Government

NEW YORK — John F. Kennedy’s grandson Jack Schlossberg is running for the U.S. House next year, announcing Tuesday that he’s seeking a congressional seat in New York City that will be vacated by longtime Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler.

Schlossberg, 32, is a sardonic social media personality with a large following and storied political roots. In a video, he said the district covering a core chunk of Manhattan “should have a representative who can harness the creativity, energy and drive of this district and translate that into political power in Washington.”

Nadler, who is serving his 17th term in Congress, announced in September that he will not run for reelection next year after decades in office, suggesting to The New York Times that a younger Democratic lawmaker in his seat “can maybe do better, can maybe help us more.”

Several possible successors have emerged for the solidly Democratic district, including Micah Lasher, a former aide to Nadler and current New York state lawmaker with deep experience in government. The district stretches from Union Square to the top of Central Park, including the wealthy Upper East Side and Upper West Side neighborhoods.

In his campaign video, Schlossberg took aim at President Trump and Republican governance in Washington, saying “It’s a crisis at every level.”

“We deserve better, and we can do better, and it starts with the Democratic Party winning back control of the House of Representatives,” he said.

Schlossberg has cultivated his online presence with frequent posts weighing in on national political issues, including taking aim at his cousin Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Trump administration’s health and human services secretary who’s been a vocal vaccine skeptic.

Last month, Schlossberg posted on Instagram an image of a Halloween costume for “MAHA Man,” in reference to Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again message and described it as including such things as measles.

The House of Representatives will hold a session to vote on legislation to end the longest shutdown in US history.

As the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier sails to the Caribbean, the U.S. military continues striking drug-carrying boats off the Venezuelan coast and the Trump administration debates what to do about Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, one thing seems certain: Venezuela and the western hemisphere would all be better off if Maduro packed his bags and spent his remaining years in exile.

This is certainly what Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado is working toward. This year’s Nobel Prize laureate has spent much of her time recently in the U.S. lobbying policymakers to squeeze Maduro into vacating power. Constantly at risk of detention in her own country, Machado is granting interviews and dialing into conferences to advocate for regime change. Her talking points are clearly tailored for the Trump administration: Maduro is the head of a drug cartel that is poisoning Americans; his dictatorship rests on weak pillars; and the forces of democracy inside Venezuela are fully prepared to seize the mantle once Maduro is gone. “We are ready to take over government,” Machado told Bloomberg News in an October interview.

But as the old saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. While there’s no disputing that Maduro is a despot and a fraud who steals elections, U.S. policymakers can’t simply take what Machado is saying for granted. Washington learned this the hard way in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, when an opposition leader named Ahmed Chalabi sold U.S. policymakers a bill of goods about how painless rebuilding a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq would be. We all know how the story turned out — the United States stumbled into an occupation that sucked up U.S. resources, unleashed unpredicted regional consequences and proved more difficult than its proponents originally claimed.

To be fair, Machado is no Chalabi. The latter was a fraudster; the former is the head of an opposition movement whose candidate, Edmundo González Urrutia, won two-thirds of the vote during the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election (Maduro claimed victory anyway and forced González into exile). But just because her motives are good doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question her assertions.

Would regime change in Caracas produce the Western-style democracy Machado and her supporters anticipate? None of us can rule it out. But the Trump administration can’t bank on this as the outcome of a post-Maduro future. Other scenarios are just as likely, if not more so — and some of them could lead to greater violence for Venezuelans and more problems for U.S. policy in Latin America.

The big problem with regime change is you can never be entirely sure what will happen after the incumbent leader is removed. Such operations are by their very nature dangerous and destabilizing; political orders are deliberately shattered, the haves become have-nots, and constituencies used to holding the reins of power suddenly find themselves as outsiders. When Hussein was deposed in Iraq, the military officers, Ba’ath Party loyalists and regime-tied sycophants who ruled the roost for nearly a quarter-century were forced to make do with an entirely new situation. The Sunni-dominated structure was overturned, and members of the Shia majority, previously oppressed, were now eagerly taking their place at the top of the system. This, combined with the U.S. decision to bar anyone associated with the old regime from serving in state positions, fed the ingredients for a large-scale insurgency that challenged the new government, precipitated a civil war and killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Regime change can also create total absences of authority, as it did in Libya after the 2011 U.S.-NATO intervention there. Much like Maduro today, Moammar Kadafi was a reviled figure whose demise was supposed to pave the way for a democratic utopia in North Africa. The reality was anything but. Instead, Kadafi’s removal sparked conflict between Libya’s major tribal alliances, competing governments and the proliferation of terrorist groups in a country just south of the European Union. Fifteen years later, Libya remains a basket case of militias, warlords and weak institutions.

Unlike Iraq and Libya, Venezuela has experience in democratic governance. It held relatively free and fair elections in the past and doesn’t suffer from the types of sectarian rifts associated with states in the Middle East.

Still, this is cold comfort for those expecting a democratic transition. Indeed, for such a transition to be successful, the Venezuelan army would have to be on board with it, either by sitting on the sidelines as Maduro’s regime collapses, actively arresting Maduro and his top associates, or agreeing to switch its support to the new authorities. But again, this is a tall order, particularly for an army whose leadership is a core facet of the Maduro regime’s survival, has grown used to making obscene amounts of money from illegal activity under the table and whose members are implicated in human rights abuses. The very same elites who profited handsomely from the old system would have to cooperate with the new one. This doesn’t appear likely, especially if their piece of the pie will shrink the moment Maduro leaves.

Finally, while regime change might sound like a good remedy to the problem that is Venezuela, it might just compound the difficulties over time. Although Maduro’s regime’s remit is already limited, its complete dissolution could usher in a free-for-all between elements of the former government, drug trafficking organizations and established armed groups like the Colombian National Liberation Army, which have long treated Venezuela as a base of operations. Any post-Maduro government would have difficulty managing all of this at the same time it attempts to restructure the Venezuelan economy and rebuild its institutions. The Trump administration would then be facing the prospect of Venezuela serving as an even bigger source of drugs and migration, the very outcome the White House is working to prevent.

In the end, María Corina Machado could prove to be right. But she is selling a best-case assumption. The U.S. shouldn’t buy it. Democracy after Maduro is possible but is hardly the only possible result — and it’s certainly not the most likely.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.

Nov. 11 (UPI) — Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Tuesday warned that the crisis facing air travel in the United States, exasperated by the ongoing government shutdown, is going to get worse unless Congress acts.

Speaking to reporters at Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Duffy said air travel will “radically slow down” as the country approaches the weekend if lawmakers don’t vote to approve legislation that is before the House to fund the government through January.

“You’re going to see this Friday, Saturday and Sunday — big disruption thus far — massively more disruption as we come into the weekend, if the government doesn’t open,” he said during the press conference.

The United States was grappling with a air traffic controller shortage before the government shutdown, but the situation deteriorated after federal funding lapsed, with most air traffic controllers required to work without pay.

On Friday, the Federal Aviation Administration ordered a 4% reduction in flights at 40 airports, resulting in thousands of delayed and canceled flights.

The Transportation Department has seen what Duffy called “significant staffing shortages,” causing “very rough travel days” last weekend.

During the press conference, Duffy called on air traffic controllers to come into work, explaining that within 24 to 48 hours after the shutdown ends, they will receive 70% of their backpay and the remainder within a week.

“So I encourage all of them to come to work, to be patriots, and help navigate the airspace effectively for the American people,” he said.

On Monday night, the Senate passed legislation to end the record 42-day government shutdown, sending the bill to the House for consideration.

If passed by the House, it will go to the desk of President Donald Trump for his signature.

A Virginia transportation security officer has accused the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of sex discrimination over a policy that bars transgender officers from performing security screening pat-downs, according to a federal lawsuit.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which operates under the DHS, enacted the policy in February to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes: male and female.

The Associated Press (AP) news agency obtained internal documents explaining the policy change from four independent sources, including one current and two former TSA workers.

Those documents explain that “transgender officers will no longer engage in pat-down duties, which are conducted based on both the traveller’s and officer’s biological sex. In addition, transgender officers will no longer serve as a TSA-required witness when a traveller elects to have a pat-down conducted in a private screening area”.

Until February, the TSA assigned officers work consistent with their gender identity, based on a 2021 management directive. The agency told the AP that it rescinded this directive to comply with Trump’s January 20 executive order.

Although transgender officers “shall continue to be eligible to perform all other security screening functions consistent with their certifications” and must attend all required training, they will not be allowed to demonstrate how to conduct pat-downs as part of their training or while training others, according to the internal documents.

A transgender officer at Dulles international airport, Danielle Mittereder, alleged in her lawsuit filed on Friday that the new policy, which also bars her from using TSA facility restrooms that align with her gender identity, violates civil rights law.

“Solely because she is transgender, TSA now prohibits Plaintiff from conducting core functions of her job, impedes her advancement to higher-level positions and specialised certifications, excludes her from TSA-controlled facilities, and subjects her identity to unwanted and undue scrutiny each workday,” the complaint says.

Mittereder declined to speak with the AP, but her lawyer, Jonathan Puth, called the TSA policy “terribly demeaning and 100 percent illegal”.

TSA spokesperson Russell Read declined to comment, citing pending litigation. But he said the new policy directs that “male Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on male passengers, and female Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on female passengers, based on operational needs”.

The legal battle comes amid mounting reports of workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees during Trump’s second administration. It is also happening at a time when the TSA’s ranks are already stretched thin due to the ongoing government shutdown that has left thousands of agents working without pay.

Other transgender officers describe similar challenges to Mittereder.

Kai Regan worked for six years at Harry Reid international airport in Las Vegas before leaving in July, in large part because of the new policy.

Worried that he would be fired for his gender identity, he retired earlier than planned rather than “waiting for the bomb to drop”.

Regan, who is not involved in the Virginia case, transitioned from female to male in 2021. He said he had conducted pat-downs on men without issue until the policy change.

“It made me feel inadequate at my job, not because I can’t physically do it but because they put that on me,” said the 61-year-old.

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a legal organisation that has repeatedly challenged the second Trump administration in court, called the TSA policy “arbitrary and discriminatory”.

“There’s no evidence or data we’re aware of to suggest that a person can’t perform their duties satisfactorily as a TSA agent based on their gender identity,” Perryman said.

The DHS pushed back on assertions by some legal experts that its policy is discriminatory.

“Does the AP want female travellers to be subjected to pat-downs by male TSA officers?” Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin asked in a written response to questions by the AP. “What a useless and fundamentally dangerous idea, to prioritise mental delusion over the comfort and safety of American travellers.”

Airport security expert and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign professor Sheldon H Jacobson, whose research contributed to the design of TSA PreCheck, said that the practice of matching the officer’s sex to the passenger’s is aimed at minimising passenger discomfort during screening.

Travellers can generally request another officer if they prefer, he added.

Deciding where transgender officers fit into this practice “creates a little bit of uncertainty”, Jacobson said. But because transgender officers likely make up a small percent of the TSA’s workforce, he said the new policy is unlikely to cause major delays.

“It could be a bit of an inconvenience, but it would not inhibit the operation of the airport security checkpoint,” Jacobson said.

The TSA’s policy for passengers is that they be screened based on physical appearance as judged by an officer, according to internal documents. If a passenger corrects an officer’s assumption, “the traveller should be patted down based on his/her declared sex”.

For passengers who tell an officer “that they are neither a male nor female”, the policy says officers must advise “that pat-down screening must be conducted by an officer of the same sex” and contact a supervisor if concerns persist.

The documents also say that transgender officers “will not be adversely affected” in pay, promotions or awards, and that the TSA “is committed to providing a work environment free from unlawful discrimination and retaliation”.

But the lawsuit argues otherwise, saying the policy impedes Mittereder’s career prospects because “all paths toward advancement require that she be able to perform pat-downs and train others to do so”, Puth said.

According to the lawsuit, Mittereder started in her role in June 2024 and never received complaints related to her job performance, including pat-down responsibilities. Supervisors awarded her the highest-available performance rating, and “have praised her professionalism, skills, knowledge, and rapport with fellow officers and the public”, the lawsuit said.

“This is somebody who is really dedicated to her job and wants to make a career at TSA,” Puth said. “And while her gender identity was never an issue for her in the past, all of a sudden, it’s something that has to be confronted every single day.”

Being unable to perform her full job duties has caused Mittereder to suffer fear, anxiety and depression, as well as embarrassment and humiliation by forcing her to disclose her gender identity to co-workers, the complaint says.

It adds that the ban places an additional burden on already-outnumbered female officers who have to pick up Mittereder’s pat-down duties.

American Federation of Government Employees national president Everett Kelley urged the TSA leadership to reconsider the policy “for the good of its workforce and the flying public”.

“This policy does nothing to improve airport security,” Kelley said, “and in fact could lead to delays in the screening of airline passengers since it means there will be fewer officers available to perform pat-down searches”.

WASHINGTON — President Trump and Republican lawmakers took a victory lap on Tuesday after securing bipartisan support to reopen the government, ending the longest shutdown in U.S. history without ceding ground to any core Democratic demands.

House members were converging on Washington for a final vote expected as early as Wednesday, after 60 senators — including seven Democrats and an independent — advanced the measure on Monday night. Most Democratic lawmakers in the House are expected to oppose the continuing resolution, which does not include an extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits that had been a central demand during the shutdown negotiations.

The result, according to independent analysts, is that premiums will more than double on average for more than 20 million Americans who use the healthcare marketplace, rising from an average of $888 to $1,904 for out-of-pocket payments annually, according to KFF.

Democrats in the Senate who voted to reopen the government said they had secured a promise from Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, that they would get a vote on extending the tax credits next month.

But the vote is likely to fail down party lines. And even if it earned some Republican support, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, has made no promises he would give the measure a vote in the lower chamber.

An end to the shutdown comes at a crucial time for the U.S. aviation industry ahead of one of the busiest travel seasons around the Thanksgiving holiday. The prolonged closure of the federal government led federal employees in the sector to call out sick in large numbers, prompting an unprecedented directive from the Federation Aviation Administration that slowed operations at the nation’s biggest airports.

Lawmakers are racing to vote before federal employees working in aviation safety miss yet another paycheck this week, potentially extending frustration within their ranks and causing further delays at airports entering the upcoming holiday week.

It will be the first time the House conducts legislative work in over 50 days, a marathon stretch that has resulted in a backlog of work for lawmakers on a wide range of issues, from appropriations and stock trading regulations to a discharge petition calling for the release of files in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

“We look forward to the government reopening this week so Congress can get back to our regular legislative session,” Johnson told reporters Monday. “There will be long days and long nights here for the foreseeable future to make up for all this lost time that was imposed upon us.”

To reopen the government, the spending package needs to pass the House, where Republicans hold a slim majority and Democrats have vowed to vote against a deal that does not address healthcare costs.

Still, Trump and Republican leaders believe they have enough votes to push it through the chamber and reopen the government later in the week.

Trump has called the spending package a “very good” deal and has indicated that he will sign it once it gets to his desk.

At a Veterans Day event on Tuesday, Trump thanked Thune and Johnson for their work on their work to reopen the government. Johnson was in the crowd listening to Trump’s remarks.

“Congratulations to you and to John and to everybody on a very big victory,” Trump said in a speech at Arlington National Cemetery. “We are opening back our country. It should’ve never been closed.”

While Trump lauded the measure as a done deal, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the top Democrat in the chamber, said his party would still try to delay or tank the legislation with whatever tools it had left.

“House Democrats will strongly oppose any legislation that does not decisively address the Republican healthcare crisis,” Jeffries said in a CNN interview Tuesday morning.

Just like in the Senate, California Democrats in the House are expected to vote against the shutdown deal because it does not address the expiring healthcare subsidies.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi said the shutdown deal reached in the Senate “fails to meet the needs of America’s working families” and said she stood with House Democratic leaders in opposing the legislation.

“We must continue to fight for a responsible, bipartisan path forward that reopens the government and keeps healthcare affordable for the American people,” Pelosi said in a social media post.

California Republicans in the House, meanwhile, have criticized Democrats for trying to stop the funding agreement from passing.

“These extremists only care about their radical base regardless of the impact to America,” Rep. Ken Calvert of Corona said in a social media post.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) publicly called on Johnson to negotiate with Democrats on healthcare during the shutdown. He said in an interview last month that he thought there was “a lot of room” to address concerns on both sides of the aisle on how to address the rising costs of healthcare.

Kiley said Monday that he was proposing legislation with Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-San José) that proposed extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits for another two years.

He said the bill would “stop massive increase in healthcare costs for 22 million Americans whose premium tax credits are about to expire.”

“Importantly, the extension is temporary and fully paid for, so it can’t increase the deficit,” Kiley said in reference to a frequent concern cited by Republicans that extending the credits would contribute to the national debt.

Republican-controlled House of Representatives is expected to approve funding bill to re-open US federal government in coming days.

United States President Donald Trump has called the looming end of the government shutdown a “big victory” after the Senate passed a bill to fund federal agencies.

Trump congratulated Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Tuesday for the soon-to-be-approved funding bill.

“Congratulations to you and to John and to everybody on a very big victory,” Trump said, addressing Johnson at a Veterans Day event.

“We’re opening up our country — should have never been closed.”

The US president’s comments signal that he views the shutdown crisis as a political win for his Republican Party, which is set to end the budgeting impasse in Congress without meeting the Democrats’ key demand: extending healthcare subsidies.

The Senate passed the funding bill late on Monday in a 60-40 vote that saw eight members of the Democratic caucus backing the proposal.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is expected to pass the budget in the coming days to end the shutdown, which has been the longest in US history. Assuming the House approves the bill, it will then go to Trump’s desk, and the president is expected to sign it into law.

In the US system, Congress is tasked with funding the government.

If lawmakers fail to pass a budget, the federal government goes into shutdown mode, where it stops paying most employees and sends non-essential workers home.

The current shutdown started on October 1.

Republicans control the House, Senate and White House, but their narrow majority in the Senate had previously prevented them from passing a continuing resolution to keep the government funded.

In the 100-seat Senate, major legislation must generally be passed with at least 60 votes to overcome the filibuster, a legislative procedure that allows the minority party to block bills it opposes.

The Democratic caucus holds 47 seats in the chamber, which allowed it to successfully wield the filibuster until this week’s divisive vote.

Until Monday, Democrats had largely been united in opposition to the Republicans’ funding bill. They had previously maintained they would only approve government funding if the bill included provisions to extend healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, which are set to expire at the end of the year.

Those subsidies, Democrats argued, help millions of Americans afford their medical insurance.

But Trump had threatened to ramp up the pressure against Democrats by cutting programmes he associated with their party.

During the shutdown, for example, Trump tried to withhold food benefits for low-income families – a policy that is being challenged in the courts.

The shutdown crisis has also led to flight delays and cancellations across the country due to a shortage of available air traffic controllers, who have been working without pay.

Monday’s Senate vote paved the way for a resolution to the crisis. But it has sparked infighting amongst Democrats, with segments of the party voicing disappointment with senators who backed the bill.

The issue has also intensified criticism against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who voted against the proposal but failed to keep his caucus united in opposition to it.

“Sen. Schumer has failed to meet this moment and is out of touch with the American people. The Democratic Party needs leaders who fight and deliver for working people,” Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib said in a social media post on Monday.

“Schumer should step down.”

Senator John Fetterman, one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, defended his vote on Tuesday.

“When you’re confronting mass, mass chaos, you know, I don’t think you should respond with more chaos, or fight with more chaos,” Fetterman told the ABC talk show The View. “It’s like, no, we need to be the party of order and logic.”

LONDON — Britain’s government rallied to the defense of the BBC on Tuesday after allegations of bias from its critics and the threat of a lawsuit from President Trump over the way the broadcaster edited a speech he made after losing the 2020 presidential election

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said the national broadcaster faces “challenges, some of its own making,” but is “by far the most widely used and trusted source of news in the United Kingdom.”

With critics in media and politics demanding an overhaul of the BBC’s funding and governance, Nandy said that “the BBC as an institution is absolutely essential to this country.

“At a time when the lines are being dangerously blurred between facts and opinions, news and polemic, the BBC stands apart,” she said in the House of Commons.

Trump threatens to sue

A lawyer for Trump is demanding a retraction, apology and compensation from the broadcaster over the allegedly defamatory sequence in a documentary broadcast last year.

Fallout from the documentary has already claimed the BBC’s top executive, Tim Davie, and head of news Deborah Turness, who both resigned over what the broadcaster called an “error of judgment.”

The BBC has apologized for misleading editing of a speech Trump delivered on Jan. 6, 2021, before a crowd of his supporters stormed the Capitol in Washington.

Broadcast days before the November 2024 U.S. election, the documentary “Trump: A Second Chance?” spliced together three quotes from two sections of the speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

BBC chair Samir Shah said the broadcaster accepted “that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action.”

The BBC has not yet formally responded to the demand from Florida-based Trump attorney Alejandro Brito that it “retract the false, defamatory, disparaging and inflammatory statements,” apologize and “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused” by Friday, or face legal action for $1 billion in damages.

Nigel Huddleston, media spokesman for the opposition Conservative Party, said the BBC should “provide a fulsome apology to the U.S. president” to avoid legal action.

Legal experts say Trump is likely too late to sue the BBC in Britain, because a one-year deadline to file a defamation suit has expired. He could still bring a defamation claim in several U.S. states, and his lawyer cited Florida law in a letter to the BBC, but faces considerable legal hurdles.

An embattled national institution

The publicly funded BBC is a century-old national institution under growing pressure in an era of polarized politics and changing media viewing habits.

Funded through an annual license fee of 174.50 pounds ($230) paid by all households who watch live TV or any BBC content, the broadcaster is frequently a political football, with conservatives seeing a leftist slant in its news output and some liberals accusing it of having a conservative bias.

Governments of both left and right have long been accused of meddling with the broadcaster, which is overseen by a board that includes both BBC nominees and government appointees.

Some defenders of the BBC allege that board members appointed under previous Conservative governments have been undermining the corporation from within.

Pressure on the broadcaster has been growing since the right-leaning Daily Telegraph published parts of a dossier compiled by Michael Prescott, who had been hired to advise the BBC on standards and guidelines. As well as the Trump edit, Prescott criticized the BBC’s coverage of transgender issues and raised concerns of anti-Israel bias in the BBC’s Arabic service.

Near the BBC’s London headquarters, some passersby said the scandal would further erode trust in a broadcaster already under pressure.

Amanda Carey, a semi-retired lawyer, said the editing of the Trump speech is “something that should never have happened.”

“The last few scandals that they’ve had, trust in the BBC is very much waning and a number of people are saying they’re going to refuse to pay the license (fee),” she said.

A growing number of people argue that the license fee is unsustainable in a world where many households watch little or no traditional TV.

Nandy said the government will soon start the once-a-decade process of reviewing the BBC’s governing charter, which expires at the end of 2027. She said the government would ensure the BBC is “sustainably funded (and) commands the public’s trust,” but did not say whether the license fee might be scaled back or scrapped.

Davie, who announced his resignation as BBC director-general on Sunday, acknowledged that “we have made some mistakes that have cost us.”

But, he added: “We’ve got to to fight for our journalism.”

Lawless writes for the Associated Press. AP journalist Kwiyeon Ha contributed to this story.

US airlines cancel 1,200 flights, marking five days of disruptions caused by the prolonged government shutdown.

Airlines in the United States have cancelled nearly 1,200 flights, marking the fifth consecutive day of mass delays and cancellations sparked by the country’s longest-ever government shutdown.

In addition to cancellations on Tuesday, passengers continued to face long wait times, as more than 1,300 domestic and international flights were delayed in the morning.

New York’s LaGuardia Airport, in particular, is seeing significant hold-ups, with average delays of one hour and 40 minutes, according to FlightAware — a platform that tracks flight disruptions worldwide.

On Monday, there were more than 2,400 cancelled flights to, from and within the US, along with over 9,500 delayed flights, according to the same tracker.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) last week instructed airlines to cut 4 percent of daily flights from Friday at 40 major airports due to air traffic control staffing shortages. Reductions rose to 6 percent on Tuesday, then 8 percent on Thursday, and are expected to reach 10 percent by November 14th.

Airlines and the FAA are in talks over whether these cuts will be eased as a record-setting 42-day government shutdown draws to a close.

An end to the shutdown appears to be in sight. On Monday, the Senate passed a bill to reopen the federal government. It now heads to the House of Representatives and, if approved, will go to President Donald Trump’s desk for signing. Once signed, the bill would reopen the government.

Despite progress on Capitol Hill, the president has urged air traffic controllers across the country to return to work, warning that their pay could be “docked” if they do not comply. He also claimed that those who remained on duty during the shutdown would receive a $10,000 bonus.

On Wall Street, airline stocks are taking a hit amid persistent cancellations. As of 11am in New York (16:00 GMT), Delta Air Lines had fallen 1.26 percent since the market opened on Tuesday. United Airlines was down 1.7 percent, while American Airlines had tumbled more than 1.8 percent.

Budget carriers are also being hit hard. New York-based JetBlue has dropped by more than 2 percent, Dallas-based Southwest by 1.8 percent, and Alaska Airlines is down roughly 2.1 percent.

Undated video circulating on social media shows Russian troops moving through dense fog in Pokrovsk as Moscow steps up efforts to reinforce positions. Ukraine says around 300 Russian soldiers are in the town and are trying to push north to encircle the area.

Over the weekend, United States President Donald Trump promised Americans $2,000 each from the “trillions of dollars” in tariff revenue he said his administration has collected.

During his second term, Trump has imposed tariffs broadly on countries and on specific goods such as drugs, steel and cars.

“People that are against Tariffs are FOOLS!” Trump said in a November 9 Truth Social post. “We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion. Record Investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place. A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”

How seriously should people take his pledge? Experts urged caution.

Tariffs are projected to generate well below “trillions” a year, making it harder to pay each person $2,000. And the administration already said it would use the tariff revenue to either pay for existing tax cuts or to reduce the federal debt.

Trump’s post came days after the US Supreme Court heard arguments about the legality of his tariff policy. The justices are weighing whether Trump has the power to unilaterally impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If the justices rule against Trump, much of the expected future tariff revenue would not materialise.

What Trump proposed, and who would qualify

The administration has published no plans for the tariff dividends, and in a November 9 ABC News interview, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he had not spoken to Trump about giving Americans a dividend payment.

Details about a potential payment have been limited to Truth Social posts.

Trump said “everyone”, excluding “high income people”, would get the money, but did not explain the criteria for high-income people. He also did not say whether children would receive the payment.

In a November 10 Truth Social post, Trump said his administration would first pay $2,000 to “low and middle income USA Citizens” and then use the remaining tariff revenues to “substantially pay down national debt”.

Trump has not said what form the payments might take. Bessent said the dividend “could come in lots of forms, in lots of ways. You know, it could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president’s agenda. You know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, deductibility of auto loans. So, you know, those are substantial deductions.”

Analysts said it is a stretch to rebrand an already promised tax cut as a new dividend.

Trump has previously discussed paying Americans with tariff revenue.

“We have so much money coming in, we’re thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,” he told reporters on July 25. “We’re thinking about a rebate.”

Days later, Senator Josh Hawley introduced legislation that would give $600 tariff rebate cheques to each American adult and child. Hawley’s bill has not advanced.

Tariff revenue collected versus cost of ‘dividend’ payment

Trump made the imposition of tariffs one of his signature campaign promises for the 2024 presidential election. Since taking office in January, he has enacted tariffs on a scale not seen in the US in almost a century; the current overall average tariff rate is 18 percent, the highest since 1934, according to Yale Budget Lab.

Through the end of October, the federal government collected $309.2bn in tariff revenue, compared with $165.4bn through the same point in 2024, an increase of $143.8bn.

The centre-right Tax Foundation projects that tariff revenue will continue to increase to more than $200bn a year if the tariffs remain in place.

Erica York, the Tax Foundation’s vice president of federal tax policy, estimated in a November 9 X post that a $2,000 tariff dividend for each person earning less than $100,000 would equal 150 million adult recipients. That would cost nearly $300bn, York calculated, or more if children qualified. That is more than the tariffs have raised so far, she said.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected that Trump’s proposal could cost $600bn, depending on how it is structured.

The administration previously detailed other uses for tariff revenue

The Trump administration already promised to use tariff revenue for other purposes, including reducing the country’s deficit and offsetting the cost of the GOP tax and spending bill Trump signed into law in July.

As Trump announced new tariffs on April 2, he said he would “use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt”.

Bessent has made the same promise, falsely saying in July that tariffs were “going to pay off our deficit”.

The treasury secretary said in August that he and Trump were “laser-focused on paying down the debt”.

“I think we’re going to bring down the deficit-to-GDP,” Bessent said in an August 19 CNBC interview. “We’ll start paying down debt and then, at a point, that can be used as an offset to the American people.”

Tariffs’ current cost to Americans 

Tariffs are already costing Americans money, analysts say. Independent estimates range from about $1,600 to $2,600 a year per household. Given the similarity of these amounts to Trump’s proposed dividend, York said it would be more efficient to remove the tariffs.

Joseph Rosenberg, Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Centre senior fellow, said a $2,000 dividend in the form of a cheque would require congressional approval – and lawmakers have already declined to act on that idea once.

When members of Congress approved the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, “They had the ability to include a tariff dividend, but they didn’t”, Rosenberg said.

Al-Qaeda-linked group JNIM has besieged Mali’s capital, Bamako, cutting off key routes and causing severe fuel shortages. Al Jazeera’s Virginia Pietromarchi explains how the group is tightening its grip despite the military government’s promises of security. Here’s what we know.

Zohran Mamdani will be the first Muslim-Indian mayor of New York City when he takes up the post in January 2026, following an election which has gained global attention.

Mamdani, 34, will be the city’s youngest mayor since 1892. Having entered the race as a largely unknown candidate, he won the Democratic nomination and campaigned on a promise of affordability for New Yorkers, including rent freezes, free buses and universal healthcare, gaining huge popularity among young voters.

The mayor-elect, who will be formally inaugurated on January 1, 2026, has also been a beacon for a large number of those in the city who come from immigrant backgrounds.

During a Democratic primary debate in June, his opponent for the nomination – former Democratic Mayor Andrew Cuomo – mispronounced his name several times.

“The name is Mamdani, M-A-M-D-A-N-I, you should learn how to say it because we’ve got to get it right,” he told Cuomo in the televised debate.

But what does Mamdani mean, and what is the significance of his full name, Zohran Kwame Mamdani?

Where is he from?

Mamdani was born in Uganda to Indian parents who have citizenship of Uganda and the US. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, was born in Mumbai (then known as Bombay), India and is Herbert Lehman Professor of Government and a professor of anthropology, political science and African studies at Columbia University, New York. His mother, Mira Nair, is a film director who was also born in India. The family moved from Uganda to South Africa when Mamdani was five, and then to New York when he was seven.

By 2018, Mamdani had become a naturalised US citizen but also retained his Ugandan citizenship. The mayor-elect still regularly visits Uganda with his family, and most recently travelled there to celebrate his wedding to the American illustrator, Rama Duwaji, in July this year.

What does Mamdani’s name mean?

Zohran Kwame Mamdani is a name which reflects his multicultural identity.

His surname, Mamdani, is a common Gujarati name for Khoja Muslims, a sect of Islam.

Etymologically, Mamdani roughly translates to “Mohammadan”, a name for followers of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

His first name, Zohran, has both Arabic and Persian origins and carries several meanings, including “light”, “radiance”, and “blossom”.

His middle name, Kwame, is a traditional name of the Akan people, from the ethnic Kwa group who live primarily in Ghana as well as in parts of the Ivory Coast and Togo in West Africa.

Mamdani’s father is known to be a great admirer of the Ghanaian freedom fighter, Kwame Nkrumah, who led the fight for independence from British rule and served as the newly independent country’s first president from 1957.

What is the significance of his middle name, Kwame?

Kwame literally translates to “born on Saturday” in the language of the Akan people. It also means “wisdom” and “leadership”.

Outside of its literal definition, however, the name is strongly connected with the Ghanaian revolutionary, Kwame Nkrumah, who led his country’s independence movement. Ghana was the first sub-Saharan African nation to gain independence from British rule in March 1957. Nkrumah served as its first prime minister and, later, its first president until he was overthrown in a coup in 1966.

He was influential across the continent as an advocate of pan-Africanism, an ideology which promotes unity across the African continent and within its diaspora in defiance of the imperialistic division of African nations under European colonial rule.

Under his administration, which was both nationalist and predominantly socialist, Nkrumah oversaw the funding of national energy projects and a robust national education system which also promoted pan-Africanism.

After he was overthrown in a military coup in 1966, Nkrumah lived his life in exile, settling in Guinea where he died in 1972.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The measure still needs to be approved by the House and signed by US President Donald Trump.

The United States is moving closer to ending its record-breaking government shutdown after the Senate took a critical step forward to end its five-week impasse.

The Senate on Monday night approved a spending package by a vote of 60 to 40 to fund the US government through January 30, and reinstate pay for hundreds of thousands of federal workers.

The spending bill next moves to the House of Representatives for approval and then on to President Donald Trump for a sign-off before the shutdown can finally end.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has said he would like to pass it as soon as Wednesday and send it on to Trump to sign into law.

The vote in the Senate follows negotiations this weekend that saw seven Democrats and one Independent agree to vote in favour of the updated spending package to end the shutdown, which enters its 42nd day on Tuesday.

Also included in the deal are three-year funding appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, military construction projects, veterans affairs and congressional operations.

The bill does not, however, resolve one of the most central issues in the shutdown – extending healthcare subsidies. Senate Republicans have agreed to vote on the issue as a separate measure in December.

US legislators have been under growing pressure to end the government shutdown, which enters its forty-second day on Tuesday, as their constituents feel the impact of funding lapses for programmes like food stamps.

Hundreds of thousands of federal employees have been furloughed or required to work without pay since the shutdown began on October 1, while Trump has separately threatened to use the shutdown as a pretext to slash the federal workforce.

Voters have also felt the impact of the shutdown at airports across the US after the Federal Aviation Administration last week announced a 10 percent cut in air traffic due to absences from air traffic controllers.

The cuts have created chaos for US air travel just as the country is heading into its busiest travel season of the year.

WASHINGTON — A deal that could end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history is poised to head to the House, where Democrats are launching a last-ditch effort to block a spending agreement reached in the Senate that does not address healthcare costs.

The push comes as Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) urged House members on Monday to start making their way back to Washington in anticipation of the chamber voting on a spending package later in the week. The Senate began taking a series of votes Monday night, a day after Senate Republicans reached a deal with eight senators who caucus with Democrats.

The spending plan, which does not include an extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year, has frustrated many Democrats who spent seven weeks pressuring Republicans to extend the tax credits. It would, however, fund the government through January, reinstate federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown and ensure that federal employees who were furloughed receive back pay.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) also promised senators a vote in December that would put lawmakers on record on the healthcare subsidies. Thune said in a speech Monday that he was “grateful that the end is in sight” with the compromise.

“The American people have suffered long enough,” he said. “Let’s not pointlessly drag this bill out. Let’s get it done, get it over to the House so we can get this government open.”

Senate Democrats who defected have argued that a vote is the best deal they could get as the minority party, and that forcing vulnerable Republicans in the chamber to vote on the issue will help them win ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

As the Senate prepared to vote on the deal Monday, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader of the chamber, continued to reiterate his opposition to what he called a “Republican bill.” Schumer, who has faced backlash from Democrats for losing members of his caucus, said the bill “fails to do anything of substance to fix America’s healthcare crisis.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) speaks to reporters about the government shutdown.

(Mariam Zuhaib / Associated Press)

Thune’s promise to allow a vote in the Senate does not guarantee a favorable outcome for Democrats, who would need to secure Republican votes for passage through the chamber. And the chance to address healthcare costs will be made even harder by Johnson, who has not committed to holding a vote on his chamber in the future.

“I’m not promising anybody anything,” he said. “I’m going to let the process play out.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), meanwhile, told reporters that House Democrats will continue to make the case that extending the subsidies is what Americans are demanding from elected officials, and that there is still a fight to be waged in the chamber — even if it is a long shot.

“What we are going to continue to do as House Democrats is to partner with our allies throughout America is to wage the fight, to stay in the Colosseum,” Jeffries said at a news conference.

Some Republicans have agreed with Democrats during the shutdown that healthcare costs need to be addressed, but it is unlikely that House Democrats will be able to build enough bipartisan support to block the deal in the chamber.

Still, Jeffries said the “loudmouths” in the Republican Party who want to do something about healthcare costs have an opportunity to act now that the House is expected to be back in session.

“They can no longer hide. They can no longer hide,” Jeffries said. “They are not going to be able to hide this week when they return from their vacation.”

Democrats believed that fighting for an extension of healthcare tax credits, even at the expense of shutting down the government, would highlight their messaging on affordability, a political platform that helped lead their party to victory in elections across the country last week.

If the tax credits are allowed to lapse at the end of the year, millions of Americans are expected to see their monthly premiums double.

In California, premiums for federally subsidized plans available through Covered California will soar by 97% on average next year.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune answers questions Monday about a possible end to the government shutdown after eight members of the Democratic caucus broke ranks and voted with Republicans.

(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

California’s U.S. senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, were among the Democrats who voted against the deal to reopen the government because it did not address healthcare costs.

“We owe our constituents better than this. We owe a resolution that makes it possible for them to afford healthcare,” Schiff said in a video Sunday night.

Some Republicans too have warned that their party faces backlash in the midterm elections next year if it doesn’t come up with a more comprehensive health plan.

“We have always been open to finding solutions to reduce the oppressive cost of healthcare under the unaffordable care act,” Johnson said Monday.

A final vote could still take several days. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, for one, has said he supports an expeditious vote to reopen the government, but is insisting on a prior vote on an amendment that would eliminate language from the spending deal he says would “unfairly target Kentucky’s hemp industry.”

Without unanimous consent to proceed, the final Senate vote could end up bogged down by procedural delays.

Johnson, meanwhile, has asked members to return by Wednesday in anticipation of a vote in the latter part of the week. Republicans expect to have the votes to pass it, Johnson said.

Any piece of legislation needs to be approved by both the Senate and House and be signed by the president.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday, President Trump said he would support the legislative deal to reopen the government.

“We’re going to be opening up our country,” Trump said. “Too bad it was closed, but we’ll be opening up our country very quickly.”

Trump added that he would abide by a provision that would require his administration to reinstate federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown.

“The deal is very good,” he said.

Johnson said he spoke to the president on Sunday night and described Trump as “very anxious” to reopen the government.

“It’s after 40 days of wandering in the wilderness, and making the American people suffer needlessly, that some Senate Democrats finally have stepped forward to end the pain,” Johnson said. “Our long national nightmare is finally coming to an end, and we’re grateful for that.”

Apple has removed two popular gay dating apps in China in response to the government’s continued policing of LGBTQIA+ related online content.

According to a recent report from Wired, Blued and Finka disappeared from the company’s App Store in China after the country’s internet regulator issued an order.

“We follow the laws in the countries where we operate. Based on an order from the Cyberspace Administration of China, we have removed these two apps from the China storefront only,” an Apple spokesperson told the news outlet in an email statement.

The spokesperson went on to say that the two apps, owned by parent company BlueCity, had already dialled back availability before being completely removed.

“Earlier this year, the developer of Finka elected to remove the app from storefronts outside of China, and Blued was available only in China,” they added.

While Finka and Blued can no longer be downloaded from the App Store, users who already have the app can still access them.

Over the last few years, the LGBTQIA+ community in China has faced relentless censorship by the government.

In 2020, the country’s annual Pride celebration, Shanghai Pride, was unceremoniously shut down.

The following year, dozens of queer-related accounts on the popular messaging app WeChat were removed, and all their content was deleted.

In 2022, Grindr disappeared from China’s App Store a few days after the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) launched a month-long campaign to remove content it deemed problematic.

The Chinese government has also censored LGBTQIA+ content within other sectors of the entertainment sphere.

In 2021, CAC introduced a new policy banning any “effeminate” male characters, established queer relationships and characters with “no clear gender” in video games.

Films like Alien: Covenant, Bohemian Rhapsody and Together also faced censorship in China, with their LGBTQIA+ content either getting chopped or altered to fit a heterosexual narrative.

In 2018, Chinese broadcaster Mango TV cut Ireland’s performance from the Eurovision semi-finals due to the inclusion of two same-sex dancers.

Three years later, the country’s top three streaming platforms – iQiyi, Tencent Video and Alibaba’s Youku – took out a segment from the Friends reunion that celebrated the show’s LGBTQIA+ fans.

Lastly, in 2024, eagle-eyed viewers of Netflix’s hit series Arcane noticed that scenes depicting Vi and Caitlyn’s romance were either heavily censored or cut altogether.

Eric Preven, one of L.A. County’s most prominent citizen watchdogs, has died at 63, according to his family.

Preven, a well-known government transparency advocate, garnered a reputation as an eagle-eyed observer of local meetings, a savvy wielder of the state’s public records act, and a reliable thorn in the sides of his government.

Relatives said Preven died Saturday in his Studio City home of a suspected heart attack.

The term “gadfly” often is bandied about local government to describe those who never miss a public meeting. But politicians and his family say the term doesn’t quite do Preven justice.

“You may not agree with him, but it wasn’t just like [he was] shooting from the hip. He would do his research,” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who watched Preven testify for more than a decade. “He would let the facts speak for themselves.”

In 2016, Preven and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California took a lawsuit all the way to the California Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor, finding the public had a right to know how much the county was paying outside lawyers in closed cases. Three years later he successfully forced the city to expand its rules around public testimony after he argued he’d been unlawfully barred from weighing in on a Studio City development.

Many attendees of local public meetings tend to drift into offensive diatribes that have little to do with the matter at hand. Preven never did.

Instead he fine-tuned the art of presenting minute-long, logical arguments on everything from budget shortfalls to seemingly excessive settlements. He could be cutting but he always had a point to make.

And he never missed a meeting.

“Thank you for this exhausting dressing down of the probation department,” Preven said last Tuesday after the supervisors wrapped up rebuking officials for paltry programming inside juvenile halls. “The idea that we’re paying for these programs, these programs are scheduled, and nothing is happening is terrible.”

A New York native, Preven moved to Los Angeles to work in Hollywood, landing TV writing gigs on shows including “Popular” and “Reba.” His path into local activism began 15 years ago after his mother’s two chocolate labs were removed by the county’s animal control department following a fight with an off-leash dog, according to his family.

Preven, a canine lover known to throw parties with members of his local dog park, found the removal of the labs unjustifiable. He went to the Board of Supervisors meeting to tell them so. Then he went again. And again. And again.

Long after the dogs were returned, Preven kept going back.

“He started listening to the meeting and looking at the agenda, and he became just appalled at so many things that he saw,” said his brother, Joshua Preven. “He became so incensed by it.”

Preven became a fierce advocate for the public’s right to know what was happening in local meetings and kept close track of staff changes at City Hall. He was known to text local government reporters early on weekend mornings to ask why someone had stepped down from a city agency, or self-deprecatingly share his latest blog post on CityWatch, a local news site.

“My latest deep dive into my own navel,” he texted two weeks ago with his new article on the famed architect behind his historic home in Studio City’s foothills.

He often sent Times editors and reporters weekly emails on successes and shortcomings in their coverage. The county’s politicians and officials received similar messages about their governance.

“He could be irascible,” his brother said. “When he came and encountered the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, it became a really good use of that stubbornness.”

Preven was a dogged user of the California Public Records Act, finding gems of records buried in seldom-scrutinized agencies. He filed so many record requests to the Animal Care and Control department that the county assigned an attorney just to deal with them, according to Dawyn Harrison, the county’s top lawyer.

“Eric was the epitome of an engaged constituent and critic of local government, persistently questioning and challenging government officials,” Harrison said. “As his interest in County government grew, so did the range of his requests; so, my office decentralized the handling of his requests because no one person could cover all the subjects he looked into. He was a true watchdog.”

Supervisor Janice Hahn said Preven had been scrutinizing her and her colleagues ever since she was a councilmember at City Hall.

“Eric Preven never let those with power in government forget who we work for. … He pushed us, he challenged us, and he had an opinion on everything — from the biggest issue of the day to the more routine contract votes that too often go overlooked,” she said. “While some people wrote him off, I thought there was always truth in what he had to say.”

Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes parts of Studio City, said he “took seriously the role of citizen, religiously participating in County meetings.”

In addition to his brother, Preven is survived by his sister, Anne Preven, his mother, Ruth Preven, his father, David Preven, and two children, 28-year-old Isaac Rooks Preven and 26-year-old Reva Jay Preven.

Preven ran several times for public office, launching idiosyncratic campaigns for mayor, city council and county supervisor. He barely fundraised and wasn’t allowed in many of the debates, said his brother, who helped out as his campaign manager.

“We didn’t know what the hell we were doing at all,” Joshua Preven said. “But he kept showing up.”

Times reporters Dakota Smith and David Zahniser contributed to this report.

Donald Trump has branded the BBC ‘100% fake news’ but Keir Starmer has backed the Corporation for being ‘internationally renowned’ and rejected the accusation that it’s journalists were ‘corrupt’

Donald Trump has threatened to sue the BBC over its editing of his Capitol Hill speech from 2021, as the government yesterday defended the corporation in the wake of the resignations of two top bosses. Amid the fallout from the exits of director general Tim Davie and BBC News boss Deborah Turness, the BBC yesterday confirmed it had received the letter threatening legal action from the US President and would respond in due course.

And Trump’s claim that the BBC has “corrupt journalists” was rejected by Keir Starmer as Downing Street threw its weight behind the BBC, describing it as an “internationally renowned” institution.

The developments came as BBC Chair Samir Shah finally apologised over the BBC Panorama in which two bits of a speech from Trump were edited together in a way which made him appear to support the rioters. This move has allowed Trump’s press secretary to accuse the BBC of being “100% fake news” and brand it a “propoganda machine”.

READ MORE: Strictly Come Dancing in huge show first with Britain’s Got Talent link-upREAD MORE: Alan Carr lined up for two major TV roles after Celebrity Traitors win

Shah’s apology, contained in a letter to culture, media and sport select committee chair Caroline Dinenage, said the BBC regretted its “error of judgement” that resulted in a misleading edit of a Donald Trump speech.

It came after a week of silence from the BBC, which claimed it did not comment on leaked documents. This seemingly prevented it from either defending its journalism or apologising for any mistake made, leaving many supporters baffled.

The row erupted a week ago with the publication of a leaked memo from Michael Prescott, a former political journalist who spent three years as an external adviser to the BBC, in which he made many complaints about issues that he claimed were not being sufficiently dealt with, notably on its coverage of the Gaza conflict and around trans issues.

But in his letter yesterday, Shah insisted that it was “simply not true” to say the BBC had done nothing to tackle the problems raised and he also defended the BBC against claims of systemic bias.

The chairman said the edit had initially been cleared to “convey the message of the speech” made by Trump, so that Panorama viewers would “better understand” how it was received by the president’s supporters, and what was happening on the ground at that time.

The edit, which drew no complaints at the time of broadcast, had been discussed by the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee (EGSC) in both January and May this year. He said that while it was discussed as part of a wider review of the US election coverage, hindsight had shown “it would have been better to take more formal action”.

He said that reports suggesting Prescott had “uncovered” a list of stories and issues that the BBC have sought to “bury” were “simply not true,” explaining: “The issues raised by Mr Prescott are precisely the issues that have been considered by the EGSC and the Board.”

The chairman said it was also misleading to suggest that the BBC has done nothing to tackle these problems.”That is also simply not true,” he wrote. “Over the three years Mr Prescott was an advisor to the EGSC, the BBC has: published corrections where we have got things wrong; changed editorial guidance to make the BBC’s position on issues clearer; made changes to leadership where the problems point to underlying issues; and carried out formal disciplinary measures.”

He said it was important to remember the thousands of hours of “outstanding journalism” produced by the BBC on TV, radio and digitally, calling for “a sense of perspective” to be maintained.

Speaking to reporters yesterday, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “On the question of is the BBC corrupt? No. The BBC has a vital role in an age of disinformation… where there’s a clear argument for a robust, impartial British news service to deliver, and that case is stronger than ever.”

Asked if Mr Starmer believed the BBC was institutionally biased, the spokesman replied: “No, but it is important that the BBC acts to maintain trust and correct mistakes quickly when they occur, because as I say, for any public service broadcaster, accountability is vital to maintain trust.”

Elsewhere, ex-PM Gordon Brown told Sky News an “immediate” apology from the BBC over the Trump speech could have swerved the need for resignations. “I think the problem that the BBC has had is that this happened a year ago,” he said. “An apology should have been made instantly. If a mistake has been made, you’ve got to apologise instantly.”

As many media commentators and BBC alumni rushed to either defend or denigrate the BBC, there were also claims of a “coup” from within the BBC board.

David Yelland, a former editor of The Sun who now presents a podcast for the BBC, said: “It was a coup and, worse than that, it was an inside job. There were people inside the BBC – very close to the board, on the board – who have systematically undermined Tim Davie and his senior team. This has been going on for a long time. What happened yesterday didn’t happen in isolation.”

He added: “There is a reason that the BBC is the most trusted news organisation in the world – look at who is celebrating this morning, including the president of the United States. This is not a good day and I do think there was a failure of governance.”

Radio 4 presenter Nick Robinson, a former political editor for BBC News, declared that forces were at work to try and bring down the BBC. “It’s clear that there is a genuine concern about editorial standards and mistakes,” he said on Today. “There is also a political campaign by people who want to destroy the organisation. Both things are happening at the same time.”

He said the BBC had appeared “paralysed” for the past week – “unable to agree what to say not just about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech by Panorama but also wider claims of institutional bias”.

Former 5 Live Breakfast Show host Shelagh Fogarty now works in commercial radio but says the BBC needs defending. “We need the BBC as part of a broader economy in news media. I worked there for 25 years and can see its rigour has been eroded. The practice of impartiality is its highest aim. Fix that and state facts.”

But Nigel Farage seized on the crisis, claiming the BBC “has been institutionally biased for decades” as he appeared at a press conference in central London. The Reform leader said: “I actually spoke to the president on Friday. He just said to me: ‘Is this how you treat your best ally?’ It’s quite a powerful comment.”

Former Radio 4 presenter Libby Purves said that she was “glad” to see Turness had been “binned” from her job at the helm of BBC News and claimed the Trump edit should never have happened. “The trans bias is irritating and the Arabic service a problem, but what viscerally distressed us ancient BBC newsfolk was the Trump edit,” she posted on social media. “As a reporter, spent years editing tape and being vv careful NOT to risk traducing even horrible people.”

And Charles Moore, chair of The Spectator, argued that the BBC’s views were “always from a metropolitan left position”. He added: “That means it’s not serving a very large percentage of the licence fee payers. I’m not, of course, saying it should be right wing either, I’m saying it should take impartiality seriously.”

Former Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer said he felt “sad” that Davie had resigned as a result of the latest controversy, describing him as an “outstanding” director general. “I don’t agree that the BBC is systemically biased and that it is basted in a culture which means that its journalism can’t be trusted. I think that’s absolutely wrong,” he said. “The overwhelming majority is excellent and it doesn’t happen by accident. I am here to say that the BBC is an outstanding and excellent exponent of impartial journalism and it needs to be defended.”

Emily Thornberry, chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, agreed: “Across the world, the BBC is recognised as the best source of impartial news reporting. “It’s not perfect, because nothing made by people ever is. However, in these days of deliberate lies, manipulation & populism, it’s a beacon of truth. Britain should be proud of it.”

Caroline Dinenage said that Davie’s decision to quit came down to “editorial failure”, listing other recent mistakes including Bob Vylan at Glastonbury, misconduct by Gregg Wallace on MasterChef, and editorial failings in the doc Gaza: How To Survive a War Zone.

“There seems to be a muscle memory at the BBC as to how to badly respond to any kind of editorial crisis or scandal,” she complained. “The BBC seems to have dropped the ball at every opportunity. That is not a board-level problem, that is an institutional problem.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

States administering a federal food aid program serving about 42 million Americans faced uncertainty Monday over whether they can — and should — provide full monthly benefits during an ongoing legal battle involving the U.S. government shutdown.

President Donald Trump’s administration over the weekend demanded that states “undo” full benefits that were paid under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during a one-day window between when a federal judge ordered full funding and a Supreme Court justice put a temporary pause on that order.

A federal appeals court in Boston left the full benefits order in place on Sunday, though the Supreme Court order ensures the government won’t have to pay out for at least 48 hours. The Trump administration is also expected to ask the justices to step in again, and Congress is considering whether to fund SNAP as part of a proposal to end the government shutdown.

Some states are warning of “catastrophic operational disruptions” if the Trump administration does not reimburse them for those SNAP benefits they already authorized. Meanwhile, other states are providing partial monthly SNAP benefits with federal money or using their own funds to load electronic benefit cards for SNAP recipients.

Millions receive aid while others wait

Trump’s administration initially said SNAP benefits would not be available in November because of the government shutdown. After some states and nonprofit groups sued, two judges each ruled the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely.

The administration then said it would use an emergency reserve fund to provide 65% of the maximum monthly benefit. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell said that wasn’t good enough, and ordered full funding for SNAP benefits by Friday.

Some states acted quickly to direct their EBT vendors to disburse full monthly benefits to SNAP recipients. Millions of people in those states received funds to buy groceries before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put McConnell’s order on hold Friday night, pending further deliberation by an appeals court.

Millions more people still have not received SNAP payments for November, because their states were waiting on further guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP.

Trump’s administration has argued that the judicial order to provide full benefits violates the Constitution by infringing on the spending power of the legislative and executive branches.

States are fighting attempt to freeze SNAP benefits

On Sunday, the Trump administration said states had moved too quickly and erroneously released full SNAP benefits after last week’s rulings.

“States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025,” Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture, wrote to state SNAP directors. He warned that states could face penalties if they did not comply.

Wisconsin, which was among the first to load full benefits after McConnell’s order, had its federal reimbursement frozen. As a result, the state’s SNAP account could be depleted as soon Monday, leaving no money to reimburse stores that sell food to SNAP recipients, according to a court filing submitted by those that had sued.

Some Democratic governors vowed to challenge any federal attempt to claw back money.

In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said “those who received their benefits should not worry about losing them.”

“No, Connecticut does not need to take back SNAP benefits already sent to the 360,000 people who depend on them for food and who should have never been caught in the middle of this political fight,” Lamont said. “We have their back.”

Lieb and Mulvihill write for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin; John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas; and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.