finds

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Trump had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs but left in place for now his effort to build a protectionist wall around the American economy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Trump wasn’t legally allowed to declare national emergencies and impose import taxes on almost every country on earth, a ruling that largely upheld a May decision by a specialized federal trade court in New York.

But the 7-4 court did not strike down the tariffs immediately, allowing his administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The president vowed to do just that. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” Trump wrote on his social medial platform.

The ruling complicates Trump’s ambitions to upend decades of American trade policy completely on his own. Trump has alternative laws for imposing import taxes, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act. His tariffs — and the erratic way he’s rolled them out — have shaken global markets, alienated U.S. trading partners and allies and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.

But he’s also used the levies to pressure the European Union, Japan and other countries into accepting one-sided trade deals and to bring tens of billions of dollars into the federal Treasury to help pay for the massive tax cuts he signed into law July 4.

“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands, delay implementation of prior commitments, or even seek to renegotiate terms,” Ashley Akers, senior counsel at the Holland & Knight law firm and a former Justice Department trial lawyer, said before the appeals court decision.

The government has argued that if the tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury.

“It would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!” Trump said in a previous post on Truth Social.

Revenue from tariffs totaled $142 billion by July, more than double what it was at the same point the year before. Indeed, the Justice Department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.

The ruling involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA):

— The sweeping tariffs he announced April 2 — “Liberation Day,’’ he called it — when he imposed “reciprocal’’ tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs trade deficits and a “baseline’’ 10% tariff on just about everyone else. The national emergency underlying the tariffs, Trump said, was the long-running gap between what the U.S. sells and what it buys from the rest of the world. The president started to levy modified the tariff rates in August, but goods from countries with which the U.S. runs a surplus also face the taxes.

— The “trafficking tariffs’’ he announced Feb. 1 on imports from Canada, China and Mexico. These were designed to get those countries to do more to stop what he declared a national emergency: the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across their borders into the United States.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. But over decades, lawmakers have ceded authorities to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

But Trump’s assertion that IEEPA essentially gives him unlimited power to tax imports quickly drew legal challenges — at least seven cases. No president had ever used the law to justify tariffs, though IEEPA had been used frequently to impose export restrictions and other sanctions on U.S. adversaries such as Iran and North Korea.

The plaintiffs argued that the emergency power law does not authorize the use of tariffs.

They also noted that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an “unusual and extraordinary’’ threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad.

The Trump administration argued that courts approved President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis that arose from the chaos that followed his decision to end a policy linking the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA.

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.

In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA’s requirement that they “deal with’’ the problem they were supposed to address.

The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.

Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.

Trump could potentially cite alternative authorities to impose import taxes, though they are more limited. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, for instance, allows the president to tax imports from countries with which the U.S. runs big trade deficits at 15% for 150 days.

Likewise, Section 301 of the same 1974 law allows the president to tax imports from countries found to have engaged in unfair trade practices after an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Trump used Section 301 authority to launch his first-term trade war with China.

Wiseman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Josh Boak contributed to this story.

Aug. 29 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Education has said Denver Public Schools violated Title IX’s prohibition against sex discrimination by having all-gender bathrooms, amid the Trump administration’s targeting of LGBT rights in public spaces.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights opened its investigation into the school district in late January after learning a month before that East High School had converted a second-floor, multi-stall bathroom for girls into an all-gender bathroom.

The Office for Civil Rights determined the district violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 as there was no girls-only designated washroom on the floor, though there was a boys-only washroom.

The school attempted to rectify the situation by converting the boys restroom into a gender-neutral bathroom as well, but the federal Office for Civil Rights states this still violates Title IX “because males are still allowed to invade sensitive female-only facilities.”

It was unclear if any other bathrooms in the district’s some 200 schools were all-gender facilities.

The Department of Education said Thursday that the district’s Denver Public Schools’ LGBTQ+ Toolkit that allows students to use bathrooms that match their gender identity in violation of Title IX.

Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education, said in a statement that by having a gender-neutral washroom at East High School, the district create “a hostile environment for its students by endangering their safety, privacy and dignity while denying them access to equal educational activities and opportunities.”

“Denver is free to endorse a self-defeating gender ideology, but it is not free to accept federal taxpayer funds and harm its students in violation of Title IX,” he said.

President Donald Trump ran on an anti-transgender platform, and since returning to the White House in January has taken several executive actions that affect the LGBTQ communit’s rights, including some that impact public schools.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Education found five northern Virginia school districts in violation of Title IX over their transgender bathroom and changing room policies.

Maine, California, Oregon and Minnesota have also been under Trump administration investigations over allowing transgender girls to participate on girls’ sports teams.

“In the name of ‘equity,’ Denver Public Schools converted a girls’ restroom into an all-gender facility — putting gender ideology above girls privacy and dignity,” DOE Secretary Linda McMahon said on X.

California voters are heavily divided along partisan lines when it comes to President Trump, with large majorities of Democrats and unaffiliated voters disapproving of him and believing the country is headed in the wrong direction under his leadership, and many Republicans feeling the opposite, according to a new poll conducted for The Times.

The findings are remarkably consistent with past polling on the Republican president in the nation’s most populous blue state, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Poll.

“If you look at all the job ratings we’ve done about President Trump — and this carries back all the way through his first term — voters have pretty much maintained the same posture,” DiCamillo said. “Voters know who he is.”

The same partisan divide also showed up in the poll on a number of hot-button issues, such as Medicaid cuts and tariffs, DiCamillo said — with Democrats “almost uniformly” opposed to Trump’s agenda and Republicans “pretty much on board with what Trump is doing.”

Asked whether the sweeping tariffs that Trump has imposed on international trading partners have had a “noticeable negative impact” on their family spending, 71% of Democrats said yes, while 76% of Republicans said no.

“If you’re a Republican, you tend to discount the impacts — you downplay them or you just ignore them,” while Democrats “tend to blame everything on Trump,” DiCamillo said.

Asked whether they were confident that the Trump administration would provide California with the nearly $40 billion in wildfire relief aid it has requested in response to the devastating L.A.-area fires in January, 93% of Democrats said they were not confident — compared with the 43% of Republicans who said they were confident.

In a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1, the effect is that Trump fared terribly in the poll overall, just as he has in recent presidential votes in the state.

The poll — conducted Aug. 11-17 with 4,950 registered voters interviewed — found 69% of likely California voters disapproved of Trump, with 62% strongly disapproving, while 29% approved of him. A similar majority, 68%, said they believed the country is headed in the wrong direction, while 26% said it’s headed in the right direction.

Whereas 90% of Democrats and 75% of unaffiliated voters said the country is on the wrong track, just 20% of Republicans felt that way, the poll found.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the poll.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said the findings prove Trump’s agenda “is devastating communities across California who are dealing with the harmful, real life consequences” of the president’s policies.

“The Trump Administration does not represent the views of the vast majority of Californians and it’s why Trump has chosen California to push the limits of his constitutional power,” Padilla said. “As more Americans across the nation continue to feel the impacts of his destructive policies, public support will continue to erode.”

G. Cristina Mora, co-director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, or IGS, said the findings were interesting, especially in light of other recent polling for The Times that found slightly more nuanced Republican impressions — and more wariness — when it comes to Trump’s immigration agenda and tactics.

On his overall approval and on other parts of his agenda, including the tariffs and Medicaid cuts, “the strength of the partisanship is very clear,” Mora said.

Cuts to Medicaid

Voters in the state are similarly divided when it comes to recent decisions on Medicaid health insurance for low-income residents, the poll found. The state’s version is known as Medi-Cal.

For instance, Californians largely disapprove of new work requirements for Medicaid and Medi-Cal recipients under the Big Beautiful Bill that Trump championed and congressional Republicans recently passed into law, the poll found.

The bill requires most Medicaid recipients ages 18 to 64 to work at least 80 hours per month in order to continue receiving benefits. Republicans trumpeted the change as holding people accountable and safeguarding against abuses of federal taxpayer dollars, while Democrats denounced it as a threat to public health that would strip millions of vulnerable Americans of their health insurance.

The poll found 61% of Californians disapproved of the change, with 43% strongly disapproving of it, while 36% approved of it, with 21% strongly approving of it. Voters were sharply divided along party lines, however, with 80% of Republicans approving of the changes and 85% of Democrats disapproving of them.

Californians also disapproved — though by a smaller margin — of a move by California Democrats and Gov. Gavin Newsom to help close a budget shortfall by barring undocumented immigrant adults from newly enrolling in Medi-Cal benefits.

A slight majority of poll respondents, or 52%, said they disapproved of the new restriction, with 17% strongly disapproving of it. The poll found 43% of respondents approved of the change, including 30% who strongly approved of it.

Among Democrats, 77% disapproved of the change. Among Republicans, 87% approved of it. Among voters with no party preference, 52% disapproved.

More than half the poll respondents — 57% — said neither they nor their immediate family members receive Medi-Cal benefits, while 35% said they did. Of those who receive Medi-Cal, two-thirds — or 67% — said they were very or somewhat worried about losing, or about someone in their immediate family losing, their coverage due to changes by the Trump administration.

Nadereh Pourat, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, said there is historical evidence to show what is going to happen next under the changes — and it’s not good.

The work requirement will undoubtedly result in people losing health coverage, just as thousands did when Arkansas implemented a similar requirement years ago, she said.

When people lose coverage, the cost of preventative care goes up and they generally receive less of it, she said. “If the doctor’s visit competes with food on the table or rent, then people are going to skip those primary care visits,” she said — and often “end up in the emergency room” instead.

And that’s more expensive not just for them, but also for local and state healthcare systems, she said.

Cuts to high-speed rail

Californians also are heavily divided over the state’s efforts to build a high-speed rail line through the Central Valley, after the Trump administration announced it was clawing back $4 billion in promised federal funding.

The project was initially envisioned as connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco by 2026, but officials have since set new goals of connecting Bakersfield to Merced by 2030. The project is substantially over budget, and Trump administration officials have called in a “boondoggle.”

The poll found that 49% of Californians support the project, with 28% of them strongly in favor of it. It found 42% oppose the project, including 28% who strongly oppose it.

Among Democrats, 66% were in favor of the project. Among Republicans, 77% were opposed. Among voters with no party preference, 49% were in favor while 39% were opposed.

In Los Angeles County, 54% of voters were in favor of the project continuing, while 58% of voters in the Bay Area were in favor. In the Central Valley, 51% of voters were opposed, compared with 41% in favor.

State Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San José), who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, said political rhetoric around the project has clearly had an effect on how voters feel about it, and that is partly because state leaders haven’t done enough to lay out why the project makes sense economically.

“Healthy skepticism is a good thing, especially when you’re dealing with billions of dollars,” he said. “It’s on legislators and the governor right now in California to lay out a strategy that you can’t poke a lot of holes in, and that hasn’t been the case in the past.”

Cortese said he started life as an orchard farmer in what is now Silicon Valley, knows what major public infrastructure investments can mean for rural communities such as those in the Central Valley, and will be hyperfocused on that message moving forward.

“There is no part of California that I know of that’s been waiting for more economic development than Bakersfield. Probably second is Fresno,” he said.

He said he also will be stressing to local skeptics of the project that supporting the Trump administration taking $4 billion away from California would be a silly thing to do no matter their politics. Conservative local officials who understand that will be “key to help us turn the tide,” he said.

Last month, California’s high-speed rail authority sued the Trump administration over the withdrawal of funds. The state is also suing the Trump administration over various changes to Medicaid, over Trump’s tariffs and over immigration enforcement tactics.

Mora said the sharp divide among Democrats and Republicans on Trump and his agenda called to mind other recent polling that showed many voters immediately changed their views of the economy after Trump took office — with Republicans suddenly feeling more optimistic, and Democrats more pessimistic.

It’s all a reflection of our modern, hyperpartisan politics, she said, where people’s perceptions — including about their own economic well-being — are “tied now much more closely to ideas about who’s in power.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to temporarily redraw California’s congressional districts has more support than opposition — but with many voters undecided, the measure’s prospects remain uncertain, a new poll found.

One thing, however, has become clear: Newsom’s standing with voters appears tethered to the fate of his high-stakes redistricting gamble.

The UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll, conducted for the Los Angeles Times, asked registered voters about the Newsom-backed redistricting push favoring California Democrats, which serves as a counterattack to President Trump and Texas Republicans reworking election maps to their advantage.

When voters were asked whether they agree with California’s redistricting maneuver, 46% said it was a good idea, while 36% said it was a bad idea. Slightly more, 48%, said they would vote in favor of the temporary gerrymandering efforts if it appeared on the statewide special election ballot in November. Nearly a third said they would vote no, while 20% said they were undecided.

“That’s not bad news,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll. “It could be better. With ballot measures, you’d like to be comfortably above 50% because you got to get people to vote yes and when people are undecided or don’t know enough about initiatives, they tend to vote no just because it’s the safer vote.”

Among voters who regularly cast ballots in statewide elections, overall support for redistricting jumped to 55%, compared with 34% opposed.

That, DiCamillo said, is significant.

“If I were to pick one subgroup where you would want to have an advantage, it would be that one,” he said.

The high-stakes fight over political boundaries could shape control of the U.S. House, where Republicans currently hold a narrow majority. Newsom and Democratic leaders say California must match Texas’ partisan mapmaking move to preserve balance in Congress. Texas’ plan creates five new Republican-leaning seats that could secure the GOP’s majority in the House. California’s efforts are an attempt to cancel those gains — at least temporarily. The new maps would be in place for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 congressional elections.

However, critics say that the plan undermines the state’s voter-approved independent redistricting commission and that one power grab doesn’t negate another.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Not surprisingly, the partisan fight over election maps elicited deeply partisan results in the poll. Nearly 7 in 10 Democratic voters said they would support the redistricting measure , while Republicans overwhelmingly (72%) panned the plan.

Former President Obama endorsed it, while California’s former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a moderate Republican, told the New York Times he would fight it. The effort faced opposition this week in Sacramento during legislative hearings, where Republicans blasted it as a partisan game-playing. California Republicans attempted to stall the process by filing an emergency petition at the state Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the California Constitution by rushing the proposal through the Legislature. The high court rejected the legal challenge Wednesday.

The effort has by all accounts moved swiftly, with newly reworked maps released late last week and, by Monday, lawmakers introduced legislation to put it before voters. Lawmakers approved those bills Thursday, which secures the measure’s place on the ballot in November.

Newsom, who has become the face of California’s redistricting effort, has seen his once-stagnant approval ratings tick upward as he takes on Trump and Republican leaders. Beyond the high-profile push to reshape the state’s congressional districts, his office has drawn recent attention with a social media campaign that mimics Trump’s own idiosyncratic posts.

More voters now approve than disapprove of the governor’s job performance (51% to 43%), which represented a turnaround from April, when voters were split at 46% on each side. The poll, which surveyed 4,950 registered voters online in English and Spanish, was conducted from Aug. 11 to 17.

A majority of respondents — 59% — back Newsom’s combative stance toward Trump, while 29% want him to adopt a more cooperative approach. Younger voters were especially supportive of Newsom styling himself as Trump’s leading critic, with 71% of those between 18 and 29 years old backing the approach.

Matt Lesenyie, an assistant professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach, said having Newsom as the face of the redistricting campaign would have been more of a liability a month ago. But Newsom’s profile has been rising nationally during the spiraling fight over congressional maps and been buoyed by his prolific Trump trolling, which has struck a nerve with conservative commentators. That has opened up a lane for Newsom to spread the campaign’s message more broadly, he said.

“If he keeps this pace up, he’s right on a pressure point,” Lesenyie said.

Political scientist Eric Schickler, who is co-director of the Berkeley Institute that conducted the poll, said asking Californians to hand back control of redistricting to politicians — even temporarily — after voters made the process independent would normally be a tough sell.

“Voters don’t trust politicians,” Schickler said. “On the other hand, voters see Trump and don’t like what he’s doing. And so it was really a test to see which of those was more powerful and the results suggest, at least for now, Newsom’s winning that argument.”

Winning in November, however, will require pushing undecided voters over the finish line. Among Latino, Black and Asian voters, nearly 30% said they have yet to decide how they would vote on redistricting. Women also have higher rates of being undecided compared with men, at 25% to 14%. Younger voters are also more likely to be on the fence, with nearly a third of 18- to 29-year-olds saying they are unsure, compared with 11% of those older than 65.

Among Democrats, there are still some skeptics about the proposal. One in 5 polled said they were undecided. A quarter of voters with no party preference say they are undecided.

“That suggests there are a bunch of votes left on the table,” Schickler said. “While I wouldn’t be surprised if the margin narrows between now and November, this is a good place for the proposition to start.”

EPA

EPA/Shutterstock

EPA

You may also be interested in:

Getty Images/BBC

A new study revealed that LGBTQIA+ people in the US want to get married.

In 2015, the queer community achieved a massive victory when same-sex marriage was legalised across all 50 states – following the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case.

Over the last decade, thousands of LGBTQIA+ couples have exercised their right to get married, with many more considering the possibility.

According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, 59% of LGBTQIA+ US adults under 50 who have never been married say they want to get hitched. Comparatively, 63% of non-LGBTQIA+ individuals under the same age bracket say the same thing.

Upon further investigation, researchers found that of the surveyed LGBTQIA+ adults, those between the ages of 18 and 29 were more than likely to say they wanted to get married compared to those aged 30 to 49.

Non queer adults also displayed similar stats, with 79% of 18 to 29-year-olds embracing marriage, while only 49% of 30-49 year olds agreed.

When surveying those who are divorced, widowed or separated, 49% of LGBTQIA+ adults said they were more likely to get married again. The same couldn’t be said for their heterosexual peers, with only 33% expressing an interest.

The study also shed some light on the respective groups’ views about having children.

47% of non-LGBTQIA+ adults under 50, who don’t have kids, were shown to have more of an interest in starting a family, while only 33% of LGBTQIA+ adults shared the same sentiment.

However, a nearly equal portion of LGBTQIA+ adults (28%) and non-LGBTQIA+ adults (29%) were unsure if they wanted to have children.

Lastly, it was revealed that 37% of LGBTQIA+ women and 36% of LGBTQIA+ men want to have kids someday.

There was a bigger disparity between the straight individuals. 54% of non-LGBTQIA+ men were reported to want children, and 39% of non-LGBTQIA+ women shared the same interest.

The recent data comes at a time when marriage equality is facing a new wave of attacks from Republicans and conservative figures.

In July, former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis – who made headlines in 2015 when she refused to issue marriage licenses to LGBTQIA+ couples – filed a petition urging the US Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.

In the filing, she described the ruling as being “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process” and further claimed that it forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”

For more information about the petition and whether the Court will hear the case, click here.

Australians consumed drugs with a street value of about $7.5bn, representing a 34 percent rise in annual consumption.

There has been a sharp rise in drug use among Australians, with cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin consumption all hitting record levels, according to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s (ACIC) latest wastewater analysis.

Published on Friday, the ACIC’s annual report revealed that Australians consumed an estimated 22.2 tonnes of methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin and MDMA (commonly known as “ecstasy”) between August 2023 and August 2024.

This represents a 34 percent increase on the previous year’s findings, with marked increases in the consumption of cocaine (69 percent), MDMA (49 percent), methamphetamine (21 percent), and heroin (14 percent).

The drugs had a combined estimated street value of 11.5 billion Australian dollars (about $7.5bn), according to the ACIC. Meth alone accounted for 8.9 billion Australian dollars (about $5.8bn) – or 78 percent – of that total.

Wastewater analysis, the process of testing sewage water for contaminants, is a widely used tool to measure drug use within national populations. The data was collected from Australia’s capital cities and regional sites, covering some 57 percent of the country.

The increase in drug consumption reflects the “recovery of these illicit drug markets following the impact of COVID-19 restrictions”, the ACIC report said.

It added that “transnational and domestic serious and organised crime groups have rapidly re-established and expanded their operations” following the pandemic.

ACIC chief Heather Cook said crime groups are exploiting high demand for illicit drugs in Australia, where they are “maximising profit at the expense of the community’s security and wellbeing”.

“The 2.2 tonne increase in national meth consumption is concerning because 12.8 tonnes is the highest annual level recorded by the programme and the drug causes significant community harm,” she said.

“Similarly, there has been a large increase in national cocaine consumption, also to the highest annual level recorded by our wastewater programme,” Cook added.

Wastewater was also tested for alcohol and nicotine – which remained the most consumed lawful drugs – as well as cannabis and ketamine.

Cannabis remained the most consumed illicit drug among Australians, with higher average consumption in regional areas than in capital cities. Capital cities, however, recorded higher consumption of cocaine, MDMA, heroin and ketamine.

The Northern Territory saw the highest increase in meth, cocaine and MDMA consumption, according to the report, while Tasmania recorded the highest increase in heroin.

The increases in meth, cocaine and MDMA consumption are likely to continue up to 2027, according to ACIC data modelling.

Investigators name senior figures among those responsible for alleged abuses at detention facilities.

United Nations investigators say they have gathered evidence of systematic torture in Myanmar’s detention facilities, identifying senior figures among those responsible.

The Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), set up in 2018 to examine potential breaches of international law, said on Tuesday that detainees had endured beatings, electric shocks, strangulation and fingernail removal with pliers.

“We have uncovered significant evidence, including eyewitness testimony, showing systematic torture in Myanmar detention facilities,” Nicholas Koumjian, head of the mechanism, said in a statement accompanying its 16-page report.

The UN team said some prisoners died as a result of the torture.

It also documented the abuse of children, often detained unlawfully as proxies for their missing parents.

According to the report, the UN team has made more than two dozen formal requests for information and access to the country, all of which have gone unanswered. Myanmar’s military authorities did not respond to media requests for comment.

The military has repeatedly denied committing atrocities, saying it is maintaining peace and security while blaming “terrorists” for unrest.

The findings cover a year that ended on June 30 and draw on information from more than 1,300 sources, including hundreds of witness accounts, forensic analysis, photographs and documents.

The IIMM said it identified high-ranking commanders among the perpetrators but declined to name them to avoid alerting those under investigation.

The report also found that both government forces and armed opposition groups had committed summary executions. Officials from neither side of Myanmar’s conflict were available to comment.

The latest turmoil in Myanmar began when a 2021 military coup ousted an elected civilian government, sparking a nationwide conflict. The UN estimates tens of thousands of people have been detained in efforts to crush dissent and bolster the military’s ranks.

Last month, the leader of the military government, Min Aung Hlaing, ended a four-year state of emergency and appointed himself acting president before planned elections.

The IIMM’s mandate covers abuses in Myanmar dating back to 2011, including the military’s 2017 campaign against the mostly Muslim Rohingya, which forced hundreds of thousands of members of the ethnic minority to flee to Bangladesh, and postcoup atrocities against multiple communities.

The IIMM is also assisting international legal proceedings, including cases in Britain. However, the report warned that budget cuts at the UN could undermine its work.

“These financial pressures threaten the Mechanism’s ability to sustain its critical work and to continue supporting international and national justice efforts,” it said.

SIX in 10 Gen Zers reckon music gigs are overpriced – but are making financial sacrifices so they don’t miss out.

A study of 2,000 adults found 46 per cent of 21- to 24-year-olds believe concerts are out of reach for most people.

3

3

Gen Zers are nonetheless determined to make it work, with 67 per cent having been to at least one gig in the past year – and spending an average of £117 on their priciest ticket.

To cover the cost, nearly one in five young adults (18 per cent) cut back on essentials, while 26 per cent scrapped a subscription – and 15 per cent admitted to spending more on a live music event than on their monthly bills.

The study was commissioned by Greene King, which staged the ‘biggest pub gig ever’ – with Sam Ryder giving a surprise performance at the iconic pub The Anchor on London’s South Bank.

As one of 800 acts in Greene King Untapped – a competition to find the next big music talent – Sam performed a 35-minute set, free for fans to watch.

The BRIT-nominated Eurovision star, who has also been appointed the pub chain’s Head of Gigs, said: “Playing in pubs and smaller venues was where it all started for me, with intimate venues, borrowed PA systems, and a handful of pub-goers who might become fans.

 “Grassroots music is at the heartbeat of the scene and those early gigs shaped who I am as an artist.

“These spaces allow live music to be an experience available to everyone, that’s why they’re so important, and I’m stoked to be a part of the team helping to keep that alive.” 

The study also found that 40 per cent of adults have skipped live music because of high ticket prices – missing an average of three events in the past year.

Half of those surveyed said they’ve wanted to attend a music event but couldn’t because tickets sold out too quickly.

The study also found that 53 per cent believe live music ticket prices are unfair, with 67 per cent saying prices have become unreasonable in recent years.

Meanwhile, 61 per cent claimed they would go to more gigs if tickets cost less.

The research also revealed that 41 per cent feel most alive when attending a gig, while 63 per cent admit the energy of a live performance doesn’t translate the same way digitally.

And 38 per cent have suffered FOMO (a Gen Z term meaning Fear of Missing Out) after seeing concerts on social media they couldn’t attend.

Zoe Bowley, managing director at Greene King Pubs, said: “Pubs have long been the heartland of grassroots music, a place where emerging talent takes root, stars are born, and communities come together. 

“It’s where British people do what they do best: connect, celebrate, and create lasting memories.”

In other news, The Sun recently revealed Oasis are getting big-money offers for more shows almost daily.

Insiders told Bizarre editor Ellie Henman last month the brothers are flooded with bids from across the globe.

This comes after their epic 41-show reunion tour sold out in minutes on 31 August.

3

Natali Khomenko has opened up about the unsettling experience in her Tokyo hotel room, and has said she has been left struggling with anxiety and PTSD in the wake of her ordeal

A woman has recalled a terrifying encounter she had with an unknown man she found hiding under her bed in a hotel.

Natali Khomenko, who lives in Thailand, decided to embark on a solo trip to Japan in March. Having arrived in the country, she checked in to her accommodation and was given a key card that would give her access the room.

Everything appeared fine so she set off the following day for some sightseeing, but she was in for a distressing ordeal upon her return. It comes after a warning has been issued to Brit tourists planning all-inclusive holidays to Spain.

READ MORE: ‘Traumatised’ family stranded at Palma Airport after being told they can’t board Jet2 flightREAD MORE: Tourist, 27, has finger torn off by parade horse in Spanish fiesta horror

In a clip shared on her Instagram account, Natali explained: “I booked my solo trip to Japan because I thought Japan was a very safe country. I stayed in a very well-known chain hotel in Japan,” she said, adding that she stayed in the room for a day and everything seemed normal.

However, the next day when she returned to her room after a day of soaking up culture, she was shocked by what she found. “I unlocked my room, took off my clothes and laid down on the bed. That’s when I encountered a weird smell,” she said, adding that at first she thought it was coming from her hair or the bedsheets.

She even joked to herself about it ‘smelling like a dead body’ under her bed, but when she looked under it, she was horrified to see a pair of eyes staring at her.

“I saw an Asian man under my bed. I started to jump and scream and then the man climbed out from under my bed and stared at me for three seconds. Those seconds felt like my life was over,” she revealed.

Speaking to The Guardian , Natali further described the man as “east Asian, between 20 and 30, slightly overweight, a bowl haircut and black clothes.”

“I began to hyperventilate and froze on the spot, unsure whether he was about to jump on me, choke me or even try to kill me,” she said.

After the shocking incident, Natali said she immediately called the hotel administration and the police, and they found a power bank and USB cable under her bed.

She said she kept asking the hotel how the situation had happened, but they didn’t have any answers for her. “Even more, they suggested upfront that police won’t find the intruder because they had no cameras,” she continued.

She immediately changed hotels and demanded a full refund the following day. But she claims the hotel didn’t contact her back. She then reached out to holiday operator who she had booked the hotel through, and they offered her $178 (£133) in coupons – despite the fact she had paid $600 (£450) for three nights.

Having contacted the hotel once more, Natali was finally given a refund. But the emotional toll has been far greater. The woman has been struggling with anxiety and PTSD since returning home.

“Sadly, I’ve also had men write to me, claiming it’s my fault or that I just want to denigrate Japan. But all I want is justice, and to raise awareness so this doesn’t happen to anyone else. Women already have to worry about their safety too much, and this is another example of things not being taken as seriously as they should,” Natali said.

Short, pained lives marked by achievement and promise and then abruptly gone leave a restless afterglow. Youth is supposed to fade away, not become one’s permanent state. And regarding the late musician Jeff Buckley — a roiling romantic with piercing good looks whose singing could rattle bones and raise hairs — that loss in 1997, at the age of 30 from drowning, burns anew with every revisiting of his sparse legacy of recorded material.

Lives are more complicated than what your busted heart may want to read from a voice that conjured heaven and the abyss. So one of the appealing takeaways from the biodoc “It’s Never Over, Jeff Buckley” is a repudiating of the typical narrative of inescapable fate, instead pursuing the richness of a gifted artist’s ups and downs. Director Amy Berg would rather us see Buckley as he was in the world instead of some conveniently doom-laden figure.

The result is loving, spirited and honest: an opportunity for us to get to know the talented, turbulent Buckley through the people who genuinely knew him and cared about him. But also, in clips, copious writings and snatches of voice recordings, we meet someone empathetic yet evasive, ambitious yet self-critical, a son and his own man, especially when sudden stardom proved to be the wrong prism through which to find answers.

With archival material often superimposed over a faint, scratchy-film background, we feel the sensitivity and chaos of Buckley’s single-mom upbringing in Anaheim, the devastating distance of his absentee dad, folk-poet icon Tim Buckley (you’ll never forget the matchbook Jeff saved), and the creative blossoming that happened in New York’s East Village. There, his long-standing influences, from Nina Simone and Edith Piaf to Led Zeppelin and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, coalesced into a post-grunge emotionalism anchored by those unbelievable pipes.

Even after Buckley’s record-label discovery leads to the usual music-doc trappings — tour montages, media coverage, performance morsels — Berg wisely keeps the contours of his interior life in the foreground, intimately related by key figures, most prominently Buckley’s mother, Mary Guibert, romantic confidantes such as artist Rebecca Moore and musician Joan Wasser, and bandmates like Michael Tighe. Berg keeps these interviewees close to her camera, too, so we can appreciate their memories as personal gifts, still raw after so many years.

Fans might yearn for more granular unpacking of the music, but it somehow doesn’t feel like an oversight when so much ink on it already exists and so little else has been colored in. The same goes for the blessed absence of boilerplate A-list praise. The global acclaim for his sole album, 1994’s “Grace,” which includes his all-timer rendition of Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah,” certainly put admiring superstars (Dylan, Bowie, McCartney) in Buckley’s path, including one of his idols, Robert Plant. But Berg stays true to a viewpoint rooted in Buckley’s conflicting feelings about the pressures and absurdities of fame, and why it ultimately drove him to Memphis to seek the solace to start a second album that was never completed.

The last chapter is thoughtfully handled. Berg makes sure that we understand that his loved ones view his death as an accident, not a suicide, and the movie’s details are convincing. That doesn’t make the circumstances any less heartbreaking, of course. As warmer spotlights go, “It’s Never Over, Jeff Buckley” may never fully expunge what maddens and mystifies about the untimely end of troubled souls. But it candidly dimensionalizes a one-album wonder, virtually ensuring the kind of relistening likely to deepen those echoes.

WASHINGTON — Many Democrats see their political party as “weak” or “ineffective,” while Republicans are more complimentary of their party, although a small but significant share describe the GOP as “greedy” or say it is generally “bad,” according to a new poll.

The poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in July reveals warning signs for both major U.S. parties as the political focus shifts to elections in New Jersey and Virginia this fall and the midterm contests next year.

Respondents were asked to share the first word or phrase that came to mind when they thought of the Republican and Democratic parties. Answers were then sorted into broad categories, including negative and positive attributes. Overall, U.S. adults held a dim view of both parties, with about 4 in 10 using negative attributes, including words such as “dishonest” or “stupid.”

But nearly nine months after Republican Donald Trump won a second presidential term, Democrats appear to be harboring more resentment about the state of their party than do Republicans. Democrats were likelier to describe their own party negatively than Republicans. Republicans were about twice as likely to describe their own party positively.

“They’re spineless,” Cathia Krehbiel, a 48-year-old Democrat from Indianola, Iowa, said of her party.

She believes the party’s response to the Trump administration has been “scattershot.”

“I just feel like there’s so much recently that’s just going abhorrently wrong,” Krehbiel said. “And they speak up a little bit and they roll right over.”

Democrats’ views

Overall, roughly one-third of Democrats described their party negatively in the open-ended question.

About 15% described the Democratic Party using such words as “weak” or “apathetic,” while an additional 10% believe it is broadly “ineffective” or “disorganized.”

Only about 2 in 10 Democrats described their party positively, with roughly 1 in 10 saying it is “empathetic” or “inclusive.” An additional 1 in 10 used more general positive descriptors.

It is unclear what effect the Democrats’ unease may have on upcoming elections or the political debate in Washington, but no political organization wants to be plagued by internal divisions.

Still, the Democrats’ frustration appears to reflect their concern that party leaders are not doing enough to stop Trump’s GOP, which controls Washington.

There is little sign that such voters would abandon their party in favor of Trump’s allies in upcoming elections, and the vast majority of Democrats described the GOP negatively. But disaffected Democrats might decide not to vote at all. That could undermine their party’s push to reclaim at least one chamber of Congress in 2026.

Jim Williams, a 78-year-old retiree from Harper Woods, Mich., is a self-described political independent who said he typically supports Democrats, but he is “disappointed” with the party and its murky message. He views the Republican Party as much worse, saying it “has lost it” under Trump’s leadership.

“All he does is bully and call names. They’ve got no morals, no ethics. And the more they back him, the less I like them,” he said of Trump.

Republicans’ views

Republicans are about twice as likely as Democrats to describe their party positively, with many also using straightforward ideological descriptors like “conservative.”

About 4 in 10 Republicans used positive attributes to characterize the GOP, making general mentions of words such as “patriotic” or “hardworking,” or offering associations with the word “freedom.”

Samuel Washington, 65, of Chicago, said he typically votes Republican. He praised Trump’s leadership, even while acknowledging that the president’s policies on trade and spending might be creating short-term economic hardship.

“There’s a lot of pain, but the pain is the result of 12 years of misuse and misguided leadership from the Democratic Party,” he said. “I’m feeling really good about Republicans and the direction that they’re going.”

But views were not uniformly good. About 2 in 10 Republicans said something negative about the party, including phrases such as “greedy,” “for the rich” or “corrupt.”

Republican Dick Grayson, an 83-year-old veteran from Trade, Tenn., said he is “disappointed” by his party’s fealty to Trump.

Among other things, he pointed to the price tag of Trump’s tax-and-spend package, which will add nearly $3.3 trillion to the nation’s debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

“I’ve always been a Republican, but I’m disillusioned about both parties,” Grayson said.

Americans’ views overall

Among all Americans, the poll finds that the Republican Party is viewed slightly more negatively than the Democratic Party. The different is not large: 43% used negative words to describe the Republicans, compared with 39% for the Democrats.

Much of the negativity is driven by the opposing party — and nonaligned voters’ distaste for both. So-called political independents are much likelier to describe both parties with negative attributes rather than positive descriptors, though a significant share did not offer an opinion.

Curtis Musser, a 60-year-old unaffiliated voter from Beverly Hills, Fla., said both parties have shifted too far toward the extreme for his liking.

He said he is ready for a serious third party to emerge before the next presidential election, pointing to Elon Musk’s new America Party, which has been slow to launch.

“Maybe he would get us headed in the right direction,” the retired schoolteacher said.

The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

Peoples, Sanders and Yoo write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York, Sanders and Yoo from Washington.

Less than half of Americans believe racial minorities face substantial discrimination, in a reversal of the previous trend.

Only 40 percent of people in the United States believe that Black and Hispanic people face “quite a bit” or “a great deal” of discrimination, according to a new poll highlighting a reversal in previously held perceptions.

An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released on Thursday also found that 30 percent of those surveyed felt the same way about Asian people, and only 10 percent believed that white people were discriminated against.

“The number of people saying Asian people and Black people are experiencing a substantial amount of discrimination has dropped since an AP-NORC poll conducted in April 2021,” according to a statement on the NORC website.

The poll comes as US President Donald Trump continues to attack initiatives that promote diversity at universities and the workplace, and to pressure institutions not aligned with his political agenda in the name of combatting left-wing ideas.

In the spring of 2021, amid massive protests against racial injustice following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 60 percent of people polled believed that Black people face “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of discrimination in the US. That figure has now dropped to less than 50 percent.

About 74 percent of Black people say their communities continue to face substantial discrimination, while just 39 percent of white respondents said that Black people face serious discrimination.

People in the US have also become more sceptical about corporate efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, often referred to as DEI. Many large companies have started to roll back such efforts.

Between 33 percent and 41 percent said that DEI made no difference at all, and a quarter said it was likely to increase discrimination against minorities.

“Anytime they’re in a space that they’re not expected to be, like seeing a Black girl in an engineering course … they are seen as only getting there because of those factors,” Claudine Brider, a 48-year-old Black Democrat in Compton, California, told the Associated Press. “It’s all negated by someone saying, ‘You’re only here to meet a quota.’”

But the Trump administration has gone far beyond criticisms of DEI efforts, wielding a wide definition of the term to exert pressure on institutions and organisations that he sees as hostile to his political agenda. The president has threatened, for example, to withhold federal disaster aid from states that do not align with his efforts to roll back anti-discrimination measures and open probes into companies with DEI policies, which he has framed as racist against white people.

A majority of those polled also believe that undocumented immigrants face discrimination, as the Trump administration pursues a programme of mass deportations that have caused fear in immigrant communities across the country.

“Most people, 58 percent, think immigrants without legal status also face discrimination — the highest amount of any identity group,” AP-NORC states. “Four in 10 say immigrants living legally in the United States also face this level of discrimination.”

The poll also found that more than half of the public believes Muslims face substantial discrimination, and about one-third said the same for Jewish people.

WASHINGTON — Eric Hildenbrand has noticed prices continue to rise this year with President Trump in the White House.

The San Diego resident doesn’t blame Trump, however, his choice for president in 2024, but says Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats who control the state are at fault.

“You can’t compare California with the rest of the country,” said Hildenbrand, 76. “I don’t know what’s going on in the rest of the country. It seems like prices are dropping. Things are getting better, but I don’t necessarily see it here.”

Voters like Hildenbrand, whose support of the Republican president is unwavering, help explain Trump’s polling numbers and how they have differed from other presidents’ polling trajectory in significant ways. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in March found that 42% of U.S. adults approved of Trump’s job performance. That is a lower rating than those of other recent presidents at the beginning of their second terms, including Democrat Barack Obama and Republican George W. Bush.

The most recent AP-NORC poll, from July, puts Trump at 40% approval. While that is not a meaningful change from March, there is some evidence that Trump’s support may be softening, at least on the margins. The July poll showed a slight decrease in approval of his handling of immigration since earlier in the year. Some other pollsters, such as Gallup, show a downward slide in overall approval since slightly earlier in his term, in January.

But even those shifts are within a relatively narrow range, which is typical for Trump. The new AP-NORC polling tracker shows that Trump’s favorability rating has remained largely steady since the end of his first term, with between 33% and 43% of U.S. adults saying they viewed him favorably across more than five years.

Those long-term trends underscore that Trump has many steadfast opponents. But loyal supporters also help explain why views of the president are hard to change even as he pursues policies that most Americans do not support, using an approach that many find abrasive.

Persistently low approval numbers

Trump has not had a traditional honeymoon period in his second term. He did not in his first, either.

An AP-NORC poll conducted in March 2017, two months into his first term, showed that 42% of Americans “somewhat” or “strongly” approved of his performance. That is largely where his approval rating stayed over the course of the next four years.

The recent slippage on immigration is particularly significant because that issue was a major strength for Trump in the 2024 election. Earlier in his second term, it was also one of the few areas where he was outperforming his overall approval. In March, about half of U.S. adults approved of his handling of immigration. But the July AP-NORC poll found his approval on immigration at 43%, in line with his overall approval rating.

Other recent polls show growing discontent with Trump’s approach on immigration. A CNN/SSRS poll found that 55% of U.S. adults say the president has gone too far when it comes to deporting immigrants who are living in the United States illegally, an increase of 10 percentage points since February.

“I understand wanting to get rid of illegal immigrants, but the way that’s being done is very aggressive,” said Donovan Baldwin, 18, of Asheboro, N.C., who did not vote in the 2024 election. “And that’s why people are protesting, because it comes off as aggression. It’s not right.”

Ratings of Trump’s handling of the economy, which were more positive during his first term, have been persistently negative in his second term. The July poll found that few Americans think Trump’s policies have benefited them so far.

Even if he is not a fan of everything Trump has done so far, Brian Nichols, 58, of Albuquerque is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Nichols, who voted for Trump in 2024, likes what he is seeing from the president overall, though he has his concerns both on style and substance, particularly Trump’s social media presence and his on-again, off-again tariffs. Nichols also does not like the push to eliminate federal agencies such as the Education Department.

Despite his occasional disagreements with Trump, though, Nichols said he wants to give the president space to do his job, and he trusts the House and Senate, now run by Republicans, to act as a safeguard.

“We put him into office for a reason, and we should be trusting that he’s doing the job for the best of America,” Nichols said.

Overall views are steady

Trump has spent the last six months pushing far-reaching and often unpopular policies. Earlier this year, Americans were bracing themselves for higher prices as a result of his approach to tariffs. The July poll found that most people think Trump’s tax and spending bill will benefit the wealthy, while few think it will pay dividends for the middle class or people like them.

Discomfort with individual policies may not translate into wholesale changes in views of Trump, though. Those have largely been constant through years of turmoil, with his favorability rating staying within a 10-percentage point range through his widely panned handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, a felony conviction and an attempted assassination.

To some of his supporters, the benefits of his presidency far outweigh the costs.

Kim Schultz, 62, of Springhill, Fla., said she is thrilled with just about everything Trump is doing as president, particularly his aggressive moves to deport anyone living in the country illegally.

Even if Trump’s tariffs eventually take effect and push prices up, she said she will not be alarmed.

“I’ve always had the opinion that if the tariffs are going to cost me a little bit more here and there, I don’t have a problem with that,” she said.

Across the country, Hildenbrand dislikes Trump’s personality and his penchant for insults, including those directed at foreign leaders. But he thinks Trump is making things happen.

“More or less, to me, he’s showing that he’s on the right track,” he said. “I’m not in favor of Trump’s personality, but I am in favor of what he’s getting done.”

Thomson-Deveaux and Cooper write for the Associated Press and reported from Washington and Phoenix, respectively.

Donald Trump has now thoroughly sullied the office of the presidency.

I’m not talking about the Oval Office, with its new, gaudy gilt trappings that seem to spread by the day, as if the famously nocturnal president multitasks there while others sleep, tapping out his nasty late-night social media screeds between applying more layers of the gold leaf fit for a king. Those golden geegaws are simply Trump’s literal stain on the Oval Office.

I’m talking about the figurative taint: What Trump does and says there by day, in full view of the media cameras, reporters and fawning retainers invited for his performances. With that behavior he besmirches not just the actual Oval Office but the very idea of the office of the president of the United States.

Who can forget, as much as one would like to, Trump’s bullying humiliation of Ukraine’s war-hero President Volodymyr Zelensky in February, and, in May, his premeditated attack on President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, with false claims of that nation’s genocide against white Afrikaner farmers?

But Trump’s performative power play on Tuesday arguably tops them all for shame. Alas, this time his target — President Obama — wasn’t present to push back. The bully wouldn’t dare get in Obama’s face, knowing his predecessor’s counterpunch against the lies could be a knockout. (In Obama’s presence, in fact, Trump is all cringey banter and bonhomie, as at Jimmy Carter’s funeral earlier this year, when the other former presidents snubbed him.)

The word “unprecedented” is used a lot, justifiably, to describe Trump’s actions, but never was it more apt: The sitting president baselessly alleged that the former president was “treasonous” — a crime punishable by death — and all but ordered his law-enforcement minions to arrest, prosecute and imprison the man.

(Apparently Trump, convicted fraudster and adjudicated sexual abuser, forgot that last year — to avoid pre-election trials tied to his alleged crimes involving Jan. 6 and classified documents — he’d persuaded a deferential Supreme Court to give presidents virtual immunity from criminal prosecution. Narcissist that he is, perhaps Trump thinks the egregious ruling only applied to him, not to Obama and every other president past and future.)

“He’s guilty. This was treason,” Trump pronounced of Obama, falsely reviving conspiracies that the then-president and his inner circle lied about Russia’s pro-Trump meddling in the 2016 campaign as a way of undermining Trump’s legitimacy. But for eight years, Vladimir Putin’s 2016 election interference has been a well-established fact, documented by multiple investigations, including one led by then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who’s now Trump’s secretary of State.

As Trump fulminated against Obama, seated beside him in the Oval Office’s familiar wingback chairs was yet another foreign dignitary, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., making him just the latest witness to how fully Trump has extinguished the United States’ beacon as a global exemplar of democratic norms and peaceful transfers of power.

Yes, Trump’s rant against Obama as well as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats was yet another of his manic attempts over the past three weeks to distract from the morass of his handling of what’s known as the Jeffrey Epstein files — files in which his name appears, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. The administration’s refusal to release federal records of the pedophilia and sex-trafficking investigation of the late billionaire and Trump friend — despite past promises from Trump, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and Patel deputy Dan Bongino — is a mess of their own making, and the first to draw condemnation from Trump’s otherwise loyal base. That’s what’s so unnerved the president.

And yes, we should avoid taking the bait of Trump’s distractions.

But… For a president in power to falsely allege that a former president is a traitor, and to suggest that his lickspittles at the Justice Department and FBI should act against that former president, is a distraction that must command Americans’ attention.

Certainly Obama, who’s long frustrated Democrats by his reticence about criticizing Trump, thinks so. On Tuesday he had a spokesman issue a stinger of a statement.

“Out of respect for the office of the presidency,” it began, “our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.” It pointedly alluded to Rubio’s supportive and bipartisan 2020 report to mock the “bizarre allegations” Trump is lodging.

The basis of Trump’s claims of Obama’s treason is a report released Friday by his Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the conspiracy-minded former Democratic congresswoman. Not coincidentally, Gabbard lately has been desperate to get back in Trump’s good graces, having fallen from favor in recent months. Her report, along with her criminal referral to the Justice Department against Obama and others, seems to have done the trick, at least for now. Trump is singing her praises.

Gabbard outlined what she calls a “treasonous conspiracy” by Obama and Democrats to bury findings that Russia did nothing to alter the 2016 result — Trump’s victory — and to promote the “hoax” that Trump owed his election to Russia. But Obama and his aides repeatedly assured Americans that Russia did not manipulate the actual 2016 vote by hacking election machinery. Instead, Obama and his team consistently held, along with subsequent investigators, that Russia’s interference was limited to an internet-based campaign of trolls and bots promoting Trump and denigrating Clinton to U.S. voters. They never claimed that meddling determined the election outcome.

Here’s the irony: Trump is building a false case against Obama to distract his restive base from the very real case involving his pal and fellow playboy Epstein, one in which he may or may not be implicated in wrongdoing, and from his failure to bring Epstein’s elite accomplices to justice. Yet by doing so, Trump is again setting up his followers for disappointment and disillusionment. Because there is no Obama case, and so no “justice” for the salivating base.

It’s a sordid quandary that Trump deserves. Too bad he’s brought it into the presidency.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @Jackiekcalmes

F1 launched its sustainability strategy in 2019 with a long-term commitment to reduce carbon emissions in areas like travel, logistics, and energy use.

Changing the now 24-race calendar, so grands prix are grouped together by region to reduce travel, has also helped F1 in its quest for greater sustainability, with Japan moving to an April slot and Azerbaijan twinning with Singapore in the autumn since the 2024 season.

Team factories are now using more green energy such as wind and solar power, resulting in a 59% reduction in emissions from these facilities compared to seven years ago.

Other initiatives that have contributed include F1 expanding the use of biofuel trucks for transporting freight in Europe, which reduced related carbon emissions by an average of 83%.

From the 2026 season and beyond, F1 is introducing new regulations that will feature environmentally friendly cars with engines that have a near 50-50 split between electric and internal combustion power – and use fully sustainable fuels.

To further improve the flow of the calendar, Canada switches to an earlier date in May, followed by a run of nine European races, starting with Monaco in June and ending with the new Madrid Grand Prix in September.

“Formula 1 has always been synonymous with innovation and the desire to improve,” added Domenicali.

“Once again, this mentality has allowed us to make important progress, not only for those who work in this world, but also for society as a whole.

“While continuing to grow globally, we have shown that sustainable development is possible and that the strategies we have adopted are yielding tangible results.”

The report said any remaining unavoidable emissions in 2030 “will be offset using credible programmes in line with latest best practice guidance”.

Carbon offset programs typically help to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by supporting projects which reduce environmental harm, such as tree planting schemes.

More than 1,400 people, mostly civilians, were killed in several days of sectarian violence in Syria’s coastal regions earlier this year, a government committee tasked with investigating the attacks has found.

The committee said it had identified 298 suspects implicated in serious violations during the violence in the country’s Alawite heartland that left at least 1,426 members of the minority community dead in March.

Tuesday’s findings come after a new wave of violence involving the country’s Druze community, raising further questions over the new government’s ability to manage sectarian tensions and maintain security after the December overthrow of longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad – himself an Alawite.

The March violence took place in a predominantly Alawite region of Syria’s coast, where government forces and allied groups were accused of carrying out summary executions, mostly targeting Alawite civilians, with the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights saying more than 1,700 people were killed.

The committee’s report said there was no evidence that Syria’s military leadership ordered attacks on the Alawite community.

The committee’s investigation documented “serious violations against civilians on March 7, 8 and 9, including murder, premeditated murder, looting, destruction and burning of homes, torture and sectarian insults”, spokesman Yasser al-Farhan told a news conference in Damascus.

The committee confirmed “the names of 1,426 dead, including 90 women, with most of the rest being civilians” from the Alawite community, he said, adding that an unspecified number of further dead had not been verified.

The investigation also “identified 298 individuals by name” who were suspected of involvement in the violations, al-Farhan continued, describing the figure as provisional.

These have been referred for prosecution, and 37 people have been arrested, officials told journalists.

They didn’t say how many suspects were members of security forces.

‘Bigger than just violations’    

Authorities have accused gunmen loyal to al-Assad of instigating the violence, launching deadly attacks that killed dozens of security personnel.

The committee said 238 members of the army and security forces were killed in the attacks in the provinces of Tartous, Latakia and Hama.

About 200,000 pro-government military reinforcements then converged on the area, according to al-Farhan.

Jana Mustafa, a 24-year-old student from Baniyas whose father was killed during the violence, said she had not been waiting for the report “because the truth was clear to me”.

“The number of bodies, the mass graves and the screams of the victims were enough to clarify what happened,” she said, expressing disappointment that the committee’s announcements appeared to include “justifications for everything that happened”.

“The issue is bigger than just violations. It was directed against an entire sect,” she added.

The committee said it based its report on more than 30 on-site visits, meetings with dozens of people in the towns and villages where violations occurred, and testimonies from hundreds of witnesses and victims. It also heard from government officials.

Al-Farhan said the committee had identified people “linked to certain military groups and factions” among those involved in the violence, adding it believed they “violated military orders and are suspected of committing violations against civilians”.

‘Disappointed and frustrated’

Rama Hussein, 22, whose three sisters, two cousins and grandfather were killed in the Jableh region, said she was “sad, disappointed and frustrated” with the committee.

“No one listened to my testimony, no one visited us – I don’t know who this committee met or who they saw,” she said.

“I hope we see real accountability, not just reports and press conferences,” she said, calling for compensation for the families of those killed.

Human rights groups and international organisations have said entire families were killed, including women, children and the elderly.

Gunmen stormed homes and asked residents whether they were Alawite or Sunni before killing or sparing them, they said.

Committee chairman Jumaa al-Anzi said authorities had been consulted to identify individuals who appeared in videos on social media documenting violations, and that some of them were included among the suspects.

The body said two lists of people “suspected of involvement in attacks or violations” had been referred to the judiciary.

Al-Anzi, the committee’s chair, said that “we have no evidence that the [military] leaders gave orders to commit violations”.

The presidency had said new Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa had received the committee’s report on July 13, the same day that sectarian violence erupted in the Druze-majority province of Suwayda.

Those clashes broke out between Sunni Muslim Bedouin clans and Druze armed groups, and government security forces who intervened to restore order.

Druze armed groups launched revenge attacks on Bedouin communities.

Hundreds have been killed, and the United Nations says more than 128,500 people have been displaced. The violence has largely stopped as a ceasefire takes hold.

The committee chair said the violence in Suwayda is “painful for all Syrians” but “beyond the jurisdiction” of his committee.

“Time will reveal what happened and who is responsible for it,” he said.

More than 140,000 children had been sent overseas by Seoul following the devastating 1950-53 Korean War.

South Korea is set to end the decades-old practice of outsourcing adoptions to private agencies, after a damaging investigation concluded the country’s government-endorsed foreign adoption programme violated the fundamental human rights of adoptees.

On Saturday, South Korea will introduce a “newly restructured public adoption system, under which the state and local governments take full responsibility for the entire adoption process”, South Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare said.

South Korea sent more than 140,000 children overseas following the devastating 1950-53 Korean War, when intercountry adoption was encouraged as a solution.

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission investigation concluded earlier this year that the international adoption process had been riddled with irregularities, including “fraudulent orphan registrations, identity tampering, and inadequate vetting of adoptive parents”.

The new change is a “significant step towards ensuring the safety and promoting the rights of adopted children”, the Health Ministry added.

Under the new system, key procedures – such as assessing prospective adoptive parents and matching them with children – will be deliberated by a ministry committee, under the principle of the “best interests of the child”.

Previously, this had been done by major adoption agencies with minimal oversight from the state. The commission blamed the government for the issues, particularly a failure to regulate adoption fees, which turned the industry into a profit-driven one.

“With this restructuring of the public adoption system, the state now takes full responsibility for ensuring the safety and rights of all adopted children,” said Kim Sang-hee, director of population and child policy at the Ministry of Health and Welfare.

International adoption began after the Korean War as a way to remove mixed-race children, born to Korean mothers and American soldier fathers, from a country that emphasised ethnic homogeneity.

It became big business in the 1970s to 1980s, bringing international adoption agencies millions of dollars as the country overcame post-war poverty and faced rapid and aggressive economic development.

Activists say the new measure is only a starting point and warn it is far from sufficient.

“While I think it’s high time that Korea close down all private adoption agencies, I don’t believe … having the state handle new adoptions is enough,” said writer Lisa Wool-Rim Sjoblom, a Korean adoptee who grew up in Sweden.

The government should prioritise implementing the findings of the truth commission, issue an official apology, and work to help the tens of thousands of Koreans who were sent abroad for adoption, Sjoblom told the AFP news agency.

“The government urgently needs to acknowledge all the human rights violations it enabled, encouraged, and systematically participated in, and, as soon as possible, begin reparations.”

SACRAMENTO — An overwhelming number of California voters think American democracy is being threatened or, at the very least, tested, according to a new poll released Thursday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

The poll, conducted for the nonprofit Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, found that concerns cut across the partisan spectrum. They are shared regardless of income or education level, race or ethnicity. Californians living in big cities and rural countrysides, young and old, expressed similar unease.

“I do think that it’s at a pretty dangerous point right now. The concerns are justified,” said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Berkeley institute. “Our democracy is not healthy when you have a president that’s acting to unilaterally stop money from being spent that’s been appropriated, or going to war with colleges and universities or sending troops to L.A.”

In the survey, 64% of California voters said they thought American democracy was under attack, and 26% felt our system of government was being tested but was not under attack. The poll did not investigate what voters blamed for putting democracy in peril.

Democrats, who dominate the California electorate, were the most fearful, with 81% saying it was under attack and 16% who described democracy as being tested. Among voters registered as “no party preference” or with other political parties, 61% felt democracy was under assault, and 32% said it was being tested.

Republicans expressed more faith — nearly a quarter of those polled said they felt democracy was in no danger. But 38% said it was under attack and 39% said it was being tested but not under attack.

Concerns among Democrats may have been expected in California, given the state’s liberal tilt and the widespread and relentless government upheaval since President Trump took office in January. But the opinions shared by Republicans indicates just how pervasive the concerns are about the future of a country seen as a worldwide beacon of freedom and democracy.

Emily Ekins, director of polling for the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said those findings are evidence of an unsettling new development in American politics.

“A couple years ago, Republicans felt that democracy was at risk and now Democrats feel that democracy is at risk. I think that this is pretty worrisome, because people are starting to view the stakes of each election as being higher and higher,” said Ekins, who had no involvement with the Berkeley poll. “They may feel like they could lose their rights and freedoms. They may not feel like the rules apply to them anymore because they feel like so much is on the line.”

Schickler said the political perceptions among Republicans have been recently fed, in part, by Trump’s baseless claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. Continuous allegations that the U.S. Department. of Justice, including the FBI, and a “deep state” federal government bureaucracy were weaponized against him since his first term in office also contributed to the fear.

Those claims were magnified by conservative news outlets, including Fox News, as well as Trump loyalists on social media, popular podcasts and talk shows.

Even some Republicans who support the president or are agnostic about his tenure are likely concerned about the discord in American politics in recent months, Schickler said, especially after the Trump administration sent U.S. Marines and the California National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles as a protective force during widespread federal immigration raids and subsequent protests.

Recent decisions by media companies to settle Trump’s lawsuits over complaints about stories and coverage also are concerning, he said, despite the merits of those allegations being suspect.

This month, Paramount Global decided to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit over a “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris; the president claimed it was done to help her presidential campaign against him. Paramount’s leaders hope the settlement will help clear a path for Trump-appointed regulators to bless the company’s $8-billion sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media.

“That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work,” Schickler said. “I think the voters’ concerns are rooted in a reality, one that’s been building up for a while. It’s not something that’s just started in 2025 but it’s been kind of gradually getting more serious over the last 20 or 30 years.”

The survey also found that 75% of California voters believe strongly or somewhat that special interest money has too much influence in state politics, a sentiment especially strong among Republicans.

Slim majorities of California voters had little or no trust that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state Legislature act in the best interest of the public. According to the poll, 42% of voters said they have a lot or some trust in Newsom to act in the public’s interest; 53% said they trust his actions just a little or not at all.

Those surveyed had similar sentiments about the legislature.

The courts received the most favorable marks, with 57% of voters saying they trusted the judicial system to act in the best interest of the public.

Technology companies and their leaders were labeled completely untrustworthy by 58% of those surveyed.

Russia Chavis Cardenas, deputy director of the nonpartisan government accountability organization group California Common Cause, which has received grants from the poll-sponsoring Haas Fund, said the findings show just how much special interest influence in Sacramento, and Washington, erodes public trust in government, which may provide insight into their concerns about the health of the American democracy.

“I want to see folks from every political party, every race and every walk of life to be able to be engaged in their democracy, to be able to have a say, to be able to have representation,” Chavis Cardinas said.

“So these numbers are concerning, but they also don’t lie,” she said. “They’re letting us know that folks here in California recognize the influence that big money has, and that the tech companies have too much power over elected officials.”

The poll surveyed 6,474 registered voters throughout California from June 2-6.