law

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers unhappy with Justice Department decisions to heavily redact or withhold documents from a legally mandated release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein threatened Saturday to launch impeachment proceedings against those responsible, including Pam Bondi, the U.S. attorney general.

Democrats and Republicans alike criticized the omissions, while Democrats also accused the Justice Department of intentionally scrubbing the release of at least one image of President Trump, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggesting it could portend “one of the biggest coverups in American history.”

Trump administration officials have said the release fully complied with the law, and that its redactions were crafted only to protect victims of Epstein, a disgraced financier and convicted sex offender accused of abusing hundreds of women and girls before his death in 2019.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), an author of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the release of the investigative trove, blasted Bondi in a social media video, accusing her of denying the existence of many of the records for months, only to push out “an incomplete release with too many redactions” in response to — and in violation of — the new law.

Khanna said he and the bill’s co-sponsor, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), were “exploring all options” for responding and forcing more disclosures, including by pursuing “the impeachment of people at Justice,” asking courts to hold officials blocking the release in contempt, and “referring for prosecution those who are obstructing justice.”

“We will work with the survivors to demand the full release of these files,” Khanna said.

He later added in a CNN interview that he and Massie were drafting articles of impeachment against Bondi, though they had not decided whether to bring them forward.

Massie, in his own social media post, said Khanna was correct in rejecting the Friday release as insufficient, saying it “grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law.”

The lawmakers’ view that the Justice Department’s document dump failed to comply with the law echoed similar complaints across the political spectrum Saturday, as the full scope of redactions and other withholdings came into focus.

The frustration had already sharply escalated late Friday, after Fox News Digital reported that the names and identifiers of not just victims but of “politically exposed individuals and government officials” had been redacted from the records — which would violate the law, and which Justice Department officials denied.

Among the critics was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who cited the Fox reporting in an exasperated post late Friday to X.

“The whole point was NOT to protect the ‘politically exposed individuals and government officials.’ That’s exactly what MAGA has always wanted, that’s what drain the swamp actually means. It means expose them all, the rich powerful elites who are corrupt and commit crimes, NOT redact their names and protect them,” Greene wrote.

Senior Justice Department officials later called in to Fox News to dispute the report. But the removal of a file published in the Friday evening release, capturing a desk in Epstein’s home with a drawer filled of photos of Trump, reinforced bipartisan concerns that references to the president had been illegally withheld.

In a release of documents from the Epstein family estate by the House Oversight Committee this fall, Trump’s name was featured over 1,000 times — more than any other public figure.

“If they’re taking this down, just imagine how much more they’re trying to hide,” Schumer wrote on X. “This could be one of the biggest coverups in American history.”

Several victims also said the release was insufficient. “It’s really kind of another slap in the face,” Alicia Arden, who went to the police to report that Epstein had abused her in 1997, told CNN. “I wanted all the files to come out, like they said that they were going to.”

Trump, who signed the act into law after having worked to block it from getting a vote, was conspicuously quiet on the matter. In a long speech in North Carolina on Friday night, he did not mention it.

However, White House officials and Justice Department leaders strongly pushed back against the notion that the release was somehow incomplete or out of compliance with the law, or that the names of politicians had been redacted.

“The only redactions being applied to the documents are those required by law — full stop,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. “Consistent with the statute and applicable laws, we are not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are a victim.”

Other Republicans defended the administration. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the House Oversight Committee, said the administration “is delivering unprecedented transparency in the Epstein case and will continue releasing documents.”

Epstein died in a Manhattan jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. He’d been convicted in 2008 of procuring a child for prostitution in Florida, but served only 13 months in custody in what many condemned as a sweetheart plea deal for a well-connected and rich defendant.

Epstein’s crimes have attracted massive attention, including among many within Trump’s own political base, in part because of unanswered questions surrounding which of his many powerful friends may have also been implicated in crimes against children. Some of those questions have swirled around Trump, who was friends with Epstein for years before the two had what the president has described as a falling out.

Evidence has emerged in recent months that suggests Trump may have had knowledge of Epstein’s crimes during their friendship.

Epstein wrote in a 2019 email, released by the House Oversight Committee, that Trump “knew about the girls.” In a 2011 email to Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of conspiring with Epstein to help him sexually abuse girls, Epstein wrote that “the dog that hasn’t barked is trump. [Victim] spent hours at my house with him … he has never once been mentioned.”

Trump has ardently denied any wrongdoing.

The records released Friday contained few if any major new revelations, but did include a complaint against Epstein filed with the FBI back in 1996 — which the FBI did little with, substantiating longstanding fears among Epstein’s victims that his crimes could have been stopped years earlier.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), one of the president’s most consistent critics, wrote on X that Bondi should appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain under oath the extensive redactions and omissions, which he called a “willful violation of the law.”

“The Trump Justice Department has had months to keep their promise to release all of the Epstein Files,” Schiff wrote. “Epstein’s survivors and the American people need answers now.”

Dec. 19 (UPI) — House Democrats said they’re looking into legal options after U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department would release some but not all of the files related to its investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on Friday, missing a congressional deadline.

Blanche, in an appearance on Fox News Friday morning, said the department will release the remaining files “over the next couple of weeks,” citing the length of time it has taken for officials to go through each document and redact the names of victims.

“I expect that we’re going to release several hundred thousand documents today,” he said.

“There’s a lot of eyes looking at these, and we want to make sure that when we do produce the materials that we’re producing, that we’re protecting every single victim.”

President Donald Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed by Congress in November. The law gave the Justice Department 30 days to make the records “publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democratic on the Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said the Justice Department was in violation of federal law by not releasing all documents Friday. In a statement, they accused the Trump administration of covering up facts about the case.

“Courts around the country have repeatedly intervened when this administration has broken the law,” they said in a joint statement.

“We are now examining all legal options in the face of this violation of federal law. The survivors of this nightmare deserve justice, the co-conspirators must be held accountable and the American people deserve complete transparency from DOJ.”

Both chambers of Congress were nearly unanimous in supporting the bill — all but Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., voted in favor of it and five didn’t vote. The bill allowed for the Justice Department to redact the names of victims or information that would hinder active federal investigations. A summary of redactions, including the legal basis, must be provided to Congress.

Earlier in November, Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released some documents, which included emails between Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, who helped Epstein sex traffic girls.

While at least one of the references is somewhat cryptic in its reference to Trump, others more openly appear to discuss what the president knew about Epstein’s scheme to bring women and underage girls to his private island for his friends to sexually abuse.

The committee released more documents Thursday evening, this time 68 photos from Epstein’s private island estate.

Among the high-profile people seen in photos with Epstein were Trump, Republican strategist Steve Bannon, former President Bill Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and filmmaker Woody Allen. All have denied wrongdoing and none has been charged.

Epstein died by suicide in 2019 in a Manhattan prison while awaiting trial.

The Visalia Unified School District’s public board meeting in March was a festive and upbeat affair with a performance by a student chamber music group and a commendation for a high school cheer squad.

When the seven-member board went into closed session, the agenda was decidedly grimmer: Six former students were suing the district over sexual abuse they said they suffered decades earlier at the hands of a kindergarten teacher.

Out of public view, the board unanimously approved a $3-million settlement with provisions intended to keep the community in the dark forever.

Under the terms of the agreement, the women, their lawyers and families were prohibited from disclosing any aspect of the deal, including the amount they were paid.

“The Parties agree that they will respond to any inquiries they may receive from any third parties regarding the lawsuit by stating only that ‘the matter has been resolved’ without any further elaboration, discussion or disclosure,” the settlement instructed.

It was Visalia’s fifth secret settlement in the last three years, one of a flurry that districts are quietly approving statewide.

A Times investigation found that California’s public schools, faced with a historic surge of sex abuse lawsuits, are increasingly using nondisclosure agreements and other tactics that celebrities and big corporations rely upon to protect their reputation.

At least 25 districts have resolved suits or other claims in ways that hinder taxpayers from learning about the allegations, the cost of settling them or both, The Times found. These hidden settlements total more than $53 million. Legal experts say that these settlements may be in violation of state law, and that some should be investigated by the state attorney general.

While shielding the names and identifying details of sex abuse victims is widely accepted, courts have repeatedly said the public has a right to know allegations leveled against government employees and the money spent to compensate accusers.

Lawmakers in California have also largely banned the use of confidentiality provisions for settlements involving sexual assault and harassment, on the belief that transparency helps victims heal and leads to public accountability.

“There’s very significant problems with government agencies acting like private companies and requesting or insisting on these kinds of nondisclosure or non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements,” said David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, based in San Rafael. “Because at the end of the day, the government works for the people and the people have a very compelling interest in knowing about claims and allegations of misconduct.”

California’s school districts are now grappling with a deluge of sex abuse cases resulting from a 2019 law that changed the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse and created a new window — from 2020 to 2022 — in which anyone could file a lawsuit for past alleged abuse.

The Times identified more than 1,000 lawsuits against school districts filed since 2020, with more than 750 filed due to the new law. Some lawsuits allege abuse as far back as the 1950s. Most cases are still making their way through the courts, but more than 330 have settled for roughly $700 million, with $435 million paid out for claims related to the new law. The state projects that local education agencies will ultimately pay out between $2 billion and $3 billion once cases work through the court system. Much of this is taking place outside the public eye.

In Visalia, confidentiality clauses negotiated by district lawyers acknowledged the public’s right to obtain the information — and then attempted to make sure they never would. Four agreements specifically barred former students receiving secret payouts from “directly or indirectly” encouraging others to file a request under the state Public Records Act — the method The Times used to review copies of agreements referenced in this story.

A spokesperson for Visalia Unified declined an interview request, and the school district did not answer written questions.

Anaheim Union High School District paid three men, who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher, $3.3 million in 2023.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Several districts attempted to prevent allegations from becoming public by paying off accusers before they filed lawsuits that would have detailed the claims of sex abuse for anyone to see.

Anaheim Union High School District paid a trio of men who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher $3.3 million in 2023 after their attorney sent the district a draft of a lawsuit he said he was prepared to file in Superior Court.

The terms of the payout two years ago required that the men and their lawyers “not seek publicity relating to the facts and circumstances giving rise” to their claims, and indeed, the settlements have not been previously reported.

John Bautista, a spokesperson for Anaheim Union, said in a statement that the district and its insurer settled the draft lawsuits after going through discovery in a related case and “did not want to incur additional expenses of filing a lawsuit.”

“Nothing in the agreement would prevent the claimant/plaintiff from speaking with the press concerning the facts of the case if the press contacted [them],” Bautista said.

At least one district paid an accuser before anything was put in writing, records show. Victor Elementary School District in the High Desert negotiated a $350,000 settlement with one former student after his lawyer relayed abuse allegations in a phone call. Asked by The Times for a document describing the claimed misconduct, a district official said no such records existed.

Some districts suggest the confidentiality restrictions are needed to avoid a “snowball effect” of further litigation.

San Diego Unified, hit by more than a dozen lawsuits over alleged sex abuse since 2020, has settled four for a total of $2.44 million, each with a confidentiality clause that, at a minimum, prevents the accuser or her lawyer from disclosing the settlement amount. One of the settlements blocks the accuser from discussing the matter with anyone except her lawyer or financial advisor or in response to a subpoena.

San Diego officials acknowledged that confidentiality is ultimately limited — the documents can be disclosed via public records requests — but the district proceeded with pursuing restrictions on the accusers and their representatives.

“The purpose is to keep plaintiffs’ lawyers from using these settlements as marketing tools,” said James Canning, a spokesman for San Diego Unified.

Former state Sen. Connie Leyva, seen here while in the Legislature in 2019, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions. “That sounds illegal,” Leyva said.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Efforts to curb the use of secret settlements gained momentum in the 1980s, with growing public awareness of how confidentiality agreements had kept the public in the dark about environmental or health hazards, such as asbestos.

In 2016, California prohibited settlement agreements that block the disclosure of factual information about sexual abuse or any sex offense that could be prosecuted as a felony.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, lawmakers in 2018 passed the STAND Act, which prohibits nondisclosure agreements in sexual harassment, discrimination and other sexual assault cases that don’t rise to felony prosecution. Three years later, the Silenced No More Act widened the prohibition on nondisclosure agreements to include any harassment case. The law still gives victims the option to protect their identity.

The lead sponsor of both bills, former state Sen. Connie Leyva, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions.

“That sounds illegal,” said Leyva, now the executive director of public radio and TV station KVCR. “We did not speak specifically about children or about schools, but it shouldn’t be happening.” She added, “Our bill was meant to apply to everyone everywhere.”

Several settlement agreements obtained by The Times included caveats by stating they were “confidential to the extent allowed by law,” or contained similar carve-outs. Experts said such provisos still have the effect of muzzling a victim’s speech and hindering public accountability.

“While it’s possible that these work-arounds don’t violate the letter of the STAND Act, they certainly violate its spirit,” said Nora Freeman Engstrom, a professor at Stanford Law School, who co-authored a study on the effect of the STAND Act in L.A. courts.

Southern Kern Unified School District agreed to pay $600,000 to a former student who alleged sex abuse and included an acknowledgment of the STAND Act in the agreement. Still, the settlement bars the former student, Corey Neufer, from “actively” publicizing the deal.

Reached by phone, Neufer said that although he deliberately chose to sue under his own name, rather than as John Doe, he was told that the confidentiality provision was standard and necessary for the final settlement.

“That was one of the stipulations — that I don’t speak about it or give any details,” said Neufer, who indicated the confidentiality was far broader than the text of his settlement suggests. “My lawyer instructed me to not talk about the case.”

The STAND Act allows for plaintiffs or claimants to put language in a settlement agreement that shields their identity and disclosure of any facts that could lead to their identity. However, if a public official or government agency — such as a school district — is part of the settlement, that language cannot be included.

Of the dozens of settlements reviewed by The Times, two specifically noted that the accuser wanted confidentiality to shield their identity.

Several had restrictions that appeared to exceed the STAND Act, such as a 2024 settlement for $787,500 paid by Ceres Unified to a custodian who said she was sexually harassed by a colleague. The signed agreement states that the settlement, its terms and any belief that the district or its employees engaged in unlawful behavior were all confidential. If asked, the custodian could only say, “The matter has been resolved.”

David Viss, an assistant superintendent at Ceres Unified, said in an email that the agreement complied with the law: “We believe the settlement agreement is consistent with the STAND Act.”

The overwhelming majority of sex abuse cases filed against school districts reach a settlement. For districts, a settlement can be more cost-effective than mounting a legal defense through a jury trial, and unlike a panel of jurors, a settlement provides a level of fiscal certainty. At times, the decision to settle is driven less by school board members than an insurance company or liability coverage provider.

John Manly, whose law firm specializes in childhood sex abuse, said school districts and their insurance providers frequently ask for confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses when negotiating a payout.

Lawyer John Manly, seen at his law offices in Irvine in 2023, has represented sex abuse survivors for more than 20 years. He says that confidentiality agreements “benefit one person, which is the perpetrator, and those who enable them.”

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“We get these requests all the time, and we decline,” Manly said. “Confidentiality agreements benefit one person, which is the perpetrator, and those who enable them.”

At Los Angeles Unified School District, scores of people accused former San Fernando High School wrestling coach Terry Gillard of abuse. In 2022, LAUSD agreed to pay 23 accusers a total of $52 million to settle molestation and abuse claims — a settlement negotiated by Manly’s law firm.

A year later, LAUSD agreed to pay three other women who alleged abuse by Gillard a total of $7.5 million.

Although those represented by Manly’s team did not have a confidentiality or non-disparagement agreement in their settlement, LAUSD sought an extensive confidentiality agreement for the payout to the three other women, curtailing discussion of the settlement and underlying abuse claims.

That settlement barred their lawyer from making any sort of statement — or encouraging others to make a statement — about the compensation deal, and barred comments that could “defame, disparage or in any way criticize” LAUSD, its employees and leaders.

Only the women, their lawyer, “immediate family” and “tax professional” could know about the settlement, according to the agreement.

“If asked about the status of this dispute, plaintiffs counsel may only state, ‘they have voluntarily and fully resolved their claims against the Los Angeles Unified School District,’ or words to that effect,” declares the settlement agreement.

The lawyer for the women, Anthony DeMarco, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Manly said the State Bar of California should investigate lawyers on both sides who agree to language that they know conflicts with state law. And he called on Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to investigate school districts that continue to lock victims into such restrictive agreements.

“It’s wrong. It’s bad for the community and it’s bad for the victim. The lawyers that do it — defense and plaintiff — should be ashamed of themselves.”

L.A. Unified, which has added confidentiality provisions in at least seven settlements since 2020, defended its practices as a way to amicably resolve litigation, according to a statement from a spokesperson.

“These settlement agreements keep the settlement details, such as the amount, confidential. They do not prohibit the disclosure of the facts behind the claims,” the LAUSD spokesperson said.

Some legal experts want Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to investigate school districts that continue to lock victims into restrictive nondisclosure agreements.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

While several districts use secrecy provisions in settlement agreements to hide the details of sex abuse cases, others, like Visalia Unified, also are able to keep payouts quiet by approving them in closed session at regular school board meetings.

In 2021, the president of the board of Wasco Union High School District received a letter from a lawyer based in Iowa who represented a former Wasco student. The lawyer said his client had been sexually abused nearly a decade earlier by her former coach and teacher, and accused her then-principal, Kevin Tallon, among others, of not taking appropriate steps when confronted with evidence of abuse.

Tallon, now Wasco’s superintendent, was named as a defendant in the draft lawsuit, and the lawyer included a copy. He gave the district 14 business days to respond.

“If I do not hear back from you, I will proceed with the lawsuit,” wrote the lawyer, Thomas Burke.

The letter touched off a negotiation that culminated at the Wasco school board’s final meeting of 2021. The meeting’s agenda for the closed session was circumspect: “Conference with Legal Counsel — Settlement Agreement.” But behind closed doors, the board voted 5 to 0 to approve a settlement, according to meeting minutes, ensuring that there would probably never be a public airing of the allegations against the teacher or superintendent. The meeting minutes reflect only that a settlement was approved — not the amount or nature of the abuse accusations. The district paid $475,000 in the settlement, a sum that The Times obtained via records request.

Tallon, the superintendent who was named in the draft lawsuit, declined an interview but provided written responses to questions. He said the district and its staff “fulfilled its duties diligently and with integrity,” and said the settlement was approved in a way that adhered to the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.

“The settlement was not intended to conceal allegations; it was meant to responsibly limit risk and bring closure to a sensitive situation,” Tallon said in the statement.

Legal experts agreed that Wasco’s school board complied with the Brown Act — thereby exposing that law’s limits and potential loopholes. Since the threat of litigation did not result in a filed case or formal claim, the board could treat it as “anticipated litigation” and discuss it in closed session, away from the public. And since settlement offers — like any contract negotiation — are not final until agreed upon, they too can be approved in closed session, away from the public.

Loy, the legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said the Brown Act could be amended to proactively require public agencies to ultimately disclose the details and amounts of settlements. School districts, he added, could also opt to be more open, without being compelled to by state lawmakers.

“Agencies owe a duty to the public to be more proactive and more transparent, even than the bare minimum letter of the law might allow them to get away with,” Loy said.

The lack of transparency also coincides with a crisis in local news, which has resulted in far less coverage of city halls, courthouses and school boards from the Imperial Valley to the shores of Eureka.

At one time, newspapers big and small had reporters at school board meetings who probably would have noticed settlements on the agenda and submitted records requests to reveal them.

With local media absent, agencies have quietly approved settlements in closed session, with no watchdog to suss out the underlying facts.

“Diligent people or reporters know to do that: Please give me copies of every settlement approved this week or this month,” said Loy, the First Amendment Coalition’s legal director. “But that requires an extra step.”

Ousted former President Yoon Suk Yeol on Thursday apologized to key military commanders who are standing trial for their involvement in his failed martial law bid, defending their action as the result of compliance with his orders.

Yoon made the remarks at a martial law trial against the commanders at the military court in central Seoul, which he attended as a witness. Defendants included Kwak Jong-keun, former chief of the Army Special Warfare Command; Yeo In-hyung, former head of the Defense Counterintelligence Command; and Lee Jin-woo, former head of the Capital Defense Command.

“It is pitiful to see senior military and police officials whom I know appear at the court,” Yoon said.

“I feel very sorry as they are people who did what they have to do upon my decision,” he said, adding he prayed late into the night after returning to the detention center following trials.

During Thursday’s trial, Yoon reiterated that he had no intention of maintaining martial law for an extended period and that the declaration was aimed only at exposing the “blatant” behavior of the then main opposition party.

“The martial law was imposed to raise an alarm bell to the public on the country’s perilous situation,” the former president said. “I was thinking that it would last half a day, or a day at the most.”

Yoon said he did not instruct any official, other than former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, to review or prepare for the imposition of martial law.

The then opposition party’s drive to impeach the state auditor chief on the night before the martial law imposition became the “decisive trigger” for him to instruct for preparations for martial law, he claimed.

Speaking on a recent reshuffle of officials dispatched to the Defense Counterintelligence Command, Yoon said institutions pivotal to national security should not be neutralized due to their involvement in the martial law bid.

Yoon’s appearance at the military court, located within the defense ministry compound that also houses the presidential office, marked his first visit to his former office compound in about a year. It also came on his 65th birthday.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Dec. 17 (UPI) — The government of President Rodrigo Paz said it will push to revise Bolivia’s legal framework for coca leaf cultivation after official data showed that planted areas exceed authorized limits and continue to expand.

According to the 2024 Coca Crop Monitoring Report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, presented in La Paz, Bolivia ended 2024 with about 34,000 hectares of coca crops, a 10% increase from the previous year.

That figure exceeds by 12,000 hectares the cap set by the 2017 General Law of Coca, which authorizes 22,000 hectares for legal cultivation.

Coca leaf is recognized in Bolivia’s Constitution for traditional, medicinal and cultural uses, but part of the production is diverted to cocaine manufacturing, the report said.

Earlier this month, the World Health Organization decided to keep coca leaf on its list of controlled substances, citing the risk to public health posed by its easy conversion into cocaine.

Against that backdrop, the Office on Drugs and Crime urged the Paz administration to strengthen control strategies, particularly in protected areas, and to update data on domestic demand for licit consumption.

Vice Minister for Social Defense and Controlled Substances Ernesto Justiniano said the government plans to amend the law, but said new parameters will depend on a fresh study to determine how much coca is needed for traditional use in Bolivia, according to local newspaper El Deber.

“Bolivia has more coca than it needs for traditional uses. Crops have not stayed at 22,000 hectares. By 2024, they were at 34,000, and in the next report, we will probably be close to 40,000 hectares because very little was eradicated this year — barely 1,700 hectares,” Justiniano said.

He said he recalled a study released in 2013 estimated that 14,700 hectares were sufficient for legal consumption, but that the limit was raised to 22,000 hectares in 2017 — a decision the new government now questions as lacking “technical justification,” the outlet ERBOL reported.

At the same time, the government said the eradication of illegal coca crops will again become a central pillar of its anti-drug strategy, with a focus on what it calls surplus production feeding drug trafficking.

To prepare the new study on domestic demand for coca leaf, authorities said they will invite representatives from coca-growing groups, academic institutions and other sectors to ensure transparency of the data.

Officials expect that once the findings are released, negotiations will begin with coca growers from the Chapare, a coca-producing region in central Bolivia.

Justiniano said farmers there blocked eradication efforts this year, mainly in the tropical Cochabamba region, an area widely regarded as the political stronghold of former President Evo Morales.

Republicans and Democrats squared off in court Monday in a high-stakes battle over the fate of California’s Proposition 50, which reconfigures the state’s congressional districts and could ultimately help determine which party controls the U.S. House in the 2026 midterms.

Dozens of California politicians and Sacramento insiders — from GOP Assembly members to Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell — have been called to testify in a Los Angeles federal courtroom over the next few days.

The GOP wants the three-judge panel to temporarily block California’s new district map, claiming it is unconstitutional and illegally favors Latino voters.

An overwhelming majority of California voters approved Prop. 50 on Nov. 4 after Gov. Gavin Newsom pitched the redistricting plan as a way to counter partisan gerrymandering in Texas and other GOP-led states. Democrats admitted the new map would weaken Republicans’ voting power in California, but argued it would just be a temporary measure to try to restore national political balance.

Attorneys for the GOP cannot challenge the new redistricting map on the grounds that it disenfranchises swaths of California Republicans. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that complaints of partisan gerrymandering have no path in federal court.

But the GOP can bring claims of racial discrimination. They argue California legislators drew the new congressional maps based on race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment, which prohibits governments from denying citizens the right to vote based on race or color.

On Monday, attorneys for the GOP began by homing in on the new map’s Congressional District 13, which currently encompasses Merced, Stanislaus, and parts of San Joaquin and Fresno counties, along with parts of Stockton.

When Mitchell drew up the map, they argued, he over-represented Latino voters as a “predominant consideration” over political leanings.

They called to the stand RealClearPolitics elections analyst Sean Trende, who said he observed an “appendage” in the new District 13, which extended partially into the San Joaquin Valley and put a crack in the new rendition of District 9.

“From my experience [appendages] are usually indicative of racial gerrymandering,” Trende said. “When the choice came between politics and race, it was race that won out.”

Republicans face an uphill struggle in blocking the new map before the 2026 midterms. The hearing comes just a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas to temporarily keep its new congressional map — a move that Newsom’s office says bodes poorly for Republicans trying to block California’s map.

“In letting Texas use its gerrymandered maps, the Supreme Court noted that California’s maps, like Texas’s, were drawn for lawful reasons,” Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, said in a statement. “That should be the beginning and the end of this Republican effort to silence the voters of California.”

In Texas, GOP leaders drew up new congressional district lines after President Trump openly pressed them to give Republicans five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. A federal court blocked the map, finding racial considerations likely made the Texas map unconstitutional. But a few days later the Supreme Court granted Texas’ request to pause that ruling, signaling they view the Texas case, and this one in California, as part of a national politically-motivated redistricting battle.

“The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California),” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued, “was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

The fact that the Supreme Court order and Alito’s concurrence in the Texas case went out of their way to mention California is not a good sign for California Republicans, said Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

“It’s hard to prove racial predominance in drawing a map — that race predominated over partisanship or other traditional districting principles,” Hasen said. “Trying to get a preliminary injunction, there’s a higher burden now, because it would be changing things closer to the election, and the Supreme Court signaled in that Texas ruling that courts should be wary of making changes.”

Many legal scholars argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Texas case means California will likely keep its new map.

“It was really hard before the Texas case to make a racial gerrymandering claim like the plaintiffs were stating, and it’s only gotten harder in the last two weeks,” said Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Marymount University.

Hours after Californians voted in favor of Prop. 50 on Nov. 4, Assemblymember David J. Tangipa (R-Fresno) and the California Republican Party filed a lawsuit alleging that the map enacted in Prop. 50 for California’s congressional districts is designed to favor Latino voters over others.

The Department of Justice also filed a complaint in the case, arguing the new congressional map uses race as a proxy for politics and manipulated district lines “in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.”

Mitchell, the redistricting expert who drew up the maps, is likely to be a key figure in this week’s battle. In the days leading up to the hearing, attorneys sparred over whether Mitchell would testify and whether he should turn over his email correspondence with legislators. Mitchell’s attorneys argued he had legislative privilege.

Attorneys for the GOP have seized on public comments made by Mitchell that the “number one thing” he started thinking about” was “drawing a replacement Latino majority/minority district in the middle of Los Angeles” and the “first thing” he and his team did was “reverse” the California Citizens Redistricting Commission’s earlier decision to eliminate a Latino district from L.A.

Some legal experts, however, say that is not, in itself, a problem.

“What [Mitchell] said was, essentially, ‘I paid attention to race,’” Levitt said. “But there’s nothing under existing law that’s wrong with that. The problem comes when you pay too much attention to race at the exclusion of all of the other redistricting factors.”

Other legal experts argue that what matters is not the intent of Mitchell or California legislators, but the California voters who passed Prop. 50.

“Regardless of what Paul Mitchell or legislative leaders thought, they were just making a proposal to the voters,” said Hasen, who filed an amicus brief in support of the state. “So it’s really the voters’ intent that matters. And if you look at what was actually presented to the voters in the ballot pamphlet, there was virtually nothing about race there.”

IF you’ve ever fancied the high-life of a celebrity, you can do exactly that at this hotel, and even book it with TUI.

For a classy stay, The Santa Catalina, a Royal Hideaway Hotel is just a few streets away from the Marina Las Palmas in Gran Canaria.

Tucked away behind the Atis Tirma, the hotel is a 19th century building and inside there are high ceilings and huge chandeliers.

With its grandeur, there’s not much surprise that it’s been a hideaway retreat for celebrities and even royals.

Over the years, the hotel has welcomed guests like Brad Pitt, Sir Winston Churchill and the Spanish royal family.

Most recently, The Holiday star Jude Law was staying there while he had been filming in Gran Canaria.

SNOW WAY

All the best Xmas days out under £10 including FREE ice skating & Santa’s grotto

CHRIMBO WIN

Enter these travel comps before Xmas to win £2k holidays, ski trips & spa stays

While it’s a simple stay, you still have all the essentials like swimming pools.

In fact, the hotel has two pools, one outdoor tucked away in a pretty garden – and it has a sun terrace with sunbeds and parasols.

When you get thirsty or a little peckish, pop over to the outdoor bar.

Inside the spa is a heated pool, whirlpool, sauna and plenty of treatments to enjoy like sea salt and vanilla oil peels, facials and massages.

Those who booked a junior suite at the hotel can enjoy use of the infinity pool.

The hotel’s main buffet is in the Doramas restaurant, but it’s by no means basic as you can enjoy a ‘Royal Breakfast’ and watch live show-cooking.

Poemas Restaurant is the à la carte eatery serving up gourmet meals, MuXgo is a green Michelin star restaurant where guests can dine on classic Canarian dishes.

For smaller bites, there’s the Camarote snack bar as well as the Carabela bar and Alis rooftop bar – an exclusive bar with cocktail service and an infinity pool.

If you fancy a bit of entertainment while you’re there then there will be a live piano playing from Monday to Saturday and a singer on Sundays.

When it comes to activities, next door is a tennis court which guests are welcome to use at an extra cost.

Rooms range from Deluxe Double Rooms which have a neo-classical design up to the suite, which has a separate bedroom and living space as well as a bathroom with a tub and rain shower.

Packages can be on a Bed and Breakfast or Half Board basis.

You can book a stay with TUI and lowest price for a family of four during 2026 is in April where a seven night stay will cost £958pp – including flights from London Luton with easyJet.

One writer explore the quieter side of Gran Canaria…

Writer Alex Cohen explored Gran Canaria, and here’s what they discovered…

“Ain’t life Gran-d! Well it is when you’re far from the madding crowd, soaking up the silence in the middle of an island more famed for popular beach resorts.

“The south of the volcanic island has mile after mile of beaches full of hotels and holiday apartments. But we’ve come off the beaten track to explore the hidden delights.

“There are more than 300 days of sunshine a year here and you really could do something different on each of those days.

“There are almost as many different landscapes too, thanks to the microclimates of every soaring volcano, ravine and valley brought in by the trade winds.

“As we climbed up from the coast, the many faces of the second biggest of the Canary Islands showed themselves. Swirls of mist-cloaked mountains gave way to desert-like fields and green forests.

“Around one hairpin bend, it looked like the Grand Canyon, with the light disappearing down sheer cliff faces into deep rocky ravines.

“Round the next and suddenly we were in a Breaking Bad-style desert with cactus and not much else growing. Down into the next valley and we could have been in the Caribbean with palm trees guarding the lush vegetation.

“Once you get into the interior of the island there’s an array of things to do; hiking on mountain trails, village markets with local crafts, UNESCO heritage sites, laurel forests or even walking through a National Park.

“Go rock climbing around the Pico de los Pozos de la Nieve, the island’s highest point at nearly 2,000m. Or perhaps cycling — on or off-road — or visit the island’s botanical gardens, ancient cobbled villages, vineyards or the old town in the soulful and lively capital Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.”

For more celebrity holiday hotspots, check out the waterpark hotel where Stacey Solomon went on holiday with Blue Flag beach and unique ice fountain.

Plus the UK hotel which attracts famous celebrity guests & makes holidaymakers ‘feel like they’re abroad’.

Dec. 12 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has voiced support for reclassifying cannabis and making it a legally obtainable drug — possibly as soon as next week.

The president might sign an executive order to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug as soon as Monday, accordingto CNBC, but no later than early next year, Axios reported.

Trump has a team examining the matter, but no decision has been made as of Friday morning.

The president also met with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., earlier this week to discuss the matter and is considering signing an executive order compelling federal agencies to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug.

The federal government currently has cannabis classified as a Schedule I drug with no known medical uses and a strong potential for abuse and dependency, as defined by the Controlled Substances Act.

Other drugs similarly classified include LSD, heroin and MDMA.

A Schedule III drug is one with recognized medicinal use and a low potential for abuse and dependency. Examples include ketamine, opioids and anabolic steroids, all of which require prescriptions to obtain legally.

Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Agency, with assistance from the Health and Human Services Department, mostly determine how various drugs are scheduled by the federal government.

The push for reclassification of cannabis comes as more U.S. adults are using cannabis, while moving away from alcohol and tobacco products.

Reclassifying cannabis would not make marijuana legal for recreational use, but it would become legal for medicinal purposes and require a prescription.

Reclassification also would make it legal for cannabis producers to transport their products between states and enable federally chartered banks to process financial transactions related to legal cannabis sales.

Cannabis producers and retailers also could benefit from federal tax breaks.

News of a potential change in federal cannabis laws and enforcement boosted related stocks on Friday.

Cannabis stocks surged upward upon the prospect of cannabis becoming a legally obtainable substance at the federal level, in addition to respective states that have enacted recreational or medical marijuana laws, and many times both.

Several cannabis stocks posted respective gains ranging from more than 10% to about 35% during trading on Friday, CNBC reported.

Two dozen states, three U.S. territories and the District ofColumbia have legalized the medicinal and recreational use of cannabis, and a recent Gallup poll showed 64% or respondents support legalization, according to Axios.

At the federal level, the House of Representatives briefly considered decriminalizing cannabis during President Trump’s first term in office but delayed the matter until after the 2020 general election.

Legalization also could lessen the profit potential for drug cartels, which spurred Colombian President GustavoPetro in March to urge the Colombian Congress to legalize cannabis.

He said the nation’s continued prohibition against cannabis “only brings violence” among its drug cartels.

United States President Donald Trump has said that the US has seized a sanctioned oil tanker close to the coast of Venezuela, in a move that has caused oil prices to spike and further escalates tensions with Caracas.

“We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela, large tanker, very large, largest one ever, actually, and other things are happening,” Trump said on Wednesday.

The Venezuelan government called the move an act of “international piracy”, and “blatant theft”.

This comes as the US expands its military operations in the region, where it has been carrying out air strikes on at least 21 suspected drug-trafficking vessels since September. The Trump administration has provided no evidence that these boats were carrying drugs, however.

Here is what we know about the seizure of the Venezuelan tanker:

What happened?

The US said it intercepted and seized a large oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, marking the first operation of its kind in years.

The last comparable US military seizure of a foreign tanker occurred in 2014, when US Navy SEALs boarded the Morning Glory off Cyprus as Libyan rebels attempted to sell stolen crude oil.

The Trump administration did not identify the vessel or disclose the precise location of the operation.

However, Bloomberg reported that officials had described the ship as a “stateless vessel” and said it had been docked in Venezuela.

Soon after announcing the latest operation on Wednesday, US Attorney General Pam Bondi released a video showing two helicopters approaching a vessel and armed personnel in camouflage rappelling onto its deck.

“Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations and the United States Coast Guard, with support from the Department of War, executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran,” Bondi said.

She added that “for multiple years, the oil tanker has been sanctioned by the United States due to its involvement in an illicit oil-shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organisations”.

Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, and the United States Coast Guard, with support from the Department of War, executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran. For multiple… pic.twitter.com/dNr0oAGl5x

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) December 10, 2025

Experts said the method of boarding demonstrated in the video is standard practice for US forces.

“The Navy, Coast Guard and special forces all have special training for this kind of mission, called visit, board, search, and seizure – or VBSS,” Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Al Jazeera.

“It is routine, especially for the Coast Guard. The government said it was a Coast Guard force doing the seizure, though the helicopter looks like a Navy SH-60S.”

Which vessel was seized?

According to a Reuters report, British maritime risk firm Vanguard identified the crude carrier Skipper as the vessel seized early Wednesday off Venezuela’s coast.

MarineTraffic lists the Skipper as a very large crude carrier measuring 333m (1,093 feet) in length and 60m (197 feet) in width.

The tanker was sanctioned in 2022 for allegedly helping to transport oil for the Lebanese armed group, Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, and Iran’s Quds Force.

The Skipper departed Venezuela’s main oil terminal at Jose between December 4 and 5 after loading about 1.8 million barrels of Merey crude, a heavy, high-sulphur blend produced in Venezuela.

“I assume we’re going to keep the oil,” President Trump said on Wednesday.

Before the seizure, the tanker had transferred roughly 200,000 barrels near Curacao to the Panama-flagged Neptune 6, which was headed for Cuba, according to satellite data analysed by TankerTrackers.com.

According to shipping data from Venezuela’s state-owned oil and gas company Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the vessel also transported Venezuelan crude to Asia in 2021 and 2022.

Where did the seizure take place?

The US said it seized the oil tanker in the Caribbean Sea.

US officials have said the action occurred near Venezuelan territorial waters, though they have not provided precise coordinates.

MarineTraffic data shows the vessel’s tracker still located in the Caribbean.

Is the US action legal?

Cancian noted that “seizing sanctioned items is common inside a country’s own territory. It is unusual in international waters”.

He added: “Russia has hundreds of sanctioned tankers sailing today, but they have not been boarded.”

Experts say it is unclear whether the seizure was legal, partly because many details about it have not been made public.

Still, the US could make use of various arguments to justify the seizure if needs be.

One is that the boat is regarded as stateless. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ships need “a nationality”.

The government of Guyana, Venezuela’s neighbour, said the Skipper was “falsely flying the Guyana flag”, adding that it is not registered in the country.

If a vessel flies a flag it is not registered under, or refuses to show any flag at all, states have the “right of visit”, allowing their officials to stop and inspect the ship on the high seas – essentially meaning international waters.

If doubts about a ship’s nationality remain after checking its documents, a more extensive search can follow.

In previous enforcement actions against sanctioned ships, the US has seized not the ship itself but the oil on board. In 2020, it confiscated fuel from four tankers allegedly carrying Iranian oil to Venezuela.

US law also allows the Coast Guard, which carried out this operation, to conduct searches and seizures on the high seas in order to enforce US laws, stating that it “may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas” to prevent and suppress violations.

But some legal experts argue that the US has overstepped, as it “has no jurisdiction to enforce unilateral sanctions on non-US persons outside its territory”, according to Francisco Rodriguez, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

Rodriguez said the US is relying on maritime rules for stateless vessels “as an entryway to justify enforcing US sanctions outside of US territory”.

“To the extent that the US is able to continue to do so, it could significantly increase the cost of doing business with Venezuela and precipitate a deepening of the country’s economic recession,” he warned in a CEPR article.

The US has no jurisdiction to enforce unilateral sanctions on non-US persons outside its territory. The seizure of ships in international waters to extraterritorially enforce US sanctions is a dangerous precedent and a violation of international law.

— Francisco Rodríguez (@frrodriguezc) December 10, 2025

How has Venezuela responded to the seizure?

Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry stated that “the true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been exposed”.

“It is not migration, it is not drug trafficking, it is not democracy, it is not human rights – it was always about our natural resources, our oil, our energy, the resources that belong exclusively to the Venezuelan people,” the statement said.

The ministry described the incident as an “act of piracy.”

The government added that it will appeal to “all” international bodies to denounce the incident and vowed to defend its sovereignty, natural resources, and national dignity with “absolute determination”.

“Venezuela will not allow any foreign power to attempt to take from the Venezuelan people what belongs to them by historical and constitutional right,” it said.

What are the potential consequences for Venezuela’s oil exports?

Experts say the seizure could produce short-term uncertainty for Venezuelan oil exports, largely because “this has been the first time [the United States has]… seized a shipment of Venezuelan oil”, Carlos Eduardo Pina, a Venezuelan political scientist, told Al Jazeera.

That may make shippers hesitate, though the broader impact is limited, Pina said, since “the US allows the Chevron company to continue extracting Venezuelan oil”, and US group Chevron holds a special waiver permitting it to produce and export crude despite wider sanctions.

Chevron, which operates joint ventures with PDVSA, said its operations in Venezuela remain normal and continue without disruption.

The US oil major, which is currently responsible for all Venezuelan crude exports to the US, increased shipments last month to 150,000 barrels per day (bopd), up from 128,000 bpd in October.

Inside Venezuela, Pina warned the move could spark financial panic, however: “It could instil fear, trigger a currency run… and worsen the humanitarian crisis.”

How will this affect US-Venezuela relations?

Diplomatically, Pina said he views the action as a political message to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, noting its timing – “the same day that [opposition leader] Maria Corina Machado was awarded the Nobel Prize” – and calling it “a gesture of strength… to remind that [the US is present in the Latin American region].”

Maduro has long argued that the Trump administration’s strikes on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific are not, in fact, aimed at preventing drug running, but are part of a plan to effect regime change in Venezuela. Trump has authorised CIA operations in Venezuela and has given conflicting messages about whether he would consider a land invasion.

Analysts see this latest action as part of a broader strategy to pressure the Maduro government.

“This is certainly an escalation designed to put additional pressure on the Maduro regime, causing it to fracture internally or convincing Maduro to leave,” said Cancian.

“It is part of a series of US actions such as sending the Ford to the Caribbean, authorising the CIA to move against the Maduro regime, and conducting flybys with bombers and, recently, F-18s.”

Cancian added that the broader meaning of the operation depends on what comes next.

“The purpose also depends on whether the US seizes additional tankers,” he said. “In that case, this looks like a blockade of Venezuela. Because Venezuela depends so heavily on oil revenue, it could not withstand such a blockade for long.”

The U.S. Navy may soon be required by law to only consider designs built from the keel up to sail without a crew ever being on board for at least its first batch of Modular Surface Attack Craft (MASC). The service wants to acquire a new family of larger uncrewed surface vessels readily configurable for surveillance and reconnaissance, strike, and other missions using modular payloads through the MASC program. Being able to dispense with features necessary for even optional human operation does offer potential benefits, especially when it comes to cost and production at scale.

A provision explicitly about the MASC program is contained in the most recent draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act, which the House Armed Services Committee released this past weekend. The legislation, which is a compromise between previous House and Senate versions of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2026, could now be put to a vote as early as this week.

The MASC provision contained in the current version of the bill is brief but to the point. It stipulates that “the Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a contract or other agreement that includes a scope of work, including priced or unpriced options, for the construction, advance procurement, or long-lead material for Modular Attack Surface Craft Block 0 until the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that such vessels will be purpose-built unmanned vessels engineered to operate without human support systems or operational requirements intended for crewed vessels.”

The Navy laid out a host of details regarding its plans for MASC this past summer, including initial requirements for a baseline design, as well as high-capacity and single-payload types, all of which you can read more about here. As mentioned, the Navy is primarily looking to configure MASC drone ships to conduct surveillance and reconnaissance and strike missions. The service has also expressed an interest in unspecified capabilities to counter adversary intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting activities. As TWZ has previously noted, stated power generation requirements could also be particularly relevant for any plans to integrate laser or high-power microwave directed energy weapons, as well as electronic warfare suites, onto future members of the MASC family.

For years now, the Navy has been using optionally crewed vessels to help lay the groundwork for future fleets of medium and large uncrewed surface vessels (MUSV/LUSV). This has included the test-firing of a containerized missile launcher from one of those ships, as seen in the video below.

The MASC program reflects a larger shift in focus away from those previous efforts, which were defined primarily by very rigid length and displacement requirements. Modular, containerized payloads, rather than specific hull designs, are central to the new MASC concept.

The Navy has also been fielding a growing number of speed boat and jet ski-type USV designs through programs separate from MASC.

As mentioned, USVs that are designed from the outset to only sail in an uncrewed mode offer benefits when it comes to development, production, and operational employment. They do not need berthing space, galleys, toilets, or any other features needed to support human personnel on board. All of this, in turn, can allow for more radical design decisions optimized for the performance of the missions, as well as help reduce overall complexity and cost. This can further translate into USVs that are faster and easier to produce in larger quantities.

With all this in mind, the Navy has already been openly talking about moving away from optionally-crewed designs for MASC.

“When you introduce that capability to operate with people on board, it creates a lot of other requirements and cost and complications,” Navy Capt. Matt Lewis, program manager of the Unmanned Maritime Systems program office within Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), told USNI News on the sidelines of an event back in August. “The [MASC] solicitation that went out for industry… it was open, and we are eager to get proposals as we review them, to look at the proposals that don’t have people on board.”

“We definitely want unmanned. Period. I mean, it’s that simple,” Navy Capt. Garrett Miller, commander of Surface Development Group One (SURFDEVGRU), also said at that time.

SURFDEVGRU is currently a focal point within the Navy for work on operationalizing USV capabilities and has two unmanned surface vessel squadrons assigned to it. The Group also oversees the two Zumwalt class stealth destroyers that the Navy has in service now. The third ship in that class, the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson, is also set to be assigned to the unit.

Larger USVs intended to sail for protracted periods without even a skeleton crew on board to provide immediate maintenance and other support do also present certain challenges. These vessels have to be highly reliable and be capable of at least a certain degree of safe autonomous operation in areas that could be full of other ships. How force protection might be ensured, especially during more independent operations, is an open question, too.

Underscoring all of this, the recently release draft NDAA for Fiscal Year 2026 includes a separate provision that would prevent the Secretary of the Navy from awarding “a detail design or construction contract or other agreement, or obligate funds from a procurement account, for a covered [medium and large USV] program unless such contract or other agreement includes a requirement for an operational demonstration of not less than 720 continuous hours without preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance, emergent repair, or any other form of repair or maintenance,” for a variety of key systems. It would also block the Navy from accepting delivery of any “articles” produced under any such contract or agreement before the successful conclusion of that operational demonstration.

The Navy has already been cooperating with the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on a program specifically intended to prove new USV capabilities with a demonstrator designed from the start to operate without humans ever being on board. The Defiant drone ship that was developed for DARPA’s Manning Required Ship (NOMARS) effort, also known as the USX-1, kicked off an extended at-sea trial in September that has included a demonstration of its ability to be refueled at sea using a system that does not require personnel to be present on the receiving side. You can read more about the Defiant, which prime contractor Serco also developed to be a lower-cost and readily producible design, here.

USX-1 Defiant fueling at sea demonstration

USX-1 Defiant begins at-sea demonstration

The stated plan is for Defiant to be transferred to SURFDEVGRU after DARPA’s testing with the ship wraps up. The Navy has said that it sees the vessel, which is also designed around carrying containerized mission payloads, as a key technology ‘feeder’ into the MASC effort. Prime contractor Serco has already been developing an enlarged derivative, currently called the Dauntless, as well.

Other companies are already lining up to compete for future MASC contracts, including Eureka Naval Craft with its Bengal-Module Carrier, or Bengal-MC.

U.S. shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) unveiled its own plans for a new line of USVs, called ROMULUS, in September. HII says ROMULUS designs will be highly modular and capable of carrying containerized payloads, which is all in line with the Navy’s current vision for MASC.

NEW YORK — Secret grand jury transcripts from Jeffrey Epstein’s 2019 sex trafficking case can be made public, a judge ruled on Wednesday, joining two other judges in granting the Justice Department’s requests to unseal material from investigations into the late financier’s sexual abuse.

U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman reversed his earlier decision to keep the material under wraps, citing a new law that requires the government to open its files on Epstein and his longtime confidant Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge previously cautioned that the 70 or so pages of grand jury materials slated for release are hardly revelatory and “merely a hearsay snippet” of Epstein’s conduct.

On Tuesday, another Manhattan federal judge ordered the release of records from Maxwell’s 2021 sex trafficking case. Last week, a judge in Florida approved the unsealing of transcripts from an abandoned Epstein federal grand jury investigation in the 2000s.

The Justice Department asked the judges to lift secrecy orders in the cases after the Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump last month, created a narrow exception to rules that normally keep grand jury proceedings confidential. The law requires that the Justice Department disclose Epstein-related material to the public by Dec. 19.

The court records cleared for release are just a sliver of the government’s trove — a collection of potentially tens of thousands of pages of documents including FBI notes and reports; transcripts of witness interviews, photographs, videos and other evidence; Epstein’s autopsy report; flight logs and travel records.

While lawyers for Epstein’s estate told Berman in a letter last week that the estate took no position on the Justice Department’s unsealing request, some Epstein victims backed it.

“Release to the public of Epstein-related materials is good, so long as the victims are protected in the process,” said Brad Edwards, a lawyer for some victims. “With that said, the grand jury receives only the most basic information, so, relatively speaking, these particular materials are insignificant.”

Questions about the government’s Epstein files have dominated the first year of Trump’s second term, with pressure on the Republican intensifying after he reneged on a campaign promise to release the files. His administration released some material, most of it already public, disappointing critics and some allies.

Berman was matter of fact in his ruling on Wednesday, writing that the transparency law “unequivocally intends to make public Epstein grand jury materials and discovery materials” that had previously been covered by secrecy orders. The law “supersedes the otherwise secret grand jury materials,” he wrote.

The judge, who was appointed by President Clinton, a Democrat, implored the Justice Department to carefully follow the law’s privacy provisions to ensure that victims’ names and other identifying information are blacked out. Victim safety and privacy “are paramount,” he wrote.

In court filings, the Justice Department informed Berman that the only witness to testify before the Epstein grand jury was an FBI agent who, the judge noted, “had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay.”

The agent testified over two days, on June 18, 2019, and July 2, 2019. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow and four pages of call logs. The July 2 session ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein.

Epstein, a millionaire money manager known for socializing with celebrities, politicians, billionaires and the academic elite, killed himself in jail a month after his 2019 arrest. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 by a federal jury of sex trafficking for helping recruit some of Epstein’s underage victims and participating in some of the abuse. She is serving a 20-year prison sentence.

Maxwell’s lawyer told a judge last week that unsealing records from her case “would create undue prejudice” and could spoil her plans to file a habeas petition, a legal filing seeking to overturn her conviction. The Supreme Court in October declined to hear Maxwell’s appeal.

Maxwell’s grand jury records include testimony from the FBI agent and a New York Police Department detective.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer sought to temper expectations as he approved their release on Tuesday, writing that the materials “do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor.”

“They do not discuss or identify any client of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s,” wrote Engelmayer, an appointee of President Obama, a Democrat. “They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s crimes.”

Sisak writes for the Associated Press.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker on Tuesday signed a law prohibiting federal officials from taking enforcement actions against immigrants near courthouses, in hospitals, on college campuses or in day care facilities.

The law, which takes effect immediately, is in response to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration in the Chicago area, launched in September.

The law also provides for legal steps for those whose constitutional rights were violated during enforcement action, including a $10,000 in damages for someone unlawfully arrested while attempting to attend a court proceeding.

“Dropping your kid off at day care, going to the doctor, or attending your classes should not be a life-altering task,” Pritzker said at a bill-signing in a largely Latino neighborhood in Chicago. “Illinois — in the face of cruelty and intimidation — has chosen solidarity and support.”

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “Operation Midway Blitz” arrested more than 3,000 people.

Los Angeles County’s inspector general is retiring as chief watchdog for the Sheriff’s Department, stepping down from the post he has held since it was first created a dozen years ago.

Max Huntsman, 60, announced his plans in a letter Tuesday.

“It has been my honor to work with a talented, brave, and tireless group of public servants to ensure that the public knows what its government is doing,” he wrote.

Huntsman, a former L.A. County prosecutor, also included comments that were critical of how the county has responded to efforts at civilian oversight of the Sheriff’s Department.

Time and again, he wrote, efforts by his office “were ignored” by county leaders.

“The county is putting all its efforts into convincing the public and the courts that it is following the law and has no room to honestly evaluate itself and make the changes it would need to really follow those laws,” Huntsman told The Times in a message early Tuesday. “That’s not compatible with my oath of office.”

In stacks of detailed reports, the inspector general’s office has described a wide range of abuses and failures by the Sheriff’s Department, the L.A. County Probation Department and county leaders. Huntsman’s office has documented poor conditions in L.A. County’s jails, called out the Sheriff’s Department’s for noncompliance with portions of of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and criticized the inability or unwillingness of sheriff’s department officials to rein in so-called deputy gangs, whose tattooed members have repeatedly been accused of misconduct.

The Inspector General’s Office has independently probed hundreds of on-duty shootings by deputies, along with other use of force incidents. Under Huntsman’s direction, the office also scrutinized deficiencies in the county’s skilled nursing facilities during the early days of the COVID-19 epidemic.

In 1991, Huntsman graduated from Yale Law school and immediately joined the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office. A father of two, he served as a deputy district attorney for 22 years, prosecuting political corruption, police misconduct and fraud cases before leaving the courtroom for the helm of the new Office of Inspector General.

One of the main reasons the Sheriff’s Department is still plagued by many of the problems Huntsman confronted when he first became inspector general, he wrote in the Tuesday letter, has been the county’s reluctance to swiftly implement many of his office’s recommendations.

“In my twelve years at this work, I have longed for the day that the county would address the conditions in our reports without a court fight,” he wrote. “Some things never change.”

The Inspector General’s Office is now expected to undergo a sea change with the retirement of the only leader it has ever had.

Huntsman is the latest in a recent string of oversight officials to abruptly depart from their posts. In June, L.A. County Civilian Oversight Commission Chair Robert Bonner told the public that county officials were terminating him from the position. Earlier this year, Sean Kennedy, a member of the commission and its former chair, resigned over what he described as undue county interference in the commission’s activities.

The oversight bodies themselves also have faced cuts. In August, a county office proposed eliminating the Sybil Brand Commission, which conducts civilian oversight of the largest county jail system in the U.S. The county also announced that it would be reassigning or eliminating about a third of Huntsman’s staff.

Yet Huntsman and other county oversight officials continued to advocate for change. For instance, in October, state lawmakers approved Assembly Bill 847. The law will allow oversight commissions across the state, including L.A. County’s Civilian Oversight Commission, to view confidential documents in closed session.

“When government abuses occur, they are sometimes kept secret, but that is no longer the case for much of what is happening in Los Angeles County,” Huntsman wrote at the end of his Tuesday letter. “What you do about it is up to you.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservatives sounded ready on Monday to overrule Congress and give President Trump more power to fire officials at independent agencies and commissions.

The justices heard arguments on whether Trump could fire Rebecca Slaughter, one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member Federal Trade Commission.

The case poses a clash between Congress’ power to structure the government versus the president’s “executive power.”

A ruling for Trump portends a historic shift in the federal government — away from bipartisan experts and toward more partisan control by the president.

Trump’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the court should overturn a 1935 decision that upheld independent agencies. The decision “was grievously wrong when decided. It must be overruled,” he told the court.

The court’s three liberals strongly argued against what they called a “radical change” in American government.

If the president is free to fire the leaders of independent agencies, they said, the longstanding civil service laws could be struck down as well.

It would put “massive, uncontrolled and unchecked power in the hands of the president,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

But the six conservatives said they were concerned that these agencies were exercising “executive power” that is reserved to the president.

It was not clear, however, whether the court will rule broadly to cover all independent agencies or focus narrowly on the FTC and other similar commissions.

For most of American history, Congress has created independent boards and commissions to carry out specific missions, each led by a board of experts who were appointed with a fixed term.

But the court’s current conservative majority has contended these commissions and boards are unconstitutional if their officials cannot be fired at will by a new president.

Past presidents had signed those measures into law, and a unanimous Supreme Court upheld them 90 years ago in a case called Humphrey’s Executor vs. U.S.

In creating such bodies, Congress often was responding to the problems of a new era.

The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to regulate railroad rates. The FTC, the focus of the court case, was created in 1914 to investigate corporate monopolies. The year before, the Federal Reserve Board was established to supervise banks, prevent panics and regulate the money supply.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market and the National Labor Relations Board to resolve labor disputes.

Decades later, Congress focused on safety. The National Transportation Safety Board was created to investigate aviation accidents, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigates products that may pose a danger. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission protects the public from nuclear hazards.

Typically, Congress gave the appointees, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, a fixed term and said they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Slaughter was first appointed by Trump to a Democratic seat and was reappointed by President Biden in 2023 for a seven-year term.

But conservatives often long derided these agencies and commissions as an out-of-control “administrative state,” and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he believes their independence from direct presidential control is unconstitutional.

“The President’s power to remove — and thus supervise — those who wield executive power on his behalf follows from the text” of the Constitution, he wrote last year in his opinion, which declared for the first time that a president has immunity from being prosecuted later for crimes while in office.

Roberts spoke for a 6-3 majority in setting out an extremely broad view of presidential power while limiting the authority of Congress.

The Constitution in Article I says Congress “shall have the power…to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution…all other powers vested” in the U.S. government. Article II says, “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

The current court majority believes that the president’s executive power prevails over the power of Congress to set limits by law.

“Congress lacks authority to control the President’s ‘unrestricted power of removal’ with respect to executive officers of the United States,” Roberts wrote last year in Trump vs. United States.

Four months later, Trump won reelection and moved quickly to fire a series of Democratic appointees who had fixed terms set by Congress. Slaughter, along with several other fired appointees, sued, citing the law and her fixed term. They won before federal district judges and the U.S. Court of Appeals.

But Trump’s lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court, and the justices, by 6-3 votes, sided with the president and against the fired officials.

In September, the court said it would hear arguments in the case of Trump vs. Slaughter to decide on whether to overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision.

At the time, conservatives applauded the move. “For far too long, Humphrey’s Executor has allowed unaccountable agencies like the FTC to wield executive power without meaningful oversight,” said Cory Andrews, general counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation.

In defense of the 1935 decision, law professors noted the court said that these independent boards were not purely executive agencies, but also had legislative and judicial duties, like adopting regulations or resolving labor disputes.

During Monday’s argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the principle of “democratic accountability” called for deferring to Congress, not the president.

“Congress decided that some matters should be handled by nonpartisan experts. They said expertise matters with respect to the economy and transportation. So having the president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists is actually is not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States,” she said.

But that argument gained no traction with Roberts and the conservatives. They said the president is elected and has the executive authority to control federal agencies.

The only apparent doubt involved the Federal Reserve Board, whose independence is prized by business. The Chamber of Commerce said the court should overrule the 1935 decision, but carve out an exception for the Federal Reserve.

Trump’s lawyer grudgingly agreed. If “an exception to the removal power exists,” he wrote in his brief in the Slaughter case, it should be “an agency-specific anomaly” limited to the Federal Reserve.

After the US government placed sanctions on the United Nations’ special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, her life turned upside down.

Credit cards stopped working, she told Al Jazeera. A hotel reservation booked by the European Parliament was cancelled. Medical insurance was denied. For Albanese, the consequences of her work on Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza were not just professional — they were personal, too.

“We are turned into non-persons,” she said at the Doha Forum, calling the sanctions imposed against her “unlawful” under international law.

“But again, for me, it’s important that people understand the extent … the United States, Israel and others would go to silence the voice of justice, the voice of human rights,” Albanese said.

As leaders, diplomats, and legal experts gathered in Qatar’s capital for the Doha Forum this weekend under the theme “Justice in Action: Beyond Promises to Progress”, the crisis in Gaza dominated discussions.

Allegations of genocide against Israel, repeated vetoes blocking UN ceasefire resolutions, and growing pressure on international justice mechanisms have made Gaza a test case for the rules-based international order, raising questions about whether international law is capable of providing justice.

‘Sense of insecurity around me’

According to Albanese’s legal assessments, Israel’s conduct in its war on Gaza constitutes a genocide, a term that prominent human rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Israel’s B’Tselem have also used.

When announcing the sanctions on Albanese, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused her of waging a “campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel”. She says the allegation is baseless.

“I have been subjected to smear campaigns,” she said, adding that US officials have accused her of being an anti-Semite, of supporting violence, and of failing to condemn the crimes committed on October 7 against Israeli civilians.

“It has created a sense of insecurity around me. I have received threats from all corners,” Albanese said.

In addition to targeting Albanese, the US imposed sanctions in August on nine judges and prosecutors of the International Criminal Court (ICC), including two European citizens, after the court began investigating alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

“This is mafia-style intimidation that we are subjected to, just for doing our job,” Albanese noted, warning that sanctions and intimidation of legal experts set a dangerous precedent.

“There will be that pressure [on ICC judges and legal experts] that, if I go on this route, this is going to be scrutinised. This is the idea, to make it impossible for the organisation, for the ICC to work,” she cautioned.

“Imagine that every US person interacting with us, someone who works in the US or is a citizen, could go to jail for up to 20 years. It creates a chilling effect.”

Western hesitance

In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged “war crimes”.

The US called the move “outrageous”, and while the United Kingdom and Canada said they would adhere to international law, they did not make clear if they would uphold the warrant.

Many Western countries have not described Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide and have continued to send the country arms, despite growing allegations of war crimes occurring in Gaza.

Albanese emphasised that nations continuing to transfer arms are failing in their legal obligations.

“They have the obligation to prevent a genocide that has already been recognised as plausible in January 2024 by the International Court of Justice,” she said.

Janine Di Giovanni, co-founder of the Reckoning Project, which documents war crimes in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, said the position of many Western states reeked of a glaring “double standard”.

“There is one set of laws and rules that pertain to Ukraine … and another set for brown and Black people,” she said, pointing to the ICC’s historical focus on African leaders and the failure of Western powers to hold Israel accountable.

Di Giovanni directed her criticism at European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, saying the former Estonian prime minister had been “negligent” when it came to Gaza.

“She points out over and over again what [Russian President] Putin has done in Ukraine, but not a word about Gaza,” she added.

“She’s the EU foreign policy chief. She has a responsibility to point out Israel’s criminality.”

Is international law still relevant?

With multilateral institutions and the international law system coming under growing pressure from nation-states, Albanese said that international law does work and that “we need to make it work”.

“I often make the example, if a cure doesn’t work, would you trash all medicine? No,” she asserted.

“This is the first genocide in history that has awakened a conscience, a global conscience, and has the potential to be stopped.”

Meanwhile, Reckoning Project’s Di Giovanni said the UN General Assembly could be “activated to work at a higher level and a more effective level than what they’re doing, while the Security Council is blocked”.

“But maybe this shows us that we need to have a greater reform for how the Security Council works,” she said.

Di Giovanni added that it was crucial to address the “extraordinary heinous crimes that Netanyahu and others” have committed, or else it would send a message that “impunity is rampant”.

“Without accountability, there is no global security,” she said.