doesnt

Lakers sale makes no sense

From Bill Plaschke: The Lakers are being sold … again?

The Lakers are being sold … by the Dodgers owner who was supposed to save them?

The Lakers are being sold … to one guy who owns an underachieving women’s professional soccer team and another guy who owns a piece of the hated San Francisco Giants?

What in the name of Luka is going on here?

Los Angeles sports fans awoke Wednesday to the news that one of their two crown jewels was being sold for the second time in a year, a transaction valued at $12.5 billion and accompanied by at least that many worries.

This doesn’t feel good. This doesn’t feel right. Something stinks here, and it might just be the future of a franchise that once seemed in such good hands.

On Wednesday it was stunningly and ingloriously fumbled, and for what?

There are two main unknowns here, and both should send shivers through a Laker fan base that could be watching their team become the Portland Trail Blazers.

First, why did Mark Walter sell just 10 months after buying? Yes, he made a $2.5 billion profit, but 10 months? Who owns a major sports franchise for just 10 months?

Second, what sort of owners will Bob Iger and Josh Kushner be? Iger is known for running Disney, and Kushner is known for running with President Trump’s son-in-law, who happens to be Kushner’s brother, Jared.

So crazy. So scary.

Continue reading here

Bob Iger, Joshua Kushner to buy Lakers from Mark Walter’s ownership group for $12.5 billion

Swanson: Bob Iger could be the Imagineer to lead the Lakers back to glory

New Lakers co-owner Joshua Kushner is a lifelong Democrat with deep interest in sports

What Bob Iger’s Angel City ownership can illuminate about his impending Lakers acquisition

Lakers begin NBA Cup play at Warriors on Oct. 30

Buying the Lakers cements Bob Iger’s longtime dream of owning major sports franchises

Mark Walter has no plans to sell Dodgers after unloading Lakers

Dodgers sweep the Royals

From Maddie Lee: Dodgers left-hander Eric Lauer adjusted his cap and glanced into the stands as he walked off the field to a standing ovation.

In the Dodgers’ 4-2 win against the Kansas City Royals, completing a sweep at Dodger Stadium, Lauer held the Royals to two runs (one earned) in 6 ⅓ innings.

“It was really nice,” Lauer said, noting how much more enjoyable it was to pitch well at Dodger Stadium for the home team, instead of the opposition. “It always makes you feel good walking off the mound and having people appreciate what you did out there.”

The Dodgers (73-48) got home runs from Mookie Betts, Shohei Ohtani and Hunter Feduccia.

The Dodgers, with a short bullpen after playing extra innings twice in four games, needed Lauer to pitch deep into the game.

That plan seemed to be in jeopardy as he labored through the first three innings, his pitch count climbing to 64. But the next three, he only gave up just one walk.

“Wasn’t getting a ton of swing out of zone,” Lauer said. “So mentally I just had to lock in a little bit more in-zone, make sure I was throwing quality pitches in zone, and not try to be so fine. Give myself more plate to work with and try to get some quick soft contact.”

Continue reading here

Dodgers box score

MLB standings

Freddie Freeman gets a scare

From Maddie Lee: Dodgers first baseman Freddie Freeman tracked Royals hitter Isaac Collins’ fly ball through foul territory to just outside the visiting dugout at Dodger Stadium.

He had a plan. With one out in the top of the eighth inning, Freeman was going to lean over the rail to make the catch.

He shuffled, shifted his weight, and the ground disappeared out from under him.

“Obviously there was no rail,” a sore but apparently not seriously injured Freeman said after the Dodgers’ 4-2 win against the Royals.

Continue reading here

Angels defeat the Rangers

Mike Trout had three hits and two RBIs, Jose Siri keyed a three-run sixth inning with a pinch-hit RBI double, and George Klassen earned his first major league win in the Angels’ 5-2 comeback victory over the Texas Rangers on Wednesday night.

Klassen (1-1) gave up two runs and five hits over six innings, striking out five and walking one in his fourth career start. Angels reliever Blake Weiman threw a scoreless seventh before giving up two hits and striking out one in the eighth.

Ryan Watson replaced Weiman and escaped the two-on, one-out jam. Ben Joyce, who missed most of the past two seasons because of shoulder injuries, retired the side in order in the ninth for his fifth career save and first since Sept. 1, 2024.

Continue reading here

Angels box score

MLB standings

What to watch for in Chargers’ first preseason game

From Joaquin Ruiz: Coach Jim Harbaugh said roughly 15 starters won’t play in the Chargers’ preseason opener against the Houston Texans, and there are several spots on the depth chart that still need to be decided.

“The preseason games will give us a window of insight into where everybody is,” Harbaugh said.

Here are five position groups to monitor when the Chargers face the Texans on Thursday at 5 p.m. PDT (CBS, NFL+).

Continue reading here

Derek Carr says Bob Chesney is a winner

From Sam Farmer: His NFL playing career is over, but Derek Carr is far from done with football.

UCLA announced this week that it has hired Carr as a special advisor to football coach Bob Chesney, and that the four-time Pro Bowl quarterback will assist with the Bruins’ offensive staff in game-planning strategy.

“Coach Chesney is a leader of men,” said Carr, who was at Dodger Stadium on Monday evening and was on the field before the game. “So many guys get hired just based on scheme. This is a guy who stands up in front of the room and leads.”

“You can feel his presence,” Carr said of Chesney, hired in December after his rise to coaching prominence at Holy Cross then James Madison. “You can feel the team respond to him. … It wasn’t so much what he said, it was how he said it. He was so demanding of the team, yet so encouraging.

“He can demand, demand, demand, but also love them at the same time, to the point where they’re like, `OK, coach, whatever you want.’”

Continue reading here

This day in sports history

1919 — Upset scores a win against Man o’ War in the Sanford Memorial Stakes at Saratoga. The defeat is Big Red’s only loss in 21 starts.

1933 — Gene Sarazen wins the PGA Championship by defeating Willie Goggin 5 and 4 in the final round.

1935 — The first roller derby begins in Chicago by promoter Leo Seltzer.

1987 — Jackie Joyner-Kersee equals the world record in the women’s long jump — 24 feet, 5½ inches — in the Pan American Games at Indianapolis. She matches the mark set in 1986 by Heike Dreschler of East Germany.

1995 — Cuba’s Ana Quirot, severely burned in a 1993 kitchen accident, wins the 800 meters at the world championships at Gothenburg, Sweden.

1995 — Steve Elkington shoots a final-round 64 and birdies the first playoff hole to beat Colin Montgomerie and win the PGA Championship. The 64 is the lowest final round by a PGA Championship winner.

1997 — Wilson Kipketer topples Sebastian Coe’s 16-year-old record in the 800 meters, finishing in 1 minute, 41.24 seconds in Zurich, Switzerland. Haile Gebrselassie also shatters his own 5,000 record with a time of 12 minutes, 41.86 seconds.

2002 — Natalie Coughlin breaks the 100-meter backstroke world record, timed in 59.58 seconds at the U.S. national championships. She is the first American to hold the world record since Catherine Ferguson in 1966.

2008 — Michael Phelps swims into history as the winningest Olympic athlete with his 10th and 11th career gold medals and five world records in five events at the Beijing Games. He wins the 200-meter butterfly and swims leadoff for the U.S. 800 freestyle relay team.

2016 — The U.S. women’s 4×100-meter medley relay team of Kathleen Baker, Lilly King, Dana Vollmer and Simone Manuel — winners at the Rio Games — delivers the nation’s 1,000th gold medal in Summer Olympics history. Michael Phelps closes the Rio Olympics with a gold medal in the butterfly leg of the 4×100 medley relay. Phelps finishes his career with 28 medals, having won five golds and a silver at these games.

Compiled by the Associated Press

This day in baseball history

1910 — The Brooklyn Dodgers and the Pittsburgh Pirates played to an 8-8 tie. Each team had 38 at-bats, 13 hits, 12 assists, two errors, five strikeouts, three walks, one hit batsman and one passed ball.

1921 — George Sisler of the St. Louis Browns became the first batter in American League history to hit for the cycle twice. Sisler went 5-for-5 and drove in three runs in a 7-5, 10-inning win over the Detroit Tigers.

1921 — John “Mule” Watson of the Boston Braves pitched two complete-game victories over the Philadelphia Phillies.

1931 — Tony Cuccinello of the Cincinnati Reds had six hits in six at-bats in the first game of a doubleheader at Boston. Cuccinello had a triple, two doubles and three singles to knock in five runs as the Reds won 17-3. Cuccinello hit a three-run homer in the eighth of the nightcap to give the Reds a 4-2 win.

1939 — The New York Yankees beat the Philadelphia Athletics 21-0 to equal the major-league record for lopsided shutouts. Every batter in the Yankees lineup hit safely. Joe DiMaggio and Babe Dahlgren had two home runs apiece, each hitting an inside-the-parker. Pitcher Red Ruffing had four hits and drove in three runs.

1948 — Satchel Paige, 42, pitched his first major league complete game against the Chicago White Sox. Paige gave up five hits en route to 5-0 Cleveland victory.

1957 — Milwaukee pitcher Lew Burdette hit his first two home runs to lead the Braves to a 12-4 win over the Cincinnati Reds.

1969 — Jim Palmer of the Orioles, plagued by arm trouble the year before, threw an 8-0 no-hitter against the Oakland A’s in Baltimore.

1979 — St. Louis’ Lou Brock reached 3,000 hits with an infield hit off Chicago Cubs pitcher Dennis Lamp. St. Louis won 3-2.

2004 — Kansas City rookies Abraham Nunez and John Buck hit grand slams to lead the Royals past the Oakland Athletics 10-3.

2005 — New York Yankees closer Mariano Rivera blew his first save since April 6 in a 7-5 win over Texas. Rivera had converted a career-best 31 consecutive saves before allowing Kevin Mench’s two-run tying single in the ninth.

2013 — Paul Goldschmidt hit the first pitch of the 11th inning for a game-ending home run after leading off the ninth with a tying homer, to help Arizona beat Baltimore 4-3 with a winning blast for the second straight night.

2015 — The Toronto Blue Jays won their 11th straight game, beating the Oakland Athletics 4-2. The AL East leaders also won 11 in a row in June, becoming the first team with winning streaks of at least 11 since Cleveland in 1954.

2016 — Tyler Austin and Aaron Judge became the first teammates to hit home runs in the first at-bats of their major league debuts in the same game, sparking the New York Yankees to an 8-4 win over Tampa Bay.

2018 — Ronald Acuna Jr. hit leadoff homers in both games of a doubleheader for the Atlanta Braves.

2020 — Mookie Betts hits three home runs (the 6th of his career) in an 11-2 win over the Padres. the three home run game ties Betts with Johnny Mize and Sammy Sosa for the most all-time although Betts reached the total in 813 games while Mize needed 1,884 and Sosa 2,364.

Compiled by the Associated Press

Until next time…

That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at houston.mitchell@latimes.com. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.

The Lakers are being sold … again?

The Lakers are being sold … by the Dodgers owner who was supposed to save them?

The Lakers are being sold … to one guy who owns an underachieving women’s professional soccer team and another guy who owns a piece of the hated San Francisco Giants?

What in the name of Luka is going on here?

Los Angeles sports fans awoke Wednesday to the news that one of their two crown jewels was being sold for the second time in a year, a transaction valued at $12.5 billion and accompanied by at least that many worries.

This doesn’t feel good. This doesn’t feel right. Something stinks here, and it might just be the future of a franchise that once seemed in such good hands.

On Wednesday it was stunningly and ingloriously fumbled, and for what?

There are two main unknowns here, and both should send shivers through a Laker fan base that could be watching their team become the Portland Trail Blazers.

First, why did Mark Walter sell just 10 months after buying? Yes, he made a $2.5 billion profit, but 10 months? Who owns a major sports franchise for just 10 months?

Second, what sort of owners will Bob Iger and Josh Kushner be? Iger is known for running Disney, and Kushner is known for running with President Trump’s son-in-law, who happens to be Kushner’s brother, Jared.

So crazy. So scary.

Does all this mean the Dodgers are also for sale? Will courtside seats be converted to spinning teacups? Is President Trump going to show up for a ceremonial opening tip?

Mark Walter, chairman and controlling owner of the Dodgers, acknowledges a fan before a game in Chicago on Aug. 4.

(Melissa Tamez / Associated Press)

Lots to dig in here, starting with Walter, who brought much hope to the struggling franchise after buying it from the Buss family last summer.

In his short tenure the Lakers racked up a bunch of off-court wins. They revamped their scouting department, increased a focus on analytics and rid themselves of LeBron James without the usual noise of an ugly breakup.

Under Walters, the Lakers didn’t fire Rob Pelinka, didn’t fire JJ Redick, brought back Austin Reaves, and actually set the team up for a pretty exciting playoff run next season.

Walter was clearly building the Lakers into the image of the Dodgers, which makes it so shocking that he would so easily cast them aside.

Could this be the result of outside forces? Walter is under federal investigation for tax fraud by companies controlled by the billionaire, and perhaps he sold the Lakers as a peace offering to the feds. The fact that he sold to somebody so close to President Trump could also help his federal case.

Remember last month when Walter embarrassingly groveled at Trump’s feet during the Dodgers visit to the White House, even giving the president a championship ring? It feels like the Lakers sale to a group co-led by Kushner is an outgrowth of that pandering.

Sources told The Times’ Bill Shaikin that the Dodgers are not for sale, but if Walter was troubled enough to sell arguably America’s most glamorous sports franchise after owning it for less time than it takes for Edwin Díaz to walk to the mound, who knows if the Dodgers are really safe?

In Walter, the Lakers had a proven champion who forged a partnership with the fans and rewarded them with sustained success.

In Iger and Kushner, the Lakers have two rich guys who have never been the majority owners of a team, never run a team and never done much more than cheer for a team.

Iger, 75, an entertainment genius who ran Disney for much of the last 20 years, has failed in his previous attempts to buy a sports team. A decade ago, he was in the finals to bring an NFL team to Los Angeles, but lacked the gravitas to pull it off.

In 2024, Iger and his wife, USC journalism dean Willow Bay, bought a controlling stake in the Angel City Football Club in the National Women’s Soccer League. But the team has yet to make any sort of local splash, missing the playoffs in each of the last two seasons.

Former Disney CEO Bob Iger, in white shirt, has been a longtime basketball fan. In 2025 he sat courtside for a Clippers game at Intuit Dome.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Kushner, meanwhile, is a 41-year-old billionaire venture capitalist who is best known for his brother’s father-in-law and his super-model wife Karlie Kloss. He owns a minority stake in not only the Giants, but the Miami Heat, which he must sell.

There is no indication whether they will be good owners, and they will clearly have to hire a seasoned NBA executive to serve as president to run the show. The identity of this person will be the first sign of their seriousness in restoring a championship culture, but there will be other signs as well, and not all could be positive.

There should be fear that these new wonders will follow the path of the most recently minted NBA owner, Portland’s Tom Dundon, who unapologetically cheapened the organization by doing everything from firing 70 business employees to bucking NBA tradition by refusing to pass out free T-shirts to the fans during playoff games. He even showed the door to both the club’s radio and TV play-by-play announcers in a dramatic cost-cutting move that could be a blueprint for other struggling teams.

Which is to say, nobody has any idea how Kushner and Iger will run things. They have no history here. They have no experience. They have no credibility. This isn’t Disney. This isn’t some hedge fund.

These are the 17-time NBA champion Lakers. This is a national monument forged on the sweat of everyone from Jerry West to Magic Johnson to Kobe Bryant.

This is a community’s heartbeat. This is a region’s touchstone.

Handle with care.

A city will be watching.

Emmerdale spoilers have dropped the biggest hint yet about how Dawn Taylor leaves the ITV soap after eight years, with actress Olivia Bromley said to be axed from the show

How Dawn is leaving Emmerdale may have been exposed in new spoilers.

If this is her exit storyline, she might not be leaving alone. At least one character could exit the soap with her, with another three characters also tipped to depart the village.

It was reported earlier this year that Dawn was leaving the show after eight years, with actress Olivia Bromley axed. The soap and actress Olivia have not commented on whether the exit is happening, but reports suggest she will leave soon.

Now, new spoilers have confirmed an exit plan that would see Dawn leave the village for good. With pregnant Dawn believing her fiancé Joe Tate attacked and nearly killed her ex Billy Fletcher, she makes a huge decision.

Despite a wedding on the way for her and Joe, Dawn decides she can’t be with him if he’s attacked Billy. Of course she has no idea that Joe is innocent, and did not attack Billy, having been set up.

That said, she and Billy decide to leave together with the kids, Lucas, Clemmie and Evan. They plot to escape with the help of Billy’s boss, and Joe’s nemesis, Caleb Miligan.

With the offer of passports and money to start their new live away from Joe and the village, Dawn and Billy are adamant they need to go. So this spoiler appears to confirm an exit for them – but does it happen?

There’s no news on an exit for Billy or any of the children just yet. So is this something that the soap are trying to keep under wraps, and can we expect five exits if this plan goes ahead?

It certainly teases Dawn’s exit, as she’s literally deciding to leave the village for good. If Caleb sticks to his word and helps them, amid her wedding to Joe, it could see her exit the show with Billy, and the kids, and therefore pave the way for actress Olivia’s departure.

Of course there’s every chance the plan might not go ahead or might be rumbled. A recent promo teased the wedding episodes, with Dawn, Billy and Joe featuring in an eerie clip.

Dawn is sat at a mirror, with the reflection showing Joe and Billy either side of her. One by one both men, and then Dawn, disappear with a chilling noise heard each time.

When the promo video ends, Dawn appears to be crying with the mirror fractured. Not only that, but fans noticed Dawn wearing a black veil, leaving them wondering if a death will air.

Emmerdale airs weeknights at 8pm on ITV1 and ITVX. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

July 10 (UPI) — A bipartisan housing bill that swept the House and Senate is set to become law at midnight Friday if President Donald Trump doesn’t veto it, and he said Friday morning on social media that he won’t sign it.

The 21st Century Road to Housing Act was passed on June 29 by a wide margin of Democrats and Republicans in both chambers of Congress, but the president canceled a signing ceremony at the last minute and said he wouldn’t sign it until Congress passed Trump’s pet project, the SAVE America Act, which they don’t have the support to do.

On Friday, he posted on Truth Social that he refuses to sign it.

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is polling at 97% with the Republican Party, and very high with the non-politician Dumocrats,” he wrote.

He didn’t mention a veto, but it’s still a possibility.

“The Act states, quite simply, that to Vote a person must show PHOTO VOTER I.D., PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, AND THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE CROOKED, CORRUPT, & DESTABILIZING MAIL-IN BALLOTS (EXCEPTIONS for Military, Disabled, Illness, and Travel!). THE SAVE AMERICA ACT’S non-passage is CRAZY, and a serious threat to any politician who votes against it! If the Dumocrats, or any RINO (or worse!) working with them, do not allow a positive Vote on SAVE AMERICA, TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, and pass this, and every other Bill that true Republicans have ever dreamt of (In addition to the upcoming Budget BOMB and the 1929 catastrophic style DEBT CEILING BILL!). The Dumocrats will TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, if and when they ever get the chance to do so, in their very first hour – And I will no longer be able to call them Dumocrats again! The title of DUMB will revert to the Republicans who allowed this horrible calamity to happen to our Party, and our Nation, itself! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” he wrote.

If the president vetoes the bill, Congress will likely have the votes to override it. It would need a two-thirds majority to pass the override in the House and Senate.

“This is the exact kind of bill they want to point to and say Republicans are working on issues that their voters care about, and Democrats would want the same,” Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University, told The Washington Post. “That’s not the signal that the administration is sending.”

Since the bill passed and Trump refused to sign it, he has called it “a yawn.”

“To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, everything is a big yawn,” he said.

The SAVE Act is an election bill that would require voters to prove they are citizens when registering to vote. Critics argue that it would disenfranchise too many voters because of the types of proof it would require.

The housing bill includes measures that modernize building standards, encourage renovating older homes, encourage communities to build more housing with funding and grant programs, local governments to reform restrictive zoning policies around building housing and effectively ban private equity from buying up single-family homes. Critics of the bill say it doesn’t go far enough, but they acknowledge it’s a good first step.

It’s the first bipartisan measure that’s passed this Congress.

Some Democrats have been publicly pushing the president to sign the bill.

“It’s been sitting on President Trump’s desk long enough. Sign the bill,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., posted on X.

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said on X, “Republicans and Democrats worked together to pass a bill to build more housing and stop hedge funds from buying up single-family homes, but Trump is holding it hostage. He needs to stop playing games and sign the bill so more Americans can finally afford homes.”

A new rule proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally overhaul the way federal grants are awarded and overseen — a sweeping change that one scientific society said “would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government.”

Proposed in late May, the rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over federal grants for research, education and infrastructure, and specifies that government funds can only be spent on projects “aligned with administration policies and priorities,” according to a copy of the proposed rule.

The rule would also restrict research topics, limit U.S. scientists’ ability to collaborate with colleagues in other countries and make it easier for the government to suspend or cancel grants at any time.

The changes are intended to improve “transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards” while “ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused,” according to the White House office.

But critics say that if the rule is implemented, the final sign-off for grants will no longer be in the hands of subject-matter experts within individual agencies, but in those of political appointees.

“This touches all parts of American life,” said Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, a psychiatrist who practices at the Veterans Administration and San Diego County’s psychiatric hospital.

“Control of how all of the federal grants and programs are funded will fall under a small group of highly partisan individuals who would have very few limits on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars,” said Rafla-Yuan, who also chairs the Committee to Protect Public Mental Health advocacy group. “This touches everyone’s life, even if they don’t realize it.”

OMB published the proposed rule May 29, opening a 45-day comment period that closes July 13.

Opposition to the proposed rule has mobilized multiple sectors of society. Professional groups representing cancer researchers, civil engineers, county governments, medical schools, housing agencies, city and municipal governments, nonprofits and others have publicly expressed concerns about potential consequences.

By midday Thursday, the Federal Register logged nearly 100,000 comments about the proposal, many of them expressing concern.

“I understand the need for oversight, fiscal responsibility, and accountability. That is not the issue,” wrote Jack Feldman, a neuroscientist who holds the David Geffen School of Medicine Chair in Neuroscience at UCLA. “The issue is whether scientific research is to be judged by scientific merit, or whether it can be approved, denied, or terminated according to broad political criteria that may change from one administration to the next.”

Crucially, the rule converts policies governing federal grants from “guidance” into binding regulations that all agencies would be required to follow. It would give political appointees power to override federal agencies’ merit-based reviews and mandate that a political appointee review decisions to ensure that all awards “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The elevation of political appointees in what were previously merit-based decisions has alarmed many scientists.

“The proposed rule changes would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government,” read a statement from the Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space research.

Researchers and science groups have also expressed concern about a section of the rule prohibiting the promotion of “theories of disparate-impact liability” — a legal concept that refers to policies that appear neutral but cause disproportionate harm to certain groups.

The section’s vague language and many loopholes could have a chilling effect on any research that studies the effects of a disease, policy or public health intervention on any specific group of people, Rafla-Yuan said.

As an example, he said, “if there’s a specific age range that is at higher risk for suicide, and we want to figure out, well, what’s going on with people that are aged 14 to 19 … we can’t do that under the wording in this rule.”

New restrictions on collaborations with scientists in other countries would hinder opportunities for U.S. researchers and limit innovation, said Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.

“Science is a global enterprise. Especially in biomedical and public health fields, diseases don’t care about borders or government policies,” she said.

California’s congressional delegation sent a letter Wednesday asking OMB to rescind the proposal, outlining concerns about its impact on scientific innovation, U.S. competitiveness and the fiscal stability of local governments, many of which rely on federal grants for local services.

The proposed rule grants the federal government broad powers to suspend or cancel grants for any reason, introducing “unprecedented unpredictability into local governance,” the lawmakers wrote, “leaving vital infrastructure projects unfinished and abandoning vulnerable populations who rely on these services.”

Republican Sen. Susan Collins has also asked the White House to withdraw certain parts of the letter and extend the public comment period, saying the proposed rule as written would “harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.”

The University of California Board of Regents is being asked to consider whether to bring back the SAT and ACT for admissions, a debate so hot even New York is weighing in on this Golden State dilemma.

Despite dire warnings from our right-coast friends and thousands (yes, thousands) of professors who claim incoming students lack necessary skills, I’m here to present a somewhat contrarian position, based on reality, common sense and one key fact that keeps getting shuffled to the side: California parents pay taxes so their California kids can attend these excellent schools, even if they can’t do advanced calculus.

UC is not Harvard, and was never meant to embody that type of self-perpetuating exclusivity disguised as a meritocracy. As the parent of two (hopefully) college-bound teens, I understand the resentment toward both the UC admission process and the post-pandemic, artificial intelligence mess that plagues our K-12 schools.

But at its best, this push to immediately bring back these tests is a disservice to both the mission of our public universities and the remaining classes of kids who lost learning during the pandemic. At worst, it is jumping on the misguided and retrograde anti-diversity, anti-inclusion bandwagon being led by the Trump administration — and pretending we don’t see where this caravan is headed.

Here’s the common sense: This isn’t a problem of scamming students or lazy teachers, though of course both exist. This is a problem with high schools, and the lingering effects of the pandemic. Bringing back a test solves neither.

“For sure, these are systemic structural problems and inequalities,” Michal Kurlaender, the chancellor’s leadership professor of education policy at UC Davis, told me.

Still, the argument is that we are letting in the “wrong” candidates — those who lack academic skills that would solve for the derivative of f(x) = 3x² + 2x − 5 but who are desirable for other, perhaps invalid, reasons that our current admissions are favoring.

This narrative was given a rocket-fuel boost when UC math professors released an open letter demanding standardized tests be reinstated to weed out the unprepared students cluttering their classes. That letter has now been signed by more than 3,000 UC faculty.

Shockingly, the letter seems to be pushing for a return to standardized tests by, in effect, arguing that a growing percentage of their students are simply too stupid to succeed, no matter what professors do.

“UC has finite resources and can help only so many students, and only when the preparation deficits they need to overcome are within reach,” the letter reads.

These “wrong” candidates are supposedly sneaking through the grueling admissions process with inflated grades and AI cheating (never mind their numerous Advanced Placement test scores, which are largely being ignored in this debate), and what some apparently believe is the foolish decision of administrators to emphasize an admissions process that goes beyond rankings, scores and grades.

The result of the unwelcome presence of these “wrong” admits in our elite academic halls is world-class professors being forced to teach beneath-them basics, and a diminishing of the reputation of our top schools — despite the fact that Berkeley was just rated the No. 1 public university in the country (UCLA is No. 2) and received a record 133,000 first-year applications in 2026.

Here’s that reality I mentioned: When we talk about wrong candidates, we are actually largely talking about race and socioeconomics (including the ever-squeezed middle class).

In California, where the Latino population is more than 40% and growing, our universities have increasingly pushed to serve this demographic and other “first-generation” or underrepresented college applicants. We have also significantly increased the number of students our universities accept, from all demographics.

It is useful to know that standardized testing was eliminated by the regents in a controversial 2020 vote, largely based on the idea that it was discriminating against this broader pool of students — though the data didn’t actually back that up.

In fact, a 19-person task force that investigated the issue found the opposite: that the tests were useful predictors of college success and could pluck diamonds in the rough out of otherwise average applications — when used as one factor among broader admissions criteria.

Wait, what?

Then why am I against returning to these tests? Because the part of that report we are ignoring is that it also found that the University of California can do better than the SAT or the ACT. Saul Geiser, a UC Berkeley professor and a top expert on this issue, says the task force report was flawed because it failed to account for factors including family income and parent education. He calls the SAT “antithetical” to the mission of UCs and says that it is an “illusion” to think bringing them back would do anything but hurt diversity.

“Unlike private Ivy League colleges, public universities must strive to serve all sectors of the state and all segments of the population,” he told me. “The SAT, with its strong correlation with inherited privilege, is a major barrier to achieving that mission.”

The task force originally suggested that California create its own, alternative test by 2025 that would go beyond math and English to measure the persistence, resilience and determination that have always been the markers of success, in college and in life.

The pandemic and costs killed off that project, but our new era of AI has made it more possible than ever. Li Cai, a UCLA professor who was on the task force and who serves as the director of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, told me that he supports bringing back standardized testing and that the test-blind decision process is a “failed” experiment — even though he voted for it six years ago.

But he also still supports a test designed by the UC system for the UC system — a test that could be free, available to take anytime at your school or local library as many times as you want, and that gives continuous feedback so students can better see their weaknesses and prepare.

“My vision has not really changed very much,” Cai told me. “A public university, a prominent one like the UC … has almost an obligation to not let the private sector take the charge in terms of intellectual leadership.”

On top of that hesitancy about the real effects of returning to the SAT is the fact that not all UC professors agree it is impossible for lacking students to catch up. Björn Birnir is the chair of the Mathematics department at UC Santa Barbara, and one of only two math chairs in the system who did not sign the open letter.

He told me that Santa Barbara sees the same deficiencies in math, especially in non-math majors, but it has found an effective way to deal with it that doesn’t involve slashing admissions based on test scores.

When students don’t have the basic skills, they are sent to the nearby community college, often over the summer, to catch up. They usually come back, he said, ready for the rigor he expects.

“These problems, they have to be addressed, but you don’t address them by reinstating the SAT,” Birnir said. “Just shutting the door is not really the best solution. We think the best way is to have a path for these students to make up deficiencies.”

Problem solved.

Bringing back the SAT may satisfy frustrated professors and parents, but it is a test that can never contend with the complicated reality of our state universities: We want them to be both world-class and a pathway for our imperfect, still-recovering kids to achieve their dreams, even if it involves summer school.

Hossam Hassan uses his FIFA World Cup news conference to raise awareness about the plight of Palestinians in Gaza.

Egypt coach Hossam Hassan has reiterated his support for Palestine days after dedicating his team’s historic knockout win at the World Cup to the Palestinian people and waving their flag at the biggest sporting event in the world.

Hassan broke away from discussing his team’s upcoming round-of-16 match against Argentina to give an impassioned monologue about the plight of the Palestinian people at his news conference on Monday.

“If there is anyone in the world who does not feel for the Palestinian people, then they are not human — whether they are Arab, European, or American,” Hassan said. He spoke for more than four minutes on the subject and was applauded by many of the assembled media.

Israeli attacks across Gaza have continued to kill Palestinians, despite an ongoing “ceasefire” between Israel and Hamas. Israel has killed at least 73,066 people, including at least 20,179 children, in Gaza since the beginning of its genocidal war on October 7. At least 463 of those have been killed due to starvation, including 157 children.

More than 2million Palestinians in Gaza, largely displaced and living amid ruins, face uncertainty following the Israeli genocide.

Hassan was asked what prompted him to wave the Palestinian flag after his team’s penalty-shootout win over Australia on Friday, and he responded by saying it was “simply a human reaction”.

“Everywhere in the world, including in Europe or America, if someone hurts an animal, we see animal rights being defended and the whole world reacts,” Hassan said. “It has become normal to hear that two or three thousand people die in a single day because of a missile.”

The genocide sparked pro-Palestinian protests around the world, with athletes, including Spain’s Lamine Yamal, showing their support.

While Hassan dealt with questions about Lionel Messi and his team’s chances against the holders, he also spoke at length about Palestinians.

“Regardless of religion… I am a human before being Arab or anything else. My message, through football, is this: Please, just as FIFA’s slogan calls for respect among us, I hope there will be respect for people’s right to live,” Hassan said.

With a win over Argentina, Egypt would reach the quarterfinals for the first time.

“My dreams have no limits. My ambitions have no limits. I promise that we will do everything to live up to the expectations [of fans],” Hassan said. “We’re no underdogs. We’re big in every respect. We are a civilisation that is 7,000 years old, even more than 7,000 years.”

Hassan conceded that his side were not favourites for Tuesday’s clash, but insisted they were far from overawed.

“We know we are playing against the World Cup holders and one of the greatest players ever [Messi], but we do not fear them.

“[The] responsibility makes us focus on ourselves and on what we can produce on the field,” he added.

“We have a responsibility towards Egypt and the Arab world and Africa. We represent all of them.”

The international order is falling apart, happening visibly, rapidly, and in ways that no longer surprise even the most committed defenders of the post-1945 liberal framework. The United Nations Security Council has not been able to do anything about the problems in Gaza and Ukraine. The group of countries known as BRICS is getting bigger. Now has nine members. Some countries in the Gulf are thinking about using a currency to price oil instead of using the US dollar. All of these things are putting a lot of pressure on the system that the United States has been in charge of.

Many people in the Global South think this is a thing. They do not think the United States has been fair in the way it has enforced the rules. They think the United States has only looked out for its interests and the interests of its friends. This is not a thing to say. The United States has been inconsistent in the way it has applied the rules about weapons, sanctions, and international crime.

The problem is that just because the old system is falling apart, it does not mean that something better will take its place. The question is not whether the United States is losing its power because it is clear that this is happening. The question is what will happen next. Will the new system be fair, more stable, and better at dealing with global problems?

The Architecture of Decline

The truth is that the United States has been losing its power for a time, but this has happened much faster since 2022. When Russia invaded Ukraine, it showed that big countries can still go to war with each other. It also showed that the United States and its friends cannot stop this from happening. The war in Ukraine has led to the use of financial sanctions in history, with over $300 billion in Russian assets being frozen.

This has made other countries want to reduce their dependence on the US dollar. They are afraid that if they rely much on the United States, they will be vulnerable to its power. According to International Monetary Fund estimates, the group of countries known as BRICS has expanded to include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Ethiopia, and Egypt. This group now accounts for over 40 percent of the economy. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has also gotten bigger. Now includes Pakistan, India, and Iran in addition to Russia and China. This organization is now the regional security group in the world. These changes are not just symbolic; they show a shift in where power is concentrated in the world.

New Poles, Old Problems

The problem with a world is that it does not necessarily mean that things will be more fair or more stable. In the century Europe had a multipolar system, but it still had many wars. The same thing happened in the 20th century. Just because there are powerful countries does not mean that they will behave in a certain way.

The problem with a world is that it does not necessarily mean that things will be more fair or more stable. In the century Europe had a multipolar system, but it still had many wars. The same thing happened in the 20th century. Just because there are powerful countries does not mean that they will behave in a certain way.

The Institutional Vacuum

The biggest risk of the situation is that the international institutions that we have will become useless. The United Nations Security Council has not been able to do anything about the security crises of the past few years. The World Trade Organization is also not working properly.

When powerful countries use these institutions for their purposes, it undermines their legitimacy. This is a problem because it means that smaller countries will suffer the most. The rules of law are only useful if they are applied equally to everyone.

The Global South’s Strategic Dilemma

For countries in the Global South, the transition to a world is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it gives them space to maneuver and more access to financing for infrastructure projects. On the other hand, it also means that they will have to navigate a more complex and uncertain world.

The best way forward is to try to shape the transition to a world in a way that preserves the international institutions that we have. This means reforming the United Nations Security Council to make it more representative of the world. It also means strengthening the courts and the World Trade Organization.

Towards a Legitimate Multipolarity

This will not be easy. It is necessary. If we do not do this, we risk creating a world where might makes right. There is no shared set of rules to govern the behavior of states. This would be a disaster for everyone, for the smallest and weakest countries.

The multipolar world may signal the end of the order, but it does not have to mean the end of order itself. We have to work to create a system that is fairer, more stable, and more just.

Iran has said it remains committed to implementing the MoU signed with the United States. However, Tehran warned that it would take reciprocal measures if Washington fails to honour its obligations under the agreement.

June 13 (UPI) — President Donald Trump and Pakistan have said that a memorandum of understanding extending the cease-fire between the United States and Iran will be virtually signed Sunday, though Iran has not confirmed the meeting.

Trump posted on Truth Social at 12:45 p.m. EDT Saturday: “The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL.”

He also posted a screenshot of a Saturday morning tweet by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif: “We are closer to a peace deal than ever before. With finalization expected in the next 24 hours, Pakistan is preparing for the electronic signing of the peace deal immediately after, followed by technical level talks next week.”

The Pakistani foreign minister confirmed that the signing was set for Sunday, Axios reported.

But Iran said there were no talks planned for Sunday. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said there were no plans for an Iranian negotiating team to travel to Geneva or elsewhere in the next day or two, according to IRIB, Iran’s state broadcaster, The New York Times reported. While Iran could also sign electronically, it’s unclear if the signing event will happen.

One of the main reasons the signing will be virtual is that Vice President JD Vance, who has been negotiating the peace deal, wouldn’t be able to go to the signings and be back in the United States before Trump leaves for the G7 summit in France Monday, Axios said.

Also, Sunday is the president’s 80th birthday and the day of the UFC fight on the White House lawn.

United States President Donald Trump has appointed businessman and federal housing regulator Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence (DNI).

Trump made Tuesday’s surprise announcement on social media that Pulte would replace Tulsi Gabbard, the former Hawaii congresswoman who has served as the director of national intelligence until recently.

Trump said Pulte will keep his other positions in addition to taking over from Gabbard, who resigned last month after revealing her husband’s cancer diagnosis.

Who is Bill Pulte?

Pulte, 38, a graduate of Northwestern University, has been director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) since March 2025.

He is heir to his family’s residential development firm – one of the US’s largest homebuilders, PulteGroup, which was founded by his grandfather in the 1950s. He previously founded a private equity firm, Pulte Capital, and is involved in large-scale philanthropic activity.

Pulte is seen as a loyal Trump supporter and has encouraged prosecutions of the president’s perceived political enemies, accusing New York Attorney General Letitia James and California’s US Senator Adam Schiff, both Democrats, and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, of mortgage fraud.

A federal grand jury refused to indict James in a Justice Department prosecution in December 2025 after Pulte wrote a criminal referral to the Justice Department, accusing her of listing a home she owned in Virginia as her primary residence to secure more favourable loan terms. Officials have also not brought charges against Schiff, who denies the allegations against him.

Trump attempted to fire Cook – an unprecedented move by a president against a US central bank official – over Pulte’s unsubstantiated accusations, but courts allowed her to remain in the role. She, too, denied the allegations. The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the coming weeks in her case.

In response to Pulte’s actions, Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer called the newly appointed director of national intelligence a “partisan thug” on Tuesday.

“A guy who can file such baseless, political and outrageous charges against political office holders he doesn’t like can’t be entrusted to protect our national security,” Schumer said.

Pulte’s views on whether the 2020 election was rigged against Trump – a claim many of his appointees have backed despite a lack of any evidence – are not immediately clear. He is understood to have deleted 25,000 social media posts before Trump nominated him to serve as FHFA head in January 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, said during his vetting process for the position.

Trump said Pulte will continue as FHFA director and chair of federally supported mortgage banks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“William has deep experience managing the most sensitive matters in America, the safety and soundness of the Markets, and over 10 Trillion Dollars at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, a substantial increase from where it was just 12 months ago,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Pulte, who has no experience in intelligence operations, will oversee 18 intelligence departments including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA), which monitors foreign communications and helps defend the US against cyberattacks.

Could Pulte become the permanent intelligence chief?

Pulte can serve in the job for up to 210 days without being confirmed by the Senate. That timeframe would allow him to stay in the post through the November midterm elections, in which Trump’s fellow Republicans are seeking to retain control of Congress.

This is significant, as Republican Senator John Thune said Pulte might have trouble winning confirmation in the narrowly divided chamber if Trump decides to nominate him to the post beyond the current temporary appointment.

“If he’s somebody we want in that position permanently, he’s got a lengthy road ahead of him,” Thune was quoted by news agency Semafor as saying.

What have the reactions to Pulte’s appointment been?

Pulte’s appointment has drawn scepticism from lawmakers and intelligence officials.

“We don’t need a weaponised DNI. We need professionals there,” Senate Majority Leader Thune told reporters on Tuesday. “I’m trying to get more information about the current state of their thinking about that position. And, again, if he’s somebody they want in that position permanently, he’s got, as you all know, a lengthy road ahead of him.”

“I don’t see any evidence of qualifications for that job,” Republican Senator John Cornyn told reporters. Cornyn, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, lost a primary election last week to a Trump-backed challenger.

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in response to questions about Pulte’s national security credentials: “I have no observations on the matter.”

Republican Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Cornyn of Texas, all of whom are leaving the chamber after this year’s elections, joined the chorus against Pulte.

“Doesn’t seem qualified,” Cassidy said.

“When we looked at his background for the current confirmation, I thought most of his experience was in the building industry,” Tillis said. “I didn’t know he had any national security experience.”

Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia and the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement on Tuesday: “The concern is not only that Mr Pulte lacks the ‘extensive national security experience’ required by statute for the job, which was created after intelligence failures led to the deaths of thousands of Americans on 9/11. It is that he appears to have been selected precisely because the White House believes he will provide the narrative it wants, not the intelligence we need.”

Senator Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said in a written statement on Tuesday that Trump is now “rewarding his lackey – who has no national security experience – with a perch atop our nation’s intelligence community. What could go wrong?”

She first appeared in 2017 before returning as an All Star in 2025. Now, Gabby Allen is joining the Mirror for an opening show watch-along.

She’ll be bringing a unique take on all things villa life from someone who knows it better than most.

Who will impress her and who will be an immediate red flag. The Scouse bombshell already has high hopes for her fellow Liverpudlian, Robyn.

Let’s see how this one goes… it’s nearly over to you, Maya!

WASHINGTON — Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on Tuesday wouldn’t rule out the possibility that people who carried out violence during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol will be considered for payouts from a new $1.776 billion fund to pay individuals who believe they were targeted politically.

Pressed during a Congressional hearing over whether those who assaulted police officers would be eligible for compensation from the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” Blanche responded that all people can apply if “they believe they were a victim of weaponization.” The acting attorney general also refused to say whether he would direct those responsible for deciding who receives payments — a commission whose members he is tasked with appointing — to restrict funds to those convicted of violence.

“What I will commit to is making sure that the commissioners are effectively doing their jobs, and that includes setting guidelines as you’re describing,” Blanche told Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat. The decisions on payouts will be made a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general.

Appearing before Congress for the first time since taking the reins of the Justice Department last month, Blanche was peppered with questions about the fund announced on Monday to compensate those who believe they were mistreated by prior administrations’ Justice Department. Blanche said the fund was “unusual” but not unprecedented, adding that those who benefit will not be limited to Republicans or to people who were investigated or prosecuted by the Biden administration. At one point, Blanche said President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter — who faced gun and tax prosecutions under his father’s administration — could also apply.

Blanche defends $1.8 billion fund

Tuesday’s hearing was meant to address the Trump administration’s budget request for the Justice Department but quickly delved into other controversies that have escalated concerns about the erosion of the law enforcement agency’s tradition of independence from the White House. Blanche defended the creation of the fund without any acknowledgment that the Trump administration has pursued investigations of Trump’s political opponents, sparking criticism that the department is being weaponized in precisely the same way they allege it was under Biden’s administration to prosecute Trump.

In the weeks since assuming control of the Justice Department after Pam Bondi’s firing, Blanche has moved aggressively to advance the president’s priorities — pushing forward cases against Trump’s political foes, cracking down on leaks to media outlets and establishing the new fund to resolve Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

Democrats described it as an illegal abuse of power designed to line the pockets of Trump supporters with taxpayer dollars. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Senate appropriations subcommittee holding the hearing, blasted the move as a “pure theft of public funds.”

“Rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene,” the Maryland Democrat said. “Every American can see through this illegal, corrupt, self-dealing scheme.”

The fund is in keeping with Trump’s long-running claims that the Justice Department during the Biden administration was weaponized against him, even though then-President Biden himself was investigated during that time and his son was prosecuted. Merrick Garland, who served as attorney general during the Biden administration, has repeatedly denied allegations of politicization and has said his decisions followed facts, the evidence and the law.

Trump administration has been rewriting the history of Jan. 6

The mere possibility that violent rioters at the Capitol could be considered for payouts is consistent with a Trump administration pattern of rewriting the dark history of Jan. 6, a trend that began when the president pardoned and commuted the prison sentences of the participants in the melee and that continued with the Justice Department firing some prosecutors who put them behind bars.

Under questioning from Merkley, Blanche said that he “will definitely encourage the commission” responsible for deciding on the payouts to “take everything into account.” But when asked whether he believes those convicted of violence should be entitled to compensation, Blanche said: “My feelings don’t matter.”

When Merkley suggested that Trump was using the Justice Department to target his political enemies, Blanche replied that this was precisely the sort of “disgusting” behavior of the Biden administration that the fund was meant to address.

“That is completely inappropriate and wrong,’ Merkley said. “There is no comparison to the absolute fair minded pursuit of justice under the previous administration, and this administration’s pursuit of an enemies list.”

Questions over the meaning of ‘weaponization’

In announcing the fund Monday, the Trump administration did not name specific individuals who might stand to benefit from it. The money itself would come from the federal judgment fund, which pays out court judgments and compromise settlements of lawsuits against the government.

Blanche told lawmakers that the Justice Department is committed to “full transparency” in providing public information about beneficiaries of the new fund.

“It’s not limited to Republicans. It’s not limited to Democrats. It’s not limited to January 6th defendants. It’s limited only by the term weaponization,” Blanche said, though the administration has not said how it will define “weaponization.”

Meanwhile, there were signs of discomfort about the fund even among some Republican members of Congress. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters that he’s “not a big fan,” adding that he isn’t sure how the administration intends to use it, but doesn’t “see a purpose for that.”

Thune’s comments come after Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who lost reelection in a GOP primary on Saturday, called it a “slush fund.”

“We are a nation of laws,” Cassidy said. “You can’t just make up things.”

Richer and Tucker write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.