leave

Dec. 23 (UPI) — At least four law officers were injured Tuesday in La Paz during clashes between marchers from the Central Obrera Boliviana, the country’s largest labor federation, and police as protests intensified over the government’s decision to end fuel subsidies.

President Rodrigo Paz issued a decree Dec. 18 eliminating fuel subsidies that had been in place for nearly 20 years. He also declared an “economic, financial and social emergency” to justify the reform and paired the measure with a 20% increase in the minimum wage to cushion its impact.

As a result of the decision, gasoline and diesel stopped being sold at state-controlled prices of about 53 cents per liter and shifted to prices reflecting the real cost of imports, leading to increases of nearly 200% for consumers.

According to reports by the Bolivian newspaper El Deber, the incidents that left police officers injured occurred near Plaza Murillo, close to the government palace, when miners and transport workers attempted to approach areas secured by law offivers.

The Ministry of Government said the injured officers were attacked with stones and blunt objects while carrying out public order duties.

Police said a miner was detained for allegedly throwing fireworks and dynamite. Labor leaders, meanwhile, criticized using tear gas to disperse demonstrators.

Union leaders warned that protests will continue unless their main demand is met — the repeal of the decree that eliminated fuel subsidies.

Bolivia’s Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office said that after the fuel price changes, fares for interdepartmental, interprovincial and urban transportation rose by as much as nearly 200% in several regions, according to La Razón.

After inspections at transport terminals and hubs in La Paz, Cochabamba and Santa Cruz, the ombudsman’s office documented widespread and unilateral fare hikes that in many cases doubled or even tripled prices, directly affecting the cost of living for Bolivian families.

El Deber reported that similar protests were recorded in Santa Cruz, including temporary road blockades and clashes with police, amid growing public anger over the impact of higher fuel prices on transportation and household expenses.

Authorities reiterated calls for dialogue and warned they will not tolerate violence, while unions said they will maintain mobilizations until the government reviews the measure.

Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump’s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover of darkness early Sunday morning, ahead of an appellate court’s order to be gone by noon Monday.

Administration officials would not immediately confirm whether the troops had decamped. But video taken outside the Roybal Federal Building downtown just after midnight on Sunday and reviewed by The Times shows a large tactical truck and four white passenger vans leaving the facility, which has been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.

About 300 California troops remain under federal control, some 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of last week, court records show.

“There were more than usual, and all of them left — there was not a single one that stayed,” said protester Rosa Martinez, who has demonstrated outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday.

Troops were spotted briefly later that day, but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon, Martinez said.

The development that forced the troops to leave was part of a sprawling legal fight for control of federalized soldiers nationwide that remains ongoing.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday but softened an even more stringent edict from a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state’s forces. Trump federalized thousands of California National Guard troops in June troops to quell unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

“For the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “While this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction.”

The ruling Friday came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president one of his most sweeping second-term victories this summer, after it found that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

That precedent set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments that have since mushroomed across the country, circumscribing debate even in courts where it is not legally binding.

But the so-called Newsom standard — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit — has drawn intense scrutiny and increasingly public rebuke in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration argues it affords the administration new and greater powers.

In October, the 7th Circuit — the appellate court that covers Illinois — found the president’s claims had “insufficient evidence,” upholding a block on a troop deployment in and around Chicago.

“Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws,” the panel wrote.

That ruling is now under review at the Supreme Court.

In November, the 9th Circuit vacated its earlier decision allowing Trump’s Oregon federalization to go forward amid claims the Justice Department misrepresented important facts in its filings. That case is under review by a larger panel of the appellate division, with a decision expected early next year.

Despite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers have doubled down on their claims of near-total power, arguing that federalized troops remain under the president’s command in perpetuity, and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment.

When Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Department of Justice whether federalized troops could “stay called up forever” under the government’s reading of the statute at a hearing in October, the answer was an unequivocal yes.

“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.

For now, the fate of 300 federalized California soldiers remains in limbo, though troops are currently barred by court orders from deployment in California and Oregon.

Times staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

Dec. 10 (UPI) — U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican serving a House district in Kentucky, introduced legislation for the United States to pull out of NATO.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican from Florida, posted on X that she would be a co-sponsor of the Not a Trusted Organization Act, or NATO Act. Utah Republican Mike Lee introduced the same legislation in the Senate earlier this year.

“NATO is a Cold War relic,” Massie said in a statement Tuesday. “We should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our own country, not socialist countries.

“NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union, which collapsed over 30 years ago. Since then, U.S. participation has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and continues to risk U.S. involvement in foreign wars.”

He added: “Our Constitution did not authorize permanent foreign entanglements, something our Founding Fathers explicitly warned us against. America should not be the world’s security blanket – especially when wealthy countries refuse to pay for their own defense.”

NATO was founded in 1949 by 12 members as a military alliance involving European nations, as well as the U.S. and Canada in North America. There are now 32 members, with Finland joining in 2023 and Sweden in 2024.

The NATO Act would prevent the use of U.S. taxpayer funds for NATO’s common budgets, including its civil budget, military budget and the Security Investment Program.

Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty allows nations to opt out.

“After the Treaty has been in force for 20 years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation,” the treaty reads.

During the last NATO summit in The Hague, the Netherlands, President Donald Trump told reporters he agrees with NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense treaty.

“I stand with it. That’s why I’m here,” Trump said. “If I didn’t stand with it, I wouldn’t be here.”

Article 5 was invoked for the first time after the 9/11 attacks in the United States, leading to NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan.

The Kentucky Republican, who calls himself a “fiscal hawk” and a “constitutional conservative,” has been at odds with Trump on several issues, including fiscal spending, foreign policy/war powers, government surveillance and transparency.

Trump has also been critical of NATO.

During his 2016 election campaign, Trump called the alliance “obsolete.”

He urged nations to spend at least 3.5% of gross domestic product on core defense needs by 2035.

In June, NATO allies agreed to a new defense spending guideline to invest 5% of GDP annually in defense and security by 2035.

Five nations were above 3% in 2024: Poland at 4.12%, Estonia at 3.43%, U.S. at 3.38%, Latvia at 3.15% and Greece at 3.08%. In last is Spain with 1.28% though Iceland has no armed forces and Sweden wasn’t listed.

Some Republican senators want stronger involvement in the alliance, including Joni Ernst of Iowa and Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi. Wicker is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

For passage, a House majority is needed, but 60 of 100 votes in the Senate to break the filibuster and then a majority vote. Trump could also veto the bill.

Should Morgan and Lake depart, the uncertainty in crisis-stricken Welsh rugby will have been a major factor in their decisions.

Ospreys have said publicly they want to keep the pair, who are close friends, but the two players are unsure what the future holds in their homeland.

Ospreys supporters were told in September Morgan had warned the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) he would leave professional domestic rugby in Wales if Ospreys ceased to exist.

The WRU announced in October that it planned to reduce the number of professional men’s sides in Wales from four to three.

Welsh rugby’s governing body confirmed it proposes to grant three licences for men’s clubs.

There will be one in Cardiff, one in the east and one in the west, which is expected to result in a straight survival fight between Swansea-based Ospreys and Scarlets in Llanelli.

Another option that has now emerged is Ospreys owners, Y11 Sport & Media, taking over WRU-owned Cardiff, which could produce the desired number of three professional sides.

One of the main purposes of the planned reduction in sides in Welsh rugby is to concentrate Welsh talent into three squads.

But if Lake and Morgan leave, they will be joining top Welsh players like Williams, Louis Rees-Zammit and Dafydd Jenkins who play in England.

Wales head coach Steve Tandy selected 13 players in the autumn series who plied their club trade in England or France.