front

Authors: Ajay Kumar Mishra and Shraddha Rishi*

At the Davos World Economic Forum, Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, shared his thoughts on the hegemonic and subservient world order. When integration turns into a source of subordination, one cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit in the midst of a collapsing global order. The trading communities appear to have a hegemonic and subservient relationship as a result of the dollar’s adoption as the world’s reserve currency. Furthermore, the competing global order between the US and China appears to be caving in to Chinese modus operandi without investigating the reasons for US authoritarian dominance, which could result in the acceptance of Chinese domination. The recognition of the US dollar as the worldwide currency and its dominance over oil, one of the most traded commodities, have put the US in leadership of the world trading regime. Furthermore, it appears that China’s monopoly over rare earth elements (REEs) is giving the Chinese yuan the same reserve currency power. Therefore, the globe might witness a change of control from the US to China, thus jeopardizing the world trading system to the whims and fancies of the country holding the reserve currency.

:

According to this essay, the dollar’s reserve currency status is the true cause of the world order’s disintegration, which equates to allowing the US to take the only seat at the table. It contends that a multipolar currency is essential for a multipolar world order. This understanding is necessary to prevent the rule of any country based on currency supremacy. Diversifying the currency basket for trade transactions is encouraged. To show how the currency dominance of a reserve currency would rise to currency imperialism, this article looks into the petrodollar problem and the duality of reserve currency and trade deficit to delegitimize the necessity of the dollar as a reserve currency. Any currency in question is subject to the same reasoning. Thus, a multi-currency trading framework is advocated in this article.

Geoeconomics of the Petrodollar Crisis’s Spiral

The dollar controls trade, payments, and reserves. About 96 percent of trade in the Americas, 74 percent in the Asia-Pacific area, and 79 percent in the rest of the world is denominated in the currency. About 60 percent of international and foreign currency claims (mainly loans) and liabilities (mostly deposits) are in US dollars. Its proportion of foreign exchange transactions is roughly 90 percent. Approximately 60% of the world’s official foreign reserves are in US dollars. Furthermore, in Q1 2025, the US dollar’s percentage of global foreign exchange reserves dropped to 53.6%. Additionally, the 50-year security agreement with Saudi Arabia to price oil only in dollars and invest surpluses in U.S. Treasury bonds in exchange for military protection expired in 2024. This could result in a shift toward accepting different currencies, albeit it won’t happen right away. Additionally, countries like Russia, China, and Iran are increasingly using non-dollar currencies for energy trade, aiming to reduce reliance on Western financial networks.

To achieve its geoeconomic goals, US authorities have attempted to preserve the dollar’s reserve currency status in several ways, compensating for economic weaknesses such as a lack of competitiveness in particular. The US appears to be addressing the growing trade deficit by maintaining the dollar as the world’s currency and matching China’s hegemony over rare earth elements. The US’s current dominance over the trade regime is largely due to dollar-based trade. The oil trade in dollars gives the US significant influence to shape geopolitics globally, both bilaterally and multilaterally, as oil holds a premier position in the international trading landscape.One commodity (oil) and one currency (the US dollar) have the power to both destabilise and stabilise the global price system. Its “as good as gold” quality can only be maintained in a world where the dominant currency is no longer associated with gold if it is associated with oil, that is, if wealthy people have faith that oil prices won’t continue to rise relative to the US dollar. The US gains influence over the oil trade by controlling the petro-dollar trade.

The globe is essentially on an “oil-dollar standard” during the post-Bretton Woods system, when currencies are meant to be “floating.” The US is under pressure to control oil sources, which it does through coercion or persuasion, to maintain wealth-holders’ faith in the value of the dollar, without which the global economy will experience severe financial turmoil, particularly given the ongoing US current account deficit. In a nutshell, war is a result of today’s necessity to preserve US financial stability. It does, however, produce a spiral effect. To control a significant oil source for financial stability, the US attacked oil-rich Iraq and, more recently, Venezuela. However, as a result of the opposition this strike provoked, oil prices skyrocketed, increasing the threat to financial stability and the temptation to wage war on other oil-rich nations like Iran. Additionally, the US would experience the same spiral consequences in a much more severe form if it decided to go to war with Iran.

The Reserve Currency and Trade Deficit “Trade-off”

Trade deficit and reserve currency operate in a trade-off scenario wherein a nation whose currency serves as the world’s reserve currency must maintain a trade deficit. It is based on two fundamental ideas. The first is the ‘policy trilemma’ or ‘impossible trinity’ thesis of economists Robert Mundell and Marcus Fleming. It contends that an economy cannot sustain unrestricted capital flow, a fixed exchange rate, and an autonomous monetary policy at the same time. The second paradox bears the name of Robert Triffin, an economist. This states that where their money works as the global reserve currency, a nation must run huge trade deficits to meet the demand for reserves. Any candidate for a new global reserve currency position must run significant current account deficits and risk an intolerable loss of economic control.

However, trade imbalances are thought to be self-correcting. A nation’s currency is predicted to lose value when it has a trade imbalance. Exports will then rise, while imports will fall, resulting in a reduction in the trade deficit. However, as the dollar is the world’s reserve currency, this idea does not apply to the US economy. A large portion of a country’s foreign exchange reserves is invested in US government securities. As a result, the dollar is overpriced. A chronic trade deficit results from higher imports and lower exports due to an overpriced dollar. Therefore, the US has a trade deficit not because it imports more goods, but rather because it supplies the world’s reserve currency.

In the face of “unfair” trade and an overpriced currency, how can the US bring manufacturing back and lower the country’s trade deficit? Enter duties on imports. Tariffs will decrease imports and increase their cost, lowering the trade imbalance. By shielding American manufacturers from import competition, they will promote domestic production. However, the US’s return to a more protectionist policy through tariffs has led to increased bilateral commerce in non-dollar currency. For instance, India-Russia oil trade and China’s increasing use of bilateral currency swaps with its trading partners have caused major concern for the US reserve currency supremacy. Moreover, it caused a spiral effect. For example, the reserve currency of the central banks has become less dollarized as a result of the recent US policy of reciprocal tariffs to safeguard trade transactions in dollars. It promotes asking about options for a reserve currency basket and the possibility of de-dollarization. Trump has made no secret about retaining the US dollar’s global supremacy, even threatening the BRICS nations with 100% additional tax should they move forward with a unified currency to “degenerate” and “destroy” the dollar. After all, de-dollarization has the potential to tip the scales against the United States and reduce its capacity to influence international financial markets and the global economy. Furthermore, to protect dollar dominance from the assault of renewable energy, the US withdrawal from India’s solar alliance must be considered.

Economists fear that tariffs go against the concept of economic efficiency. Tariffs, they warn, will imply greater expenses for American consumers, an increase in the inflation rate, and an inefficient manufacturing sector. Moreover, tariffs will encourage nations to undermine the dollar’s standing as a reserve currency by making imports more expensive. It will portend the trading of multiple currencies. Even when Trump managed the inevitability of a trade deficit because of having a reserve currency, the US was still faced with two additional problems: the increasing bilateral trade in member countries’ currencies and China’s control over modern-era gold, ‘rare earth minerals’ critical for key industries. China’s hegemony over REEs and chip production challenges the US dollar’s hegemony.

Conclusion

It reflects that the actual geo-economic strength of the US lies in the acceptability of its currency as a global reserve and its hold over one of the most traded commodities, oil. The rise of China and the evolving structure of international trade are changing the dynamics of this area, even though the US dollar continues to be the most important reserve currency. However, there wouldn’t be any surpluses to invest or deficits to finance if trade were more bilaterally balanced over time, which would lessen the demand for a reserve currency like dollars. The world looks to be headed towards a multi-currency structure for harmonious commercial ties. By encouraging alternate payment methods among trading nations and choosing the currency used for the IMF’s reserve holdings, for instance, it is necessary to end the US monopoly on currency arrangements. The structure can be extended to incorporate trading blocs, where imbalances net out amongst members when aggregated. It suggests a world with several reserve and trade currencies.

This bilateral or multilateral currency autarky might unleash the potential to trade freely as well as to obtain investment capital for emerging economies. Moreover, this strategy is embedded in the evolving industrial structure driven by economic sovereignty. Meanwhile, the US’s capacity to finance its ongoing budget and trade deficits would be impacted by the dollar’s declining value. Dollar interest rates may have to climb, and the currency may depreciate. The role of its capital markets and financial institutions would shrink. It would give more space for the formation of a multipolar currency regime.

*Shraddha Rishi teaches Political Science at Magadh University, Bodhgaya. She has obtained her PhD from the Centre for South Asian Studies, JNU, New Delhi.

MILAN — He’s as smooth as a bobsled track and sharp as a skate blade.

Snoop Dogg, the rap rapscallion who puts the OG in Olympic Games, plopped down on a couch in the NBC green room and muted the TV. It’s exhausting being everywhere at all times at the most spread-out Winter Games in history.

Whether he was carrying the Olympic torch, skiing with Picabo Street, sliding a curling stone or driving a Zamboni, Snoop was everywhere. He finished each day with a highlight show from the Milan studios.

So ubiquitous was the so-called Ambassador of Happiness, you’d swear NBC duped a Snoop — or maybe two.

Snoop Dogg, right, and five-time Olympic gold medalist former speedskater Eric Heiden watch speedskating at the Milan-Cortina Olympics on Feb. 11.

(Ben Curtis / Associated Press)

“The Winter Olympics are underrated,” he said in an interview Friday at the network’s Olympic complex. “It’s not highly touted like it should be. This is an event that is just as good as the Super Bowl, as the Summer Olympics. There’s so much action and there’s so much happening, and it’s not just one day. It’s not just four quarters. It’s weeks of great competition — on ice, for the most part.”

It’s almost as if the angular, 6-foot-4 Snoop is on ice as he glides through the back halls of NBC’s temporary headquarters, wearing a white turtleneck under a red, white and blue leather jacket with “COACH SNOOP” across the front. He’s wearing a gold-rope chain with the Universal logo as a pendant, and gold-rimmed sunglasses that are square and lightly tinted.

He greets everyone he sees and a friendly assistant follows him, handing out Olympic pins of a tiny, cartoonish Snoop with his arms raised at his side, standing in front of an American flag.

Is it any wonder this guy creates a buzz in every venue he enters? He is the No. 1 celebrity sighting at the Games.

“Snoop has a joy about him, a childlike curiosity, and he’s also a people person,” said Molly Solomon, executive producer and president of programming for NBC’s Olympics coverage. “He wants to lift people up in all aspects of his persona.”

NBC began using the rapper as part of its Olympic coverage during the Tokyo Games in 2021 with the streaming Peacock show “Olympic Highlights with Kevin Hart & Snoop Dogg.” Many of their playful clips and humorous commentaries went viral and were especially appealing to younger viewers. Snoop genuinely enjoyed the competition, even though a lot of it was new to him.

Three years later, as the network was preparing for the Paris Olympics, executives were looking for ways to enhance the prime-time coverage, much of which would air on tape because of time-zone differences. They decided to expand Snoop’s role to give the perspective of a “superfan.” With these Olympics, his role further evolved into an experiential one, and to serve as an informal mentor and ambassador to the athletes.

“This is the biggest stage in the world,” he said. “Nobody gets to perform in front of the world like they do, with the whole world paying attention. To have all of that pressure of [something] you’ve been working for four years … Some of these girls and guys get that one shot, their event is only one time.”

As a roving correspondent, he did … well, some serious roving.

That included making the drive from Milan to Cortina for curling, sliding and women’s ski racing. That’s a four-hour van ride each way, some of it winding into the Dolomites.

“Trying to sleep with my head up against the window, with turning curves and every mountaintop,” he said. “Sliding by trains and traffic, and oh my God, I couldn’t drive out here. One-way streets. Little-bitty trains coming this way, that way. Bicycles, mopeds. It’s a lot.”

He also made a 3½-hour trip to Livigno to watch snowboarding — and said that if he had to pick a sport to compete in, that would be his choice.

“I could get good in snowboard, because I just like the creativity of when you’re in the air you have full control but you in the air,” he said. “I just feel like that’s something I could really be good at.”

So he must have skateboarded as a kid growing up in Long Beach, right?

“Never,” he said. “That’s what I’m saying. None of these sports are near and dear to me. That’s why it’s gonna be a first-time trial. But I know who I am. I don’t like to fail. I don’t like to lose. So I’m just such a perfectionist that I will get good enough to be good enough.”

He’s 54 and concedes his body can’t always accomplish what his mind thinks it can. He tried running the 200 meters at the Olympic trials in Oregon before the Paris Games and did so in 33 seconds, but he limped away with an injury. So he has a goal for when the Summer Games come to Los Angeles in two years.

“When we get to L.A., my mission is for me to run the 200 in under 30 seconds,” he said. “In 2028, I should be 56 years old. So if I can run it in under 30 seconds at 56, that’s a gold medal for me.”

Solomon said NBC is still brainstorming about how Snoop’s role will evolve for the 2028 Games.

Honorary Team USA coach Snoop Dogg throws a curling stone as Americans Daniel Casper and Tabitha Peterson Lovick watch on Feb. 6 in Cortina d’Ampezzo, Italy.

(Richard Heathcote / Getty Images)

“Of course, L.A. is Snoop’s hometown,” she said. “So he will be a hometown hero.”

Snoop said his love for the Olympics dates to the 1984 Los Angeles Games. He didn’t attend any events at the time, though, noting that for a 13-year-old kid growing up in Long Beach, the city felt “like a whole state away.”

“We were watching on television,” he said. “We never thought we could physically be there. … It just felt good to be an American, to watch us compete against the whole world and to see how great we were.”

He’s particularly interested in flag football — which will make its debut in the Los Angeles Olympics — and created a youth football league that counts among its alumni NFL standouts C.J. Stroud and JuJu Smith-Schuster.

“Flag football is a sport the whole world can grab ahold of,” Snoop said. “There are so many athletes that are in the NFL that are from different parts of the world that they’ve grown the sport from them just making it to the NFL and being an inspiration for the next generation.”

Spoken like a true Ambassador of Happiness.

US President Trump’s announcement of the creation of the so-called “Peace Council,” involving several countries, including Morocco, sparks a deep debate that goes beyond the diplomatic event itself. It addresses the core of the international order established after World War II. The issue isn’t only about establishing a new international body but also raises an implicit question: Is the United Nations still capable of managing global peace and security, or are we entering a phase in which alternatives are being sought?

From this perspective, the Peace Council becomes a political project par excellence, reflecting shifts in the American vision of the role of international institutions and revealing a structural crisis within the United Nations system.

First: The Peace Council… Read for the idea, not the structure.

Internationally and institutionally, the Peace Council cannot be considered a direct alternative to the United Nations. The latter is grounded in an international charter, legal legitimacy, and semi-inclusive membership, whereas the Peace Council remains a selective framework, initially limited in membership, and its legitimacy is based, in particular, on the political will of the countries involved, foremost among them the United States. However, attention to this formal aspect may overlook the substance of the matter. The true value of the Peace Council lies not in its organizational and administrative structure, but in the political message it carries: explicitly questioning the United Nations’ ability to perform its historical function, offering an alternative grounded in effectiveness rather than consensus, and prioritizing alliance over inclusiveness. In other words, we are facing a shift in how international peace is managed, not just a new institutional addition.

Second: Why does the US administration believe that the United Nations has failed? Washington’s view is rooted in the strong belief that the United Nations has faced significant challenges: it has become hostage to the veto powers within the Security Council; it struggles to enforce its strategic decisions in major international conflicts; and it has shifted from being a mechanism for resolution to more of a platform for political battles. This perspective is not merely popular opinion; it is shared by many international relations scholars, who argue that the UN has not evolved sufficiently to address emerging global and regional issues, including unconventional conflicts, the rise of non-state actors, shifting global power dynamics, and a waning collective commitment to international law. In this context, the Peace Council is regarded by the United States as a tool to address what it perceives as a long-standing institutional paralysis.

Third: The Peace Council… Is it truly an alternative or just a parallel path?

When we look at international relations realistically, we usually consider three levels: 1. Legal level: The Peace Council can’t replace the United Nations when it comes to legitimacy grounded in international law. 2. Practical level: The Council aims to fill a real gap in conflict management, especially in cases where the United Nations has struggled to resolve or contain issues. 3. Symbolic and expressive level: This is where the concern grows, as the Council challenges the UN’s exclusive claim to legitimacy in the “peace industry.” In the end, it’s not just about being an alternative or a supporting body. It’s more like a parallel system that could, over time, become a real competitor if it gains more influence and members.

Fourth: The American Dimension… Redefining International Leadership.

The creation of the Peace Council aligns with Trump’s broader perspective on international relations, emphasizing three key points: reducing dependence on multilateral organizations, strengthening alliances, and shifting decision-making authority to major global powers. From this standpoint, the Council is less about promoting peace and more about reshaping America’s influence and alliances, especially in a world where Washington is reluctant to bear the costs of a global order it cannot fully control. This reflects a shift away from seeking international legitimacy toward a focus on “realistic legitimacy,” in which institutions are judged more by their results than by strict adherence to rules.

Fifth: Morocco and the Peace Council… a strategically chosen location

The Kingdom of Morocco’s decision to join the Peace Council should not be seen as a departure from the United Nations, but rather as a strategic move in its diplomatic efforts to diversify its international partnerships. Morocco maintains strong institutional ties with the UN, actively participates in peacekeeping missions, and is also eager to expand its presence in new global initiatives. By joining the Peace Council, Morocco positions itself favorably in discussions on security and stability, gaining an influential role in shaping international approaches to conflict management. This move also helps to reinforce Morocco’s image as a responsible actor that avoids relying solely on a single framework for its diplomatic and security strategies.

Sixth: Is the time of the United Nations over?

The prediction that the United Nations mission is coming to an end may be premature, but it still carries weight. The key point is that the UN is facing a crisis of legitimacy and effectiveness, not one of existence. It continues to exist, but it can no longer handle alone a world marked by multiple power centers, rising complex conflicts, and waning trust in collective action. So, the Peace Council isn’t signaling its demise but rather highlighting the deepening challenges facing the traditional international system.

In the end, the Peace Council put together by the Trump administration isn’t officially replacing the United Nations yet, but it definitely marks a shift—signaling that we’re moving from one phase to another. We’re entering a time when peace and security are handled through selective alliances and initiatives driven by major powers, rather than through large umbrella organizations. The big question is, will this new approach bring about more effective peace, or will it make the world less legitimate and more fragile? The answer won’t be found just in the data but in how this new model actually plays out on the ground.

Almost fifty years after the revolution in 1979 that changed the political landscape of Iran, Iran is at the crossroads of its history, which is defined by economic pressures, social pressure, and the changing geopolitical environment. The Islamic Republic was constructed as a combination of revolutionary ideology, anti-Western response, and promise of social justice. In the present day, although the ideological framework is still maintained, the sustainability of that framework is being strained increasingly by the structural economic pressures of the day, generational shifts, and changing regional hegemony.

On the economic front, Iran is continually constrained by global sanctions and inefficiency in its structure. Withdrawal by the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the reimposition of massive sanctions in 2018 have cut off much of the oil exports of Iranian oil, banking, and foreign investment flows. The country works well under its economic potential despite the fact that Tehran has been able to sustain limited oil sales, especially through discounted sales to China and through surrogate routes. The inflation rate has been above 40 percent during the recent years, the Iranian rial is falling drastically, and unemployment among the youth is also a burning issue. It is the middle and lower classes that are directly impacted by these economic pressures and that pose a legitimacy challenge that cannot be solved only through rhetorical means of revolution.

The internal landscape is a manifestation of long-term frustration. Frequent demonstrations regarding fuel prices, the state of the economy, and social liberation indicate the growing disparity between state discourses of resistance and the realities that the citizens encounter. The newer generation born after the revolution has lost any connection with the revolutionary memory of 1979 and perceives governance less as ideologically symbolic and more based on economic performance and individual opportunity. The policy employed by the state has been based on the repressed handling of dissent, which consists of the limitation of the mobilization of protests and the prevention of the collapse of the system. Although this is a way of maintaining short-term stability, it does not deal with structural issues like brain drain, capital flight, falling purchasing power, and diminished faith in long-term economic potential.

The main political quandary is consequently a legitimacy transformation quandary. In the past, the Islamic Republic gained legitimacy through revolutionary mobilization, religious control, and confrontation with the external hostilities, especially the United States and Israel. Nevertheless, the contemporary politics demands more and more performance-based legitimacy—providing economic growth, stability, and material changes in the quality of life. The conflict between ideological stability and realistic adjustment is the characteristic of the contemporary crossroads of Iran.

Iran is geopolitically a country that exists in the complex web of pressures. The United States is still the main external agent, which affects the Tehran strategic calculations. The policy of Washington is alternating between the engagement of diplomacy and coercion, yet the ultimate goal is the same as it is: avoiding the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons competence and reducing its impact in the region. In Tehran, it will need negotiations that will help soften sanctions and stabilize the economy, but any deal will not collapse under the perception of submission over matters of sovereignty, ballistic missile potential, and relations with the region.

Meanwhile, the nuclear and missile programs in Iran are considered to be existential threats to Israel. The shadow struggle that has been there for a long time, including cyber attacks, precision attacks, espionage, and proxy wars, has heightened strategic mistrust. The intensity of this rivalry is shown by the fact that Israel has been carrying out its operations within Iran and against Iran-related targets in Syria. Any intensification would attract Gulf states and disrupt world energy supply, especially through the Strait of Hormuz, which is a choke point in the oil markets of the world. Even minor confrontations will have a global economic impact, as Iran is strategically placed in the important maritime paths.

The regional policy of Iran has focused on the establishment of strategic depth by alliance and coalition with non-state actors and supportive governments within Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. This system becomes a deterrence and leverage factor, making it difficult to engage in a direct military strike on the territory of Iran. Geostrategically, this doctrine of forward defense has enhanced the bargaining power of Iran. But it is likewise causing tension with the other Arab countries and creating the impression of destabilization in the region. The recent diplomatic thaw between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which was facilitated by China, shows that both sides noticed that continued confrontation is expensive in terms of both economics and strategy.

Iran is geographically at one of the most strategic points of Eurasia. It connects the Persian Gulf with Central Asia, the Caucasus, and South Asia. The International North-South Transport Corridor is one of the major trade routes that can make Iran a major transit route between India and Russia and Europe. This geo-economic location, in theory, has colossal prospects of being rolled into new multipolar trade systems. Sanctions and political isolation in reality prevent full access to the global markets. The latter can be said to be strategic convergence, as Iran was brought closer to Russia, especially after the war in Ukraine, as a result of Western pressure. But such convergence also subjects Tehran to secondary sanctions and makes it less flexible in its East-West balancing.

Iran—Concerns about the nuclear problem continue to be the major pivot of the external affairs. Tehran maintains that its nuclear program is nonviolent and has indicated that it is free for verification. But the Western governments require more guarantees and wider negotiations, which can feature missile capabilities and regional operations. It is possible that a strictly limited nuclear deal will minimize the risks of immediate proliferation and alleviate the economic pressure, which might make the Iranian internal situation more stable. Nonetheless, such a deal may not help solve any underlying rivalries between the region but could simply freeze the situation unless there are larger regional de-escalation mechanisms. On the other hand, the inability to find any solution will lead to the further worsening of the economy and the possible military clash.

In a more geo-strategically global understanding, the balance of power between the Middle East and the rest of the world will be influenced by the course of Iran. In case Tehran manages to negotiate the lifting of sanctions and turns in the direction of economic integration with the Gulf states, it will be able to shift from the resistance-focused model to the development-oriented state step by step. This would strengthen the stability of the region, safeguard the energy security, and minimize the motivation to intervene. It would also make the regional rivalry be based more on economic rivalry rather than military rivalry, especially in terms of infrastructure rivalry, trade corridor rivalry, and energy market rivalry.

Nevertheless, should the negotiations fail and the confrontation escalate, Iran might apply the asymmetric deterrence further, increasing the range of its missiles and extending proxy bases. That way would strengthen the preemptive stance of Israel and increase the presence of the US military in the Gulf. The escalation would disorient shipping routes, exert more volatility on oil prices, and disintegrate the security infrastructure in the region. To the surrounding Arab nations, which require diversifying and changing their economies, new warfare would destroy investment conditions and long-term strategies.

On the domestic front, economic resilience is what will sustain the strategic position of Iran. The political principle of endurance can only be stretched so far as inflation undermines the wages and the depreciation of currency undermines savings. This needs structural changes: enhancing transparency, welcoming foreign investment, and a non-hydrocarbon economy, and empowering the business sector. Foreign policy victories cannot entirely offset its dissatisfaction at home without economic change.

After all, the crossroads of Iran is not only ideological but also structural. The state has to strike a compromise between sovereignty and economic need, deterrence and diplomacy, and ideological identity and practical governance. Its strategic location means that its decisions will have a far-reaching impact, not only across its frontiers, but also on the energy markets of the world, the great-power politics, and the new security order of the Middle East. The future of Iran becoming a development-oriented regional power with full membership in multipolar networks or being a sanction-bound resistance state under continuous pressure will not only dictate the internal stability of the country but also the geopolitical orientation of a long-time conflict-ridden and strategically divided region.

THE Beckhams played happy families amid their feud with Brooklyn as their youngest son Cruz celebrated his 21st with a Beatles-themed party.

Victoria, 51, and David, 50, joined their other children Cruz, 21, Romeo, 23, and Harper, 14, on Sunday night for the event – which their estranged eldest son was not invited to.

They forget about their family drama as they posed for a photo, also featuring Cruz’s girlfriend Jackie Apostel, 30, and Romeo’s partner, DJ Kim Turnbull, 24.

Cruz, who will turn 21 on Friday, hired out the restaurant at The Maine Mayfair in London.

Alongside photos from the event, which included a lavish dinner and concert, mum Posh wrote on Instagram: “Celebrating Cruz early!! We love you so much!!!”

Read more on The Beckhams

NAUGHTY NIC

Brooklyn’s wife Nicola’s racy scenes from stripper film to romp with nepo baby

KEEP IT INDIE FAMILY

Cruz Beckham debuts brand new track & releases video – with grandad

David added: “We love celebrating you Cruzie. A lot of love in the room for you last night.”

The lavish event was dubbed The Grand Beatle Ball and included a performance from the world’s No1 tribute band to the music icons, The Bootleg Beatles.

In videos shared online, Cruz could be seen joining them on stage to perform a guitar solo during a rendition of the 1969 song Something.

The fledgling musician also performed with his band The Breakers.
Victoria’s Spice Girls bandmate Emma Bunton, 50, was among the guests at the party, where his sister Harper gave a speech.

They enjoyed themed cocktails, including one named after his latest single For Your Love, and another named after the 1996 Spice Girls song Wannabe.

Cruz has not spoken to Brooklyn, 26, for months, amid growing family tensions.

He claimed that his brother had blocked him, but in his six-page Instagram statement last month, Brooklyn claimed it was the other way around.

The chef claimed Romeo and Cruz “were sent to attack me on social media, before they ultimately blocked me out of nowhere this last Summer”.

As his family were celebrating in London, Brooklyn shared a belated Valentine’s Day message on Instagram vowing to always “protect” his wife Nicola Peltz, 31.

In the gushing post, alongside a photo of them kissing, he wrote: “Happy Valentine’s Day baby x

“I am the luckiest person in the world to be able to call you my Valentine’s every year x.

“I love you more than you know and I will forever protect and love you x.”

MILAN — The U.S. will take the No. 2 seed into the quarterfinals of the men’s hockey tournament of the Milan-Cortina Olympics after beating Germany 5-1 on Sunday to finish group play unbeaten.

The Americans’ opponent in the final eight will be determined in a four-game qualification round Tuesday. Canada, also unbeaten after it thrashed France 10-2 earlier in the day, will take the top seed into the quarterfinals by virtue of its plus-17 goal differential.

The U.S. got two scores Sunday from Auston Matthews and goals from Zach Werenski, Brock Faber and Tage Thompson. Germany’s only score came from Tim Stutzle of the Ottawa Senators, his fourth of the Olympics, with less than nine minutes to play.

The Americans outshot Germany 13-3 during the first 16 minutes, but a combination of poor puck handling and sloppy play in front of the net kept them off the scoreboard until Werenski, a defenseman with the Columbus Blue Jackets, took a pass from Matthews in the center of the right circle, stepped up and drilled a wrister past goalie Maximilian Franzreb nine seconds before the first intermission.

The U.S. thought it had a goal moments earlier when Vegas Golden Knights’ forward Jack Eichel drove the puck from the top of the left circle though a crowd and into the back of the net. But the officials ruled the play had been whistled dead before the shot.

Matthews, the Toronto Maple Leafs’ captain, doubled the advantage 3:25 into the second period, poking the rebound of a Quinn Hughes’ shot by Franzreb for his second power-play goal of the Olympics.

Faber, who plays for he Minnesota Wild, made it 3-0 with less than 2:30 left in the second period, playing the puck off the boards near the blue line and flicking it on goal where Eichel got a stick up in front of Franzreb, distracting the goalie as he reached up unsuccessfully to glove the puck.

Thompson, of the Buffalo Sabres, and Matthews closed out the scoring for the U.S. with goals less than five minutes apart into the final period.

For three decades, the Dropkick Murphys have played their riotous brand of Boston Irish Celtic punk for legions of tattooed, mosh-pitting fans, but it wasn’t until last month that they found a new following among an unlikely demographic: C-SPAN viewers.

Washington policy wonks and political junkies who tuned in to watch former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith testify before the House last month were treated to lurid details about President Trump’s alleged involvement in 2020 election meddling and the Jan. 6 insurrection. What they didn’t bargain for were the animated actions of former D.C. cop Michael Fanone, who was in the chamber wearing a Dropkick Murphys T-shirt that read “Fighting Nazis Since 1996.”

Fanone, who was brutally attacked by a pro-Trump mob while defending the Capitol in 2021, was impossible to miss. He was seated directly behind Smith and the only guy visible in a band T-shirt. Also notable were his reactions to GOP suggestions that the attack on the Capitol never happened, or was everyone’s fault but Trump’s: He coughed out expletives and flashed colorful hand gestures. Dropkick Murphys T-shirt sales spiked.

“It was this crazy, organic thing,” says Ken Casey, lead singer of the band. “We never put up a poster saying, ‘Hey, wear our shirt!’ But over the course of the next week, we sold like 6,000 of those shirts.” And for those who want one now? The shirt is on back order.

Casey, who speaks in a thick, working-class Boston accent (think “The Departed” meets a Ben Affleck Dunkin’ Donuts commercial), isn’t a stranger to mixing music and politics. He has been outspoken onstage and in the recording studio about his opposition to MAGA’s immigration policy, racist rhetoric and war on the working class. And the band announced Tuesday they’re parting ways with the Wasserman Music agency because the namesake of the agency turned up in the Epstein files.

Casey spoke with The Times about challenging MAGA through the rebellion of punk rock.

The Dropkick Murphys’ “Fighting Nazis Since 1996” T-shirt is a hot item now thanks to its appearance on Capitol Hill, via Fanone. He’s been very active and adamant about countering MAGA’s Jan. 6 narratives, including testifying with his colleagues in front of the House select committee investigating the insurrection.

Ken Casey: “Michael is an old friend. He was at our very first Dropkick show in D.C. in 1996, so it’s not like he’s some kind of jump-on-the-bandwagon guy. I appreciate just how vocal he is. It’s one thing to talk the talk, but it’s another to walk the walk and be showing up at all those events, and really putting himself out there.

But why is it important for the Dropkick Murphys to speak out? You’ve no doubt lost fans.

I hate to say it, but in some ways, MAGA needs to be countered with a mirror of them, like in physical appearance. They love painting themselves as righteous warriors and the rest of the country as immigrants, or whatever other stupid s— they come up with. But it seems to trigger them more when someone like Michael Fanone and the Dropkick Murphys speak up to them because it just like explodes their mind. It’s like, “You’re supposed to be on my side!” It’s like no, remember when you were on our side? Before you got twisted up by this lying con man?

In some ways, no band has more to lose because our fan base is the population that might jump into MAGA. But there is that middle ground — the people who don’t have time for politics. Who don’t follow it as closely as you or I do. They hear things about Biden, hear things about Trump, and it’s like “I don’t know what to believe.” That’s where voices like [mine] are important. You’re hearing it from someone who really doesn’t have skin in the game. I’m an American citizen, not a politician. I don’t have corporate interest involved in this.

And then there’s the new interest in your band, from folks who are just discovering you, or maybe just know your material from film soundtracks like “The Departed” (“I’m Shipping Up to Boston”).

It’s also brought back fans and there’s this [renewed] punk rock urgency and importance to our shows. It’s gained us a lot of new fans, in theory, like people who don’t necessarily listen to punk rock, or who wouldn’t listen to our music or come to our shows, they now speak out and say, “I support Dropkick Murphys for what they’re doing.” It’s support in solidarity. For the [longtime] fans, it’s rekindled this new dedication. It’s reconnected us with some old fans who had drifted away.

What do you say to other music artists who are afraid to speak out against what they see as an injustice or wrongdoing?

We’ve already had every death threat, every friggin’ cancellation threat. So what would we say to other bands and other people who are keeping their head down because they don’t want to deal with all the drama that comes along with speaking up? Come on in. The water is great. There’s nothing to worry about. The [trolls] are a vocal minority — online is bots and paid influencer types. Don’t let anybody silence you.

At this year’s Grammy Awards ceremony, every other acceptance speech contained anti-ICE sentiment, so it does appear that more musicians are speaking out against Trump’s policies.

Listen, if executions in the streets of your citizens [by ICE agents] doesn’t get people to speak out, then nothing will. But it’s nice to finally see there’s a wave starting to peak, out of frustration and realization. I can also tell from the amount of attacks we get that there’s some backpedaling. Obviously, there’ll always be the die-hards — Trump could be molesting someone in front of their eyes, and they’d still stick with him. But there’s a lot of people trying to quietly distance themselves.

Ken Casey of Dropkick Murphys

(Riley Vecchione)

If we’re being historically accurate, the Dropkicks have always had something to say about what’s going on in this country.

The very first line sung on our very first album was in regards to how Reagan started the dismantling of unions and [created a] wealth gap, so we’ve been about it the whole time. We’ve been showing up on picket lines the whole time. Social justice, we’ve always been about it. But before Trump, we weren’t necessarily having to make it a social media presence type of thing. But we’re in a different time now.

The Republicans started to cosplay as working-class white males, and people bought right into it. There’s a portion of this country that is sick and twisted and MAGA has been a great vehicle for them, but then there’s also a big portion of the country that just got caught up in the lies and the bull— and the rhetoric.

Your band is part of a new initiative aimed at getting more punk bands to speak truth to power.

The Dropkick Murphys and Michael Fanone, along with the guys in Rise Against, have started a collaborative called Down for the Cause. It’s basically going to be kind of a punk rock collaborative because years from now, we don’t want punk rock to be disgraced by the silence. Just kind of get involved, not necessarily supporting candidates but more like taking back the air waves let people know that we don’t have to accept this unacceptable behavior. Also reminding people to vote, because if all those people didn’t stay on the sidelines in the last election, we probably wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.

Your band just released a new song, “Citizen I.C.E.” But is it new?

The song is actually 20 years old. It was called “Citizen CIA.” It was basically a mock recruitment song for the CIA, poking fun at the damage the CIA has done around the world. Now we flipped it to a mock ICE recruitment song, with lines like “Too scared to join the military, too dumb to be a cop.” It’ll be out on a split album, “New England Forever,” that we did with a younger Boston band called Haywire. We’re touring with them now [ on the “For The People…In the Pit St. Patrick’s Day Tour”].

What do you say to people who say shut up and sing.

I get that even people who aren’t necessarily MAGA don’t want to listen to someone [on a] soapbox. But I view where we are as five-alarm fire, and if you got a microphone in front of your mouth, you better damn well be talking into it.

A real couple said “I do” at the Super Bowl halftime show — and Bad Bunny and Lady Gaga were there to bless the union.

For those analyzing the details in Bad Bunny’s 15-minute halftime performance, there was a real wedding that took place at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara in front of 75,000 fans.

The couple signed their nuptials as Lady Gaga performed a salsa rendition of her ballad “Die With a Smile” — notably without collaborator Bruno Mars.

According to a statement released by Bad Bunny’s publicist, the couple had first invited Bad Bunny to attend their wedding but were instead invited to be part of the Apple Music halftime show performance.

Amid his busy performance — which included dancing on utility poles, a bodega, a field filled with laborers and the pink casita stage created during his 2025 residency in San Juan, Puerto Rico — the Puerto Rican star still made time to sign off on their marriage certificate before the newlyweds relished their first slice of cake.

New Pentagon guidance for defending critical infrastructure against drone attacks calls for the increased use of netting, cables, and other kinds of passive physical defenses. This reflects a notable shift in policy within the department. For years now, U.S. military officials have often pushed back on the utility and cost-effectiveness of investing more in the physical hardening of bases and other critical facilities, especially shelters to shield aircraft from drones and other threats.

The Joint Inter-Agency Task Force 401 (JIATF-401) released the three-page document on “Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure” last Friday. The Pentagon established JIATF-401 last August to coordinate counter-drone efforts across the department and help accelerate the fielding of new capabilities. Last week, the Pentagon also announced new authorities for military base commanders, expanding their options for responding to drone threats more broadly.

The new guidance from JIATF-401 talks about “critical infrastructure” mostly in terms of civilian sites ranging from power plants to sports venues. Drones do present real and still growing threats to critical civilian infrastructure, something TWZ has been calling attention to for years now. The Pentagon explicitly said the document had been released as part of work it has been doing in cooperation with the White House’s FIFA Task Force, which is preparing for the United States to host the World Cup later this year. However, it is made clear that the contents are equally applicable to helping protect military facilities from uncrewed aerial systems.

“When we talk about Homeland defense, we’re not just talking about military bases, power grids and ports; we’re talking about places where Americans gather. With major international events like the World Cup on the horizon, the security of our stadiums, for example, is a national priority,” U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Matt Ross, Director of JIATF-401, said in a statement accompanying the release. “Whether it’s a forward operating base, an outdoor concert venue or a stadium hosting the World Cup, the principles of risk assessment and physical protection outlined in this guide remain the same. This new guidance provides a common playbook for our forces to work closely with federal and local partners to ensure a safe and secure environment against the growing challenge of nefarious drones.”

The new counter-drone guidance’s central concept is a framework called HOP, standing for Harden, Obscure, Perimeter.

“Hardening does not mean enclosing an entire facility, but selectively introducing obstacles that disrupt predictable aerial access,” the document explains. “Even modest obstacles can deter low-cost, consumer-grade drones and force higher-risk flight profiles.”

As noted, the guidance highlights nets and tensioned cables as examples of this kind of cost-effective hardening. It also recommends closing retractable roofs and otherwise covering any other roof openings where and when it is feasible to do so. Underscoring the immediate focus on the World Cup, the document notes that “netting used to protect fans from projectiles can be repurposed to disrupt sUAS [small uncrewed aerial systems] flight and observation.”

The guidance also recommends the construction of more substantial “permanent or semi-permanent structural shielding, including concrete walls, enclosures, or hardened roofs designed to protect critical systems from overhead approach, observation, or objects released from a UAS.”

We will come back to all of this in a moment.

The “Obscure” component of the HOP framework focuses on making it harder for drones and their operators to find their targets in the first place. This can include an array of different tactics, techniques, and procedures, such as physical camouflage and decoys, as well as regular changes to how personnel and assets move through a facility. “If a drone cannot easily identify targets, crowds, or critical systems, its effectiveness drops sharply,” the new guidance notes.

Lastly, there is the “Perimeter” portion of the HOP framework, which is centered on expanded security zones around a specific site and ways to improve general situational awareness. “Pushing the effective perimeter outward forces drones to operate at greater distance, which strains battery life, degrades video and control links, increases the chance of operator exposure, [and] creates a larger safety buffer if a drone is downed.”

As an aside, the recently announced new counter-drone authorities for the commanders of U.S. military bases include the ability to respond to threats inside expanded zones beyond the facility’s immediate “fence-line.” The right-sizing of perimeters around domestic facilities and their enforcement has been a particularly complex issue for the U.S. government when it comes to counter-drone policies in recent years. Potential second-order impacts to surrounding areas, especially in densely populated urban environments, have to be taken into account and mitigated. This all imposes limits on the kind of assets that can be employed to neutralize drone threats once they’ve been detected, as you can read more about here.

As mentioned, the “Harden” part of the HOP frame stands out given how U.S. military officials have treated the topic in the past, at least publicly.

“We will have the need for bases, the main operating bases from which we operate,” U.S. Air Force Gen. Kevin Schneider, head of Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), said during a panel at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) 2025 Warfare Symposium last March. “The challenge becomes, at some point, we will need to move to austere locations. We will need to disaggregate the force. We will need to operate out of other locations, again, one for survivability, and two, again, to provide response options.”

Schneider added at that time that his service was faced with the need to “make internal trades” in how to apply available funding, including “do we put that dollar towards, you know, fixing the infrastructure at Kadena [Air Base in Japan] or do we put that dollar towards restoring an airfield at Tinian.”

“I got tons of airfields from tons of allies, and we have access to all of them. The problem is, I can only protect a few of them,” now-retired Air Force Gen. James Hecker, then head of U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE), another member of that same panel, had also said. “We can’t have that layered [defensive] effect for thousands of airbases. There’s just no way it’s going to happen.”

“I’m not a big fan of hardening infrastructure,” Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, then head of PACAF, had also said at a media roundtable at the Air & Space Forces Association’s main annual symposium back in 2023. “The reason is because of the advent of precision-guided weapons… you saw what we did to the Iraqi Air Force and their hardened aircraft shelters. They’re not so hard when you put a 2,000-pound bomb right through the roof.”

It is worth noting here that traditional high-end guided missiles and other precision-guided munitions are no longer necessarily required to carry out strikes of this kind. Drones costing thousands of dollars, and able to be launched from very long distances away, can now execute precision attacks.

Wilsbach is now Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the service’s top officer.

The U.S. military has faced pushback from Congress on the topic of hardening. Multiple independent assessments have also raised alarms. TWZ has been following this often-heated debate closely.

There have been signs that the U.S. military’s position on hardening, and that of the Air Force’s more specifically, has been shifting already. In 2024, authorities at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina both put out contracting notices asking for information about nets and other physical barriers to stop potential drone attacks. Langley had become a focal point for the drone threat discussion by that point after the base was subjected to weeks of still largely unexplained drone incursions in December 2023, which we were first to report.

Last year, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) announced that it had developed upgrades for a family of modular, rapidly deployable protective structures specifically to improve their effectiveness against drone attacks.

“The technology is not going to solve this problem for us. We can’t field a system that will stop every drone,” JIATF-401 director Brig. Gen. Ross told TWZ and other outlets during a press call in December in response to a direct question about physical hardening from this author. “At the end of that would be protection, which would be netting or fencing or physical barriers that would prevent a [sic] unmanned system from having its intended effect.”

Brig. Gen. Ross had said that this was among the things JIATF-401 had discussed in meetings with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies as part of World Cup preparations, presaging the release of the new guidance last week.

“As you think about protection, I would go all the way down to protective protection type assets, those will be included in our marketplace. And so if somebody wants to buy a $10,000 radar that has limited range, they’ll be able to buy it on the marketplace. If they want to buy a low cost interceptor for … [small drones] that just uses kinetic energy to defeat a drone – that’s a drone that hits a drone for $1,000 – they’ll be able to buy it on our marketplace,” he added. “If they want to buy physical barrier material, whether it’s a fishing net or a chain link fence, they’ll also be able to buy that as part of that counter-UAS marketplace.”

The central “marketplace” mentioned here, through which elements of the military and other U.S. government agencies can source counter-drone capabilities, is a key initiative that JIATF-401 has been working on and that you can learn more about here.

It is important to stress that U.S. military officials are unified in their position that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to countering drones. Physical hardening is just one part of a layered approach and is not a ‘silver bullet’ solution to protect against all types of drone threats. Active defenses, including electronic warfare jammers, drone-like interceptors like Brig. Gen. Ross mentioned, and more traditional anti-aircraft assets, are still part of the equation, to differing degrees, for defending against drones at home and abroad.

At the same time, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has shown that even limited, lower-cost measures like netting can be useful for disrupting attacks by smaller kamikaze drones and loitering munitions in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

In Shebekino, Belgorod region, 41 apartment buildings have been covered with anti-drone nets. The local creatures are loving it – they joke about it and, as always, endure it with classic patience. pic.twitter.com/Q26fwKX1ut

— WarTranslated (@wartranslated) April 3, 2025

Last year, near-simultaneous covert attacks by Ukrainian forces on multiple air bases in Russia utilizing quadcopter-type kamikaze drones underscored the level of damage that even lower-tier uncrewed aerial attackers can inflict on high-value targets. Mass drone attacks are only set to get more threatening as time goes on, as the barrier to entry on automated targeting and swarming capabilities lowers thanks to the steady proliferation of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. This, in turn, only increases the challenges for defenders, including the prospect of simply being overwhelmed. For years, TWZ has been separately sounding the alarm on how aircraft sitting on open flightlines are especially vulnerable, in general.

The russian terrorist state no longer has the ability to produce Tu-95s or any kind of strategic bomber. This is a tremendous victory for Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/SVeQE78v0h

— Michael MacKay (@mhmck) June 1, 2025

Outside of the United States, among adversaries and allies alike, there has also been a growing trend toward more physical hardening at air bases and other facilities. China has embarked on a particularly extensive effort to build new hardened and unhardened shelters at air bases across the country. The Chinese have been observed building other kinds of hardened infrastructure, including a new pattern of protected air defense sites along their disputed border with India, as well. Even before the unprecedented drone attacks last year, Russia had also been working to add new shelters, hardened and unhardened, to various air bases, but with a focus on ones closer to the fighting in Ukraine.

Structures that are sturdy enough even just to protect against shrapnel could have broader value, too. Just over a year ago, the Hudson Institute think tank in Washington, D.C., published a report assessing that 10 missiles with warheads capable of scattering cluster munitions across an area with a 450-foot diameter could be enough to neutralize all exposed aircraft on the ground and critical fuel storage at various key airbases. Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in Japan and Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, as well as Langley in Virginia, were specifically highlighted, as seen below.

Overall, the Pentagon’s counter-drone prescriptions are still evolving, especially when it comes to defending bases and critical civilian infrastructure within the United States. At the same time, despite public stances that officials have taken in the past, hardened structures and other kinds of physical defenses have become an important part of the current counter-drone playbook.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Los Angeles County will halt some payments from its $4-billion sex abuse settlement, leaving many plaintiffs on edge as prosecutors ramp up an investigation into allegations of fraud.

L.A. County agreed last spring to the record payout to settle a flood of lawsuits from people who said they’d been sexually abused by staff in government-run foster homes and juvenile camps. Many attorneys had told their clients they could expect the first tranche of money to start flowing this month.

But the county’s acting chief executive officer, Joseph M. Nicchitta, said Thursday that the county would “pause all payments” for unvetted claims after a request by Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman. These are claims that have been flagged as requiring a “higher level of scrutiny,” according to a joint report submitted Thursday by attorneys in the settlement.

The district attorney announced he would investigate the historic settlement after reporting by The Times that found some plaintiffs who said they were paid to sue. Investigators have found “a significant number of cases where we believe there is potential fraud,” according to a spokesperson for the prosecutor’s office. The State Bar is spearheading a separate inquiry into fraud allegations.

On Jan. 9, Hochman formally requested the county pause the distribution of funds for at least six months, which he said would give his office “a reasonable opportunity to complete critical investigative steps.”

“Premature disbursement of settlement funds poses a substantial risk of interfering with the investigation by complicating witness cooperation, obscuring financial trails, and impairing my office’s ability to identify and prosecute fraudulent activity,” Hochman wrote in a letter to Andy Baum, the county’s main outside attorney working on the settlement.

Plaintiff lawyers argued the county was required to turn over money by the end of the month.

The county said it came to an agreement Thursday and plans to turn over $400 million on Friday, which would “cover claims that have already been validated,” according to a statement from Nicchitta. That money will go into a fund where it will be distributed when judges are finished vetting and deciding how much each claim is worth.

“No plaintiff was getting paid until the allocation process is completed,” said the county’s top lawyer, Dawyn Harrison. “The County is not overseeing that intensive process.”

The rest of the payments, Nicchitta said, will be on hold until the claims can “be appropriately investigated.”

“The County takes extremely seriously its obligations to provide just compensation to survivors. Preventing fraud is central to that commitment,” he said. “Fraudulent claims of sexual assault harm survivors by diluting compensation for survivors and casting public doubt over settlements as a whole.”

The uncertainty has sparked a sense of despair among those who spent the last few years wading through the darkest memories of their lives in hopes of a life-changing sum.

Andrea Proctor, 45, said the last few years have been like “digging into a scar that was healed.”

“The whole lawsuit just blew air out of me,” said Proctor, who sued in 2022 over alleged abuse at MacLaren Children’s Center, an El Monte shelter where she says she was drugged and sexually abused by staff as a teenager. “I’m just sitting out here empty.”

Proctor said she desperately needs the money to stabilize her life, the first part of which was spent careening from one crisis to the next — an instability she traces partially to the abuse she suffered as a minor.

Since a 2020 law change that extended the statute of limitations to sue over childhood sexual abuse, thousands have come forward with claims of abuse in county-run facilities dating back decades. The county resolved claims it faced last year through two massive payouts — the first settlement for $4 billion, which includes roughly 11,000 plaintiffs, and a second one last October worth $828 million, which includes about 400 victims.

Now, according to court filings made public Tuesday, the county faces an additional 5,500 claims of the same nature, leaving the prospect of a third hefty payout looming on the horizon.

“They’re telling me the ship has sailed,” said Martin Gould, a partner with Gould Grieco & Hensley, who said he wants this next flood of litigation to focus on pushing for arrests of predatory staff members still on the county’s payroll. “I don’t believe that.”

Gould says his firm, based in Chicago, represents about 70 victims in the new litigation. James Harris Law Firm, a small Seattle-based firm that specializes in big personal injury cases, has about 3,000. The Right Trial Lawyers, a firm that lists a Texas office as its headquarters, has about 700, according to an attorney affiliated with the firm.

These lawyers will be pleading their cases in front of a public — and a Board of Supervisors — at a moment when the conversation has shifted from a reckoning over systemic sexual abuse inside county facilities to concerns about the use of taxpayer money.

A series of Times investigations last fall found nine clients represented by Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA, who said they were paid by recruiters to sue. Four said they were told to make up their claims.

All the lawsuits filed by the firm, which represents roughly a quarter of the plaintiffs in the $4-billion settlement, are now under review by Daniel Buckley, a former presiding judge of the county’s Superior Court.

DTLA has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and said in a previous statement that it “categorically does not engage in, nor has it ever condoned, the exchange of money for client retention.”

Several DTLA clients said they were unaware of the probes by the State Bar and the district attorney, though they were told this month to expect delays in payments due, in part, to “a higher-than-expected false claim potential.”

The delays have caused extra anguish for some plaintiffs who have taken out loans against their settlement.

Proctor took out loans worth $15,000 from High Rise Financial, an L.A.-based legal funding company, which collects a larger portion of her payout with each passing year. She now owes more than $34,000, according to loan statements.

Proctor said High Rise Financial recently inquired about buying her out of the settlement payment, which the county is expected to pay out over five years. The loan company told her she could get a percentage of her settlement up front in a lump sum, with the company pocketing the rest as profit. For example, she said, she was told if she received a $300,000 payout, she could get $205,000 up front.

“Conversations were held with consumers to assess their interest in a potential financial arrangement related to a possible settlement,” High Rise said in a statement. “No agreements were sent, nor were any transactions entered into.”

Proctor’s friend Krista Hubbard, who also sued over abuse at MacLaren Children’s Center, borrowed $20,000 to help her through a period of homelessness. She now owes nearly $43,000. She said she, too, got the same offer this month from High Rise of getting bought out of her settlement.

Hubbard, who is crashing at the home of her godfather in Arkansas, said she’s considering it.

“How much longer is it going to take?” she said. “Am I going to be able to not be homeless?”

The $828-million settlement, which includes just three law firms, is running into its own roadblock with lawyers belatedly learning that roughly 30 of their clients were also set to receive money from the $4-billion settlement despite rules barring plaintiffs from receiving money from both.

The overlap has led to a dispute over which pot of money should cover payments to those plaintiffs. Those in the $828-million settlement, which has a much smaller pool of plaintiffs, are expected to get much more.

“It reeks,” said Courtney Thom, an attorney with Manly Stewart & Finaldi, who said she believed the county should have flagged long ago that there were identical clients in both settlements.

“It is not for me to fact-check for the county,” she told Judge Lawrence Riff at a court hearing Wednesday. “It is not for me to cross-reference names.”

Some of these plaintiffs had two different sexual abuse claims against the county — for example, one lawsuit alleged abuse in foster care while a second involved juvenile halls. Other clients had identical claims in both groups and mistakenly believed the two firms that represented them were compiling the information into one claim, Thom said.

Baum, the outside attorney defending the county, told Riff he wanted to ensure the clients didn’t “have their hands in two cookie jars.”