deny

Foreigners seeking visas to live in the U.S. might be rejected if they have certain medical conditions, including diabetes or obesity, under a Thursday directive from the Trump administration.

The guidance, issued in a cable the State Department sent to embassy and consular officials and examined by KFF Health News, directs visa officers to deem applicants ineligible to enter the U.S. for several new reasons, including age or the likelihood they might rely on public benefits. The guidance says that such people could become a “public charge” — a potential drain on U.S. resources — because of their health issues or age.

While assessing the health of potential immigrants has been part of the visa application process for years, including screening for communicable diseases such as tuberculosis and obtaining vaccine history, experts said the new guidelines greatly expand the list of medical conditions to be considered and give visa officers more power to make decisions about immigration based on an applicant’s health status.

The directive is part of the Trump administration’s divisive and aggressive campaign to deport immigrants living without authorization in the U.S. and dissuade others from immigrating into the country. The White House’s crusade to push out immigrants has included daily mass arrests, bans on refugees from certain countries, and plans to severely restrict the total number permitted into the U.S.

The new guidelines mandate that immigrants’ health be a focus in the application process. The guidance applies to nearly all visa applicants but is likely to be used only in cases in which people seek to permanently reside in the U.S., said Charles Wheeler, a senior attorney for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, a nonprofit legal aid group.

“You must consider an applicant’s health,” the cable reads. “Certain medical conditions — including, but not limited to, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, cancers, diabetes, metabolic diseases, neurological diseases, and mental health conditions — can require hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of care.”

About 10% of the world’s population have diabetes. Cardiovascular diseases are also common; they are the globe’s leading killer.

The cable also encourages visa officers to consider other conditions, such as obesity, which it notes can cause asthma, sleep apnea, and high blood pressure, in their assessment of whether an immigrant could become a public charge and therefore should be denied entry into the U.S.

“All of these can require expensive, long-term care,” the cable reads. Spokespeople for the State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the cable.

Visa officers were also directed to determine whether applicants have the means to pay for medical treatment without help from the U.S. government.

“Does the applicant have adequate financial resources to cover the costs of such care over his entire expected lifespan without seeking public cash assistance or long-term institutionalization at government expense?” the cable reads.

The cable’s language appears at odds with the Foreign Affairs Manual, the State Department’s own handbook, which says that visa officers cannot reject an application based on “what if” scenarios, Wheeler said.

The guidance directs visa officers to develop “their own thoughts about what could lead to some sort of medical emergency or sort of medical costs in the future,” he said. “That’s troubling because they’re not medically trained, they have no experience in this area, and they shouldn’t be making projections based on their own personal knowledge or bias.”

The guidance also directs visa officers to consider the health of family members, including children or older parents.

“Do any of the dependents have disabilities, chronic medical conditions, or other special needs and require care such that the applicant cannot maintain employment?” the cable asks.

Immigrants already undergo a medical exam by a physician who’s been approved by a U.S. embassy.

They are screened for communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis, and asked to fill out a form that asks them to disclose any history of drug or alcohol use, mental health conditions, or violence. They’re also required to have a number of vaccinations to guard against infectious diseases such as measles, polio and hepatitis B.

But the new guidance goes further, emphasizing that chronic diseases should be considered, said Sophia Genovese, an immigration lawyer at Georgetown University. She also noted that the language of the directive encourages visa officers and the doctors who examine people seeking to immigrate to speculate on the cost of applicants’ medical care and their ability to get employment in the U.S. considering their medical history.

“Taking into consideration one’s diabetic history or heart health history — that’s quite expansive,” Genovese said. “There is a degree of this assessment already, just not quite expansive as opining over, ‘What if someone goes into diabetic shock?’ If this change is going to happen immediately, that’s obviously going to cause a myriad of issues when people are going into their consular interviews.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

India’s ageing stars Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli rebounded strongly in what may be their last match on Australian soil.

Rohit Sharma smashed his 33rd one-day international hundred, and Virat Kohli rebounded from back-to-back ducks with a meticulous half-century, as India avoided a whitewash against Australia with a nine-wicket win to close their three-match series, in what may have been their final ODI international in Australia.

Sharma, 38, and Kohli, 36, will not feature in the upcoming five-game T20 series against Australia tour starting on October 29, although neither player has confirmed Saturday’s fixture was their final match Down Under.

Sharma made an unbeaten 121 off 125 balls, with 13 fours and three sixes, and Kohli scored 74 not out, as both batters knocked off 237-1 with more than 11 overs to spare in what could be their last international innings in Australia.

Fast bowler Harshit Rana’s career-best 4-39 bowled out Australia for below-par 236 after India lost its 18th consecutive toss in an ODI, but all six of its bowlers were among the wickets.

Australia had clinched the series 2-0 by winning Thursday’s match in Adelaide by two wickets. That followed a seven-wicket victory in the rain-interrupted opener in Perth.

“We had a near-perfect game,” said India captain Shubman Gill, who scored 24 off 26 balls before falling to Josh Hazlewood. “Rohit and Kohli have done it for so many years – [a] delight to watch.

Sharma, Kohli return to form

Sharma and Kohli got loud cheers from the crowd of nearly 40,000 at the Sydney Cricket Ground as they shared a 168-run partnership – the first century stand between the two since January 2020.

Sharma’s century was punctuated by strong sweeps against the spinners on front of square, and he twice lofted Adam Zampa (0-50) for sixes on either side of the wicket before raising his hundred with a single against the leg-spinner.

Kohli, who was dismissed without scoring at Perth and Adelaide, pumped his fist gently as he drove Hazlewood for a single to wide mid-on from the first ball he faced. Kohli grew in confidence when he cut Zampa to the point boundary and welcomed Mitchell Starc with a straight driven boundary.

Kohli survived a close LBW review on 36 when he went to pull Nathan Ellis’s short ball before completing his half-century off 56 balls.

Kohli also overtook Kumar Sangakkara (14,234), and with 14,255 runs, he is now behind only Sachin Tendulkar’s all-time record of 18,426 runs.

Earlier, Matt Renshaw (56) scored his maiden ODI half-century before Australia collapsed and got bowled out in 46.4 overs.

Australia’s first six batters all crossed the 20-run mark, but could not convert them into big scores. The home team lost four wickets for 18 runs after sitting pretty at 183-3 in the 34th over as India kept picking up wickets with regular intervals.

Travis Head (29) started aggressively before he offered a tame catch at backward point off Mohammed Siraj, and Mitchell Marsh’s promising start came to an end when he gave himself too much room against left-arm spinner Axar Patel and was clean bowled on 41 in the 16th over.

Renshaw and Alex Carey added 59 runs for the fourth-wicket stand, before Shreyas Iyer took a stunning catch while running from backward point. Renshaw was out LBW in the 37th over when he advanced down the wicket to the off-spin of Washington Sundar (2-44), but was hit low on the pads. Ellis played a little cameo of 16 with three boundaries before Australia got bowled out.

“We needed one more stand in the back-end of our first innings,” Marsh said. “Had a great platform at 183-3, but couldn’t cash in.”

United Arab Emirates denied Japan and took the final place at next year’s men’s T20 World Cup with an eight-wicket victory in the qualifier in Oman.

Japan could have reached their first major tournament with a victory but UAE held them to 116-9 and then chased their target in 12.1 overs.

It means UAE join Oman and Nepal in progressing from the Asia and East Asia-Pacific qualifier to the World Cup held in India and Sri Lanka in February and March next year.

In addition to the two hosts getting automatic spots, England, Australia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, United States and West Indies qualified courtesy of reaching the Super 8 stage of the 2024 edition held in the United States and West Indies.

Ireland, Pakistan and New Zealand qualified via the rankings while Canada, Italy, Netherlands, Namibia and Zimbabwe came through their regional qualifying tournaments.

The tournament schedule is expected to be announced in the coming weeks.

Japan beat Kuwait and Samoa earlier in their qualifying tournament which meant they would have progressed had they beaten UAE and overturned a net run-rate deficit.

They slumped to 58-8, however, with spinner Haider Ali taking 3-20, and only limped to their total thanks to 45 not out from Wataru Miyauchi.

Alishan Sharafu and Muhammad Waseem put on 70 for the first wicket of the chase and, despite the pair falling for 46 and 42 respectively, UAE, who played at the 2014 and 2022 T20 World Cups, eased to victory.

Sept. 3 (UPI) — Attorneys for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook denied claims of wrongdoing made by the Trump administration as she seeks to block President Donald Trump‘s efforts to fire her.

In a civil action filed Tuesday, Cook’s attorney, Abe Lowell, denied claims made by U.S. Director of Federal Housing Bill Pulte that she committed mortgage fraud, which Trump presented as the reason for her firing, are untrue.

“Governor Cook did not ever commit mortgage fraud,” her attorneys wrote.

The action seeks to follow up on a suggestion made Friday by the courts to use a fast-tracked review to rule on the key issues of Cook’s case, which would cut through more routine routes and timelines.

The filing states that Cook’s team would agree to this, as long as Trump, who is a defendant along with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and the Fed Board of Governors, would agree to allow Cook to serve as Fed Board Governor until the expedited ruling is made.

Cook has served as a Federal Reserve Governor since 2022 but was fired by Trump following a criminal referral from a member of his administration that alleged Cook committed mortgage fraud.

She has not been charged with any related crime.

Trump fired her “for cause,” which is the only way a president can fire a Fed governor under the Federal Reserve Act.

The White House has since attempted to justify her firing under the past case Reagan vs. United States, which the administration interprets to have created precedent that when a president determines cause for termination exists, it’s unreviewable unless protected by specific removal statutes.

“But the Government ignores the facts, context, and reasoning of Reagan to advance this contorted reading,” the lawsuit suggests. “In reality, Reagan hurts the Government’s case more than it helps it.”

Cook’s attorneys explained the “Reagan” case helped define that as officers such as Federal Reserve Board governors serve fixed terms, they are entitled “to notice and a hearing, and ultimately judicial review” before being removed for cause.

As for Cook’s role as a Fed governor, she remains active until a court rules otherwise, despite Trump’s actions.

Meanwhile, Pulte, who was responsible for both the original and a second criminal referral against Cook, said he would hold a meeting with the press on Thursday.

Pulte has posted a wave of allegations against Cook since mid-August.

“Once you see what we present on Thursday, there’s going to be a lot of people apologizing and retracting their false and defamatory statements,” Pulte posted Tuesday in regard to those who have defended Cook and called the Trump administration’s action a political power move. “Watch.”

The Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles and 30 other cities and counties because of “sanctuary” policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration agencies, a judge ruled late Friday.

The judge issued a preliminary injunction that expands restrictions the court handed down in April that blocked funding cuts to 16 cities and counties, including San Francisco and Santa Clara, after federal officials classified them as “sanctuary jurisdictions.”

U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the federal court in San Francisco ruled then that Trump’s executive order cutting funding was probably unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers doctrine.

Friday’s order added more than a dozen more jurisdictions to the preliminary injunction, including Los Angeles, Alameda County, Berkeley, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago.

Mayor Karen Bass’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the White House said the Trump administration expected to ultimately win in its effort on appeal.

“The government — at all levels — has the duty to protect American citizens from harm,” Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House, said in a statement. “Sanctuary cities interfere with federal immigration enforcement at the expense and safety and security of American citizens. We look forward to ultimate vindication on the issue.”

The preliminary injunction is the latest chapter in an ongoing effort by the Trump administration to force “sanctuary cities” to assist and commit local resources to federal immigration enforcement efforts.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice published a list of what it determined to be sanctuary jurisdictions, or local entities that have “policies, laws, or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

“Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said in a statement accompanying the published list.

Several cities and counties across the country have adopted sanctuary city policies, but specifics as to what extent they’re willing — or unwilling — to do for federal immigration officials have varied.

The policies typically do not impede federal officials from conducting immigration enforcement activities, but largely keep local jurisdictions from committing resources to the efforts.

The policies also don’t prevent local agencies from enforcing judicial warrants, which are signed by a judge. Cooperation on “detainers” or holds on jailed suspects issued by federal agencies, along with enforcement of civil immigration matters, is typically limited by sanctuary policies.

Federal officials in the suit have so far referred to “sanctuary” jurisdictions as local governments that don’t honor immigration detainer requests, don’t assist with administrative warrants, don’t share immigration status information, or don’t allow local police to assist in immigration enforcement operations.

Orrick noted that the executive orders threatened to withhold all federal funding if the cities and counties in question did not adhere to the Trump administration’s requests.

In the order, the judge referred to the executive order as a “coercive threat” and said it was unconstitutional.

Orrick, who sits on the bench in the Northern District of California, was appointed by former President Obama.

The Trump administration has been ratcheting up efforts to force local jurisdictions to assist in immigration enforcement. The administration has filed lawsuits against cities and counties, vastly increased street operations and immigration detentions, and deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles as it increased immigration operations.

The U.S. Department of Justice in June sued Los Angeles, and local officials, alleging its sanctuary city law is “illegal.”

The suit alleged that the city was looking to “thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations” by enacting sanctuary city policies.

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Democrats ended a two-week walkout Monday that stalled Republican efforts to redraw congressional districts as part of a national partisan brawl over President Trump’s desire to reshape U.S. House maps to his advantage.

Their return to the Texas Capitol will allow the Republican-run Legislature to proceed as California Democrats separately advance a countereffort to redraw their congressional boundaries in retaliation. The tit-for-tat puts the nation’s two most populous states at the center of an expanding fight over control of Congress ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The battle also has rallied Democrats nationally after infighting and frustrations among the party’s voters since Republicans took control of the White House and Capitol Hill in January.

Dozens of state House Democrats left the state Aug. 3 to deny their Republican-majority colleagues the attendance necessary to vote on redrawn maps intended to send five more Texas Republicans to Washington.

After spending nearly two weeks in Illinois and elsewhere, they declared victory when Republicans adjourned their first special session Friday and Democrats around the country rallied in opposition to the Trump-led gerrymandering effort. They pointed specifically to California’s release of proposed maps intended to increase Democrats’ U.S. House advantage by five seats, in effect neutralizing any Republican gains in Texas.

Many of the absent Democrats left Chicago early Monday and landed hours later at a private airfield in Austin, where several boarded a large charter bus to the Capitol. Once inside, they were greeted by cheering supporters. And for the first time since Trump’s redistricting push accelerated into a national issue, the Texas House floor was near full capacity when lawmakers convened briefly Monday afternoon.

Republican House Speaker Dustin Burrows did not mention redistricting on the floor Monday but promised swift action on the Legislature’s agenda.

“The majority has the right to prevail. The minority has the right to be heard,” the speaker said. “We are done waiting.”

Democrats cheered at the Austin statehouse

Cheering supporters greeted returning lawmakers inside the Capitol before the House convened for a brief session.

“We killed the corrupt special session, withstood unprecedented surveillance and intimidation, and rallied Democrats nationwide to join this existential fight for fair representation — reshaping the entire 2026 landscape,” Texas House Minority Leader Gene Wu said in a written statement.

Wu has promised Democrats would challenge the new designs in court.

The House did not take up any bills Monday and was not scheduled to return until Wednesday.

Trump has pressured other Republican-run states to consider redistricting as well, while Democratic governors in multiple statehouses have indicated they would follow California’s lead in response. Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom has said that his state will hold a Nov. 4 special referendum on the redrawn districts.

The president wants to shore up Republicans’ narrow House majority and avoid a repeat of the 2018 midterms during his first presidency. Democrats regained House control then and used their majority to stymie his agenda and twice impeach him.

On a national level, the partisan makeup of existing district lines puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. Of the 435 total House seats, only several dozen districts are competitive. So even slight changes in a few states could affect which party wins control.

Texas’ governor jumped to the president’s aid

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott added redistricting to an initial special session agenda that included a number of issues, but most notably a package of bills responding to devastating floods that killed more than 130 people last month.

Abbott has blamed Democrats’ absence for delaying action on those measures. Democrats have countered that Abbott’s capitulation to Trump is responsible for the delay because he insisted on in effect linking the hyper-partisan matter to the nonpartisan flood relief.

Redistricting typically occurs once at the beginning of each decade to coincide with the census. Many states, including Texas, give legislators the power to draw maps. California is among those that empower independent commissions with the task, giving Newsom an additional hurdle in his bid to match or exceed whatever partisan moves Texas makes.

Abbott, Burrows and other Republicans tried various threats and legal maneuvers to pressure Democrats’ return, including issuing civil warrants for absent lawmakers’ arrest. As long as they were out of state, those lawmakers remained beyond the reach of Texas authorities.

The Democrats who came back to the chamber Monday did so without being detained by law enforcement. However, plainclothes officers escorted them from the chamber after Monday’s session. And Burrows’ office said Texas Department of Public Safety officers will follow the Democratic returnees around the clock to ensure that they return again.

Additionally, the lawmakers who left face fines of up to $500 for each legislative day they missed. Burrows has insisted Democratic lawmakers also will pick up the tab for state troopers and others who attempted to corral them during the walkout.

California lawmakers were scheduled to convene later Monday.

Barrow and Figueroa write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

The Glasgow club say they are “surprised” by the charge over Brown’s comments and will “continue to challenge any action we consider to be unfair or disproportionate”.

The SFA rule states: “A club or recognised football body which publishes, distributes, issues, sells or authorises a third party to publish, distribute, issue or sell a match programme or any other publication or audio/visual material of any description in any media now existing or hereinafter invented, including but not limited to the Internet, social networking or micro-blogging sites, shall ensure that any such publications or audio/visual material does not contain any criticism of any match official calculated to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official or to impinge upon his character.”

Rangers note that four out of five members of the SFA’s Key Match Incident Panel deemed the decision to be incorrect, adding that they have “serious concerns about the Scottish FA’s selective enforcement and inconsistency”.

“That finding helps explain the nature of a spontaneous emotional comment, delivered during a highly charged moment and immediately challenged live on air,” Rangers add.

“We have highlighted multiple examples of similar or stronger remarks made elsewhere in Scottish football that have led to no charges or sanctions.

“While we remain committed to maintaining high standards, we will continue to challenge any action we consider to be unfair or disproportionate.”