Government

Sudan has recalled its ambassador to Addis Ababa, accusing Ethiopia of being behind attacks on Khartoum’s airport. International Crisis Group’s Alan Boswell says the escalation risks making the countries’ internal challenges worse.

May 5 (UPI) — The Center for AI Standards and Innovation, part of a U.S.government agency, announced Tuesday that it will test artificial intelligence models from some top firms before release to vet them for security risks.

CAISI has deals with Microsoft, xAI and Google DeepMind for this testing and targeted research “to better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security,” it said in a release. The center is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology.

This follows similar deals in 2024, under the Biden administration, with prominent AI leaders OpenAI and Anthropic, which have been “renegotiated” to fit Trump administration directives, Politico reported.

The government has increasingly shown interest in matters of AI technology and security. CNBC also reported Tuesday that the Trump administration is considering an executive order to create a process for AI oversight by the White House.

Some of this interest has been heightened by the announcement last month of Anthropic’s new Mythos AI model. The company described the model as excelling “at identifying weaknesses and security flaws within software” and limited its initial use to certain companies. These companies, including Amazon and Microsoft, will use it as part of defensive security work and as part of Project Glasswing, a cybersecurity initiative, Anthropic said.

The announcement Tuesday from CAISI said that the center has completed more than 40 evaluations of AI models so far.

“Independent, vigorous measurement science is essential to understanding frontier AI and its national security implications,” CAISI director Chris Fell said in a statement. “These expanded industry collaborations help us scale our work in the public interest in a critical moment.”

MIAMI — A former Miami congressman and longtime friend of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was convicted Friday in connection with a secret $50-million lobbying campaign on behalf of Venezuela during the first Trump administration.

Jurors found Republican David Rivera and an associate, Esther Nuhfer, guilty on all counts, including failing to register as a foreign agent with the Justice Department and conspiracy to commit money laundering as part of their work for former President Nicolás Maduro’s government.

The seven-week trial offered a rare glimpse into Miami’s role as a crossroads for foreign influence campaigns aimed at shaping U.S. policy toward Latin America, one highlighting the city’s reputation as a magnet for corruption and anti-Communist crusaders among its sizable exile population.

It included testimony from Rubio, Texas Congressman Pete Sessions and a top Washington lobbyist — all of whom testified that they were shocked to learn belatedly of Rivera’s consulting contract with a U.S.-based affiliate of Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA.

In an 11-count indictment unsealed in 2022, prosecutors alleged that Rivera was tapped by then Foreign Minister Delcy Rodríguez — now Venezuela’s acting president — to work Republican connections from Rivera’s time in Congress to get the first Trump administration to abandon its hard-line stance and ease crippling sanctions on Venezuela.

As part of the charm offensive, prosecutors alleged, Rivera and Nuhfer, a political consultant, manipulated influential friends, including Rubio and Sessions, like “pawns on a chess board.” The goal: to try to normalize relations with the new Trump administration at a time when the Maduro government was buffeted by serious accusations of human rights violations.

“As long as the money kept coming in, they didn’t care from where,” prosecutor Roger Cruz said of the defendants during closing arguments.

‘Massive secret’ threatened to damage Rivera’s political career

But the two held onto the “massive secret” and didn’t disclose their lobbying work as required, for fear it would have ended Rivera’s political career as an anti-Communist stalwart, Cruz said.

To hide his work, prosecutors allege, Rivera also set up an encrypted chat group called MIA — for Miami — with his main conduit to the Maduro government: Venezuelan media tycoon Raúl Gorrín, who was subsequently charged in the U.S. with bribing top Venezuelan officials.

Members of the group used playful code words to discuss their activities: Maduro was the “bus driver,” Sessions “Sombrero,” Rodríguez “The Lady in Red,” and millions of dollars “melons,” according to copies of text messages presented to the jury.

“It was all about la Luz,” Cruz said, referring to the Spanish word for light, which Rivera and others repeatedly used to discuss payments from Caracas.

Attorneys for Rivera and Nuhfer said the two acted in good faith and believed they were under no requirement to disclose their work. The three-month, $50-million contract with Rivera’s one-man consulting firm, they say, was focused exclusively on luring oil giant ExxonMobil back to Venezuela — commercial work that is generally exempt from the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Wholly distinct from that consulting work, they say, were Rivera’s meetings with Rubio and Sessions, which occurred after the consulting contract had expired and was focused on ushering in leadership in Venezuela that would be less hostile to the U.S.

“He was working every possible angle to get Nicolás Maduro out,” defense attorney Ed Shohat said during closing arguments. “There was not a word in the chats about normalizing relations.”

Nuhfer’s attorney, David Oscar Markus, likened the government’s case to the 17th century Salem witch trials, presuming ill intent that was belied by the flimsiest of evidence.

“My client does not have a dark heart,” he said.

Exxon meetings for Rodríguez

Prosecutors said Rivera used the contract with New York-based PDV USA as cover for illegal lobbying.

Once exposed, the partners tried to hide the work — backdating documents and coming up with sham agreements like one to justify a wire transfer of $3.75 million to a South Florida company that maintained Gorrín’s luxury yacht.

The political activity included setting up meetings for Rodríguez in New York, Caracas, Washington and Dallas. As part of the effort, the two roped in Sessions, who later tried to broker a meeting for Rodríguez with the CEO of ExxonMobil that had succeeded Trump’s then-secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. After a secret meeting in Caracas with Maduro, Sessions also agreed to deliver a letter from the Venezuelan president to Trump.

The outreach quickly unraveled, however. Within six months of taking office, Trump sanctioned Maduro and labeled him a “dictator,” launching a “maximum pressure” campaign to unseat the president.

However, nearly a decade later, Rodríguez has emerged as the second Trump administration’s trusted partner after the U.S. military’s ousting of Maduro.

Before being elected to Congress in 2010, Rivera was a high-ranking Florida legislator. During that time, he shared a Tallahassee home with Rubio, who eventually became the Florida House speaker.

Rivera has previously faced controversy, including allegations that he secretly funded a Democratic spoiler candidate in a 2012 congressional race. Last year, federal prosecutors dropped the case after an appeals court threw out a sizable fine imposed by a lower court. Rivera was also investigated — but never charged — for alleged campaign finance violations and a $1-million contract with a gambling company while serving in the Florida legislature.

Goodman writes for the Associated Press.

TV star Simon Cowell’s fiancée Lauren strongly believes social media MUST be made safe for our children. 

The US socialite, 48, is a determined campaigner for tougher curbs.  

Her passion for change is driven by her sons – Adam, 20, from a previous relationship and 12-year-old Eric with music mogul Simon – plus the anguish of parents who blame online content for their child’s death.  

This week, the Government finally agreed to bring in stronger, age-based restrictions for under-16s following pressure from grieving mums and dads. 

Here, Lauren – who does not allow Eric to use social media – explains why more needs to be done . . .  

WHEN I heard what had happened to 14-year-old Jools Sweeney, it broke my heart. 

SICKO SNARED

Moment smirking ex-Spandau Ballet singer arrested for raping & abusing 6 women

home truths

Katie Price says she’s never had one-night stand but sister calls her a ‘liar’

After he had been playing ­happily with his friends one afternoon, his mother Ellen Roome came home to find his lifeless body in his bedroom. 

Jools was one of several British children who died in 2022 having seemingly copied a deadly challenge shown on TikTok. 

I thought, “God forbid, this could have been my child”. 

My youngest son Eric, 12, isn’t much younger than Jools was, and my eldest Adam, 20, is close to the age Jools would be now. 

Since then, myself and Simon have met Ellen, who is a remarkable woman taking on the big tech giants. 

Ellen is one of the parents behind a campaign called Raise The Age, which wants the restriction on access to social media to be raised from 13 to 16. 

The policy was opposed by the UK Government, but they finally saw sense this week and agreed to introduce stronger controls on what young people can and cannot do online.  

There is no issue more important to parents right now. It’s what everyone cares about.

Making social media safe is the topic that dominates all my parent group chats.  

In our family we have already made up our minds. 

Me and Simon won’t allow our son Eric to access social media. 

We recently gave him a brick phone so he can communicate with his friends by text and WhatsApp. 

A lot of his friends use Snapchat, but I said no to that platform because I believe it is one of the least safe products. 

Eric is fine with that decision because we have had so many ­discussions about the dangers. 

But a lot of parents are not aware of the risks, particularly on seemingly innocuous sites such as Discord, Pinterest and CapCut. 

It is unreasonable to expect ­parents to monitor everything their children do online. 

Instead, it should be the government which keeps them safe. 

The evidence we hear is sick.

The tech companies knew their ­platforms were addictive and yet they kept going, inventing new ways to keep our children hooked.  

Some told our politicians that their products were safe, even though their own internal research showed they did not believe it.  

In my opinion, these firms put profits ahead of children’s safety, and that is absolutely unacceptable.  

We have seen groundbreaking court cases in the US which ruled that these platforms were intentionally designed to be addictive and were endangering children.  

Our children could not wait any longer because they were dying as a result of what they saw and experienced online. 

This movement isn’t about a total ban on the internet.

It is about a restriction on unsafe and harmful social media.  

We want an end to infinite scrolling where children are sent ­material they did not ask for, and an end to strangers being able to message them.  

Those firms that make their products safe will be available — those that don’t must restrict access by law or face massive fines. 

I met with Lord Nash, who has been calling in the House of Lords for tougher controls on social media. 

It was his pressure which forced the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson to commit to implementing social media restrictions for under-16s. I hear people saying that restrictions won’t work because children will find workarounds.  

However, we haven’t given up on age restrictions for alcohol just because some children still get their hands on booze.  

When seatbelt laws were first passed, many people ignored them. 

But eventually, the message got through that they save lives.

Now, it is natural to strap in safely. 

The Government U-turn doesn’t mean the fight is over.  

Far from it. 

We need to keep the pressure on them to act quickly. 

Our children cannot wait years, because they are dying every month as a result of what they see online. 

I made a vow to Ellen, who I consider to be a close friend, to not give up until social media is safe for our children. 

I have huge respect for the families that are campaigning for this change.

They know it won’t bring their children back. 

But they want to do everything in their power to stop anyone else experiencing these horrors. 

Cole Tomas Allen, the 31-year-old Torrance man charged with trying to kill President Trump at last weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner, will remain in federal jail pending trial.

Allen agreed to his ongoing detention during a brief hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. “He’s conceding detention at this time,” one of his federal public defenders, Tezira Abe, told Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, according to CNBC.

He did not enter a plea during the hearing, according to the Associated Press.

Abe and Allen’s other public defender, Eugene Ohm, had argued in a filing Wednesday for Allen’s pre-trial release, citing his lack of a criminal record, family support and ties to his church, as well as inconsistencies and weaknesses they allege exist in the government’s case against him.

Abe and Ohm did not respond to a request for comment following the hearing.

In addition to trying to kill Trump, a terrorism-related charge that carries a potential life sentence, Allen faces two firearms charges related to his allegedly transporting two guns across state lines as he traveled from California to Washington by Amtrak train, and allegedly discharging one of those firearms — a shotgun — during the incident.

In arguing for Allen’s release in their Wednesday filing, his attorneys not only insisted he was no danger to the community, but questioned the government’s reasoning and evidence for the charges against him.

Allen was captured on a hotel video camera sprinting past U.S. Secret Service agents and into the secured event space a floor above the dinner while armed, according to prosecutors, with the shotgun, a pistol, and various knives. He then fell to the ground and was detained, according to prosecutors.

Trump administration officials who were at the dinner, including Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for D.C., charged him swiftly — leaning heavily on an email Allen had sent to family just as he was breaching event security, which Trump and others referred to as a “manifesto” but which was titled an “Apology and Explanation.”

In that document, Allen allegedly wrote that he was targeting top Trump administration officials, with the highest ranking among them receiving top priority. He allegedly wrote that he would “go through” others at the event to get to those officials, but that he was not targeting guests or hotel staff and had chosen buck shot rather than slugs to “minimize casualties” in the room.

The charge of attempting to kill the president hung largely on that document, according to charging documents.

Blanche and Pirro also alleged that Allen had fired a shot during the encounter with Secret Service agents, in which they said a Secret Service agent was shot in the ballistic vest. Prosecutors also alleged in court that Allen had fired his shotgun, noting their recovery of one spent casing, but made no mention of a Secret Service officer being shot in the vest.

That alleged shot served as the basis for the one count of discharging a firearm.

In their filing arguing for Allen’s release, his attorneys questioned the legitimacy of both arguments.

They wrote that the government’s “sole proffered evidence” of Allen’s intent to kill Trump — the “Apology and Explanation” letter — was “far from clear” and never actually mentioned Trump by name.

“The government’s evidence of the charged offense — the attempted assassination of the president — is thus built entirely upon speculation, even under the most generous reading of its theory,” Allen’s attorneys wrote. “While the government may be able to say that the letter expresses an intent to target administration officials, it falls well short of narrowing those officials to President Trump.”

Regarding the one count of discharging a firearm, Allen’s attorneys wrote that the government “has not asserted that Mr. Allen ever fired any of the recovered weapons.” They wrote that the government, “after essentially asserting that Mr. Allen shot a Secret Service Officer in the criminal complaint, has apparently retreated from the theory by not mentioning the alleged officer at all” in its filing arguing for Allen’s ongoing detention.

In the latter document, prosecutors wrote only that an officer had seen Allen fire his shotgun “in the direction of the stairs leading down to the ballroom.” However, they provided little evidence to support that claim, other than that the shotgun held a spent cartridge in its barrel.

“In sum,” Allen’s attorneys wrote, “the government’s entire argument about the nature and circumstances of the offense is based upon inferences drawn about Mr. Allen’s intent that raise more questions than answers.”

Prosecutors, in a separate filing in the case related to evidence gathering, rejected the defense claims.

“The preliminary analysis of the crime scene is consistent with the government’s evidence that your client fired at least one shot from the 12-gauge pump action shotgun in the direction of Officer V.G., and that Officer V.G. fired his service weapon five times,” they wrote. “The government is aware of no evidence thus far collected and analyzed that is inconsistent with the above.”

They wrote that evidence suggests Allen fired his Mossberg 12-gauge pump-action shotgun “at least one time as he ran past the magnetometers on the Terrace Level of the Washington Hilton.”

They wrote that investigators recovered one spent cartridge from the chamber of the shotgun, that the “government’s preliminary ballistics and video analyses show that your client fired his shotgun in the direction of” the Secret Service officer identified only as “V.G.,” and that “at least one fragment was recovered from the crime scene that was physically consistent with a single buckshot pellet.”

HAVANA — Cubans hunched over tables this month to sign up for the socialist government’s campaign to support national sovereignty and defy the U.S. as tensions between the countries escalate.

They are endorsing “My signature for the Homeland” movement, which President Miguel Díaz-Canel launched earlier this month.

The initiative is mocked by some who question why people stood in line to sign when hunger and poverty are growing across the island, while supporters say it serves as a warning to the U.S. that civilians want peace but will not back down despite recent threats of invasion.

“Anything for the revolution,” said Rodolfo Ruiz, 64, who sells sunglasses and other items out of his home in Havana. He said he signed last week because of President Trump’s ongoing comments over Cuba, “so that he may hear and know that we are willing to defend our sovereignty.”

“Watch out, Trump. Think before you invade Cuba, think carefully. The people are prepared,” Ruiz said.

In January, Trump signed an executive order asserting that the “policies, practices, and actions of the Government of Cuba constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat,” something Cuban officials have repeatedly scoffed at.

Trump has referred to the island as a “failing nation” and suggested a “friendly takeover.”

“We may stop by Cuba after we’re finished with this,” he said in mid-April, referring to the war in Iran.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio — the son of Cuban immigrants who fled before the revolution — has called for “new people in charge” of Cuba.

“It is absurd for the State Department to claim that Cuba — a relatively small, developing country subjected to a brutal economic war — could pose a threat to the world’s greatest military, technological, and economic power,” Cuban Foreign Affairs Minister Bruno Rodríguez wrote in a post on X on Wednesday.

Díaz-Canel has said he does not want military aggression, but noted that Cuba has a duty to prepare to avoid it, and if necessary, defeat it.

Havana resident Delfina Hernández said she would stand shoulder to shoulder with Cubans to fight a U.S. energy blockade, a sharpening of longtime U.S. sanctions and what many refer to as the “imperialist threat.”

For three days last week, the community center she runs in Havana with her husband received sheets of paper and opened its doors so people over age 16 could sign them. Hernández was the first to do so.

“Cuba is something very sacred to us,” she said. “We are well-armed, and the people of Cuba will fight to the very end. We are going to hit them — and with everything we’ve got.”

Criticism was swift on social media, though, with opponents of the campaign asserting that the “homeland” has not provided them with anything. Some said the government should allow people to sign in favor of things like the ability to choose their president.

The homeland initiative began on April 19 and comes as Cuba celebrates the 65th anniversary of its April 1961 Bay of Pigs victory over some 1,500 Cuban exiles backed by the CIA who failed in their attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro’s newly formed Communist government.

Alberto Olivera, a visual artist and Hernández’s husband, questioned how Cuba poses a threat to the U.S.

“If it’s a failed revolution, then leave us alone,” he said. “What do they care?” Hernández added.

Olivera recognized that Cubans have unmet needs, adding that he has been hungry at times, but asserted that the “pressure cooker” tactic by the U.S. would not work.

“If I’m a failed state, why are you seeking me out?” he asked.

The Trump administration has demanded that Cuba release political prisoners, implement major economic reforms and change its way of governance — all things Cuba has rejected, saying it’s open to dialogue and cooperation in certain areas as it pushes for the end of a U.S. energy blockade that has deepened the island’s crises.

Both countries have confirmed recent talks, although details remain secret.

As tensions persist, Cuba’s government is gathering signatures at workplaces and neighborhoods across the island of nearly 10 million people, remaining mum on how many it has collected.

It said in a statement that the signatures are meant to condemn “the U.S. blockade and economic war against Cuba,” which it called a “genocidal act,” and to repudiate threats of military aggression while upholding “the inalienable right of Cubans to live in peace.”

Coto writes for the Associated Press.

LONDON — In the world of diplomatic faux pas, it could have been a lot worse.

At Tuesday’s state dinner honoring King Charles III and Queen Camilla, President Trump said that during a private meeting earlier in the day the British monarch had agreed with him that Iran should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

“We’re doing a little Middle East work right now … and we’re doing very well,” Trump told the audience. “We have militarily defeated that particular opponent, and we’re never going to let that opponent ever — Charles agrees with me, even more than I do — we’re never going to let that opponent have a nuclear weapon.”

While many Britons would agree with the president’s sentiment, the comment triggered mild consternation among pundits in the U.K.

By convention, people aren’t supposed to relay private conversations with the monarch. That is partly because the king has to remain above the political fray, but also because the sovereign doesn’t have the ability to wade into a public debate and correct the record if he’s misquoted.

“Generally, as a matter of protocol, I think I would expect discussions between heads of state to be sort of behind the scenes, in those closed meetings, for those to be sort of kept private,” said Craig Prescott, an expert on constitutional law and the monarchy at Royal Holloway, University of London. “And, you know, this was something that the U.K. government wanted to avoid.”

There had been a fair amount of jitters before the king’s trip to the United States, which comes amid Trump’s very public frustration with U.K. Prime Minster Keir Starmer over his failure to support U.S. actions in the Iran war.

Like all royal visits, this is a carefully choreographed diplomatic event carried out at the request of the U.K. government, which hopes that warm relations between the king and Trump can help repair the rift.

But Trump is an unconventional leader who has a penchant for breaking protocol, and there were concerns about just what he might say or do.

At least in this case, the king’s comments seemed clearly within the bounds of existing U.K. government policy.

“The King is naturally mindful of his government’s long-standing and well-known position on the prevention of nuclear proliferation,” Buckingham Palace said in a statement designed to provide context to the president’s remarks.

Prescott said that “in a sense, this was always the issue, just what Trump would do or say — would he put the king in an embarrassing position?’’ Prescott said.

“You always had that sort of issue of what he would post on social media,” he said. “And I think, you know, this could have been much, much worse.”

Before the state dinner, Charles gave a speech to a joint session of U.S. Congress. The king received repeated standing ovations during the address, which celebrated the longstanding bonds between the U.S. and Britain while nodding to differences over NATO, support for Ukraine and the need to combat climate change.

Now, from the U.K. government’s point of view, the trip is shifting to safer ground as the king and queen leave Washington behind and head to New York, where the focus will be on the city’s creative industries, rather than politics.

The most difficult part of the trip may be over, Prescott said.

“If this is the only controversy arising out of this phase of the state visit, I think overall this has been an enormous success for the king and the British government, because the king was able to make some quite pointed remarks in Congress and it hasn’t really yielded any sort of negative reaction from the president.”

“In a sense,” he said, “you get the feeling that the king rather charmed Washington with his speech to Congress and, you know, his very witty speech at the state banquet.”

Kirka writes for the Associated Press.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Former FBI Director James Comey appeared in court on Wednesday, kick-starting a criminal case against him that legal experts say presents significant hurdles for the prosecution and will likely be a challenge for the Justice Department to win.

Comey, who didn’t enter a plea, was indicted in North Carolina on Tuesday on charges of making threats against President Trump related to a photograph he posted on social media last year of seashells arranged in the numbers “86 47.” The Justice Department contends those numbers amounted to a threat against Trump, the 47th president. Comey has said he assumed the numbers reflected a political message, not a call to violence against the Republican president, and removed the post as soon as he saw some people were interpreting it that way.

The indictment is the second against Comey, a longtime adversary of Trump dating back to his time as FBI director, over the past year. The first one, on unrelated false-statement and obstruction charges, was tossed out by a judge last year. Now prosecutors pursuing the threats case face their own challenge of proving that Comey intended to communicate a true threat or at least recklessly discounted the possibility that the statement could be understood as a threat.

The indictment accuses Comey of acting “knowingly and willfully,” but its sparse language offers no support for that assertion. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche declined to elaborate at a news conference on what evidence of intent the government has. But broad 1st Amendment protections for free speech, Supreme Court precedent and Comey’s public statements indicating that he did not intend to convey a threat will likely impose a tall burden for the government.

“Here, ‘86’ is ambiguous — it doesn’t necessarily threaten violence and the fact that it was the FBI Director posting this openly and notoriously on a public social media site suggests that he didn’t intend to convey a threat of violence,” John Keller, a former senior Justice Department official who led a task force to prosecute violent threats against election workers, wrote in a text message.

The case was charged in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the location of the beach where Comey has said he found the shells. He is set to make his first court appearance Wednesday at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., the state where he lives.

What the law says on threats

The Supreme Court has held that statements are not protected by the 1st Amendment if they meet the legal threshold of a “true threat.”

That requires prosecutors to prove, at a minimum, that a defendant recklessly disregarded the risk that a statement could be perceived as threatening violence. In a 2023 Supreme Court case, the majority held that prosecutors have to show that the “defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements.”

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has found that hyperbolic political speech is protected. In a 1969 case, the justices held that a Vietnam War protester did not make a knowing and willful threat against the president when he remarked that “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J,” referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson. The court noted that laughter in the crowd when the protester made the statement, among other things, showed it wasn’t a serious threat of violence.

Regarding the current case, Merriam-Webster, the dictionary used by the Associated Press, says 86 is slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of” or “to refuse service to.” It notes: “Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of ‘to kill.’ We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.”

Comey deleted the post shortly after it was made, writing: “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” and “I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

What the government will try to prove

John Fishwick, a former U.S. attorney in the Western District of Virginia, said the government will likely try to prove that Comey should have known better as a former FBI director.

“I think they’re going to try to circumstantially say that you were head of the FBI, you knew what these terms meant and you said them out to the whole world as a threat to the president,” Fishwick said, though he noted that such an argument would be challenging in light of Comey’s obvious 1st Amendment defenses.

Comey was voluntarily interviewed by the Secret Service last year, and the fact that he was not charged with making a false statement suggests that prosecutors do not have evidence that he lied to agents, Fishwick said.

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday that “despite being one of Comey’s longest critics, the indictment raises troubling free speech issues. In the end, it must be the Constitution, not Comey, that drives the analysis and this indictment is unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

“If it did,” he added, “it would allow the government to criminalize a huge swath of political speech in the United States.”

Tucker, Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. Kunzelman reported from Alexandria, Va.

Government says it will run the administrative functions of Sri Lanka Cricket until reforms are implemented.

Sri Lanka’s government has taken control of the country’s cricket board, saying it is a temporary measure designed to pave the way for “structural reforms”.

“All administrative functions of Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) will be temporarily brought under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, effective today,” the ministry said on Wednesday.

A committee will be appointed shortly “to address the current issues in cricket and implement structural reforms”, it added.

SLC is the country’s wealthiest sporting body but has been plagued by allegations of corruption and mismanagement.

The world governing body, the International Cricket Council, suspended Sri Lanka for two months in 2023-2024, citing political interference in the running of the national board.

Four-time SLC President Shammi Silva resigned on Tuesday, along with his entire committee, after the government intervened.

Sri Lanka made an early exit from the T20 World Cup, which it cohosted with India in February-March.

‘The great puzzle’

While Massie has long dominated elections in Kentucky’s 4th district, polling this year shows a tighter race than expected.

A Quantus Insights survey conducted from April 6 to 7 showed Massie leading Gallrein 46.8 percent to 37.7 percent.

Another survey conducted by Big Data Poll in early April had Massie ahead with 52.4 percent to Gallrein’s 47.6 percent.

The relatively close primary could be a bellwether for Republican voting trends nationwide, according to Stephen Voss, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky.

“Massie is an early opportunity to see what Republican voters will do when their pro-Trump leanings clash with their conservative leanings,” Voss said. “That is the great puzzle of this race.”

This is not the first time Trump has turned against Massie, though. In 2020, another election year, Trump famously petitioned to “throw Massie out of the Republican Party”.

But by 2022, Trump had reversed course, endorsing Massie over a challenger who questioned the congressman’s commitment to the president.

Still, the past year has widened the rift between Trump and Massie, leading the president to make his most aggressive moves yet to unseat the congressman.

The two Republicans clashed on a range of issues in 2025. Massie, for example, opposed the president on his tax and spending measures, fearing increases to the national debt.

That meant voting against Trump’s signature piece of legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, last July.

The Kentucky Republican also denounced Trump’s campaign of foreign intervention. Last June, NBC News reported that it was after Massie criticised Trump’s strikes on Iran that the president’s allies began laying the groundwork for a primary challenge.

Massie also led the charge to compel the Department of Justice to release all the files related to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and convicted child sex offender.

Shortly thereafter, Trump gave his stamp of approval to Gallrein, posting on his Truth Social site, “RUN, ED, RUN.”

By that point, Gallrein, a military veteran and fifth-generation farmer, had yet to enter the race. Four days later, on October 21, he launched his bid.

Critics argue Gallrein’s platform does not offer much of a distinction from Massie’s. His campaign website lists his priorities as cutting taxes, reducing government spending, protecting gun rights and opposing abortion — issues Massie also supports.

“I don’t think he’s offering any kind of alternative, except for being the selection of Donald Trump,” Kahne said. “I think that’s it. That’s the only thing he has to offer.”

But Gallrein has drawn heavily from Trump’s endorsement, using it as a badge of loyalty and authenticity.

“You deserve an authentic, true Republican conservative that stands shoulder to shoulder with our president and the Republican Party,” Gallrein declared at the Trump rally in March.

Trump, meanwhile, told the crowd he had grown so frustrated that he just wanted “somebody with a warm body to beat Massie”.

After winning his first race for Congress in 1992, 34-year-old Xavier Becerra credited a wave of community supporters in Los Angeles, many Latino, for backing his upstart campaign, saying he hoped his win was proof that grassroots politics was more valuable than “heavy dollars.”

More than 30 years later, Becerra, 68, is again an upstart candidate — this time for California governor. Again he is facing monied competition — including from chief Democratic rival Tom Steyer, a self-funded billionaire — and relying on Latino and other grassroots support.

California gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra speaks during a campaign event in Los Angeles on April 18.

(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)

“You are the people power that it takes,” he told a crowd of supporters at a recent “Fighting for the California Dream” town hall in Los Angeles. “California wasn’t built by billionaires. It was built by your families. It was built by our families.”

That Becerra is still fighting in the race — and drawing new people to his events — reflects a remarkable and hard-to-explain turnaround for a campaign that appeared all but dead less than a month ago, then bounded back into contention after Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped from the race and resigned from Congress amid sexual assault allegations.

Before Swalwell’s collapse, Becerra’s biggest splash in the race came in March, when USC excluded him and other low-performing candidates from a planned debate. The criteria left every candidate of color out, and after Becerra and others complained, the forum was canceled.

A California Democratic Party tracking poll, released in early April before the Swalwell scandal broke, showed Becerra near the bottom of the field with 4% support among likely voters. In a party poll taken after it broke, Becerra’s support jumped to 13% — the biggest increase of any candidate.

Certainly some of Swalwell’s supporters shifted to Becerra, but political observers are still pondering why so many did — and not to Steyer, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter or other Democrats with single-digit support, such as former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa or San José Mayor Matt Mahan.

Whatever the answer, Becerra’s surge has sparked fresh interest in his candidacy. It also has raised questions about his time as California attorney general, when he sued the first Trump administration more than 120 times, and U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, when he backed the Biden administration’s strict COVID-19 rules and oversaw the agency’s response to a massive influx of unaccompanied minors at the southern border.

It has also put a growing target on Becerra’s back — including at Wednesday night’s gubernatorial debate, when rivals criticized him as a “D.C. insider” with poorly detailed plans for the state — and sparked hope among many Latinos that California will elect one of them as governor for the first time in state history, sending a strong message of resistance to the intensely anti-immigrant Trump administration.

Of course, Becerra faces hurdles. Steyer, a hedge fund founder who has donated more than $130 million to his own campaign, has been ahead of him in polling, as have two Republicans: Silicon Valley entrepreneur and former Fox News host Steve Hilton, who has President Trump’s endorsement, and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Only the top two candidates in the June 2 primary advance to the November election.

Still, Becerra now has a path to victory, one that did not exist even a month ago, and new funding. Many Democratic voters remain undecided, and many — shocked by the Swalwell scandal — are looking for another Democratic front-runner to back.

In an interview with The Times, Becerra said he’s the man for the job, because “California needs a work horse, not a show horse.”

Xavier Becerra, left, gathers with other candidates for Los Angeles mayor in 2000.

(Gary Friedman / Los Angeles Times)

Rising wave of Latino political power

A Sacramento native and the son of a Mexican immigrant mother and a Mexican American father, Becerra graduated from Stanford Law School and served as a deputy to California Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp before being elected in 1990 to the California Assembly.

In 1993, Becerra entered Congress on a rising wave of Latino political power and the heels of a fractious presidential election in which former White House aide Pat Buchanan challenged President George H.W. Bush in the Republican primary on a stridently anti-immigrant, “America First” message — one Trump repurposed in both 2016 and 2024.

It was a defining political moment for Latinos across the country, and for Becerra personally, said Fernando Guerra, founding director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University.

“He certainly has been and is part of the incorporation of Latinos into California history and California politics, and it really begins in the early ’90s,” Guerra said. “His rise and political career is really a reflection of the rise and political incorporation of Latinos.”

In 1994, Becerra helped oppose Proposition 187, a state initiative to deny undocumented immigrants access to public education and healthcare. In 1996, he sharply criticized the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which cut federal benefits for many legal immigrants. By 1997, Becerra — just 39 — was chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the first Latino member to serve on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

By 2016, Becerra, 58, was the highest-ranking Latino in Congress when then-Gov. Jerry Brown tapped him to replace a Senate-bound Kamala Harris as California attorney general. There, Becerra played a key role in defending the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, against Republican attacks.

In early 2021, Becerra was confirmed to serve as President Biden’s health secretary, another first for a Latino and a critical post given the COVID-19 crisis, and remained in that role until Trump’s second inauguration.

Then-U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra arrives for a hearing to discuss reopening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021.

(Greg Nash / Associated Press)

Criticism and praise

In a rush of endorsements in recent days, Becerra’s supporters have lauded his executive experience, calling him a “proven leader” who, amid constant threats from the Trump administration, is “ready to fight back on day one.”

Becerra’s critics also have pointed to his leadership record, but to highlight what they contend are glaring failures.

Steyer spokesman Kevin Liao alleged Becerra was “absent, ineffective, or too late” in responding to COVID-19 and other public health crises as health secretary, and that California “cannot afford incompetence, or someone who disappears when things get hard.”

The remarks echoed others made during the pandemic, including by Eric Topol, who is executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, a professor of translational medicine and a cardiologist. During the pandemic, Topol accused Becerra of being “invisible” in the fight to control it. In a recent interview, he said he still believes that.

Topol said the Biden administration’s COVID response was defined by poor data collection and “infighting” among agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, including on vital issues such as when Americans should receive booster shots and how long they should isolate after infection.

Becerra “basically took a very absent, low profile — didn’t show up, didn’t harmonize the remarkable infighting,” Topol said. “The buck stops with him.”

Dr. David A. Kessler, the Biden administration’s top science official on COVID-19 and now a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at UC San Francisco, fiercely defended Becerra, crediting him with rolling out some 676 million vaccines and steering the nation out of a wildly unfamiliar health crisis with substantial success — what Kessler called a “historical achievement” that proved government “can do big things.”

Kessler said Becerra rightly assessed that the country needed to hear from medical experts, not politicians, and so deferred at times to the doctors, epidemiologists and vaccinologists he smartly surrounded himself with and trusted — but he was never absent. “He enabled us. He was there. Anything I needed, he helped deliver,” Kessler said.

Becerra said there were a lot of people involved with the COVID-19 fight, including a White House team launched before his confirmation as health secretary. Still, it was his agency that ultimately led the response, and helped bring the pandemic to an end, he said.

“At the end of four years, when we had put some 700 million COVID shots into the arms of Americans and pulled the country and our economy out of the COVID crisis, it was HHS — and I was the secretary of HHS,” he said.

Becerra’s rivals in the governor’s race also have attacked him for how he responded to an influx of unaccompanied immigrant minors during the pandemic. They allege Becerra rushed their release to relatives and other sponsors while ignoring concerns from career health staff that some of those placements weren’t safe — resulting in thousands of kids being lost to the system, forced into child labor or trafficked.

The criticism stems in part from a sweeping New York Times investigation that found the health department couldn’t find some 85,000 children it had released, that Becerra had relaxed screening processes for sponsors and that placement concerns from career health staff went ignored or were silenced.

The investigation by reporter Hannah Dreier found that thousands of the 250,000 or so migrant children who arrived in the U.S. between early 2021 and early 2023 had “ended up in punishing jobs across the country — working overnight in slaughterhouses, replacing roofs, operating machinery in factories — all in violation of child labor laws.”

Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra holds a news conference in Border Field State Park in San Diego in 2017.

(Francine Orr/ Los Angeles Times)

It found there were many signs of “the explosive growth of this labor force,” and that staff had repeatedly flagged concerns about it in reports that reached Becerra’s desk. It also reported that, during a staff meeting in the summer of 2022, Becerra had pressed staff to move children even more quickly through the process, comparing them to factory parts.

“If Henry Ford had seen this in his plants, he would have never become famous and rich. This is not the way you do an assembly line,” Becerra said, according to a recording of the meeting obtained by the newspaper.

Danni Wang, another Steyer spokesperson, said children “were handed to gang members, traffickers, and abusers because [Becerra] stripped the background checks that had protected them for years.”

Becerra said the controversy is one he has addressed publicly for years, including in multiple congressional hearings. He said his team worked diligently to properly vet sponsors and do right by the thousands of children in their care, despite Congress failing to provide the budget needed to restore a system of licensed care facilities that the first Trump administration had dismantled.

“It was a wreck. They had closed facilities, they had fired the licensed caregivers. And remember, this was during COVID, [when] you didn’t want anyone to be near each other,” he said. “How do you take care of thousands of kids in a center that could house maybe 50 kids?”

He said he led an aggressive push to stand up temporary facilities — including in places like the San Diego Convention Center — while rebuilding the licensed care facilities Trump had dismantled and working to place kids into the community as quickly and safely as possible.

Ron Klain, who served as Biden’s chief of staff for the first two years of the administration, said Becerra helped lead the administration out of the crisis by being “an outspoken advocate” for the children in its care.

“Xavier was very, very insistent in meetings and very outspoken on the risk that some of these people [the kids] were being placed with were not the proper people to place them with, and pushed hard for more rigor in the process,” Klain said.

Becerra also has faced criticism and questions related to the federal indictment of his former chief of staff Sean McCluskie, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud after authorities accused him of stealing some $225,000 from Becerra’s dormant state political campaign account.

Becerra was not implicated in the scandal — which he’s previously described as a “gut punch” — and said he did everything he could to ensure McCluskie and others were held accountable once it came to light, including by providing “testimony and documents” to the FBI and federal prosecutors.

Hilton has said the scandal, which also implicated a former aide to Gov. Gavin Newsom, showed that “corruption has become totally ingrained and systemic” under Democratic rule in California.

Looking ahead

Experts said Becerra’s long resume will help him stand out in a race with less experienced competitors and no household names — and that Californians electing a Latino for the first time, as the Trump administration conducts one of the largest ever deportation campaigns, dismantles immigrant rights and targets people on the street based largely on their looking and sounding Latino, would be a major political moment.

Becerra said his extensive experience should matter to voters, because such experience will be necessary in the pivotal and no doubt chaotic Trump years ahead, when “pizzazz and dazzle” will matter less than steady competence from “someone who’s actually been in the midst of that hurricane” before.

“It helps to have gone through these things. I’ve been there, I’ve done that, and I’ve done it successfully,” he said. “I’ve proven that, whether it was taking on Donald Trump toe to toe as the [attorney general], whether it was getting us out of COVID working closely with the White House to deploy the resources and get that done, we made it happen.”

Defence lawyers had asked for case to be thrown out, claiming Maduro’s rights were violated following US abduction.

The United States has agreed to ease certain sanctions on Venezuela in order to allow the country’s government to cover the legal fees for ex-president Nicolas Maduro, who is on federal trial in New York City for drug trafficking charges after being abducted by US forces in January.

Maduro’s lawyer, Barry Pollack, had asked the Manhattan-based US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to toss out the case in February, arguing that a prohibition on the government in Caracas paying the legal fees constituted a violation of Maduro’s legal right to the counsel of his choice.

In a court filing, US Department of Justice lawyers agreed to modify US sanctions so that the Venezuelan government could pay Maduro’s defence lawyer. They said the change makes the defence’s motion to throw out the case “moot”.

The pivot is the latest update in a closely watched trial that has raised a series of legal questions based on Maduro’s status as a former head of state and how he was taken into US custody.

Critics have condemned the proceedings as fundamentally illegitimate, pointing to the extraordinary US military operation to abduct Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Venezuela. Legal experts have called the raid a blatant violation of international law.

The Trump administration has maintained that the abduction was a law enforcement operation supported by the military. It has argued that Washington does not recognise Maduro as the legitimate leader of Venezuela following several contested elections.

Under the international law concept of “head of state immunity”, sitting world leaders are typically granted immunity from foreign national courts.

After being spirited to the US, Maduro and Flores pleaded not guilty and remain jailed in Brooklyn, New York. Maduro has rejected the US charges as a false pretext for seizing control of the South American country’s natural resources.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire for foreign companies to access Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

During a hearing on March 26, Judge Hellerstein did not signal that he would throw out the trial, but did question whether the sanctions preventing the Venezuelan government from covering Maduro’s legal fees were a violation of constitutional rights.

All criminal defendants in the US have constitutional rights, regardless of whether or not they are US citizens.

Prosecutors, at the time, argued that the sanctions were based on national security interests and asserted that the executive branch, rather than the judiciary, oversees foreign policy.

They further argued that Maduro and Flores could use personal funds to pay for a lawyer of their choice.

“The defendant is here, Flores is here. They present no further national security threat,” said Hellerstein.

“The right that’s implicated, paramount over other rights, is the right to constitutional counsel.”

Washington, DC – Donald Trump — whose political career has been built, in part, on deriding the United States press — is set to attend his first White House Correspondents’ Dinner as president.

Saturday’s event continues a decades-long tradition, dating back to 1921. Still, the black-tie gala held in Washington, DC, remains a divisive event.

For years, detractors have argued its chummy approach to the presidency risks blurring the independence of the press corps.

Trump himself is one of the dinner’s critics. Until this year, Trump had refused to attend, appearing poised to defy a tradition of sitting presidents dining at least once with the press corps during the annual event.

Since he launched his first presidential campaign, Trump has taken a bellicose approach towards the media, issuing both personal attacks on journalists and lawsuits against news organisations for coverage he deems unfair.

His presence at Saturday’s dinner has only heightened questions about the event’s role in the modern era.

Trump has previously declined five previous invitations to attend, across his first and second terms. His inaugural visit on Saturday has been accompanied by changes to the dinner’s format: Most notably, the longstanding practice of having a comedian perform has been nixed.

Journalist organisations and rights groups, meanwhile, have called on the event’s host, the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA), to send a “forthright message” to the president about protecting the freedom of the press.

“We also urge the WHCA to reaffirm, without equivocation, that freedom of the press is not a partisan issue,” a coalition of groups, including the Society of Professional Journalists, wrote in an open letter.

A return for Trump?

Saturday is set to be the first time Trump attends the correspondents’ dinner as president, but it is not his first time attending the event.

He was present as a private citizen at the 2011 dinner, years before launching his first successful presidential campaign.

At the time, Trump had begun his foray into national politics, pushing the so-called “birtherism” theory: the racist claim that then-President Barack Obama was born in Kenya and had faked his US birth certificate.

It is tradition for the sitting president to speak at the event, and Obama seized the moment to lob barbs at Trump’s conspiracy theories and his nascent political career.

In one instance, Obama poked fun at Trump’s work hosting the reality television show The Apprentice.

Referring to Trump’s “firing” of actor Gary Busey, Obama mockingly praised his decision-making. “These are the kind of decisions that would keep me up at night,” he quipped. “Well played, sir.”

Obama also envisioned what a future Trump presidency would look like, displaying a mock-up of a “Trump White House Resort and Casino”.

Comedian Seth Meyers, who hosted the night’s event, also took aim at Trump’s birtherism claims and political ambitions.

“Donald Trump has been saying that he will run for president as a Republican,” he quipped at one point, “which is surprising since I just assumed he was running as a joke.”

Trump sat stone-faced in the audience, with several confidants later crediting the night as a major motivator for his 2016 presidential bid.

The White House Correspondents’ Association was launched in 1914, as a response to threats by then-President Woodrow Wilson to do away with presidential news conferences. The organisation has worked to expand White House access for reporters.

Comedians became mainstays of the annual dinner in the early 1980s, with both presidents and journalists often the subject of their pointed jokes.

Defenders of the event have argued that the presence of comedians helps to celebrate free speech and ground the black-tie proceedings, underscoring that no attendee is above ridicule.

But since President Trump first declined to attend the event after taking office in 2017, that norm has shifted.

Michelle Wolf’s no-holds-barred performance in 2018 is often seen as a breaking point.

In her jokes, she seized upon Trump’s past statements appearing to praise sexual assault, and she charged that Trump did not have a “big enough spine to attend” the event. She also mocked the mainstream media’s coverage of the president.

While praised by fellow comedians and some members of the press, her performance divided the White House press corps. Trump and his top officials took particular issue with the material, with the president decrying Wolf as “filthy”.

The following year, the association instead invited historian Ron Chernow to speak at the event. The dinner did not have another comedian until 2022, during the administration of US President Joe Biden.

Last year, during Trump’s first term back in office, the association abruptly cancelled a planned performance by comedian Amber Ruffin, with the board’s then-President Eugene Daniels saying it wanted to avoid “politics of division”.

This year, a mentalist, Oz Pearlman, is set to perform instead of a comedian.

Calls for press freedom

The Society of Professional Journalists, Freedom of the Press Foundation, and The National Association of Black Journalists are among the organisations and hundreds of individual journalists urging their colleagues to use the event to make a statement.

In an open letter, it said the actions by the Trump administration “represent the most systematic and comprehensive assault on freedom of the press by a sitting American president”.

The organisation pointed to a series of hostile actions the Trump administration has taken against journalists.

They include limiting the White House and Pentagon press pools, threats by the Federal Communications Commission against broadcasters, immigration enforcement actions against non-citizen journalists, and an FBI raid of a Washington Post reporter’s home.

The letter also pointed to the White House’s launching of a “hall of shame” page on its website, which highlights news organisations accused of biased coverage, as well as Trump’s repeated verbal attacks on reporters.

But the Trump administration has rejected allegations that it treats journalists unfairly or that it has prevented public access to information.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt, for example, has regularly touted Trump as the “most transparent” president in US history, pointing to his regular media events.

During his second term, Trump has also taken spur-of-the-moment phone interviews from reporters, even amid the US-Israeli war in Iran.

In their letter, the journalists and professional organisations note that some attendees on Saturday plan to wear pocket handkerchiefs or lapel pins with the words “First Amendment”.

The pins reference the section of the US Constitution that protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

But the journalists called on the White House Correspondents’ Association to go further and make it clear that it will not “normalise” Trump’s behaviour — “but instead fight back against any officeholder who has waged systematic war against the journalists whose work the dinner celebrates”.

Some airlines have confirmed they will be operating fewer flights

Six major airlines have confirmed they will be cancelling and cutting back on flights to and from the UK due to the rise in jet fuel costs triggered by the war in Iran. As a result, many travellers may have to prepare for their plans to be disrupted as they anxiously await updates from their airlines.

However, the Government has confirmed the full list of rights passengers have when their flight is cancelled due to an act of war. This includes what compensation or rebooking options people should be given.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Department for Transport, Keir Mather, clarified: “Where UK law applies, if a flight is cancelled by the airline, then passengers would be entitled to a choice between a full refund or to be re-routed. These rights would apply if disruption were linked to war.

“Information on air passenger rights is already available in the Department’s Air Passenger Travel Guide, and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) recently provided specific advice to passengers in response to the Middle East disruption.”

The MP had been responding to Liberal Democrat Sarah Dyke who requested the DfT layout guidance on the “Act of War” clause which is meant to protect customers who should receive appropriate refunds for holidays they cannot take due to conflict.

According to the Civil Aviation Authority, if your flight is cancelled your airline must let you choose one of two options under UK law:

• Receive a refund for the parts of the journey you haven’t used
• Choose an alternative flight

If your flight is cancelled with less than 14 days’ notice, you may be entitled to some compensation if it is deemed to be the airlines’ fault. Issues like extreme weather, employee strikes or ‘extraordinary circumstances’ won’t count.

UK law around cancelled flights usually applies to airlines departing from or arriving in the UK as well as flights arriving in the EU on a UK airline. Under this law, your airline must also provide you with ‘care and assistance’ if your flight is cancelled.

This ‘care and assistance’ is separate from compensation and can include:

• Reasonable amount of food and drink, usually vouchers
• Means to communicate, such as refunding the cost of phone calls
• Accommodation if your replacement flight is the next day
• Transport to and from the accommodation or your home if you’re able to return

The UK Civil Aviation Authority notes: “The airline must provide you with these items until it is able to fly you to your destination, no matter how long the delay lasts or what has caused it.”

According to the BBC, six airlines have said they will operate fewer flights including KLM, Air Canada, Asiana Airlines, Delta Airlines, Lufthansa and SAS. Other airlines, such British Airways owner IAG, EasyJet and Jet2Holidays, have assured that they don’t plan to make any changes at the moment as of April 25.

Some airlines have said they will increase charges as a result of the jet fuel supply disruption. These include:

• Air France-KLM
• Indigo
• Pakistan International Airlines
• Thai Airways
• Turkish Airlines-Sun Express
• Virgin Atlantic

Passengers have been advised to check with their airlines before they travel

The Government has said it is “closely monitoring” UK jet fuel stocks as airlines prepare for a potential shortage. UK airlines have insisted they are “not currently seeing a shortage of jet fuel” as they buy it in advance and airports maintain stocks, the Department for Transport (DfT) said in an update published on Friday evening.

But airports will also make it easier for airlines to cancel flights without running the risk of losing their allocated “slots” – scheduled times for take-off or landing which some UK airports assign to airlines – if fuel shortages prevent them from flying.

Passengers have been advised to check with their airlines before they travel – and ensure they have appropriate travel insurance, according to the DfT.

This comes as oil prices continue to soar on the back of the US-Israel war on Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

“There is no current need to change upcoming travel plans,” the DfT statement said.

“Since the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, we have been closely monitoring UK jet fuel stocks and working with airlines, airports and fuel suppliers to ensure passengers keep moving and businesses are supported.

“Government regularly meets with industry to monitor risks, understand pressures and ensure clear communication with passengers, should circumstances change.”

It added: “We recognise that families may be concerned, and that aviation and tourism businesses are operating in challenging global conditions.

“We are working hand in hand with industry to help flights keep operating.”

The DfT said airlines will also no longer be required to follow the “use it or lose it” rule at UK airports, whereby airlines must use at least 80% of their allocated slots during a season to keep them for the following year.

“Airport Coordination Limited, the independent body that manages slot allocation at UK airports, has updated its guidance so that airlines will not lose their slots if fuel shortages prevent them from flying,” the DfT update said.

“Airlines can now apply for an exemption from the ‘use it or lose it’ rule in these circumstances.” A spokesperson for Jet2 said its flight schedule remains unaffected for the foreseeable future.

“We remain in continual dialogue with our fuel suppliers, as is standard practice,” the spokesperson said. “Based on the conversations we have been having, we see no reason not to look forward to operating our scheduled programme of flights and holidays as normal.”

The airline also confirmed there will be no surcharge on any booked flights or holidays to cover cost increases, including those linked to jet fuel.

“Amidst speculation that some airlines and travel companies may introduce such surcharges, which would mean their customers facing additional costs after making a booking, Jet2 has removed the surcharge provision across all flights and holidays, even though the company has never previously applied them,” the airline announced on Friday.

Steve Heapy, CEO of Jet2, said: “Holidaymakers should have every right to book their hard-earned break in the sun, without worrying about being hit with additional costs, and they can have that complete assurance when they book a flight or holiday with Jet2.

“As a result of today’s announcement, customers booking with Jet2 know that they are locking in their price without additional cost surprises later and we strongly believe that is the right thing to do by them.”

It is understood that Virgin Atlantic and easyJet are also expecting to operate as normal.

Anticorruption police gathered material from the homes of election officials including former office leader Piero Corvetto.

Police in the Peruvian capital of Lima have raided a home belonging to the former head of its national election agency, amid growing frustration in the aftermath of the country’s presidential election.

As of Friday, results still had not been finalised for the presidential race, which took place on April 12.

Delays in ballot deliveries forced the voting in some areas to be extended by an extra day, and the slow vote count has led to accusations of wrongdoing. But the European Union’s election mission to Peru found no indication of fraud.

Law enforcement was seen entering the home of Piero Corvetto, the former head of Peru’s National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE), on Friday as part of a judicial warrant.

The officers with the local anticorruption police unit were tasked with removing mobile phones, laptops and documents, according to local broadcaster RPP.

The homes of five other officials were also targeted by police raids, as were offices belonging to Galaga, a private company that transports election ballots.

Corvetto resigned on Tuesday, though he denied any wrongdoing or irregularities in the election process. In a statement, he said he hoped his departure would boost public confidence.

On Friday, his lawyer, Ricardo Sanchez Carranza, told the news agency Reuters that a judge authorised the raid but denied prosecutors’ request to put Corvetto in preliminary detention.

But one of the leading presidential candidates, Lima’s former far-right mayor, Rafael Lopez Aliaga, has accused Corvetto of being a “criminal” and pledging to pursue him “until he dies”.

Lopez Aliaga is currently in a narrow race for second place in the presidential election.

With 95 percent of the ballots tallied, right-wing candidate and former First Lady Keiko Fujimori is in first place with 17 percent of the vote. She is all but assured of proceeding to the run-off on June 7.

Lopez Aliaga, meanwhile, is in third place with 11.9 percent, behind left-wing Congress member Roberto Sanchez at 12.03 percent.

Roughly 20,000 votes separate Sanchez from Lopez Aliaga, who has increasingly denounced the election as illegitimate, though he has yet to provide evidence to support that claim. Still, he has called the vote tally an “electoral fraud unique in the world”.

The final results are expected on May 15.

Judge had previously blocked move to end temporary legal status for those who entered US via Biden-era application.

The administration of President Donald Trump plans to again end the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of people who applied for asylum in the United States via the CBP One app.

The plan was detailed in a court filing in Boston, Massachusetts, and comes after a judge ruled that Trump’s earlier effort to terminate the legal status of those individuals was unlawful.

Under US President Joe Biden, individuals who registered for an appointment with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) were preliminarily vetted and granted temporary legal status in the US as their asylum cases were adjudicated.

About 900,000 people were granted so-called humanitarian parole under the programme.

But in April of last year, just months after Trump took office for a second term, many of those individuals received emails saying their status had been terminated.

The message told its recipients it was “time for you to leave the United States”.

Federal Judge Allison Burroughs subsequently ruled that the Department of Homeland Security did not follow the proper procedures in terminating the legal status immigration status of CBP One users.

The US Department of Justice, in the new filings, told Burroughs that the Trump administration was complying with ⁠her order.

However, the department said the administration would begin issuing new parole termination notices, pursuant to a Tuesday memo from CBP’s head, Rodney Scott.

The memo is not public, but according to the Justice Department, Scott provided ‌an explanation for why, in his opinion, “parole is no longer appropriate for those aliens”.

Lawyers for Democracy Forward and Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, which represent the individuals whose status faces termination, urged Burroughs in a subsequent filing to prevent what they called a “deliberate attempt to evade compliance with the court’s order”.

The next hearing was set for May 6.

During his second term, Trump has pursued a hardline immigration policy that has included staunching nearly all asylum claims at the southern border.

Shortly after taking office, Trump’s officials also dissolved the CBP One app and relaunched it as CBP Home, a tool for self-deportation.

His administration has claimed there was an “invasion” at the border that constituted a “national emergency”, thereby allowing Trump to bypass legal requirements to allow individuals seeking asylum into the country.

Asylum, however, is a right enshrined both in domestic and international law, to protect people fleeing persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

Separately, on Friday, a federal appeals court ruled against the Trump administration’s ban on asylum at the southern US border, potentially clearing the way for applications to once again be processed.

The administration is expected to appeal the decision.

Judges say Trump’s order for swift removal at the border ‘cast aside federal laws affording’ right to seek asylum.

An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s ban on asylum applications in the United States is unlawful, dealing a setback to the administration’s immigration crackdown.

In a decision released on Friday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, found that existing laws — namely the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — give people the right to apply for asylum at the border.

Trump had issued the asylum ban in a proclamation on January 20, 2025, on the first day of his second term.

But the appeals court questioned whether suspending asylum unilaterally was within the president’s power.

“Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the ruling said.

“The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections.”

The decision validated a ruling by a lower court. While the judges blocked Trump’s order, it is unclear what its immediate impact will be. Already, the White House has signalled it plans to appeal.

Trump made immigration a major pillar of his 2024 re-election campaign, pledging to repel what he describes as an “invasion” of migrants by shutting down the southern border of the US.

Asylum in the US can be granted to people facing “persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group”. Such protections have been recognised as a fundamental human right under international law.

But unauthorised border crossings reached record levels during the administration of President Joe Biden, which had itself imposed asylum restrictions.

Millions of migrants — many suffering from gang violence and political persecution in Central and South America — have claimed asylum upon reaching the US.

Nearly 945,000 filed for asylum in 2023, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

In his January 2025 decree, Trump suspended “the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border”.

The proclamation was quickly challenged in court, as other measures in Trump’s immigration crackdown have been.

But the appeals court panel concluded that the INA does not authorise the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making”.

Nor does it allow him to suspend the plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating claims of torture and persecution.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” wrote Judge J Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee.

The Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling to the full appellate court and subsequently to the Supreme Court.

The White House stressed after the court’s decision that banning asylum is part of Trump’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief.

“We have liberal judges across the country who are acting against this president for political purposes. They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters.

Press freedom advocates have warned of hostile rhetoric towards journalists and increasingly restrictive policies under Milei.

The administration of Argentina’s Javier Milei has restricted access to the presidential palace, the Casa Rosada, as part of an escalating feud with the country’s journalists.

Accredited journalists reportedly arrived at the Casa Rosada on Thursday and attempted to enter the building through fingerprint scanning, as they usually would.

But they were unable to pass the scan. As confusion hit the news corps, the head of Argentina’s Secretariat of Communication and Press issued a clarification that their press accreditation had not been revoked.

“The decision to remove the fingerprints of journalists accredited to the Casa Rosada was taken as a preventive measure in response to a complaint filed by the Military Household regarding illegal espionage,” Secretary Javier Lanari wrote on social media.

“The sole objective is to guarantee national security.”

Lanari’s post cites an incident wherein two journalists from the Argentinian channel TN were accused of secretly filming inside the government palace.

After their report was broadcast, the Milei administration accused the journalists of endangering government security by showing parts of the Casa Rosada that were reportedly off limits.

On Wednesday, Milei himself took to social media to call the journalists “repugnant trash”. He then challenged other members of the news media to justify their actions.

“I would love to see that filthy scum — the 95% who carry press credentials — come out and defend what these two criminals did,” Milei wrote on X.

Since then, the president has repeatedly reposted messages critical of the news media, often accompanied by the acronym “NOLSALP” or “NOL$ALP”. It stands for: “We don’t hate journalists enough.”

“Someday, that filthy journalistic scum (95%) will have to understand that they are not above the law. They abused legal precedent. It does not come without a price,” Milei added in one of his posts on Thursday, as he continued to slam the news media.

This week’s actions are the latest in a series of policy changes under Milei designed to tighten restrictions on journalists.

Last year, for instance, his government capped entry to certain rooms in the Casa Rosada and placed other areas out of bounds.

Critics say the policies are part of a wider broadside against journalism in Argentina. The media advocacy group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has said that, since Milei took office in 2023, the country has seen “a sharp decline in press freedom”.

And PEN International, an organisation for writers, warned last year of a “serious deterioration” in free-speech rights.

It pointed to legislation that further restricted which government documents could be made public and to Milei’s dismantling of public media, as well as the installation of a “mute” button to silence journalists during news conferences.

Already, the decision to bar journalists from entry into the Casa Rosada has faced pushback, including from Argentinian lawmakers.

Marcela Pagano, a former journalist turned deputy in Argentina’s legislature, announced on Thursday that she had filed a criminal complaint against Milei.

“The Casa Rosada is not private property,” Pagano wrote in a statement.

“Still less does a head of state — or his henchmen officials — have the authority to decide whether the press may access the building.”

She called Thursday’s incident “an unprecedented occurrence since the return of democracy” in Argentina in 1983.

“Prohibiting journalists from exercising their freedom of expression is the first step toward silencing any dissenting voice — a situation that we in Argentina have experienced during our country’s darkest moments,” she added. “THEY WILL NOT SILENCE US.”

The United States Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against an active-duty soldier for placing a bet on the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, using classified military information for personal profit.

On Thursday, prosecutors accused Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, of cashing in on the operation against Maduro, to the tune of more than $400,000.

They say he used the prediction market platform Polymarket 13 times to bet on topics including whether US forces would “invade” Venezuela and when Maduro would be removed from office. Officials framed his actions as a dire breach of public trust.

“Gannon Ken Van Dyke allegedly betrayed his fellow soldiers by utilizing classified information for his own financial gain,” said James C Barnacle Jr, an assistant director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Van Dyke has been charged with three counts of violating the Commodity Exchange Act, one count of wire fraud and one count of carrying out an unlawful monetary transaction.

Each commodities fraud and unlawful transaction charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The wire fraud charge could result in up to 20 years.

The availability of prediction markets — online betting platforms where users can gamble on real-world events — has expanded under the second presidency of Republican leader Donald Trump.

Administration officials and close advisers to Trump, including his son Donald Trump Jr, maintain ties to the prediction market industry.

Trump Jr, for example, was named a “strategic adviser” to the prediction market Kalshi in January 2025, shortly before his father was sworn in.

In May 2025, less than five months into Trump’s second term, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission dropped its legal fight against Kalshi, paving the way for bets to be placed on political events like elections.

Since then, prediction markets have proliferated in the US, with some bets raising questions about the prospect of insider trading.

Critics fear government officials and other politicians could use the platforms to bet on actions they themselves control.

The sizeable bets made ahead of the US attack on Venezuela on January 3, 2026, were among the instances that raised red flags, with media outlets reporting on the “mystery trader” who scored big.

Thursday’s unsealed indictment (PDF) makes the Justice Department’s case for why Van Dyke was the trader in question.

According to the criminal complaint, the soldier — who was based at Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, North Carolina — created a Polymarket account around December 26, 2025, using a virtual private network (VPN) to place his location abroad.

Within days, he was making bets related to Venezuela that prosecutors say leveraged the classified intelligence he was privy to.

Around December 27, he bought $96 worth of bets on the prospect that US forces would be in Venezuela by January 31. A few days later, on December 30, he placed roughly $1,323 in bets on Maduro being out of office before the end of January.

His gambling continued as the military operation ticked closer. On January 1, he gambled $6,100 on a range of different scenarios, including Maduro being ousted, the US invading Venezuela, and Trump invoking war powers against Venezuela.

The following day, he placed even more bets, worth $6,150, $6,000, $7,050 and $7,215 a piece.

Then, in the early hours of January 3, the US launched its military operation against Venezuela, culminating in the abduction and imprisonment of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

Dozens of Venezuelans and Cubans died in the attack, which was confirmed to the public at 4:21am US Eastern Time (08:21 GMT).

The indictment explains that Van Dyke “was involved in the planning and execution of Operation Absolute Resolve”, as the military attack was called.

“He possessed material nonpublic information about that operation at the time of each and every trade he placed in Maduro and Venezuela-related markets,” the indictment alleges.

Shortly after his $400,000 windfall, prosecutors say Van Dyke transferred much of his proceeds to a foreign cryptocurrency vault. By January 6, he contacted Polymarket to delete his account.

Thursday’s indictment comes one day after Kalshi revealed it had fined and suspended three users who were allegedly candidates in the 2026 midterm elections. All three had placed bets on the outcomes of their own races.