effect

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.

“The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances—even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.

“Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”

Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.

The Supreme Court has put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.

In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and non-binary persons.

Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.

The ACLU sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick who blocked the new policy from taking effect.

The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to Supreme Court last month.

They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.

“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely…{It} undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.

“Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have allowed public and private colleges to provide preferential admissions to applicants directly descended from individuals who were enslaved in the United States before 1900.

The governor thanked the bill’s author for his commitment to addressing disparities and urged educational institutions to review and determine “how, when, and if this type of preference can be adopted.”

“This bill clarifies, to the extent permitted by federal law, that California public and private postsecondary educational institutions may consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery,” Newsom wrote Monday in his veto. “These institutions already have the authority to determine whether to provide admissions preferences like this one, and accordingly, this bill is unnecessary.”

The legislation would not have required applicants to belong to any particular race or ethnicity — a crucial detail that proponents said distinguished it from affirmative action, which is banned at California colleges. Critics, however, argued the term “slave” was used as a proxy for race.

Legal experts told The Times last month the measure probably would have faced challenges in court if the governor signed it into law.

“The question with this sort of provision is does this count as on the basis of race?” said Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School and the founder and faculty director of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice. “A secondary issue is going to be whether, even if it is not formally about racial classification, was it really adopted to get around the no-racial-classification rule? The law prohibits indirect methods of doing something that would be prohibited if you were to do it directly.”

Race-based college admissions are banned by federal and state law.

Proposition 209, which California voters approved nearly three decades ago, amended the state Constitution to bar colleges from considering race, sex, national origin or ethnicity during admissions. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 in effect ended race-conscious college admissions nationwide, ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard that such policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

California became the first state government in the country to study reparations, efforts to remedy the lingering effects of slavery and systemic racism, after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked a national conversation on racial justice.

Newsom and state lawmakers passed a law to create a “first in the nation” task force to study and propose effective ways to help atone for the legacy of slavery. That panel spent years working on a 1,080-page report on the effects of slavery and the discriminatory policies sanctioned by the government after slavery was abolished, and the findings became the genesis for a slate of legislation proposed by the California Legislative Black Caucus.

Last week, Newsom signed Senate Bill 518, which will create a new office called the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery. That bureau will create a process to determine whether someone is the descendant of a slave and to certify someone’s claim to help them access benefits.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), who introduced Assembly Bill 7, said his legislation would have allowed colleges to grant preference to the descendants of enslaved people in order to rectify a “legacy of exclusion, of harm.”

Andrew Quinio, an attorney specializing in equality issues for the Pacific Legal Foundation, believes AB 7 was blatantly unconstitutional. The foundation is a conservative public interest law firm that seeks to prevent government overreach.

“This was a bill that was born out of the Reparations Task Force recommendations; it was part of the package of bills of the Road to Repair from the California Legislative Black Caucus so this has a very clear racial intent and racial purpose and it will have a racial effect,” he said. “[Legislation] doesn’t have to benefit the entirety or even the majority of a demographic in order for it to be unlawfully based on race.”

Lisa Holder, a civil rights attorney and president of the Equal Justice Society, a progressive nonprofit that works to protect policies that promote diversity, argued the measure’s framing made it highly likely to satisfy legal challenges.

“This (legislation) is very specifically tailored to correct the harms that we have seen, the harms from the past that continue into the present,” she said. “… Because this bill seeks to erase those harms by focusing specifically on the descendant community, it is strong enough to establish a compelling interest.”

Gary Orfield, a law and education professor and co-founder of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA, agreed the legislation was carefully written in a way that could have withstood legal challenges. He pointed out California allows university programs that support Native American students because they were narrowly tailored to focus on tribal affiliation — which is considered a political classification — instead of race or ethnicity.

Orfield said applicants of various races could have potentially benefited from the new admissions policy, as many Native Americans were enslaved and Asiatic coolieism, or Asian indentured servitude, was declared a form of human slavery in the state constitution in 1879.

“All Black people weren’t slaves and all slaves were not Black,” he said. “I think there is a good argument to say that slavery isn’t defined strictly by race and is not just a proxy for race and there certainly is a legitimate concern when you are thinking about remediation for historic violations.”

Orfield, however, said convincing the public was a different matter.

“I don’t think all people will easily understand this,” he said. “Americans tend to think that discrimination doesn’t cross over multiple generations. But I think that it does — I think there has been a long-lasting effect.”

Staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

HER incredible figure has been the envy of women across the world for decades.

But now supermodel-turned-filmmaker Caprice Bourret has revealed she was so scared of being trolled after gaining 20lbs that she turned to weight loss drug Mounjaro.

7

7

7

The 53-year-old – who was concerned about possible health issues – put on weight after easing up on her strict health regime and started indulging in sweet treats like cake and chocolate, as well her favourite tipple – red wine.

Her relaxed regime in Spring 2024 saw her jump from a size 8 to 12, bringing with it a string of worrying ailments including “heart palpitations”, difficulty walking upstairs, joint pain, severe inflammation and being unable to fit into her designer clothes.

As much as she tried, she just couldn’t shift the weight, which she blames on menopause and a refusal to go on Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT).

“My health was deteriorating and I was feeling really bad about myself,” Caprice, who is also an actress and filmmaker, explains while chatting to us in her gleaming white kitchen as she tucks into a pot of cottage cheese.

“Even small things like walking up the stairs left me huffing and puffing.

“I would get out of bed and my back and joints were inflamed and stiff because of the additional weight.

“I started to get sick more often, so I knew my immunity was being compromised.

“I tried to lose the weight, but I couldn’t because I wasn’t taking HRT and I’m going through the menopause.

“My normal weight is about 138lbs, but I shot up to 160. That was the same weight as when I was pregnant.

“Then I started having these weird heart palpitations. Who has that at 53? I was too young for what was going on.”

Having made her fortune through her good looks and appearing on more than 350 magazine covers, from Vogue to Playboy, Caprice was suddenly terrified of “being judged for not looking how I did in my twenties.”

She continues: “Maybe it was me being hard on myself. Maybe I thought everyone was going to judge me because I was judging myself.

“I guess people might have been more supportive and said ‘you look great’. But I manifested this craziness in my head.

“I used to put on clothes and everything looked amazing, but then nothing fit. Honestly, I thought I’d be judged.”

Dozens of celebrities have confessed to using the jabs including Oprah Winfrey, James Corden, Sharon Osbourne, and tennis player Serena Williams.

But it’s not just showbiz royalty who rely on the drugs to shed the pounds – 1.5million Brits are also hooked.

Most people will find it hard to be sympathetic to super slim Caprice – but she explains that even her doctor was worried and suggested she try the fat busting drug.

I used to put on clothes and everything looked amazing, but then nothing fit. Honestly, I thought I’d be ridiculed

Caprice

At first she was hesitant – always preferring to tackle health issues with natural methods.

But she admits that the reported health benefits of taking Mounjaro – which include reducing inflammation, improving liver health, protecting kidneys, and potentially enhancing cognitive and mental well-being – were attractive.

‘It was awful’

“My BMI was super high,” she says, “and the doctor said: ‘You need help here, you need to lose this weight. You’re borderline clinically obese.’

“But I wasn’t sure. Even when I had bronchitis I had a whole bag of vitamin C and zinc intravenously to get rid of it.

“I like to go down the natural way first but I obviously couldn’t do it this time. It was strange because you’d look at me, and even though I was a size 12 – which is totally normal – I was struggling.”

Regular check-ups ensued, with the doctor prescribing half of .25, “a microdose of a microdose.”

But after a few days Caprice was struck with severe nausea.

“It was awful,” she says, “I got sick to my stomach. I got dizzy and lightheaded but I kept persisting because I needed to lose the weight.

“I continued for two months, mainly because there was all this research about the benefits for cardiovascular health.”

7

7

After two months she lost five pounds but the side effects continued. Battling nausea and not being able to properly enjoy food anymore, she decided to stop taking Mounjaro.

“I’d had enough,” she insists. “I couldn’t take it anymore. I also love craving food and that’s another thing with these drugs, you don’t get the cravings. I really missed that.”

Taking matters into her own hands, she decided to cut out carbs and processed sugar.

“The first month eliminating carbs and sugar was hell,” she explains, “an absolute horror. You are begging for that pasta but I stuck to it.

“Then I started exercising again. I know we go to the office and we get stuck behind the computer and think, tomorrow I’ll do it. But try to make it a part of your life.”

Now she still enjoys three meals a day but has made her portions smaller.

“Sometimes I’ll cheat,” she says, “and have some white rice or a baked potato but that’s okay.

“I only have dark chocolate and lots of honey. I also eat lots of fruit. I love pomegranate, it’s great for your gut health, as is watermelon which is super alkaline.

“At the end of the day we keep our body alkaline and we keep disease away.”

As we talk she pulls out dozens of supplements, swallowing them one by one. Then she shows me Shilajit – a black tar like paste formed from the decomposition of plant and animal matter over centuries in high-altitude regions like the Himalayas.

I couldn’t take it anymore. I also love craving food and that’s another thing with these drugs, you don’t get the cravings. I really missed that

Caprice

She puts some of the paste onto a knife and tells me to lick it off. Intrigued, I follow orders then quickly gag, as it is probably one of the most revolting things I’ve ever tasted.

But she beams. “Well done,” she says, “it’s vile. But it’s full of goodness.”

She also has filtered Kanyon water and she suggests I drink a glass of celery juice every morning if I want to get clear skin.

Talking about her weight loss, she continues: “Since losing the weight I’ve no ache in my joints. The energy levels I have are the same as when I was in my twenties.

“I sleep through the night. Everything has changed.”

Thankfully Mounjaro didn’t damage her sex life. Caprice has been married to businessman Ty Comfort since 2019. They have 12-year-old sons Jett and Jax together.

“That’s been pretty healthy,” she says, smiling, “I have to be honest. My husband is so amazing. Even when I was 20 pounds over, he was like ‘you look great Cap’.

‘Change your lifestyle’

“I actually didn’t tell him I was going on the jabs. But I told him when I finally stopped because I couldn’t stand the sickness.

“When I started to lose weight quite fast by cutting out the carbs and exercising, I’d been away for two weeks shooting a movie.

“I came back and he said: ‘What happened to my wife?’ That’s when I told him. He said: ‘No, Cap, I didn’t mind the curves, I liked the curves.’”

7

7

She won’t be telling her kids about Mounjaro or weight loss because “they already have so much pressure from social media. I don’t want to get it in their heads at all.”

She says everyone in showbusiness is on a weight loss drug. And she recently reached out to one celebrity pal who’d lost too much weight.

She explains: “When you take Mounjaro for a long time your skin changes and loosens. I’ve seen it with my friends. You think you are going to avoid it but you don’t.

“I called up some of my friends, worried, but they are so happy to be that skinny that they don’t see it.

“I think ‘wow, look what it’s done to you.’ It’s complete body dysmorphia.”

She says many of her friends go on the jabs but when they come off they put the weight back on.

“Ultimately, is that going to be healthy?” she wonders. “People are on Ozempic because it’s easy and they are getting a result – but is it at a cost?

“You are losing weight because you are starving your body. Let’s be clear on this. Also a lot of people have been losing their hair. I’ve heard of some women having to wear wigs because of Ozempic.”

At that point she makes me touch her hair, which is extremely thick and silky.

“This is what you get from doing it naturally,” she says. “Yes, it’s more difficult and then you change your lifestyle. I want people to be educated on healthy options and think twice about doing this jab. Ultimately the healthy route is longevity.”

Caprice admits her whole life has centred on her image – and she is not ashamed of being vain.

“I am vain but I don’t care,” she says. “I come from a world of vanity, it’s instilled in me, and it makes me feel good when I look good but it makes me feel good when I feel good more than anything. Health is my number one priority.

“That I swear to you is coming from my heart.”

1

DEAR DEIDRE: FAT jabs have put a rocket up my sex life and I’ve been enjoying more attention than I’ve had in years.

I’ve lost four stone, look younger, feel far more confident and my ex who left me because ‘I’d let myself go’ has started flirting with me again.

But there is one side effect that no one is talking about and the last man I had sex with admitted it’s a total turn off.

I’ve been single for two years and when my husband left me for a woman who looked like I used to it was a real wake-up call.

I’m only 33, yet no one looked up at me when I spoke to them, the admiring glances I’d enjoyed as a younger woman had gone. 

After nine years of marriage, two children and plenty of miscarriages, I felt exhausted. My husband stopped wanting sex with me and we barely spoke. 

Looking back I should have seen the direction we were heading in because the next stop was discovering his affair with a woman from his circuits class.

The detail, that she was the same age as me but much slimmer and fitter, was not lost on me.

It was devastating but I vowed to get myself back on form. I would not let myself go again.

So I was delighted when the fat jabs started to work their magic and the pounds started dropping off.

Within three months, I needed new clothes because my old wardrobe looked like I was wearing tents.

Six months on, and I was no longer relegated to the ‘fat friend’ in the corner on nights out. Instead men made a B-line for me. 

Over the last year I’ve had several flings, I’m not looking for anything serious as yet.

My children, nine and seven, have been through enough change so I don’t want to introduce anyone to them for a while. 

I do like the guy I’ve recently met, he’s fun, hard working and treats me well. But last week we were giving each other oral pleasure and he went limp.

I tried everything to revive his erection, massage, more oral, we watched porn together but nothing made a difference.

After a good hour I gave up and he admitted my vagina looked ‘deflated’. He’d found it ‘distracting’.

I knew the fat jab causes muscle and fat loss but never thought it would affect me down below.

Thinking about it, I had been feeling drier down below and my labia had felt smaller when I was showering but I’ve been so busy I hadn’t had time to really dwell on it.

After he left I looked, using a mirror, and saw exactly what he meant – I looked ‘withered’.

After researching the issue, I have found other women who have complained about sex becoming uncomfortable because they have lost definition down there and other women complaining they looked old and saggy.

Why isn’t anyone talking about this? And more importantly what can I do about this?

DEIDRE SAYS: You’ve done so well to pick yourself back up after the shock of your ex-husband’s affair and should feel very proud of yourself.

I’m sorry that you’ve been experiencing these side effects from using GLP-1 medications, otherwise known as fat jabs. 

And as your research confirmed, you are not alone because “Ozempic vagina” is a thing.

A number of women have reported cosmetic issues where the vulva and labia look deflated due to fat loss from rapid weight loss, others experience vaginal dryness and some complain of weaker pelvic muscles.

It’s important to note this is not a medical side effect of Ozempic itself. 

Talk to your doctor about vaginal lubricants, and topical oestrogen gels which should help with the dryness.

Some women have reverted to surgical and non surgical treatments to rejuvenate their appearance below – a process dubbed ‘vaginal puffing’ but it’s very expensive.

So if you are interested make sure you do plenty of research and make sure any surgeon is BAAPS accredited.

Also you may find that once your weight settles and any moisturisers take effect that you don’t want to go down this invasive and expensive route.

You haven’t mentioned a lack of pelvic floor tone but for anyone who is concerned about this issue, it’s worth contacting your GP and asking for a referral to their women’s health physiotherapist who can advise on exercises and treatments to strengthen the pelvic floor muscles.

Dear Deidre’s Weight Worries

From pre-wedding insecurities to hurtful family remarks and lifelong self-esteem struggles, weight-related issues frequently flood Deidre’s inbox. 

One bride-to-be is plagued by anxiety about walking down the aisle as she feels  overweight. 

Another young woman feels humiliated after her father publicly joked about her weight at a family gathering. 

And, in another case, a woman whose childhood was marked by relentless bullying and parental criticism admits that even cosmetic treatments and diets haven’t healed her deep-seated insecurities.

Ask me and my counsellors anything

Every problem get a personal and private reply from one of my trained counsellors within one working day.

Sally Land is the Dear Deidre Agony Aunt. She achieved a distinction in the Certificate in Humanistic Integrative Counselling, has specialised in relationships and parenting. She has over 20 years of writing and editing women’s issues and general features.

Passionate about helping people find a way through their challenges, Sally is also a trustee for the charity Family Lives. Her team helps up to 90 people every week. 

Sally took over as The Sun’s Agony Aunt when Deidre Sanders retired from the The Dear Deidre column four years ago.

The Dear Deidre Team Of Therapists Also Includes:

Kate Taylor: a sex and dating writer who is also training to be a counsellor. Kate is an advisor for dating website OurTime and is the author of five self-help books.

Jane Allton: a stalwart of the Dear Deidre for over 20 years. Jane is a trained therapist, who specialises in family issues. She has completed the Basic Counselling Skills Level 1, 2, and 3. She also achieved the Counselling and Psychotherapy (CPCAB) Level 2 Certificate in Counselling Studies.

Catherine Thomas: with over two decades worth of experience Catherine has also trained as a therapist, with the same credentials as Jane. She specialises in consumer and relationship issues.

Fill out and submit our easy-to-use and confidential form and the Dear Deidre team will get back to you.

You can also send a private message on the DearDeidreOfficial Facebook page or email us at:

[email protected]

At its 25th Global Summit in Rome today, the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) launched its latest report showing how much the US is losing out on as tourists decide to stay away

Donald Trump has helped shave £10billion off the US economy by keeping holidaymakers away.

There is a whole host of reasons why a lot of people have decided to stop travelling to the US, and the President is at the heart of many of them. Whether it’s newly emboldened border guards that have locked up tourists for little reason; a desire not to spend money in a country that is helping Israel wage a war in Gaza; or the arrival of National Guard troops in US cities.

At its 25th Global Summit in Rome today, the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) launched its latest report showing how much the US is losing out on as tourists decide to stay away.

The WTTC forecasts international visitor spending in the US will fall by $12.5billion (£9.3billion) in 2025, with the tourism organisation urging America’s authorities to provide more traveller-friendly policies and reduce visa costs. The total income from the sector in the US is now $2,575.5billion, down from $2,558.4billion.

Would you consider travelling to China for a holiday? Let us know in the comments below or by emailing [email protected]

READ MORE: ‘I’m a dark tourist and I met a cannibal tribe at one of the world’s craziest events’READ MORE: ‘I visited the world’s craziest city you’ve never heard – it looks AI-generated’

Citizens from some countries, in particular, are avoiding travelling to the US. In February, border crossings from Canada were down by more than 20%, according to Statistics Canada. Among them is Keith Serry, a writer and comedian based in Montreal, Quebec.

He cancelled five April appearances in New York City due to the tense political situation. “This decision will, of course, rob me of the opportunity to share my art with many of you in New York I’ve grown to know and love,” he wrote on his Facebook page. “That said, the honest truth is that I just don’t feel safe travelling to the States right now. In addition, I feel a powerful disinclination to spending my money in any way that might aid the economy of a hostile state.”

On the flipside, China, the world’s second-largest travel and tourism market, is due for a huge tourism boost. The sector already added $1.64trillion (£1.22trillion) to its economy in 2024, and that number is forecast to surge by 22.7% in 2025, adding an extra $260billion (£193billion).

Japan, the world’s fifth largest travel and tourism economy with a $310.5billion (£210billion) contribution in 2024, is forecast to add a further $13.8 (£10.28billion) to its GDP this year.

Despite losing £2.2billion in international visitor spending last year, the sector added £273billion to the economy.

WTTC Interim CEO Gloria Guevara chose to focus on the overall growth, rather than the dip seen in the US and UK.

She said: “These results tell a story of strength and opportunity. The US remains the world’s largest Travel & Tourism market, China is surging back, Europe is powering ahead, and destinations across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa are delivering record growth. This year, we are forecasting that our sector will contribute an historic $2.1TN in 2025, surpassing the previous high of $1.9TN in 2019, by $164BN. As Italy hosts this year’s Global Summit, its role as a G7 leader showcases the importance of tourism in driving economies, creating jobs, and shaping our shared future.”

Globally, the travel industry is growing at a rapid rate. According to the report, the sector supported 357million jobs in 2024. That figure is set to rise to 371million in 2025, along with an increase in the sector’s share of global employment.

By 2035, one in eight jobs worldwide will be in the industry, with an additional 91 million new jobs compared to today. The majority of those will be in the Asia-Pacific region.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold President Trump’s birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The appeal, shared with the Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.

Lower-court judges have blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.

The Justice Department’s petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.

Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.

“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.

“This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.

Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.

While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or probably violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved people, had citizenship.

The administration is appealing two cases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.

Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Sherman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

Cruise ships have plenty of entertainment for passengers but there’s one clever ‘blue mind effect’ that can be key to whether they feel calm while they’re on the ship

Cruise holidays offer up plenty of opportunities for rest and relaxation whether that’s sitting poolside on the top deck, unwinding in the spa or tucking into some delicious food. Then of course there are all of the thrilling destinations to be explored whether you’re sailing along the Mediterranean coast or going in search of winter sun in the Caribbean.

Most people tend to feel happier or more relaxed on a holiday, but according to industry insiders, cruise ships use a clever tactic to try and maximise that feeling of joy for passengers.

It all comes down to the ‘blue mind effect’. This theory suggests that if you’re close to water or immersed in water, it can encourage a meditative and relaxed state of mind, and therefore play a key role in your wellbeing. Of course cruise ships are surrounded by water, and according to experts, cruise lines use this to their advantage.

READ MORE: Disney’s new ship sailing in 2025 will have epic themed bars and new water rideREAD MORE: World’s ‘most beautiful cruise port’ is tucked away in city that’s UNESCO site

The insiders at Iglu Cruise explained: “Taking this into consideration, cruise ships are designed with as many positions to view the sea as possible. There are floor-to-ceiling windows in public areas offering uninterrupted views of the ocean, open decks to view the horizon and private balconies allowing passengers to have their own private “blue mind” sanctuary, and there’s nothing quite like falling asleep to the sound of the sea.”

Are you obsessed with everything cruise? Sign up to our Anchors Away newsletter for a weekly dose of cruise news, first looks at new ships and more.

The ‘blue mind effect’ isn’t the only way a cruise can offer up useful ways to boost your mental wellbeing. Another perk of being at sea is that in the middle of the ocean, you’re unlikely to get good signal. While most lines do offer up Wi-Fi packages for those who want to stay connected, if you’re after a digital detox then a cruise can be the ideal opportunity to take one.

READ MORE: ‘I watched Disney’s new ship float out and it was more nail-biting than expected’

In fact, according to Iglu Cruise, “it’s been found that a “digital detox” can reduce stress and anxiety, improve focus, improve sleep, decrease FOMO (fear of missing out) and deepen relationship”. Their experts added: “This newfound freedom whilst onboard, encourages disconnection from devices and instead, engaging with the surroundings, embracing the present moment and enjoying precious time with loved ones. It’s also the perfect justification for not feeling obliged to respond to people right away.”

Of course while it’s lovely to have some R&R, some holidaymakers also like a bit of adventure on their holidays, so the fact that you can visit multiple destinations on one holiday can appeal. Then there’s the upping of the ante when it comes to onboard entertainment from rollercoasters at sea to West End-worthy shows, and epic waterparks. With an increasing demand for entertainment at sea, new ships are bigger than ever before – and experts predict that they could soon be the size of small cities.

Do you have a story to tell us? Email us at [email protected]

This film shows how culture can be a radical force for urban change. In the 1980s, the northern Spanish port of Bilbao was a dirty, run-down, old industrial city when the Basque government and regional authorities struck a deal on an ambitious proposal – to build a Guggenheim Foundation museum on a polluted stretch of riverbank. In this documentary, the Arab architect and filmmaker Ebraheem Imam describes how a city on the brink of collapse took a gamble on a cultural project that few believed in and how that led to a much wider transformation. Imam tells the story himself with both architectural insight and emotional intimacy. He also moves it beyond the shiny, titanium-clad Guggenheim Museum itself to ask what really drives urban change and whether the so-called Bilbao effect can be replicated in other cities around the world.

It didn’t turn out to be a “Cruel Summer” for singer Taylor Swift: she and Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, in a continuation of their ongoing “Love Story,” have officially told each other, “You Belong With Me.”

The pop icon, self-made billionaire, and self-described “Anti-Hero” announced her engagement to Kelce in an Instagram post on Tuesday. Sure enough, where there used to be a “Blank Space” on Swift’s ring finger, she was now “Bejeweled” with a large engagement ring (and we hope she doesn’t accidentally “Shake It Off”).

Swift surely knew “All Too Well” that the announcement would make “Sparks Fly” among her legion of fans (to them I say, “You Need to Calm Down”), but even in her “Wildest Dreams,” she probably never expected the news to affect the stock market.

But it did. Here’s how.

Image source: Getty Images.

Look what you made me do…to the market

In the immediate wake of the announcement, as fans were still trying to identify the exact cut of the diamond in Swift’s ring (it was a “cushion cut,” for those who are interested), there was a brief, otherwise-unexplained 1% pop in the stock price of Signet Jewelers Limited (SIG -2.54%), one of the few publicly traded jewelry companies.

As the afternoon wore on, Signet’s shares climbed higher in a rally continued through Wednesday and into Thursday’s premarket trading, when Signet’s stock briefly hit $95/share, up nearly 10% over the pre-“pop star pop” price. The Swift Effect was even more pronounced for Brilliant Earth Group (BRLT 8.55%), which soared from $2.17/share at 12:50 PM on Tuesday to close at $2.82/share, a 30% gain.

Even luxury brands only partially exposed to the jewelry market rose in the wake of the announcement: Movado Group (MOV 2.47%), which is primarily a watchmaker but does sell other jewelry items, and LVMH (LVMHF -1.43%), which owns Tiffany & Co., were both up more than 4% over their pre-engagement price at Thursday’s close.

Today was a fairytale

It’s not the first time that Taylor Swift’s legions of fans — known as “Swifties” — have collectively influenced the financial world. In July 2023, the Federal Reserve’s Beige Book credited Swift’s “Eras” tour as being responsible for the strongest month of hotel revenue in Philadelphia since the pandemic. This mirrored reports from Cincinnati and Chicago, among many other cities, that credited the “Eras” tour for record hotel revenues.

So how did this happen? There was likely a noticeable spike in internet searches for various types of wedding rings in the wake of Swift’s announcement as eager fans tried to identify the exact ring in question (and possibly score one for themselves). That activity may have triggered certain traders’ algorithms to buy jewelry stocks…or perhaps there are just plenty of Swifties among the ranks of hedge fund managers.

The money question is, could this one-time pop in interest translate into a meaningful increase in jewelry sales, or lasting gains for these jewelry stocks?

Is it over now?

Unfortunately, it looks like the rally may already be fizzling. Although Signet Jewelers closed on Thursday at $89.86/share, which is 3.6% above its pre-engagement price, it had fallen significantly from its post-engagement high of $95. Brilliant Earth Group also closed lower on Thursday at $2.69/share, though that was also well above its pre-engagement price.

Getting engaged is a much bigger commitment than buying an album or attending a concert (although the cost of some resold “Eras” tour tickets could have funded an entire wedding and then some). Sure, it might be fun to dream about getting a ring like Taylor Swift, or to shop for one online, but even if you idolize Swift, will her engagement really prompt legions of uncommitted Swifties to propose? (Don’t get me wrong: I know the intensity of Swift’s fandom is strong…but that strong?)

Meanwhile, all of the aforementioned jewelry and jewelry-adjacent companies have significantly lagged the S&P 500 over the past five years: some by a little (Signet is trailing on a total return basis by about 35 percentage points) to a lot (Brilliant Earth is “Down Bad,” by a jaw-dropping 130 percentage points).

I’d classify those returns as not just in the “Red,” but redder than “Bad Blood,” and it’ll take more than a one-time surge of interest from Swifties to make me say anything besides “I Knew You Were Trouble” and “We Are Never Ever Getting Together.”

That said, whichever jeweler can be the first to mass-produce a Taylor Swift-inspired cushion-cut engagement ring will almost certainly have a hit on their hands.

If the Trump administration succeeds in barring undocumented immigrants from federally funded “public benefit” programs, vulnerable children and families across California would suffer greatly, losing access to emergency shelters, vital healthcare, early education and life-saving nutritional support, according to state and local officials who filed their opposition to the changes in federal court.

The new restrictions would harm undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens — including the U.S.-born children of immigrants and people suffering from mental illness and homelessness who lack documentation — and put intense stress on the state’s emergency healthcare system, the officials said.

Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, healthcare and nutritional support, may have to shutter some of its programs if the new rules barring immigrants withstand a lawsuit filed by California and other liberal-led states, officials said.

In a declaration filed as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the child care and developmental division of the California Department of Social Services, wrote that the restrictions would have an immediate “chilling effect” on immigrant and mixed-status families seeking support, but also cause broader “ripple effects” — especially in rural California communities that rely on such programs as “a critical safety net” for vulnerable residents, but also as major employers.

“Children would lose educational, nutritional, and healthcare services. Parents or guardians may be forced to cut spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced out of work so they can care for their children,” Jaime-Milehan said.

Rural communities would see programs shutter, and family providers lose their jobs, she wrote.

Tony Thurmond, California’s superintendent of public instruction, warned in a declaration that the “chilling effect” from such rules could potentially drive away talented educators who disagree with such policies and decide to “seek other employment that does not discriminate against children and families.”

Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia who submitted declarations in support of those states’ lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new rules. Six other officials from California also submitted declarations.

The lawsuit followed announcements last month from various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — that funding recipients would be required to begin screening out undocumented immigrants.

The announcements followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said his administration would “uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.”

Trump’s order cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as welfare reform, as barring noncitizens from participating in federally funded benefits programs, and criticized past administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain “life or safety” programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions.

The order mandated that federal agencies restrict access to benefits programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to “prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.”

California and the other states sued July 21, alleging the new restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law.

“We’re not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we’re talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.

In addition to programs like Head Start, Bonta said the new restrictions threatened access to short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and healthcare for people with mental illness and substance abuse issues.

The declarations are part of a motion asking the federal judge overseeing the case to issue a preliminary injunction barring the changes from taking effect while the litigation plays out.

Beth Neary, assistant director of HIV health services at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in her declaration that the new restrictions would impede healthcare services for an array of San Francisco residents experiencing homelessness — including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens.

“Individuals experiencing homelessness periodically lack identity and other documents that would be needed to verify their citizenship or immigration status due to frequent moves and greater risk of theft of their belongings,” she wrote.

Colleen Chawla, chief of San Mateo County Health, wrote that her organization — the county’s “safety-net” care provider — has worked for years to build up trust in immigrant communities.

“But if our clients worry that they will not be able to qualify for the care they need, or that they or members of their family face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek care, they will stop coming,” Chawla wrote. “This will exacerbate their health conditions.”

Greta S. Hansen, chief operating officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of her county’s residents are foreign-born and more than 60% of the county’s children have at least one foreign-born parent — among the highest rates anywhere in the country.

The administration’s changes would threaten all of them, but also everyone else in the county, she wrote.

“The cumulative effect of patients not receiving preventive care and necessary medications would likely be a strain on Santa Clara’s emergency services, which would result in increased costs to Santa Clara and could also lead to decreased capacity for emergency care across the community,” Hansen wrote.

The Trump administration has defended the new rules, including in court.

In response to the states’ motion for preliminary injunction, attorneys for the administration argued that the rule changes are squarely in line with the 1996 welfare reform law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it.

They wrote that the notices announcing the new rules that were sent out by federal agencies “merely recognize that the breadth of benefits available to unqualified aliens is narrower than the agencies previously interpreted,” and “restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize unqualified aliens.”

The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction.

Trump’s order is seeking to address trade practices Washington deems unfair, but small businesses may be harmed, and economists caution it could fuel inflation.

United States President Donald Trump’s sweeping higher tariffs on more than 60 countries have taken effect.

The higher so-called “reciprocal” tariffs, announced last week in an executive order, were being collected by the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency from 00:01 EDT (04:01 GMT) on Thursday, following months of negotiations with major trading partners.

The US duties range from 50 percent on goods from Brazil to 10 percent on imports from the United Kingdom.

Ahead of the deadline, Trump lauded the “billions of dollars” that will flow into the US as a result of the increased duties. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent has said that tariff revenues could top $300bn a year.

“THE ONLY THING THAT CAN STOP AMERICA’S GREATNESS WOULD BE A RADICAL LEFT COURT THAT WANTS TO SEE OUR COUNTRY FAIL!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Imports from many countries had previously been subject to a baseline 10 percent import duty after Trump paused higher rates announced in early April.

But since then, Trump has frequently modified his tariff plan, slapping some countries with much higher rates, including 50 percent on goods from Brazil, 39 percent on Switzerland, 35 percent on Canada and 25 percent on India.

Trump announced on Wednesday that he would increase tariffs on India to 50 percent later this month unless it stops buying Russian oil.

The US president says the tariffs are a response to trade practices Washington deems unfair. However, some companies and industry groups have warned that the new levies will hurt smaller US businesses, while some economists have cautioned that they could fuel inflation and affect long-term growth.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher said the hike in tariffs on Brazil will likely affect the US coffee industry, which was already grappling with rising prices due to weather-related shortages.

“Many [US] companies source their coffee in Brazil, not just the big chains, but smaller places [too],” said Fisher.

The US has a trade surplus with Brazil, leading many to believe that the tariffs are Trump’s attempt to punish Brazil for prosecuting his ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of trying to stage a coup, said Fisher.

‘Winners and losers’

Eight major trading partners accounting for about 40 percent of US trade flows have reached deals with Trump, including the European Union, Japan and South Korea, setting their base tariff rates at 15 percent.

The UK agreed to a 10 percent rate, while Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines secured rates of 19 or 20 percent.

Trump’s order has specified that any goods determined to have been transshipped from a third country to evade higher US tariffs will be subject to an additional 40 percent import duty, but details on enforcement are unclear.

According to John Diamond, an analyst at the Center for Tax and Budget Policy at the Baker Institute, the tariffs will likely leave US consumers with fewer choices in the number of goods, as well as higher prices for those goods.

“I think you’re going to see that there’s winners and losers, and you’re going to see that there’s a lot of inefficiency with political kickbacks and political punishments for adversaries,” Diamond told Al Jazeera.

The US president also announced late on Wednesday that he will impose a 100 percent tariff on foreign-made semiconductors, although exemptions will be made for companies that have invested in the US.

Aug. 7 (UPI) — President Donald Trump‘s sweeping new tariffs on dozens of nations went into effect early Thursday following months of delays and threats from the American leader.

“IT”S MIDNIGHT!!! BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TARIFFS ARE NOW LOWING INTO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform announcing the levies were now in effect.

The American president has long relied on tariffs as a punishment, a negotiating tool and a measure to right what he views as negative trade imbalances that the United States has with other countries.

He has described these deficits as an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States’ national security and economy.

Under the executive order he signed last week, most countries’ imports to the United States will be subjected to a baseline 10% tariff, which went into effect at midnight Wednesday. Other governments, such as South Korea, the European Union, Britain and Japan, will have more complicated and different tariff rates as they rushed to make deals with the Trump administration ahead of last month’s deadline.

Brazil, for instance is facing a total 50% tariff after Trump slapped a 40% levy against it over the prosecution of his ally, former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro.

He also raised tariffs to 50% on India on Wednesday over the country’s continued purchase of Russian oil.

Canada, the United States’ closest partner, was hit with a 35% tariff, up from 25%.

On Wednesday, Trump also announced he would be imposing a 100% tariff on semiconductor chips.

According to the nonpartisan Yale Budget Lab think tank, U.S. consumers will face an overall average effective tariff rate of 17.3% — the highest since 1935, during the Great Depression.

The think tanks states that the average per-household income loss will be $2,400 this year. Textiles and clothing will be disproportionally affected by the tariffs, with consumers expected to face 40% higher costs for shoes and 38% higher prices for apparel.

Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation states that Trump’s tariffs could raise $2.1 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years, but will reduce total revenue raised by $1.6 trillion and reduce GDP by 0.8%.

Despite what analysts say, the Trump administration has been bullish on the tariffs, saying they will generate billions for the United States.

During a press conference at the White House with Apple CEO Tim Cook on Wednesday, Trump said, “I think we’ll be taking in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs.”

“We have a great country. We have a country that is going to be very rich. It’s a country that we’re very proud of, but it’s going to be very rich,” Trump said.

Trump initially announced the so-called reciprocal tariffs in April but then paused them for all countries but China for 90 days to allow time for the governments to hash out deals with the United States. In July, he delayed them again until Aug. 1. Then a day before the tariffs were to go into effect, he pushed their deadline a week.

WASHINGTON — The State Department is proposing requiring applicants for business and tourist visas to post a bond of up to $15,000 to enter the United States, a move that may make the process unaffordable for many.

In a notice to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, the department said it would start a 12-month pilot program under which people from countries deemed to have high overstay rates and deficient internal document security controls could be required to post bonds of $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 when they apply for a visa.

The proposal comes as the Trump administration is tightening requirements for visa applicants. Last week, the State Department announced that many visa renewal applicants would have to submit to an additional in-person interview, something that was not required in the past. In addition, the department is proposing that applicants for the Visa Diversity Lottery program have valid passports from their country of citizenship.

A preview of the bond notice, which was posted on the Federal Register website on Monday, said the pilot program would take effect within 15 days of its formal publication and is necessary to ensure that the U.S. government is not financially liable if a visitor does not comply with the terms of his or her visa.

“Aliens applying for visas as temporary visitors for business or pleasure and who are nationals of countries identified by the department as having high visa overstay rates, where screening and vetting information is deemed deficient, or offering citizenship by investment, if the alien obtained citizenship with no residency requirement, may be subject to the pilot program,” the notice said.

The countries affected will be listed once the program takes effect, it said.

The bond would not apply to citizens of countries enrolled in the Visa Waiver Program and could be waived for others depending on an applicant’s individual circumstances.

Visa bonds have been proposed in the past but have not been implemented. The State Department has traditionally discouraged the requirement because of the cumbersome process of posting and discharging a bond and because of a possible misperceptions by the public.

However, the department said that previous view “is not supported by any recent examples or evidence, as visa bonds have not generally been required in any recent period.”

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — For all of President Trump’s promises of an economic “golden age,” a spate of weak indicators last week told a potentially worrisome story as the effects of his policies are coming into focus.

Job gains are dwindling. Inflation is ticking upward. Growth has slowed compared with last year.

More than six months into his term, Trump’s blitz of tariff hikes and his new tax-and-spending bill have remodeled America’s trading, manufacturing, energy and tax systems to his liking. He’s eager to take credit for any perceived wins and is hunting for someone else to blame if the financial situation starts to totter.

But as of now, this is not the boom the Republican president promised, and his ability to blame his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, for any economic challenges has faded as the world economy hangs on his every word and social media post.

When Friday’s monthly jobs report turned out to be decidedly bleak, Trump ignored the warnings in the data and fired the head of the agency that produces the report.

“Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can’t be manipulated for political purposes,” Trump said on his social media platform, without offering evidence for his claim. “The Economy is BOOMING.”

It’s possible that the disappointing numbers are growing pains from the rapid transformation caused by Trump and that stronger growth will return — or they may be a preview of even more disruption to come.

A political gamble

Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs, executive actions, spending cuts and tax code changes carry significant political risk if he is unable to deliver middle-class prosperity. The effects of his new tariffs are still several months away from rippling through the economy, right as many Trump allies in Congress will be campaigning in the midterm elections.

“Considering how early we are in his term, Trump’s had an unusually big impact on the economy already,” said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist at Firehouse Strategies. “The full inflationary impact of the tariffs won’t be felt until 2026. Unfortunately for Republicans, that’s also an election year.”

The White House portrayed the blitz of trade frameworks leading up to Trump’s tariff announcement Thursday as proof of his negotiating prowess. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and other nations that the White House declined to name agreed that the U.S. could increase its tariffs on their goods without doing the same to American products. Trump simply set rates on other countries that lacked settlements.

The costs of those tariffs — taxes paid on imports to the U.S. — will be most felt by American consumers in the form of higher prices, but to what extent remains uncertain.

“For the White House and their allies, a key part of managing the expectations and politics of the Trump economy is maintaining vigilance when it comes to public perceptions,” said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist.

Just 38% of adults approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, according to a July poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs. That’s down from the end of Trump’s first term when half of adults approved of his economic leadership.

The White House paints a rosier image, casting the economy as emerging from a period of uncertainty after Trump’s restructuring and repeating the economic gains seen in his first term before the pandemic struck.

“President Trump is implementing the very same policy mix of deregulation, fairer trade, and pro-growth tax cuts at an even bigger scale — as these policies take effect, the best is yet to come,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said.

Hints of trouble

The economic numbers over the last week show the difficulties that Trump might face if the numbers continue on their current path:

— Friday’s jobs report showed that U.S. employers have shed 37,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump’s tariff launch in April, undermining prior White House claims of a factory revival.

— Net hiring has plummeted over the last three months with job gains of just 73,000 in July, 14,000 in June and 19,000 in May — a combined 258,000 jobs lower than previously indicated. On average last year, the economy added 168,000 jobs a month.

— A Thursday inflation report showed that prices have risen 2.6% over the year that ended in June, an increase in the personal consumption expenditures price index from 2.2% in April. Prices of heavily imported items, such as appliances, furniture and toys and games, jumped from May to June.

— On Wednesday, a report on gross domestic product — the broadest measure of the U.S. economy — showed that it grew at an annual rate of less than 1.3% during the first half of the year, down sharply from 2.8% growth last year.

“The economy’s just kind of slogging forward,” said Guy Berger, senior fellow at the Burning Glass Institute, which studies employment trends. “Yes, the unemployment rate’s not going up, but we’re adding very few jobs. The economy’s been growing very slowly. It just looks like a ‘meh’ economy is continuing.”

Attacks on the Fed

Trump has sought to pin the blame for any economic troubles on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, saying the Fed should cut its benchmark interest rates — even though doing so could generate more inflation.

Trump has publicly backed two Fed governors, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, for voting for rate cuts at Wednesday’s meeting. But their logic is not what the president wants to hear: They were worried, in part, about a slowing job market.

But this is a major economic gamble being undertaken by Trump and those pushing for lower rates under the belief that mortgages will also become more affordable as a result and boost homebuying activity.

His tariff policy has changed repeatedly over the last six months, with the latest import tax numbers serving as a substitute for what the president announced in April, which provoked a stock market sell-off. It might not be a simple one-time adjustment as some Fed board members and Trump administration officials argue.

‘Universal tariffs’

Of course, Trump can’t say no one warned him about the possible consequences of his economic policies.

Biden, then the outgoing president, did just that in a speech in December at the Brookings Institution, saying the cost of the tariffs would eventually hit American workers and businesses.

“He seems determined to impose steep, universal tariffs on all imported goods brought into this country on the mistaken belief that foreign countries will bear the cost of those tariffs rather than the American consumer,” Biden said. “I believe this approach is a major mistake.”

Boak and Rugber write for the Associated Press.

Last week, a new register was introduced in Spain that requires all properties used for tourism and short-term holiday rentals to have a mandatory registration code to operate legally

More European countries will crack down on holiday rentals such as Airbnb, property experts have predicted.

Italy could be the next country to target Airbnb after Spain triggered a “domino effect” by introducing stringent new laws aimed at regulating and controlling the market.

Last week, a new register was introduced in Spain that requires all properties used for tourism and short-term holiday rentals to have a mandatory registration code to operate legally. According to some reports, 66,000 properties have been taken off the market.

The Ministry of Social Rights, Consumption and Agenda 2030 says many of the properties in question have been deemed illegal because their listings do not show a licence or registration number.

READ MORE: ‘I ditch my boyfriend to travel alone – more women should skip couples’ trips’

According to 2024 data from the Spanish statistics office, there were 351,389 short-term rentals advertised in Spain on the Airbnb, Booking.com, and Vrbo platforms. That number has been cut by just under 20 per cent due to the new laws, The Times reports.

The move has been welcomed by protesters who have long argued that the proliferation of holiday lets has pushed up house prices for locals by steadily increasing demand.

From the holidaymakers’ perspective, one potential downside of the decreased supply is that it may lead to increased prices.

If the new system is judged to be a success, other countries may follow suit. A likely candidate is Italy, given that the country is currently engaged in a court battle to ban key boxes on streets in a clampdown on short-term lets.

Kundan Bhaduri, who works at The Kushman Group—a property company that specialises in HMOs—predicted that the Italian government is “clearly next” to crack down on holiday lets.

“Spain’s move to demand a national registry for short-term lets is just the opening salvo. Italy is clearly next. France, Portugal and even the balmy Balearics have all flirted with similar measures,” he said.

Kundan, who is himself an Airbnb landlord, complained that he and his property-letting colleagues often find themselves “painted as moustache-twirling villains standing between honest citizens and affordable housing.”

READ MORE: Anyone flying budget airlines this summer given new update on baggage size checksREAD MORE: Wales green lights £33million tourist tax – how much you’ll pay

Harry Goodliffe, director at HTG Mortgages, said Spain’s ruling could lead to a “domino effect” across the EU.

He continued: “Spain’s crackdown could trigger a domino effect across Europe, and Italy looks next in line. The combination of overtourism and local housing pressures is pushing governments to act, and short-term lets are the obvious target. If Italy tightens the rules, expect thousands of listings to vanish.”

Tony Redondo, founder at Cosmos Currency Exchange, predicted that France is even more likely than Italy to be the next to crack down on Airbnb.

“Italy’s Airbnb regulations are far less stringent than Spain’s crackdown, which resulted in the delisting of 66,000 properties. France may emulate Spain’s approach,” he said.

Back in May an Airbnb spokesperson said: “Airbnb will continue to appeal against all decisions linked to this case. No evidence of rule-breaking by hosts has been put forward, and the decision goes against EU and Spanish law, and a previous ruling by the Spanish Supreme Court.

“The root cause of the affordable housing crisis in Spain is a lack of supply to meet demand. The solution is to build more homes – anything else is a distraction. Governments across the world are seeing that regulating Airbnb does not alleviate housing concerns or return homes to the market – it only hurts local families who rely on hosting to afford their homes and rising costs.”

On July 3, the United States House of Representatives passed President Donald Trump’s signature tax cut and spending package, which he has called the “One Big Beautiful Bill“.

The bill combines tax reductions, spending hikes on defence and border security, and cuts to social safety nets.

Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries warned that the bill “hurts everyday Americans and rewards billionaires with massive tax breaks”.

Trump’s erstwhile ally, billionaire Elon Musk, publicly opposed the bill, arguing it would bloat expenditure and the country’s already unmatched debt.

Trump is expected to sign the bill into law on Friday, July 4 – the US’s independence day – at 4pm ET.

Here’s what’s next – and whom the bill will affect:

How have taxes been lowered?

The main goal of the bill was to extend Trump’s first-term tax cuts.

In 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which lowered taxes and increased the standard deduction for all taxpayers, primarily benefitting higher-income earners.

More than a third of the total cuts went to households with an income of $460,000 or more.

The top 1 percent (roughly 2.4 million people) received average tax cuts of about $61,090 by 2025 – higher than any other income group. By contrast, the middle 60 percent of earners (78 million people) saw cuts in the range of $380 to $1,800.

Those tax breaks were set to expire this year, but the new bill has made them permanent. It also adds some more cuts Trump promised during his latest campaign.

For instance, there is a change to the US tax code called the State and Local Taxes deduction.

This will let taxpayers deduct certain local taxes (like property taxes) from their federal tax return.

Currently, people can only deduct up to $10,000 of these taxes. The new bill would raise that cap from $10,000 to $40,000 for five years.

Taxpayers will also be allowed to deduct income earned from tips and overtime, until 2028, as well as interest paid on loans for buying cars made in the US from this year until 2028.

Elsewhere, the estate tax exemption will rise to $15m for individuals and $30m for married couples.

In all, the legislation contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.

How big are social welfare cuts?

To help offset the cost of the tax cuts, Republicans plan to scale back Medicaid and food assistance programmes for low-income families.

Their stated goal was to focus these programmes on certain groups – primarily pregnant women, people with disabilities and children – while also reducing what they deem to be waste, including by limiting access to immigrants.

Currently, more than 71 million people depend on Medicaid, the government health insurance program.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill would leave an additional 17 million Americans without health cover in the next decade.

While Medicaid helps Americans suffering from poor health, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps poor people afford groceries.

About 40 million Americans currently receive benefits through SNAP, also known as food stamps.

The CBO calculates that 4.7 million SNAP participants will lose out over the 2025-2034 period, due to program reductions.

Changes to Medicaid and SNAP could become permanent provisions, with no sunset clauses attached to them.

A recent White House memo pointed to more than $1 trillion in welfare cuts from the new bill – the largest spending reductions to the US safety net in modern history.

Will there be new money for national security?

The bill sets aside about $350bn, to be spread out over several years, for Trump’s border and national security plans. This includes:

• $46bn for the US-Mexico border wall
• $45bn to fund 100,000 beds in migrant detention centres
• Billions more to hire an extra 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents by 2029, as part of Trump’s plan to carry out the largest mass deportation effort in US history.

Will clean energy be affected?

Republicans have rolled back tax incentives that support clean energy projects powered by renewables like solar and wind, instead giving tax breaks to coal and oil companies.

These “green” tax breaks were a part of former President Joe Biden’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act, which aimed to tackle climate change and reduce healthcare costs.

A tax break for people who buy new or used electric vehicles will expire on September 30 this year, instead of at the end of 2032 under current law.

How will the bill affect the US debt profile?

The legislation would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, from $36.2 trillion currently (which amounts to 122 percent of gross domestic product or GDP), going beyond the $4 trillion outlined in the version passed by the House in May.

Washington cannot borrow more than its stated debt ceiling. But since 1960, Congress has raised, suspended or changed the terms of the debt ceiling 78 times, facilitating more leverage and undermining the US’s long-term fiscal stability.

In his first term, Trump oversaw a roughly $8 trillion increase in the federal debt, which surged due to 2017 tax cuts and emergency spending, approved by Congress, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Debt as a share of GDP was already higher last year than it was anytime outside of World War II, the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis or the COVID-19 pandemic. Deficit concerns contributed to Moody’s downgrading of the US credit score in May.

For its part, the White House claims the new tax bill will reduce projected deficits by more than $1.4 trillion over the next decade, in part by spurring additional growth. But economists on both sides of the aisle have strongly disputed that.

Indeed, according to the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, interest payments on national debt will rise to $2 trillion per year by 2034 owing to the legislation, crowding out spending on other goods and services.

How did the House of Representatives vote on the bill?

The lower house of the US Congress voted by a margin of 218 to 214 in favour of the bill on Thursday.

All 212 Democratic members of the House opposed the bill. They were joined by Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who broke from the Republican majority.

On July 1, the Senate narrowly passed the bill by a 51–50 vote, with the deciding vote cast by Vice President JD Vance.

Who will benefit the most?

According to Yale University’s Budget Lab, wealthier taxpayers are likely to gain more from this bill than lower-income Americans.

They estimate that people in the lowest income bracket will see their incomes drop by 2.5 percent, mainly because of cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, while the highest earners will see their incomes rise by 2.2 percent.

DES MOINES — Iowa became the first state to remove gender identity from its civil rights code under a law that took effect Tuesday, meaning transgender and nonbinary residents are no longer protected from discrimination in their job, housing and other aspects of life.

The law also explicitly defines female and male based on reproductive organs at birth and removes the ability for people to change the sex designation on their birth certificate.

An unprecedented take-back of legal rights after nearly two decades in Iowa code leaves transgender, nonbinary and potentially even intersex Iowans more vulnerable now than they were before. It’s a governing doctrine now widely adopted by President Trump and Republican-led states despite the mainstream medical view that sex and gender are better understood as a spectrum than as an either-or definition.

When Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed Iowa’s new law, she said the state’s previous civil rights code “blurred the biological line between the sexes.”

“It’s common sense to acknowledge the obvious biological differences between men and women. In fact, it’s necessary to secure genuine equal protection for women and girls,” she said in a video statement.

Also taking effect Tuesday are provisions in the state’s health and human services budget that say Medicaid recipients are no longer covered for gender-affirming surgery or hormone therapy.

A national movement

Iowa’s state Capitol filled with protesters as the law went through the Republican-controlled Legislature and to Reynolds’ desk in just one week in February. Iowa Republicans said laws passed in recent years to restrict transgender students’ use of bathrooms and locker rooms, and their participation on sports teams, could not coexist with a civil rights code that includes gender identity protections.

About two dozen other states and the Trump administration have advanced restrictions on transgender people. Republicans say such laws and executive actions protect spaces for women, rejecting the idea that people can transition to another gender. Many face court challenges.

About two-thirds of U.S. adults believe that whether a person is a man or woman is determined by biological characteristics at birth, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May found. But there’s less consensus on policies that target transgender and nonbinary people.

Transgender people say those kinds of policies deny their existence and capitalize on prejudice for political gain.

In a major setback for transgender rights nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court last month upheld Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors. The court’s conservative majority said it doesn’t violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.

Not every state includes gender identity in their civil rights code, but Iowa was the first to remove nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ rights think tank.

Incidents of discrimination in Iowa, before and after July 1

Iowans will still have time to file a complaint with the state Office of Civil Rights about discrimination based on gender identity that occurred before the law took effect.

State law requires a complaint to be submitted within 300 days after the most recent incident of alleged discrimination. That means people have until April 27 to file a complaint about discrimination based on gender identity, according to Kristen Stiffler, the office’s executive director.

Sixty-five such complaints were filed and accepted for investigation from July 2023 through the end of June 2024, according to Stiffler. Forty-three were filed and accepted from July 1, 2024, through June 19 of this year.

Iowa state Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, a Democrat and the state’s first openly transgender lawmaker, fears the law will lead to an increase in discrimination for transgender Iowans.

“Anytime someone has to check your ID and they see that the gender marker doesn’t match the appearance, then that opens up hostility, discrimination as possibilities,” Wichtendahl said, naming examples such as applying for a job, going through the airport, buying beer or getting pulled over in a traffic stop. “That instantly outs you. That instantly puts you on the spot.”

About half of U.S. states include gender identity in their civil rights code to protect against discrimination in housing and public places, such as stores or restaurants, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Some additional states do not explicitly protect against such discrimination, but it is included in legal interpretations of statutes.

Five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled LGBTQ+ people are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. But Iowa’s Supreme Court has expressly rejected the argument that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity.

Changing Iowa birth certificates before the law took effect

The months between when the bill was signed into law and when it took effect gave transgender Iowans time to pursue amended birth certificates before that option was eliminated.

Keenan Crow, with LGBTQ+ advocacy group One Iowa, said the group has long co-sponsored legal clinics to assist with that process.

“The last one that we had was by far the biggest,” Crow said.

Iowa’s Department of Transportation still has a process by which people can change the gender designation on their license or identification card, but has proposed administrative rules to eliminate that option.

Wichtendahl also said she has talked to some families who are looking to move out of state as a result of the new law.

“It’s heartbreaking because this is people’s lives we’re talking about,” Wichtendahl added. “These are families that have trans loved ones and it’s keeping their loved ones away, it’s putting their loved ones into uncertain future, putting their health and safety at risk.”

Fingerhut writes for the Associated Press.

This week, Gov. Gavin Newsom touched one of the third rails of California politics. He hopes the result sends a shock through the state’s homebuilding industry.

Newsom strong armed the state Legislature into passing what experts believe are the most significant reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, since the law was signed in 1970.

The changes waive CEQA for just about any proposed low- or mid-rise development in urban neighborhoods zoned for multifamily housing. No more thousand-page studies of soils, the shadows the buildings may cast and traffic they may bring. No more risk of CEQA lawsuits from angry neighbors.

Wiping away these rules shows that no matter how challenging the politics, the state will remove the barriers it has built over decades that have ended up stifling housing construction and suffocating Californians’ ability to live affordably, the governor said when signing the legislation Monday evening.

“The world we invented has been competing against us,” Newsom said. “We have got to perform.”

Californians won’t have to wait long for the effects of the reforms. They took effect with the stroke of the governor’s pen.

At least in the short term, the result may be less of an immediate impact on construction and more of a revolution in how development in California cities gets done. Numerous hurdles both within and outside of the control of local and state governments — interest rates, availability of labor, zoning, material prices and tariffs among them — still will determine if housing is built. What’s changed is that the key point of leverage outside groups have wielded, for good and for ill, over housing construction in California communities is gone.

It can be hard to understand how CEQA became, in the words of one critic, “the law that swallowed California.”

At base, all CEQA says is that proponents of a project must disclose and, if possible, lessen its environmental effects before being approved. Yet the process CEQA kicks off can take years as developers and local governments complete reams of studies, opponents sue them as inadequate and judges send everyone back to start all over again.

Time is money, and project opponents soon realized that they could use this uncertainty to their advantage. Sometimes, if their complaints fell on deaf ears at City Hall, threatening a CEQA challenge was the only way to get themselves heard and avoid harmful outcomes. But in other circumstances, the law became a powerful cudgel wielded to influence concerns that at best had a tangential relationship to the environment.

Examples are legion. The owner of a gas station in San Jose sued a nearby rival gas station that wanted to add a few more pumps. Pro-life advocates sued a proposed Planned Parenthood clinic in South San Francisco. Homeowners in Berkeley sued the University of California over its plans to increase enrollment at the state’s flagship university and the traffic and noise that might result.

Over time, CEQA negotiations became embedded in California’s development regime, known and used by all the major players. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass once recalled that as a community organizer in South L.A. in the 1990s she used CEQA to try to stop liquor stores from opening. A company owned by billionaire developer Rick Caruso, Bass’ opponent in the most recent mayoral election and normally a CEQA critic, this year filed a CEQA lawsuit challenging a major redevelopment of a television studio near a Caruso shopping mall.

For housing, the primary interest group invested in CEQA at the state level has been labor organizations representing construction workers. Their leaders have argued that if legislators grant CEQA relief to developers, which boosts their bottom lines, then workers should share in the spoils through better pay and benefits.

This union opposition was enough in 2016 to prevent a proposal from then-Gov. Jerry Brown to limit CEQA challenges to urban housing development from even getting a vote in a legislative committee. A year later, a version of Brown’s bill passed but only because developers who wanted to take advantage were required to pay union-level wages to workers.

Just about every year since, lawmakers have engaged in this dance with labor groups. In 2022, the California Conference of Carpenters defected from the State Building and Construction Trades Council and supported a less-strict version of labor standards, which lawmakers ushered into multiple bills.

But housing construction hasn’t followed. The number of projects that have been issued permits are millions less than what Newsom promised to build on the campaign trail in 2018. Californians continue to pay record prices to house themselves, and those fleeing the state often cite the cost of living as the reason. Newsom and legislators decided they needed to do more.

“We don’t want to sit here and ram our head against the wall on the politics and then have nothing to show for it,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) at Monday’s signing ceremony.

Wicks authored legislation this year that waived CEQA rules for urban housing development without any labor requirements and was working it through the regular process. In May, Newsom grabbed Wicks’ bill and additional CEQA reform legislation and said he wanted them to pass as part of the budget. Doing so would fast-track the bills into law without the normal whittling down that happens in committee hearings.

As budget negotiations heated up, Newsom doubled down. In a rare move, he insisted on tying the approval of the state’s entire spending plan for this year to the passage of CEQA reforms. That meant legislators who otherwise would be opposed could only vote no if they were willing to torpedo the budget.

What emerged was a clean CEQA exemption for homebuilders in urban multifamily areas. Union-level wages for construction workers only are required for high-rise or low-income buildings, both of which often are paid now because of specialized labor required for taller buildings and other state and local rules for affordable construction.

CEQA doesn’t typically affect single-family home construction in established communities.

How much this is going to matter immediately for homebuilding isn’t clear. Studies are mixed on CEQA’s effects. One by UC Berkeley law professors found that fewer than 3% of housing projects in many big cities across the state over a three-year period faced any CEQA litigation. Another found tens of thousands of housing units challenged under CEQA in just one year. Still, more advocates of reform argue that it’s impossible to quantify the chilling effect that the threat of CEQA lawsuits have on development in California and how much the law has dominated the debate.

“This signals a seismic shift in Democratic politics in California from NIMBYism to abundance,” said Mott Smith, board chair of the Council of Infill Builders, a real estate trade group that advocates for urban housing. “You can touch this mythical third rail and live to see another day.”

Those who live across the street from a proposed five-story apartment building and oppose the housing will have to find a way other than a 55-year-old environmental law to stop it.

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers stood around Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday and celebrated the passage of the state budget and “transformative” housing legislation at the state Capitol.

Between mutual praise and handshakes in front of television news cameras, there was little acknowledgment of the power dynamics that played out behind the scenes: Democratic lawmakers once again gave in to the demands of the soon-to-be termed-out governor.

“We’ve seen multiple situations now where it’s clear that the Legislature is in one place and the governor is in another, whether that’s bills that have passed overwhelmingly and been vetoed, or it’s dragging the Legislature along on budget bills,” said Lorena Gonzalez, leader of the California Labor Federation. “At some point the Legislature needs to legislate.”

Newsom took a rare step earlier this year and publicly supported two bills to lessen environmental review standards to speed up the construction of housing in California. Despite vowing to supercharge homebuilding, Newsom previously backed only smaller-scale policies and construction has stagnated.

In his recently published book “Abundance,” journalist Ezra Klein argued that California’s marquee environmental law stands in the way of housing construction — a critique that struck a chord with the governor. Newsom, who is considering a 2028 presidential run, this year was hellbent on proving that he’s the kind of Democrat who can be part of the solution and push through the government and political logjams.

When a pivotal bill designed to streamline housing construction recently stalled in the state Senate, Newsom effectively forced it through despite the concerns of progressive lawmakers, environmental interest groups and labor unions. The governor did so by ensuring that a state budget bill included a “poison pill” provision that required lawmakers to pass the housing legislation in order for the spending plan to go into effect on July 1.

Newsom called the bills the “most consequential housing reform that we’ve seen in modern history in the state of California” on Monday evening.

“This was too important to play chance,” Newsom said, adding that he worried reforms would have fallen prey to the same opposition as prior years if he allowed the “process to unfold in the traditional way.”

Democratic lawmakers for years have tried to cut through the thicket of regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, and faced stiff opposition from powerful labor groups. These groups, notably the State Building and Construction Trades Council, have argued that any relief offered to developers should be paired with wage and other benefits for workers.

The legislation Newsom signed Monday sidestepped those demands from labor.

Assembly Bill 130, based on legislation introduced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), exempts most urban housing projects from CEQA, requiring only developers of high-rise — taller than 85 feet — and low-income buildings to pay union-level wages for construction workers.

Senate Bill 131 also narrows CEQA mandates for housing construction and further waives the environmental restrictions for some residential rezoning changes. The bill, led by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), additionally designates a host of nonresidential projects — health clinics, child-care and advanced manufacturing facilities, food banks and more — no longer subject to CEQA.

Experts in development said the new legislation could provide the most significant reforms to CEQA in its 55-year history, especially for urban housing.

CEQA generally requires proponents to disclose and, if possible, lessen the environmental effects of a construction project. The process sounds simple but often results in thousands of pages of environmental assessments and years of litigation.

CEQA creates substantial legal risk for homebuilders and developers, and past efforts to alleviate its burdens fell short, said Dave Rand, a prominent Southern California land-use attorney. The bills signed Monday provide relief for the vast majority of housing, he said. High-rise and affordable housing construction often already require union-level pay.

“The worst cog in the wheel has always been CEQA,” Rand said. “It’s always been the place where projects get stuck. This is the first clean, across-the-board, objective, straightforward exemption that anyone can figure out.”

He said clients are eager to take advantage of the new rules, which take effect immediately.

“There’s over 10 projects we’re going to push the go button on with this exemption probably Tuesday,” Rand said.

For non-housing projects, the changes do not amount to a comprehensive overhaul but are still meaningful, said Bill Fulton, publisher of the California Planning & Development Report.

In the past, state lawmakers have passed narrow, one-off CEQA waivers for projects they supported, such as increased enrollment at UC Berkeley in 2022. SB 131 continues the Legislature’s penchant for exempting specific kinds of development from CEQA rules, he said, though the nine categories of projects affected provide more expansive relief than prior efforts.

“They’re cherry picking things that they want to speed through,” said Fulton, who has termed the phenomenon “Swiss cheese CEQA.”

Observers said Newsom’s actions were the strongest he has taken to force large-scale housing policies through the Legislature.

For years, the governor has made audacious promises — on the campaign trail in 2017, Newsom famously promised to support the construction of 3.5 million new homes by the end of this year, a goal likely to fall millions short. But he has been more likely to work behind the scenes or swoop in and praise bills once they’ve passed rather than publicly shape housing policy, said Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor.

Elmendorf, who supports the new laws, called Newsom’s arm-twisting and willingness to challenge entrenched interests, “an incredible about-face from his MO with respect to the legislative process on controversial housing and environmental issues for the last six, seven years.”

The governor has jammed his policy priorities on other topics through the Legislature before, including climate legislation, infrastructure and oil regulations, with mixed results over the years.

Newsom’s term ends in early 2027. His endorsement of the meaningful housing policies, and his strategy to propel one through the state Senate, became a bellwether of his strength at the Capitol as his time in office wanes.

Wicks said Newsom “put a ton of skin in the game” to force the proposals through.

“He went all in on pushing for taking on these sacred cows like CEQA because I think he recognizes that we have to tackle this problem,” Wicks said.

Wicks’ legislation had cleared the Assembly before the proposal became part of the state budget process, which added pressure on lawmakers to pass the bills. She described herself as “cautiously optimistic” as it moved through the Capitol and said her house understood the need for reform.

Wiener’s legislation was slower to gain traction. Just last week, the inability of the Senate and the governor’s office to reach an agreement on the proposal held up the announcement of a budget deal.

Then Newsom tied the proposal to the budget, essentially requiring lawmakers to pass the bill or risk starting the fiscal year on July 1 without a spending plan.

During the debate on SB 131, Sen. Henry Stern (D-Calabasas) said the legislation had “significant issues” but that he would vote in favor of the measure because of assurances that those would eventually be addressed.

“I think nature and abundance can live side by side. In fact, they must,” Stern said. “We don’t want to live in a moonscape California. Want to live in a livable one.”

Despite the concerns, lawmakers passed both bills on Monday.

Gonzalez was critical of legislators, saying “nobody is voting their values.” She compared the Legislature going along with Newsom’s plan to Republicans in Congress.

“California Democrats are crying foul that legislators and senators are passing things that they don’t even know the effect of that aren’t in line with their constituents that are just being shoved down their throats by Donald Trump,” Gonzalez said. “And those same legislators in California are allowing that to happen to themselves.”

WASHINGTON — With two conservatives in dissent, the Supreme Court on Monday turned down a property-rights claim from Los Angeles landlords who say they lost millions from unpaid rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Without comment, the justices said they would not hear an appeal from a coalition of apartment owners who said they rent “over 4,800 units” in “luxury apartment communities” to “predominantly high-income tenants.”

They sued the city seeking $20 million in damages from tenants who did not pay their rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

They contended the city’s strict limits on evictions during that time had the effect of taking their private property in violation of the Constitution.

In the past, the court has repeatedly turned down claims that rent control laws are unconstitutional, even though they limit how much landlords can collect in rent.

But the L.A. landlords said their claim was different because the city had effectively taken use of their property, at least for a time. They cited the 5th Amendment’s clause that says “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.”

“In March 2020, the city of Los Angeles adopted one of the most onerous eviction moratoria in the country, stripping property owners … of their right to exclude nonpaying tenants,” they told the court in GHP Management Corporation vs. Los Angeles. “The city pressed private property into public service, foisting the cost of its coronavirus response onto housing providers.”

“By August 2021, when [they] sued the City seeking just compensation for that physical taking, back rents owed by their unremovable tenants had ballooned to over $20 million,” they wrote.

A federal judge in Los Angeles and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 3-0 decision dismissed the landlords’ suit. Those judges cited the decades of precedent that allowed regulation of property.

The court had considered the appeal since February, but only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch voted to hear the case of GHP Management Corp. vs. City of Los Angeles.

“I would grant review of the question whether a policy barring landlords from evicting tenants for the nonpayment of rent effects a physical taking under the Taking Clause,” Thomas said. “This case meets all of our usual criteria. … The Court nevertheless denies certiorari, leaving in place confusion on a significant issue, and leaving petitioners without a chance to obtain the relief to which they are likely entitled.”

The Los Angeles landlords asked the court to decide “whether an eviction moratorium depriving property owners of the fundamental right to exclude nonpaying tenants effects a physical taking.”

In February, the city attorney’s office urged the court to turn down the appeal.

“As a once-in-a-century pandemic shuttered its businesses and schools, the city of Los Angeles employed temporary, emergency measures to protect residential renters against eviction,” they wrote. The measure protected only those who could “prove COVID-19 related economic hardship,” and it “did not excuse any rent debt that an affected tenant accrued.”

The city argued the landlords are seeking a “radical departure from precedent” in the area of property regulation.

“If a government takes property, it must pay for it,” the city attorneys said. “For more than a century, though, this court has recognized that governments do not appropriate property rights solely by virtue of regulating them.”

The city said the COVID emergency and the restriction on evictions ended in January 2023.

In reply, lawyers for the landlords said bans on evictions are becoming the “new normal.” They cited a Los Angeles County measure they said would “preclude evictions for non-paying tenants purportedly affected by the recent wildfires.”