COLUMBIA, S.C. — When Jarvis McKenzie locked eyes with the man in the car, he couldn’t understand the hate he saw. When the man picked up a rifle, fired over his head and yelled “you better get running, boy!” as he scrambled behind a brick wall, McKenzie knew it was because he is Black.
McKenzie told his story a month after the shooting because South Carolina is one of two states along with Wyoming that don’t have their own hate crime laws.
About two dozen local governments in South Carolina have passed their own hate crime ordinances as the latest attempt to put pressure on the South Carolina Senate to take a vote on a bill proposing stiffer penalties for crimes driven by hatred of the victims because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or ethnicity.
A decade of pressure from businesses, the survivors of a racist Charleston church massacre that left nine dead, and a few of their own Republicans hasn’t been enough to sway senators.
Local governments pass hate crime laws but with very light penalties
Richland County, where McKenzie lives, has a hate crime ordinance and the white man seen on security camera footage grabbing the rifle and firing through his open car window before driving into his neighborhood on July 24 is the first to face the charge.
But local laws are restricted to misdemeanors with sentences capped at a month in jail. The state hate crimes proposal backed by business leaders could add years on to convictions for assault and other violent crimes.
McKenzie sat in the same spot at the edge of his neighborhood for a year at 5:30 a.m. waiting for his supervisor to pick him up for work. For him and his family, every trip outside now is met with uneasiness if not fear.
“It’s heartbreaking to know that I get up every morning. I stand there not knowing if he had seen me before,” McKenzie said.
Hate crime law efforts have stalled since 2015 racist Charleston church massacre
The lack of a statewide hate crime law rapidly became a sore spot in South Carolina after the 2015 shooting deaths of nine Black worshippers at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston. After a summer of racial strife in 2020, business leaders made it a priority and the South Carolina House passed its version in 2021.
But in 2021 and again in the next session in 2023, the proposal stalled in the South Carolina Senate without a vote. Supporters say Republican Senate leadership knows it will pass as more moderate members of their own party support it but they keep it buried on the calendar with procedural moves.
The opposition is done mostly in silence and the bill gets only mentioned in passing as the Senate takes up other items, like in May 2023 when a debate on guidelines for history curriculum on subjects like slavery and segregation briefly had a longtime Democratic lawmaker ask Republican Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey why hate crimes couldn’t get a vote.
“The problem right now is there is a number of people who think that not only is it feel good legislation, but it is bad legislation. It is bad policy not because people support hate but because it furthers division,” Massey responded on the Senate floor.
Supporters say federal hate crime laws aren’t enough
Opponents of a state hate crimes law point out there is a federal hate crimes law and the Charleston church shooter is on federal death row because of it.
But federal officials can’t prosecute cases involving juveniles, they have limited time and resources compared to the state and those decisions get made in Washington, D.C., instead of locally, said Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott who pushed for the hate crime ordinance in his county.
“It’s common sense. We’re making something very simple complicated, and it’s not complicated. If you commit a crime against somebody just because of the hate for them, because of who they are, the religion, etcetera, we know what that is,” Lott said.
Democrats in the Senate were especially frustrated in this year’s session because while senators debated harsher sentences for attacking health care workers or police dogs, hate crimes again got nowhere.
Supporters of a state hate-crime law say South Carolina’s resistance to enact one emboldens white supremacists.
“The subliminal message that says if you’re racist and you want to commit a crime and target somebody for their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or whatever it is you can do it here,” said McKenzie’s attorney, Tyler Bailey.
Governor says South Carolina laws provide punishment without new hate crime bill
Republican Gov. Henry McMaster understands why local governments are passing their own hate crime laws, but he said South Carolina’s laws against assaults and other violent crimes have harsh enough sentences that judges can give maximum punishments if they think the main motivation of a crime is hate.
“There’s no such thing as a love crime. There is always an element of hatred or disrespect or something like that,” said the former prosecutor who added he fears the danger that happens when investigators try to enter someone’s mind or police their speech.
But some crimes scream to give people more support in our society, Lott said.
“I think it’s very important that we protect everybody. My race, your race, everybody’s race, your religion, there needs to be some protection for that. That’s what our Constitution gives us,” the sheriff said.
And while the man charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature for shooting at McKenzie faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted, the man who was just waiting to go to work feels like the state where he lives doesn’t care about the terror he felt just because of his race.
“I feel like somebody is watching me. I feel like I’m being followed,” McKenzie said. “It spooked me.”
SIMI VALLEY — Jadyn Winsett twisted her new engagement ring around her finger, scanning the sea of navy sport coats, sailor stripes and string pearls at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library for a glimpse of a Supreme Court justice.
Across the room stood Amy Coney Barrett, the high court’s youngest member, who could hardly have picked a more dramatic moment to turn up.
A day earlier, Barrett joined the conservative majority in a decision that cleared federal immigration agents to detain people in Southern California simply because they have brown skin or speak Spanish.
The response across much of Los Angeles was outrage and concern that the 4th Amendment has been trampled.
But at the Reagan Library, the mood was triumphant.
Winsett, 23, and her fiance were among the admirers who gathered to hear Barrett speak about her new memoir, “Listening to the Law.” For the supporters who turned up, Barrett evokes values cherished by President Trump’s faith-driven acolytes: beatific motherhood, Southern charm, Christian piety and steadfast constitutional originalism.
A Texas native, Winsett’s partner had popped the question two days before at Yosemite National Park. She said the proposal was the highlight of the couple’s California holiday. But the chance to meet Barrett at Reagan’s final resting place was a close second.
“I sent [my fiance] so many text messages in the span of a couple minutes just being excited that this event was going on, and we had to come,” Winsett said. “I’m a really big fan of Justice Scalia … so knowing [Barrett’s] book is supposed to bit of an expansion on Justice Scalia’s ‘Reading Law,’ that’s gonna be really cool. “
Jadyn Winsett, left, and Reese Johnson, a newly engaged couple from Texas, planned their trip to attend the justice’s book launch.
(Al Seib / For The Times)
Barrett said almost nothing about her controversial rise to the court or the jurisprudence behind her most contested decisions during Tuesday’s event, instead dishing out details about Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s race with the Nationals’ foam-headed Lincoln and Roosevelt mascots and how she’d brought Starbucks coffee to the Supreme Court cafeteria.
But the previous day’s immigration raid ruling still hovered in the air.
When asked to explain the court’s “shadow docket”, she ad-libbed a hypothetical all but identical to Monday’s real decision.
“Let’s say that some policy of the administration has been enjoined,” Barrett said. “The administration might say, ‘While we are litigating this case, having this injunction in place is irreparably harming us in a way we can’t recover from, so in the interim, please stay this injunction.’”
A packed room listens and watches monitors as Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett takes questions at the launch of her new book.
(Al Seib / For The Times)
Later, when asked about constitutional interpretation, she opined about the slippery text of the 4th Amendment, the same amendment implicated in Monday’s unsigned order.
“[Look at] the protection against unreasonable search and seizures,” she invited the audience.
“When you have a word like that, ‘unreasonable,’ there’ll be a range where everybody will say, outside of this, we all agree this is unreasonable,” Barrett explained. “Then, there’s a range right here where we all say this is reasonable. But then there’s going to be a band where there’s room for disagreement. One of the great things about the Constitution is that it leaves some of that play in the joints.”
People line up to get their book signed at the Reagan Library.
(Al Seib / For The Times)
Earlier in the evening, Barrett and her husband, Jesse, had paid their respects at the Reagan Memorial and briefly admired the chunk of Berlin Wall, flanked by a coterie of federal agents while protests raged outside.
Many in the crowd said they, like the Catholic justice, were devout Christian believers and credited her with casting the decisive vote to end abortion as a constitutional right in the United States.
“I’m a born-again Christian and I believe it was the hand of God that put her on the court … to be able to overturn Roe vs. Wade,” said Glovioell Dixon of Pasadena, who’d arrived hours before the program to beat the crowds.
Others were taken with Barrett’s command of the law — several mentioned the fact she’d barely used notes at her confirmation hearing — and her poise under pressure.
“She’s one of the smartest people I’ve ever observed,” said Elizabeth Pierce of Newbury Park, the lone red baseball cap in a field of cognac loafers and Chanel-inspired skirt suits. “This is the chance of a lifetime.”
A few even credited the justice for realizing their American dream.
Sean Chen, 52, of East Los Angeles said he’d just attended his daughter’s medical school white coat ceremony and praised Barrett’s 2023 ruling to strike down race-based affirmative action in the case Fair Admissions vs. Harvard.
“That’s directly related to the future of my kids,” Chen said. “Without the work from the Supreme Court [overturning affirmative action], maybe I wouldn’t even have that chance.”
A Chinese immigrant, Chen called the opportunity to learn from one of the nation’s nine law-givers part of his journey to becoming “spiritually American.”
Barrett divulged little Tuesday about her memoir, for which she was paid $425,000 in 2021, the first tranche of a reported $2-million advance, according to financial disclosures.
“We’re gonna pray we’re gonna get our books signed!” an event coordinator encouraged those near the back of the line as the sun set over the golden hills.
Die-hard fans were reminded not to try to snap selfies, though keepsake photos would be taken and could be purchased after the event.
Julia Quiroz, 23, left, and her mom, Gaby Quiroz, in line waiting to get their book signed by the Supreme Court justice.
(Al Seib / For The Times)
Julia Quiroz, 23, waited with her mother to have her book signed.
“I see her as exemplary in her vocation as a mother,” Quiroz said of Barrett.
Her mom, Gaby, agreed — mostly.
As a Catholic, Quiroz said she agrees with Barrett’s rulings on abortion, but despaired of realizing the family’s dream of ending the procedure from coast to coast.
“She’s going to do the right thing for the country and the law,” Gaby Quiroz said. “I don’t know that her decisions will always align with ours.”
Other attendees said they were in lockstep with Barrett and her rulings in support of the president’s agenda — whatever its impact on their neighbors.
“I’m very happy,” said Kevin Rivero of Palmdale. “She is ensuring the president has the power to do what the executive branch is empowered to do. As an L.A. citizen, I’m for it.”
Dixon, the Pasadena Christian, said she agreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling on immigration raids even though her ex-husband was once an undocumented immigrant, who could have faced deportation had they not gotten married.
“America’s for everyone. We’re a welcoming country, you know?” Dixon said. “Bring us your poor — what was that saying on the Statue of Liberty? That line? I’m all for that. But do it in a way that honors our country.”
A series of federal actions aimed at pressuring states to allow parents to opt out of school vaccine mandates for religious or personal reasons threatens to undermine California’s ironclad ban on such exemptions.
California is one of just five states that bans any non-medical exemptions, the result of a landmark 2015 law passed in the wake of the Disneyland measles outbreak. Connecticut, New York, Maine, and West Virginia have similar statutes.
The law is credited with bringing California’s rate of kindergartners vaccinated against the measles to 96.1% in the 2024-25 school year, up from 92.6% in 2014-15, even as the national rate declined. California is one of just 10 states with a kindergarten measles vaccination rate that exceeds the 95% threshold experts say is needed to achieve herd immunity.
If vaccine mandates are weakened, “we’re going to have more outbreaks, and schools are going to be less safe for the families who have children who are vulnerable,” said Dr. Eric Ball, a pediatrician in Orange County and chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics California.
Engage with our community-funded journalism as we delve into child care, transitional kindergarten, health and other issues affecting children from birth through age 5.
Key actions to allow for vaccine exemptions include:
Legislation introduced in Congress last month would withhold federal education funding from states without religious exemptions.
A letter from the Department of Health and Human Services threatened to withhold federal vaccine funding from states that have any form of religious freedom or personal conscience laws but do not allow exemptions to vaccines. The move is “part of a larger effort by HHS to strengthen enforcement of laws protecting conscience and religious exercise.”
Several lawsuits winding their way through the courts from parents — including in California — seek the right to a religious exemption, which may eventually come before the Supreme Court.
Legal experts say that taken together, these moves reveal a concerted effort to chip away at limits states like California have placed on parents’ ability to send their unvaccinated children to school.
“We should assume that every aspect of the administration, at least three justices of the Supreme Court, and a significant contingent in Congress are actively trying to implement changes to the law that would invalidate California’s … approach to not allowing non-medical exemptions,” said Lindsay Wiley, a law professor at UCLA.
In West Virginia, the approach is already proving successful. Despite the state legislature recently rejecting a bill that would have permitted religious exemptions for the first time, Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey signed an executive order allowing them, bolstered by a letter of support from HHS.
Vaccinations and syringes at Larchmont Pediatrics in Los Angeles.
(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)
“Vaccination is considered one of public health’s greatest achievements, preventing the spread of serious illnesses, reducing hospitalizations and saving lives,” the statement said. “CDPH remains committed to ensuring that all Californians continue to have access to safe and effective vaccines that are based on credible, transparent and science-based evidence.”
The federal actions are occurring in a moment of growing anti-vaccine fervor within the Trump administration. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has long been an outspoken critic of vaccines, including the vaccine to prevent measles. As secretary of HHS, he has defunded mRNA research, limited COVID-19 shots to the elderly and those with preexisting medical conditions, and pledged to reveal a link between vaccines and autism.
California’s evolution on vaccine mandates
In 1961, California became one of the first states to permit residents to opt out of vaccines for a broad range of personal beliefs, as part of a law mandating the polio vaccine for school attendance.
For decades, few parents claimed the exemption, and the rate of children opting out of vaccines for non-medical reasons stayed around 0.5%, said Dr. Richard Pan, the former state senator who authored the 2015 law eliminating non-medical exemptions.
Pan said the rate of exemptions began to climb in the mid-2000s, when actress Jenny McCarthy appeared on Oprah and claimed that vaccines had caused her son’s autism. “But what really gave fuel” was the advent of Facebook and Twitter, said Pan. “Social media really connected people who are anti-vax and created an echo chamber.”
By the 2013-14 school year, 3.1% of California kindergartners were receiving a non-medical exemption to at least one required vaccine. The rate of kindergarteners fully vaccinated against the measles slipped to 92.3% — well below the 95% required for herd immunity.
In 2014, a single measles case at Disneyland spread to more than 140 people across the country, an outbreak that epidemiologists said was fueled by vaccine refusals. In this moment of crisis, Pan introduced SB277, making California the first state in nearly 35 years to eliminate non-medical vaccine exemptions.
The legislation received the support of many parents, especially those whose children could not be vaccinated for medical reasons and relied on the immunity of people around them. “The whole purpose of 277 was actually to protect the rights and the freedoms of families and their children to get an education who could not get vaccinated,” said Pan.
Despite bitter debate, no major religious denominations opposed the bill, Pan said.
“This really isn’t about religion,” Pan said. “This is about trying to find a loophole or an excuse for someone who doesn’t want to vaccinate their child.”
Parents say California’s mandate violates religious beliefs
A contingent of parents say their sincere religious beliefs prevent them from getting their children vaccinated.
In 2023, Amy and Steve Doescher of Placerville brought a federal lawsuit, along with two other families, against California claiming that SB277 had violated their right to freely exercise their religion by preventing them from sending their 16-year-old daughter to public school.
The Doeschers, who attend a church near their home, “prayed extensively and consulted the Bible when deciding whether to vaccinate their children, and they arrived at the firm religious conviction that vaccinations violate their creed,” according to a complaint filed as part of the lawsuit.
Their daughter, who is enrolled in a charter school independent study program, is unable to have “the typical interactions with children that ‘normal’ children get. This has caused much stigma.”
The lawsuit alleges that her parents have had to enroll her in gymnastics classes and spend $10,000 per year on independent study costs, “to make up for the socialization shortcomings caused by SB277.”
While the lawsuit was dismissed in June, it is now on appeal at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Lawyers in a similar New York lawsuit brought by Amish parents have requested review from the Supreme Court.
“I do think it’s a cumulative moment of change,” said Christina Hildebrand, president and founder of A Voice for Choice, an advocacy group that sponsored the California lawsuit.
“If vaccines are so effective and they don’t have risk involved, then people should want to get them,” she said. “How good really is the product if you’re having to put a mandate on them?”
UCLA Law’s Wiley said she is sympathetic to sincere religious objectors, and herd immunity can still be reached even if a small number of people opt out. The problem, she said, is that they’re difficult for states to police for validity and “can really open the floodgates to vastly diminished vaccination rates.”
Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California at San Francisco who studies vaccines, said religious exemptions are often “used as a fig leaf for people who have safety concerns. The way the system works is that it privileges the good liars.”
As part of her research, she has found “a whole industry of people trying to help each other get exemptions” online, including those who offer sample requests to parents and workshops on how to claim a religious exemption for non-religious reasons.
Reiss points to numerous studies finding that making exemptions broader and easier to get tends to lead to lower vaccination rates and more outbreaks.
The volatile landscape for vaccine mandates
Since the COVID pandemic, states across the country have experienced a decline in the rate of kindergartners who are fully vaccinated, and an increase in parents seeking exemptions, according to a recent report from KFF, a nonprofit health research group.
Last week, Florida’s surgeon general announced the state would no longer require children to be vaccinated in order to attend public school, something that all 50 states currently require.
Threats are also mounting from Washington, D.C. The GRACE Act, which was introduced in Congress last month by Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL), would withhold federal education funding from any state that does not offer parents the right to opt out of vaccines for religious reasons.
The bill, if eventually approved and signed into law by President Trump, would also explicitly prevent states, including California, from requiring any documentation from parents to prove a sincere religious conviction against vaccines.
“Freedom of speech and religion is the most sacred right guaranteed under our Constitution,” Rep. Steube said in a statement to The Times. “No student or their family should ever be coerced into sacrificing their faith or jumping through loopholes to comply with a vaccine requirement.”
Last week, Kennedy weighed in on the issue. He said in a letter that if a state already has statutes on the books protecting religious freedom or personal conscience in any form, those laws must extend to vaccine opt-outs. If states with such laws do not comply with the directive, they could lose funding for the federal Vaccines for Children Program, which funds vaccines for low-income children.
California does not have religious freedom or personal conscience statues. But 29 other states have passed religious freedom laws, and 18 have parental rights laws, which legal experts said could be used by the federal government to compel states to offer vaccine opt-outs.
“States have the authority to balance public health goals with individual freedom, and honoring those decisions builds trust” Kennedy wrote. “Protecting both public health and personal liberty is how we restore faith in our institutions and Make America Healthy Again.”
Several legal experts said the approach was alarming.
“I’m very concerned that this is part of a playbook where they’re going on a state and federal level, to push on these laws,” said Richard Hughes, a lawyer with Epstein Becker Green in Washington, D.C., who has been working on vaccine law for two decades. “This is a massive federal overreach, and it’s incredibly inappropriate.”
This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.
A PENSIONER is having to sell her home to cover a £113,000 legal bill after losing a five-year dispute over a 1ft strip of land.
Jenny Field, 76, was told to pay £14,000 after her initial court defeat to Pauline Clark, 64, but her repeated challenges saw the total rocket.
A judge has now told her she must pay the resultant £113,126 in three months or flog her £600,000 bungalow in Hamworthy, Dorset, so the cash can be recouped.
The divorcee told a court: “I am selling it because I have to and I’m fed up with living here but I will offer to pay her £1 per week.”
Their feud began in 2020 after Mrs Clark replaced a fence between the properties.
Ms Field claimed it had encroached on her garden and had it demolished, but Mrs Clark sued for damages and won the first case in 2022.
Several appeals followed and Ms Field was accused of wasting time by bombarding the court with papers.
A bid by her to sue for £500,000 in damages was also dismissed as “totally without merit”.
District Judge Ross Fentem said Mrs Clark had been kept from money owed to her for a long time and told Bournemouth county court the order for sale was “a last resort and draconian remedy”.
1
Jenny Field is having to sell her home to cover a £113,000 legal bill after losing a five-year dispute over a 1ft strip of landCredit: BNPS
DRIVERS of SUVs in England may soon face more stringent parking rules under a law inspired by the European Union.
Earlier this year, reports revealed that SUVs have become the most popular type of car in the UK – with sales data showing they accounted for a third of all new car registrations.
4
A parking law that’s been introduced in Paris has sparked debate among experts and campaignersCredit: AFP
4
The French capital now charges SUVs a higher fee for parking in a bid to discourage drivers from buying heavier motorsCredit: Getty
4
With their increasing presence on UK roads, many argue that stricter regulations are necessary to tackle the impact of SUVsCredit: Getty
4
SUVs are often criticised for their size, higher fronts and reduced visibility from the driver’s seatCredit: Getty
Given their growing presence on UK roads, many believe stricter regulations are needed to address their impact on safety, air pollution and public space.
According to Birmingham Live, experts and campaigners are calling for measures similar to those introduced in European cities, such as Paris, where parking costs for SUVs have been significantly increased to discourage their use and reduce pollution.
An hour of parking for SUVs in the Paris city centre now costs €18 instead of the usual €6, whilst in the outskirts the cost is €12 instead of €4.
For six hours, SUVs will be charged a whopping €225 – around £195 – instead of the previous €75.
French newspaper Le Parisien reported that the new parking rates for larger vehicles in Paris had reduced the number of SUVs using surface parking by two-thirds.
The French cities of Lyon and Grenoble have similar rules, as does Tubingen in Germany.
Dr Anna Goodman, an academic transport researcher and director of Transport for Quality of Life, said: “SUVs increasingly dominate our streets. In just two decades, the share of SUVs in English cities has grown tenfold.
“In London alone, the number of SUVs has swelled by around 720,000. This has important implications for congestion, public space, and road safety.
“The evidence is clear that SUVs increase road danger for people walking and cycling, particularly for children.”
Oliver Lord, UK Head of Clean Cities, added: “The sheer scale of car-spreading is staggering.
DVLA rule change: what drivers over 70 need to know in 2025
“These oversized vehicles are not just swallowing our public space; they’re also far more dangerous, especially for children.
“If we want cities that are safe, breathable, and accessible, we have to get serious about tackling the rise of these urban land-hogs.”
SUVs are often criticised for their size, higher fronts and reduced visibility from the driver’s seat, making them more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.
They are also blamed for contributing to air pollution and climate breakdown due to their heavier, more polluting nature.
The UK’s current best-selling cars, the Ford Puma, Kia Sportage and Nissan Qashqai are all classed as crossover SUVs.
Barbara Stoll, senior director of T&E’s Clean Cities campaign, added: “A child is killed every day on our roads, yet cars are being made so large that children are invisible from the driver’s seat. How is that acceptable?”
“Thankfully, more and more city leaders are pushing back against car-spreading, standing up for what citizens actually want: safe, green streets without monster vehicles.”
ITV’s true crime drama I Fought the Law deeply touched viewers this evening as the final episode aired, with the real life Ann Ming making a cameo at the end of the finale
ITV viewers were brought to tears by Ann Ming’s cameo
The final episode of I Fought the Law aired on ITV tonight, with viewers watching as Ann Ming successfully brought her daughter’s killer to justice after overturning the double jeopardy law. The emotional episode left many in tears, particularly as the real life Ann made a cameo alongside Sheridan Smith, who played her throughout the series.
In the final scenes, viewers watch as Ann and her husband Charlie head line dancing, with Ann seeing a vision of her daughter Julie across the dance floor after putting her killer behind bars. She then continues line dancing with Charlie as text on the screens tells viewers that at least ten people have been retried and convicted of murder since the double jeopardy law was overturned, with Ann receiving an MBE in 2007 for her services to criminal justice.
The show then revealed that Charlie (played by Daniel York Loh) battled with Parkinson’s Disease until his death in 2013 while Ann still lives in the North East and works with police forces across the country to improve how they engage with victims of violent crime.
Sheridan Smith embraced the real life Ann Ming in I Fought the Law’s final scenes
As the line dancing continued, the real Ann was seen sitting on the side before the camera cut to her dancing alongside Sheridan Smith. “She still enjoys line dancing, five times a week,” text on the screen reads.
Viewers took to social media to share how moved they were by the final episode, with one writing: “What incredibl final scene with the real Ann #IFoughtTheLaw.” Another said: “#IFoughtTheLaw God what a programme Sobbing mess Well done all involved.”
A third tweeted: “#AnnMing what a woman, the family have been through such extreme experiences. this show #IFoughtTheLaw & #SheridanSmith deserve awards for it, well done to all involved in the making, its great to see flashbacks of eras past, as life seems to get harder with the more we have
A fourth wrote on X: “Am sobbing my heart out #IFoughtTheLaw Final episode.” While another said: “I’ll say it again, an incredible woman. #IFoughtTheLaw.”
Another even called for Ann to take up office, writing: “If we had people like Ann Ming and Allan Bates running this country things would get done fairly, honestly and without them mostly intent on looking after themselves #IFoughtTheLaw.”
WASHINGTON — After months of campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize, President Trump sent a sharply different message Friday when he signed an executive order aimed at rebranding the Department of Defense as the Department of War.
Trump said the switch was intended to signal to the world that the United States was a force to be reckoned with, and he complained that the Department of Defense’s name, established in the aftermath of World War II, was “woke.”
“I think it sends a message of victory. I think it sends, really, a message of strength,” Trump said of the change as he authorized the Department of War as a secondary title for the Pentagon.
Congress has to formally authorize a new name, and several of Trump’s closest supporters on Capitol Hill proposed legislation earlier Friday to codify the new name into law.
But already there were cosmetic shifts. The Pentagon’s website went from “defense.gov” to “war.gov.” Signs were swapped around Hegseth’s office while more than a dozen employees watched. Trump said there would be new stationery, too.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whom Trump has begun referring to as the “secretary of war,” said during the signing ceremony that “we’re going to go on offense, not just on defense,” using “maximum lethality” that won’t be “politically correct.”
The attempted rebranding was another rhetorical salvo in Trump’s efforts to reshape the U.S. military and uproot what he has described as progressive ideology. Bases have been renamed, transgender soldiers have been banned and military websites have been scrubbed of posts honoring contributions by women and minorities.
The Republican president contended that his tough talk didn’t contradict his fixation on being recognized for diplomatic efforts, saying peace must be made from a position of strength. Trump has claimed credit for resolving conflicts between India and Pakistan; Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and Armenia and Azerbaijan, among others, though some leaders and others have disputed the significance of the U.S. role. (He’s also expressed frustration that he hasn’t brought the war between Russia and Ukraine to a conclusion as fast as he said he would.)
“I think I’ve gotten peace because of the fact that we’re strong,” Trump said, echoing the “peace through strength” motto associated with President Reagan.
When Trump finished his remarks on the military, he dismissed Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from the room.
“I’m going to let these people go back to the Department of War and figure out how to maintain peace,” Trump said.
Rep. Gregory W. Steube (R-Fla.) proposed legislation in the House to formally change the name of the department.
“From 1789 until the end of World War II, the United States military fought under the banner of the Department of War,” Steube, an Army veteran, said in a statement. “It is only fitting that we pay tribute to their eternal example and renowned commitment to lethality by restoring the name of the ‘Department of War’ to our Armed Forces.”
Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) are introducing companion legislation in the Senate.
The Department of War was created in 1789, then renamed and reorganized through legislation signed by President Truman in 1947, two years after the end of World War II. The Department of Defense incorporated the Department of War, which oversaw the Army, plus the Department of the Navy and the newly created independent Air Force.
Hegseth complained that “we haven’t won a major war since” the name was changed. Trump said, “We never fought to win.”
Trump and Hegseth have long talked about restoring the Department of War name.
In August, Trump told reporters that “everybody likes that we had an unbelievable history of victory when it was Department of War. Then we changed it to Department of Defense.”
When confronted with the possibility that making the name change would require an act of Congress, Trump told reporters that “we’re just going to do it.”
“I’m sure Congress will go along,” he said, “if we need that.”
Trump and Hegseth have been on a name-changing spree at the Pentagon, sometimes sidestepping legal requirements.
For example, they wanted to restore the names of nine military bases that once honored Confederate leaders, which were changed in 2023 following a congressionally mandated review.
Because the original names were no longer allowed under law, Hegseth ordered the bases to be named after new people with similar names. For example, Ft. Bragg now honors Army Pfc. Roland L. Bragg, a World War II paratrooper and Silver Star recipient from Maine, instead of Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg.
In the case of Fort A.P. Hill, named for Confederate Lt. Gen. Ambrose Powell Hill, the Trump administration was forced to choose three soldiers to make the renaming work.
The base now honors Union soldiers Pvt. Bruce Anderson and 1st Sgt. Robert A. Pinn, who contributes the two initials, and Lt. Col. Edward Hill, whose last name completes the second half of the base name.
The move irked Republicans in Congress who, in July, moved to ban restoring any Confederate names in this year’s defense authorization bill.
Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a Republican who co-sponsored the earlier amendment to remove the Confederate names, said that “what this administration is doing, particularly this secretary of Defense, is sticking his finger in the eye of Congress by going back and changing the names to the old names.”
Megerian, Kim and Toropinwrite for the Associated Press. AP writer Matt Brown contributed to this report.
Hyundai shut down assembly lines Wednesday in Ulsan, Jeonju and Asan for four hours, affecting an estimated 1,500 vehicles. File Photo by Alex Plavevski/EPA
SEOUL, Sept. 4 (UPI) — Just one day after President Lee Jae Myung’s cabinet approved the so-called “Yellow Envelope Law” on Tuesday, Hyundai Motors’ union launched its first partial strike in seven years, demanding the company notify labor in advance of new business ventures and overseas plant expansions, The Korea Economic Daily reported.
The law, passed by the National Assembly on Aug. 24 and set to take effect in early 2026, expands the scope of legal strikes to include management decisions such as mergers, restructuring and plant relocations.
It also limits corporate damage claims against unions. Analysts say the Hyundai union’s push reflects the law’s immediate influence on labor tactics.
Hyundai shut down assembly lines Wednesday in Ulsan, Jeonju and Asan for four hours, affecting an estimated 1,500 vehicles, Maeil Daily reported. GM Korea and HD Hyundai shipbuilding unions also staged partial walkouts to protest restructuring moves.
Observers warn the law, intended to protect workers from excessive corporate lawsuits, could embolden unions to intervene in management strategy, heightening labor unrest across Korea’s key industries, Maeil Business Newspaper reported.
WASHINGTON — A federal magistrate judge on Thursday angrily accused Justice Department prosecutors of trampling on the civil rights of people arrested during President Trump’s law enforcement surge in the nation’s capital.
Judge Zia Faruqui, a former federal prosecutor, said leaders of U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office have tarnished its reputation with how they are handling the deluge of cases. He said Pirro’s office is routinely bringing cases that don’t belong in federal court and needlessly keeping people in jail for days while they evaluate charges.
“It’s not fair to say they’re losing credibility. We’re past that now,” Faruqui said. He later added, “There’s no credibility left.”
The judge lambasted Pirro’s office during a hearing at which he agreed to dismiss the federal case against a man accused of threatening to kill Trump while in police custody. The defendant, Edward Alexander Dana, spent more than a week in jail before a federal grand jury refused to indict him.
It is extraordinarily rare for a grand jury to balk at returning an indictment, but it has happened at least seven times in five cases since Trump’s surge started nearly a month ago. Faruqui said it is ironic that an occupying force is at the mercy of the occupants” serving on the grand juries.
Pirro has been critical of Faruqui, one of four magistrates at the district court in Washington. On Thursday, the top federal prosecutor for Washington responded to Faruqui’s latest remarks by saying the judge “has repeatedly indicated his allegiance to those who violate the law and carry illegal guns.”
“This judge took an oath to follow the law, yet he has allowed his politics to consistently cloud his judgment and his requirement to follow the law,” she said in a statement. “America voted for safe communities, law and order, and this judge is the antithesis of that.”
Faruqui said there is no precedent for what is happening at the courthouse over the last few weeks. He said Trump administration officials are frequently touting the arrest figures on social media with seemingly no regard for how the arrests are affecting people’s lives.
“Where are the stats on the people illegally detained?” he asked.
Assistant U.S. Atty. Conor Mulroe said prosecutors from Pirro’s office are working around the clock on the influx of new cases.
“You are busy because you all have created this mess,” he told Mulroe. “I’m not saying it’s your problem. It’s your office’s problem.”
Mulroe was the only representative of Pirro’s office who attended Thursday’s hearing. Faruqui questioned why Pirro or her top deputies “don’t have the dignity to come here” and defend their charging decisions.
“That’s what leaders do,” he said.
The White House says over 1,800 people have been arrested since the operation started Aug. 7. Over 40 cases have been filed in district court, which hears the most serious federal offenses, including assault, gun and drug charges.
Dana was jailed for about a week after his arrest on Aug. 17. A different judge ordered his release on Aug. 25. On Thursday, Pirro’s office opted to drop the federal case against Dana but charge him with misdemeanors, including destruction of property and attempted threats, in D.C. Superior Court.
Dana’s attorney, assistant federal public defender Elizabeth Mullin, said prosecutors should have known that this case didn’t belong in federal court.
“A 15-year-old would know,” she said. “It was obvious from the outset.”
Dana was arrested on suspicion of damaging a light fixture at a restaurant. An officer was driving Dana to a police station when he threatened to kill Trump, according to a Secret Service agent’s affidavit. Dana also told police that he was intoxicated that night. Mullin said Dana’s “hyperbolic rambling” didn’t amount to a criminal threat.
Faruqui ordered prosecutors to file a brief explaining why they didn’t immediately inform him of its charging decisions in Dana’s case. The judge apologized to Dana “on behalf of the court” and suggested that Pirro’s office also owes Dana an apology.
Pirro said in an earlier statement that a grand jury’s refusal to indict somebody for threatening to kill the president “is the essence of a politicized jury.”
“The system here is broken on many levels,” she said. “Instead of the outrage that should be engendered by a specific threat to kill the president, the grand jury in D.C. refuses to even let the judicial process begin. Justice should not depend on politics.”
SACRAMENTO — Responding to the Trump administration’s aggressive and unceasing immigration raids in Southern California, state lawmakers this week began strengthening protections for immigrants in schools, hospitals and other areas targeted by federal agents.
The Democratic-led California Legislature is considering nearly a dozen bills aimed at shielding immigrants who are in the country illegally, including helping children of families being ripped apart in the enforcement actions.
“Californians want smart, sensible solutions and we want safe communities,” said Assemblymember Christopher Ward (D-San Diego). “They do not want peaceful neighbors ripped out of schools, ripped out of hospitals, ripped out of their workplaces.”
Earlier this week, lawmakers passed two bills focused on protecting schoolchildren.
Senate Bill 98, authored by Sen. Sasha Renée Peréz (D-Alhambra), would require school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on a K-12 or college campus.
Legislation introduced by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), AB 49, would bar immigration agents from nonpublic areas of a school unless they had a judicial warrant or court order. It also would bar school districts from providing information about pupils, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant.
A separate bill by Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley), SB 81, would bar healthcare officials from disclosing a patient’s immigration status or birthplace, or giving access to nonpublic spaces in hospitals and clinics, to immigration authorities without a search warrant or court order.
All three bills now head to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration. If signed into law, the legislation would take effect immediately.
The school-related bills, said L.A. school board member Rocio Rivas, provide “critical protections for students, parents and families, helping ensure schools remain safe spaces where every student can learn and thrive without fear.”
Federal immigration agents have recently detained several 18-year-old high school students, including Benjamin Marcelo Guerrero-Cruz, who was picked up last month while walking his dog a few days before he started his senior year at Reseda Charter High School.
Most Republican legislators voted against the bills, but Peréz’s measure received support from two Republican lawmakers, Assemblymember Juan Alanis (R-Modesto) and state Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (R-Yucaipa). Muratsuchi’s had support from six Republicans.
“No person should be able to go into a school and take possession of another person’s child without properly identifying themselves,” Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) said before voting to support the bill.
The healthcare bill follows a surge in cancellations for health appointments as immigrants stay home, fearing that if they go to a doctor or to a clinic, they could be swept up in an immigration raid.
California Nurses Assn. President Sandy Reding said that federal agents’ recent raids have disregarded “traditional safe havens” such as clinics and hospitals, and that Newsom’s approval would ensure that people who need medical treatment can “safely receive care without fear or intimidation.”
Some Republicans pushed back against the package of bills, including outspoken conservative Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), who said that the raids that Democrats are “making such hay over” were triggered by the state’s “sanctuary” law passed in 2018.
The state law DeMaio attacked, SB 54, bars local law enforcement from helping enforce federal immigration laws, including arresting someone solely for having a deportation order, and from holding someone in jail for extra time so immigration agents can pick them up.
The law, criticized by President Trump and Republicans nationwide, does not prevent police from informing federal agents that someone who is in the country illegally is about to be released from custody.
“If you wanted a more orderly process for the enforcement of federal immigration rules, you’d back down from your utter failure of SB54,” DeMaio said.
Chino Valley Unified School Board President Sonja Shaw, a Trump supporter who is running for state superintendent of public instruction, said that the bills about school safety were “political theater that create fear where none is needed.”
“Schools already require proper judicial orders before allowing immigration enforcement on campus, so these bills don’t change anything,” Shaw said. “They are gaslighting families into believing that schools are unsafe, when in reality the system already protects students.”
But Muratsuchi, who is also running for superintendent, said the goal of the legislation is to ensure that districts everywhere, “including in more conservative areas,” protect their students against immigration enforcement.
A half-dozen other immigration bills are still pending in the Legislature. Lawmakers have until next Friday to send bills to Newsom’s desk before the 2025 session is adjourned.
Those include AB 495 by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez (D-San Fernando), which would make it easier for parents to designate caregivers who are not blood relatives — including godparents and teachers — as short-term guardians for their children. An increasing number of immigrant parents have made emergency arrangements in the event they are deported.
The bill would allow nonrelatives to make decisions such as enrolling a child in school and consenting to some medical care.
Conservatives have criticized the bill as an attack on parental rights and have said that the law could be misused by estranged family members or even sexual predators — and that current guidelines for establishing family emergency plans are adequate.
Also still pending is AB 1261, by Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), which would establish a right to legal representation for unaccompanied children in federal immigration court proceedings; and SB 841 by Sen. Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), which would restrict access for immigration authorities at shelters for homeless people and survivors of rape, domestic violence and human trafficking.
I Fought The Law has had viewers in tears and as Sheridan Smith’s triumphant return to the screen plays out, she is joined by a host of other familiar faces
14:03, 02 Sep 2025Updated 14:04, 02 Sep 2025
Sheridan Smith has had I Fought The Law viewers in tears in recent days(Image: ITV)
Julie Hogg, aged 22, was a mother to three-year-old son Kevin and wife to husband Andrew. She vanished after working a late shift at a local pizza parlour.
Heartbreakingly, Ann found Julie’s body hidden in the bathroom of her home in January 1990. 80 days earlier, the murderer had concealed Julie’s body behind the bath panel.
TV favourite Sheridan Smith has starred in a number of true crime dramas over the years (Image: ITV)
Jake Davies has appeared in Screw and Cyber Bully but now plays Matthew in I Fought The Law(Image: ITV)
During the show’s lengthy run throughout the 2000s, she also appeared on Fat Friends opposite Emmerdale star Lisa Riley as well as sunny sitcom Benidorm and BBC favourite Gavin & Stacey. She then turned to musical theatre, winning an Olivier Award for her portrayal of Elle Woods, the character made famous by Reese Witherspoon, in the West End production of Legally Blonde.
Further stage credits in Funny Girl and, more recently, Shirley Valentine and Opening Night followed.
But it’s gritty dramas that Sheridan has really made her mark. In 2014, she starred as Cilla Black in Cilla, played a cleaner with a gambling addiction in Cleaning Up and also starred in a number of true crime dramas with her the mother of a young gay man killed by Stephen Port in Four Lives, and as Karen Matthews’ friend Julie Bushby in the BBC drama The Moorside.
Daniel York Loh stars as Sheridan’s on-screen husband but has been seen before in Strangers and the short-lived sitcom Scarborough(Image: ITV)
But Sheridan is not the only famous face to be starring in the much-anticipated drama. She is joined by Enzo Cilenti as DS Mark Braithwaite. He previously starred in Jekyll & Hyde for ITV alongside Hollywood star Richard E. Grant and Strictly Come Dancing’s Natalie Gumede. He also had a main role as Aubrey Hackett in The Last Tycoon opposite Lily Collins, Matt Bomer and Kelsey Grammar and can also be seen alongside Olivia Colman and Dominic West in the 2019 BBC version of Les Miserables.
Esteemed actor Andrew Lancel makes an appearance as Guy Whitburn QC in I Fought The Law, but soap fans are likely to remember him as the villainous Frank Foster on Coronation Street. He appeared as the business associate of Underworld manager Carla Connor (Alison King), and subjected the factory boss to a horrific act of rape.
He was later found dead on the factory floor and it turned out that he had been murdered by his own mother Anne, who was played by Heartbeat favourite Gwen Taylor, after she discovered what he had done. Prior to his stint on the cobbles, he had appeared on Bad Girls and Queer as Folk and has also carved out an illustrious career in theatre having starred in tours of The Sound of Music and Cilla.
Andrew Lancel is known to Coronation Street fans as the villainous Frank Foster (Image: Liverpool Echo)
The cast is rounded out by Victoria Wyant, who plays the victim in question, as well as Rivals star as Rufus Jones. The actor recently starred as Paul Stratton in the hit Disney+ series and has also starred in The Casual Vacancy and appeared in the likes of Inside No. 9, Beyond Paradise and Black Ops over the years. Fans of Hollyoaks might also recognise Kent Riley, who played Zak Ramsey in the Channel 4 soap.
CBBC fans might also recognise Aimee Kelly, who plays Judith Morden in the drama series. The actress first found fame as a teenager when she played Maddy Smith in the hit supernatural series Wolfblood opposite Bobby Lockwood.
Since she quit the supernatural series more than a decade ago, she has appeared in episodes of Call The Midwife, Grantchester and Holby City. In 2024, she played Sasha in the psychological thriller Platform 7. Others set to appear in the programme, which finishes its run on September 8, are Jack James Riley, Bryony Corrigan, and Buddy Wignall-Ho.
Ann, unhappy with the Cleveland Constabulary’s investigation, took it upon herself to challenge senior officers in a bid to uncover the truth about her daughter Julie’s murder and bring the culprit to justice.
William Dunlop was twice put on trial for Julie’s murder, each time denying his guilt. On both occasions, the jury failed to reach a verdict, leading to his formal acquittal and release.
In 1999, while serving a seven-year sentence for violent offences, Dunlop confessed to a prison officer that he had murdered Julie. At the time, due to the double jeopardy rule, he could not be retried for the murder following his acquittal.
Ann, who also serves as a consultant on I Fought the Law, expressed her support for the ITV series and shared her delight that actress Sheridan would be portraying her, stating she was “overwhelmed”.
“I am very pleased that Hera Pictures will tell the story of my campaign to overturn the Double Jeopardy Law. My daughter’s killer was wrongfully acquitted, and a number of years later confessed to her murder, for which he could only be prosecuted for perjury due to the 800-year-old Double Jeopardy Law. I wasn’t going to let this stand in my way of getting justice for Julie.
It’s been more than 2,000 days since Covid-19 appeared in late 2019 growing to more than 700 million cases and at least 7 million deaths globally. Like many other people who were infected by Covid-19, I have long thought about its origins and where we go next.
Under international law the principle of onus probandi,serious matters like lethal modalities such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or allegations of lethal pathogenic origins require the highest standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is also why the complaining party, not the accused, that bears the burden of proof.
That’s also why the WHO Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens explicitly requires the proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” gold standard, not the lower “preponderance of the evidence” test that something is merely more likely true than not. And it’s why the WHO panel operates under the legal principle of in dubio pro reo, a presumption of innocence until the accusing party proves otherwise.
Applying these standards, the required burden of proof level has not been met in even one case as the US and some allies have falsely accused Wuhan as being the origin of Covid-19.
China, in fact met its primary obligations under the WHO International Health Regulations, including timely notification to WHO of unusual pneumonia cases in December, 2019; sharing viral genome sequencing with WHO in December, 2019; and facilitating the WHO-China joint investigation during 2021.
I also find it unpersuasive that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” test was met since there were multiple independent reports, including wastewater and antibody blood testing of varying levels of credibility, of Covid-19 being present in Europe and the Americas prior to December 1, 2019. Since there is substantial evidence that Covid-19 appeared earlier on in numerous venues far beyond China, it has to be a case of “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. For example, consider:
In Italy, multiple studies based on the presence of antibodies in blood samples found Covid-19 as early as October, 2019.
In France, the analysis of thousands of blood samples detected Covid-19 antibodies in 13 cases from November, 2019 to January, 2020.
In the Americas, signs of Covid-19 based on the presence of antibodies in blood samples were found in Brazil in November, 2019 and in the US in early December, 2019.
To me, however, the most convincing evidence is that after so much time has passed and so much money has been expended, no Western intelligence agency has been able to find Covid-19s origin with a high level of confidence; therefore not “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Beginning with 2020, without the legal proof threshold being met, a handful of lawsuits outside the US, were filed against China over Covid-19 . All have been unsuccessful. In the US, a greater number of cases yielded only two Pyrric victories among numerous defeats whose massive judgments in cases that are mere political theater, clogged an understaffed, overburdened judicial system, but not one cent will ever be collected because under international law, these judgments will be uncollectable. There are several reasons for these disparities.
Legally, other nations have more respect for the longstanding doctrine of sovereign immunity governing one nation or its political subdivisions suing another. Consequently, such cases are also more difficult to file there. The doctrine, which must be music to Donald Trump’s ears, can be traced back to the English common law doctrine: rex non potest peccare or “the king can do no wrong”.
The US is the most litigious country globally, having the highest number of cases filed annually. One of the reasons is an unusual feature of the American legal system that allows litigants to bring cases without paying their lawyer, unless their lawyers are successful, in which case the lawyers take a negotiated percentage of the judgment, usually upwards of 40%.
From the 1990s, The US had been more politically divided. As part of this trend, American views on China were negatively affected and have severely deteriorated, accelerated by Covid-19. For example, Gallup found that about 41% of American had a favorable view of China in February, 2019, but by 2023 this number fell to 15%. Putting these facts together, it’s no surprise that the US has been the ground zero for quixotic lawsuits seeking damages for Covid19.
US courts are governed by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act which accords foreign states broad immunity from lawsuits in US courts with several seemingly narrow exceptions. China, however, adheres to the principle of absolute sovereign immunity, and does not recognize the exceptions and abstains from appearing in US courts.
The exceptions, however, encouraged the conservative attorneys-general of red states Missouri and Mississippi to sue China. They were fully aware of China’s position and the futility of obtaining damages, beyond performing a political theater of the absurd that would further gum up an already understaffed judicial system.
Both officials belong to the National Association of Attorney Generals, which we jokingly call “National Association of Aspiring Governors” and both used the suits to waste taxpayers money to further their political careers, and in the case of the Missouri A-G, to help him become US senator.
The “justice is blind” mantra, at least in the case of Missouri, also fall on deaf ears. The 2-1 decision that turned on the narrow exceptions, smacks of political bias. At least one of the two judges allowing the exceptions to hold against China, perhaps both, should have recused themselves to avoid an appearance of impropriety; each was a Trump-appointee.
Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., who wrote the majority opinion is first cousin of the notorious extreme right media commentator Rush Limbaugh. The latter, with an audience of more than 15 million, had said that “the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another weapon to bring down Donald Trump and it probably is a ChiCom (Chinese Communist) laboratory experiment that is in the process of being weaponized”. Judge Limbaugh had an unambiguous moral duty to recuse himself. but didn’t.
The cases have many flaws but I agree with the dissent in the Missouri case, written by the Chief Judge, not a Trump-appointee, that the exceptions did not apply to China.
The Covid-19 nightmare may be over but other pathogens with pandemic potential are literally waiting in the wings. Last year there were 17 global disease outbreaks, including Marburg virus. Mpox and H5N1 bird flu.
Experts warn that there is a 40 to 53% likelihood of another serious pandemic within 25 years.
Trump has already slashed the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) budget from $9.3 to 4.2 billion in 2026. At the same time WHO will (again) lose its largest contributor next year per orders of President Trump to the tune of $500 million to $1.3 billion. Combined, this will cripple the UN body and severely weaken global health surveillance, especially neutering WHOs Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network that relies heavily on American data-sharing and technical support. Trump has even forbidden the remaining experts who weren’t fired from the CDC, from co-authoring scientific papers with WHO staff.
Sadly, like the CDC. the WHO itself is destined to be in poor health, and may suffer terminal decline, causing needless deaths at home and abroad if the US continues down its selfish path. This churlish US action will undoubtedly severely increase the more than 14 million deaths forecast globally by 2030 as a consequence of savage 83% budget cuts to the US Agency for International Development and related US foreign aid programs.
China will assuredly pick up some of the slack, especially via its Belt and Road Initiative and its Health Silk Road but cannot unilaterally restore funding to previous levels. Other nations hopefully can pick up some of the shortfall.
Under international law, we may never know where Covid-19 came from. However, If we don’t want the past to be prologue and if we don’t follow philosopher George Santayana’s wise advice that those who don’t learn from the mistakes of history are bound to repeat them, we must prepare our new multipolar world for the health and other shocks that await us.
Sheridan Smith is being praised for her powerful performance in I Fought the Law, a new ITV drama based on the real-life harrowing story of a Brit who fought for justice after her daughter’s murder
Sheridan Smith moved viewers to tears with her performance in ITV’s I Fought the Law(Image: ITV)
The four-part series, which started airing tonight (August 31), tells the harrowing true story of Ann Ming – the woman who changed an 800-year-old law in her fight for justice following the murder of her daughter Julie.
Smith, who has become the go-to star for bringing real-life figures to the screen in acclaimed dramas such as The C Word, The Moorside, Four Lives, Mrs Biggs and Cilla, is being called one of the best British actors in existence for her role in this show.
She gives viewers a glimpse of what Ann may have gone through from the moment Julie went missing in 1989 until the end of her 15 year campaign to overturn the ancient British double jeopardy rule that was keeping her daughter’s killer out of jail.
The drama is based on the true story of Ann Ming who campaigned for her daughter’s killer to be jailed(Image: ITV)
Audiences were stunned with the actresses’ portrayal of a parent’s worst nightmare in episode one as Ann fought with indifferent police after her daughter vanished, eventually resorting to chasing leads on her own before making the heartbreaking discovery of Julie’s body 80 days later.
One fan took to social media to share how touched they were by the performance, writing: “Just finished watching #IFoughtTheLaw Sheridan Smith utterly fantastic in the role of Ann Ming. I’m in bits tbh. What a wonderful achievement in changing the double jeopardy law to finally get justice for Julie.”
Another admitted: “Just binged every episode! Horrific crime. Disgusting policing. Outstanding woman. Sheridan is amazing as always. It’s a must watch. Cried my eyes out. Lots of love to Julie’s family.” A third chimed in: “This is so tense. You can feel the panic.”
The series is adapted from Ann’s memoir For the Love of Julie and written by Jamie Crichton (All Creatures Great and Small, The Last Kingdom).
Unlike a traditional whodunit, the show reveals the culprit early on, and spends most of its runtime on Ann’s long legal battle to overturn double jeopardy after her daughter’s killer was acquitted despite compelling DNA evidence.
Ann Ming’s campaign eventually led to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which created an exception to the double jeopardy rule.
This paved the way for a retrial of William Dunlop, who had confessed to Julie’s murder. In 2006, he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
Sheridan Smith was almost unrecognisable on screen after spending hours in the make-up chair every day ahead of playing Ann. Her costume included a wig that demonstrates her aging as the episodes progress and years of campaigning and grief take their toll on the mum.
The actress admitted that she barely recognised her own reflection during filming, explaining: “I couldn’t even see myself in the mirror. It just wasn’t me, and I didn’t see where I was. So it was a magic shoot.”
The star also said that playing such a weighty character came with a deep sense of responsibility. Smith told The Hollywood Reporter : “I felt such responsibility to do her story justice, because she’s trusted these guys to tell her story. At the end of the day, it’s her real life. It’s not just a TV show, it’s her life and her family, and it matters.”
Jack James Ryan has opened up about his role in the upcoming ITV drama I Fought The Law, which sees him starring alongside Sheridan Smith in the four-part series
Daniel Bird Assistant Celebrity and Entertainment Editor
19:00, 31 Aug 2025
Sheridan Smith’s I Fought The Law co-star Jack James Ryan was blown away by her performance(Image: ITV)
Coronation Street and Passenger star Jack James Ryan was left starstruck after working alongside Sheridan Smith on the ITV series, I Fought The Law. The 29-year-old actor, who has become a familiar face in British households, landed a role in the drama, which tells the real-life story of Ann Ming’s fight to change the Double Jeopardy Law and bring her daughter Julie Hogg’s murderer to justice.
Despite spending four months on set, Manchester-born Jack still found himself “geeking out” over his co-star Sheridan, 44. Speaking exclusively to the Mirror, he said: “People say ‘Oh I’ve always loved this actor’ but when I knew that I was going to be playing alongside Sheridan, I couldn’t believe it.”
He continued: “It was just amazing, I have followed her career as a young actor and been totally inspired by the work that she’s done, so getting to spend the last four months watching her work and stealing everything was the best, so much better than drama school.”
Jack, who starred as William ‘Billy’ Dunlop, said it was ‘amazing’ working alongside Sheridan Smith(Image: ITV)
Jack also revealed that Sheridan has an incredible ability to instantly “switch on” and get into character at a moment’s notice following a break in filming.
“She is absolutely breathtaking,” he enthused. “To be surrounded by these actors, it has an absolutely great supporting cast throughout the series, so to be surrounded by them felt like I’d won the lottery – this is the type of work that I’ve always dreamed of doing.”
Discussing the show, Jack revealed: “I’ve never been in anything that was based on a true case, or any of the characters have been real, it’s always been fictional stuff. Straight away you feel the pressure to do it justice. Sheridan plays the trailblazer, Ann Ming, who has done so much for raising awareness in the work that she’s done.
Sheridan took on the lead role as trailblazer Ann Ming(Image: ITV)
“I know that we all felt the pressure, Sheridan and everyone, to do this story justice and deliver it in a sensitive way that was going to be impactful and honouring the people that we’ve lost. And also the people that are still fighting for justice, it wasn’t easy but it was also incredibly exciting to be a part of something which felt like it has the opportunity to really help and change people and have a real impact for the better.
“I’m really, really excited for this to come out, and I think it’s going to be, it’s going to be a really different side to me that people haven’t seen before,” he stated, adding there was a “quite a visual transformation.”
I Fought The Law will explore how Ann and Julie’s relatives coped with her baffling vanishing in Cleveland back in November 1989 after completing her shift at a neighbourhood pizza restaurant. Julie had maintained an extremely strong bond with her parents, Ann and Charlie. She was just 22 when she was killed.
Julie Hogg was just 22 when she was murdered(Image: PA)
Julie’s remains were found by her mother 80 days after they were concealed behind the panel of her bath by her killer. Nevertheless, her terraced property had been meticulously examined by forensics teams in the days following her disappearance.
The series, adapted from Ann’s memoir, For The Love of Julie, also features Daniel York Lou as Charlie Ming and Enzo Cilenti as DS Mark Brathwaite.
Additionally, Marlowe Chan-Reeves, Olivia Ng, Jake Davies, Victoria Wyant, Kent Riley and Rufus Jones all feature in the programme. Previously, Jack joined forces as a Movember ambassador – championing awareness of men’s mental health and urging blokes to open up.
Looking back on his involvement with the Movember campaign, he explained: “I was already well aware of the amazing work that Movember has done and does for raising awareness and funds for male mental health, just to be a small part of history moving forward is very exciting. It’s such an exciting project and a really meaningful project to get behind, male mental health is so under-reported and so unspoken about.”
I Fought The Law airs tonoght at 9pm on ITV1 and ITVX.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California energy regulators Friday put the brakes on plans requiring oil companies to pay a penalty if their profits climb too high, a temporary win for the fossil fuel industry two years after the governor declared the state had “finally beat big oil.”
The postponement by the California Energy Commission until 2030 comes after two oil refineries accounting for roughly 18% of the state’s refining capacity announced their plans to close in the coming months. The commission has the power to implement a penalty but has not done so since it was given that authority in 2023.
The penalty was considered a landmark piece of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s government and the state’s ambitious goals to curb climate change. The state faces challenges in its efforts to take on the oil industry while ensuring a stable and affordable fuel supply. His administration is also proposing to temporarily streamline approvals of new oil wells in existing oil fields in an effort to maintain a stable fuel supply.
Siva Gunda, the commission’s vice chair, said the state is not “walking back” its efforts to wean itself off fossil fuels but must prioritize protecting consumers at the gas pump.
“I personally truly believe that this pause will be beneficial to ensure that this mid-transition is smooth,” he said.
The commission still plans to set rules that would require oil refineries to keep a minimum level of fuel on hand to avoid shortages when refineries go offline for maintenance.
Jamie Court, the president of Consumer Watchdog who supported the law, said the energy commission’s vote is “basically a giveaway to the industry.”
“I’m really disheartened and disgusted by Newsom,” he said. “I feel like this is just a total about-face. And in the end it’s going to result in greater price spikes.”
But the Western States Petroleum Association recommended that the state postpone a penalty for 20 years.
“While today’s action by the CEC stopped short of a full statutory repeal or a 20-year pause, it represents a needed step to provide some certainty for California’s fuels market,” CEO Catherine Reheis-Boyd said in a statement. “The vote demonstrates the CEC’s understanding that imposing this failed policy would have likely exacerbated investment concerns contributing to California’s recent refinery closures.”
In 2022, Newsom called the Legislature into a special session to pass a law aimed at holding oil companies accountable for making too much money after a summer of record-high gas prices in California. The governor signed a law the following year authorizing the energy commission to penalize oil companies for excessive profits.
The law also required oil companies to report more data on their operations to the state. It created an independent division at the commission to oversee the oil and gas industry and provide guidance to the state on its energy transition.
Newsom’s office thanked the energy commission for voting to postpone implementing a penalty, saying it was a “prudent step” toward stabilizing the oil market.
“When Governor Newsom signed this legislation two years ago, he promised that we would utilize the new transparency tools to look under the hood of our oil and gas market that had been a black box for decades,” spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor said in a statement. “We did exactly that.”
Julia Stein, deputy director of a climate institute at UCLA School of Law, said state officials are still intent on advancing their efforts to transition away from fossil fuels.
“But I think there is also a sense at the state level that we’re entering a different phase of the transition where some of these problems are going to be presented more acutely,” she said. “And folks are kind of now trying to understand how they’re going to approach that in real time.”
California has the highest gas prices in the nation, largely due to taxes and environmental regulations. Regular unleaded gas prices were $4.59 a gallon Friday, compared to a national average of $3.20, according to AAA.
The commission has not determined what would count as an excessive profit under the policy.
Setting a penalty could be risky for the state because it could unintentionally discourage production and drive prices up, said Severin Borenstein, an economist and public policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
“It’s pretty clear they are shifting towards more focus on affordability and recognition that the high prices in California may not be associated with the actual refinery operations,” he said of state officials.
WASHINGTON — President Trump has audaciously claimed virtually unlimited power to bypass Congress and impose sweeping taxes on foreign products.
Now a federal appeals court has thrown a roadblock in his path, ruling that he is violating the law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Friday that Trump went too far when he declared national emergencies to justify imposing sweeping import taxes on almost every country.
The ruling largely upheld a May decision by a specialized federal trade court in New York. But the 7-4 appeals court decision tossed out a part of that ruling that would have overturned the tariffs immediately, allowing the Trump administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ruling was a big setback for Trump, whose trade policies have rocked financial markets, paralyzed businesses with uncertainty and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.
Which tariffs did the court knock down?
The court’s decision centers on the tariffs — export taxes — Trump imposed in April on almost all U.S. trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada.
Trump on April 2 — “Liberation Day,” he called it — imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else.
The president later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to negotiate trade agreements with the United States — and reduce their barriers to American exports. Some of them did — including the United Kingdom, Japan and the European Union — and agreed to lopsided deals with Trump to avoid even bigger tariffs.
Those that didn’t knuckle under — or otherwise incurred Trump’s wrath — got hit harder this month. Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff, for instance, and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump also kept the baseline tariffs in place.
Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, Trump justified the taxes under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, by declaring the United States’ long-standing trade deficits “a national emergency.”
In February, he’d invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs into the U.S. amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it.
The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.
Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that Beijing used unfair practices to give its technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.
Why did the court rule against the president?
The administration had argued that courts had approved President Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in the economic chaos that followed his decision to end a policy that linked the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in the IEEPA.
In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s April 2 tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.
On Friday, the federal appeals court wrote in its 7-4 ruling that “it seems unlikely that Congress intended to … grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”
A dissent from the judges who disagreed with Friday’s ruling clears a possible legal path for Trump, concluding that the 1977 law allowing for emergency actions “is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority under the Supreme Court’s decisions,” which have allowed Congress to grant some tariff authorities to the president.
So where does this leave Trump’s trade agenda?
The government has argued that if Trump’s tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury. Revenue from tariffs totaled $159 billion by July, more than double what it was at the same point the year before. Indeed, the Justice Department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.
It could also put Trump on shaky ground in trying to impose tariffs going forward.
“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands, delay implementation of prior commitments, or even seek to renegotiate terms,” Ashley Akers, senior counsel at the Holland & Knight law firm and a former Justice Department trial lawyer, said before the appeals court decision.
The president promptly said he would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” he wrote on his social media platform.
Trump does have alternative laws for imposing import taxes, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act.
For instance, in its decision in May, the trade court noted that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and to just 150 days on countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits.
The administration could also invoke levies under a different legal authority — Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — as it did with tariffs on foreign steel, aluminum and autos. But that requires a Commerce Department investigation and cannot be imposed merely at the president’s own discretion.
Wiseman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.
NEW ORLEANS — A federal appeals court has vacated a ruling that a Texas law giving police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. was unconstitutional.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday vacated a ruling by a three-judge panel, and now the full court will consider whether the law can take effect.
The Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 4 in 2023, but a federal judge in Texas ruled the law unconstitutional. Texas appealed that ruling.
Under the proposed law, state law enforcement officers could arrest people suspected of entering the country illegally. Once in custody, detainees could agree to a Texas judge’s order to leave the country or face a misdemeanor charge of entering the U.S. illegally. Migrants who don’t leave after being ordered to do so could be arrested again and charged with a more serious felony.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a social media post Friday that the court’s decision was a “hopeful sign.”
Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser, with an assist from Dakota Smith and Julia Wick, giving you the latest on city and county government.
L.A.’s political leaders are facing a daunting and possibly insurmountable deadline. If they blow it, they could face all kinds of headaches — legal, financial and otherwise.
By June 2026, they must show a federal judge that they have removed 9,800 homeless encampments from streets, sidewalks and public rights of way. That means 9,800 tents, cars, RVs and makeshift structures — those created out of materials like cardboard or shopping carts — over a four-year period.
The city’s strategy for reaching that goal has become a huge source of friction in its long-running legal battle with the LA Alliance for Human Rights, which sued the city in 2020 over its handling of homelessness.
In recent months, the encampment removal plan has also become the subject of a second lawsuit — one alleging that the City Council approved it behind closed doors, then failed to disclose that fact, in violation of a state law requiring that government business be conducted in public view.
The encampment removal plan was “drafted and adopted without any notice to the public (which includes the owners of these tents, makeshift encampments, and RVs that the City has agreed to clear), let alone any public debate or discussion,” said the lawsuit filed by the Los Angeles Community Action Network, the homeless advocacy group also known as LA CAN, which is an intervenor in the LA Alliance case.
Newsletter
You’re reading the L.A. on the Record newsletter
Sign up to make sense of the often unexplained world of L.A. politics.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Lawyers for the city say they followed the Ralph M. Brown Act, which spells out disclosure requirements for decisions made behind closed doors by government bodies. In one filing, they said their actions were not only legal, but “reasonable and justified under the circumstances.”
As with everything surrounding the LA Alliance case, there is a tortured backstory.
The LA Alliance sued the city in 2020, alleging that too little was being done to address the homelessness crisis, particularly in Skid Row. The case was settled two years later, with the city agreeing to create 12,915 new shelter beds or other housing opportunities by June 2027.
After that deal was struck, the city began negotiating with the LA Alliance over an accompanying requirement to reduce the number of street encampments, with quarterly milestones in each council district.
The LA Alliance eventually ran out of patience, telling U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in February 2024 that the city was 447 days late in finalizing its plan. The group submitted to the court a copy of the encampment removal plan, saying it had been approved by the City Council on Jan. 31, 2024.
Two months later, City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto’s office also told Carter that the plan to remove 9,800 encampments, and the accompanying milestones, had gone before the council on Jan. 31.
The council “approved them without delay,” Feldstein Soto’s team said in a filing submitted jointly by the city and the LA Alliance.
Video from the Jan. 31 meeting shows that council members did in fact go behind closed doors for more than two hours to discuss the LA Alliance case. But when they returned, Deputy City Atty. Jonathan Groat said there was nothing to report from the closed session.
The encampment removal plan is a huge issue for LA CAN, which has warned that the 9,800 goal effectively creates a quota system for sanitation workers — one that could make them more likely to violate the property rights of unhoused residents.
At no point during the council’s deliberations did the public have the opportunity to weigh in on the harm that would be caused by seizing the belongings of thousands of unhoused people, said attorney Shayla Myers, who represents LA CAN. Beyond that, she said, the public was never told who supported the plan and who opposed it.
“The narrow exception in the Brown Act that allows a legislative body to confer with their attorneys in closed session was never intended to allow the City Council to shelter these kinds of controversial decisions from public view,” the lawsuit states.
LA CAN now wants a Superior Court judge to force the city to disclose any votes cast by council members on the encampment removal plan. The group also wants recordings and transcripts of those proceedings, as well as a declaration that the city violated the Brown Act in its handling of the matter.
Beyond that, the group alleges that the council violated the Brown Act a second time, in May 2024, by failing to disclose its approval of an agreement with L.A. County — again reached behind closed doors — over the delivery of services to homeless residents.
Assistant City Atty. Strefan Fauble pushed back on LA CAN’s assertions, saying “no settlement or agreement was voted on or approved” by the council on Jan. 31, 2024. In a letter to LA CAN last year, Fauble also said the agreement with the county was not disclosed at the time because it had not been finalized in federal court.
“The City has always complied with its post-closed session disclosure requirements under the Brown Act when a settlement or agreement is final,” he wrote. “It will continue to do so.”
Meanwhile, the fight over the encampment removal plan is getting messier.
Two months ago, Judge Carter spelled out restrictions on the types of tents that can be counted toward the 9,800. In a 62-page order, he said a tent discarded by sanitation workers could be counted toward the city’s goal only if its owner had been offered housing or a shelter bed beforehand.
The city is weighing an appeal of that assertion. In a memo to the council, Feldstein Soto said the judge had “reinterpreted” some of the city’s settlement obligations.
An appeal would be expensive, and Feldstein Soto is already in hot water over legal bills racked up in the LA Alliance case.
On Wednesday, the council balked at Feldstein Soto’s request for a $5-million increase to the city’s contract with the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, which would include work on an appeal and other tasks. The council sent the request to the budget committee for more review.
Some councilmembers voiced dismay that Gibson Dunn billed $3.2 million in less than three months, after the council had allocated an initial $900,000 for a two-year period.
State of play
— VA VOUCHERS: Los Angeles County housing authorities have more than enough federal rental subsidies to house all of the county’s homeless veterans. Yet chronic failures in a complicated bureaucracy of referral, leasing and support services have left those agencies treading water. About 4,000 vouchers are gathering dust while an estimated 3,400 veterans remain on the streets or inside shelters, The Times reported.
— TAKE THE STAIRS: Could new apartment buildings with only one staircase help solve L.A.’s housing crisis? Councilmember Nithya Raman favors such a change, saying it can be done without sacrificing safety.
— FILM FACTOTUM: More than two and a half years after taking office, Mayor Karen Bass fulfilled a longstanding campaign promise, announcing the selection of a new film liaison between City Hall and the entertainment industry. Steve Kang, president of the Board of Public Works, will serve as the primary point person for film and TV productions looking to shoot in L.A. He’ll be assisted by Dan Halden, who works out of the city’s Bureau of Street Services, and producer Amy Goldberg.
— VALLEY SHUFFLE? City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who faces term limits next year, told The Times he’s considering a run for state Senate in 2028. If he gets in the race, the former state lawmaker would compete for the North Hollywood-to-Moorpark district currently represented by state Sen. Henry Stern, who faces term limits in 2028.
— PROTESTER PAYOUT: A Los Angeles filmmaker and his daughter were awarded more than $3 million after a jury found Los Angeles County negligent for injuries the man sustained when a sheriff’s deputy shot him in the face with a projectile during a protest against police brutality in 2020.
— CRIME SPREE: Police announced the arrest this week of several alleged gang members accused of burglarizing nearly 100 homes and businesses, largely on the Westside. The suspects are believed to be part of a South L.A. group that called itself the “Rich Rollin’ Burglary Crew” and focused on the theft of high-end jewelry, purses, watches, wallets, suitcases and guns, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said.
— OFF THE BUS: Ridership on Metro’s network of buses continued to drop in July, weeks after federal immigration agents began a series of raids across L.A. County. Amid the decrease, Metro’s rail ridership grew by 6.5% over the same period.
— HOUSING WARS: After the L.A. City Council voted to oppose state Sen. Scott Wiener‘s new transit density bill, Councilmember Imelda Padilla joined Wiener and podcast host Jon Lovett (also a vocal supporter of the bill) to debate its merits on Pod Save America’s YouTube channel. The spirited conversation garnered more than 50,000 views, spawnednumerous memes and sparked hundreds of replies on the r/losangeles subreddit.
At one point, Lovett appeared shocked when Padilla, who joined seven of her colleagues in opposing Senate Bill 79, boasted of getting a proposed six-story affordable housing project reduced to three stories. Padilla addressed her viral interview during Friday’s council meeting, saying she views the council’s role as one that seeks compromise “between the NIMBYs and the YIMBYs.”
— SHE’S (OFFICIALLY) RUNNING: L.A. County Supervisor Hilda Solisofficially launched her campaign for a proposed new congressional district in southeast L.A. County, offering up a list of heavyweight backers, including Mayor Karen Bass, Sheriff Robert Luna, Supervisor Janice Hahn and civil rights icon Dolores Huerta.
QUICK HITS
Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to combat homelessness went to Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles, moving 10 people indoors, according to a Bass aide.
On the docket for next week: The L.A. County Board of Supervisors will take up a proposed ordinance to streamline the process of rebuilding in Altadena in the wake of the Eaton fire.
Stay in touch
That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to [email protected]. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.
The charges were laid against Han, 76, on Friday, according to South Korea’s Yonhap news agency. Additional charges include perjury and falsifying official documents.
Han had been under investigation by a team of special prosecutors for several weeks, according to media reports.
Former First Lady Kim was also indicted on charges stemming from her alleged participation in a stock manipulation scheme and acceptance of gifts from the controversial Unification Church, among other activities.
Lawyers for Kim have denied the allegations against her and said news reports about some of the gifts she allegedly received were groundless speculation.
Assistant special counsel Park Ji-young told a televised briefing that Han was the highest official who could have blocked Yoon’s attempt to impose martial law.
Park said Han still played an “active” role in Yoon’s martial law declaration by trying to get Yoon’s decree passed through a Cabinet Council meeting as a way to give “procedural legitimacy” to it.
Han has maintained that he conveyed to Yoon that he opposed his martial law plan.
Kim and her ex-president husband have been arrested and are in jail, with Yoon already undergoing trial on charges that include insurrection for his attempt to impose military rule.
His wife had been the subject of numerous high-profile scandals, some dating back more than 15 years, which overshadowed his turbulent presidency and inflicted political damage on him and his conservative People Power Party (PPP).
Yoon was formally impeached in April.
Former Prime Minister Han stepped in twice to serve as acting president during the post-martial law chaos between December and May, but he later resigned to participate in South Korea’s presidential election.
He failed, however, to secure the candidacy for the PPP.
The June 3 election was later won by the liberal Democratic Party’s Lee Jae-myung, who had livestreamed himself climbing over the walls of South Korea’s National Assembly to vote down the martial law declared by Yoon.
WASHINGTON — The street, normally quiet, was abuzz. The block lit up with flashing police cruisers and officers in tactical vests. Some had covered their faces. Neighbors came out of homes. Some hurled insults at the police, telling them to leave — or worse. Dozens joined in a chant: “Shame on you.”
Aaron Goldstein approached two officers. “Can you tell me why you couldn’t do this at 10:30 or 9:30, and why you had to terrorize the children in our neighborhood?” the man asked the officers as they turned their gazes away from him. Both wore dark sunglasses against the morning sun.
They said nothing.
The arrest shattered the routine of the neighborhood around Bancroft Elementary School, a public school where more than 60% of students are Latino. It came on the third day of a new school year, and immigration fears had already left the neighborhood on edge. Groups of residents had started escorting students to school from two nearby apartment complexes.
It was just another morning in Washington, D.C., in Summer 2025 — the summer of President Trump’s federal law-enforcement intervention in the nation’s capital.
A confrontation that was one among many
Some interludes unfold calmly. During others, nothing happens at all. But the boil-over Wednesday morning was one among many that have erupted across the city since Trump’s police takeover, offering a glimpse into daily life in a city where emotions have been pulled taut. Sightings of police activity spread quickly, attracting residents who say the federal infusion is unwelcome.
Families and children had been making their way toward a bilingual elementary school in the Mount Pleasant neighborhood when federal and local police officers descended on an apartment building just blocks from the school. Neighbors had been on high alert amid fears of increased immigration enforcement.
Now officers were flooding the street, some in plainclothes and face coverings. Some carried rifles or riot shields. Neighbors gathered outside and began yelling at the police to leave. Blocks away, as word spread, an assistant principal waiting to greet students sprinted to the scene.
In an interview, Goldstein, the Mount Pleasant resident, said it felt like a violation of the neighborhood, which he described as a “peaceful mix of white professionals and migrant neighbors, with a lot of love in it.”
“People are on Signal chats and they’re absolutely terrified, and everyone is following this,” said Goldstein, 55, who had just dropped off his third-grade daughter at Bancroft. “It’s distressful. We feel invaded, and it’s really terrible.”
The standoff continued after police arrested a man who they said is accused of drug and firearm crimes. Dozens of residents trailed officers down a side street and continued the jeers. “Quit your jobs.” “Nobody wants you here.” “You’re ruining the country.”
Asked about the episode later at a news conference, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said it attracted “a significant number of protesters” but “we were able to maintain calm.” Said Bowser: “I know there’s a lot of anxiety in the District.”
One officer, in the middle of it all, tries to talk
The conflict was punctuated by a remarkably candid conversation led by a Metropolitan Police Department sergeant who took questions from neighbors in what he described as “not an official press conference.”
“This is just me talking to community members,” Sgt. Michael Millsaps said, leaning back against the rear bumper of a cruiser.
Millsaps said the city’s police department was carrying out a planned arrest of a “suspected drug dealer” with support from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The suspect was taken into custody and a search of his apartment uncovered narcotics and an illegal firearm, Millsaps said.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers joined only as a distraction to prevent protesters from disrupting the operation, he said.
“The immigration folks were parked over there to get y’all to leave us alone,” he said. ICE officials did not immediately comment.
Residents told Millsaps that their trust of the city’s police had been broken. They said they felt less safe amid Trump’s crackdown. Millsaps said he was sorry to hear it. “I hear your frustrations. My job is to take it.”
Still, he described a different response from residents east of the Anacostia River, in some of the city’s highest crime areas. “I go on the other side of the river now, it’s the opposite. People come outside and thank us,” he said.
Mount Pleasant resident Nancy Petrovic was among those yelling at city and ATF officers after the arrest. Petrovic, a lifelong resident of the area, rushed out of her home when she heard yelling shortly after 8 a.m. She counted at least 10 police cars lined up across the block.
“Kids are going to school, they’re walking to school, and it’s frightening to them and their parents,” said Petrovic, who said the street is usually quiet and has no need for more police. “We want them to go away.”
Asked about the timing of the arrest, Millsaps said it was a planned operation similar to countless others.
“I’ve been doing this for 14 years, serving these warrants at the same time of day,” he said. “The only difference is you’ve got a big crowd here, which added even more police presence. But this was just a normal police operation.”
