers.

Advocates for TPS holders said some states have refused to renew their driver’s licenses, while others renewed licenses for different lengths of time. Truslow said some of her employees were only able to get federally noncompliant driver’s licenses, which they can’t use to get into federal facilities.

“At least they’re here in this community and they weren’t forced to leave,” she said. “I don’t want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I think there were ramifications with the decision and still there’s uncertainty.”

Truslow said the government agency her company works with is unrolling a new process. After next week, her workers on that project can seek an approval extension for their badges that would last until March.

For construction companies, getting rid of TPS “would be a disaster,” said Arnoldo Diaz, co-coordinator of the National TPS Alliance, an advocacy group. “D.C. can’t function without TPS.”

Rebecca Shi, executive director of the American Business Immigration Coalition, has had ongoing conversations with Homeland Security and White House leaders about TPS. What sets Salvadorans apart, she said, is the decades of experience many bring to the construction industry, which would be impossible to quickly replace.

“Many are managers and business owners themselves, running large projects,” she said. “It’s a level of skill set and longtime loyalty that cannot be replaced overnight. Because the president has been in this industry for five decades, he instinctively knows that.”

That economic consideration, coupled with polls showing that Latino voters think Trump has gone too far with immigration enforcement, “are the much larger considerations than the president’s own pet projects,” Shi said.

Roxy Mejia, political director of a local painters union in Washingon, said 67% of the 1,500 members are Latino and many of them Salvadoran TPS holders.

Mejia said she and her father immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador in 1985, before TPS existed. He worked on the Pentagon renovation after 9/11.

Under this administration, some Salvadorans with TPS have been declining government contract jobs out of fear of being detained, she said.

“Even the contractors have lobbied with us to keep TPS extending, because they would lose a lot of manpower in this area,” she said.

SEATTLE — A judge on Thursday overturned President Trump’s decision to fire the court-appointed top U.S. prosecutor in Seattle, the latest development in a legal tug-of-war over the administration’s efforts to control who occupies the powerful Justice Department posts.

The 17 active and senior judges in the Western District of Washington unanimously named Roger Rogoff, a former judge and veteran prosecutor, U.S. attorney in July, after Trump failed to fill the post with a nominee confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

The president fired Rogoff less than an hour later. Rogoff sued, and in a ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian found the termination unlawful and reinstated him.

Bastian noted that when presidents fail to fill a U.S. attorney post with a nominee confirmed by the Senate, federal law authorizes the judges of that district to appoint someone “until the vacancy is filled.”

“It does not say ‘until the president fires the person selected,’” Bastian said.

He concluded: “Mr. Roger Rogoff is the United States attorney for the Western District of Washington and has been the rightful holder of that office since July 15, 2026, when he took the oath of office.”

The Justice Department said in a written statement it disagreed with the decision and would appeal.

Rogoff is the latest in a series of judicially appointed U.S. attorneys to be ousted by the Trump administration, and he is believed to be the first to sue over the removal, setting up a direct legal battle over the issue.

Presidents normally appoint U.S. attorneys, the top federal prosecutor in each judicial district. The positions require Senate confirmation, except in temporary appointments, which can last up to 120 days. When temporary appointments expire before a nominee is confirmed, the judges in a judicial district can name a U.S. attorney.

But under Trump, the Justice Department has sought to leave unconfirmed prosecutors in their positions indefinitely, often through novel personnel maneuvers. Trump named Charles Neil Floyd, who previously served as an immigration judge, interim U.S. attorney in Seattle in October 2025 but never forwarded his nomination to the Senate.

When Floyd’s time as interim U.S. attorney expired, Trump simply shifted his title, a tactic the administration has also tried in other federal judicial districts: It named him first assistant U.S. attorney, while leaving the top post empty.

Trump last month nominated Pete Serrano, the first assistant U.S. attorney in eastern Washington, to be the U.S. attorney in Seattle. But Serrano has not been confirmed, and his nomination is opposed by Washington’s senior Democratic senator, Patty Murray.

“Today’s ruling is an important victory for the rule of law and the people in Western Washington who deserve a U.S. attorney that answers to the law, not Donald Trump,” Murray said in a written statement Thursday.

Bastian is the chief judge in eastern Washington. He heard the case because the judges in western Washington were recused.

In December, Alina Habbaresigned as the top federal prosecutor for New Jersey after an appeals court said she had been serving in the post unlawfully.

Lindsey Halligan, who pursued indictments against a pair of Trump’s adversaries, left her position as an acting U.S. attorney in Virginia after a judge concluded her appointment was unlawful and that indictments she brought against James and former FBI Director James Comey must be dismissed.

The judges there named James Hundley, who had handled criminal and civil cases for more than 30 years, but the administration fired him. It also fired a court-appointed U.S. attorney in northern New York.

Johnson writes for the Associated Press.

PHOENIX — The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Arizona’s eleventh-hour bid to block the upcoming start of a court-ordered takeover of healthcare operations in its prisons after the state was found to have provided constitutionally inadequate care to incarcerated people and dragged its feet for over a decade in making required improvements. Justice Elena Kagan denied the state’s request Thursday, leaving an outside corrections professional set to take over healthcare management for 25,000 incarcerated people on Oct. 19.

Arizona had asked the courts to delay the takeover while it appealed that decision and the appointment of former Ohio corrections director Annette Chambers-Smith to lead the effort. The state sought the delay from the Supreme Court after lower courts rejected by the request.

Over the past 14 years, Arizona has been dogged by complaints that its prison healthcare system was run shoddily and callously and that it repeatedly failed to improve a system found to have exposed prisoners to harm and preventable deaths.

Under a 2014 settlement, the state pledged to overhaul medical and healthcare services for prisoners but was soon accused of failing to make promised improvements. That led to more than $2 million in contempt-of-court fines and the eventual revocation of the agreement by U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver, who said corrections officials had shown little interest in making required changes.

After a 2021 trial, Silver ruled against the state, issuing an injunction that required corrections authorities to address the constitutional violations. Earlier this year, she ordered the takeover after concluding the state hadn’t gotten a semblance of compliance with court-ordered changes and the U.S. Constitution after more than a decade of litigation. Silver found that prisoners remained exposed to grave threats of harm and suffering because of systematic deficiencies in their health care.

The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Re-entry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday’s decision.

In a statement, Corene Kendrick, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represents prisoners in the lawsuit, applauded the court’s refusal to delay the takeover, also known as a receivership. She said Arizona fought accountability at every turn while prisoners suffered. “Today’s decision clears the way for a receiver to do what the state has failed to do for more than a decade,” Kendrick said.

In seeking a delay, Arizona’s attorneys said Silver adopted a drastic takeover remedy without first trying intermediate fixes to speed compliance. They also said the judge hadn’t given the corrections department enough time to continue making progress and argued that the official appointed to run healthcare operations wouldn’t be politically accountable. They said the agency is committed to improving health care in prisons, has made significant progress since 2023 and that the prisoners won’t suffer harm if the start of the takeover were delayed by a few months.

Lawyers for prisoners said the state was minimizing its noncompliance, disputed its claim it had not been given enough time to comply after 14 years of litigation and said Silver had already tried less-intrusive remedies. They also said the state’s proposal of a months-long delay in the takeover “grievously minimizes” the harm prisoners face from the state’s inability to provide adequate care.

Complaints about health care in Arizona’s prisons have spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The lawsuit was filed in 2012 during Republican Gov. Jan Brewer’s administration and continued under Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, when both contempt fines against the state were issued. Under Ryan Thornell, the corrections director in Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs administration, the department has complained that its progress in overhauling health care operations in recent years hasn’t been acknowledged.

The lawsuit over healthcare for incarcerated people covers Arizona’s nine state-run prisons but not the nearly 10,000 Arizona inmates held in private prisons.

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press.

The Strait of Hormuz remains the most perilous choke point on the global map as Iran continues to disrupt traffic by attacking vessels. A recent proposal by the Islamic Republic to open the waterway within seven days raised hopes that the situation could go back to normal. United States President Donald Trump, however, rejected the offer.

To understand the strategic calculus behind his high-stakes decision, one must look beyond the immediate tactical noise and peer into the deeper logic of deterrence.

On its surface, the rejection of a temporary truce in the world’s most vital energy corridor appears to be a reckless gamble – a provocation inviting the very conflagration the West seeks to avoid. But viewed through the lens of cold realism, the rejection was not only a calculated necessity; it was the right decision.

The Iranian regime’s proposal was a classic exercise in asymmetric diplomacy. It offered a brief window of stability, a transactional pause, in exchange for what would have amounted to a de facto relaxation of American pressure. To accept such terms would have meant embracing the delusional belief that a terrorist power can be bribed into good behaviour by accepting its terms of engagement.

Had Washington accepted, it would have validated Iran’s self-assumed right to turn the spigot of global commerce on and off at will. By flatly rejecting the offer, Trump signalled that freedom of navigation is not a chip to be bartered in a week-long bazaar, but an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite of international order.

The timing of this gambit – on the eve of the critical midterm elections – has naturally drawn the ire of the domestic political class. Critics argue that risking an energy crisis and a subsequent spike in oil prices weeks before Americans head to the ballot box is an act of political self-immolation. This view, while superficially plausible, misunderstands both the nature of the electorate and the psychology of our adversaries.

The Iranians chose this moment to put forward their proposal precisely because of the midterm elections. They are sophisticated observers of American domestic politics. They calculated that an administration facing an electoral test would be paralysed by the fear of rising fuel prices and would eagerly grasp at any diplomatic lifeline, however flimsy, to keep the peace until November.

Had Trump capitulated to save Republicans a few points at the polls, he would have handed Iran a profound psychological victory. He would have demonstrated that American foreign policy is subservient to the domestic election calendar – a vulnerability that every autocracy from Moscow to Beijing would immediately exploit.

By taking the gamble before the midterm elections, Trump has turned the tables. He has demonstrated that his administration is willing to absorb short-term political pain in pursuit of long-term strategic clarity. This is the essence of credible deterrence.

Deterrence is not merely a function of military hardware; it is a function of perceived will. When an adversary believes you are too weak, too compromised, or too worried about the next election cycle to defend your core interests, deterrence fails. By rejecting the seven-day proposal, the Trump administration proved it could not be blackmailed by the electoral calendar.

Trump’s decision reflects a sophisticated understanding of the regime in Tehran. The Islamic Republic is currently facing an acute internal economic crisis, a direct consequence of the sustained American maximum-pressure campaign.

The seven-day proposal was not a gesture of Iranian confidence; it was a sign of desperation disguised as a diplomatic overture. It was an attempt to buy breathing room, fragment the expanding international coalition against Tehran and project an image of being in control to its own restive population.

To grant Iran that reprieve would have been to throw a lifeline to an antagonist regime on the ropes. Clearly, this offer was only made because US strategy is working and Iran’s economy is cratering.

History teaches us that truces with terrorist regimes are rarely precursors to permanent peace; they are merely opportunities for the aggressor to rearm, recalibrate and choose the next moment of confrontation on more favourable terms. A short-term guarantee of open shipping lanes implied that any day, the threat could return, magnified by the legitimacy Washington would have afforded to Iran’s leverage.

The critics who cry havoc at this decision are the heirs of the foreign policy establishment that spent decades managing decline through endless, inconclusive and failed negotiations. They prefer the comfortable fiction of a temporary deal to the hard reality of a sustained geopolitical contest.

President Trump’s gamble is risky, yes. The potential for miscalculation in the narrow waters of the Gulf is always present. But the risk of inaction, or of a pliant accommodation, is far greater.

By holding the line, the administration has reaffirmed a foundational principle of US global stewardship: the US will not permit rogue states to hold the global economy hostage.

The rejection of the Iranian proposal is the correct path because it chooses clarity of American resolve over partisan political convenience. It signals to the regime in Iran that its leverage is artificial and its economic isolation is permanent unless its behaviour changes.

This November, American voters will decide the composition of the US Congress based on a multitude of domestic and foreign policy factors. But on the global stage, Trump remains steadfast by demonstrating that principle trumps political expediency.

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