funds

United States Republican President Donald Trump says he will restrict federal funds for New York City if Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the city’s mayoral elections, to be held on Tuesday.

Trump said on his Truth Social platform on Monday that “it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing Federal Funds, other than the very minimum as required”, if Mamdani wins the race.

Polls show Mamdani leading against former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after losing to Mamdani in the Democratic primary, and Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa, who is the Republican nominee.

According to the latest RealClearPolitics polls on Monday, Mamdani led with 45.8 percent, maintaining a 14.7-point advantage over Cuomo’s 31.1 percent and a 28.5-point lead over Sliwa’s 17.3 percent.

On the final day of campaigning on Monday, the mayoral candidates raced across New York City’s five boroughs after months of back-and-forth barbs, social media hits and saucy debates.

As the closely-watched election day edged closer, Mamdani led a sunrise walk across the Brooklyn Bridge, flanked by hundreds of supporters, before kicking off the day with a speech at City Hall.

Cuomo, on his part, denounced socialism in the Bronx, visited seniors in Chinatown, and popped off an X post calling Mamdani a “poser”.

And Republican candidate Sliwa greeted supporters in the Coney Island neighbourhood of Brooklyn in his signature red hat, as he spoke at a subway station where a woman was killed on a train last year.

Mamdani and Cuomo’s duelling campaigns have reflected their positions in the New York race: the son of another former New York governor, steeped in the liberal Democratic political establishment, versus a young and little-known assemblyman who would be the city’s first Muslim, first person born in Africa and the first person of South Asian descent to lead New York City.

The mayoral race, which has captured outsized global attention, has seen a record 735,317 early votes cast over the past nine days, more than four times the total for the 2021 election, according to the New York City Board of Elections.

‘Our time is now’

Mamdani, a 34-year-old New York state assemblyman, has galvanised New Yorkers with an optimistic, multilingual campaign that promised free buses, rent freezes and universal childcare, partially paid for by taxing the city’s wealthiest residents.

He reiterated that Trump had signalled his support for Cuomo in a 60 Minutes interview. In recent weeks, Cuomo has appealed to conservatives as a way to up his polling numbers.

“If [Cuomo is] elected as mayor, our city will descend deeper into the darkness that has forced too many of our neighbours to flee, and made it impossible for working people to live lives of dignity,” Mamdani said.

In his City Hall speech on Monday, Mamdani seemed to embrace the seismic shift that his campaign has represented for New York’s politics.

“There were few in this city who dared to imagine that we could win, and what it would mean for a city that has – for too long – served only the wealthy and powerful, at the expense of those who work through sunrises and sunsets,” Mamdani said.

Moments later, the crowd broke out in cheers of, “Our time is now!”

Cuomo, who resigned as governor in 2021 after an independent state probe found he had engaged in a pattern of sexually harassing women, took aim at Mamdani’s democratic socialist promises in his final hours of campaigning, likening them to left-wing governments in Latin America.

“Socialism didn’t work in Venezuela. Socialism didn’t work in Cuba. Socialism is not going to work in New York City,” Cuomo said. Mamdani, however, is a self-described “democratic socialist”.

New York’s most prominent billionaires, including hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, have supported Cuomo’s campaign, with Ackman doling out a total of $750,000 through donation vehicles known as super PACs, CNBC reported last week.

Since the club entered administration, fans have ended a boycott of the club, which had seen many supporters not attend Carabao Cup ties against Leeds United and Grimsby Town at Hillsborough, and this month’s home league game with Middlesbrough.

Administrator Kris Wigfield, who is leading the search for new ownership, said on Monday that supporters had already spent more than £500,000 on tickets and in the club shop.

He said there were already “four or five interested parties that look like the real deal” but that because of EFL rules, the club would need to be on the market for 28 days before they could move towards preferred-bidder status.

“I’m hopeful that by the end of November, if things go well, we might know who’s going to buy the football club,” he told BBC 5 Live’s Wake Up To Money programme.

“Then hopefully a deal can be concluded this calendar year, so that the new owner is in for the January transfer window, if the EFL allows the new owner to buy players.”

Hundreds of fans also attended an open first-team training session at the Owls’ home ground earlier this week

Sheffield Wednesday said the event was “a gesture from the first-team squad and staff” to thank supporters for their “unprecedented” response to the club going into administration.

Oct. 28 (UPI) — With the impending loss of benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program potentially causing low-income Americans and their families to go hungry, 25 states have filed suit to force the federal government to release funds for the program during the federal government shutdown.

Starting Saturday, SNAP benefits will not be distributed. The program gives food aid to 40 million Americans.

In past government shutdowns, the USDA used a contingency fund to pay out SNAP benefits. Last week, the President Donald Trump administration said it won’t be using contingency funds to pay for SNAP.

“We just can’t do it without the government being open,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Oct. 21. “By Nov. 1, we are very hopeful this government reopens and we can begin moving that money out. But right now, half the states are shut down on SNAP.”

The lawsuit said this has never happened before.

“Because of USDA’s actions, SNAP benefits will be delayed for the first time since the program’s inception. … Suspending SNAP benefits in these circumstances is both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act,” the lawsuit said.

New York Attorney General Letitia James released a statement on the suit:

“Millions of Americans are about to go hungry because the federal government has chosen to withhold food assistance it is legally obligated to provide,” James said.

“SNAP is one of our nation’s most effective tools to fight hunger, and the USDA has the money to keep it running. There is no excuse for this administration to abandon families who rely on SNAP, or food stamps, as a lifeline. The federal government must do its job to protect families.”

On Fox News, Rollins was asked if the Agriculture well had truly run dry, CNBC reported.

“100% unequivocally, USDA does not have the $9.2 billion that it would require,” Rollins said.

“There’s not just pots of $9.2 billion sitting around. And what’s particularly rich about New York saying that, or California, or any of these other blue states that have filed the lawsuit to say, ‘Oh no, we’re going to go, you guys, USDA, go find the money,'” Rollins said.

The lawsuit alleges that the USDA has the money and won’t spend it. The plaintiffs are led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, Arizona and Minnesota. The states and the District of Columbia asked a judge to reply quickly to force the USDA to use the contingency funds for November.

On Tuesday, another Senate vote to reopen the government failed.

EU leaders had hoped to agree on a plan to fund a loan of 140 billion euros to bolster Ukraine.

Leaders across the European Union have agreed to help Ukraine fund its fight against Russia’s invasion, but stopped short of approving a plan that would draw from frozen Russian assets to do so, after Belgium raised objections.

EU leaders met in Brussels on Thursday to discuss Ukraine’s “pressing financial needs” for the next two years. Many leaders had hoped the talks would clear the way for a so-called “reparation loan”, which would use frozen Russian assets held by the Belgian financial institution Euroclear to fund a loan of 140 billion euros ($163.3bn) for Ukraine.

The EU froze about 200 billion euros ($232.4bn) of Russian central bank assets after the country launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In order to use the assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort, the European Commission, the EU’s executive, has floated a complex financial manoeuvre that involves the EU borrowing matured funds from Euroclear.

That money would then, in turn, be loaned to Ukraine, on the understanding that Kyiv would only repay the loan if Russia pays reparations.

The scheme would be “fully guaranteed” by the EU’s 27 member states – who would have to ensure repayment themselves to Euroclear if they eventually decided Russia could reclaim the assets without paying reparations. Belgium, the home of Euroclear, objected to this plan on Thursday, with Prime Minister Bart De Wever calling its legality into question.

Russia has described the idea as an illegal seizure of property and warned of retaliation.

Following Thursday’s political wrangling, a text approved by all the leaders – except Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban – was watered down from previous drafts to call for “options for financial support based on an assessment of Ukraine’s financing needs.” Those options will be presented to European leaders at their next summit in December.

“Russia’s assets should remain immobilised until Russia ceases its war of aggression against Ukraine and compensates it for the damage caused by its war,” the declaration added.

Earlier, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a guest at the summit, had urged a quick passage of the plan for the loan.

“Anyone who delays the decision on the full use of frozen Russian assets is not only limiting our defence, but also slowing down the EU’s own progress,” he told the EU leaders, saying Kyiv would use a significant part of the funds to buy European weapons.

Earlier, the EU adopted a new round of sweeping sanctions against Russian energy exports on Thursday, as well, banning liquefied natural gas imports.

The move followed United States President Donald Trump’s announcement on Wednesday that Russia’s two biggest oil companies would face US sanctions.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday struck a defiant tone over the sanctions, saying they were an “unfriendly act”, and that Russia would not bend under pressure.

For Scott Smith, the cuts to the Corporation For Public Broadcasting are existential.

He is the general manager of Allegheny Mountain Radio, which he runs alongside programme manager Heather Nidly. The funds were slashed as part of United States President Donald Trump’s vast tax cut and spending bill that was signed into law in July. As a result, the station, which has been on air for more than four decades, lost 65 percent of its funding.

“We are here to serve our communities and to fulfill our mission of giving them news, giving them entertainment, giving them emergency alerts and giving them school closings. We do lost and found pet notices. We do funeral announcements. We have a listing of community events that is read multiple times a day. We do weather forecasts. We’re a critical part of the community,” Smith told Al Jazeera.

The rescissions bill that Trump signed allows the US Congress to claw back funding that had been approved and pulls back $9bn in funding, including $1bn from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CFB). At the end of September, those funds officially dried up.

The money had already been allocated by the previous Congress to fund public media for 2026 and 2027. Now stations are scrambling to find ways to fill the holes.

The Trump administration has gone after news organisations that have presented any critical coverage of him, including the Wall Street Journal, after its coverage of a suggestive letter purportedly written by Trump to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for his birthday. In September, he tried to sue The New York Times for allegedly being a “virtual mouthpiece” for the Democratic Party.

His leverage over public media is significant because that is partially funded by federal tax dollars. The White House first signed an executive order to defund public media in May. That was quickly blocked because funding decisions are made by Congress, not the White House.

Next, Trump pressured Congressional Republicans to put forth the rescissions bill that fulfilled the mission of his previous executive order. To justify his call for cuts, in May, the White House released a list of segments from NPR and PBS programmes that it says had liberal bias, as it included many segments about the experience of the trans community.

The White House also cited a report alleging PBS favoured Democrats. That report was from the openly partisan Media Research Center, which has a stated goal to promote conservative values.

A key, but overlooked, problem with the cuts is that they overwhelmingly harm stations that do not even cover the White House or much national politics at all.

Allegheny Mountain Radio (AMR) is one of those stations. Comprising three affiliates for three counties straddling the West Virginia and Virginia border, on their airwaves, listeners will find gospel, folk and country music, as well as coverage of local football games and town hall meetings.

AMR carries NPR’s national newscast and, more importantly, serves as the on-the-ground voice when severe weather hits.

Unlike in other regions of the county, there is no other alternative to get real-time local news. The nearest local news station is several hours away, separated by winding country roads. When there’s severe weather, AMR is the only way locals get vital information like road closure announcements because of floodwaters.

“Just a few years ago, we had a deluge of rain coming down and flooding parts of the county. At that point, when something like that happens, the radio station really is the only way to get that information out quickly to our listeners and let them know where it’s happening,” AMR programme manager Nidly told Al Jazeera.

AMR is in a part of the country where cellphone signal and wireless access are sparse because of its proximity to what is called the National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) near the Green Bank Observatory, which limits the use of radio frequency and other signal methods so that they do not interfere with their equipment. This requires special equipment to point radio signals away from the observatory.

With the region’s low population density, there’s a limited business case for a station. But there is a case for public service. The community depends on AMR for emergency alerts – even on a personal level. During major storms, Smith said, people have shown up at their stations when their phones stopped working, asking if AMR could broadcast a message to let their family and friends know they were safe.

Despite their strong community focus, these stations may not benefit from the same level of donor support seen by larger public stations across the country, due to limited local enterprise and resources.

It is trying. In order to stay afloat, the station is actively soliciting donations on its website.

While small community stations – like those serving Bath and Pocahontas Counties in West Virginia, and Highland County, Virginia, through AMR – don’t produce national newscasts or air segments that ruffle feathers in Washington, they are still the ones that are most at risk of being hit hardest.

“Small stations like ours are the ones who will suffer because of these cuts. We feel like we are the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater because there’s so much emphasis on the talking points around NPR and PBS. It’s like the rest of us, the small community stations, have absolutely been forgotten in this equation,” Smith told Al Jazeera.

The cuts, however, hit stations across the US in big markets too. WNYC in New York City lost 4 percent of its funding. WBUR in Boston, San Francisco’s KLAW, and KERA in Dallas, Texas, all saw 5 percent cuts.

Stations like these have large donor bases or “listeners like you”, as their hosts say during pledge drives. Big market stations might be able to make up the difference, says Alex Curley, a former product manager at NPR who recently launched a platform called Adopt A Station, which shows which public media stations are at most risk of losing funding.

“When you think about stations that rely on federal funding for 50 percent or more of their revenue, it’s not because they’re asking for a handout. It’s a literal public service for those stations,” Curley told Al Jazeera.

But in counties where the population is sparse and industry is limited, that donor base is not as plentiful. That’s the case with AMR.

“We are in a very rural area. We are an area where there are not a whole lot of businesses. So that amount of income simply cannot be made up through extra donations or extra underwriting,” Smith added.

In a July Substack post, Curley, who was involved in NPR station finances until he left the network in 2024 amid layoffs, said that 15 percent of stations are at risk of closure. His website has provided some reprieve.

“I only expected maybe a few dozen people to visit the site. My biggest hope was to get a couple of donations that went towards a station at risk. It’s [the website] been shared thousands of times. I’ve even heard from stations that were identified as being at risk of closing. They told me they’re getting an influx of donations from out of state through the site. It’s been an incredible response,” Curley said.

However, he argues, this is a temporary fix.

“The real danger will be in six months, a year, two years, when people have forgotten about public media. These stations basically are losing federal funding forever. Donations in the short term are really great, but in the long term, they’re going to have to figure out ways to keep donors engaged and to keep donations flowing to them, or they might close,” Curley added.

“Public radio is also a lifeline, connecting rural communities to the rest of the nation, and providing life-saving emergency broadcasting and weather alerts. Nearly 3-in-4 Americans say they rely on their public radio stations for alerts and news for their public safety,” NPR’s Katherine Maher said in a statement on July 18 following the Senate vote.

“In fact, while the Senate considered amendments, a 7.3 earthquake struck off the coast of Alaska, prompting three coastal stations to start broadcasting live tsunami warnings, urging their communities to head to high ground,” Maher said.

Maher declined Al Jazeera’s request for an interview

PBS faces similar pressures, and many of its stations are also at risk of closure, according to Adopt A Station’s data.

“These cuts will significantly impact all of our stations, but will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas. Many of our stations, which provide access to free, unique local programming and emergency alerts, will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead,” PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger said in a statement after the Senate vote.

Kerger did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for additional comment.

The push to defund public media isn’t a new one for the GOP. Republicans have long argued that the media is not a core function of government. In 2012, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney said he would eliminate subsidies to PBS – during a debate moderated, ironically, by then PBS NewsHour anchor Jim Lehrer.

In the 1990s, then House Speaker Newt Gingrich promised to “zero out” funding for CPB, arguing it should be privatised. And in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan attempted to slash $80m from public media – roughly $283m today – though Congress blocked the move.

Following global cuts

Cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are the latest wave of the White House cutting back on government-funded media arms, including reductions to the US Agency for Global Media, led in part by senior adviser Kari Lake.

Lake is a former Phoenix, Arizona, news anchor known for denying the 2020 election results in which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden for the presidency. She is also known for promoting baseless conspiracy theories and for refusing to accept her own defeat for governor and senator bids in Arizona in 2022 and 2024, respectively.

She has been behind the agency effectively shuttering Voice of America (VOA), which has not published any new stories or uploaded new videos to its YouTube page since mid-March.

Last month, a federal judge in Washington blocked the firing of workers at VOA, which affected more than 500 staffers. The Trump administration called the decision “outrageous” and vowed to appeal.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which broadcasts in 27 languages across 23 countries, faced challenges similar to VOA. However, the European Union has helped keep the network up and running with $6.2m in emergency funding.

Representatives for the US Agency for Global Media did not respond to our request for comment.

Looming threats to free expression

These cuts come alongside other threats to freedom of expression in the private sector. Soon after the funding cuts were signed into law, Paramount announced the cancellation of The Late Show. The host, comedian Stephen Colbert – a longtime critic of the president – had only days earlier called out Paramount, the show’s parent company, for settling a lawsuit with Trump.

The suit stemmed from Trump’s claim that an interview with his 2024 presidential rival Kamala Harris was doctored. Although the network had initially called the lawsuit meritless, it ultimately settled for $16m. Colbert called the settlement a “big fat bribe”, noting that Paramount had a then-pending merger with Skydance Media – owned by David Ellison, son of Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, a key Trump ally. The merger has since been approved. Paramount has said that the decision is purely financial in nature.

Months later, following stand-up comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on Charlie Kirk’s death, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr appeared on a right-wing podcast to criticise the remarks and urged Disney – the parent company of ABC, where Jimmy Kimmel Live airs – to cancel the show.

Nexstar Media Group – one of the largest TV station operators in the US, and which is waiting on an FCC approval of its merger with Tegna – announced it would no longer carry the programme. Disney subsequently suspended the show, though the decision was short-lived, as it returned to the airwaves within a week.

The White House did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Oct. 17 (UPI) — The federal shutdown will last at least a few more days as the Senate expects to hold no votes until Monday. Meanwhile, lawmakers are questioning the legality of how the Trump administration plans to pay the military.

Senate Republican leader John Thune of South Dakota sent senators home for the weekend, so the government will stay closed. The Senate will return at 3 p.m. Monday.

Three Democrats have voted for the Republican bills to reopen the government, but five more are needed to reach the 60 votes needed to pass the stopgap funding bill.

Meanwhile, some Republican senators are questioning the legality of President Donald Trump‘s move to shift Defense Department funds to pay for military paychecks during the shutdown.

They say they’re glad the service members are getting paid, but aren’t sure where the funds are coming from and whether the money shift is legal.

Normally, the White House would need to ask Congress to reappropriate federal funding, then the Appropriations Committee must approve it before moving funds around.

Senators interviewed by The Hill say they aren’t aware of any requests. Trump ordered Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to use “all available funds” to ensure troops got their paychecks.

“That’s a concern of not just appropriators, it seems broader than that,” an unnamed Republican senator told The Hill.

The lawmaker said Republican colleagues have asked the administration for more information about exactly which funds are getting shifted and what legal authority the White House is using to justify its action.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she wants more information from the White House.

“We’ve been given two different explanations. One, is that it’s unobligated balances. One, is that it’s taken from certain research and technology programs. But we don’t have the specifics. We have asked for the specifics,” Collins said.

Alaska’s Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said: “I get that they say for the military pay for this pay period it comes out of … research and development technology [fund] but where? Is that taking it from projects that we have already identified? Maybe something’s really important to me. Where’s it coming from? We haven’t seen that,” she said.

On Wednesday, Trump signed a memo expanding his administration’s authority to repurpose unspent funds to pay service members during the shutdown.

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., said Trump’s reallocation of funds was, “probably not legal.” On Face the Nation on Sunday, he said the “White House’s understanding of United States law” was “pretty tentative to say the best.”

Oct. 16 (UPI) — Brown University has rejected a Department of Education proposal offering priority access to federal funds in exchange for agreeing to terms that critics say target left-leaning ideology in higher education.

On Oct. 1, the Trump administration sent nine universities a 10-part “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” that reportedly demands reforms to hiring practices and student grading and a pledge to prohibit transgender women from using women’s changing rooms.

It also requires the creation of a “vibrant marketplace of ideas,” among other changes, including a tuition freeze for five years.

Brown University President Christina Paxson rejected the offer in a letter addressed to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, writing she was “concerned that the Compact by its nature and by various provisions would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown’s governance, critically compromising our ability to fulfill our mission.”

Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has targeted dozens of universities, particularly so-called elite institutions, with executive orders, lawsuits, reallocation of resources and threats over a range of allegations, from anti-Semitism to having diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Critics have accused Trump of trying to coerce schools under threat of stringent punishments — from losing their accreditation to paying hefty fines sometimes in excess of $1 billion — to adopt his far-right policies.

In late July, Brown reached a $50 million settlement with the federal government over 10 years to unfreeze federal funding and to resolve federal allegations of violating anti-discrimination laws.

As part of the agreement, which also unfroze federal funds, Brown agreed to adhere to government requirements concerning male and female athletics, codify its commitment to ensuring a “thriving Jewish community” and maintain nondiscrimination compliance, among others.

In her letter Wednesday, Paxson said the July agreement includes several of the principles included in the compact while also affirming “the governments lack of authority to dictate our curriculum or the content of academic speech.”

“While we value our long-held and well-regarded partnership with the federal government, Brown is respectfully declining to join the Compact,” she said. “We remain committed to the July agreement and its preservation of Brown’s core values in ways that the Compact — in any form — fundamentally would not.”

Brown’s rejection comes days after MIT similarly declined to join the compact.

“America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence. In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences,” MIT President Sally Kornbluth wrote in a letter to the Department of Education on Friday.

“Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.”

Conservatives and the Trump administration have alleged that university are founts of left-wing indoctrination that exclude right-leaning thought. However, critics have described the Trump administration’s attempt to address these concerns as government overreach and a violation of free speech rights.

“The White House’s new Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education raises red flags,” the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said in a statement earlier this month.

“As Fire has long argued, campus reform is necessary. But overreaching government coercion that tries to end-run around the First Amendment to impose an official orthodoxy is unacceptable.”

“A government that can reward colleges and universities for speech it favors today can punish them for speech it dislikes tomorrow,” FIRE continued. “That’s not reform. That’s government-funded orthodoxy.”

Meanwhile, Trump over the weekend suggested that more universities would be invited to join the compact, saying in an online statement that “those Institutions that want to quickly return to the Pursuit of Truth and Achievement, they are invited to enter into the forward looking Agreement with the Federal Government to help bring about the Golden Age of Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”

In the statement, he railed against universities, saying “much of Higher Education has lost its way, and is now corrupting our Youth and Society with WOKE, SOCIALIST and ANTI_AMERICAN Ideology that serves as justification for discriminatory practices by Universities that are Unconstitutional and Unlawful”

Ukraine says it will need $120bn in defence funding in 2026 to stave off Russia’s more than three-year war.

Germany has pledged more than $2bn in military aid for Ukraine, as the government in Kyiv signalled that it would need $120bn in 2026 to stave off Russia’s nearly four-year all-out war.

Speaking on Wednesday at a Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting in Brussels, German Foreign Minister Boris Pistorius said that Western allies must maintain their resolve and provide more weapons to Ukraine.

“You can count on Germany. We will continue and expand our support for Ukraine. With new contracts, Germany will provide additional support amounting to over 2 billion euros [$2.3bn],” Pistorius told the meeting in Brussels, which was also attended by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Ukrainian Defence Minister Denys Shmyhal.

“The package addresses a number of urgent requirements of Ukraine. It provides air defence systems, Patriot interceptors, radar systems and precision guided artillery, rockets and ammunition,” Pistorius said, adding that Germany will also deliver two additional IRIS-T air defence systems to Ukraine, including a large number of guided missiles and shoulder-fired air defence missiles.

In recent months, the transatlantic alliance started to coordinate regular deliveries of large weapons packages to Ukraine to help fend off Russia’s war.

Spare weapons stocks in European arsenals have all but dried up, and only the United States has a sufficient store of ready weapons that Ukraine most needs.

Under the financial arrangement – known as the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) – European allies and Canada are buying US weapons to help Kyiv keep Russian forces at bay. About $2bn worth had previously been allocated since August.

Germany’s pledge came as Ukraine’s Western backers gathered to drum up more military support for their beleaguered partner.

Shmyhal put his country’s defence needs next year at $120bn. “Ukraine will cover half, $60bn, from our national resources. We are asking partners to join us in covering the other half,” he said.

Air defence systems are most in need. Shmyhal said that last month alone, Russia “launched over 5,600 strike drones and more than 180 missiles targeting our civilian infrastructure and people”.

The new pledges of support came a day after new data showed that foreign military aid to Ukraine had declined sharply recently. Despite the PURL programme, support plunged by 43 percent in July and August compared to the first half of the year, according to Germany’s Kiel Institute, which tracks such deliveries and funding.

Hegseth said that “all countries need to translate goals into guns, commitments into capabilities and pledges into power. That’s all that matters. Hard power. It’s the only thing belligerents actually respect.”

The administration of US President Donald Trump hasn’t donated military equipment to Ukraine. It has been weighing whether to send Tomahawk long-range missiles if Russia doesn’t wind down its war soon, but it remains unclear who will pay for those weapons, should they be approved.

Ausbil Investment Management Ltd disclosed a purchase of approximately $4.31 million in NextEra Energy (NEE -0.50%) shares, according to an SEC filing for the period ended September 30, 2025.

What Happened

According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission dated October 08, 2025, Ausbil increased its position in NextEra Energy by 58,977 shares during the quarter. The fund held 140,270 shares, worth $11.04 million as of quarter-end.

What Else to Know

Fund bought shares, bringing its NextEra Energy stake to 5.9% of reportable AUM

Top holdings after the filing:

• NEE: $11.04 million (5.9% of AUM) as of September 30, 2025
• NSC: $10.08 million (5.4% of AUM) as of September 30, 2025
• CSX: $10.06 million (5.4% of AUM) as of September 30, 2025
• LNG: $7.71 million (4.1% of AUM) as of September 30, 2025
• ES: $7.32 million (3.9% of AUM) as of September 30, 2025

As of October 8, 2025, shares were priced at $84.04, up 4.4% in the past year, underperforming the S&P 500 by 10.65 percentage points over the same period.

Company Overview

Company Snapshot

NextEra Energy generates, transmits, and distributes electric power through wind, solar, nuclear, coal, and natural gas facilities, with a growing portfolio in renewable energy and battery storage projects.

The company operates a regulated utility business and develops long-term contracted clean energy assets, earning revenue primarily from electricity sales and energy infrastructure services.

It serves about 11 million people through roughly 5.7 million customer accounts on the east and lower west coasts of Florida as of December 31, 2021.

NextEra Energy, Inc. is a leading North American utility and renewable energy provider with significant scale and a diversified generation portfolio. Its strategic focus on renewables and grid modernization positions it as a key player in the transition to sustainable energy.

Foolish Take

Ausbil Investment Management’s decision to acquire more than $4.3 million worth of NextEra Energy stock looks like a big bet on a stock that has underperformed the benchmark S&P 500 over the last year. Bear in mind, following this purchase, NextEra Energy is now Ausbil’s largest single position. The stock now represents nearly 6% of its total AUM, meaning the portfolio managers have strong conviction in NextEra’s potential.

Nevertheless, NextEra’s three-year performance isn’t anything to write home about. Shares have generated a three-year total return of only 18%, which equates to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.8%. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 has generated a total return of 90% over that same period and a CAGR of 23.8%.

In other words, this is a notable buy, as it shows at least one large institutional money manager is making a significant bet on NextEra stock. Given the company’s key role within the North American utility industry and its focus on renewables and sustainable energy, investors who are seeking exposure to the utility sector may be well served by giving NextEra stock a closer look.

That said, NextEra’s chronic underperformance versus the S&P 500 should also be taken into account. No institutional move should ever be the sole reason for buying or selling a stock, and while this move is significant, NextEra stock still has much to prove.

Glossary

13F reportable AUM: Assets under management reported by institutional investment managers on SEC Form 13F, covering certain U.S. securities.
Dividend Yield: Annual dividends per share divided by the share price, expressed as a percentage.
Regulated utility: A utility company whose rates and operations are overseen by government agencies to protect consumers.
Long-term contracted clean energy assets: Renewable energy projects with multi-year agreements to sell electricity at set prices.
Grid modernization: Upgrading electric power infrastructure to improve reliability, efficiency, and support for renewable energy.
Battery storage projects: Facilities that store electricity for later use, helping balance supply and demand on the grid.
Stake: The ownership interest or shareholding an investor holds in a company.
Trailing the S&P 500: Underperforming the S&P 500 index over a specified period.
TTM: The 12-month period ending with the most recent quarterly report.
Quarter-end: The last day of a fiscal quarter, used for financial reporting and valuation.
Contracted revenue: Income guaranteed by signed agreements, often over multiple years.

WASHINGTON — Two House Republicans launched an investigation on Wednesday that will, in part, examine how a California charitable organization used a $500,000 grant that was meant to support victims of the deadly Palisades and Eaton fires, a move that is expanding congressional scrutiny over the response to the disaster.

Reps. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sent a letter to the head of the California Volunteers Fund asking for financial records related to a $500,000 grant it received from the disaster-relief charity FireAid, which raised an estimated $100 million for fire victims through its flagship benefit concerts in January.

“It is not publicly known how the California Volunteers Fund distributed this $500,000, or what individuals or entities received funds,” Kiley and Jordan wrote in a letter Wednesday to Dave Smith, the fund’s chief executive. “It is also unclear whether the state-based California Volunteers, run out of the Governor’s Office, received any of the FireAid-originated funds via the California Volunteers Fund.”

Kiley and Jordan added that they want to examine all documents and communications related to the California fires between the California Volunteers Fund and California Volunteers, an entity that the charity supports and is housed within Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office.

In their letter, they said FireAid has “come under scrutiny for diverting donations to nonprofits instead of providing direct relief to fire victims.”

The California Volunteers Fund and the governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment.

The congressional inquiry into the distribution of disaster relief funds comes after months of pressure from Republican politicians, including President Trump, who have questioned FireAid’s methods and priorities. In July, Kiley called for an investigation into the charitable funds, urging the attorney general to open an investigation into the matter.

Politically, the investigation comes as Newsom — whose office was mentioned several times in the letter — becomes a frequent political target of Trump and Republicans amid speculation that he could be eyeing a potential 2028 presidential run.

In response to the criticism, FireAid commissioned two audit reports, including an independent review led by law firm Latham & Watkins that found no evidence of fraud or misuse of funds. The reports were sent to local and federal officials and the Department of Justice.

“The law firm conducted an independent review of the charity, and shared conclusive findings affirming that FireAid has acted in accordance with mission, has strong accountability measures and aid is reaching affected communities,” the FireAid organization said in a statement about the review findings at the time.

The U.S. Air Force is a step closer to finally getting a replacement for its aging, unique LC-130H “Ski Bird” polar airlift aircraft. Between them, the Air Force and Pentagon have adjusted the budget to move forward on the recapitalization plan, which is seen as increasingly urgent, with the Arctic region, in particular, becoming an area of growing strategic importance.

The new disclosure comes from a Pentagon budget reprogramming document dated September 17, 2025. By law, the U.S. military has to seek approval from Congress to reallocate funding from one part of its budget to another.

The document states that funds of $29 million are to be realigned within the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, 25/26, appropriation.

“This reprogramming action transfers funds within an appropriation for proper execution,” the document states. “The reclassification is required to execute funds properly in accordance with congressional intent. These actions are determined to be necessary in the national interest.”

The sum involved in the reprogramming action may seem small, but it is no less significant because of that. Essentially, this document is about moving money to fund work to develop the modifications (known as non-recurring engineering, or NDE) that will be needed to create the new LC-130J — a ski-equipped version of the much more modern C-130J airframe, in a new configuration that is still to be developed.

Administratively speaking, the reprogramming action has shifted money from a larger C-130 bucket into one focused on specialized variants of the Hercules, including HC-130Js, MC-130Js, and now LC-130Js.

Today, the ski-equipped LC-130H serves exclusively with the New York Air National Guard’s 109th Airlift Wing, home-stationed at Stratton Air National Guard Base. These aircraft are primarily used to resupply Arctic and Antarctic research stations and radar sites in the high Arctic, landing directly on ice and snowpack runways. The Air Force has flown these demanding missions since 1956 and began using earlier versions of the Hercules for the task in 1959.

The fleet of 10 LC-130Hs includes three that were converted from ex-Navy LC-130Rs; the most recent are three new-build aircraft that were completed in 1995–96. Since then, the aircraft have been upgraded with eight-bladed NP-2000 propellers, as well as digital cockpit displays, new flight managemenmc-1t systems, multifunction radar, and other improvements. The aircraft have also been reworked alongside other Air Force C-130Hs under the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP).

However, the LC-130Hs — some of which were built in the 1970s — are clearly showing their age, with only five out of the 10-strong fleet being mission-capable at any given time. Overall, the aircraft suffers from reliability issues and high maintenance costs. The problem is only getting worse, with all of the aircraft having parts that require total replacement, something that is now almost impossible since those components are no longer in production.

Congress has, for some time now, been pushing for a successor based on the C-130J.

Back in 2017, Inside Defense reported that the New York ANG was in talks with Lockheed Martin about a potential LC-130J to outright replace its older aircraft.

But it wasn’t until June of last year that the bipartisan Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allocated $290 million for the replacement of the two LC-130Hs with two new LC-130Js.

Chuck Schumer, who was then the Senate Majority Leader and who has been a prominent supporter of the LC-130H recapitalization, said: “We need the House to follow suit as we continue the fight to deliver this funding in end-of-year appropriations. There is no time to waste in delivering new ski-birds for the 109th, and I will continue to fight tooth and nail to secure this funding in the final bill.”

Schumer described the 109th Airlift Wing fleet as “critical to supporting the National Science Foundation’s polar research mission and maintaining U.S. presence and leadership in the Arctic and Antarctic.”

Schumer continued: “After more than three decades of year-round service in some of the harshest environments, these planes have been falling into disrepair and are in constant need of maintenance, threatening aircrew safety and their ability to execute their mission. That’s why for years I have been pushing the Air Force to recapitalize this essential fleet so new planes can land in the Capital Region.”

Meanwhile, Maj. Gen. Ray Shields, Adjutant General of the New York National Guard, said, “Obtaining two new LC-130J ‘Ski Bird’ aircraft in the FY 2025 NDAA is vital for our national security, and supports the Department of Defense’s Arctic Strategy, as well as the National Science Foundation missions in Antarctica and the Arctic.”

In August of last year, the Senate Appropriations Committee, a key congressional panel, outlined its demand for an LC-130H replacement, recommending funding for the LC-130J. The committee, in its mark of the fiscal year 2025 defense spending bill, called for $200 million to be added to begin work on the project, stating:

“The Committee notes the importance of polar tactical airlift capabilities for Arctic and Antarctic operations. Further, the Committee notes that the study conducted by the Secretary of the Air Force in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Northern Command, and Director, Air National Guard, titled “Fiscal Year 2023 LC-130 Report,” identifies improvements made in recent years to the LC-130H fleet currently conducting this mission. The study also notes that continual modernization investments and performance enhancements will ensure the relevance and viability of this aircraft and its future mission. However, the Committee understands that this report may not fully take into account the operational activity of these aircraft.”

At this stage, it is unclear if funding for the two LC-130Js included in the FY 2025 NDAA has been appropriated, but the recent budget reprogramming document at least indicates that the Pentagon has been looking to use existing funding to get the ball moving on the project.

Proponents of the LC-130 and its mission point out that these aircraft are vital for maintaining and strengthening the United States’ presence, operations, and research in the Arctic and Antarctica.

The Arctic is a region of growing strategic importance, seen as an area in which the United States and its allies will face increasingly security challenges. Not only Russia, but also China is expanding its presence in the region.

Already, there is developing an increasingly strategic race to expand control and military influence across the Arctic region.

Russia is actively building up its military footprint in the wider region, with extensive efforts being made to establish a more permanent footprint above the Arctic Circle.

The Kremlin’s many investments in the region include increasing its air and naval power in the Arctic Circle, and the Russian military has been establishing new bases here, as well as reactivating ones that fell into disuse after the Cold War.

For some years now, Russia has enjoyed access to more than 50 airfields and ports in the Arctic region, from where it is able to project air and naval power that could deny the United States and its allies access to the Arctic. Russian maritime activity in the region is also enabled to a significant degree by a large and growing fleet of icebreakers, which dwarfs those used by the United States and its allies combined.

And as the retreating ice caps open up new shipping routes as well as providing access to natural resources that were previously inaccessible, or at least much harder to exploit, the strategic importance of the Arctic region is only going to grow.

A relatively new player here is China, which has its eye on new shipping routes and natural resources. This has seen Beijing expanding its presence in the Arctic, and, in response to this, the Pentagon has defined the Arctic as “an increasingly competitive domain,” issuing specific warnings about China’s growing interest in the region.

Still, it’s by no means easy for the U.S. military to extend its reach over the Arctic in peacetime, let alone at war. It’s this reality that has driven interest in gaining control of Greenland, or at least expanding the U.S. military presence there, as you can read about here.

In the meantime, the existing LC-130H and the crews of the 109th are also adapting to this new reality.

Earlier this year, for example, an LC-130H touched down on freshwater ice for the first time in decades, reflecting the Air Force’s shift toward “defensive or offensive operations” in the Arctic. The Ski-Bird landed on Parsons Lake in Inuvik, Canada, in March, as part of a joint U.S.–Canadian exercise.

“We are excited to see what the future holds for the LC-130 Hercules and 109th Airlift Wing as we continue to evolve our capabilities in the Arctic,” Lt. Col. Matthew Sala, the 109th deployed commander, said in a release at the time.

Now, with the LC-130J on the horizon, the 109th Airlift Wing should be that much better equipped to support operations — whether military or civilian — in the challenging Arctic and Antarctic regions.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Sept. 30 (UPI) — The Department of Health and Human Services has launched a process that could see Harvard University ineligible for federal funding, as the Trump administration escalates its fight with the Ivy League school.

The HHS’ Office for Civil Rights announced Monday it has referred Harvard to its office responsible for suspension and debarment decisions, where officials could decided to make the university ineligible for government contracts.

“OCR’s referral of Harvard for formal administrative proceedings reflects OCR’s commitment to safeguard both taxpayer investments and broader public interest,” Paula Stannard, the OCR director, said in a statement.

Harvard is one of several universities the Trump administration has targeted with punitive measures on allegations of failing to protect Jewish students amid pro-Palestine protests that erupted on campuses during the spring of 2024.

While the White House says the actions are to clamp down on anti-Semitism and protect Jewish students at the schools, critics say it is a tactic to suppress dissent and left-leaning ideology, as the Trump administration has pressured universities to adopt policies that amount to federal interference in hiring, admissions and curriculum.

Several of the schools have reached costly agreements to settle allegations with the administration, but Harvard is the most high-profile institution to fight back.

After the Trump administration froze more than $2 billion in government funding for the school, Harvard sued, with a judge earlier this month blocking the federal government’s attempt to withhold the money.

In support of its decision to refer Harvard to its OCR on Monday, HHS cited a June 30 notice it issued to the school stating it had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which found it had acted “with deliberate indifference toward discrimination and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students on its campus” amid Israel’s war in Gaza.

It also pointed to the OCR’s July 30 referral of Harvard to the Justice Department.

Harvard has 20 days to notify the OCR whether it will use its right to a formal administrative hearing, where an HHS administrative law judge will make a determination on whether it violated Title VI as alleged.

Bill Ackman is one of the most closely followed investment managers on Wall Street. His Pershing Square Capital Management hedge fund holds just a handful of high-conviction positions, and he typically holds those positions for the long run.

Ackman is often forthcoming with the biggest moves in his portfolio. He’ll usually disclose new trades through his social media accounts or monthly updates to his hedge fund investors. But Pershing Square’s quarterly 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can provide a full accounting of the hedge fund’s portfolio of publicly traded U.S. stocks.

Ackman made a couple of big moves last quarter, and now holds roughly 58% of the portfolio in just three companies.

Image source: Getty Images.

1. Uber (20.6%)

Ackman made a massive investment in Uber Technologies (UBER -2.28%) at the start of 2025, accumulating 30.3 million shares for Pershing Square. That immediately made the stock the hedge fund’s largest position, and it’s only grown bigger since. Uber shares are up 57% so far in 2025 as of this writing.

Uber continues to see strong adoption for both its mobility and delivery service. Total users climbed to 180 million last quarter, up 15% year over year, and it saw a 2% increase in trips per user. Delivery gross bookings climbed 20% year over year and produced strong EBITDA margin expansion. As a result, the company saw adjusted EBITDA growth of 35% year over year.

But the threat of autonomous vehicles is weighing on Uber stock. Ackman believes self-driving cars will benefit Uber in the long run, as it operates the network required for connecting vehicles with riders. That kind of network effect is hard to replicate, giving Uber a competitive advantage and a significant stake in the autonomous vehicle industry. To that end, the company has already partnered with 20 different companies, including AV leader Alphabet‘s (GOOG 0.56%) (GOOGL 0.63%) Waymo.

Shares of Uber currently trade for about 1.2 times its gross bookings over the past year. But with expectations for growth in the high teens, that puts it down closer to a 1 multiple. That’s historically been a good price to pay for the stock. In more traditional valuation metrics, its stock price is 3.9 times forward revenue expectations. Its enterprise value of $206 billion as of this writing is less than 24 times 2025 adjusted EBITDA expectations. Even after its strong performance in 2025, Uber shares still look about fairly valued.

2. Brookfield Corp (19.7%)

Ackman built a position in diversified asset manager Brookfield Corporation (BN -0.08%) over the last five quarters, adding to it each quarter since Pershing Square’s initial purchase in the second quarter of 2024. As a result, the stock is now the hedge fund’s second-largest position.

Brookfield saw its distributable earnings excluding carried interest and gains from selling investments climb 13% on a per-share basis last quarter. The company expects to produce distributable earnings growth of 21% per year from 2024 through 2029.

A huge growth driver for Brookfield is its Wealth Solutions segment, which grew total insurance assets to $135 billion as of the end of June. Its annualized earnings are now $1.7 billion.

The business is growing quickly. Just two years ago, insurance assets totaled $45 billion. Management expects the growth to continue with assets topping $300 billion by 2029. At that point, the segment will be the conglomerate’s largest contributor to distributable earnings.

Management is using its free cash flow to buy back shares and invest in new assets. This could further increase distributable earnings per share above its guidance for 21% organic growth over the next few years. Shares currently trade for less than 20 times management’s expectations for 2025 distributable earnings, offering compelling value for investors.

3. Alphabet (17.9%)

Ackman first bought shares of Alphabet in early 2023, shortly after the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. While many saw the growth of generative AI as a major threat to Alphabet’s Google, Ackman thought the market overreacted, offering a bargain price for the stock. While he trimmed the position a bit in 2024, he’s added back to it over the first two quarters of 2025, preferring the Class A shares (which come with voting rights).

Alphabet has produced strong financial results in 2025. Its core advertising business climbed 10% year over year last quarter, with particularly strong results from Google Search (up 12%). That speaks to the company’s efforts to incorporate generative AI into its search business with features like AI Overviews and Google Lens. The former has increased engagement and user satisfaction, according to management, while the latter lends itself to high-value product searches.

Alphabet has seen tremendous results in its Google Cloud business, which supplies compute power to AI developers. Sales increased 32% year over year, with operating margin expanding to 22% for the business. Overall, Google Cloud accounted for 43% of the total increase in Alphabet’s operating earnings last quarter, despite its relatively small size compared to the Search business.

That said, the company faces potential regulatory challenges to its business. The Department of Justice has ruled that it operates an illegal monopoly. The company is awaiting a ruling on required remedies, which could include divesting its Chrome browser or a ban on contracts positioning Google as the default search engine in other browsers.

As a result, Alphabet shares trade for less than 21 times forward earnings expectations. That’s the lowest multiple among the “Magnificent Seven” stocks and a great price for one of the leading AI companies in the world.

The Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles and 30 other cities and counties because of “sanctuary” policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration agencies, a judge ruled late Friday.

The judge issued a preliminary injunction that expands restrictions the court handed down in April that blocked funding cuts to 16 cities and counties, including San Francisco and Santa Clara, after federal officials classified them as “sanctuary jurisdictions.”

U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the federal court in San Francisco ruled then that Trump’s executive order cutting funding was probably unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers doctrine.

Friday’s order added more than a dozen more jurisdictions to the preliminary injunction, including Los Angeles, Alameda County, Berkeley, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago.

Mayor Karen Bass’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the White House said the Trump administration expected to ultimately win in its effort on appeal.

“The government — at all levels — has the duty to protect American citizens from harm,” Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House, said in a statement. “Sanctuary cities interfere with federal immigration enforcement at the expense and safety and security of American citizens. We look forward to ultimate vindication on the issue.”

The preliminary injunction is the latest chapter in an ongoing effort by the Trump administration to force “sanctuary cities” to assist and commit local resources to federal immigration enforcement efforts.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice published a list of what it determined to be sanctuary jurisdictions, or local entities that have “policies, laws, or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

“Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said in a statement accompanying the published list.

Several cities and counties across the country have adopted sanctuary city policies, but specifics as to what extent they’re willing — or unwilling — to do for federal immigration officials have varied.

The policies typically do not impede federal officials from conducting immigration enforcement activities, but largely keep local jurisdictions from committing resources to the efforts.

The policies also don’t prevent local agencies from enforcing judicial warrants, which are signed by a judge. Cooperation on “detainers” or holds on jailed suspects issued by federal agencies, along with enforcement of civil immigration matters, is typically limited by sanctuary policies.

Federal officials in the suit have so far referred to “sanctuary” jurisdictions as local governments that don’t honor immigration detainer requests, don’t assist with administrative warrants, don’t share immigration status information, or don’t allow local police to assist in immigration enforcement operations.

Orrick noted that the executive orders threatened to withhold all federal funding if the cities and counties in question did not adhere to the Trump administration’s requests.

In the order, the judge referred to the executive order as a “coercive threat” and said it was unconstitutional.

Orrick, who sits on the bench in the Northern District of California, was appointed by former President Obama.

The Trump administration has been ratcheting up efforts to force local jurisdictions to assist in immigration enforcement. The administration has filed lawsuits against cities and counties, vastly increased street operations and immigration detentions, and deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles as it increased immigration operations.

The U.S. Department of Justice in June sued Los Angeles, and local officials, alleging its sanctuary city law is “illegal.”

The suit alleged that the city was looking to “thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations” by enacting sanctuary city policies.

Aug. 23 (UPI) — A federal judge has extended his preliminary injunction that blocks the Trump administration from withholding funds for 34 sanctuary jurisdictions.

The “sanctuary cities” include Boston, Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick, who serves in San Francisco, wrote in the 15-page ruling issued Friday night that the government offered to reason for the opposition to the preliminary injunction except it was “wrong in the first place.”

The judge, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also blocked the Trump administration from imposing conditions on grants that are “for a variety of critical needs.”

On April 24, he issued a preliminary order that “the Cities and Counties are likely to succeed on the merits “because they were unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers and spending clause doctrines and violated the Fifth Amendment, Tenth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act.”

His original injunction listed 16 plaintiffs that were mainly jurisdictions in western states, including San Francisco, Portland and San Diego, but on Aug. 5 expanded it to other cities that include Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles.

On Friday, he wrote that the executive orders by President Donald Trump were “coercive threat (and any actions agencies take to realize that threat, or additional Executive Orders the President issues to the same end) is unconstitutional, so I enjoined its effect. I do so against today for the protection of the new parties in this case.”

On the day Trump became president on Jan. 20, he signed an order that sanctuary cities “do not receive access to Federal funds.” The president a few weeks later ordered that federal funding shouldn’t “facilitate the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration.”

In May, the Department of Homeland Security publicly listed 500 cities, counties and states that hadn’t adhered to the interpretation of immigration laws. That list has since been removed.

Attorney General Palm Biondi also sent letters to jurisdictions last week, threatening them with legal recourse because they have “undermined” and “obstructed” federal forces.

The White House didn’t respond to inquiries from The Hill and CBS News on the latest judge’s order.

Sanctuary cities don’t assist federal personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from apprehending those in the country illegally.

In those jurisdictions, law enforcement is limited from sharing information about a person’s immigration status and entering jails or courthouses for arrests or interviews with a warrant signed by a judge.

People are also protected from encounters in public places, including schools and healthcare facilities.

The massive spending bill, which was signed into law on July 4, increased funds for enforcement. ICE’s budget grew from $3.5 billion to $48.5 billion.

Deportation raids have increased in cities run by Democrats.

Several lawsuits have been filed, including one last week by 20 states over the DOJ tying crime victim grants to immigration enforcement.

Aug. 22 (UPI) — Sri Lanka’s former president was arrested Friday for the alleged misuse of public funds, police said.

Ranil Wickremesinghe was arrested in Colombo, the Sri Lankan capitol, while giving a statement to the country’s Criminal Investigations Department. He’s been facing multiple government investigations into widespread bribery and corruption. The charge in his arrest was for using public funds for his personal travel.

Friday’s arrest was about a detour Wickremesinghe, 76, made to Britain in 2023 on his way back to Sri Lanka from an official visit to the United States. He made the stop to attend an awards ceremony for his wife, Maithree Wickremesinghe, who was awarded an honorary professorship from the University of Wolverhampton. The government alleged that it was a personal trip for which about $56,000 of public money was used.

Wickremesinghe was widely credited with helping put the country back on the road to economic recovery. He also served six separate terms as prime minister since the 1990s.

He made 23 foreign trips during his time as president, at a cost of more than $2 million, according to BBC Sinhala.

He served as president from 2022 to 2024, stepping into the role after the country’s worst ever economic crisis triggered a popular uprising that caused his predecessor Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee.

Wickremesinghe’s arrest is the most high-profile case since the National People’s Power, a leftist coalition, won the presidential election in September. Its leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake became president. Dissanayake, 56, campaigned on a promise of weeding out corruption and prosecuting those who had misused public funds.

In 2019, Sri Lanka fell into a downward spiral, partly driven by poor policymaking by the government of Rajapaksa that depleted foreign reserves and eventually forced the country to default on its debt. Terrorist bombings in 2019 and the COVID-19 pandemic, which crushed tourism, also eroded the domestic economy.

By 2022, when Sri Lanka’s foreign exchange reserves ran so low that it couldn’t buy fuel, public anger led to protests and the ouster of Rajapaksa.

As president, Wickremesinghe helped secure an International Monetary Fund bailout in 2023. But the deal required austerity measures. Those unpopular policies, a growing sense among people that he was part of the old guard, and discomfort that he was close to Rajapaksa, led Sri Lankans to reject him during last year’s elections.

The Norwegian government on Tuesday said it would review its sovereign wealth fund’s investment in Israel after the Scandinavian country’s leading newspaper revealed that the nearly $2 trillion fund had a stake in an Israeli company aiding Israel’s war in Gaza.

The newspaper, Aftenposten, identified the company as the Bet Shemesh Engines Ltd (BSEL) group, which provides parts to Israeli fighter jets that are being deployed in its devastating war on Gaza.

In recent weeks, Israeli-induced starvation deaths have caused a global outcry, with Western countries ramping up pressure on Israel to end the war that has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians and ravaged Gaza – home to 2.3 million people.

More than 200 people have died of starvation as Israel has obstructed the entry of humanitarian aid despite its so-called “tactical pause” in its nearly two years of war.

So, what did Norway say, and are Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the rest of occupied Palestinian territory turning the tide of public opinion against it?

What did Norwegian leaders say?

Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere said that the investment in the Israeli firm was “worrying”. “We must get clarification on this because reading about it makes me uneasy,” Stoere told public broadcaster NRK.

Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who manages the world’s largest fund, ordered the central bank to conduct a review of the fund portfolio to make sure Israeli companies aiding the occupation of the West Bank or the war in Gaza are barred from investments.

“The war in Gaza is contrary to international law and is causing terrible suffering, so it is understandable that questions are being raised about the fund’s investments in Bet Shemesh Engines,” Stoltenberg, a former NATO chief, said, referring to the growing public and political pressure.

The decision came weeks after Norway’s parliament rejected a proposal for the fund to divest from all companies with activities in the occupied Palestinian territory.

“In light of … the deteriorating situation in Gaza and the West Bank, I will today ask Norges Bank and the Council on Ethics to conduct a renewed review of the fund’s investments in Israeli companies and Norges Bank’s work on responsible management,” Stoltenberg said. Norges Bank is Norway’s central bank.

The independent ethics council, which provides recommendations on which companies should be banned from the oil fund’s portfolio, has since 2009 suggested excluding nine Israeli groups.

How much investment is at stake?

Norges Bank, which manages the $1.9 trillion wealth fund, took a 1.3 percent stake in BSEL in 2023 and raised this to 2 percent by the end of 2024, holding shares worth $15m, the latest available NBIM records show.

The fund held shares in 65 Israeli companies at the end of 2024, valued at $1.95bn, its records show.

The value of its stake was more than four times higher than it was at the end of 2023, shortly after the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, attack that triggered the war. At least 1,139 people were killed in that attack.

The sovereign fund, which owns stakes in 8,700 companies worldwide, has sold its stakes in an Israeli energy company and a telecom group in the last year, and its ethics council has said it is reviewing whether to recommend divesting holdings in five banks.

In May, the sovereign fund decided to divest from Israel’s Paz Retail and Energy for its involvement in supplying infrastructure and fuel to illegal Israeli settlements.

In December 2024, the fund sold all its shares in the Israeli company, Bezeq, for its services provided to the illegal settlements, which are considered the biggest impediments in the realisation of a sovereign Palestinian state as part of the so-called two-state solution.

Moreover, Norway’s largest pension fund has decided to sever its ties with companies doing business with Israel.

KLP, which manages a fund worth about $114bn, said in June that it will no longer do business with two companies – the US Oshkosh Corporation and ThyssenKrupp from Germany, which sell equipment to the Israeli military that is possibly being used in the war in Gaza.

According to the pension fund, it had investments worth $1.8m in Oshkosh and almost $1m in ThyssenKrupp until June 2025.

Last year, KLP also divested from US-based Caterpillar, which makes bulldozers.

Which other funds and companies have severed ties with Israel?

French insurance giant AXA last August reportedly divested from its remaining investments in Israeli banks for funding illegal settlements, according to a report by advocacy group Eko.

Norwegian asset manager Storebrand has also sold shares in some Israeli firms.

The move came after sustained campaigning by human rights groups, who highlighted Israeli rights violations against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Another major pension fund from Denmark, its largest, divested from several Israeli banks and companies last February over fears that the investment could be used to fund the illegal Israeli settlements.

The fund has sold its stocks and shares to the tune of 75 million krone ($7.4m) in value.

Last month, Ireland’s sovereign wealth fund divested shareholdings worth more than 1 million euros ($1.2m) from two accommodation companies linked to Israeli settlements. The two companies have been identified as Expedia Group and TripAdvisor, according to media reports.

The Irish government, which has been vocal against Israel’s war on Gaza, divested 2.95 million euros ($3.43m) worth of shares from six other Israeli companies.

Amid pressure from campaigners and activists from Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), several corporations have been forced to sever ties with Israel. Shipping giant Maersk was forced to cut ties with companies linked to illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank in June.

The BDS, a grassroots organisation inspired by the anti-apartheid South Africa movement, calls for economic pressure on the Israeli government to end its occupation of Palestinian lands.

Several of Europe’s biggest financial firms have cut back their links to Israeli companies or those with ties to the country, a Reuters analysis of filings shows, as pressure mounts from activists and governments to end the war in Gaza.

Which countries have taken action against Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza?

Colombian President Gustavo Petro, in July, banned exports of coal to Israel until the genocide stops. “We cannot allow Colombian coal to be turned into bombs that help Israel kill children,” the left-wing president said.

He has also pledged to cease all arms trade with Israel. Under Petro, Colombia has helped set up the Hague Group of 12 countries aimed at pressuring Israel to end its war on Gaza and the occupation of the Palestinian territory.

Spain’s left-wing coalition government in June cancelled a contract for antitank missiles from Israeli company Rafael over the war atrocities in Gaza. The decision will affect a deal worth an estimated 285 million euros ($325m).

Few months earlier, Spain halted a controversial $7.5m deal to buy ammunition from an Israeli company, following criticism from far-left allies within the coalition government.

Madrid has also called for sanctions and an arms embargo on Israel over its Gaza war.

Several Western countries have sanctioned Israeli settlers in the West Bank amid record violence against Palestinians.

In July 2024, Australia sanctioned Israeli settlers, joining France, the UK.

The sanction came after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a nonbinding opinion that all Israeli settlement activity on Palestinian land is illegal and must stop as soon as possible.

In June, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom formally sanctioned far-right Israeli ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, for “incitement of violence” against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.

In the same month, Spain, Ireland and Slovenia called for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Sweden has also asked the European Council to adopt sanctions “against Israeli ministers who promote illegal settlement activities and actively work against a negotiated two-state solution”.

The EU provides millions of dollars in funds to Israel as part of its Horizon Europe research projects, while Western leaders have defended Israel for its war atrocities in Gaza and also shielded it from the United Nations resolutions critical of its abuses.

Western countries have also been criticised for failing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, who face warrants from the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Gaza.

Last month, the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, Francesca Albanese, released a new report mapping the corporations aiding Israel in the displacement of Palestinians and its genocidal war on Gaza, in breach of international law.

Aug. 6 (UPI) — New York City’s Campaign Finance Board denied Mayor Eric Adams’ request for more than $3 million in matching campaign funds after concluding his campaign provided “incomplete and misleading information.”

The city’s CFB on Wednesday morning denied Adams’ request for matching public campaign funds due to his campaign not submitting the paperwork required and because board members think Adams broke federal corruption laws.

“The board finds the campaign has provided incomplete and misleading information to the CFB and has impeded CFB staff’s ability to complete its investigation,” board chairman Frederick Schaffer said during the CFB’s Wednesday morning meeting.

“With respect to the second ground, the board’s conclusion is based upon its review of all of the available evidence, including, but not limited to, its own independent investigation,” Schaffer added.

He said the board has an “ongoing” investigation into the Adams campaign but did not explain what made the campaign’s responses unacceptable.

The board has denied Adams’ requests for matching campaign funds since December 2024 because of his federal indictment on corruption charges that since have been dropped.

Adams’ campaign spokesman Todd Shapiro called the board’s decision “vague and unsubstantiated” and said the campaign might seek legal remedies to obtain matching funds, the New York Daily News reported.

“Mayor Adams has always run campaigns with the highest standards of integrity, transparency and adherence to the law, spanning nearly 40 years of public service and political leadership,” Shapiro said,

“At no point has this campaign attempted to mislead, withhold or obstruct the work of the CFB,” Shapiro continued.

“In fact, our team has cooperated fully, responding in good faith to every request and submitted the required documentation in a timely manner,” he added.

Before Wednesday morning’s meeting, Adams’ campaign chairman, Frank Carone, expressed confidence that the board would approve the matching funds, the Daily News reported.

He said the campaign had responded to the board’s requests for documentation and a federal judge in July ruled the federal indictment of Adams no longer qualifies as grounds for denial because the Department of Justice dropped the case.

The indictment accused Adams of campaign finance fraud and accepting illegal contributions from Turkish nationals.

The Trump administration dropped the case, which it said was politically motivated.

Adams seeks re-election as an independent candidate for the crowded New York City mayoral race that includes Democratic Party nominee Zohran Mamdani, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa.

Sliwa is the GOP’s nominee, while Cuomo is running as an independent after losing the Democratic Party’s primary election against Mamdani.

Sweat covers Isaac Barnes’s face under his beekeeper’s veil as he hauls boxes of honeycomb from his hives to his truck. It is a workout in what feels like a sauna as the late-morning temperatures rise.

Though Barnes was hot, his bees were even hotter. Their body temperatures can be up to 15 degrees Celsius (27 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the air around them. As global temperatures rise, scientists are trying to better understand the effects on managed and wild bees as they pollinate crops, gather nectar, make honey, and reproduce.

They noticed flying bees gathering nectar avoided overheating on the hottest days by using fewer but harder wingbeats to keep their body temperature below dangerous levels, according to a study published last year. Scientists also say that bees, like people, may cope by retreating to a cooler environment such as the shade or their nest.

“Just like we go into the shade, sweat, or we might work less hard, bees actually do the exact same thing so they can avoid the heat,” said Jon Harrison, an environmental physiologist at Arizona State University and one of the study’s authors.

Generally, most bees are heat-tolerant, but as the climate warms, some experts think their ability to fend off disease and gather food might become more difficult. Habitat loss, increased use of pesticides, diseases, and lack of forage for both managed and wild bees are all listed as potential contributors to the global decline of bees and other pollinators.

Earlier this year, preliminary results from the annual US Beekeeping Survey found that beekeepers lost almost 56 percent of their managed colonies, the highest loss since the survey started in 2010.

Almost all of the managed honeybee colonies in the United States are used to pollinate crops such as almonds, apples, cherries, and blueberries. Fewer pollinators can lead to less pollination and potentially lower yields.

Back at Isaac Barnes’s hives in Ohio, thousands of honeybees fly around as he gathers boxes to take back to his farm for honey production. Nearby, a couple of his bees land on milkweed flowers, a rare bit of plant diversity in an area dominated by maize and soya bean fields.

For Barnes, who operates Honeyrun Farm with his wife, Jayne, one of the challenges heat can pose to his 500 honeybee hives is fending off parasitic mites that threaten the bees. If temperatures get too hot, he cannot apply formic acid, an organic chemical that kills the mites. If it is applied when it is too hot, the bees could die.

Last year, they lost nearly a third of the 400 hives they sent to California to help pollinate commercial almond groves. Barnes thinks those hives may have been in poor health before pollination because they were unable to ward off mites when it was hot months earlier.

It is only in the last decade that people have become aware of the magnitude of the pollinator decline globally, said Harrison, of Arizona State University. Data is limited on how much climate change and heat stress are contributing to pollinator decline.

The Trump administration’s proposed budget would eliminate the research programme that funds the US Geological Survey Bee Lab, which supports the inventory, monitoring and natural history of the nation’s wild bees. Other grants for bee research are also in jeopardy.

US Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon said his country’s pollinators are in “grave danger”, and he will fight for the federal funding. Pollinators contribute to the health of the planet, the crops we grow and the food we eat, he said.

“Rather than taking bold action to protect them, the Trump administration has proposed a reckless budget that would zero out funding for critical research aimed at saving important pollinators,” he said in a statement to The Associated Press news agency.

Harrison said his research on this topic would come to a halt if cuts are made to his federal funding, and it would generally be more difficult for scientists to study the disappearance of bees and other pollinators and improve how they prevent these losses. Not being able to manage these pollinator deaths could cause the price of fruits, vegetables, nuts, coffee and chocolate to rise or become scarce.

“Hopefully, even if such research is defunded in the US, such research will continue in Europe and China, preventing these extreme scenarios,” said Harrison.

July 22 (UPI) — A coalition of school districts, teachers’ unions, nonprofits and parents has filed a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of illegally withholding nearly $7 billion in Congress-approved education funding.

In the lawsuit filed Monday, the coalition asks a U.S. District Court in Rhode Island to compel the Department of Education and the White House Office of Management and Budget to release the funding, which supports low-income students, teacher training, English learners, immigrant students and after-school programs.

According to the lawsuit, the Department of Education is required to disburse Elementary and Secondary Education Act funds on July 1. But on June 30, states were informed that the department would not be disbursing nearly $7 billion in ESEA funds and that a new policy had been adopted requiring a review to first be conducted to ensure the money is spent “in accordance with the president’s priorities,” the lawsuit states, citing the letter.

The Trump administration provided the states with neither a timeline nor assurances that the funds would be released, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit comes as the Trump administration has been dismantling the Department of Education, in line with President Donald Trump‘s March executive order seeking to shutter the department and return its authorities to the states.

Last week, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court approved Trump’s mass firings at the department. At the same time, 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over its freezing of billions of dollars in education funds.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten described the Trump administration’s freeze on Monday as throwing a “monkey wrench” at millions of U.S. educators.

“These are long-term, school-based programs, already passed by Congress and signed into law by the president,” she said in a statement.

“Since day one, the Trump administration has attacked public education, undermining opportunity in America. Now it is trying to lawlessly defund education unilaterally through rampant government overreach. It’s not only morally repugnant: the administration lacks the legal right to sacrifice kids’ futures at the alter of ideology.”

Among the plaintiffs are Alaska’s largest school district, Anchorage School District; Cincinnati Public Schools and Fairbanks North Star Borough, among others.