journalist

California lawmakers have approved a bill that seeks to throw a lifeline to the state’s struggling journalism organizations.

Assembly Bill 2222, which would create refundable tax credits for California local news organizations based on the number of journalists they employ, joins a litany of bills on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

The state Senate passed the bill on Sunday and the Assembly narrowly approved its amendments on Monday to send the bill to the governor’s desk, with some Republican lawmakers pulling their previous “yes” votes.

The approval comes just as the Legislature is set to adjourn its two-year session early this week.

The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Christopher M. Ward (D-San Diego) would work by assigning a “job retention credit” of $20,000 per journalist for up to five positions, and after that $15,000 for every additional journalist. Part-time positions would be awarded half-credits. It also stacks an additional $15,000 credit for each new hire, to incentivize expanding journalist head counts.

“This measure is a safety net for news outlets on the verge of closure,” said former state Sen. Steve Glazer, who is a proponent of the bill and during his Senate term pushed similar legislation.

Proponents may face an uphill battle persuading Newsom to sign the bill, which creates a unique revenue stream to pay for the program. Newsom typically spurns laws that make changes to the state budget after those fiscal discussions conclude in the first half of the calendar year.

AB 2222 represents the latest attempt by California lawmakers to bolster the news business, with governments globally discussing similar efforts. Canada implemented newsroom payroll tax credits in 2019 amounting to about $13,750 per journalist in an eligible newsroom.

AB 2222 would create the largest relief plan in the U.S. to date, with the state tax board estimating it would make more than $40 million available to the state’s newsrooms annually.

The California Taxpayers Assn. and groups representing business interests such as the California Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill because it raises taxes on employers.

The governor’s finance office issued an analysis opposing the bill for failing to outline a cap on tax credits and for seeking to subsidize existing jobs rather than encouraging the creation of more journalism jobs.

The bill is supported by the California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member.

Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto bills.

The Federal Communications Commission under Trump has tried to target news outlets for spreading ‘fake’ news.

United States President Donald Trump says he will report a prominent NBC television journalist to the federal agency in charge of regulating broadcast news outlets for “rebuke or punishment”.

In a post on Truth Social on Sunday, Trump took issue with Kristen Welker’s characterisation of his endorsements of electoral candidates as having “mixed results” in the primaries leading up to November’s elections.

“How can anyone be allowed to say this, working for freely given public airwaves?” Trump wrote. He also posted, without any attribution of where he got the data, a chart showing 98 percent of the candidates he endorsed had won their elections.

“Because of this purposeful inaccuracy, she will be reported to the FCC,” the Federal Communications Commission, he said.

Welker hosted the 2020 presidential election debate between Trump and former President Joe Biden and currently hosts NBC’s weekly news programme Meet the Press.

‘Crooked networks’

In June, Welker had a one-on-one interview with Trump that ended in a heated exchange as she pressed the Republican president on continuing to claim the Democratic Party had cheated in the 2020 presidential election, in which Biden defeated Trump.

“Your elections are crooked, and you’re crooked, and Meet the Press is crooked and so is ABC and CBS and CNN. You’re one-sided crooked networks,” Trump said shortly before pulling off his microphone and leaving the interview.

Trump, who has long had a tumultuous relationship with those US television news networks, has increasingly threatened to use the FCC to target what he says is false news.

This month, ABC News’s owner, Disney, sued the FCC, saying the agency was conducting an early licence review of eight of the network’s stations, a move that it said was “retaliation” against it. ABC said the FCC was seeking “a media industry too fearful of official reprisal to report the news freely”.

The review followed a row between the network and the FCC after Trump and his wife Melania called on it to fire late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke he had made about her.

President Trump has also filed several multibillion-dollar civil lawsuits against news outlets alleging defamation. Last year, he filed a $10bn lawsuit against the BBC, which he said unfairly edited a clip of him speaking just before his supporters stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, to make it seem like he had called for violence.

Trump sued The New York Times for $15bn and The Wall Street Journal for $10bn, alleging defamation over reporting on issues such as how he amassed his wealth and his relationship to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. A judge threw out the case against The Wall Street Journal. Trump refiled the case against The New York Times after a judge dismissed the first complaint against the newspaper last year.

Attempts to compel reporters to reveal sources

The warning from Trump also comes as his administration has taken the rare step of using the courts to try to pressure journalists into giving up confidential sources for stories that have pointed out wrongdoing.

This month, The New York Times said agents from the FBI showed up at the home of one of its reporters in February to deliver a subpoena seeking cooperation for an investigation into a story that revealed how a secret US Navy SEALs mission in North Korea had ended up with them opening fire on a North Korean boat.

In July, the US Department of Justice also tried to subpoena three other journalists from the newspaper after they reported on security concerns with the president’s new Air Force One jet. Investigators were seeking phone records of the journalists but withdrew the requests after a federal judge upbraided the tactic in court, saying they were violating the First Amendment, a provision in the US Constitution that protects freedom of the press.

Reporters at The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post have also been subpoenaed in recent months for national security coverage, including for reporting on internal Pentagon warnings about the US-Israel war on Iran.

News media freedom groups like the Committee to Protect Journalists have criticised the Trump administration for targeting critical media. In April, the group Reporters Sans Frontieres, or Reporters Without Borders, said the US has fallen to a “historic low” in its annual global press freedom rankings, dropping from 57th in the world to 64th.

A new plan by California lawmakers to help fund the state’s struggling journalism organizations could advance in the coming days but faces an uncertain future.

Assembly Bill 2222 would create refundable tax credits for California local news organizations based on the number of journalists they employ, which in practice would provide direct cash infusions to participating newsrooms.

The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Christopher M. Ward (D-San Diego) earlier this year, is the latest effort to provide a lifeline for the news industry. There has been much talk both in California and globally about government support for journalism. But this is potentially the largest relief plan to date, with the state tax board estimating it would make more than $40 million available to newsrooms annually. The bill passed the Assembly and needs approval from the Senate to reach the governor’s desk.

Publishers, journalists and their unions have long argued that online search and social media platforms are harming the journalism business by eating up advertising revenue while publishing content they don’t pay for.

Previous attempts by California lawmakers focused on forcing Google, Meta and other platforms to pay their share, but this proposal has a unique solution to funding the program.

Ward described the bill as an important step in keeping a strong press corps in California, which he said is more important than ever in an era of digital misinformation.

Ward said the bill would “strengthen democracy” and “keep the lights on” in newsrooms. He cited President Trump’s own attacks on the press. “We thought, ‘What more can California do to help support them?’” he said.

Trump’s efforts to strip public radio and television stations of federal funds and the steep downward profit-losing trend for commercial newsrooms has meant, Ward said, that newsrooms have severely scaled back operations. Rural areas in particular have altogether lost their news sources, with many forced to shut down.

The amount of advertising to local newspapers declined by 82% — a $40 billion drop — since 2000, Pew Research Center said in 2023. And almost 40% of all local U.S. newspapers have vanished, according to an annual report on the state of local news put out by Northwestern University’s Medill journalism school.

A report last year by data firm Muck Rack and Rebuild Local News, a nonprofit advocating for government help for the journalism sector that is sponsoring AB 2222, estimates there has been a 75% decline in the number of local journalists per 100,000 of population in the U.S. since 2002.

The law, if approved, would work by assigning a “job retention credit” of $20,000 per journalist for up to five positions, and after that $15,000 for every additional journalist. Part-time positions would be awarded half-credits. It also stacks an additional $15,000 credit for each new hire, to incentivize expanding journalist headcounts.

To pay for the credits, the bill would amend California’s tax code to align with a little-discussed component of Trump’s “Big Beautiful” tax bill that expanded taxes on some companies by eliminating a deduction for executive salaries of over $1 million annually.

It is common practice for the state to consider aligning its tax code with the federal structure to make filing taxes easier and administering them more cheaply. But California has not yet sought to adopt this federal tax expansion.

As a tax measure, AB 2222 requires approval from a supermajority two-thirds of the Legislature, no easy task in an election year and with a fast-approaching deadline for lawmakers to approve bills Monday, which marks the end of this year’s legislative session.

The California Taxpayers Assn. and groups representing business interests such as the California Chamber of Commerce oppose the bill because it raises taxes on employers that they argue already face billions of dollars in new taxes. They contend that the higher costs will be passed along to consumers, and they also take issue with funneling a new funding source to a niche industry without going through the budget process.

“Financing an industry-specific tax credit with a tax increase on an unrelated group of taxpayers is an unsound way to budget,” the taxpayers association wrote in its letter of opposition.

Republican lawmaker Carl DeMaio of San Diego has vocalized his opposition in discussions of the bill, criticizing the idea of providing funding to outlets that make political endorsements. DeMaio did not provide a response to a request for comment about his current position on the proposal.

The bill’s backers are hopeful it will wriggle through this legislative session and land on the governor’s desk.

Yet they are not sure whether Newsom will sign it. In the past, Newsom has been reluctant to greenlight laws that tinker with the state budget after those fiscal discussions conclude in the first half of the calendar year.

The governor’s finance office issued an analysis opposing the bill for not including a cap on the tax credits, thus creating “unlimited fiscal liability to the state,” and argued the bill mainly subsidizes existing activity rather than encouraging the creation of new jobs.

An analysis by the state’s Franchise Tax Board — the agency that levies personal and corporate income taxes — found that the funding stream would bring $29 million in new revenue to the state’s general fund in the 2026-27 year and $58 million the following year.

Meanwhile, the estimated amount of the tax credit for local news organizations would be $19 million the first year and $43 million the second year. After accounting for the tax credits as well as the administrative costs, the budget would still see a net increase of $10 million and $15 million in those years.

“It’s fully paid for,” said former state senator Steven Glazer, who is a passionate proponent of the bill. Glazer during his Senate term pushed similar legislation that was ultimately shelved in a deal with tech giants.

In recent years California lawmakers have also weighed tax credits for Hollywood jobs. In June, lawmakers approved a major expansion of the funding allocated each year to the state’s film and television tax credit program, moving to raise that cap to $750 million from $330 million. The legislature is also considering a bill that would provide some $100 million in annual funding to post-production work.

The newsroom bill is designed specifically so as to be as neutral as possible on the medium — whether print newspapers, digital news sites, ethnic media or television broadcasters — as well as the business model of the newsroom — whether for-profit, nonprofit or publicly subsidized. The point is to prevent the government from having strong influence or being able to pick winners and losers in the industry, said Matt Pearce, a director of policy for bill sponsor Rebuild Local News, which successfully backed similar legislation in Illinois.

“You have practically the whole range of the local news world represented in some form. Big, little, independent,” Pearce said.

Pearce formerly worked as a reporter at The Times, and served as president of Media Guild of the West, the union that represents Times journalists.

The bill is also supported by the California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member.

A new LAPD report released Tuesday blamed poor planning and coordination for issues with the department’s response to protests that erupted on city streets last summer in opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

But apart from identifying those problems, the report concluded that police officers performed well in the face of “unprecedented” unrest that sometimes devolved into violence and vandalism.

Missing from the 62-page report — at least in the view of some longtime department observers — was any reflection about officers’ use of less-lethal weapons that left hundreds of people injured and drew strong condemnations from human rights groups.

The report largely blamed protesters for instigating violence and injuring officers, saying “agitators” intent on taking advantage of the disorder made it impossible to avoid using force.

The report said the LAPD was not prepared to deal with the protective equipment and “improvised weaponry” employed by some protesters, including people with oven mitts who picked up and lobbed tear gas canisters back in the direction of officers and others who used leaf blowers to redirect the gas.

During the department’s presentation of the report, one police commissioner, Jeff Skobin, pointed out that demonstrators and journalists who spoke at the meeting felt as though their perspectives weren’t reflected in the report whatsoever. He suggested that LAPD officials consider reaching out to journalists or press organizations as the department reevaluates its media policy.

Commission President Rasha Gerges Shields said the department could have examined whether reforms that were called for in 2020 had been implemented — and areas where the department still needed to improve.

“I just want to make sure that this isn’t just the end-all, be-all of this conversation,” she said.

In response, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said the report had considered past lessons learned, but the “unprecedented” nature of the protests justified the department’s actions.

“The level of violence — I have been doing this for 45 years, I have not seen that here or anywhere else in the country,” he said, noting that nearly 50 officers were injured.

The report said officers were targeted with rocks, bottles, commercial-grade fireworks and Molotov cocktails. Timely communication was a concern at times, the report said, with the department lacking a necessary number of radio wave frequencies.

When less-lethal weapons proved ineffective, the department deployed tear gas on two occasions, June 8 and 14, to disperse “violent groups” and restore order. It was the first time the department had used the measure since at least the 1970s. The decision to use gas “reflected the extreme conditions faced at the height of the unrest,” the report said. The report doesn’t specify who authorized the deployment of the gas.

But the gas also created tactical challenges, since many patrol and Metropolitan Division officers lacked protective masks, increasing their risk of exposure. The report said the chemical agents were “the only viable option to reestablish control.”

In just two weeks of protests, the report said, the department spent $17.47 million in personnel costs, including $12.14 million for overtime. Ultimately, the report concluded, the department “contained the unrest” without any loss of life or “major breaches of critical infrastructure.”

Some critics said the report failed to answer basic questions, such as how many less-lethal rounds were fired or how many officers were disciplined for misconduct.

Like past after-action reports, the review was hyper-focused on the threats faced by officers, critics said. But, they noted, it had little to say about how officers’ use of less-lethal weapons — sometimes in clear violation of the department’s own policies — that were widely documented documented on social media and in news accounts.

“If the department can’t even recognize the possibility that they might have a problem with how they police protests, after last summer, how can anyone expect them to do anything differently next time?” said Peter Bibring, a civil rights attorney who previously served as director of police practices at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

According to the city attorney’s office, more than 120 claims for damages have been filed against the city in connection to police actions during pro-immigration protests as of April. The city is still facing lawsuits stemming from the 2020 protests over the police killing of George Floyd. The latest spate of civil actions could tie the city up in costly litigation for years to come.

At Tuesday’s commission meeting, the 45-minute public comment period was extended to accommodate dozens of speakers, many of whom criticized the report for whitewashing what they described as the department’s heavy-handed response to the protests.

Despite years of costly lawsuits, oversight measures and promises by leaders to rein in indiscriminate use of force during protests, officers were shown on video last year trampling demonstrators on horseback and aiming so-called less-lethal launchers at people’s heads in a violation of department policy, speakers said. None of that, observers said, was mentioned in the report.

Others argued that the report seems to cast members of the media as nuisances to be dealt with, while ignoring instances in which journalists were targeted by law enforcement.

“It’s an insult,” said Nick Stern, a British news photographer who is suing the Los Angeles County after being struck by sheriff’s deputies while covering a protest in Paramount. “Journalists only show up as logistical problems.”

Another speaker noted the inflammatory language used in the report seemed to justify the aggressive tactics by describing protesters as operating in “cells,” likening them to Al-Qaeda.

Lt. Joseph Fransen, the study’s chief author, told the Commission that he took inspiration from the federal government’s 9/11 after-action report, which dissected mistakes leading up to the terrorist attack.

“These aren’t necessarily points of failure, these are just lessons to be learned in the future,” Fransen said of his report.

Officials have promised thorough investigations of all uses of force. The department limited its use of the launchers after a federal judge issued an injunction in January, but has deployed other types of crowd control weapons in subsequent protests. The judge ruled that officers have repeatedly violated previous court orders that allow the weapon to be used only to subdue protesters who pose a threat of violence.

The report found that, on several nights, the LAPD didn’t have enough personnel to process and transport all the people who were arrested. Between June 7-16, 2025, the department made 435 protest-related arrests, including 182 on June 10 alone. Three out of every four arrest was for unlawful assembly, while 16 arrests were made for violent crimes, including assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer or attempted murder of a police officer. Most people were released on citation. Four-fifths of those arrested came from the county, while others traveled from surrounding counties or outside the state.

Jeremy Doku says he is “not against” the journalist who criticised his plan to leave the Belgium camp during the World Cup to attend the birth of his first child.

Doku’s wife Shireen was due to give birth during the second week of July and he told Reuters, external before the start of the tournament he intended to leave the camp to be at the birth even if his side were still in contention.

But it brought fierce criticism from L’Equipe channel presenter France Pierron, who labelled a father “completely useless” at the time of their child’s birth.

L’Equipe later apologised and said Pierron’s comments were “very far removed” from its values. The presenter also apologised but was taken off air until the end of the current season of her show.

Doku eventually missed Belgium’s 0-0 draw against Iran in the group stage to fly back to the UK for the birth of his son, Praise.

Speaking on his YouTube channel, external, Doku said he understood why some people questioned the timing of events.

“There was a lot of noise of course,” the Manchester City winger said.

“I can understand why people felt like maybe this was orchestrated because it was too perfect.

“I also saw the journalist speak about me and the situation and all the people getting at her. But I just wanted to use this video as well to really… pray over her.

“I don’t want to come at her in a way that most people did. I don’t want people to be too harsh on her. We don’t know what she has experienced. It’s her opinion.

“She got fired and all these things. I never want this for a person. I’m not against her. I’m not angry at her or anything. She just said her opinion.”

Doku played 86 minutes of Belgium’s opening 1-1 draw with Egypt in Group G of the World Cup before missing their next game, with his absence explained as illness.

A Belgium statement later said, external that the 24-year-old travelled to London to be with his wife “with the approval of and accompanied by one of our team doctors”.

WASHINGTON — For the rescheduled White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner on Friday at Washington’s Waldorf Astoria hotel, security will be much tighter, the guest list smaller, the partying pared down, and the dress code more relaxed.

That much, the correspondents’ association can control.

What remains out of its control — and perhaps the biggest question — is what the dinner’s most prominent guest, President Trump, will bring to the table.

Call it White House Dinner 2.0, or Take Two, or, in Trump’s own words, a “HOT ticket.” The big unknown is whether Trump will bring the fighting words (“rather nasty,” he said) against the press that he’d planned to deliver in April — before the event descended into chaos when a gunman stormed a security checkpoint, forcing an evacuation of the room.

“The president looks forward to finishing what he started,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday, confirming Trump’s attendance. “I encourage everyone watching tomorrow night to tune in for what promises to be a very entertaining and memorable evening.”

Trump has been coy about what he might say

As for Trump himself, he indicated last month he wasn’t sure. “I don’t know whether or not I will give the same rather nasty statements, at least as it concerns certain people, but we will soon find out,” the Republican president wrote on his Truth Social platform. “In any event, it will be a ‘HOT’ ticket!”

Besides the pared-down approach, there is another change at Friday’s dinner: two additional awards. One will be presented to Victor Gonzales, the Secret Service agent who was staffing a security checkpoint in April and was struck in his protective vest.

“Officer Gonzales … ran toward danger so that thousands of others could make it home safely,” WHCA President Weijia Jiang said in a statement. “His courage stemmed from a dedication to service, which we are looking forward to honoring this week.”

A second award will be presented to the staff of the Washington Hilton hotel, site of the first dinner.

Other changes: With security in mind, there will be only one entrance at the much smaller venue, with airport-style metal detectors. Guests received individual QR entry codes in advance, and nobody can get in unless recognized. “There is NO red carpet at this dinner,” said a memo Jiang sent to some guests last month, seen by The Associated Press. “There are NO onsite pre-dinner receptions.”

The dress code this time is a looser “black tie optional,” and dinner includes grilled peach and burrata salad, lobster, and beef Wellington. The evening, as at the last dinner, has entertainment by mentalist Oz Pearlman, along with the awards presentations and Trump’s remarks.

Jiang and her fellow board members worked hard to bring about this WHCA dinner 2.0, not wanting to let a violent act — or the image of colleagues hiding under tables — remain the final thought. Announcing the rescheduling, she emphasized the dinner’s stated purpose: “a celebration of a free press and the vital role of journalism in our democracy for over a century.”

“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” Jiang said.

There’s still lots of criticism of the event

But it’s also clear that some people felt the dinner should not be rescheduled at all.

Many never thought it was much of a good look in the first place, with the sight of journalists in formal wear cozying up to their sources, or the objects of their reporting.

“It undermines the public faith in how the press does its work, and it makes it look like we are pals with the people we cover,” Kelly McBride, an ethics expert at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank, said when the deliberations were taking place.

The new dinner comes during a time of fast-increasing tension between the media and a president who, in his second term, has tried to exert pressure on media outlets he is unhappy with in a variety of ways. That pressure has ranged from sanctions against members of the White House press corps to regulatory actions through the Federal Communications Commission to outright lawsuits.

Those tensions have only escalated since April, with the latest example reaching a New York courtroom on Thursday. There, criticized by a federal judge for sloppy legal work, the government withdrew subpoenas that would have compelled three New York Times reporters to testify about their sources for articles about Trump’s Qatari-gifted Air Force One jet.

That escalation was the impetus behind a letter from a coalition of press freedom groups and hundreds of former journalists, urging the WHCA to stand up to Trump forcefully at the dinner.

“We believe it is hypocritical to celebrate the First Amendment in front of the man who relentlessly attacks it,” the letter says. “We urge the WHCA to condemn the administration’s actions from the podium and pledge to fight all attempts by his administration to undermine this core pillar of a functioning democracy.”

Noveck writes for the Associated Press.

Mexican journalist Alejandro Leyva Aguilar was shot dead while eating at a street food stall in Oaxaca. He had spent years reporting on alleged corruption and criminal violence. His murder marks the fourth journalist killing in Mexico since June.

Indian authorities release the two men after years in prison although both remain under tight court-imposed restrictions.

Indian authorities have released prominent Kashmiri human rights activist Khurram Parvez and journalist Irfan Mehraj on bail after years in prison on “terrorism” financing charges although both remain under tight court-imposed restrictions.

The two men walked free from a New Delhi jail late on Wednesday, their relatives said, as India’s National Investigation Agency seeks to overturn their bail – the latest chapter in what rights groups call New Delhi’s sweeping crackdown on activists, journalists and dissidents in India-administered Kashmir since 2019 when it scrapped the region’s autonomy, granted under the Indian Constitution.

Parvez, programme coordinator for the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), was arrested in 2021 by the National Investigation Agency at his home in Srinagar.

Mehraj, a freelance journalist who worked with the same rights group as a researcher, was arrested in 2023.

Both face charges of “funding terrorism” and “propagation of secessionist agenda” under India’s stringent “antiterrorism” laws, which in effect allow authorities to hold people without trial indefinitely.

The National Investigation Agency accuses the two of using the JKCCS to fund militant-linked activities and promote a separatist agenda. Both men deny the allegations.

A lower court granted them bail last week, but the agency appealed. The Delhi High Court refused on Tuesday to suspend the release order although it imposed tougher restrictions on the men’s movements and activities while it hears the appeal.

Under their bail conditions, the two must arrange their own stay in the capital, where they are facing trial, and cannot travel to Kashmir, according to a court document seen by the news agency AFP. Proceedings in the case will continue in the coming weeks.

Human rights violations

The JKCCS has for decades documented alleged rights violations by Indian government forces in Kashmir, including torture and unlawful killings, and has drawn attention to thousands of unmarked graves in border areas suspected of holding victims of “enforced disappearances”.

International rights groups, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, have consistently called for the men’s release, saying they were jailed for their work.

In 2023, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said Parvez’s arrest was an “act of reprisal for his human rights work, and an attempt to silence him and Kashmiri civil society as a whole”.

After their release, the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights and the World Organisation Against Torture said the two were arrested on “trumped-up charges” and called on Indian authorities to drop the case, describing the proceedings as politically motivated.

Journalists in Indian-administered Kashmir say they have faced harassment and arrests since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government annulled the region’s partial autonomy.

From 2019 to 2023, more than 3,600 people were arrested there under “antiterrorism” laws, more than half of whom remain in prison, according to government figures.

Muslim-majority Kashmir has been divided between India and Pakistan since their independence from British rule in 1947. Both countries claim the territory in full.

Rebel groups have fought the Indian government since 1989, demanding independence or a merger with Pakistan. The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people, mostly civilians.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has subpoenaed New York Times journalists after they reported on security concerns involving the new, Qatari-gifted Air Force One, marking a dramatic escalation of President Trump’s campaign against the media that has drawn condemnation for eroding a fundamental freedom of American democracy.

The new jet, a present from the U.S. ally on which the administration spent $400 million to retrofit and upgrade, entered service this month. But Trump used an older model Air Force One jet to leave a NATO summit in Turkey and later referenced threats against him made by Iran.

The subpoenas seek to force the reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan next week, the New York Times said, adding that federal agents delivered some subpoenas to the reporters at their homes.

They were issued after FBI Director Kash Patel and other Justice Department officials met at the White House on Friday to talk about the matter, according to a person familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The journalists subpoenaed included Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt, the Times reported.

“The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects,” David McCraw, a lawyer for the Times, said in a statement.

Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Trump’s “war on the press is looking for another victim.”

He said in a statement that the subpoenas “break from long-standing Justice Department practice to protect the public interest and press independence by requiring prosecutors to only seek information from reporters as a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted.”

The department said that “to be clear, reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are.”

Its statement said that “we value and appreciate the important role that the press plays in this country, but DOJ also plays an important role to make sure that the people entrusted with our nation’s secrets do what they’re supposed to do with that information, which means not sharing classified information.”

While recognizing “there may always be natural tension there,” the department said, “we are not going to ignore the law and stop investigating the people who work in the administration and think it’s OK to leak classified information impacting national security.”

Pattern of anti-press actions

Issuing subpoenas represents a further ramping up of Trump’s effort to threaten independent new organizations by leveraging the power of the federal government against them. It is also part of a systematic pattern by the Republican president to attempt to undermine press freedom in order to shield him from negative coverage.

Earlier this year, the Justice Department issued subpoenas seeking to compel testimony from reporters at the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. In both cases, the department later withdrew the subpoenas.

In January, FBI agents searched the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, who has been covering Trump’s transformation of the federal government, as part of a leak investigation into a Pentagon contractor accused of taking home classified information.

Adam Steinbaugh, senior attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said Friday’s subpoenas and the prospect of “hauling reporters before grand juries sends a chilling message to journalists and whistleblowers alike: Watch what you say, or expect a knock on the door.”

“These tactics are becoming more common,” Steinbaugh said in a statement. “That doesn’t make them normal.”

During his first term, Trump suggested that the press constituted an “enemy” of the American people. Since returning to the White House, he has waged an aggressive campaign against the media unlike any in modern U.S. history.

Trump’s attacks against news outlets and media figures he believes are overly critical of him has included filing lawsuits against outlets whose coverage he dislikes, threatening to revoke TV broadcast licenses and seeking to bend news organizations and social media companies to his will.

The Justice Department over the years has developed and revised internal policies governing how it will respond to news media leaks.

Though the department across presidential administrations has periodically seized the phone records of individual journalists in hopes of identifying sources for national security stories, it is extremely rare for the government to attempt to compel reporters to reveal their sources before a grand jury.

In April 2025, then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi rescinded a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.

Doing so again gave prosecutors the authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make “unauthorized disclosures” to journalists.

A memo Bondi issued said members of the press are “presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” and subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn.” Warrants must also include “protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities,” the memo stated.

Security issues with new Air Force One

The president flew the new Air Force One to Turkey during this week’s visit. But he departed Wednesday on one of the older-model Air Force One jets for Mildenhall, a Royal Air Force base in Suffolk, England.

The newer plane also flew to Mildenhall. Trump then switched to that plane for the flight home to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.

The abrupt swap came as a shaky ceasefire with Iran had collapsed, with the U.S. launching airstrikes on Iran and Tehran attacking three gulf Arab states. Iran and Turkey share a border, sparking speculation that the new jet lacked certain sophisticated security and countermeasure systems.

The New York Times, citing anonymous sources, reported that the switch had come at the urging of the Secret Service, and that the newer plane lacked some of the advanced security features of the older aircraft, including antimissile capabilities.

Trump denied any security concerns, posting on social media that the stop in Mildenhall was so that service members there could view the new jet. During the flight, Trump denied to the reporters accompanying him that security concerns involving Iran were a factor in flying two planes home.

Still, asked if he was aware of any credible threats against Air Force One by Iran, Trump responded, “I have a threat all the time. I’m No. 1 on their list.”

The White House did not answer messages seeking comment about the subpoenas of the Times journalists.

Weissert and Khalil write for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer, Michelle L. Price and Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

Nexstar Media Group’s The Hill, the political web site that started as a free newspaper read in most congressional offices in Washington, is launching a new direct-to-consumer streaming service that will be behind a paywall.

Starting Wednesday, Nexstar will offer The HIll Insider, which will carry daily streaming video programs and newsletters. Subscribers will also be able to interact with The Hill’s journalists and analysts, who will take questions live.

The service, available for $5.99 a month or $59.99 a year, is the first digital subscription product for the Irving, TX-based Nexstar, the largest owner of television stations in the U.S. Premium memberships are available for $9.99 a month, or $99.99 a year, which will be ad-free and offer access to live events presented by The Hill.

The endeavor is the first subscription streaming service offered by Nexstar. The Hill already produces a free ad-supported streaming channel distributed on such platforms as Roku.

The free version of The Hill is the most viewed political web site in the U.S. with 1.24 billion page views in 2025, a year-to-year increase of 7%, according to Comscore. The Hill is known for offering brisk, up-to-date reports out of each branch of government in Washington, and is often linked to on other websites.

Nexstar, which also owns the cable network NewsNation, acquired The Hill in 2021 from New York-based entrepreneur James Finkelstein for $130 million. NewsNation adapted The Hill brand name for its Washington-based programs, including a Sunday roundtable show with Chris Stirewalt, politics editor for The Hill and NewsNation.

NewsNation politics editor Chris Stirewalt on the set of “The Hill Sunday.”

(NewsNation)

Stirewalt and the Washington journalists and commentators seen on NewsNation programs will be featured on The Hill Insider. The service will also use the resources of Decision Desk HQ, the political media firm that was the first to call President Trump’s victory on election night in 2024. Decision Desk will be involved in a streaming show called “Data Nerds.”

The Hill Insider will be aimed at the political junkie who wants to go deeper on polling data and hear longer, in-depth discussion on issues. Bill Sammons, senior vice president of editorial content for Nexstar, said the company’s research shows there is a national appetite for such content, as only 5% of The Hill’s current audience is based in Washington.

The Hill has long touted itself as non-partisan and Stirewalt hopes users will gravitate to the subscription version to become better informed about legislative and political issues and not reaffirm their existing opinions.

“My imagined audience is of people in America who are not addicted to politics but are addicted to good citizenship and the idea of fulfilling their civic virtue,” Stirewalt said in a recent interview. “And they would like to do it in a way that doesn’t insult their intelligence.”

While the free version of The Hill has been growing, the new subscription product enters a crowded field of digital programs and platforms aimed at the consumers of political news.

The launch comes as journalists from legacy media such as former CNN anchor Jim Acosta, former ABC News correspondent Terry Moran, and Chuck Todd, the longtime moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” have launched their own daily podcasts and newsletters as second acts in their careers.

MS NOW, the progressive-leaning cable news channel, is entering the direct to consumer market later this year making the channel available outside of pay-TV packages for the first time. Like The Hill Insider, the MS NOW streaming product is expected to offer users additional benefits, such as access to live events and content not seen on the cable network.

Original topical programming that does not have a shelf life is challenging to sustain on a streaming service. When Fox News Media launched its streaming service Fox Nation in 2018, it carried a line-up of live, politically-oriented shows aimed at its conservative-leaning audience. The service eventually pivoted to documentary, movies and lifestyle programming and became the home of the annual Fox News fan event, The Fox Nation Patriot Awards.

July 8 (UPI) — Britain has summoned Iran’s charge d’affairs after a judge last week sentenced two Romanian men to prison for stabbing an Iranian journalist in London in 2024, an attack the court found was carried out on behalf of the iranian state.

“We take threats posed by Iran and those who do its bidding extremely seriously,” a spokesperson for Britain’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said in a statement.

“Iran’s actions attempt to undermine UK sovereignty and security, and are completely unacceptable — it must cease in these activities immediately.”

Ali Nasimfar, charge d’affairs of the Iranian Embassy in London, was summoned by Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer on Tuesday, after a British judge sentenced Nandito Badea, 21, and George Stana, 25, to prison over the March 29, 2024, attack.

According to prosecutors, the two men attacked Pouria Zeraati, a reporter with the Britain-based Persian-language broadcaster Iran International, as he was leaving his Wimbledon home.

One of the men asked Zeraati for money before the other grabbed him. Zeraati suffered multiple stab wounds to his leg before both men fled on foot and entered a blue Mazda car that was waiting nearby and driven by a third accomplice.

Prosecutors accused Badea of having been involved in the attack, while Stana drove the getaway car, which had been bought through Facebook. The third suspect has been identified as David Andrei.

The three suspects were arrested by Romanian police in December 2024. Badea and Stana were extradited to Britain that same month, while Andrei remains in Romania, where he is subject to domestic criminal proceedings.

During the trial, the judge agreed with the prosecution that the crime was a state-sponsored attack, as evidence “overwhelmingly” supported the finding that it was carried out on behalf of Iran.

Stana was sentenced to 12 years in prison, as the judge ruled that the Foreign Power Condition under the National Security Act was met in his case. The judge said the extensive planning and involvement in the plot indicated that he knew — or at the very least ought to have known — of the connection to Iran.

Badea was sentenced to eight years behind bars.

“Protecting national security, upholding media freedom and freedom of expression, remain our top priorities,” Britain’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said.

“This government will take all measures necessary to protect the British people, and those living and working in the UK.”

British officials and allies have accused Iran of a longstanding pattern of targeting critics, journalists and dissidents abroad with assassination plots.

In the United States, authorities have several times thwarted Iran-backed attempts to assassinate and kidnap Masih Alinejad.

In 2024, the United States and Britain issued coordinated sanctions targeting those they accused of being behind threats to assassinate Iranian dissidents abroad.

Mexican journalist Roxana Guzman’s disappearance for more than two weeks has renewed concerns over escalating violence against journalists in Mexico, where attacks on the press continue with near-total impunity.

Al Jazeera journalist Al-Tahir al-Mardi has been reunited with his family in Khartoum after three years of separation and forced displacement caused by Sudan’s war.

A journalist for Press TV has been hit by shrapnel while filming a report on Israeli attacks in southern Lebanon. Hadi Hoteit said he was targeted despite wearing a ‘Press’ vest, and is in hospital receiving treatment.

History tends to repeat itself at the World Cup. Such is the case with Mexico and South Africa, two teams that will face off in the World Cup opening match for the second time in history, just as they did in Johannesburg on June 11, 2010. The score that night was 1-1.

Many still remember Siphiwe Tshabalala and his powerful shot into the top corner that beat Mexican goalkeeper Óscar Pérez, and a celebration that remains etched in the collective memory of the soccer world. Unfortunately for the South African team that night, Rafa Márquez equalized for El Tri with 11 minutes remaining during what turned out to be a disappointing World Cup for the host nation.

Sixteen years later, the 2026 World Cup kicks off, curiously enough, with the same matchup, but with the roles reversed. Mexico is now the host at Azteca Stadium, known during this competition as Mexico City Stadium, at 7,216 feet above sea level. It will be the third World Cup the venue has hosted.

“It won’t be easy at all,” South Africa coach Hugo Broos said last December upon learning his team would debut against one of the hosts. “It’s a great thing to play in front of 80,000 people. We have nothing to lose.”

Mexico’s Giovani Dos Santos jumps on the back of Rafael Marquez after Mexico scored against South Africa during a World Cup group match on June 11, 2010, in Johannesburg, South Africa.

(Michael Steele / Getty Images)

On the Mexican side, the similarities to 2010 are striking — and not necessarily for the right reasons. Coach Javier Aguirre is back on El Tri’s bench — the same coach who led that campaign in South Africa — which, at first glance, might seem curious, though in practice it reflects the stagnation of a soccer team that has gone eight consecutive World Cups without advancing past the round of 16.

Former Barcelona player Márquez, who scored the equalizer, also remains connected to the national team, now as an assistant coach, with the mandate to take the reins of the team once the Aguirre era concludes after the World Cup. The squad has seen more than a dozen coaches come and go since 2010, including a qualification for Brazil 2014 that nearly ended in tragedy before a goal by the United States rescued the Mexican team and sealed its admission into the tournament.

“Javier [Aguirre] was a firefighter in 2002, he was a firefighter in 2010 and he stepped in as a firefighter again then — it’s the same old story,” said John Sutcliff, a journalist who has covered Mexico for more than 36 years. “[The federation officials] aren’t working in the best interest of the national team. There’s a lot of interest in bringing in foreigners [to the Mexican league] for business purposes and we don’t have players in Europe’s top leagues.”

Mexico’s recent record speaks for itself. It was eliminated in the World Cup round of 16 in 2010 by Argentina, by the Netherlands in 2014, by Brazil in 2018 and failed to even advance past the group stage in Qatar in 2022. Considered the “Giant of CONCACAF,” Mexico has remained dominant in its region since 2010, with five Gold Cups, although it has lost ground to the United States in the Nations League.

Outside the region, its participation in 2010 has been limited mainly to two editions of the Copa América held on U.S. soil, in which it has failed in both, reaching the quarterfinals in 2016 and being eliminated in the group stage in 2024.

“I think it’s been a roller coaster ride over these 16 years; for a moment it seemed like it was making progress, but then there were spectacular crashes,” said Gibrán Araige, a journalist who has followed El Tri through several World Cup cycles.

Mexico’s Raúl Jiménez celebrates with teammates after scoring against Serbia during a friendly at Nemesio Diez Stadium on June 4 in Toluca, Mexico.

(Agustin Cuevas / Getty Images)

For Araige, the level of the 2010 squad is similar to the current one, with players who are not yet established but have solid European experience.

Of the 26 players called up by Aguirre, 10 play in Europe, but few play for elite clubs or get significant playing time on their teams, mostly hampered by injuries, as is the case with Santi Giménez (AC Milan, Italy), César Huerta (Anderlecht, Belgium), Luis Chávez (Dinamo, Russia) and Edson Álvarez (Fenerbahçe, Turkey).

For its part, South Africa has not made significant progress since 2010.

After being eliminated in the group stage, finishing behind Uruguay and Mexico in a tournament held in its own country, it became the first host nation in a World Cup to fail to advance past that stage — a record that Qatar matched in 2022.

Bafana Bafana failed to qualify for the next three World Cups. In fact, this is the first time they have qualified since 2002, as they did not have to qualify in 2010, having hosted the tournament.

They were eliminated as group runners-up behind Ethiopia on the road to Brazil in 2014, they finished last in their group on the road to Russia in 2018 and finished second behind Ghana in the qualifiers for Qatar in 2022.

South African players run during a World Cup training session at Estadio Hidalgo on June 3 in Pachuca, Mexico.

(Manuel Velasquez / Getty Images)

They have also lacked consistency in the Africa Cup of Nations, missing the 2012 and 2017 editions.

Broos, who took over as South Africa’s head coach in 2021, sought to instill discipline and relied on local talent, which was vital in securing a spot in this year’s World Cup. During the qualifying round, South Africa won its group by finishing ahead of Nigeria and advanced despite starting the campaign with a loss due to an ineligible player used in a match against Lesotho.

Broos faced criticism for strategic errors early on, but ultimately built a competitive team that achieved historic qualification, aided by nine direct World Cup spots in the expanded tournament field.

“It’s a truly excellent group of players. We got through a very tough qualifying phase, which I think helped polish the team,” said Mark Gleeson, a journalist specializing in African soccer.

For Gleeson, South Africa missed a major opportunity to strengthen its league by failing to retain investors and wealthy clients after the 2010 World Cup and continued to operate in the same way — a trend reflected in the league’s stagnation and the scarcity of talent playing abroad.

Lwethu Makhanya (Philadelphia Union, USA), Ime Okon (Hannover 96, Germany), Mbekezeli Mbokazi (Chicago Fire, USA), Sphephelo Sithole (CD Tondela, Portugal) and Lyle Foster (Burnley, England) are among the few South African players competing abroad for a national team reliant on domestic soccer.

South Africa huddle during a training session at Estadio Hidalgo on June 3 in Pachuca, Mexico.

(Manuel Velasquez / Getty Images)

However, with the World Cup’s new 48-team format, the task of advancing proved less daunting for teams in the qualifying phase and at the World Cup, there will also be more opportunities to advance beyond the group stage because the best third-place finishers move on. That math could benefit South Africa even if it loses its opening match.

Should Bafana Bafana lose to Mexico, they would have to beat the Czech Republic in their second match on June 18 in Atlanta and would likely play for qualification on June 24 against South Korea in Monterrey.

“The Czechs are among the weakest in Europe, and there’s a good chance of beating them. Furthermore, South Korea is well below its own historical standards, as was evident in March with very poor results in high-pressure matches,” Gleeson said.

To prepare for the altitude in Mexico City, Broos, a former Belgian player who competed in the 1986 World Cup in Mexico, brought his team in early and, starting May 30, held training camp in Pachuca, a city at higher in elevation than the capital. Several of his players are already accustomed to some altitude from playing for clubs in Johannesburg, at 5,751 feet.

“South Africa has a chance; we can compete,” Tshabalala said in an interview after the draw. “I think the pressure will be on Mexico because they’re the hosts. That gives us a real opportunity to pull off an upset.”

A scoreless draw against Nicaragua in Johannesburg days before the World Cup isn’t exactly encouraging, but it also fits with the team’s expectations and the mindset of “having everything to gain and little to lose.”

“We have to enjoy it, and when you enjoy something, you can achieve great things,” said Broos.