effort

It took until August, but the starting rotation the Dodgers envisioned in spring training is intact and delivering.

Vowing not to revisit the predicament they found themselves in last postseason, when only two true starters and a stacked bullpen somehow patched together enough innings to win a World Series, the Dodgers added two-time Cy Young award winner Blake Snell to a rotation that already boasted four potential aces and several other candidates coming off injuries or ascending from the minor leagues.

Snell complained of shoulder inflammation April 2 after his second start and took his sweet time recovering — four months, to be precise. But if his performance against the Toronto Blue Jays on Saturday night at Dodger Stadium is a fair indication, the wait was worthwhile.

Snell struck out 10 in five scoreless innings of a 9-1 Dodgers victory, living up to the Snellzilla nickname he stole from his older brother as a brash 11-year-old and still uses as his Instagram handle. In two starts since coming off the injured list, the left-hander has 18 strikeouts in 10 innings.

The Dodgers offense was fueled by the long ball early on, with Max Muncy belting a two-run, opposite-field home run in the fourth inning and Shohei Ohtani absolutely crushing his 40th homer of the season 417 feet to dead center in the fifth with nobody on base.

Dodgers star Shohei Ohtani hits his 40th home run of the season Saturday against the Blue Jays.

(Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images)

A six-run rally an inning later put the game away. Two hit batters and two walks set the table, and Dalton Rushing and Mookie Betts each delivered two-run singles with none out. Andy Pages drove in the last two with a two-out double, his second hit of the inning.

The win was the second in a row against Toronto (68-50), which remain in first place in the American League East. The series concludes Sunday with another formidable starter — Tyler Glasnow — taking the mound for the Dodgers (68-49).

Glasnow took a similar if less pronounced path than Snell this season, going on the injured list before the end of April and not returning until July 9. He has given up only one run in four of his five starts since returning and most recently went seven strong innings against the St. Louis Cardinals.

It’s clear that Snell and Glasnow are healthy, their arms as fresh and live as would be expected coming out of spring training. The same is true of Ohtani and Clayton Kershaw, two future Hall of Famers whose recoveries from injuries also were methodical and unhurried. Both are pitching well.

And so is Yoshinobu Yamamoto, the only starter whose health hasn’t cost him time off. He’s made 22 starts, going 10-7 with a 2.51 earned-run average and leads National League starters with eight scoreless outings.

The Dodgers employ a sixth starter to give Ohani and Yamamoto five to seven days off between starts. The job belonged to Dustin May until he was traded to the Red Sox at the deadline, creating an opportunity for Emmet Sheehan, who was impressive over 60 innings as a rookie in 2023, but had Tommy John surgery in May 2024.

He’s pitched well, posting a 3.00 ERA over 30 innings, giving the Dodgers a luxury they haven’t enjoyed in recent memory: trotting out a starting pitcher every night that can prevent runs through the middle innings.

That leaves the bullpen to finish the job, and injuries and inconsistency continue to riddle the relief corps. Roberts said help is on the way, with several key relievers on the mend. If they return as effective as the starters, pitching could be a Dodgers strength entering the postseason.

SAO PAULO — President Trump has made clear who his new Latin America priority is: former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a personal and political ally.

In doing so, he has damaged one of the Western hemisphere’s most important and long-standing relationships, by levying 50% tariffs that begin to take effect Wednesday on the largest Latin America economy, sanctioning its main justice and bringing relations between the two countries to the lowest point in decades.

The White House has appeared to embrace a narrative pushed by Bolsonaro allies in the U.S., that the former Brazilian president’s prosecution for attempting to overturn his 2022 election loss is part of a “deliberate breakdown in the rule of law,” with the government engaging in “politically motivated intimidation” and committing “human rights abuses,” according to Trump’s statement announcing the tariffs.

The message was clear earlier, when Trump described Bolsonaro’s prosecution by Brazil’s Supreme Court as a “witch hunt” — using the same phrase he has employed for the numerous investigations he has faced since his first term. Bolsonaro faces charges of orchestrating a coup attempt to stay in power after losing the 2022 election to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. A conviction could come in the next few months.

The U.S. has a long history of meddling with the affairs of Latin American governments, but Trump’s latest moves are unprecedented, said Steven Levitsky, a political scientist at Harvard University.

“This is a personalistic government that is adopting policies according to Trump’s whims,” Levitsky said.

Bolsonaro’s sons, he noted, have close connections to Trump’s inner circle. The argument has been bolstered by parallels between Bolsonaro’s prosecution and the attempted prosecution of Trump for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss, which ended when he won his second term last November.

“He’s been convinced Bolsonaro is a kindred spirit suffering a similar witch hunt,” Levitsky said.

Brazil’s institutions hold firm against political pressure

After Bolsonaro’s defeat in 2022, Trump and his supporters echoed his baseless election fraud claims, treating him as a conservative icon and hosting him at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Steve Bannon, the former Trump adviser, recently told Brazil’s news website UOL that the U.S. would lift tariffs if Bolsonaro’s prosecution were dropped.

Meeting that demand, however, is impossible for several reasons.

Brazilian officials have consistently emphasized that the judiciary is independent. The executive branch, which manages foreign relations, has no control over Supreme Court justices, who in turn have stated they won’t yield to political pressure.

On Monday, the court ordered that Bolsonaro be placed under house arrest for violating court orders by spreading messages on social media through his sons’ accounts.

Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case against Bolsonaro, was sanctioned under the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which is supposed to target serious human rights offenders. De Moraes has argued that defendants were granted full due process and said he would ignore the sanctions and continue his work.

“The ask for Lula was undoable,” said Bruna Santos of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, D.C., about dropping the charges against Bolsonaro. “In the long run, you are leaving a scar on the relationship between the two largest democracies in the hemisphere.”

Magnitsky sanctions ‘twist the law’

Three key factors explain the souring of U.S.-Brazil ties in recent months, said Oliver Stuenkel, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: growing alignment between the far-right in both countries; Brazil’s refusal to cave to tariff threats; and the country’s lack of lobbying in Washington.

Lawmaker Eduardo Bolsonaro, Jair Bolsonaro’s third son, has been a central figure linking Brazil’s far-right with Trump’s MAGA movement.

He took a leave from Brazil’s Congress and moved to the U.S. in March, but he has long cultivated ties in Trump’s orbit. Eduardo openly called for Magnitsky sanctions against de Moraes and publicly thanked Trump after the 50% tariffs were announced in early July.

Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, author of the Magnitsky Act, which allows the U.S. to sanction individual foreign officials who violate human rights, called the administration’s actions “horrible.”

“They make things up to protect someone who says nice things about Donald Trump,” McGovern told The Associated Press.

Bolsonaro’s son helps connect far right in U.S. and Brazil

Eduardo Bolsonaro’s international campaign began immediately after his father’s 2022 loss. Just days after the elections, he met with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

As investigations against Bolsonaro and his allies deepened, the Brazilian far right adopted a narrative of judicial persecution and censorship, an echo of Trump and his allies who have claimed the U.S. justice system was weaponized against him.

Brazil’s Supreme Court and Electoral Court are among the world’s strictest regulators of online discourse: they can order social media takedowns and arrests for spreading misinformation or other content it rules “anti-democratic.”

But until recently, few believed Eduardo’s efforts to punish Brazil’s justices would succeed.

That began to change last year when billionaire Elon Musk clashed with de Moraes over censorship on X and threatened to defy court orders by pulling its legal representative from Brazil. In response, de Moraes suspended the social media platform from operating in the country for a month and threatened operations of another Musk company, Starlink. In the end, Musk blinked.

Fábio de Sá e Silva, a professor of international and Brazilian studies at the University of Oklahoma, said Eduardo’s influence became evident in May 2024, when he and other right-wing allies secured a hearing before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee.

“It revealed clear coordination between Bolsonaro supporters and sectors of the U.S. Republican Party,” he said. “It’s a strategy to pressure Brazilian democracy from the outside.”

A last-minute tariff push yields some wins

Brazil has a diplomatic tradition of maintaining a low-key presence in Washington, Stuenkel said. That vacuum created an opportunity for Eduardo Bolsonaro to promote a distorted narrative about Brazil among Republicans and those closest to Trump.

“Now Brazil is paying the price,” he said.

After Trump announced sweeping tariffs in April, Brazil began negotiations. President Lula and Vice President Geraldo Alckmin — Brazil’s lead trade negotiator — said they have held numerous meetings with U.S. trade officials since then.

Lula and Trump have never spoken, and the Brazilian president has repeatedly said Washington ignored Brazil’s efforts to negotiate ahead of the tariffs’ implementation.

Privately, diplomats say they felt the decisions were made inside the White House, within Trump’s inner circle — a group they had no access to.

A delegation of Brazilian senators traveled to Washington in the final week of July in a last-ditch effort to defuse tensions. The group, led by Senator Nelsinho Trad, met with business leaders with ties to Brazil and nine U.S. senators — only one of them Republican, Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

“We found views on Brazil were ideologically charged,” Trad told The AP. “But we made an effort to present economic arguments.”

While the delegation was in Washington, Trump signed the order imposing the 50% tariff. But there was relief: not all Brazilian imports would be hit. Exemptions included civil aircraft and parts, aluminum, tin, wood pulp, energy products and fertilizers.

Trad believes Brazil’s outreach may have helped soften the final terms.

“I think the path has to remain one of dialogue and reason so we can make progress on other fronts,” he said.

Pessoa and Riccardi write for the Associated Press. AP writer Mauricio Savarese in Sao Paulo contributed to this report.

GENEVA — Switzerland’s president and other top officials were traveling to Washington on Tuesday in a hastily arranged trip aimed at striking a deal with the Trump administration over steep U.S. tariffs that have cast a pall over Swiss industries like chocolates, machinery and watchmaking.

President Karin Keller-Sutter was leading the delegation after last week’s announcement that exports of Swiss goods to the U.S. will face a whopping 39% percent tariff starting Thursday.

That is over two-and-a-half times higher than the rate on European Union goods exported to the U.S. and nearly four times higher than on British exports to the U.S. Many Swiss companies in industries including watchmaking and chocolates have expressed concern about the issue.

It’s also more than the 31% that Switzerland had been set to face when President Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on products from dozens of countries in early April.

The Swiss government said the trip was “to facilitate meetings with the U.S. authorities at short notice and hold talks with a view to improving the tariff situation for Switzerland.”

Keller-Sutter, who also serves as Switzerland’s finance minister, has faced criticism in Swiss media over a last-ditch call with Trump before a U.S. deadline on tariffs expired Aug. 1. She was leading a team that included Economy Minister Guy Parmelin.

In an interview with CNBC on Tuesday, Trump alluded to the call, saying “the woman was nice, but she didn’t want to listen” and that he had told her: “We have a $41 billion deficit with you, Madame … and you want to pay 1% tariffs.”

“I said, ‘you’re not going to pay 1%,’” he added.

It was not immediately clear where that $41 billion figure came from. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the United States ran a $38.3 billion trade imbalance on goods last year with Switzerland.

Swiss officials have argued that American goods face virtually zero tariffs in Switzerland, and the Swiss government says the wealthy Alpine country is the sixth-biggest foreign investor in the United States and the leading investor in research and development.

Ivan Slatkine, the head of the Federation of Romandie Enterprises, which regroups companies in French-speaking Switzerland, told Le Temps newspaper that 39% tariffs amounted to a “hammer blow for the entire Swiss economy.” Some Swiss companies — like high-end watchmakers with little direct competition — might face less impact, but others in airplane parts, machines and mid-level watchmaking would be hit, he said.

“For all the companies that depend on the American market, it’s really bad news — in particular compared to rivals in the European Union, whose exports are taxed only at 15%,” he was quoted Tuesday as saying.

The trip comes a day after Switzerland’s executive branch, the Federal Council, held an extraordinary meeting and said it was “keen to pursue talks with the United States on the tariff situation,” the government statement Tuesday said.

After consulting with Swiss businesses, the council said it had developed “new approaches for its discussions” with U.S. officials and was looking ahead to continued negotiations.

“Switzerland enters this new phase ready to present a more attractive offer, taking U.S. concerns into account and seeking to ease the current tariff situation,” a council statement said Monday.

Under the U.S. announcements Friday, Swiss companies will now have one of the steepest export duties — only Laos, Myanmar and Syria had higher figures, at 40-41%.

Keaten writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A last-ditch effort by California Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional map for the 2026 election, countering a similar push by Texas Republicans, is now up against the clock.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday that Democrats are moving forward with a plan to put a rare mid-decade redistricting plan before voters on Nov. 4. But state lawmakers will craft a “trigger,” he said, meaning California voters would only vote on the measure if Texas moved forward with its own plans to redraw Congressional boundaries to add five more Republican seats.

“It’s cause and effect, triggered on the basis of what occurs or doesn’t occur in Texas,” Newsom said. “I hope they do the right thing, and if they do, then there’ll be no cause for us to have to move forward.”

Democratic lawmakers in Texas on Monday left the state to deprive Republicans of the quorum needed to pass the new maps. Republican lawmakers voted 85 to 6 to send state troopers to arrest them and bring them back to the Capitol, a move that is largely symbolic, since the lawmakers won’t face criminal or civil charges.

The outcome of the dueling efforts between Texas and California could determine which party controls the House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections, which Democrats see as the last bulwark to President Trump’s actions in his second term. Trump has pushed Republicans to add more GOP seats in Texas, hoping to stave off a midterm defeat.

Democrats hold 43 of California’s 52 congressional seats. Early discussions among California politicians and strategists suggest that redrawn lines could shore up some vulnerable incumbent Democrats by making their purple districts more blue, while forcing five or six of the state’s nine Republican members into tougher reelection fights.

But nothing official can be done until state lawmakers return from recess to Sacramento on Aug. 18.

Democrats, who hold a supermajority in the Legislature, would have less than a month to draw a new map, hold hearings and negotiate the language of a bill calling for the special November election, leaving just enough time for voter guides to be mailed and ballots to be printed.

Democratic lawmakers and operatives said Monday that the timeline is doable, but they would have to act quickly.

California’s Democratic congressional delegation expressed consensus during a video meeting Monday with moving forward with a ballot measure that would allow mid-decade redistricting only if another state moves forward with it, according to a person familiar with the virtual meeting, and that the change would be temporary. They expressed their support for the independent commission.

California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said the Democratic caucus met Sunday night “to discuss the urgent threat of a continued, blatant Trumpian power grab — a coordinated effort to undermine our democracy and silence Californians.”

Democrats in the California Senate and Assembly held separate meetings to discuss redistricting. David Binder, a pollster who works with Newsom, presented internal polling that showed tepid early support among voters for temporarily changing state laws to allow the Legislature to draw new maps for elections in 2026, 2028 and 2030.

“Our voters must be empowered to push back,” Rivas said. “California has never backed down — and we won’t start now.”

Texas Democrats resist

Democratic lawmakers’ exodus from Austin on Monday denied Republicans the quorum necessary to proceed with a vote on a redrawn state map that could net Republicans five congressional seats.

Democratic lawmakers balked at threats from Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. The Texas House Democratic Caucus put out a statement riffing on a slogan made famous during the Texas Revolution: “Come and take it.” One member of the caucus noted that being absent was not a crime and that Texas warrants can’t be served in Illinois or New York, where many lawmakers have gone.

“There is no felony in the Texas penal code for what he says,” said Rep. Jolanda Jones, a Democrat. “He’s trying to get soundbites, and he has no legal mechanism.”

The Texas House Republican speaker, Dustin Burrows, said that Democrats leaving does not “stop this House from doing its work. It only delays it.”

But Abbott’s legal options to get his redistricting bill passed, by expelling Democrats or compelling their return, appear narrow, likely forcing the governor’s office to make challenges in courtrooms based in Democratic districts. Abbott has until the end of the year to secure new maps for them to be used in the state’s March 3 primaries.

At a news conference last week in Sacramento, Newsom compared Trump’s pressure on Abbott to add five Republican congressional seats as akin to his efforts to “find” 12,000 votes to win Georgia after the 2020 election.

“We’re not here to eliminate the commission,” he said. “We’re here to provide a pathway in ’26, ’28 and in 2030 for congressional maps on the basis of a response to the rigging of the system by the president of the United States. It won’t just happen in Texas. I imagine he’s making similar calls all across this country. It’s a big deal. I don’t think it gets much bigger.”

Escalation on a deadline

For decades, redrawing California’s electoral maps amounted to political warfare. In 1971, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan vetoed a redistricting plan that he called “a mockery of good government.” The California Supreme Court ultimately drew the lines, and did so again in 1991, when then-Gov. Pete Wilson rejected maps drawn by Democrats.

California’s state lawmakers last drew their own district lines in 2001, after members of both parties signed off on a plan drawn up to protect incumbents.

In 2008, California voters stripped state lawmakers of the power to draw their own districts by passing Proposition 11, which created an independent redistricting commission. Two years later, voters handed the power to redraw congressional district maps to the same panel by passing Proposition 20. That group drew the lines before the 2012 elections, and again after the 2020 census.

California set the date for its last statewide special election — the 2021 attempted recall of Newsom — 75 days in advance. County election officials would need at least that much time to find voting locations and prepare ballots for overseas and military voters, which must be mailed 45 days before election day, one elections official said.

“We need at least a similar timeline and calendar to what took place in 2021 for the gubernatorial recall election,” said Dean Logan, the top elections official in Los Angeles County.

Similarly, he said, counties will “need the funding provided upfront by the state to conduct this election, and the funding to do the redistricting associated with it, because counties are not prepared financially.”

The 2021 recall election cost California taxpayers about $200 million. The preliminary estimate for Los Angeles County to administer the redistricting election is about $60 million.

National fight over state lines

Republican strategist Jon Fleischman, former executive director of the California Republican Party, said Republicans nationally need to take state Democrats’ efforts to redraw the maps seriously — by pulling out their checkbooks.

“Our statewide Republican fundraising has atrophied because it has been over a generation since we had a viable statewide candidate in California,” he said. “The kind of money that it would take to battle this — it would have to be national funding effort.”

While Texas prompted California Democrats to take action, Fleischman said, the issue has enough momentum here that it ultimately doesn’t matter what Texas does.

“If Gavin Newsom places this on the ballot, it means he’s already done his polling and has figured out that it will pass because he cares more running for president that redistricting in California,” Fleischman said. “And he knows he can’t afford to make this play and lose.”

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who championed the ballot measure that created the independent redistricting commission, has not weighed in on the mid-decade redistricting efforts in Texas and California. But a spokesperson for the former governor made clear that he vehemently opposes both.

Since leaving office, Schwarzenegger has fought for independent map-drawing across the nation. Redistricting is among the political reforms that are the focus of the Schwarzenegger Institute at USC.

“His take on all of this is everyone learned in preschool or kindergarten that two wrongs don’t make a right. He thinks gerrymandering is evil,” said Daniel Ketchell, a spokesperson for Schwarzenegger. “It takes power from the people and gives it to politicians. He thinks it’s evil, no matter where they do it.”

Wilner reported from Washington, Nelson and Mehta from Los Angeles and Luna from Sacramento.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Monday that his office has spent more than $5 million fighting the Trump administration in court over the last six months, but saved the state nearly $170 billion.

“That means that for every one dollar we’ve been given by the legislature and the governor from special session funding to do this work — and we are very grateful for that funding — we’ve returned $33,600 for the state,” Bonta said during an afternoon news conference alongside Gov. Gavin Newsom. “Just to put it in perspective, if you told a Wall Street investor they’d get a $33,000 return on every one dollar invested, they would trip over themselves to get in on that deal.”

Bonta’s calculations are based on a mountain of litigation his office has filed against the administration since President Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, including 37 lawsuits — many alongside other liberal-led states — and 47 amicus briefs backing other litigants’ lawsuits against the administration.

The vast majority of the savings Bonta claimed were the result of one particular lawsuit, in which California and other states successfully challenged a Trump administration effort to freeze trillions of dollars in federal funding to the states — including what Bonta said was $168 billion for California alone.

“In his first week in office, President Trump went after a full-third of California’s budget — and we went to court less than 24 hours later and stopped him in his tracks,” Bonta said.

Bonta also cited court orders his office has won protecting $7 billion in transportation funding to maintain roads, highways, bridges and other infrastructure; $939 million in education funding for after-school and summer learning and teacher preparation; $972 million in healthcare funding for identifying, tracking and addressing infectious diseases, ensuring immunizations and modernizing public health infrastructure; and $300 million for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. However, it has previously derided California’s efforts to block Trump’s agenda in the courts. Last month, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told The Times that Newsom was “destroying” the state and that Trump has been trying to “step in and save Californians from Gavin’s incompetence.”

The state legislature during a special session in February allocated Bonta’s office an extra $25 million to staff up and fight Trump in court. As part of that allocation, the legislature required that Bonta provide regular reports on how the money is spent. Bonta and Newsom’s news conference Monday followed the first of those reports being submitted to lawmakers.

Bonta said much of the $5 million his office has spent to date was used to pay for in-house attorneys and paralegals, and that none has been spent on outside counsel. He also said that, given the pace and scope of the work to date, his office will eventually need more funding.

“We’re grateful for the $25 million and the ability to draw down that $5 million so far. We do think we will need more going into the future, and I’m hopeful that through the conversations that we have — talking about what we would use it for, our success so far, what the continuing threats are down the road — that we’ll get to a place that will work for everybody,” Bonta said.

Newsom, citing Bonta’s financially consequential wins in court already, promised he’ll get the funding.

“Let me assure you, he will not be in need of resources to do his job,” Newsom said. “This report only highlights why I feel very confident in his ability to execute and to deliver results for the people of this state.”

Bonta’s report outlined 36 lawsuits his office had brought against the Trump administration through Wednesday. Those lawsuits challenged Trump’s efforts to slash the federal workforce, cut healthcare funding and research, dismantle the Department of Education and reduce education funding. They also challenged Trump administration efforts to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and restrict voting access in California, among other things.

On Friday Bonta’s office filed its 37th lawsuit, challenging the administration’s efforts to effectively ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth nationwide.

Newsom said Bonta’s work to date shows exactly why it was necessary for him and other California leaders to call a special session and allocate the additional funds. California sued the first Trump administration more than 120 times, and they knew it would need to sue the second Trump administration, too.

“We were mindful that past is prologue,” Newsom said, and the added resources they provided Bonta’s office “have come to bear great fruit.”

Bonta said there is no time to slow down now, as the Trump administration continues to violate the law, and that his team is ready to keep fighting.

“We know that this work is just the beginning,” he said, “but we are not backing down.”

Before Motherwell found their late equaliser, former Rangers midfielder Derek Ferguson has expressed deep concern about his old side’s approach.

“At the moment there’s nothing coming from Rangers; it’s quite worrying,” he said on BBC Sportsound. “I’ve not got a clue what their tactic is. I don’t see it.”

After Motherwell netted the leveller their play more than merited, Ferguson added: “I’ve got a real worry after watching that second half. They players still have a lot to prove to that Rangers support.”

Speaking on Sky Sports, irate former Rangers striker Kris Boyd said: “It’s the same things that keep happening time after time after time.

“It’s early in the season. We know there are going to be players arriving. We know there are going to be players going out. But the alarming thing for is he’s calling them out so early on.”

Despite agreeing with Martin, former Celtic forward Chris Sutton was also taken aback by the Rangers boss’ comments, saying the remarks “were extreme”.

“For him to for him to do that first game of the season, he sees him every day in training, he must think they’re rank rotten,” he said on Sky Sports.

“Because why wouldn’t there be a bit more balance there? When have you ever seen a manager do that first game of the season? That was extreme as extreme.”

Planned Parenthood says one million patients could lose coverage if it was cut off from Medicaid funds.

A United States federal judge has ruled against President Donald Trump’s effort to defund Planned Parenthood, a reproductive health services organisation that has long attracted conservative ire.

In a decision on Monday, US District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that Planned Parenthood clinics must continue to receive reimbursements for Medicaid, a government health programme for the poor.

“Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,” Talwani stated in her Monday order. “In particular, restricting Members’ ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs.”

Planned Parenthood had filed a lawsuit over a provision in a recent Republican tax and spending bill that cut off Medicaid payments for one year to abortion providers who received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023.

The US already prevents federal funds from paying for abortion services, and organisations that provide abortions, such as Planned Parenthood, also offer reproductive health services such as contraception, pregnancy tests and STD testing.

The organisation estimated that the provision in the bill could result in the closure of 200 clinics across 24 states, with more than one million patients at risk of losing coverage.

Conservative politicians have long sought to restrict access to federal funds for Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion provider, as part of a larger push to roll back access to reproductive health services.

Since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, a previous 1973 decision that had established abortion as a constitutional right, in June 2022, numerous Republican-led states have passed new restrictions on abortion or banned it entirely.

“Today, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the provision in the reconciliation law that unconstitutionally ‘defunds’ Planned Parenthood from going back into effect,” Planned Parenthood said in a statement on Monday.

“This means that patients can use Medicaid at Planned Parenthood health centers, and Planned Parenthood health centers can receive reimbursements for the essential services they provide.”

July 26 (UPI) — An impeachment proceeding against Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte can’t proceed due to a constitutional limit on the annual number of impeachments, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled.

The Philippine Constitution bans multiple impeachment proceedings in a given year, so Duterte could not be impeached until February, the nation’s Supreme Court announced on Friday, the BBC reported.

The ruling does not prevent Duterte’s impeachment, but it delays it until an impeachment proceeding would not violate the Philippine Constitution.

“It is not our duty to favor any political result,” the court said in its ruling. “Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the rule of just law.”

The court said it is prepared to address the claims against Duterte “at the proper time and before the appropriate forum.”

Lawmakers in the Philippine Parliament’s lower house in February voted to impeach Duterte for allegedly misusing taxpayer dollars and threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

It was the fourth impeachment case received by the lower chamber from December to February, one of which was transferred to the Senate.

Duterte is the daughter of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and formerly was a close political ally of Marcos. She is considered to be a viable candidate for the nation’s presidency during the 2028 election cycle after she and Marcos had a political fallout.

Duterte and Marcos in 2022 formed what they called the “Uniteam,” which temporarily united two of the nation’s most powerful political families. After the pair secured wins in the May 2022 elections, the Uniteam began to fray.

Duterte’s father called Marcos a “drug addict,” and Duterte in November said she ensured the president would be killed if she were killed first.

The elder Duterte afterward was extradited to the Hague to be tried for alleged crimes against humanity due the deaths of thousands arising from his administration’s war on drugs.

Rodrigo Duterte was president for six years from June 2016 to June 2022.

Sara Duterte says the accusations against her are politically motivated, although many supporting her impeachment note that 12 of the nation’s 15 Supreme Court justices were appointed by her father.

A judge on Wednesday rejected a Trump administration request to unseal transcripts from grand jury investigations of Jeffrey Epstein years ago in Florida, though a similar request for the work of a different grand jury is pending in New York.

U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg in West Palm Beach said the request to release grand jury documents from 2005 and 2007 did not meet any of the extraordinary exceptions under federal law that could make them public.

The Justice Department last week asked the judge to release records to quell a storm among supporters of President Trump who believe there was a conspiracy to protect Epstein’s clients and conceal videos of crimes being committed and other evidence.

In 2008, Epstein cut a deal with federal prosecutors in Florida that allowed him to escape more severe federal charges and instead plead guilty to state charges of procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche had asked judges in Florida and New York to unseal transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, saying “transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.”

Federal grand juries hear evidence in secret and then decide whether there is enough for an indictment. Experts say the transcripts probably would not reveal much because prosecutors typically try to present only enough material to get charges and don’t introduce the entire investigation.

Epstein, a wealthy financier, years later was arrested in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges, and Maxwell was charged with helping him abuse teenage girls.

Epstein was found dead in his cell at a federal jail in New York City about a month after he was arrested. Investigators concluded he killed himself. Maxwell later was convicted at trial and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

The case attracted attention because of Epstein and Maxwell’s links to famous people, including royals, presidents and billionaires. It also led to some of the biggest conspiracy theories animating Trump’s base.

The furor over records has been stoked by the Justice Department. In February, far-right influencers were invited to the White House and provided with binders marked “The Epstein Files: Phase 1” and “Declassified.” The binders contained documents that had largely already been in the public domain.

The department on July 7 acknowledged that Epstein did not have a list of clients. It also said no more files related to his case would be made public.

A two-page memo that bore the logos of the FBI and Justice Department, but that was not signed by any individual, said the department determined that no “further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”

White writes for the Associated Press.

ATLANTA — It’s been six months since Joe Biden left the Oval Office. Republicans, including President Trump, can’t stop talking about him.

The House has launched investigations asserting that Biden’s closest advisers covered up a physical and mental decline during the 82-year-old Democrat’s presidency. The Senate has started a series of hearings focused on his mental fitness. And Trump’s White House has opened its own investigation into the Biden administration’s use of the presidential autopen, which Trump has called “one of the biggest scandals in the history of our country.”

It all fits with Trump’s practice of blaming his predecessors for the nation’s ills. Just last week, he tried to deflect criticism of his administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case by casting blame on others, including Biden.

Turning the spotlight back on the former president carries risks for both parties heading into the 2026 midterms. The more Republicans or Democrats talk about Biden, the less they can make arguments about the impact of Trump’s presidency — positive or negative — especially his sweeping new tax cut and spending law that is reshaping the federal government.

“Most Americans consider Joe Biden to be yesterday’s news,” Republican pollster Whit Ayres said.

Republicans want Biden’s autopen to become a flashpoint

Seeking to avenge his 2020 loss to Biden, Trump mocked his rival’s age and fitness incessantly in 2024, even after Biden dropped his reelection bid and yielded to then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

He and other Republicans seemed poised to spend the summer touting their new tax, spending and policy package. But Trump, now 79 and facing his own health challenges, has refused to let up on Biden, and his allies in the party have followed suit.

Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin called the Biden White House’s use of the autopen “a massive scandal,” while Republican Rep. Nick Lalota insists his New York constituents “are curious as to what was happening during President Biden’s days.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt recently confirmed the administration would pursue an investigation of the Biden administration’s use of the presidential autopen. Trump and other Republicans have questioned whether Biden was actually running the country and suggested aides abused a tool that has long been a routine part of signing presidentially approved actions.

“We deserve to get to the bottom of it,” Leavitt said.

Biden has responded to the criticism by issuing a statement saying he was, in fact, making the decisions during his presidency and that any suggestion otherwise “is ridiculous and false.”

Congressional committees investigate

On Capitol Hill, the House Oversight Committee has convened hearings on use of the autopen and Biden’s fitness for office. Van Orden cited the Constitution’s Article II vesting authority solely with the president.

“It doesn’t say chief of staff. It doesn’t say an autopen,” he said.

The House panel subpoenaed Biden’s physician and a top aide to former first lady Jill Biden. Both invoked Fifth Amendment protections that prevent people from being forced to testify against themselves in government proceedings.

“There was no there there,” said Democratic Rep. Wesley Bell of Missouri, a member of the committee who called the effort “an extraordinary waste of time.”

The committee’s chairman, Rep. James Comer, wants to hear from former White House chiefs of staff Ron Klain and Jeff Zients; former senior advisers Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn; and other former top aides Bruce Reed, Steve Ricchetti and Annie Tomasini, among others. Republicans confirmed multiple dates for the sessions through late September, ensuring it will remain in the headlines.

Investigations could crowd out GOP efforts to define Trump positively

That GOP schedule comes as both parties work feverishly to define Trump’s start to his second term.

His so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” is a mix of tax cuts, border security measures and cuts to safety net programs such as Medicaid, a joint state-federal insurance program for lower-income Americans. Polls suggest some individual measures are popular while others are not and that the GOP faces headwinds on tilting the public in favor of the overall effort.

A recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about two-thirds of U.S. adults view the bill as a win for the wealthy and another found that only about one-quarter of U.S. adults felt Trump’s policies have helped them. In the policy survey, he failed to earn majority support on any of the major issues, including the economy, immigration, government spending and health care. Immigration, especially, had been considered a major strength for Trump politically.

It is “rather tone deaf,” said Bell, for Republicans to go after Biden given those circumstances.

“Americans want us to deal with the issues that are plaguing our country now … the high cost of living, cost of food, the cost of housing, health care,” Bell said, as he blasted the GOP for a deliberate “distraction” from what challenges most U.S. households.

The effort also comes with Trump battling his own supporters over the Justice Department’s decision not to publicly release additional records related to the Epstein case.

“The Epstein saga is more important to his base than whatever happened to Joe Biden,” said Ayres, the GOP pollster.

Even Lalota, the New York congressman, acknowledged a balancing act with the Biden inquiries.

“My constituents care most about affordability and public safety,” Lalota said. “But this is an important issue nonetheless.”

Democrats don’t want to talk about Biden

With Republicans protecting a narrow House majority, every hotly contested issue could be seen as determinative in the 2026 midterm elections.

That puts added pressure on Republicans to retain Trump’s expanded 2024 coalition, when he increased support among Black and Hispanic voters, especially men, over the usual Republican levels. But that’s considerably harder without Trump himself on the ballot. That could explain Republican efforts to keep going after Biden given how unpopular he is with Trump’s core supporters.

Democrats, meanwhile, point to their success in the 2018 midterms during Trump’s first presidency, when they reclaimed the House majority on the strength of moderate voters, including disaffected Republicans. They seem confident that Republicans’ aggressiveness about Biden does not appeal to that swath of the electorate.

But even as they praise Biden’s accomplishments as president, Democrats quietly admit they don’t want to spend time talking about a figure who left office with lagging approval ratings and forced his party into a late, difficult change at the top of the ticket.

Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia said Biden was productive while acknowledging he “was not at the top of his game because of his age.” He said Democrats want to look forward, most immediately on trying to win control of the House and make gains in the Senate.

“And then who’s our standard bearer in 2028?” Beyer said. “And how do we minimize the Trump damage with what we have right now?”

Barrow and Brown write for the Associated Press. Brown reported from Washington.

Few initiatives of the Trump administration more seriously undermine our understanding of the nation’s past than Executive Order 14023 from March 27, which promises “to restore Federal sites dedicated to history, including parks and museums, to solemn and uplifting public monuments.”

The order directs the Interior secretary to cleanse all National Park Service sites of any signage that “inappropriately disparages Americans past or living” and instead “emphasize the beauty, grandeur, and abundance of landscapes and other natural features.” The Park Service staff was also instructed to purge gift shops of books that could be construed as critical of any American. In a similar vein, the Smithsonian Institution was ordered to remove “improper ideology” from its properties to assure they reflected “American greatness.”

Unwilling to depend on park personnel to enforce the patriotism mandate, the Trump administration is enlisting park visitors to report potentially offending displays and ranger talks that present an insufficiently sanitized account of American history. On June 9, acting National Park Service director Jessica Bowron instructed regional directors to “post signage that will encourage public feedback via QR code and other methods that are viable” concerning anything they encounter at a park site that they believe denigrates the nation’s history. (It is worth noting that when queried about the QR code directive, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum claimed to know nothing of the mandate, although he signed it on May 20.) How will the Trump administration respond if a visitor uses one of the mandatory QR codes to file a complaint?

And that is just the beginning. The Trump administration has also made clear it would like to eliminate entire sites that are not “National Parks, in the traditionally understood sense.” That means targeting those features that lack the grandeur of Yosemite and the Grand Tetons: smaller parks, sites and memorials, many of which honor women and minorities. Generally lacking soaring redwoods or massive gorges, these sites — many in urban areas where President Trump’s revisionist history has not caught on — would seem to describe places in California such as César Chavez National Monument outside Bakersfield, Manzanar National Historic Site and Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond.

Trump and his ahistorical myrmidons — he just mused that the Civil War ended in 1869 — regularly display an abysmal ignorance of basic American history. In their view, such federal (and presumably state) sites should present only a simplistic view of our complex 249-year history, one that virtually ignores the contributions and struggles of hundreds of millions of Americans.

Even before we see how many “tips” the Park Service’s invitation elicits from visitors eager to rat on rangers, the wording of the executive order itself is chilling. Any signage or lecture that “inappropriately disparages Americans past or living” — and who is to say what constitutes disparagement? — must be replaced with rhetoric that emphasizes “the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people.” Needless to say, the many sites that tell the stories of civil rights and anti-slavery struggles, the Civil War, the role of immigrants, the battles for labor rights and the rights of women and LGBTQ+ people are going to have a challenging time ensuring they in no way offend those willing to acknowledge only uninterrupted “greatness” of the American story. Sometimes our greatness has been manifested by our progress toward a more perfect union — and that story cannot be told without mentioning imperfections.

One need not have a PhD in history to appreciate the dire threat presented by these efforts to replace historical scholarship with uncritical flag-waving. Historians have an obligation to challenge myth, to uncover obscured stories, to give voice to those who were unable to fully participate in earlier eras of the American story because of their race, ethnicity, gender or viewpoints. That is why our government has protected sites including Ellis Island (which President Lyndon B. Johnson added to Statue of Liberty National Monument), Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument and Stonewall National Monument (both recognized by President Obama). Trump’s Orwellian orders seek to undo a half-century of scholarship that revealed a far more complex and nuanced history than the simplified versions taught to generations of schoolchildren.

Fortunately, professional historians have not been cowed like many university leaders, law firms and others who have shamefully capitulated to Trump’s assault on free speech and intellectual integrity. A March statement from more than 40 historical societies condemned recent efforts to “purge words, phrases, and content that some officials deem suspect on ideological grounds [and] to distort, manipulate, and erase significant parts of the historical record.”

The national parks consistently rate as one of the most popular features of American government. Neither their rangers nor their exhibits should be intimidated into parroting a sanitized and distorted version of the nation’s past. As the historians declared, “We can neither deny what happened nor invent things that did not happen.” Americans should use those QR codes to send a clear message rejecting efforts to manipulate our history to suit an extremist ideological and political agenda.

John Lawrence is a visiting professor at the University of California’s Washington Center and a former staff director of the House Committee on Natural Resources.

NEW YORK — On a recent afternoon, Mahmoud Khalil sat in his Manhattan apartment, cradling his 10-week-old son as he thought back to the pre-dawn hours spent pacing a frigid immigration jail in Louisiana, awaiting news of the child’s birth in New York.

For a moment, the outspoken Palestinian activist found himself uncharacteristically speechless.

“I cannot describe the pain of that night,” Khalil said finally, gazing down as the baby, Deen, cooed in his arms. “This is something I will never forgive.”

Now, weeks after regaining his freedom, Khalil is seeking restitution. On Thursday, his lawyers filed a claim for $20 million in damages against the Trump administration, alleging Khalil was falsely imprisoned, maliciously prosecuted and smeared as an antisemite as the government sought to deport him over his prominent role in campus protests.

The filing — a precursor to a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act — names the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the State Department.

It comes as the deportation case against Khalil, a 30-year-old recent graduate student at Columbia University, continues to wind its way through the immigration court system.

The goal, Khalil said, is to send a message that he won’t be intimidated into silence.

“They are abusing their power because they think they are untouchable,” Khalil said. “Unless they feel there is some sort of accountability, it will continue to go unchecked.”

Khalil plans to share any settlement money with others targeted in Trump’s “failed” effort to suppress pro-Palestinian speech. In lieu of a settlement, he said he would also accept an official apology and changes to the administration’s deportation policies.

In an emailed statement, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, called Khalil’s claim “absurd,” accusing him of “hateful behavior and rhetoric” that threatened Jewish students.

A State Department spokesperson said its actions toward Khalil were fully supported by the law. Inquiries to the White House and ICE were not immediately returned.

Harsh conditions and an ‘absurd’ allegation

The filing accuses President Trump and other officials of mounting a haphazard and illegal campaign to “terrorize him and his family,” beginning with Khalil’s March 8 arrest.

On that night, he said he was returning home from dinner with his wife, Noor Abdalla, when he was “effectively kidnapped” by plainclothes federal agents, who refused to provide a warrant and appeared surprised to learn he was a legal U.S. permanent resident.

He was then whisked overnight to an immigration jail in Jena, La., a remote location that was “deliberately concealed” from his family and attorneys, according to the filing.

Inside, Khalil said he was denied his ulcer medication, forced to sleep under harsh fluorescent lights and fed “nearly inedible” food, causing him to lose 15 pounds. “I cannot remember a night when I didn’t go to sleep hungry,” Khalil recalled.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration publicly celebrated the arrest, promising to deport him and others whose protests against Israel it dubbed “pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity.”

Khalil, who has condemned antisemitism before and since his arrest, was not accused of a crime and has not been linked to Hamas or any other terrorist group. “At some point, it becomes like reality TV,” Khalil said of the allegations. “It’s very absurd.”

Deported for beliefs

A few weeks into his incarceration, Khalil was awoken by a fellow detainee, who pointed excitedly to his face on a jailhouse TV screen. A new memo signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged Khalil hadn’t broken the law, but argued he should be deported for beliefs that could undermine U.S. foreign policy interests.

“My beliefs are not wanting my tax money or tuition going toward investments in weapons manufacturers for a genocide,” Khalil said. “It’s as simple as that.”

By then, Khalil had become something of a celebrity in the 1,200-person lock-up. When not dealing with his own case, he hosted “office hours” for fellow immigrant detainees, leaning on his past experience working at a British embassy in Beirut to help others organize paperwork and find translators for their cases.

“I’m pretty good at bureaucracy,” Khalil said.

At night, they played Russian and Mexican card games, as Khalil listened to “one story after another from people who didn’t understand what’s happening to them.”

“This was one of the most heartbreaking moments,” he said. “People on the inside don’t know if they have any rights.”

Lost time

On June 20, after 104 days in custody, Khalil was ordered released by a federal judge, who found the government’s efforts to remove him on foreign policy grounds were likely unconstitutional.

He now faces new allegations of misrepresenting personal details on his green card application. In a motion filed late Wednesday, attorneys for Khalil described those charges as baseless and retaliatory, urging a judge to dismiss them.

The weeks since his release, Khalil said, have brought moments of bliss and intense personal anguish.

Fearing harassment or possible arrest, he leaves the house less frequently, avoiding large crowds or late-night walks. But he lit up as he remembered watching Deen taking his first swim earlier in the week. “It was not very pleasant for him,” Khalil said, smiling.

“I’m trying as much as possible to make up for the time with my son and my wife,” he added. “As well thinking about my future and trying to comprehend this new reality.”

Part of that reality, he said, will be continuing his efforts to advocate against Israel’s war in Gaza, which has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, more than half of them women and children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. On the day after his arrest, he led a march through Manhattan, draped in a Palestinian flag — and flanked by security.

As he poured Deen’s milk into a bottle, Khalil considered whether he might’ve done anything differently had he known the personal cost of his activism.

“We could’ve communicated better. We could’ve built more bridges with more people,” he said. “But the core thing of opposing a genocide, I don’t think you can do that any differently. This is your moral imperative when you’re watching your people be slaughtered by the minute.”

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

Linfield manager David Healy felt his side “stood firm” in order to bring a single-goal deficit back to Windsor Park for next week’s second leg of their Champions League first qualifying round tie against Shelbourne.

The League of Ireland Premier Division champions got the better of things at Tolka Park courtesy of Mipo Odubeko’s second-half strike.

Coming in with only the Charity Shield final against Dungannon Swifts last week as preparation, and against a side 25 games into their domestic campaign, Healy was pleased with how his side did not allow their hosts to turn plenty of possession into a glut of chances.

While Evan Caffrey twice went close, as did substitute Sean Boyd, the Blues defended resolutely for large periods.

“It was never going to be easy coming down here, they are a very, very good side with talented players,” said Healy.

“It’s disappointing, of course, but in terms of where we are, it’s our first real competitive game. Proud of the effort and the organisation of the players, we stuck together.

“An excitable crowd down here at Tolka Park can sometimes suck the ball into the net and we stood firm and we got ourselves in with a goal deficit.”

Linfield will have the suspended Chris Shields back for next week’s second leg, while Cammy Ballantyne should be available too.

Although Healy felt that Shelbourne play “some of the best football” he has seen in Europe as Linfield manager, he believes his team have “nothing to lose” back at Windsor Park on Wednesday in a game that will be shown live on BBC iPlayer and the BBC Sport website.

“We’ll be better for the game next week at Windsor,” the former Northern Ireland striker added.

“We’ll empty the tank, we’ve got nothing to fear and nothing to lose.”

England were held up by India captain Shubman Gill’s patient century as their bowlers fought admirably on day one of the second Test at Edgbaston.

After captain Ben Stokes opted to bowl first again, his bowlers battled against Gill’s calmness and another flat pitch to limit India to 310-5 at the close.

Chris Woakes bowled KL Rahul off the inside edge in a fine new-ball spell and Brydon Carse found extra bounce to have Karun Nair caught at slip for 31 shortly before lunch.

But opener Yashasvi Jaiswal complied an elegant 87 and after he was caught behind off Stokes, Rishabh Pant put on 66 with Gill as the new-ball zip faded in the Birmingham sunshine.

England hung in, however, and Pant’s patience broke after tea when he hit Shoaib Bashir to long-on for 25. Nitish Kumar Reddy was bowled shouldering arms to Woakes in the next over.

That left India at risk of collapse but Gill remained unflustered and reached three figures for the second match in a row in 199 deliveries. He put on 99 with Ravindra Jadeja to see out the final 90 minutes of play.

The tourists, who made three changes including leaving out star bowler Jasprit Bumrah, will be content but memories of England’s win at Headingley only adds to the feeling India have a long way to go to bat Stokes’ side out of the game.

WASHINGTON — Democratic efforts in the Senate to prevent President Trump from escalating his military confrontation with Iran fell short Friday, with Republicans blocking a resolution that marked Congress’ first attempt to reassert its war powers after U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.

The resolution, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, aimed to affirm that Trump should seek authorization from Congress before launching more military action against Iran. Asked Friday whether he would bomb Iranian nuclear sites again if he deemed necessary, Trump said, “Sure, without question.”

The measure was defeated in a 53-47 vote in the Republican-held Senate. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, joined Republicans in opposition, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote in favor.

Most Republicans have said Iran posed an imminent threat that required decisive action from Trump, and they backed his decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend without seeking congressional approval.

“Of course, we can debate the scope and strategy of our military engagements,” said Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.). “But we must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line.”

Democrats cast doubt on that justification, arguing that the president should have come to Congress first. They also said the president did not update them adequately, with Congress’ first briefings taking place Thursday.

“The idea is this: We shouldn’t send our sons and daughters into war unless there’s a political consensus that this is a good idea, this is a national interest,” Kaine said in a Thursday interview with the Associated Press. The resolution, Kaine said, wasn’t aimed at restricting the president’s ability to defend against a threat, but that “if it’s offense, let’s really make sure we’re making the right decision.”

In a statement after Friday’s vote, Kaine said he was “disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress” should be a part of a decision to go to war.

Democrats’ argument for backing the resolution centered on the War Powers Resolution, passed in the early 1970s, which requires the president “in every possible instance” to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.”

Speaking on the Senate floor ahead of Friday’s vote, Paul said he would back the resolution, saying that “despite the tactical success of our strikes, they may end up proving to be a strategic failure.”

“It is unclear if this intervention will fully curtail Iran’s nuclear aspirations,” said Paul.

Trump is just the latest in a line of presidents to test the limits of the resolution — though he’s done so at a time when he’s often bristling at the nation’s checks and balances.

Trump on Monday sent a letter to Congress — as required by the War Powers Resolution — that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were “limited in scope and purpose” and “designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.”

But after classified briefings with top White House officials this week, some lawmakers remain skeptical about how imminent the threat was.

“There was no imminent threat to the United States,” said Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, after Friday’s classified briefing.

“There’s always an Iranian threat to the world. But, I have not seen anything to suggest that the threat from the Iranians was radically different last Saturday than it was two Saturdays ago,” Himes said.

Meanwhile, nearly all Republicans applauded Trump’s decision to strike Iran. And for GOP senators, supporting the resolution would have meant rebuking the president at the same time they’re working to pass his major legislative package.

Kaine proposed a similar resolution in 2020 aimed at limiting Trump’s authority to launch military operations against Iran. Among the eight Republicans who joined Democrats in approving that resolution was Indiana Sen. Todd Young.

After Thursday’s classified briefing for the Senate, Young said he was “confident that Iran was prepared to pose a significant threat” and that, given Trump’s stated goal of no further escalation, “I do not believe this resolution is necessary at this time.”

“Should the Administration’s posture change or events dictate the consideration of additional American military action, Congress should be consulted so we can best support those efforts and weigh in on behalf of our constituents,” Young said in a statement.

Trump has said that a ceasefire between Israel and Iran is now in place. But he and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have verbally sparred in recent days, with the Iranian leader warning the U.S. not to launch future strikes on Iran.

White House officials have said they expect to restart talks soon with Iran, though nothing has been scheduled.

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Leah Askarinam contributed to this report.

Republican-led states have sought to deprive abortion providers of public funds by restricting access to Medicaid.

The United States Supreme Court has cleared the way for South Carolina to strip the nonprofit healthcare provider Planned Parenthood of funding under Medicaid, a government insurance programme.

Thursday’s ruling was split along ideological lines, with the three liberal justices on the nine-member court dissenting.

The ruling overturned a lower court’s decision barring Republican-governed South Carolina from preventing Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a regional branch, from participating in the state’s Medicaid programme.

Republican leaders in South Carolina have objected to Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions.

The Supreme Court’s decision bolsters efforts by Republican-led states to deprive the reproductive healthcare provider of public money.

The case centred on whether recipients of Medicaid may sue to enforce a requirement under US law that they may obtain medical assistance from any qualified and willing provider. Medicaid is administered jointly by the federal and state governments, and it is designed to provide healthcare coverage for low-income people.

Since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned its landmark Roe v Wade ruling that legalised abortion nationwide, a number of Republican-led states have implemented near-total bans on the procedure. Some, like South Carolina, prohibit abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates clinics in the South Carolina cities of Charleston and Columbia, where it serves hundreds of Medicaid patients each year, providing physical examinations, screenings for cancer and diabetes, pregnancy testing, contraception and other services.

The Planned Parenthood affiliate and a Medicaid patient named Julie Edwards sued the state in 2018. A year earlier, in 2017, Republican Governor Henry McMaster had ordered officials to end Planned Parenthood’s participation in the state Medicaid programme by deeming any abortion provider unqualified to provide family planning services.

The plaintiffs sued South Carolina under an 1871 law that helps people challenge illegal acts by state officials. They said the Medicaid law protects what they called a “deeply personal right” to choose one’s doctor.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom conservative legal group and backed by President Donald Trump’s administration, said the disputed Medicaid provision in this case does not meet the “high bar for recognising private rights”.

A federal judge previously ruled in Planned Parenthood’s favour, finding that Medicaid recipients may sue under the 1871 law and that the state’s move to defund the organisation violated Edwards’s right to freely choose a qualified medical provider.

In 2024, the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, also sided with the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 2.

The dispute has reached the Supreme Court three times. The court in 2020 rejected South Carolina’s appeal at an earlier stage of the case. In 2023, it ordered a lower court to reconsider South Carolina’s arguments in light of a ruling the justices issued involving the rights of nursing home residents.

That decision explained that laws like Medicaid must unambiguously give individuals the right to sue.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to set aside an effort to impeach President Trump on a sole charge of abuse of power after he launched military strikes on Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

The sudden action forced by a lone Democrat, Rep. Al Green of Texas, brought little debate and split his party. Most Democrats joined the Republican majority to table the measure for now. But dozens of Democrats backed Green’s effort. The tally was 344 to 79.

“I take no delight in what I’m doing,” Green said before the vote.

“I do this because no one person should have the power to take over 300 million people to war without consulting with the Congress of the United States of America,” he said. “I do this because I understand that the Constitution is going to be meaningful or it’s going to be meaningless.”

The effort, while not the first rumblings of actions to impeach Trump since he started his second term in January, shows the unease many Democrats have with his administration, particularly after the sudden attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, a risky incursion into Middle East affairs.

Trump earlier Tuesday lashed out in vulgar terms against another Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, for having suggested his military action against Iran was an impeachable offense.

House Democratic leadership was careful to not directly criticize Green, but also made clear that their focus was on other issues. Impeachment matters are typically considered a vote of conscience, without pressure from leadership to vote a certain way.

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands), chair of the House Democratic caucus, said lawmakers will “represent their constituents and their communities.”

“At this time, at this moment, we are focusing on what this big, ugly bill is going to do,” he said about the big Trump tax breaks package making its way through Congress. “I think anything outside of that is a distraction because this is the most important thing that we can focus on.”

Trump was twice impeached by House Democrats during his first term, in 2019 over withholding funds to Ukraine as it faced military aggression from Russia, and in 2021 on the charge of inciting an insurrection after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by his supporters trying to stop Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential election victory.

In both of those impeachment cases, the Senate acquitted Trump of charges, allowing his return to the presidency this year.

Green, who had filed earlier articles of impeachment against the president this year, has been a consistent voice speaking out against Trump’s actions, which he warns is America’s slide toward authoritarianism.

The congressman told the AP earlier in the day that he wanted to force the vote to show that at least one member of Congress was watching the president’s action and working to keep the White House in check.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writer Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

President Trump and his administration have tried several tactics to block Harvard University’s enrollment of international students, part of the White House’s effort to secure policy changes at the private Ivy League college.

Targeting foreign students has become the administration’s cornerstone effort to crack down on the nation’s oldest and wealthiest college. The block on international enrollment, which accounts for a quarter of Harvard’s students and much of its global allure, strikes at the core of Harvard’s identity. Courts have stopped some of the government’s actions, at least for now — but not all.

In the latest court order, a federal judge Friday put one of those efforts on hold until a lawsuit is resolved. But the fate of Harvard’s international students — and its broader standoff with the Trump administration — remains in limbo.

Here are the ways the Trump administration has moved to block Harvard’s foreign enrollment — and where each effort stands.

Harvard’s certification to host foreign students

In May, the Trump administration tried to ban foreign students at Harvard, citing the Department of Homeland Security’s authority to oversee which colleges are part of the Student Exchange and Visitor Program. The program allows colleges to issue documents that foreign students need to study in the United States.

Harvard filed a lawsuit, arguing the administration violated the government’s own regulations for withdrawing a school’s certification.

Within hours, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston put the administration’s ban on hold temporarily — an order that had an expiration date. On Friday, she issued a preliminary injunction, blocking Homeland Security’s move until the case is decided. That could take months or longer.

The government can and does remove colleges from the Student Exchange and Visitor Program, making them ineligible to host foreign students on their campuses. However, it’s usually for administrative reasons outlined in law, such as failing to maintain accreditation, lacking proper facilities for classes, failing to employ qualified professional personnel — even failing to “operate as a bona fide institution of learning.” Other colleges are removed when they close.

Notably, Burroughs’ order Friday said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard’s ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law. After Burroughs’ emergency block in May, DHS issued a more typical “Notice of Intent to Withdraw” Harvard’s participation in the international student visa program.

“Today’s order does not affect the DHS’s ongoing administrative review,” Harvard said Friday in a message to its international students. “Harvard is fully committed to compliance with the applicable F-1 (student visa) regulations and strongly opposes any effort to withdraw the University’s certification.”

U.S. entry for incoming Harvard students

Earlier this month, Trump moved to block entry to the United States for incoming Harvard students, issuing a proclamation that invoked a different legal authority.

Harvard filed a court challenge attacking Trump’s legal justification for the action — a federal law allowing the president to block a “class of aliens” deemed detrimental to the nation’s interests. Targeting only those who are coming to the U.S. to study at Harvard doesn’t qualify as a “class of aliens,” Harvard said in its filing.

Harvard’s lawyers asked the court to block the action. Burroughs agreed to pause the entry ban temporarily, without giving an expiration date. She has not yet ruled on Harvard’s request for another preliminary injunction, which would pause the ban until the court case is decided. “We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,” Harvard told international students Friday.

At the center of Trump’s pressure campaign against Harvard are his assertions that the school has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment, especially during pro-Palestinian protests. In seeking to keep Harvard students from coming to the U.S., he said Harvard is not a suitable destination. Harvard President Alan Garber has said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism and will not submit to the administration’s demands for further changes.

Scrutiny of visas

In late May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed U.S. embassies and consulates to start reviewing social media accounts of visa applicants who plan to attend, work at or visit Harvard University for any signs of antisemitism.

On Wednesday, the State Department said it was launching new vetting of social media accounts for foreigners applying for student visas, and not just those seeking to attend Harvard. Consular officers will be on the lookout for posts and messages that could be deemed hostile to the United States, its government, culture, institutions or founding principles, the department said, telling visa applicants to set their social media accounts to “public.”

In reopening the visa process, the State Department also told consulates to prioritize students hoping to enroll at colleges where foreigners make up less than 15% of the student body, a U.S. official familiar with the matter said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to detail information that has not been made public.

Foreign students make up more than 15% of the total student body at almost 200 U.S. universities — including Harvard and the other Ivy League schools, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal education data from 2023. Most are private universities, including all eight Ivy League schools.

Some Harvard students are also caught up in the government’s recent ban against travel to the U.S. by citizens of 12 nations, mostly in Africa and the Middle East. The Trump administration last weekend called for 36 additional countries to commit to improving vetting of travelers or face a ban on their citizens visiting the United States.

F-1 and J-1 visas

Harvard sponsors more than 7,000 people on a combination of F-1 and J-1 visas, which are issued to students and to foreigners visiting the U.S. on exchange programs such as fellowships. Across all the schools that make up the university, about 26% of the student body is from outside the United States.

But some schools and programs, by nature of their subject matter, have significantly more international students. At the Harvard Kennedy School, which covers public policy and public administration, 49% of students are on F-1 visas. In the business school, one-third of students come from abroad. And within the law school, 94% of the students in the master’s program in comparative law are international students.

The administration has imposed a range of sanctions on Harvard since it rejected the government’s demands for policy reforms related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Conservatives say the demands are merited, decrying Harvard as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard says the administration is illegally retaliating against the university.

SAN DIEGO — President Clinton arrived here Monday pledging again to make special efforts to help Californians with their economic problems but asking that they in turn agree to the sacrifices demanded in his pending budget plan.

Clinton, beginning a two-day campaign-style swing through the West to gather support for his agenda, reminded a crowd of several hundred that greeted him at the North Island Naval Air Station that he had vowed his help for California’s problems during his campaign.

“We are going to work our hearts out in Washington in order to move this state together,” he said. And he cited his proposals to foster defense conversion, to provide federal support for California’s special immigration problems and to stimulate the economy in a way that would help California’s ailing real estate industry and small businesses.

“California needs an economic strategy that will be built from the grass roots up, but will have a partner in the White House,” he declared, adding, “the federal government’s going to do more to pay our fair share.”

At the same time, Clinton renewed his call for Americans to support his budget against resistance from congressional Republicans and others.

“When you hear people say ‘No, no, no,’ ask where they were for the last 12 years,” he said. Referring to his Republican predecessors, he said “the most popular thing to do in public life is to cut taxes and raise spending. But sooner or later your string runs out.”

Clinton’s appearance began the second straight week of forays into the country to drum up support for an economic program that has lost ground in the polls. On Monday evening he was scheduled to take questions from the public in a live, hourlong TV “town hall” broadcast from San Diego’s KGTV, Channel 10. Today he is to visit Los Angeles Valley College in Van Nuys to talk about worker retraining, and later to stop at a business on Florence Avenue in South-Central Los Angeles to promote his plans for urban redevelopment.

He spent much of Monday at a stop in Los Alamos, N. M., pointing to the Los Alamos National Laboratories, where the atomic bomb was developed during World War II, as proof of the potential of his five-year, $20-billion defense conversion plan.

Clinton said the 50-year-old laboratory’s early move into commercial enterprises proves that defense industries can be successfully converted to commercial use in the aftermath of the Cold War. But he also used the occasion to stress his No. 1 theme, that Congress needs to pass his economic program to cut the deficit and step up spending that will strengthen the economy.

In remarks at Los Alamos High School, Clinton said the 7,600-employee nuclear laboratory had made important contributions to the weapons research that kept pressure on the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He said that in the last several years the lab’s efforts to find commercial applications for its research had spawned 30 companies and 100 government-industry partnerships.

Clinton said such relationships would begin the kind of “economic chain reaction” that could help the nation create high paying jobs.

The laboratory, with an annual budget of $1 billion, conducts commercial research into batteries, oil recovery, advanced materials and other such projects. Clinton cited its advances in the process called ion implantation, which is used to make stronger materials and which grew out of research begun on the Strategic Defense Initiative, or “Star Wars,” launched by President Ronald Reagan.

Only last week, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin declared an official end to the “Star Wars” program. But Clinton acknowledged: “Something good came out of it, because people were looking to break down frontiers.”

But as he spoke about defense conversion, Clinton repeatedly moved into discussion of the need for sacrifices to cut the federal deficit. “Everybody’s for deficit reduction in general, it’s the details that swallow us whole,” he told a crowd of several thousand.

The Los Alamos laboratory had been spared deep cuts, but under Clinton’s proposed budget it faces about $40 million in budget cuts that officials say could force the layoff of about 100 people.

Clinton’s two-month old defense conversion program proposes to spend $19.6 billion over the next five years. The money would go to retrain workers displaced by military cutbacks, to allow early retirement of some military and civilian workers, for environmental cleanup and for grants to help military contractors find civilian applications for their work.

Critics have charged that the program underestimates the difficulty of converting defense businesses to civilian work. And they say that in any case the $19.6 billion will have only a limited effect in helping the 2.5 million workers who could lose their jobs in the next decade.

But Clinton asserted: “It is a good beginning.”

Pressed by slumping polls and unresolved questions about his Bosnian policy, Clinton has sought to rebuild support for his program by explaining its payoff for Americans, and particularly for the middle class.

The President hopes that strong public support will bring pressure on Congress to go along with his economic and health care plans.

Clinton’s appearance in Los Alamos was well tailored to his goal of using the news media to drum up support. To ensure that enthusiasm was high, the organizers bused in thousands of high school students; they passed out American flags just before the event began.

Located on a valley overlooked by the snowcapped Sangre de Cristo mountains, the event made a striking picture.

Clinton came close to a faux pas at one point in his remarks, calling Los Alamos “Los Angeles.”

A chorus of boos followed. But Clinton tried to make a graceful recovery:

“I’m going there tomorrow,” he explained to the crowd. “And if I say ‘Los Alamos’ there, will you cheer?”

As has become his habit, Clinton spent part of his day conducting interviews with TV news stations, in an effort to give his message wide and largely unchallenged access to local markets.

The President’s California visit is his second since the election to a state that his advisers say is key to his strategy for 1996.

California’s unemployment rate fell to 8.6% in April, from 9.4% in March. But the state’s rate still lags far behind the national rate of 7%.

Part of Clinton’s hope to help California was stymied when Senate Republicans blocked the $19-billion economic stimulus proposal that would have channeled more than $2 billion to the state.

After the TV town hall, Clinton was scheduled to appear at a reception for local politicians and supporters at the television station, then to attend a dinner at the home of Larry and Shelia Lawrence. The Lawrences own the Hotel Del Coronado and are Clinton supporters.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge Friday blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to keep Harvard University from hosting international students, delivering the Ivy League school another victory as it challenges multiple government sanctions amid a battle with the White House.

The order from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston preserves Harvard’s ability to host foreign students while the case is decided, but it falls short of resolving all of Harvard’s legal hurdles to hosting international students. Notably, Burroughs said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard’s ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law.

Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security in May after the agency abruptly withdrew the school’s certification to host foreign students and issue paperwork for their visas, skirting most of its usual procedures. The action would have forced Harvard’s roughly 7,000 international students — about a quarter of its total enrollment — to transfer or risk being in the U.S. illegally. New foreign students would have been barred from coming to Harvard.

The university said it was experiencing illegal retaliation for rejecting the White House’s demands to overhaul Harvard policies related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Burroughs temporarily had halted the government’s action hours after Harvard sued.

Less than two weeks later, in early June, President Trump tried a new strategy. He issued a proclamation to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard, citing a different legal justification. Harvard challenged the move, saying the president was attempting an end run around the temporary court order. Burroughs temporarily blocked Trump’s proclamation as well. That emergency block remains in effect, and the judge did not address the proclamation in her order Friday.

“We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,” Harvard said Friday in an email to international students. “Our Schools will continue to make contingency plans toward ensuring that our international students and scholars can pursue their academic work to the fullest extent possible, should there be a change to student visa eligibility or their ability to enroll at Harvard.”

Students in limbo

The stops and starts of the legal battle have unsettled current students and left others around the world waiting to find out whether they will be able to attend America’s oldest and wealthiest university.

The Trump administration’s efforts to stop Harvard from enrolling international students have created an environment of “profound fear, concern, and confusion,” the university said in a court filing. Countless international students have asked about transferring from the university, Harvard immigration services director Maureen Martin said.

Still, admissions consultants and students have indicated most current and prospective Harvard scholars are holding out hope they’ll be able to attend the university.

For one prospective graduate student, an admission to Harvard’s Graduate School of Education had rescued her educational dreams. Huang, who asked to be identified only by her surname for fear of being targeted, had seen her original doctoral offer at Vanderbilt University rescinded after federal cuts to research and programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

Harvard stepped in a few weeks later with a scholarship she couldn’t refuse. She rushed to schedule her visa interview in Beijing. More than a month after the appointment, despite court orders against the Trump administration’s policies, she still hasn’t heard back.

“Your personal effort and capability means nothing in this era,” Huang said in a social media post. “Why does it have to be so hard to go to school?”

An ongoing battle

Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after the university rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Trump administration officials have cut more than $2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

On Friday, the president said in a post on social media that the administration has been working with Harvard to address “their largescale improprieties” and that a deal with Harvard could be announced within the next week. “They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,” the post said.

The Trump administration first targeted Harvard’s international students in April. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short and on May 22 revoked Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.

The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world’s top students, the school said in its lawsuit, and it harmed Harvard’s reputation as a global research hub. “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,” the lawsuit said.

The action would have upended some graduate schools that recruit heavily from abroad. Some schools overseas quickly offered invitations to Harvard’s students, including two universities in Hong Kong.

Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its “core, legally-protected principles,” even after receiving federal ultimatums.

Binkley and Zhang write for the Associated Press.