fight

Uruguay could need a win over Spain next weekend to avoid a second consecutive FIFA World Cup group-stage exit.

World Cup debutants Cape Verde scored a second-half equaliser to salvage a 2-2 draw against Uruguay in Miami, backing up their shock opening stalemate with Spain.

Cape Verde took a surprise 21st-minute lead as Kevin Pina scored their first World Cup goal from a free-kick, only for Uruguay to strike twice shortly before half-time through Maxi Araujo and Agustin Canobbio.

But 40-year-old Uruguay goalkeeper Fernando Muslera’s mistake allowed Helio Varela to grab Cape Verde’s second just after the hour mark, and neither side could find a winner on Sunday.

Cape Verde boosted their hopes of reaching the knockout phase with their second point in Group H.

The African island nation face Saudi Arabia, thumped 4-0 by Spain earlier on Sunday, in their final group game next Saturday, knowing that victory would secure a last-32 berth.

Two-time world champions Uruguay’s hopes of progressing are in serious danger, though, after again being held by lower-ranked opposition following their 1-1 draw with the Saudis.

The South Americans may need to beat European champions Spain next weekend to avoid a second consecutive World Cup group-stage exit.

Uruguay coach Marcelo Bielsa made two changes to the team, which were held by Saudi Arabia, with Al Hilal striker Darwin Nunez dropping to the bench.

Bubista opted for three alterations to his Cape Verde team, all in attacking positions.

Cape Verde started with more intent going forward than they were able to show against Spain, but it was still Uruguay who created the first real opening, when Federico Valverde drilled a left-footed shot wide.

But the tournament debutants forged ahead when Pina crashed a long-range free kick through a poor Uruguay wall and past Muslera.

Uruguay were in desperate need of their equaliser when it arrived in the 44th minute.

Cape Verde’s Sidny Lopes Cabral headed the ball against his own post under pressure from Rodrigo Bentancur, and Araujo stooped to nod in the rebound, with Cape Verde goalkeeper Vozinha stranded.

They completed the turnaround in the sixth minute of first-half added time, as Canobbio turned in Araujo’s header across goal on the volley.

Uruguay appeared in control early in the second half, until Muslera inexplicably raced out of his goal in the 61st minute and Cape Verde substitute Varela took full advantage to roll the ball into an empty net after an excellent first touch.

Vozinha, the hero of Cape Verde’s draw with Spain, fumbled to allow Araujo to tap in, but his blushes were spared by an offside flag.

Real Madrid midfielder Valverde blazed a late free kick over the bar from just outside the box, leaving Uruguay on the brink of a hugely disappointing exit.

On Thursday, U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) stood up a new command to speed up reaction times and sustain operations within the anti-access/area denial environments of the Pacific. To help achieve that goal, the commander of this new unit told TWZ he wants to be able to saturate any future adversary with so many drones they have trouble operating. 

“We have learned, particularly looking at Ukraine, there really is no sanctuary area that is protected from observation and potential targeting,” Maj. Gen. Bernard J. Harrington told us during a media roundtable to introduce his new command. It’s called the 7th Infantry Division Multi-Domain Command – Pacific (7th ID MDC-PAC). Headquartered at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington, it combines the 7th Infantry Division and the 1st Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF). The idea is to merge the maneuver capabilities of the 7th ID’s two Stryker brigades with the long-range sensing, fires, cyber, space, electronic warfare, and information capabilities of the MDTF.

The new unit was created as the U.S. still struggles to be on the leading-edge of modern drone warfare, especially when it comes to the lower-end segment of this broad capability set, a deficit we have frequently highlighted. This is a concern top Army officials have acknowledged to us.

US Army Historic Pivot: 7th Infantry Division Becomes Multi-Domain Command – Pacific

“As we look at our employment of drones,” Harrington proffered, “we are looking at a host of not just traditional sense-and-strike drones, but how do we couple that — utilizing an adaptive and agentic C2 [command and control system] — to long-range one-way attack, to be able to overwhelm potential adversarial systems by a volume that is connected from our sensor drone all the way to our long-range one-way attack drone.”

Harrington was referring to an AI-driven system that can make and execute decisions on its own — routing data, repositioning sensors, matching targets to shooters — without requiring a human to manually approve each step. He later described it as being a “soldier-on-the-loop, not in-the-loop” system, meaning that a human monitors and can override the system’s actions.

You can read all about how AI will enable the future of lower-end drone warfare in our deep dive here.

In another lesson from Ukraine, as well as conflicts in the Middle East, Harrington wants to be able to use decoy drones to “confuse and potentially deceive an adversary.” The goal is to “deplete potential magazine depth.”

We saw this play out in Ukraine, where Russian mass barrages typically use decoy drones to overwhelm Ukrainian air defenses, confuse its sensors and force the expenditure of valuable air defense munitions. Ukraine eventually responded in kind, with its own decoy drones, to achieve the same effects.

The need for the U.S. to develop a vast arsenal of long-range one-way attack drones that can also serve as decoys to consume enemy effectors is a topic TWZ has addressed in the past.

You can see one of the Russian decoy drones in the image below.

Harrington added that he is also looking at electronic warfare drones “to help isolate, and then enable other drones to be effective. So when we look at the family of systems, it is not just one role for any one of our drones — it’s how do they pair together, and then how do we get sensor to shooter most effectively to target any adversary appropriately.”

Harrington declined to say what kinds of drones the new command aims to field, though it should be noted that U.S. Central Command recently used Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) kamikaze drones, a design reverse-engineered from the Iranian-designed Shahed-136, in the war against Iran. It was the first time those drones were used in combat.

“There are a host of drones that we are using from multiple vendors, and really what we’re looking at is how do we start bridging the gap — because I would say with the multi-domain task force, we got to a point for the first time that I’ve seen where we could now engage farther than we could sense,” he posited. “So we have worked very, very closely with several vendors in order to close that distance.”

A key to making this all work is getting these drones into the hands of troops to see how these systems actually function across the wide range of environments where the Army operates in the Pacific.

“We’ve got Arctic steppe in Alaska and the high north that are going to require a different type of drone and different types of employment than you would have in a jungle environment in Hawaii or Malaysia, which is different than a desert environment in the Australian Outback,” USARPAC commander, Gen. Ronald Clark, told us.

“It’s challenging, but we’re dealing with the best and brightest that we have — our young troopers out there are very comfortable with having technology in their hands, and very comfortable with giving feedback associated with what works and what does not, because their buddies’ lives depend on it,” Clark posited. “It’s literally a responsibility that every soldier takes on and takes very seriously.”

“The other thing I’d add is the distances we have to operate,” Clark noted. “For instance, if you drew a box that was 2,000 nautical miles in each direction and started in Cambodia — went east to the Philippines, south to Indonesia, and then back west to Malaysia, and then back to Cambodia — that box is roughly the same size as the box you would draw if you placed it over Western Europe, from the UK to Finland to Turkey to Spain.”

Interestingly, the officials leading this effort declined to name a specific adversary and there was no mention of China at all, even though that nation is the primary pacing threat of the service and by far the biggest challenge in the region.

“The multi-domain command Pacific is not tied to a specific adversary, and it’s not tied to a specific location,” Clark explained when asked about threats from North Korea. “It’s a capability that we have built to counter any threat from any adversary, so it’s not necessarily focused on a specific part of the region or a specific adversary.”

As we noted earlier in this story, this new command is being set up as the Army has struggled to catch up to drone warfare developments abroad. China has invested heavily in lower-end drone warfare at the infantry level up to long-range one-way attack drones. The country’s capacity to mass produce all types of drones rapidly on gigantic scales remains a real concern, too. This is not lost on U.S. Army leadership.

“We are behind on long-range sensing and long-range launched-effect strike,” Maj. Gen. James (Jay) Bartholomees, commanding general of the Hawaii-based 25th Infantry Division, told us last year at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) annual symposium. “We absolutely need to build this capability quickly. We need to test it in our region; we also need to work with our allies and partners to do the same.”

The Army, it seems, is still trying to figure this all out.

Given that 7th ID MDC-PAC is essentially only a day old, there is a long way to go before the Army can draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of this concept. There are still many unknowns regarding what kind of drones the division has and is seeking, how many they need and the timelines for procurement. Regardless, setting up a new unit concentrating on melding drone warfare with the maneuver capabilities of Stryker brigades is a clear indication that the Army realizes it has to change how it operates to succeed in a Pacific fight.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Justin Gaethje waited a long time to become an undisputed UFC champion.

Now the 37-year-old MMA star might have to wait another six months or so before fighting again.

Gaethje upset former two-weight champion Ilia Topuria with a technical knockout in a lightweight unification championship bout at the UFC Freedom 250 event Sunday on the White House South Lawn.

Topuria was a bloody and swollen mess by the time his corner stopped the fight between the fourth and fifth rounds. Gaethje executed a soaring back flip off the cage to celebrate his first undisputed belt, but it turns out that the former two-time interim champion also suffered significant injuries during the bout.

Both Gaethje and Topuria were among the five UFC Freedom 250 fighters who received 180-day medical suspensions from the Association of Boxing and Combative Sports Commissions, according to a list issued by the commissions and viewed by The Times.

Ilia Topuria suffered two broken orbital bones during his loss to Justin Gaethje at UFC Freedom 250 on June 14 in Washington.

(Chris Graythen / Getty Images)

Gaethje’s suspension can be shortened if he is cleared with negative MRIs for his right wrist and left knee. Topuria, who suffered two broken orbital bones, can return early if cleared by a an Oral and Maxillofacial Foundation specialist.

Both men also are required to serve mandatory rest days (45 for Gaethje, 60 for Topuria).

Alex Pereira, who lost his interim heavyweight title bout to Ciryl Gane by TKO, was medically suspended for 180 days or until he’s cleared with a negative maxillofacial CT scan. Undercard fighters Aiemann Zahabi and Steve Garcia also received 180-day medical suspensions.

Topuria won the UFC featherweight championship by knocking out Alexander Volkanovski in February 2024. He vacated that title a year later and in June 2025 defeated Charles Oliveira by knockout to claim lightweight belt.

In November, Topuria announced he was temporarily stepping away from fighting. Gaethje earned the interim lightweight title in January by defeating Paddy Pimblett by unanimous decision.

That set up the unification bout between Gaethje and Topuria, which was the final fight of an elaborate event at the White House held on President Trump’s 80th birthday and billed as part of a summer-long celebration of the country’s 250th anniversary.

Today, we discuss political jockeying, litigation and Hail Mary passes.

There’s so much going on these days …

Indeed.

Between the war with Iran, the World Cup and President Trump slapping his filigreed (emphasis greed) name on everything in sight, I’ve completely lost track of the fight for control of Congress.

Well, now that the California gubernatorial primary is in the rear view, let’s catch up. The midterm election is not until November, of course. But a fierce political competition, aimed at skewing the result, has been underway since last summer.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

It started in Texas, where Trump strong-armed Republican lawmakers into redrawing their congressional map in hopes of boosting the GOP’s chances of keeping control of the House. That led California voters to pass an eye-for-an-eye measure aimed at boosting Democratic prospects.

Other states joined the skirmishing, capped by Virginia, where voters in April approved new political lines aimed at netting Democrats as many as four additional seats.

For a short time, it looked as though Trump’s move had backfired and Democrats might actually come out ahead, at least on paper, by a seat or two.

And then?

And then the courts stepped in.

In a 4-3 decision in May, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the state’s new congressional map, ruling that the Democratic-run legislature had violated procedural requirements when it placed the constitutional measure on the ballot.

But the more significant legal decision came a week prior, when the U.S. Supreme Court nullified a major part of the federal Voting Rights Act, freeing several Southern states to hastily redraw a number of congressional districts to Republicans’ advantage.

What’s the bottom line?

It looks as though the GOP has come out ahead, but not by more than a handful of seats, give or take. It’s important to note that all that cartographic competition offers no guarantee of success.

“Cartographic competition?”

Those gerrymandered maps were drawn for the express purpose of helping out one party or the other, but the partisan manipulation doesn’t make all those redrawn districts a lock come November.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs legislation calling for a special election to redraw the state’s congressional map

(Godofredo A. Vasquez / Associated Press)

In California, for instance, the Central Valley seat held by Republican David Valadao — a perennial Democratic target — remains highly competitive. In Texas, GOP lawmakers redrew their map assuming the substantial Latino support that Trump enjoyed in 2024 would carry over to Republican candidates in this year’s midterm election. That seems increasingly less likely, given shifting Latino attitudes, which means at least two of those redrawn Texas seats are more competitive than Republicans would like.

Bottom line, where does that leave things in the fight for control of the House?

There are no certainties …

… Beyond death and taxes. Understood.

It still seems more likely than not that Democrats will win the House in November.

They just need to gain three seats. Going back more than half a century, the out party (which is to say the one not in the White House) has gained an average of more than two dozen House seats in the midterm election. So Democrats have that going for them.

President Trump kicked off a redistricting battle by strong-arming Texas into redrawing its congressional map.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

Also, more significantly, Trump’s approval ratings — in a word — stink. There’s a very strong correlation between a president’s standing in polls and his party’s performance, given midterm elections are almost always a referendum on the party in the White House. Since disgruntled voters are more likely to turn out, that means the out party typically gains seats.

“It would be one thing if Republicans were trying to buck a historical trend and they were doing so strengthened by a popular Republican president,” said Jacob Rubashkin, an analyst with the authoritative nonpartisan political guide Inside Elections. “But that’s simply not the case. … [Trump] is less popular than any president heading into a midterm election in a very long time.”

What about control of the Senate?

Advantage Republicans.

How so?

Part of it is straight-up math. Democrats need to flip four seats. There are 35 Senate races being decided this fall, but only 10 or so are even remotely competitive. Nearly all are in states that Trump carried.

That said, things are looking up considerably for Democrats from where they were a few months ago.

Oh?

There’s much less correlation between presidential approval and the outcome of Senate races. Still, Trump is putting up some pretty strong headwinds that Republicans will have to overcome this fall, including in battleground states such as Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina. (His gaseous effusions — “I love the inflation,” “Affordability is a con job” — are not helpful, to put it mildly, when gasoline and hamburger are costing hard-pressed voters an arm and a leg, respectively.)

And Democrats have done about as well as they could have hoped in landing their preferred candidates in the Republican-leaning states of Alaska, Ohio and Iowa, making those contests far more competitive than they would have been.

What about Maine?

That started out as Democrats’ top target this election cycle. Five-term incumbent Susan Collins has the distinction of being the only Republican senator running in a state that Kamala Harris won. The race is still considered a toss-up.

But the nomination of Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran with a history that is, um, problematic — a tattoo resembling a Nazi SS symbol he did or did not apprehend; extramarital sexting; coarse online commentary — could turn the race into more of a referendum on the Democrat than either Trump or Collins.

And Texas?

You mean the boneyard of Democratic dreams?

It’s been decades since the party won a statewide race in Texas, despite all manner of attempts. (The “dream team” of a white/Black/Latino slate; the streaking-comet candidacies of Beto O’Rourke and Wendy Davis, who both flamed out short of victory.)

Democrats are giddy again, this time over 37-year-old state Sen. James Talarico, who’s built a national following with his telegenic, Christian-infused progressive platform. More pertinent, he’s running against a singularly flawed Republican nominee, state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, whose dubious resume is muddied with a felony indictment, impeachment by the GOP-run Texas House and allegations of repeated adultery.

Still, it’s Texas. Electing Talarico would be like connecting on one of those last-second, desperation, alley-oop passes in the end zone. Not impossible.

But don’t bet the ranch.

A plan to attack the UFC America 250 event at the White House on June 14 with explosive drones was thwarted by the FBI, according to federal records. Exactly how capable those involved were of actually pulling it off remains unclear. However, the alleged plot amplifies concerns that TWZ has been documenting for years about threats posed by drones to critical facilities in the homeland and how they continue to change the national security picture at home and abroad.

The long-standing potential for a drone attack on the White House was something we recently discussed last month in an examination of President Donald Trump’s plans to fortify the under-construction ballroom. More on that later in this story.

The plot involved a group of individuals who wanted to “attack the UFC event and involved staging a ‘demonstration’ on the north side of the White House,” CBS News reported, citing the court filings. “The group would then fly drones ‘laden with unspecified explosive devices which would detonate over the north side of the UFC arena,’” according to the filing in the case of one of the five people arrested, 19-year-old Tycen Proper.

When the drones exploded, “the group then planned to force attendees of the UFC event and ‘high value targets’ to evacuate to the south,” Proper’s affidavit read. The suspect told investigators that the plan was for group members to “act as snipers and additional shooters,” shooting fight attendees and the “high value targets” as they fled from the explosions.

The affidavit said the “high value targets” were “wealthy people” and politicians, CBS noted. 

Proper allegedly told investigators the goal of the attack was to “jumpstart” a revolution in the U.S. He was interviewed from a hospital, according to the document, where he was admitted on an emergency basis due to “homicidal ideations.”

In addition to Proper, Bryan Omar Roa, 24, of Calimesa, California; Michael Alan Thomas, 32, of Pinon Hills, California; Daniel K. Eskridge, 32, of Kidder, Missouri; and Abraham Hermosillo Alvarez, 31, of Omaha, Nebraska were also charged, according to the Justice Department.

Fox News was the first to report details about the plot.

TWZ cannot independently verify any of these details at this time and it remains publicly unclear what capabilities, training, funding and equipment the suspects had to actually carry out a complex attack like the one described. Proper’s mother said her son “began interacting with a group online that was comprised of individuals who claimed to be ex-military and Christian-based,” according to the court documents. They espoused anti-government and anti-Semitic sentiments.

At the very least, it would have taken unique skills and some level of discipline, coordination and operational security to pull off this kind of a plot. It would have also required funding and time. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies disrupt attack plans long before they get close to becoming operational, and many of those have a low chance they could actually been implemented as dreamed-up. That does not mean the individuals involved or their plans are not still a significant threat. In this case, there is no information available on whether anyone involved had the means and ability to stage an attack like the one described.

Regardless, it is important to note it would be a challenge to stop people simply from bringing weaponized uncrewed aircraft into range of the White House without law enforcement having prior knowledge. Actually employing those drones as weapons successfully is another story. Still, the danger of such an attack looms large and is growing by the day.

As we have frequently highlighted, two incidents last year highlight the alarming danger of near-field drone attacks that raised lingering concerns in the U.S.

On June 1, 2025, Ukraine launched drones hidden in trucks at air bases across Russia, causing severe damage to its strategic aviation fleet. Weeks later, Israel fired drones from deep inside Iran at the country’s air defenses during the 12-Day War.

TWZ raised concerns about just these kinds of attacks for years long before the ones in Russia and Iran took place.

The following video shows one of the Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian bombers during Operation Spider Web.

In both Russia and Iran, the drones were set up undetected deep in enemy territory during armed conflict against military targets. The plot on the White House, as characterized in the court documents, is of course different on many levels and was to be planned and executed by citizens, not sponsored by another nation at war with its neighbor. At the same time, both presents a host of challenges to defend against, many of which overlap.

Given the presence of the president, his family and thousands of VIP guests on the White House lawn at the time, as well as the event’s extremely high-profile nature, UFC Freedom 250 was “designated a Special Event Assessment Review 1 event, like the Super Bowl, Indianapolis 500, Kentucky Derby and college football games, according to the Department of Homeland Security,” ABC News reported last week.

Security was also tightened at the Ellipse outside the White House, where thousands more watched the event on large screens.

The increased precautions included concern about drones, said Tara McLeese, special agent in charge of the Secret Service’s Washington Field Office.

Federal law prohibits flying drones in the airspace over the National Capital Region, so McLeese advised fans ahead of the event to “leave their drones at home.”

“We will have law enforcement drones for overwatch, but just to make it simple for the public, if they see a drone, we want them to report that,” she said, according to ABC.

The Secret Service declined to talk about its concerns over drone threats, instead pointing us to its post on X.

Protective intelligence cases are on the rise, and our teams work tirelessly behind the scenes to investigate threats, identify those responsible, and ensure accountability. Statement from Director Curran on the events of this past weekend: pic.twitter.com/Oca3QVLg9o

— U.S. Secret Service Office of Communications (@SecretSvcSpox) June 16, 2026

While we don’t know the extent of the counter-drone measures deployed by the FBI, Secret Service or even the military, they certainly included devices to detect and, if needed, jam the signals of threatening drones. However, as the war in Ukraine and Israel’s push into Lebanon have proven, the efficacy of these methods is far from assured. This is especially so since the introduction of drones controlled via fiber optic cables, which mitigate the effects of radio frequency passive detection and active jamming with a direct hardwired link between a drone and its operator.

Meanwhile, as we noted in our story about Trump using the ballroom he is building as a kind of defensive fortification, using traditional kinetic protection from drones and other aerial threats in and around the White House is limited and risky. The advent of interceptor drones, many that are hit-to-kill or use electromagnetic pulses and other low collateral damage means instead of explosive warheads, is starting to mitigate some of those concerns.

From the story about Trump’s ballroom:

“Clearly, the drone issue is a massive one and has been for many years. This structure will serve as a secure place to do daily business if needed. Based on Trump’s comments, it will also act as a critical active defense node with its roof hosting air defenses, and apparently ones that are capable of at least a limited degree of area defense, not just highly-localized point defense. This is where drones could come into play. Drone interceptors (drones that intercept other drones) are well suited for the unique challenges of defending the White House and the Mall area as a whole, where collateral damage is a huge concern. Some of these systems use warheads, while others do not, physically smashing into their targets or blasting them with electrical pulses and other non-traditional effects instead. Drone interceptor capabilities are expanding rapidly now, equipping forward bases and warships. They proved critical in defending U.S. interests against Iranian attacks during the recent war. In Ukraine, they have proven indispensable in countering waves of Russian Shaheds.”

Directed energy, such as lasers and high-power microwave weapons are another potential countermeasure, but these systems remain somewhat in their infancy and have very short range. Above all else, using them in dense urban areas, especially those with nearby low-flying air traffic, can be extremely problematic. They are not widely deployed for the counter drone role in the United States and won’t be in the near term.

It’s also worth remembering that the alleged plan did not necessarily rely on the accuracy of the drones or the damage they could inflict. The goal was to induce panic by their very presence and drive people into a field of fire to be attacked by snipers.

Even if counter-drone measures were able to provide a relatively robust protective bubble over UFC 250 at the White House, the plot as described in the documents further highlights the vulnerability large events have from even the lowliest of drone attack attempts.

The U.S. at the moment is protecting several facilities across the country with huge crowds during the World Cup soccer tournament at a time of heightened global tensions. Countering drone attacks was a central component of pre-event security measures as well as ongoing efforts.

This all comes as the U.S. is working to increase authorities to allow the military and law enforcement to better protect against drone threats.

We were the first to report numerous unauthorized drone flights over U.S. military facilities and other sensitive areas. The defensive capabilities have been constrained by a labyrinth of often confusing legal and regulatory hurdles. Incursions by cartels along the U.S.-Mexico border have sharpened the need for reforms, some of which are underway.

As we reported back in February, in advance of the U.S. hosting the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympic Games, the Trump administration pushed to expand counter-drone authorities. Congress granted that when it passed the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Officials have already taken action against drone operators using these new authorities. Last week, FBI Los Angeles said it seized drones and issued citations to pilots near SoFi Stadium for alleged violations of temporary flight restrictions during last Friday’s World Cup match, The Los Angeles Times reported. The bureau “shared photos showing confiscated drones as well as an image of a drone operator being cited,” the newspaper noted. “However, it did not specify how many drones were taken or how many pilots were issued citations. It also did not provide details on the technology used to locate or track the drone operators.”

The bureau did not say if the operators of these drones had nefarious intent or whether they were armed, though neither of those are prerequisites for violating the no-drone-zone rules.

The FBI’s Counter Drone Enforcement Team has been busy around last night’s #WorldCup game and related events ensuring drone pilots aren’t violating @FAA Temporary Flight Restrictions. But some were, and as promised, they were cited and had their drones seized. Meanwhile,… pic.twitter.com/s0vy75E73E

— FBI Los Angeles (@FBILosAngeles) June 13, 2026

While the actual ability of the alleged perpetrators to pull off the combined drone and sniper attack on the White House like what’s described remains unknown, the threats to the homeland from uncrewed aircraft are only growing by the day, as are nefarious actors’ experience and creativity with the technology.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Well, that just happened.

The president held a cage fight on the White House South Lawn, complete with flyovers, fireworks, mini-skirted “octagon girls” and the surrealistic sight of mixed martial arts fighters striding through historic White House rooms flanked by National Medal of Honor winners.

Despite wide public disapproval for Sunday’s event and much scathing commentary about the political and psychological messaging of Donald Trump’s choice of a Vegas-like spectacle to celebrate his 80th birthday, and the country’s 250th, the sky did not fall, the original Constitution in the nearby National Archives did not tear in two and none of the fighters passed out from the heat or bug bites.

Things didn’t even get bloody until the final match in the fifth hour, when Justin Gaethje kicked and punched the crap out of widely favored Ilia Topuria.

Even so, it was impossible to emerge from watching UFC Freedom 250 without feeling punch-drunk.

Not because of the fighting; because of almost everything that was not the fighting.

Beginning with Paramount+, owned by the Trump-friendly Ellison family’s Paramount Skydance, which recently received Justice Department clearance for its highly controversial acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.

The jarring sight of past UFC matches being seemingly projected onto the Jefferson Memorial and the Capitol gave way to a series of poorly produced “historical” moments in which UFC fighters were cast as inheriting the same “fighting spirit” that motivated this nation’s Founding Fathers, past presidents and war veterans. Down to the inevitable strains of the Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.” (the baffling anthem of MAGA), the event projected a macho-man view of patriotism that was just as ghastly as many feared it would be.

UFC fighters are indeed dedicated and talented athletes who have overcome all manner of personal obstacles. But to compare them with Thomas Jefferson or American soldiers storming the beaches of Normandy is absurd and more than a little insulting.

The tens of thousands of UFC and Trump fans who gathered on the South Lawn and the Ellipse, however, were clearly having a very good time. Proceedings were delayed an hour by the threat of storms, but the weather cooperated in the end. “The President’s Own” United States Marine Band, and in particular, soloist Staff Sgt. Hannah Davis, gave masterful performances throughout. And while the Claw, the 600-ton steel structure arching above the Octagon, certainly looked like the first stage of an alien attack during the day, it put on a pretty terrific (if more than a little Vegasy) light show at night.

For those watching from home, however, these bright spots were glimpsed and heard infrequently, drowned out by the endless hyperbolic intonations of commentators (including Joe Rogan, who initially criticized the event), the long and invariably self-aggrandizing introductions of the various participants and the onslaught of frequently militaristic commercials, more than a few of which, included ads for Ram, featured UFC President and Chief Executive Dana White.

Which isn’t surprising when you think about it. White’s longtime support for the president culminated in his organization covering the event’s $60 million in production costs, and from the moment a smiling White joined Trump as he made his way through the White House to the front row, the event served as an almost-six-hour ad for the UFC.

Though I am not a UFC fan, I realize that showmanship is key to the sport’s wild and increasingly broad popularity. Championship matches, which rarely last longer than 30 minutes and sometimes much less, are inevitably preceded by hours of participants making all manner of florid claims and trash-talking their opponents. (Which may explain Trump’s fondness for the UFC.)

But when all of this strutting, preening and wild-eyed reaction revolves around what was, for better and worse, a series of rules-free brawls being force-fed into a narrative about this country’s enduring strength, what emerges is not so much a sporting event as it is a piece of naked and nationalistic propaganda.

Which came to a head in the final fight. After the six previous matches concluded rather quickly with bloodless knockouts (a UFC record), the fight between American Gaethje and the German-born, Georgia and Spain-representing Topuria lasted much longer. Gaethje, introduced as “the most violent man in the most violent sport,” left the lightweight champion’s face such a mess that even Rogan was shocked.

By all metrics, including Topuria’s refusal to go down, it was the best fight of the night. But hearing the crowd chant “USA, USA” as the bloody blows fell … well, let’s just say it was not everyone’s notion of a presidential birthday celebration.

Some have suggested that Trump staged the event in the hope of regaining the support of young men who helped him win the last election. Even if that was not the case, it was difficult to view UFC Freedom 250 in any way nonpartisan (especially after British former heavyweight champion Tyson Fury strode out of the White House wearing a “Trump for Prime Minister” hat).

Yes, several of the six non-American participants entered to Spanish or Portuguese songs (why so much fuss then about Bad Bunny at the Super Bowl?) but some of the winners are longtime MAGA supporters and made that very clear — Bo Nickal thanked Trump for being the only one “to have the balls” to stage such an event while Josh Hokit followed up his thanks to “my lord and savior Jesus Christ” with “Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?”

Because it was Trump’s birthday after all.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Trump administration appeal and decide if “criminal aliens” may be held indefinitely while they fight deportation.

The case to be heard in the fall could give the administration more power to arrest and hold immigrants, including green card holders, who have criminal records.

The government’s lawyers say immigration laws call for deporting non-citizens with “aggravated felonies” on their records. And in such cases, they say these people may be held for months or even years while their claims are before the immigration courts.

Judges have been split on whether non-citizens fighting deportation have a right to a bond hearing and a chance to go free if they pose no risk to public safety.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled for a pair of green card holders who faced deportation to the Dominican Republic and Jamaica. Both had been convicted of assaults that were characterized as aggravated felonies under the immigration laws.

However, the appeals court said their “prolonged detention” was unconstitutional if they were given no bond hearing and no chance to go free.

They were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, whose lawyers urged the court to turn down the appeal.

“For the first time in this litigation, the government argues that civil detention ‘does not implicate any fundamental rights’ and so the Due Process Clause affords the detained men no protections—substantive or procedural,” they wrote.

In the past, they said the Supreme Court had accepted the “bedrock principle” that detained persons may have a right to seek their release on bond.

One of the two men had left this country and returned to Jamaica, the ACLU lawyers said. But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer urged the court to rule on the issue.

The detained men “have no procedural due-process right to a bond hearing on whether they are a flight risk or danger to the community,” he told the court. “Individualized findings about flight risk and danger are irrelevant” under the immigration laws which called for “mandatory detention based on their aggravated-felony convictions alone.”

WASHINGTON — One by one, the burly mixed martial arts fighters made their entrance past the solemn, hulking marble statue of America’s 16th president and jogged down the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to roars from thousands of fans drawn to the unusual sporting weekend marking the nation’s 250th anniversary and President Trump’s 80th birthday.

The news conference Friday night featured the fighters who are preparing to face off Sunday in the Octagon built outside the White House. But it was also a chance to see the UFC fans who have thronged to Washington and endured lightning, humidity and bugs.

Tracy Philbeck and his son Levi drove from Charlotte, N.C., with a group of friends to support their favorite fighter, American Justin Gaethje, in the upcoming lightweight title bout against Georgian Ilia Topuria.

“You will hear an eagle screaming when Justin Gaethje wins,” the elder Philbeck said with a chuckle.

David Halstead journeyed from Albany, Australia, to watch the sport he has loved for a decade. Halstead said Trump, who regularly attends the fights, “put UFC on the map.”

The UFC has said it spent $60 million on this weekend’s festivities, and the president has billed his birthday fete as “the greatest show on Earth.”

Not everyone agrees.

The Public Integrity Project described the event as a “private, commercial, corrupt use of our most sacred national monuments for private gain” in a lawsuit the watchdog group filed to try to stop it from happening on federal land. A federal judge ruled Friday that the White House was allowed to go ahead.

About 1 in 10 U.S. adults consider themselves mixed martial arts fans, according to Ipsos Sports polling conducted in February and March. That survey suggests MMA fans tend to be male and nonwhite. They are more likely to identify as Republicans than Democrats.

“One misconception is that everyone who watches UFC is a Trump supporter, but that’s not the case,” said Ricardo Rodriguez, 24, explaining that he loves the physicality of the sport. “People also expect a knockout every time.”

Ellie Louizes, who practices Muay Thai, or Thai kickboxing, and jujitsu martial arts, drove from Daytona Beach, Fla., with her boyfriend, Jacob Purvis.

Female fans of MMA are the minority. But Louizes said she knows a lot of women who get into watching the sport through their male partners. She said “female fighters are often way more aggressive” than the men.

Fans brushed off criticism

The fans at the Lincoln Memorial brushed off criticism about the bouts being held at the White House — on federal grounds owned not by its occupant, but by the American people.

Holding fights at the “people’s house,” Tracy Philbeck said, “goes back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt.”

President Theodore Roosevelt regularly held sparring sessions at the White House, though they were not formal, public prizefights. He was an enthusiastic amateur boxer who had boxed at Harvard and continued the sport throughout much of his life.

Boxing fans also make up a large part of the UFC’s fan base.

At a UFC-sponsored community event this week at the District of Columbia’s Midtown Youth Academy, the boxing gym’s executive director was helping out with a visit from UFC fighter Randy Brown, who sparred with more than a dozen local teenagers and preteens.

Gloria Lee said meeting the fighter was a big deal for kids at her gym. “It’s just been a thrilling week, and I was about to fall out when he came in the door!” she said.

Asked about her personal UFC fandom, Lee said she had not watched it much. But by the end of Brown’s visit, she got into the ring with the professional fighter and threw some slugs of her own.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Linley Sanders contributed to this report.

President Trump is known for being combative. And to mark his birthday Sunday, he’s literally picking a fight — actually seven of them. But a legion of opponents are determined to squash the celebration.

Trump has been gearing up for weeks for UFC Freedom 250, a mixed martial arts extravaganza that will turn the historic White House into a one-night fight house. The event designed to simultaneously celebrate his 80th birthday and commemorate America’s 250th anniversary will take place in a massive octagon-shaped structure that has been erected on the South Lawn of the White House.

The invitation-only event is scheduled to stream live on Paramount+, which is owned by David Ellison, one of Trump’s closest allies. UFC fights began streaming on the service earlier this year, with some airing on CBS, one of the first major deals signed under Ellison.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle has called the UFC card “one of the greatest and most historic sports events in history, and President Trump hosting it at the White House is a testament to his vision to celebrate America’s monumental 250th anniversary.”

But the gala is facing fierce legal challenges from activists who say UFC Freedom 250 is a scam flavored by financial and political corruption, accusing Trump and his close friends UFC chief Dana White and Ellison of benefiting financially from the event. Opponents say Trump has purchased stock in UFC’s parent company, TKO Group Holdings, while pointing out that UFC Freedom 250 is happening several weeks before the Fourth of July anniversary.

White House officials have called those allegations baseless and have asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit.

As promo spots showing the combatants in fight mode fill the airwaves, the Public Integrity Project watchdog group has filed a lawsuit trying to derail the event. While the National Park Service is named as one of the defendants in the suit, environmental groups and former park service staff have decried the event.

Dana White, left, and then-President-elect Trump attend a UFC event held at Madison Square Garden in New York City in 2024.

(Sarah Stier / Getty Images)

Though some legal experts have predicted that those efforts may fall short, UFC Freedom 250 marks the latest in a relentless stream of furors shadowing Trump as he faces sharply declining poll numbers and harsh criticism over his economic and domestic policies, as well as his handling of the war with Iran. Here’s what we know about the event and what to expect Sunday.

What is UFC Freedom 250?

The event will take place in a mammoth claw-like outdoor arena that will spotlight the White House in the background. Undisputed lightweight champion Ilia Topuria will face off against current interim lightweight champion Justin Gaethje in the main event, which is billed as a five-round title unification battle.

A six-fight undercard, including a heavyweight interim title bout between Alex Pereira and Ciryl Gane, will precede the main event.

Who is putting on the fight?

White‘s UFC is staging the event. White, who has stressed in interviews that no taxpayer dollars are involved, has said that Trump made the suggestion of a White House event when they were together at a recent UFC fight.

Wouldn’t baseball or basketball be a more appropriate sport to feature in a celebration of America instead of a cage fight?

Perhaps. But Trump is a huge fan of boxing and mixed martial arts. He was flanked by several of the fighters who will be participating in the event when he first announced the bouts at the Oval Office. He gushed as he introduced them individually, calling them warriors: “No people in sports are tougher than these people.”

But Conor Friedersdorf, a staff writer for the Atlantic, put forth a different theory: “On Trump’s 80th birthday, blood sport will be the diversion of choice at the White House because he wants to associate his presidency and himself with the violent domination and humiliation of rivals,” he wrote in a newsletter. “America itself is weaker now on the world stage than it was when Trump began either of his presidencies.”

White has credited the president’s devotion to the sport with propelling it into the cultural mainstream, and he is predicting a record-breaking global audience.

Where can viewers watch the event?

UFC Freedom 250 will stream on Paramount+ as part of a $7.7-billion deal that Ellison struck with TKO Group Holdings, the owner of UFC. The broadcast starts at 5 p.m. Pacific.

Dana White, left, and President Trump attend UFC 327 in Miami in April.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

The event is another apparent maneuver for Ellison to curry favor with Trump as he seeks his support and approval for a $111-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery. Trump has made no secret for his desire for shake up Warner Bros. Discovery-owned CNN, which he regards as a hostile platform.

Will this be a star-studded event?

Don’t expect a New York Knicks-style celebrity row. Although several stars including Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Adam Sandler, Mario Lopez and former star quarterback Tom Brady have reportedly been invited by White, none have indicated that they plan to show up.

White has said that 70,000 fans have registered for free tickets to attend the fan event at the Ellipse near the White House.

Since it’s Trump’s birthday, is UFC Freedom 250 a political event?

“This isn’t politics,” White said recently on ESPN’s “The Pat McAfee Show. “This is about the United States, what this country is about … If you love America, you’re going to love this event. It has nothing to do with politics. We just happen to be on the White House lawn and the president of the United States will be there.”

Why is there opposition to the fights?

The lawsuit filed by the Public Integrity Project contends that UFC Freedom 250 violates federal regulations that prohibit sporting events on federal park lands. Two Virginia activists who are plaintiffs in the suit claim that they “want to uphold the rule of law and protect our nation’s most cherished monuments from corrupt exploitation.”

The suit contends that the plan includes a weigh-in at the Lincoln Memorial and a pre-fight walkout from the Oval Office.

According to the suit, “The president is giving White and his company what none have enjoyed before: unfettered access to the White House and Lincoln Memorial to state a private, for-profit sports event with all of the promotional and branding opportunities that accompany such access.”

Brendan Ballou, chief executive of the Public Integrity Project, said in an interview on MS NOW that the event and advertising is “fundamentally the private profiteering of our national monuments, and that is fundamentally what is violating the law and why we are suing.”

Bellingham missed just 29 minutes of England’s Euro 2024 campaign, starting all seven matches, but his fortunes have changed under Gareth Southgate’s replacement.

The 22-year-old missed two qualifying matches last September because of a shoulder injury but was overlooked for October’s international camp, including a qualifier against Latvia.

He returned to the squad in November but was forced to miss friendlies in March with a persistent hamstring issue.

His relationship with Tuchel has frequently come under scrutiny, with the manager describing Bellingham’s on-field behaviour during last June’s defeat by Senegal as “repulsive” – a remark Tuchel later apologised for.

In November, Tuchel said he would “review” Bellingham’s behaviour following his reaction to being substituted during a qualifier against Albania.

However, he was impressed with Bellingham’s performance in Saturday’s World Cup warm-up match against New Zealand in Tampa, believing he has hit a “sweet spot” heading into the tournament.

Bellingham took the captain’s armband after coming on at half-time in the 1-0 win.

“You can see Jude has for sure the decisiveness and bite,” Tuchel said. “This is his key characteristic, but you can see that he comes from an injury and is full of energy and happy to be back on the pitch.

“He had his break, unfortunately, in a decisive part of the season, the Champions League season and campaign for the championship in Spain, so this was very unfortunate for Real Madrid and for him personally.

“But you can see now that he is actually in a sweet spot. He comes back, he’s fresh, he wants to play and he’s in top shape.”

Zuffa Boxing’s first show in the UK, featuring Chris Billam-Smith, appears set to go ahead on Saturday despite legal action from rival promoter Boxxer.

Former WBO cruiserweight champion Billam-Smith is scheduled to fight Canadian Ryan Rozicki at the Bournemouth International Centre as the headline bout, with fellow Britons Jack Massey and Sam Hickey both on the undercard.

The event is due to be shown on Sky Sports, but promoter Boxxer claims to have contractual rights involving fighters on the bill and says they are appearing without “consent or authorisation”.

BBC Sport understands that Zuffa does not accept the claims by Boxxer and plans to proceed with the event as planned.

“Boxxer can confirm it is seeking urgent injunctive relief against Zuffa Boxing and Sky Sports concerning the promotion and proposed participation of fighters who remain subject to binding contractual obligations to Boxxer,” said a statement from Boxxer.

“Boxxer have ensured that all parties involved are fully aware of the contractual obligations owed to Boxxer by the fighters being promoted for Saturday’s event. Despite this, those fighters continue to be advertised and promoted without Boxxer’s consent.

“As a result of the conduct it has witnessed in recent months, Boxxer has been left with no option but to seek further relief from the English courts.”

Zuffa Boxing, which was founded by UFC president Dana White and backed by Saudi Arabian funding, is looking to rival the sport’s established promoters.

Billam-Smith signed a multi-fight deal with Zuffa Boxing in April after previously being promoted by Ben Shalom’s Boxxer.

Across northeastern Nigeria, former Boko Haram insurgents now move with Nigerian troops into forests they once controlled. They identify footpaths that insurgents use after attacks, point out where improvised explosive devices are most likely buried beneath soft sand roads, and decode habits, voices, and movement patterns invisible to the average soldier. They explain how camps are structured during the rainy season and identify commanders at a distance. Some of these ex-insurgents die in combat fighting the same insurgency they once served.

One of the first such defectors was Abubakar Umar from Bama in Borno State. Soldiers called him Small and say he was presumably in his mid-20s when he died in 2023. Before then, he had fought on the frontlines of multiple operations across Sambisa, Timbuktu, and the Lake Chad basin.

Before surrendering, Small spent years in the insurgency as a Naqeeb, a low-ranking fighter, enabling him to know the terrain intimately. By the time he defected to the Nigerian Army, he already knew which routes disappeared under floodwater during the rains, where insurgents buried weapons before abandoning camps, and how insurgents escaped after raids. He understood the logic behind ambushes because he had once planned and carried out attacks against the same army he would later fight beside.

Others followed a similar path. Among them was Zakariyya from Pulka in Gwoza, another ex-insurgent who later supported military operations across Borno and Yobe. He died in late 2025.

At first, many soldiers distrusted them, especially as some of them had lost close friends and colleagues to Boko Haram attacks. For them, accepting a former insurgent carrying a rifle beside them was never easy. Operation after operation changed the relationship, however. According to military sources familiar with the missions, Small and Zakariyya repeatedly identified patterns that helped troops avoid deadly traps and ambushes. With time, commanders began listening whenever they spoke.

Then came a particular operation deep inside Sambisa in 2023. Small moved ahead of the troops in a way one soldier later described to HumAngle as “fearless, almost reckless,” as though death no longer frightened him, having already crossed too many moral boundaries to fear its arrival. He never returned.

The soldiers who survived that operation spoke about him afterwards with the kind of tone usually reserved for men buried in decorated military uniforms. 

There are many stories like this now scattered across the northeastern region–former insurgents fighting alongside the state. 

From the islands and marshes of Lake Chad to the forests of Zamfara, Sokoto, Kaduna, Niger, Kebbi, and the roads stretching toward Kwara, Nigeria is confronting a conflict system that has changed shape. In response, security forces are increasingly turning toward defectors.

The unseen war

For years, the Nigerian state has made progress against the Boko Haram war. When villages like Bama and Gwoza fell to the terror group, the military reclaimed them very quickly. They have also killed commanders over time, while still exploring non-kinetic approaches that made it possible for insurgents to surrender. Through this approach, defections occurred at an unprecedented rate. 

Boko Haram fractured internally as ISWAP consolidated its presence in parts of the Lake Chad Basin. Many did not want to remain in the Lake Chad theatre, but they also did not trust a formal surrender to Nigerian authorities, so some of them moved to other parts of Nigeria.

HumAngle has tracked the movement of former Boko Haram elements to the North West region and parts of central Nigeria as far back as 2020. Some joined criminal armed groups, others became trainers, bomb makers, couriers, informants, guards, or logistics brokers. Others disappeared into cities following the death of Abubakar Shekau and clashes between factions within the group.

In Kano and several urban areas, defectors and affiliates blended into urban life. Some became labourers, mechanics, phone repairers, commercial drivers, or petty traders. Some drifted into robbery and informal criminal economies, while others married and completely concealed their past.

This creates a difficult security dilemma for many reasons. How does a state track men who have left the insurgency but not entered any formal process? How does it distinguish between a deserter seeking anonymity and one rebuilding operational networks elsewhere? How does it protect communities without criminalising everyone who once lived under insurgent rule?

Nigeria has not answered those questions through a coherent national framework. Instead, it improvises.

The intelligence war nobody sees

When HumAngle spoke with soldiers and intelligence officers who served in the North East, their language was different. They do not romanticise former Boko Haram insurgents nor do they describe them as heroes, but they call them assets.

Before defectors became operationally useful, troops often entered unfamiliar terrain with insufficient intelligence from local hunters, the civilian joint task force, and satellite imagery. Equipment like drones and maps was useful but had limitations, as it could not predict movement patterns or likely landmines. Former insurgents helped dismantle part of that advantage. According to several defectors interviewed for this report, many military successes now depend partly on information provided by them.

“Whenever soldiers go for operations,” one explained, “some of us move ahead because we know the roads, the bushes, and where bombs are planted. We tell them which road not to use.”

Another former insurgent described how they identified hidden weapon caches and camp positions.

“Some of us know where weapons were kept. So when operations happen, we guide soldiers directly to those places.”

They also described helping troops understand insurgent movement patterns after attacks.

“When fighters escape,” one said, “we know the routes they use because we ourselves used those routes before.” The source added, “We advised soldiers to evacuate the women and children left behind by fighters to Maiduguri, which encouraged a lot of the fighters to defect from the group easily at a later date.”

The moral fracture

For victims, however, these battlefield contributions rarely erase memory. A widow whose husband was executed does not easily accept that the man who once terrorised her community now works alongside soldiers. A farmer whose village was burned does not find emotional comfort in hearing that a former insurgent helped identify buried bombs. A displaced family living with hunger in an abandoned resettled community does not easily understand why former insurgents appear to receive rehabilitation support while survivors struggle alone.

That anger has become one of the deepest unresolved tensions inside Nigeria’s reintegration strategy. Many affected communities perceive former insurgents as receiving privileges unavailable to victims. Some surrendered members received food support, accommodation, vocational training, phones, stipends, or reintegration assistance. Meanwhile, many survivors still live with displacement, trauma, hunger, unemployment, grief, and insecurity.

One former insurgent described how resentment intensified after communities observed rehabilitated insurgents riding motorcycles, carrying weapons alongside soldiers, wearing jeans and clean clothes, and moving relatively freely.

“What happened was mostly hatred and resentment,” he said. “People saw the boys looking comfortable and became angry.”

Kabiru Adamu, the Managing Director of Beacon Consulting, comments on this imbalance. “When we look at this from a transitional justice perspective,” he said, “the current imbalance is a significant vulnerability.”

According to him, communities may interpret reintegration programmes as rewarding violence while neglecting victims.

“If the state appears to reward insurgency while neglecting victims, it breeds a deep sense of injustice. Unaddressed grievances are the primary fuel for cyclical violence.”

Former insurgents speak

The former insurgents interviewed by HumAngle described themselves not as forgiven men, but as useful men. “There are those who go to war,” one former fighter said, “And there are informants.” He explained that some maintain communication with active insurgents and relay intelligence to security agencies.

“If attacks are being planned, information is passed quickly to intelligence officers so security can be strengthened.”

Others described identifying civilians secretly supplying insurgents with food, fuel, or information. “There are people in town transporting petrol, food, and information,” one explained. “Those who surrendered know many of them because they worked together before.”

According to the former insurgents, these intelligence networks disrupted insurgent logistics and prevented attacks. Some defectors also described participating directly in combat operations.

“They gave some of us motorcycles and guns,” one said. “Sometimes, operations happen without soldiers even accompanying us.”

Another described units led by surrendered insurgents moving independently through forests to intercept attacks or recover weapons.

“Some commanders are given twenty or thirty motorcycles and sent to carry out patrols,” he said. “They stop attacks and return with captured weapons… Nearly 40 per cent of ground troops’ successes achieved in the past three years in this war come from the contribution of surrendered fighters.”

HumAngle cannot independently verify this claim. Still, several military and intelligence sources who spoke to HumAngle on the condition of anonymity admit that defectors remain useful in operations. What is less clear is whether relying on them will be safe or sustainable in the long run.

Security expert Kabiru Adamu described former insurgents as “force multipliers” rather than the decisive force behind military gains. According to him, conventional military operations, air power, and the Civilian Joint Task Force remain central to weakening insurgent networks.

“Ex-fighters provide precision,” he explained. However, he warned that the strategic dangers remain severe. “The risks include infiltration, double agents, human rights concerns, institutional degradation, and loss of civilian trust.”

The risk of dependence also concerns some analysts and security officials. If military units become too reliant on defectors for intelligence, what happens when defectors lie, or when personal grudges shape accusations, or when former insurgents return to active criminal networks or, as in some cases, return to Boko Haram carrying sensitive operational knowledge? What happens when military institutions fail to build independent intelligence systems because surrendered insurgents appear easier to use?

The northwestern region is quite different from the North East. Boko Haram and ISWAP emerged through ideological insurgency structures combining theology, coercion, governance, taxation, and violence. In contrast, the armed groups in the northwestern region emerged differently, engaging in criminal activities such as cattle rustling, communal conflict, illegal mining, vigilante reprisals, extortion, kidnapping, and governance collapse.

Yet over time, the distinction blurred. Armed groups across Zamfara, Sokoto, Katsina, Kaduna, Niger, and Kebbi increasingly adopted tactics associated with insurgent warfare: IEDs, ambushes, and rural territories being subject to armed taxation systems.

Abubakar Abdullahi, a journalist who has reported extensively from Zamfara, said Boko Haram-linked elements have become increasingly visible inside parts of the northwestern region.

“In areas such as Dutsin Maiqardaji mountain,” he said, “Boko Haram members have a heavy presence. Both Lakurawa and Boko Haram terrorists preach to residents they keep under siege in ungoverned spaces. Ongoing armed operations in the North East pave the way for fighters to find Zamfara as a haven,” he explained.

Therefore, the state’s decision to use surrendered insurgents in counterinsurgency operations across parts of the northwest follows a grim internal logic.

Trauma beneath the surface

The psychological burden of the insurgency now stretches across an entire generation. In Maiduguri, Monguno, Bama, Dikwa, Gwoza, Damboa, Pulka, Banki, and dozens of smaller communities scattered across Borno and the wider Lake Chad region, trauma shows up in ordinary routines. Some people report waking suddenly at night whenever motorcycles pass too quickly outside their compounds. Parents instinctively gather children indoors whenever rumours of attacks on nearby roads spread. Men who once farmed freely now calculate distance from military formations before deciding whether land is safe enough to cultivate.

For many survivors, peace itself feels temporary.

Kauna Malgwi, a clinical psychologist directly affected by the insurgency during its early years, described northeastern Nigeria as a society living in a prolonged psychological survival mode.

“Prolonged violence keeps societies in chronic hypervigilance,” she explained. “People shift from acute stress into collective survival mode. Nervous systems remain activated for years. Unresolved trauma normalises fear, weakens communities, and erodes cohesion. Ongoing violence keeps trauma active and prevents healing.”

The effects appear everywhere: overcrowded displacement settlements, classrooms where children struggle to concentrate because conflict has interrupted the normal architecture of childhood, families where fathers withdraw emotionally after years of violence, and young men who have grown up around guns, funerals, military convoys, and uncertainty.

“Children in chronic conflict develop emotional, learning, and behavioural problems that, if unaddressed, persist into adulthood and become the generational norm,” Malgwi warned

She listed the consequences as cycles of violence, emotional detachment, chronic anxiety, educational disruption, social mistrust, difficulty forming secure relationships, and increased vulnerability to recruitment by armed groups.

“If trauma among children is ignored,” she warned, “national stability itself is at risk. Peacebuilding that ignores collective healing produces fragile and temporary peace. When victims feel forgotten as ex-fighters are supported, trauma deepens and trust in institutions erodes. Forgiveness must not be forced. Communities require safety and acknowledgement before reconciliation.”

According to her, communities need public acknowledgement of suffering before reintegration can become emotionally sustainable.

“Victim-centred support systems are essential. Communities need visible justice, visible care, and transparent communication before trust can begin to recover.”

She also warned about the development of emotional desensitisation among conflict-affected populations.

“Without support, grief becomes anger or despair,” she explained. “Violence itself can become normalised.”

Many young people in northeastern Nigeria have never experienced sustained normalcy. They grew up hearing stories about massacres the way previous generations heard folktales. They learned directions through checkpoints and geography through displacement.

Kauna Malgwi believes recovery in such environments cannot depend solely on psychiatrists or formal hospitals because the scale of trauma is too large.

“Community healing includes training community health workers in psychosocial support, group therapy, trauma-informed schools, faith-based healing spaces, and safe storytelling forums,” she explained, stressing the importance of collectively restoring dignity. “The goal is not only treatment. The goal is restoring function, trust, and resilience across society.”

For many survivors, however, the war never became a discussion about tactical adaptation. It remained personal. A missing daughter. A burned house. A father was executed beside a road. A child was buried after an explosion and nights of screaming.

A life divided permanently into before and after.

The state’s impossible calculation

For Kabiru Adamu, the question is not whether the state should use former insurgents operationally. The deeper issue is whether Nigeria can do so without weakening its own legitimacy. He described the current approach as a fragile balancing act between military necessity, transitional justice, and social stability.

“The Nigerian military faces a highly asymmetric threat,” he said. “Using former fighters offers distinct immediate operational advantages because these individuals possess granular, real-time intelligence. They know Sambisa Forest, the Mandara Mountains, the Lake Chad islands, and the internal communication structures of factions like JAS and ISWAP.”

Still, he repeatedly returned to the dangers. “The strategic risks are severe and multifaceted.” The operational usefulness of former insurgents can serve as an excuse to abandon accountability. “There must be transparent triage,” he argued. “Low-level associates and coerced participants cannot be treated the same way as high-level perpetrators. Most residents of Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe reject blanket amnesty for commanders associated with mass atrocities.”

For Adamu, reintegration without visible justice creates long-term instability.

“If communities feel abandoned by the state in favour of their attackers, it erodes the social contract. It opens the possibility of vigilantism or future militant mobilisation driven by resentment. Demobilisation is not simply a military process,” he said. “Reintegration is generational and should remain civilian-led.”

He pointed to global examples from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Colombia as warnings.

“When stipends dry up without sustainable livelihoods, ex-combatants often return to criminal economies.”

According to him, Nigeria risks repeating similar mistakes unless rehabilitation becomes economically viable. “Cash support alone is not enough. Long-term reintegration requires market-driven livelihoods and ongoing monitoring.”

He also warned against grouping defectors into separate armed formations.

“Never create isolated paramilitary monopolies from ex-combatants,” he said. “If they are used operationally, strict oversight and accountability systems are essential.”

Perhaps most importantly, he insisted that reintegration cannot survive politically unless victims see equal investment in their own recovery.

“For every dollar spent on DDR,” he argued, “an equal or greater amount should be visibly invested in victims and receiving communities.”

Without that balance, he believes the state risks winning short-term tactical gains while deepening long-term social fractures.

The soldiers and the boys

One of the strangest transformations inside this war is the relationship between soldiers and former insurgents. Many soldiers lost friends to insurgent attacks, some carry visible scars, and others carry memories they rarely discuss. Meanwhile, former insurgents themselves live in a state of permanent ambiguity. They are neither fully accepted civilians nor recognised soldiers. They exist inside a grey zone.

According to the former insurgents HumAngle spoke to, several surrendered members deployed to Zamfara and other northwestern states were killed during operations against armed groups.

“In this war,” one said, “many of those helping the government have lost their lives. Some died fighting people they once called brothers.”

A Nigerian soldier told HumAngle he never imagined he would one day fight alongside former Boko Haram members.

“I thought the only relationship I would ever have with these bastards was to kill them or be killed,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he’s not permitted to speak to journalists on this matter

Now deployed with some of the defectors against their former comrades, the soldier said the experience has reshaped parts of his perception over time. Some of the former insurgents have proven useful in combat operations, particularly because of their familiarity with insurgent tactics and terrain.

“They have been very helpful since we started working with them. They are constantly watched and supervised, but the contributions of some of them have been priceless,” said the staff sergeant.

What a serious framework would require

Nigeria does not need to pretend former insurgents are useless. Evidence from the field suggests they have helped disrupt attacks, expose explosives, identify camps, trace logistics, and support military operations. At the same time, experts say the state cannot continue to manage reintegration through improvisation and silence. A credible framework would require clear categories that separate coerced associates from high-level perpetrators. It would require transparent accountability systems. Victims would receive compensation, trauma support, livelihood recovery, education, and public acknowledgement.

The northwest would be treated as its own conflict system requiring tailored responses rather than simple transplantation of northeastern models.

Repentant volunteers

The former insurgents interviewed for this report did not seem to want public sympathy. Most acknowledged that many Nigerians would always see them as part of the violence they once took part in. Yet, beneath their answers was a recurring theme. They insisted they no longer recognised the movement they had joined years earlier.

Abu Muhsin, now 38, said he entered Boko Haram as a teenager after preachers repeatedly visited his village.

“I joined them when I was around 16 years old,” he said. “They used to come and preach in our village, near Damasak. I got convinced, and I joined them.”

Over time, he rose within the movement and eventually became a Naqeeb, a field commander operating around the Lake Chad region. But years inside the insurgency changed his view of the organisation.

“We saw that the group was not following the rules of Islam,” he said. “They kill people and loot their properties. We started communicating with those who surrendered before us. They directed us and later escaped from the bush with some of our families.”

After surrendering, Abu Muhsin said he volunteered to support military operations because former insurgents understood terrain and insurgent movement patterns better than most troops.

“No one forced us to volunteer,” he said. “We just felt we should assist the military since we know the bush better than they do.”

For that assistance, he said, volunteers receive irregular payments. “They give us some allowance. They pay us ₦100,000, sometimes ₦50,000 or ₦30,000.”

Another former insurgent, Ibn Mus’ab, traced his recruitment to family influence. “My cousins were already members and used to visit us,” said the 35-year-old former fighter from Wulgo in Gamboru Ngala. “They used to preach their doctrines to us. Later, they convinced me, and I followed them to the bush.” That was in 2014. 

Inside the insurgency, Ibn Mus’ab became Amirul’Uddah, responsible for weapons management. Like several defectors interviewed for this report, he framed his disillusionment in religious terms.

“I left them because some of their activities are becoming un-Islamic,” he said. “They kill people unnecessarily. They kill someone for taking drugs, which is not so in Sharia.”

His departure from Boko Haram was shaped partly by internal persecution. He said he was accused of an offence and that members of the group declared him wanted. “I escaped to Giedam, not even knowing that the military was accepting people who surrendered,” he recalled. “I was later told I could submit myself, and I surrendered to them.”

He escaped alone, and his family joined him later. Asked why he now assists the military against former comrades, he answered without hesitation.

“I decided to assist because those people are no longer following the Sharia accordingly. There are many of us who are ready to assist, and a lot are doing well.”

Like others, he described financial incentives as modest and inconsistent.

“The usual pay is ₦100,000, sometimes ₦50,000,” he said. “If they can pay more than this, many more would be willing to volunteer.”

Abu Faruq’s story begins differently. Unlike some defectors who joined as adults through ideological persuasion, he said he was absorbed into the movement as a child during Boko Haram’s expansion across Gwoza.

“They took me when I was a kid,” the 35-year-old said. “It was in Gwoza when they were preaching. I grew up in their place and got married.”

He said he became part of the Rijaal, the fighting cadre within the insurgency structure.

Years later, he concluded that the movement no longer reflected the religious principles it claimed to defend. “I left them because they were not practising what the Qur’an and Hadith say about Sharia,” he explained. “They kill innocent people, they loot and destroy people’s properties.”

According to him, communication with earlier defectors again played a critical role in encouraging surrender. “Some of our friends have earlier surrendered, and they told us how they were received warmly,” he said. “They directed us on the phone on how we could come out and meet the military.”

After leaving the bush, Abu Faruq eventually joined operations supporting Nigerian troops, including deployments far beyond the northeast. “Yes, I did,” he said when asked whether he travelled with soldiers to the northwest. “They selected some of us to assist them in Zamfara and Sokoto.”

According to him, defectors participated in operations across multiple villages affected by armed groups. “They first took us to Sokoto, and from there we went to many villages in both Sokoto and Zamfara for operations.”

He said he remained there for about two months. For that deployment, he received what he described as ranger allowances. ‘They pay us ₦100,000 per month as rangers.”

These stories show men trying to find a new place for themselves in a war that has already taken over much of their lives. But none of their reasons answers the deeper moral question about Nigeria’s use of former insurgents.

California’s decision to redraw its congressional map to flip as many as five House seats to Democrats in November is poised to play a big and potentially decisive role in the nation’s broader, bare-knuckle fight for control of Congress.

Tuesday’s primary races — where the top two candidates will advance to November runoffs — won’t determine which Republicans are ousted in most cases, but they will provide an important first look at voter sentiment and bring the fall’s most crucial head-to-head contests into focus.

“There will be some real cues and signals about what to expect,” said Christian Grose, a redistricting scholar and political science professor at USC. “We’re going to know how strong the Democrats’ chances are going to be based on who advances.”

As one example, Grose pointed to the redrawn 22nd Congressional District in the Central Valley, where incumbent Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) is facing challenges from moderate Assemblymember Jasmeet Kaur Bains (D-Delano) and progressive college professor Randy Villegas.

Grose said Bains is probably a stronger challenger than Villegas in a district that’s still a reach for Democrats — even if “either one could probably beat Valadao if 2026 is a big Democratic wave.”

Grose will also be closely watching the race between incumbent Reps. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills) and Ken Calvert (R-Corona) in the redrawn Congressional District 40, which covers a swath of inland Orange County and portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, including parts of Kim’s and Calvert’s current districts.

The district race wasn’t designed to deliver Democrats a seat, but will produce “one of the first casualties for Republicans from the new map” — months before other expected ousters — if Kim and Calvert don’t both advance.

The national picture

The redistricting war was prompted by President Trump’s unprecedented pressuring of Republican-controlled states to redraw their maps mid-decade for partisan advantage in order to retain control of Congress, given his sinking approval ratings and a history of midterm voters punishing the president’s party.

After Texas Republicans heeded Trump’s call to redraw five districts in their party’s favor, California Democrats responded with Proposition 50, a ballot measure passed by voters in November to sideline the state’s independent redistricting committee and allow Democrats to redraw five congressional districts in their favor.

The war ratcheted up — with more Republican states suddenly considering map changes — after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that weakened the 1965 Voting Rights Act and its long-standing protections for majority-Black districts in the South.

Republicans have now acted to redraw congressional maps in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee, with varying degrees of success, while a battle in Utah could add a single additional Democratic seat there. Attempts in other states have failed, including by the GOP in South Carolina and Democrats in Virginia.

Experts say the net result from the flurry of redistricting will probably be a gain of a handful or more seats for Republicans — but in a year when Democrats are expected to make gains more broadly, leaving control of the House up for grabs. California’s new map is “a huge deal” precisely because that math is so close, said David Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for the independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

“Democrats are modest favorites for House control based on the political environment, but also because of California,” Wasserman said in an interview with The Times. “Picking up these four or five seats is a prerequisite to Democrats getting the majority.”

California seats in play

California has 52 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, by far the most of any state. With their new map, California Democrats are hoping to increase their 43 House seats to 48. That would leave just four seats represented by members of the GOP despite Republicans accounting for a quarter of the state electorate.

But that outcome isn’t guaranteed.

Paul Mitchell, a Democratic redistricting expert who devised California’s new map, said the reconfigured congressional districts had to create a pathway for new Democrats to win additional seats without undermining incumbent Democrats’ reelection. And the result is a map with three pretty safe pickups for Democrats, and two districts that are “100% on the table, ready for Democrats to win,” but will nonetheless “require shoe-leather and grit.”

The redrawn congressional district boundaries enacted by Proposition 50 promise to shake up at least three seats, experts said.

Congressional District 1: Held by the late Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) for 13 years until his death in January, the district is currently rural and conservative, stretching from the Sacramento outskirts through Redding to the Oregon border and California’s northeastern corner. Under the state’s new congressional district map, it loses some of its rural reaches and picks up liberal coastal communities, and favors a Democrat such as state Sen. Mike McGuire, who is one of the leading candidates.

Congressional District 3: The seat is currently held by Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-Rocklin) and stretches from the Sacramento suburbs through Lake Tahoe and south along the Nevada border. Under the new map, it holds more tightly to the Sacramento suburbs, favoring a Democrat.

The changes were enough to convince an incumbent Democrat, Rep. Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove), to leave his current district — Congressional District 6, which includes the city of Sacramento and the suburbs of Roseville and Rocklin in Placer County — and run in District 3 instead.

Meanwhile, Kiley did the reverse. He quit the Republican Party, became an independent and announced he would be leaving District 3 and running instead in District 6 — the one Bera is leaving — against a slate of new Democratic challengers.

Congressional District 41. The seat is now held by Calvert, a 17-term incumbent, and currently stretches from Corona to the Coachella Valley. The new map made the district more liberal, losing voters in Riverside County and gaining them in Los Angeles County, and Calvert decided to run instead in Kim’s redrawn but still Republican-leaning Congressional District 40 that is just to the west.

The two toughest flips for Democrats, experts said, are Congressional District 22, Valadao’s heavily Latino district in the Central Valley, followed by Congressional District 48 in San Diego and Riverside counties, where Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) decided to retire rather than run for reelection.

Valadao is viewed as especially vulnerable because of his recent support for Medicaid cuts, but he has proved resilient in the past. Meanwhile, his two leading Democratic challengers, Bains and Villegas, are in a bitter fight, with Bains receiving Democratic establishment support and Villegas winning endorsements from prominent progressives.

In Issa’s district, moderate Republican San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond is running against several infighting Democrats, including San Diego Councilwoman Marni von Wilpert and former Obama labor official Ammar Campa-Najjar.

Not new, or over

Jeff Wice, a New York Law School professor who was involved in California redistricting efforts in 2010, said the state “has long played hardball politics on redistricting,” including when then-Rep. Phil Burton, a powerful San Francisco Democrat, bragged more than 40 years ago that the complex congressional boundaries he’d crafted for Democrats were his “contribution to modern art.”

But in five decades studying redistricting, Wice said he has never seen such “politically driven, partisan politics” as are occurring now across the nation, which he said have “no root in law, reason or fairness” — and are only likely to continue.

“This state-by-state war is far from over, and may continue all the way through 2030,” he said. “A lot of it depends on the outcome of this November’s election.”

Wasserman said the country has “entered an era of no-holds-barred redistricting,” and he also sees redistricting efforts continuing — including in California, where they would present a distinct threat to the state’s few remaining Republicans.

Michael Li, senior counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, said California is a “big part of the story” this election cycle, thanks to Proposition 50. “Democrats in California proved to be very determined and resourceful and managed to get that done, and right now California is the big offset to Republican gerrymandering around the country,” he said.

But what will come of it all — in California and across the country — is still to be determined.

“When you’re gerrymandering, you’re making a bet that you know what the politics of the future will look like, and it’s hard to predict,” he said. “It’s a high-risk, high-reward venture.”

FOSTER Sylvers, child star and member of a family R&B group, has tragically died.

The standout singer from the 1970s ensemble was just 64 years old.

His brother, Leon Sylvers III, confirmed his death following a battle with stage 4 pancreatic cancer, TMZ reported.

The star died in hospice.

Leon said further updates would come from their sister, Pat Sylvers.

Following the announcement of his death, Foster’s daughter Erin posted a touching tribute to social media.

TV TRAGEDY

Alaskan Bush People’s Matt Brown dead at 43 after brother pulled body from river

STAR GONE

Brit drummer legend who played with Elton John and David Bowie dead at 89

“Rest well, Daddy,” she wrote.

“I love you so much.”

Her heartbreaking post to Facebook was accompanied by a photograph of the pair together.

Foster rose to fame during the 1970s when he performed alongside his family in their band The Sylvers.

The group had a string of hits including Fool’s Paradise, Boogie Fever and Hot Line.

Foster performed with his siblings James, Edmund, Ricky and Angie.

And he played the bass and supported artists including Dynasty and Evelyn “Champaign” King, as well as releasing solo music.

His brother Edmund died in 2004 from lung cancer.

Their other brother Christopher – who was their youngest sibling – died in 1985 when he was just 18 years old from hepatitis.

The remaining Sylvers siblings are Olympia, Leon, Charmaine and James.

They formed the original quartet known as Little Angels, alongside Joseph, Ricky, Angie and Pat.

Over their careers, the group of siblings released 10 albums, all issued during the 1970s, and were regularly compared to the Jackson family.

Foster was just 10 years old when he recorded his first solo project in 1973.

Due to his considerable popularity, he went on to appear on multiple television programmes, including American Bandstand and Soul Train.

Geopolitical analyst Joe Macaron says the Lebanese army is ‘overly stretched’ as Israeli troops expand their occupation of Lebanese territory. The Israeli army has pushed north of Lebanon’s Litani River and appears poised to encircle the major city of Nabatieh.

A woman has lost a court battle after she claimed that “water is a natural resource and a universal human right” having been refused a glass of tap water by the Hotel Sassongher in Corvara

A hotel has won a legal fight with a tourist who asked for a glass of water.

In the UK, the right to ask for a glass of water from certain establishments is enshrined in the law. Restaurants that serve alcohol are legally required to provide free tap water to paying customers, although they may charge for the glass or service.

The same cannot be said for other countries.

In Italy, the land’s highest court has just ruled that a five-star Dolomites hotel acted lawfully when it refused to provide tap water to a tourist.

Way back in 2019, the woman, from Rome, asked for a glass of H2O, only to be told that she couldn’t have one and that she’d have to make do with a £6 bottle of mineral water instead.

What followed was a legal fight that has run on until this week. Eventually settled in the Italian Supreme Court, the tourist claimed that “water is a natural resource and a universal human right”.

However, such arguments failed, with the five-star Hotel Sassongher in Corvara eventually victorious and the tourist’s request for £2,300 in compensation for emotional distress and economic damage dismissed.

Silvio Belardi, the lawyer representing the hotel, told the Corriere Alto Adige newspaper that the court held that “there is no obligation to supply tap water”.

According to the lawyer, the case had been rejected first by a court in Rome, then by an appeals court and now the Court of Cassation.

The Roman had argued that her consumer rights had been violated. She compared the denial of tap water to a hotel not putting sheets on a bed or soap in the bathroom.

“The woman claimed she had suffered damage, including financial and moral harm. This was rejected for lack of evidence,” Mr Belardi told the BBC.

Supreme Court judges dismissed her claim, eventually ruling that Italian laws and regulations do not require venues to provide tap water to guests. It is up to individual establishments whether they decide to do so.

“We also argued that if a person wanted running water, they could easily get that in the hotel – just not at the restaurant,” the lawyer added

European countries where free tap water is legally required

France: Requires restaurants to provide a carafe of water with every meal at no extra charge.

Spain: Passed a law in 2022 requiring bars and restaurants to offer unpackaged drinking water for free.

Lithuania: Restaurants must give guests tap water if they ask for it.

What about the EYU as a whole?

The EU as a whole has passed no laws requiring establishments to provide free tap water, although that could change soon. The EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, approved by the EU Council, encourages member states to ensure restaurants, bars, cafés, and catering services provide tap water for free or for a minimal service fee, with rules set to take effect in August this year.

Tyson Fury returns to the ring after his defeat by Oleksandr Usyk as he prepares for a rematch with Anthony Joshua.

Tyson Fury says he plans to return to the ring in Dublin on August 1, one week after fellow former world heavyweight champion Anthony Joshua makes his comeback.

The pair are heading for a long-awaited “Battle of Britain”, probably in November, although it appears that both boxers will first have a warm-up fight.

Joshua will face unheralded Albanian Kristian Prenga in Riyadh on July 25 in his first bout since being involved in a car crash in Nigeria in December that killed two of his close friends.

Fury posted a video in an Instagram story showing him back in training in Thailand alongside the caption: “Let’s go August 1, Dublin, Ireland.”

The fight could take a place on a card being put together by veteran promoter Frank Warren in Dublin on that date.

No opponent has been named although Warren has ruled out Fury fighting Andy Ruiz Jr, who dethroned Joshua as world champion in 2019 before losing the rematch later that year.

Fury marked his return from a 16-month retirement with a dominant points win over Russia’s Arslanbek Makhmudov in April, after which he immediately called out Joshua, who was present at ringside.

Rather than face off at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, a verbal exchange followed in which Joshua taunted Fury by declaring: “I’m the landlord. Remember that. You work for me.”

Joshua’s promoter Eddie Hearn has since stated: “Signed, sealed, delivered! AJ v Fury is on.”

SACRAMENTO — The state’s biggest energy utility has made the unusual move to attack candidate Tom Steyer in the California governor’s race.

State campaign filings show that Pacific Gas & Electric has plowed at least $13.5 million into efforts to oppose Steyer. Other major utilities in the state have also donated to another committee backing the anti-Steyer effort.

Steyer, a billionaire and former hedge fund founder who became a high-profile environmental advocate, accuses the big three California utility companies — PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison — of “raking in” record profits at the expense of their customers. He blames the utilities for high consumer bills and causing deadly wildfires with their faulty utility equipment.

Though other candidates in the race are also criticizing the utilities, Steyer is the most aggressive.

“Big energy companies really piss me off,” Steyer said in one of his own campaign ads earlier this year.

In another attack, Steyer called PG&E less of an electric company and more of a “sophisticated Sacramento lobbying and influence operation that also happens to sell electricity. California needs a governor who will stand up to these monopolies, hold them accountable, and break them up.”

Lynsey Paulo, a spokesperson for PG&E, declined to answer questions about the utility’s spending, referring The Times to the committee running anti-Steyer ads.

“Tom Steyer has spent over $200 million trying to buy the Governor’s office,” the committee said in a statement.

Steyer, a Democrat who is relying on his vast fortune in the race, is seeking to advance past the June 2 primary to the November general election. Recent polls put him behind Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, and onetime Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.

The utility-funded advertisements against Steyer don’t mention his position on energy policies, focusing instead on his onetime hedge fund’s investments in coal and for-profit detention centers. One ad compares him to President Trump.

“When Steyer sells himself as a different kind of billionaire, tell him where to stick it,” a voiceover says.

Another advertisement from the anti-Steyer group California is Not for Sale highlights its support for Becerra. The California Assn. of Realtors and the California Building Industry Assn. are also supporting the group.

Steyer’s campaign last week embraced the spending from PG&E and others.

“When you’re opposed by the people responsible for devastating wildfires and outrageous rate hikes, you’re doing something right,” Steyer spokesperson Sepi Esfahlani said.

Steyer has used his criticism of the California utilities and the oil industry as a shield against attacks that he made billions of dollars from fossil fuels when he ran his hedge fund, and to elevate himself as an advocate for working-class Californians.

When Democratic rival Katie Porter ripped into Steyer at a recent debate for using his riches to support his gubernatorial campaign, Steyer pointed to the attacks by PG&E and others as evidence that he’ll take on Sacramento’s powerful special interests.

“There is one person that the corporations are going after, including Big Oil, who is spending millions of dollars to stop me,” Steyer responded during the April debate at Pomona College in Claremont.

“The electric monopolies, PG&E, millions of dollars to stop me, because I’m the person on this stage who’s the change agent,” he said. “I’m the person who’s going to drive down costs for the people of California by taking on the special interests.”

PG&E CEO Patti Poppe and Steyer lauded one another in social media posts after appearing together at various conferences last year, the California Post reported.

“Loved sitting down to talk the future of energy with Tom Steyer at the Galvanize Solutions Summit,” Poppe wrote on LinkedIn in December. Steyer co-founded Galvanize, an asset management firm.

The California Chamber of Commerce’s political action committee this year collected at least $2 million each from PG&E, Sempra — the parent company of SoCalGas and San Diego Gas & Electric — and Edison. The chamber’s committee in turn has donated $9.75 million toward the anti-Steyer committee.

John Myers, a representative for the Chamber of Commerce, said the committee’s leadership, not donors, make spending decisions.

California electric rates are the nation’s second highest after Hawaii, contributing to the state’s high cost of living — one of the biggest concerns of voters.

PG&E serves Northern and Central California, while Southern California Edison is available in Central, coastal and Southern California. San Diego Gas & Electric services Southern California.

The California Public Utilities Commission sets the rate of return that the companies can make. Steyer has argued that “perverse” structure allows utilities to disregard cheaper cost-effective solutions in favor of more expensive options, such as undergrounding power lines.

Despite Steyer’s talk of “breaking up” utilities, he doesn’t propose dismantling them. Instead, he vows to put reform-focused appointees on the regulatory agency and reduce utility rates. He also wants more battery storage for renewal energy, as well as additional rooftop and community solar.

The three utilities recently opposed a bill to require that wildfire safety spending by Southern California Edison, PG&E and San Diego Gas & Electric be audited by an independent accounting firm.

The bill by Assemblywoman Tasha Boerner, an Encinitas Democrat, stalled out earlier this month. It would have required the state’s regulatory agency to consider the audits’ findings before agreeing to raise customer rates to cover even more wildfire prevention spending.

Audits of the three companies’ wildfire spending from 2019 to 2020 found that $2.5 billion could not be accounted for.

Matt Abularach-Macias, political director of Environmental Voters, said the utilities probably consider Steyer as a threat to their business. The companies plan infrastructure projects five or 10 years ahead and don’t want disruptions, he said.

Environmental Voters has endorsed Steyer and former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter. The group’s educational arm received a $500,000 donation from a Steyer-backed entity in 2013.

Leah Stokes, associate professor of political science at UC Santa Barbara, called PG&E’s outlay in the governor’s race part of a “corrupt system.”

“These are monopoly companies, you can’t choose to buy from anybody else,” Stokes said. “They take your money, turn it into profits because they are poorly regulated, and then undermine political candidates who would actually hold them accountable.”

Stokes has publicly endorsed Steyer.

A spokesperson for Southern California Edison said the company funds its political contributions from “shareholder dollars.”

“No customer dollars, or any part of the rates paid by Southern California Edison customers, are used to support political candidates,” he said.

Times staff writer Melody Petersen contributed to this report.

Oleksandr Usyk defends his WBC world title against Rico Verhoeven on Saturday in Egypt.

The fight is unusual in location as in nature, with kickboxing world champion Verhoeven getting a title shot in just his second boxing fight – and first since 2014.

The 37-year-old Dutchman is aiming to pull off arguably the biggest upset in the sport’s history.

Ukrainian Usyk, 39, is aiming to continue his near 17-year winning streak.

Will we see an underdog win for the ages or will Usyk’s dominance continue?

BBC Sport asks the boxing world for their predictions.

NEW YORK — Former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene after a federal appeals court on Friday declined to reconsider a decision that put the government a step closer to deporting him, the pro-Palestinian activist’s lawyers said.

Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia voted 6-5 against having the court’s full complement of judges review the ruling. In January, a three-judge 3rd Circuit panel found that a federal judge in New Jersey who had sided with Khalil and ordered his release last year from immigration detention didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is involved in representing Khalil, said his lawyers will ask the 3rd Circuit for an order preventing the decision from taking effect — and barring Khalil from being detained or deported — while it asks the Supreme Court to take up the case.

An appeal to the high court is expected in the coming months, possibly in late summer.

“Today’s decision is not the final word, and we still strongly believe in our arguments going forward,” ACLU senior counsel Brett Max Kaufman said in a statement.

In its January ruling, the 3rd Circuit found that Khalil’s lawsuit challenging his detention and U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz’s subsequent rulings in the case were premature because federal law requires that such challenges first move through the separate immigration court system. That system is part of the Justice Department, not the judicial branch.

The decision didn’t decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the U.S. over his campus activism and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.

Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, who had voted for the 3rd Circuit to review the decision, wrote in a dissent that the court was “abdicating our duty to meaningfully review Khalil’s constitutional claims. The Judicial Branch, she wrote, cannot fulfill its role as a check on the other branches of government, “if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself.”

Khalil, 31, has also appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana, where he was detained, after the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld his removal order.

Through his lawyers, Khalil argued that the immigration judge who issued the order failed to consider relevant evidence and wrongly upheld a charge that he had misrepresented information on his application for legal permanent resident status. That charge, Khalil’s lawyers said, was brought in retaliation for his protest activity.

The immigration judge suggested Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where he maintains citizenship through a distant relative, or Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp to a Palestinian family. Khalil’s lawyers have said he would face mortal danger if forced to return to either country.

An outspoken leader of the pro-Palestinian movement at Columbia, Khalil was arrested in March 2025. He then spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his child.

Federal officials have accused Khalil of leading activities “aligned to Hamas,” though they have not presented evidence to support the claim and have not accused him of criminal conduct. They also accused Khalil of failing to disclose information on his green card application.

Khalil has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and ridiculous,” framing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”

The government justified the arrest under a seldom-used statute that allows for the expulsion of noncitizens whose beliefs are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. In June 2025, Farbiarz ruled that justification would likely be declared unconstitutional and ordered Khalil released.

President Trump’s administration appealed that ruling, arguing the deportation decision should fall to an immigration judge, rather than a federal court. The 3rd Circuit ruled 2-1 in the administration’s favor.

Judge Emil Bove, who was involved in investigating student protesters while a top Justice Department official, did not participate in the 3rd Circuit vote on whether to review the decision. He later issued an order denying a request by Khalil’s lawyers that he step aside from the matter, calling it moot.

Sisak writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.