Stanford University has released a video showing US scientist Karl Deisseroth breaking the news to his son and two daughters that he won the Nobel Prize in Medicine. His children were seen erupting in joy, jumping and hugging him.
Published On 8 Oct 20268 Oct 2026
Share
A federal judge declined Thursday to rule immediately on a proposed settlement between Paramount Skydance and 12 state attorneys general, leaving the last major legal hurdle to the studio’s $111-billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery unresolved for now.
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín did not indicate how she would rule, but said she wanted more information before deciding whether to approve the proposed consent decree, a court-enforceable agreement that would allow the merger to proceed under certain conditions..
“I’m not the only one who has some questions for you all. There’s lots of interest,” said Judge Martínez-Olguín. “I appreciate people are interested, but I also want to make sure that I have everything that I’m going to consider in front of me.”
The judge said she would issue a ruling “in due course.”
The hearing comes three days after California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced that the two sides had reached an agreement.
It requires the combined company to release at least 30 films in theaters each year, commit at least an additional $1.5 billion to domestic film production and set aside $47.5 million for workers affected by the merger.
“When theater owners have publicly said that supply is the problem, those are voices that carry weight because they’re in the market,” said Paula Blizzard, an attorney for California, during the hearing. “They are the people we’re trying to protect — the businesses and the competition that we are trying to protect.”
The settlement proposal also includes stipulations on how basic cable channel negotiations must proceed, creates a board intended to protect the editorial independence of CBS News and CNN, and bars Paramount from selling or closing its Melrose Ave. lot or Warner Bros.’ Burbank lot while requiring the company to operate them “in a manner consistent with past practices.”
An independent monitor will oversee the settlement implementation. The agreement, if approved by the judge, will be in effect for five years.
“Paramount wants to get to work. Paramount is doing this deal because it wants to compete. Netflix, Amazon, Disney are far larger streaming undertakings,” said Josh Holian, an attorney for Paramount, during the hearing. “Paramount believes that a transaction like this can be transformative in fueling its ability to compete in that market.”
Before ending the hearing, Judge Martínez-Olguín assigned the parties several tasks, which included addressing a letter from U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) who echoed some concerns about the proposal.
Booker, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, asked the judge to conduct an “independent public-interest review” before approving the settlement agreement. Because the U.S. Justice Department closed its investigation of the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger without seeking any remedies, Booker argued, the proposal is “the only enforceable instrument that will govern” the combined company.
Martínez-Olguín asked the parties to submit their responses to Booker’s letter by Monday, Sept. 28 at noon.
Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav had told staff earlier this week that he expected the deal to close no later than early October.
The settlement has divided Hollywood, with some saying Bonta bowed to political pressure from Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. During negotiations, Paramount threatened to move its studio out of state, which Newsom said he took seriously.
After the proposed settlement was announced, Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison said the combined company would remain in L.A.
Many in Hollywood are concerned about the threat of layoffs from the merger. Paramount has told Wall Street it plans to make more than $6 billion in cost cuts. A recent report commissioned by L.A. County estimated that 4,500 jobs could be lost over three years.
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s pick to lead the Food and Drug Administration voiced support for the safety of long-established vaccines at a hearing Thursday, even as senators questioned her about the White House’s efforts to upend childhood immunizations.
Dr. Heidi Overton, a physician serving as a White House adviser, has worked on a series of Trump health initiatives, including an executive order last month that called for splitting up and spacing out decades-old childhood vaccinations. Overton stood beside Trump in the Oval Office when he falsely remarked that the combined measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine is “quite lethal.”
Senate Health Committee Chairman Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician from Louisiana, pushed Overton to reject that statement and affirm the safety of FDA-approved vaccines.
“Right now every vaccine that is on the market has been determined to be safe and effective,” including the MMR vaccine, Overton said.
Cassidy repeatedly has tried to extract commitments from Trump health nominees to uphold vaccine standards, including from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., only to see the Republican administration push forward with efforts undermining their use.
“Kennedy gave me guarantees, and he did not keep them,” said Cassidy, a Republican. “If the president asks you to do something that goes against those guarantees you give us today, what will you do?”
Overton said she would “follow the statutory requirements” for FDA commissioners and give Trump her best advice.
If confirmed by the Senate, Overton would inherit a raft of other controversial projects at the agency, including a safety review of the nation’s principal abortion drug and new rules that make it easier to sell flavored electronic cigarettes. Both issues were a focus for Republicans and Democrats on the panel, who will vote on Overton’s nomination.
The FDA approved the abortion pill mifepristone in 2000 and repeatedly has affirmed its safety while broadening access, including allowing it to be sent through the mail. But Kennedy ordered an FDA review of the drug’s safety last year, following calls from antiabortion groups and lawmakers favoring abortion restrictions.
While working at the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute, Overton called the FDA decision to allow mail delivery of mifepristone “dangerous for women,” referring to the practice as “chemical abortion on demand.”
In response to questions from Washington Sen. Patty Murray, Overton sidestepped her personal views on the drug, stating that it “has met the safety and efficacy determinations of the FDA.” Overton said she didn’t want to “prejudge” the FDA’s safety review of the pill.
“The FDA has said this is safe,” responded Murray, a Democrat. “We need someone in FDA to make sure this is done by science.”
Overton’s abortion views could complicate her efforts to win over two moderate Republicans on the panel: Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Both have bucked their party on the issue, supporting federal access to abortion. Collins is locked in a tight reelection race in which abortion access is a central issue.
But Collins focused her questions Thursday on a different issue: recent FDA decisions allowing new flavored e-cigarettes onto the market. Under previous administrations, including Trump’s first term, the agency had restricted sweet flavors that appeal to kids.
Overton pointed out that approval of the fruit-flavored products had the backing of FDA scientists, who determined the products met the standard of “appropriate for the protection of public health,” by helping adult smokers quit cigarettes.
“They believed that standard was met because so many adult smokers are using flavors preferentially,” Overton said.
To become commissioner, Overton will need a majority of votes from the 21-member health committee, followed by a positive vote from the full Senate.
Under the current administration, leading the agency has involved balancing Trump’s demands for slashing regulations — such as those for vaping products — alongside Kennedy’s interests in scrutinizing vaccines, drugs and food ingredients.
Those challenges dogged the tenure of the previous FDA head, Dr. Marty Makary, who resigned in May. Makary’s time at the agency was defined by scientific disputes, leadership changes and a string of media stories detailing low morale and internal dysfunction among staffers. The FDA has lost about 20% of its employees to layoffs, buyouts, retirements or resignations since Trump took office.
Overton studied under Makary at Johns Hopkins University, where she received a doctoral degree in clinical research after earning her medical degree at the University of New Mexico.
Like Makary, Overton has no experience running a large bureaucracy, a critical skill for steering the FDA’s 16,000 staffers spread across numerous U.S. and international locations.
In financial disclosure forms, Overton reported no investments in healthcare or food companies. That’s a stark contrast to Makary and other recent FDA nominees who have had to divest investments or cut other financial ties with companies regulated by the FDA.
Overton reported $50,000 to $100,000 in student loans.
Perrone writes for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — A federal judge early Thursday temporarily blocked President Trump’s move to ban three news outlets from the White House grounds and said CNN, MS NOW and Politico must have their access restored.
It’s the latest development in an escalating showdown between Trump and media outlets whose coverage he dislikes. The president announced he was banning the outlets Sept. 18, assailing what he called “fake news.” More recently, Trump has said negative coverage is dangerous for the country.
The outlets argued that they were singled out because of the content of their coverage — in other words, viewpoint discrimination — and called the ban a “blatant violation” of the 1st Amendment.
In an order posted shortly after midnight Eastern time, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said the media outlets had met the legal thresholds needed to obtain a temporary restraining order, which include the likelihood of succeeding on the merits of the case and of suffering irreparable harm without an order.
“This is a high bar, but Plaintiffs have met it,” he wrote.
Kelly — whom Trump nominated in 2017 and who ordered a CNN journalist’s access restored in a similar case in 2018 — heard arguments Wednesday and ended the hearing without ruling.
On Thursday, he issued the temporary restraining order, which will be in effect for 14 days. Such orders are typically designed to preserve the status quo pending a closer review of the case by the court.
During the hearing, Kelly questioned whether the administration had met its legal responsibilities and provided CNN, MS NOW and Politico with adequate due process before banning them.
The rulings in two prior cases over press access, including one that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, made it clear that journalists are entitled to an opportunity to be heard before they have their press passes revoked.
Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that the rulings in the earlier cases were wrong.
The judge noted that his decision would be guided by prior rulings in comparable 1st Amendment cases, even if the government disagrees with them.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has stopped publicly revealing where it is holding thousands of detainees who are subject to final deportation orders, an unannounced move that has made it far more difficult for lawyers and relatives to find them, according to current and former officials familiar with the practice.
ICE removed those detainees from its online detainee locator system on Sept. 15, according to three current and former ICE officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the change. Several lawyers contacted by The Associated Press confirmed their clients vanished from the system this week, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association warned its members about the situation Friday.
The move represents a stark departure from previous practice and highlights the hardline nature of President Trump’s immigration crackdown, leaving thousands of detainees exceedingly hard to trace and potentially unable to exercise all of their legal options.
The practice, which applies to detainees who have received final orders of removal from an immigration court, could speed deportations by making last-minute legal challenges harder to pursue, immigration lawyers said. Nearly 16,000 people who were arrested and booked into ICE detention in July were subject to final removal orders, more than a third of the overall bookings, according to ICE data obtained by the Deportation Data Project based at U.C. Berkeley and UCLA.
The practice does not apply to detainees held at a detention facility in Adelanto, California or at temporary holding facilities in Minneapolis, New York City or suburban Chicago, the sources said. Judges have ordered ICE to list detainees in those facilities in the online locator promptly upon their arrival, as part of litigation over their detention practices.
The effort to hide their locations adds to the ways in which the Trump administration has made life harder for detainees and their families as it has increased pressure on them to waive appeals and agree to deportation.
ICE did not publicize the move and in a statement issued to the AP, the agency did not confirm or deny it. The statement said detainees with final removal orders were being prioritized for deportation, even as ICE faces a “historic number of injunctions” from courts stopping individual removals.
As a result of the change, lawyers and relatives lost track of their clients and loved ones without explanation, which is especially concerning because detainees are frequently moved to new facilities before deportation, said Greg Chen, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
“Families are freaking out because they think the person has been deported and they don’t know where the person might be,” he said. “On the attorney side, this has serious implications for the ability to contact their client. It certainly has implications about how it will interfere with the attorney-client relationship.”
The Department of Homeland Security, ICE’s parent agency, has argued that people who are subject to final removal orders have received due process. That usually means an immigration judge has ordered their removal after a hearing, including cases when immigrants fail to show up, and the decision was affirmed on appeal or not appealed.
Still, those detainees have options to challenge their detention and removal, including seeking to reopen the case or by bringing what’s known as a habeas petition asking a judge to release them on constitutional grounds. Federal judges have granted thousands of rulings ordering that detainees be released or granted bond hearings.
ICE detention facilities held more than 65,000 people as of early July, the most recent available data. Around 30% of them likely have final removal orders, said Michelle Mendez, legal director at the National Immigration Project.
More people have been issued final removal orders after failing to show up for hearings in recent months because the administration’s immigration courts have taken steps to make it harder to participate and to reopen such cases, she said.
“To me, it’s just another iteration of disappearing people,” she said. “Why would we do that in the United States of America? It’s something we’d hear about in another country and be concerned about individual rights and due process.”
Some with final removal orders also have legal protections against deportation to their countries of origin based on the likelihood they would be tortured or persecuted. Many of them are facing removal to third-party countries where they have no ties and their disappearance in ICE’s system will make legal challenges harder, lawyers said.
ICE initiated the online detainee locator system in 2010 to allow relatives, lawyers and the public to search for people in custody. Previously they had to call ICE regional offices or individual facilities to try to track them down.
Many advocates and lawmakers have complained that the system updates too slowly and contains too much inaccurate or missing information, allowing ICE to shield the locations of detainees for days or weeks. Minors, people who have been held by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for less than 48 hours, and detainees who are being transported are not in the system, among others.
But the exclusion of detainees with final removal orders has no apparent parallel, several immigration lawyers said. Atenas Burrola Estrada, a deputy program director with the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said that “every single one of our clients who has a final order has disappeared from the locator,” including 17 in all as of Monday.
Among those disappeared from the locator system are eight Somali men being detained at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to one of their attorneys, My Khanh Ngo, of the American Civil Liberties Union. She said the change could make it “nearly impossible” for people to challenge their removals in some cases.
“If you can’t find your client, don’t know what’s happening to your client, you can’t get that information to the court to stop their removal,” she said.
Foley writes for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — FBI Director Kash Patel on Tuesday defended the bureau’s loosening of hiring standards regarding an applicant’s past experience with prostitution and bestiality, insisting that the changes were meant to enable victims of those acts to be considered for employment without fear of automatic disqualification.
The subject arose during a contentious Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Patel clashed with Democrats over his firing of agents who participated in investigations of President Trump, a spate of media leak probes, and whether employees would be dispatched to the polls on Election Day in light of the bureau’s ongoing election-related investigations and Trump’s repeated and false claims about the existence of pervasive voter fraud.
The hearing featured the name-calling and bitingly personal exchanges that have come to define Patel’s appearances on Capitol Hill, with Democrats characterizing the Trump appointee as unqualified, criticizing him for politically charged investigations into Trump’s enemies and highlighting travel that has included a trip to the Winter Olympics in Italy during which he partied with U.S. hockey players and a snorkeling excursion at the Pearl Harbor memorial in Hawaii.
“He’s an incompetent lackey. He’s like an 18-year old-kid who wants to join a fraternity that he could never be a member of, doing keg stands and chugging with friends. He’s an embarrassment to the agency and wouldn’t qualify even to be an FBI agent,” said an exasperated Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), his voice rising in anger.
Given a chance to respond, Patel replied: “I don’t have much to say. This guy called me a thug. It’s kind of ironic. He’s running for president of the United States. He just got his 20-second ad campaign.”
Booker ran for president in 2020. He has not announced a candidacy for 2028.
Patel was pressed on the FBI’s hiring standards
The FBI quietly issued guidance this spring lifting a categorical hiring ban on applicants who had previously engaged in prostitution. The bureau made a similar change with regard to past experience in bestiality as a child.
Under questioning, Patel denied that the changes reflected a lowering of employment standards and insisted they were designed to prevent victims who’d been forced to engage in that conduct from being automatically disqualified.
“We did not want to punish victims of bestiality, victims who were trafficked. We did not want to make it an automatic disqualification for the FBI to consider you if were a victim of these awful, heinous acts,” Patel said. “We are not going to target victims and prevent them from serving in their capacity to serve this country.”
The questioning spanned partisan lines, with Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) grilling Patel about the rationale for a change that the FBI director said was proposed to him by subordinates.
“When you saw bestiality, I say this with respect: The person who recommended it, why didn’t you just say, ‘What planet did you parachute in from?’” Kennedy asked. Patel conceded that that was his initial reaction.
The Associated Press reported last month that the FBI still intends to disqualify some applicants who are revealed to have previously engaged in prostitution, including if they’ve done so within the last 10 years.
Patel faced questions about the FBI’s role on Election Day
The hearing unfolded two months before the midterm elections in November and at a time when the FBI has opened investigations related to the 2020 contest, including by seizing voter data in Fulton County, Ga.
Trump regularly makes false claims that elections are rigged and riddled with fraud, especially in the months before an election. But there is no widespread fraud in American elections. Local election officials have detailed processes for auditing the accuracy of the vote after ballots are tallied. Even as he disputed his loss in 2020, audits, reviews and recounts in the battleground states where he challenged the outcome all affirmed President Biden’s win.
Democrats repeatedly pressed Patel on whether the FBI would be dispatching agents to polls. The director said the FBI has an election coordinator in each of its 56 field offices to respond to issues at polling places, including alleged election interference. He did not rule out the idea that agents could be dispatched to the polls if problems arose.
“Do you pledge that you will not in any way interfere in the will of the America people when they go to the polls in November?” asked Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) in one of the more combative exchanges.
“I pledge unequivocally that I will not participate in your charade of lies,” Patel said, later calling Welch a “total fraud.”
FBI firings were also a featured topic of the hearing
Patel repeatedly touted what he asserted was his record-breaking success at the FBI, proclaiming the “most prolific reduction in crime in U.S. history” even though murder rates in American cities had begun dropping even before Trump took office last year.
The Republican-led panel tried through its questioning to keep the focus on Patel’s crime-fighting efforts from his perch at the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency. But Democrats seized on the tumult inside the FBI over the last year, including sweeping firings of agents who participated in investigations of Trump, the bureau’s aggressive efforts to investigate media leaks by serving subpoenas at reporters’ home and Patel’s travel schedule that has blended private leisure with professional responsibilities.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) pressed Patel on the firing of national security agents with expertise in Iran shortly before the U.S. launched attacks on the country last February. He noted that the agents had participated in an FBI investigation into Trump over his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.
“Do you think firing the president’s political opponents is more important than retaining the decades of experience and expertise monitoring intelligence threats from Iran?” Blumenthal asked.
“I think what’s most important is to not have a weaponized FBI, and I will endeavor every single day to make sure we have no one there that is doing that,” Patel responded. He did not say why their participation in the Mar-a-Lago investigation represented “weaponized” law enforcement.
Patel later suggested that the firings had been overblown, saying many agents had retired on their own. And he defended his personal travels by pointing to numbers that he said showed that two recent predecessors, Chris Wray and James Comey, had traveled more.
Tucker writes for the Associated Press.
The staging is simple. A circle of nine stately wood chairs on a bare stage. Four actors, affixed with in-ear monitors, occupy different seats as testimony is elicited, provided and undermined.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is back in session in “The Ford/Hill Project,” now at REDCAT through Saturday. What follows is some of the most riveting and distressing testimony ever delivered in such a setting.
Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford are called back to testify under oath about the Supreme Court nominations of Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, respectively. This documentary drama, created by Elizabeth Marvel and director Lee Sunday Evans, is composed from the verbatim transcripts of these painful proceedings.
In 1991, Hill testified that Thomas had repeatedly sexually harassed her when he was her supervisor at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Education. In 2018, Ford testified that she had been sexually assaulted in 1982 by a 17-year-old Kavanaugh when she was 15.
Marvel and Evans create a double helix from excerpts of these two hearings, which are separated by nearly 30 years yet reveal highly entrenched patriarchal patterns. Two women, summoning the courage to tell what they know about two men who are about to be entrusted with the most consequential governmental power, are put through the wringer as the political machine shifts into gear.
The actors wear in-ear monitors that feed them edited clips from the real audio of the hearings.
(Angel Origgi / REDCAT)
Marvel, one of the treasures of New York theater, takes on the role of Ford at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in a run that ends Sunday. (The piece premiered at Woolly Mammoth Theatre Company in 2024.) At REDCAT, the superb Rosemarie DeWitt assumes Marvel’s place, standing in for Ford but never attempting anything as crass as an impersonation.
The production, under Evans’ precise direction, manages to find a tone that might be paradoxically described as emotionally resonant neutrality. Those in-ear monitors that the actors are wearing feed them edited clips from the real audio of the hearings.
Ford, a psychology professor with an expertise in biostatistics, answers prosecutorial questions about a life-altering trauma in a manner that leans on her scientific training for security. Hill, a Yale-educated lawyer asked to elaborate on the prurient conduct she was chronically subjected to at work, never loses her professional composure.
“Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter,” Ford tells Sen. Patrick Leahy when asked about the strongest memory she has of the incident. (Ford’s voice, resounding at the start of the production, keeps the brutality of the assault at the forefront of our minds.)
Hill, played by Betty Gabriel, describes the threatening nature of the unwanted advances that created such a toxic work environment. Aware of the damage that Thomas could inflict on her young career, Hill was determined to do what she could to salvage an extraordinary legal opportunity.
At times during Thursday’s performance, Gabriel appeared to stumble on her lines, but it was hard to tell because Hill is speaking extempore in the most difficult of public forums and she doubles back on her sentences, carefully parsing out her words. What both DeWitt and Gabriel honor exquisitely in their performances is the quiet integrity of these women as they willingly expose themselves to political attacks for the sake of causes greater than themselves — the truth, first and foremost, but also gender equality and the Senate’s advisory role as a cornerstone of American democracy.
The actors change not only their seats but also their roles.
(Angel Origgi / REDCAT)
Dulé Hill channels the presence of Thomas, who eventually theatrically hijacks the hearing by referring to the experience as a “high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks.” Rich Sommer gives us the voice of Kavanaugh extolling the pleasures of beer and barking at senators who pointedly ask about the extent of his drinking.
The actors change not only their seats but also their roles. The interrogated become the interrogators in a way that gets a little blurry when the focus initially shifts from Hill and Ford to Thomas and Kavanaugh. But the murkiness doesn’t last long in a production that achieves an admirable balance between objectivity and emotion, abstraction and representation.
The restraint imposed by the production adds to its power. There’s no need to editorialize. The proceedings skewer themselves.
When Sen. Alan Simpson quotes from “Othello” in defense of Thomas, he uses Shakespeare’s lyrical authority but fails to realize that he is in fact invoking the false words of the tragedy’s villain, Iago. Not that the easily impressed senators, eager to exculpate a favored man, took note of the irony.
The patriarchy cares mostly about shoring up its own power. Thomas and Kavanaugh were part of the Supreme Court majority that voted to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
The ending, the only time when Evans’ direction loses its poise, blares “make it right,” performed by the Tune-Yards, as Thomas and Kavanaugh, adorning themselves in black robes, find their seated place according to seniority among the nine chairs. The theatrical flourish seems jarring, but so too is the historic moment.
“The Ford/Hill Project” filled me with sadness but not despair. The bravery of Hill, who educated a nation on sexual harassment, and the emotional strength of Ford, who bared her trauma for public enlightenment, live on in the American consciousness as it progresses, in fits and starts, toward justice.
FT. MEADE, Md. — A man initially accused of being a high-profile Al Qaeda figure and who was tortured in CIA custody appeared Thursday at a hearing to review his detention at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he has been held for 20 years without charges.
A U.S. government official said Abu Zubaydah, who wore a neatly trimmed beard and glasses, had “probably” served as one of Osama bin Laden’s most trusted facilitators. The roughly 20-minute hearing offered rare visibility into the secretive military court proceedings of a suspect who had been tortured at CIA black sites during the U.S. war on terrorism and whose case still has not been resolved 25 years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Zubaydah’s unidentified government-assigned representative and his private attorney, Annika Conrad, both acknowledged he had known Bin Laden, the 9/11 mastermind. But they said Zubaydah was never a member of the militant group that Bin Laden founded.
Conrad argued that Zubaydah poses no security threat to the United States and that it can no longer justify his detention. She said Zubaydah should be approved for transfer out of Guantanamo, which would kick off a multiyear process that includes finding a country to accept him.
Conrad said Zubaydah is prepared to accept a range of security measures, including continuous monitoring. Conrad said he has the financial and personal support of his family, has rejected any extremist views “and simply wants to live a life of peace.”
She also argued that a chief military prosecutor for U.S. military commissions, which oversees the 15 men still held at Guantanamo Bay, has said it is unlikely that Zubaydah will be charged. The Office of Military Commissions declined to comment.
Zubaydah’s attorney said the most the government can offer is a “probable association” to Bin Laden after more than two decades and noted that Zubaydah declined a direct request from Bin Laden to work for Al Qaeda.
Conrad also cited the torture that Zubaydah experienced, describing him as “a greatly injured man” who lost his left eye and his ability to write in English and “frequently struggles to recall words.”
Zubaydah’s detention is being reviewed by a U.S. government panel of senior defense, intelligence and homeland security officials. The Periodic Review Board was created under the Obama administration to evaluate prisoners and determine whether they could be released without posing a threat to national security.
The review panel issued no immediate ruling Thursday. A live video feed of the unclassified portion of his hearing at Guantanamo was made available to reporters at Ft. Meade, an Army base in Maryland.
Detainees are not permitted to speak at their review hearings, and Zubaydah sat in silence next to his attorney and the government representative. Dressed in a gray suit jacket and patterned gray tie, he often pressed his left index finger to his left temple or fidgeted with something in his hands. A worn-looking book sat in front of him.
Zubaydah’s lawyers, Conrad and Ahmed Almudallal, said in a statement before the hearing that he may never face charges.
“For the first time in over two decades, the military’s chief prosecutor believes it is unlikely our client will ever be charged,” the attorneys said. “This is a major change in circumstances that warrants he be cleared for transfer.”
Almudallal and Conrad said Zubaydah has “no intent to engage in violence against the United States in the future.”
“Now, at 55 years old, he’s eager to reconnect with his family and live out the rest of his days as a free person,” they said. “Twenty-four years in prison plus being ‘patient zero’ in the U.S. government’s torture program has been punishment enough.”
Zubaydah was thought to be a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda when he was captured in Pakistan in 2002. A Palestinian born in Saudi Arabia, Zubaydah was tortured abroad before being transferred to Guantanamo in 2006.
The U.S. later dropped the claim that Zubaydah was one of the most senior figures in Al Qaeda, although it has continued to regard him as a security risk. Zubaydah’s lawyers have repeatedly said over the years that he was not an Al Qaeda member and point to waterboarding and other harsh treatment he experienced in the early 2000s.
Zubaydah was the first person in the CIA’s detention and interrogation program after 9/11 and subjected to what is now widely viewed as torture. He was held at CIA black sites in Poland and Lithuania, according to the European Court of Human Rights.
Zubaydah was waterboarded more than 80 times in a month at one point and confined over 11 days in a coffin-size box, among a raft of other mistreatment, a Senate report found.
In 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit by Zubaydah, who was seeking testimony from two former CIA contractors as part of an investigation into his treatment when he was held in Poland. The court rejected his case because the government said it would expose state secrets, despite much of the information having been widely reported.
In January, a lawyer for Zubaydah said the British government had agreed to pay a “substantial sum” to settle a lawsuit that said U.K. intelligence agencies were complicit in his torture. Attorney Helen Duffy said the confidential settlement was symbolically and practically significant for the “intolerable suffering” that Zubaydah endured.
A British parliamentary committee found in 2018 that U.K. security and intelligence services were aware Zubaydah was being tortured but continued to provide questions for the CIA to ask him without seeking assurances of his condition.
Finley writes for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass declined to testify Tuesday before a House subcommittee investigating alleged fraud and mismanagement in the region’s homelessness system, but that did not stop her from going after Republican leaders on the panel.
As the hearing began, Bass’ reelection campaign accused “extremist Republicans in Congress” of staging a politically motivated attack on Los Angeles and its efforts to address homelessness, months after the Trump administration attempted to suspend federal funding for the city.
“Los Angeles will not be bullied,” Bass wrote. “Not by this President, and not by this Congress. I’m going to keep doing my job — cleaning up encampments, getting Angelenos inside, and making LA safer.”
Bass had notified Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), the chair of the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, on Sept. 4 that she would not be available to testify, but her absence still drew criticism from Burchett, who told The Times he was willing to use the “fullest extent of the law” and possibly issue subpoenas to compel her to testify.
“I’d like to get her in,” he said after the hearing. “I realize that we have elections coming up and she knows that as well as anybody … but I would hope that she would come up here and answer questions.”
Burchett added that there are “legitimate questions” about how federal homelessness funds were used in Los Angeles and what he believes was their mismanagement. In his opening remarks, Burchett said he was concerned about how the city spent federal funds given the ongoing homelessness issue in the area.
“Los Angeles is at the center of American homelessness,” Burchett said, and specifically pointed to Skid Row as an example of the “abject failure” of the city’s approach to homelessness. “Under Mayor Karen Bass, law and order in the neighborhood has collapsed.”
Burchett added that the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority was “ripe for corruption and financial mismanagement,” and raised concerns about contracts that have been doled out to nonprofits in Los Angeles and the surrounding areas.
Bass had served on LAHSA’s 10-member board since 2023 but stepped down last week, in part citing scheduling issues. Burchett suggested she “suddenly removed herself” from the board to dodge accountability after being asked to testify.
In a letter sent this month, Burchett noted that he wanted to scrutinize how homelessness has gotten worse during her tenure as mayor. David Michaelson, the mayor’s attorney at City Hall, pushed back on Burchett’s assertions, saying unsheltered homelessness in L.A. — the number of people living outside or in their vehicles — has dropped by 11% since Bass took office in 2022.
“She has achieved these results by focusing on interim housing, not ‘Housing First,’ and has also challenged certain ‘Harm Reduction’ strategies that are ineffective,” Michaelson wrote. “For example, Mayor Bass ordered that City contractors no longer provide needles to drug users and instead focus on services that encourage rehabilitation and protection of human life.”
Burchett’s effort to force Bass to testify over concerns about “potential misallocation of federal dollars” by LAHSA is the latest example of congressional Republican leaders trying to examine California’s handling of regional issues and finances. In the last year, Republican have launched investigations into the Palisades wildfire preparations as well as the distribution of charity funds for the victims of the Palisades and Eaton fires.
Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), the top Democrat on the subcommittee, said Tuesday’s hearing was an “unserious and political show targeting” the most vulnerable Americans and the services they need.
“Housing is a human right, and we’re not going to sit here while you use the housing and homeless crisis of this country to try to cough up whatever you’re trying to do politically before the midterms,” Stansbury said.
During the hearing, Burchett showed a short video of Skid Row, filmed by Jonathan Choe, a MAGA-aligned news influencer, who offered testimony during the hearing as well. Choe mostly focused his testimony on his concerns about substance abuse not being enough of a priority in addressing homelessness.
Paul Webster, a senior fellow at the Cicero Institute and executive director of the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, also testified. Prior to the hearing, he testified in writing that LAHSA — the region’s primary Continuum of Care administrator — has been marked by financial mismanagement and fraud even as its federal funding has grown.
“Los Angeles and its utilization of federal homeless assistance policy is not an outlier,” Webster wrote. “It is the leading edge of a system that lacks accountability, effective monitoring, and prioritizes inputs rather than outcomes.”
Burchett said the panel will continue to take a “good hard look” at homelessness in Los Angeles and other “leftists” cities. He added that he intends to file legislation to require federally funded housing services to offer substance abuse treatment.
Also Tuesday, the LAHSA board voted not to compete with the city and county to keep carrying out many of its core duties, such as operating a homeless database and applying for federal funds on behalf of other agencies.
With L.A. city and county agencies preparing their own applications, a decision to compete with them “would only fracture regional collaboration during an already complex time,” LAHSA said in a statement.
The decision comes a few months after the Trump administration sought to suspend LAHSA from applying for and receiving federal funds. The agency sued to block that effort, winning a partial victory in federal court. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed that decision on appeal.
In response to the suspension and the ongoing legal battle, the federally mandated board that contracted with LAHSA for those functions put next year’s contract out to bid, forcing the agency to compete.
LAHSA, already diminished by the county’s decision last year to divert its homelessness funds to a new county homelessness department, now retains contracts for programs in the city. But Bass has said the city needs to take over those as well.
Ceballos reported from Washington, Smith from Los Angeles.