legal

The parent company of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders has filed a petition aimed at preventing emo-rock band My Chemical Romance from continuing to use dancers wearing outfits nearly identical to those worn by the iconic cheering squad since the 1970s.

Pro Silver Star filed a document Monday in the District Court of Collin County, Texas, asking for a temporary restraining order and injunction against the band and event promoter Live Nation “to stop them from infringing DCC’s signature cheerleading uniform in a manner that causes confusion, trades off of Silver Star’s decades of goodwill, and degrades the DCC brand.”

A temporary restraining order hearing is scheduled for Tuesday morning.

On Wednesday, My Chemical Romance played the first of five Hollywood Bowl shows scheduled through the end of the month. During the song “Teenagers,” background dancers performed in costumes that the filing states “copied the DCC Uniform’s signature elements: white boots, white shorts, a blue blouse tied above the midriff, and a white vest adorned with blue stars.”

“Defendants left no doubt about who the performers were meant to be,” the filing states. “As the costumed performers cheered across the stage, MCR frontman Gerard Way told the crowd, ‘Thank you, Dallas.’

“Then Defendants handed the performers rifles. The costumed performers armed themselves with semi-automatic rifles and joined a staged firefight, and were then depicted being shot and crawling off the stage.”

Attorneys for Pro Silver Star sent the band a cease-and-desist letter on Thursday, the filing states, and a copy of the petition for the restraining order and injunction on Friday. The causes of action listed in the petition include false designation, false association, false endorsement, trade dress infringement and federal trademark dilution by tarnishment.

“MCR’s performers nevertheless again wore the DCC Uniform” on Friday night during the band’s second Hollywood Bowl performance, the filing states. “Audience members at both shows and online commentators understandably believed that the performers were the real Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders and said so in social media posts that continue to circulate.”

Online photos appear to show that the costumes were used again during Saturday night’s show. A representative for My Chemical Romance, which finishes it run at Hollywood Bowl this Friday and Saturday, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Silver Star is not litigious, and it takes no issue with MCR’s music, its artistic ambitions, or any message Defendants seek to convey,” the filing states. “Silver Star does not ask Defendants to change their setlist, narrative, politics, choreography, or even their decision to put gun-toting performers on stage. Silver Star asks only that those performers not wear the DCC Uniform while doing it. The universe of alternative costume designs is effectively unlimited.”

One of the most recognizable cheer squads in sports, the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders have appeared on countless calendars and posters and starred in their own movies and TV series, including Netflix’s “America’s Sweethearts: Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders,” which is currently in its third season.

Last week, after years of fighting for pay increases, the cheerleaders announced that they have unionized, with the Cowboys recognizing the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleading Assn. as the collective bargaining representative for the cheer squad.

Demonstrators gathered on the sixth anniversary of a near-total abortion ban imposed by Poland’s highest court.

Thousands of people have protested in more than 20 towns and cities across Poland, calling for access to free and legal abortion services.

Demonstrators gathered on the sixth anniversary of a near-total abortion ban imposed by Poland’s highest court.

Currently, abortion is only legal in Poland when a pregnancy results from a criminal act like rape or incest, or when it threatens the life or health of the mother.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government promised to liberalise abortion laws ahead of its 2023 election victory, but divisions within the coalition have slowed progress.

The demonstrations come days after parliament passed two bills that would ease abortion restrictions in the mostly Catholic country, but are likely to be vetoed by Poland’s conservative President Karol Nawrocki.

Passing the draft laws now, a year before the next parliamentary election, is a case of “token gestures” rather than a genuine effort to reform abortion law, said Zofia Marcinek of the Abortion Dream Team, a reproductive rights activist group in Warsaw.

She said the liberal government knew the draft laws stand no chance of withstanding Nawrocki’s veto, and has merely tried to create the impression of taking action because it needs women’s support to win elections next year.

In the capital, Warsaw, about 1,000 protesters demonstrated in front of parliament despite rain.

“Over the last six years, nothing has really changed,” said 36-year-old Emilia Niemiec, who manages the AboTak abortion centre, which provides women with access to resources, including pills, and a space to be able to seek support or carry out a pharmacological abortion.

Abortion laws tightened

Restrictive abortion laws have been in place in Poland since 1993, with Polish women leading calls for the legalisation of abortion ever since. In 2016, nationwide demonstrations took place, with women donning black as a sign of protest.

But rather than being relaxed, Poland’s abortion laws were tightened further, banning abortions of foetuses with congenital defects in 2020 under the national-conservative Law and Justice (PiS) government.

Despite the laws, abortions remain common in Poland, with the overwhelming majority carried out by women at home using pills obtained from outside the country. Women who undergo abortions, including by taking pills, do not face criminal responsibility under Polish law. But people helping them, including doctors and family, can potentially be prosecuted.

Polish hospitals performed 573 abortions in the first half of 2026, compared with 452 in the whole of 2022 before Tusk came to power, according to data from the National Health Fund. But activists say tens of thousands of abortions happen yearly outside of hospitals.

Campaigners organising Thursday’s protests are claiming the Tusk government has betrayed Polish women – and that Tusk’s claims that women’s access to abortion has improved during his administration have actually complicated getting care for some women.

“The government’s promises act as a type of disinformation,” Marcinek said. “Women getting pregnant hear the prime minister say that everything is OK, that there is access to abortion, and then they end up in the hospital and see that is not the case. So they come to us when it’s very late and very complicated and expensive to help them.”

A sweeping campaign by federal immigration agents to identify voter fraud by noncitizens through door knocks, street stops and other field interviews in California and eight other states must be reined in ahead of the Nov. 3 election, after a federal judge in Northern California ruled it has intimidated U.S. citizens and interfered with the work of voting rights groups.

Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin said in a ruling Wednesday that limiting the Department of Homeland Security’s surging operations in those states — which she wrote “sweep in U.S. citizens for investigation” — does not prevent the Trump administration from “exercising their authority to investigate voter fraud by lawful means.”

A Homeland Security spokesperson said the agency is “laser focused on identifying, prosecuting, and removing aliens who vote,” and has “no plans to question or investigate people we believe to be U.S. citizens.”

The ruling was the latest to come out of an unprecedented legal war playing out between the Trump administration and California in recent days, in which an array of election cases are working their way through the federal courts at breakneck speed.

There is, for example, the lawsuit the U.S. Justice Department filed against California and state and local elections officials last week, demanding that they set aside any ballots from a list of 20,000 individuals identified by immigration officials as “likely noncitizens.”

There are also two cases out of Washington, D.C., in which a coalition of Democratic leaders, immigrant rights groups, voting rights experts and naturalized citizens in California are challenging the Trump administration’s use of Homeland Security data to target voters.

The litigation is playing out amid an intense political debate about election security at the national level — driven in part by President Trump, a longtime election denier — and a sweeping campaign by his administration to root out and parade examples of alleged voter fraud in the final days before the election.

White House, Homeland Security and Justice Department officials have all defended the administration’s efforts as necessary to ensure that noncitizens are not illegally diluting the votes of U.S. citizens. First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, has claimed to have “overwhelming evidence” that tens of thousands of noncitizens are doing so in California.

‘That is not normal’

Democratic leaders and prominent elections experts, meanwhile, have cast the administration’s claims as baseless and intentionally exaggerated to stoke uncertainty about election security and ultimately challenge midterm results the president doesn’t like, and the Justice Department’s legal arguments as fundamentally flawed and wildly out of line with long-established department policy to stay out of elections in the lead up to voting.

“That is not normal. We have literally never experienced that in American history. Not once,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former Justice Department elections attorney. “The fact that the administration appears poised for the first time to act as an adversary to the states and counties who have [the] undisputed constitutional authority to run elections? That is unusual.”

At the same time, Becker and other experts stressed that those efforts to date have failed, and state and local elections have largely proceeded in recent weeks without incident, with millions of Americans having already cast their ballots.

“California voters need to know that they’re in good hands, that we have leaders at the state and local levels who are protecting our ballots and are ensuring that these attempts by the federal government to root out supposed noncitizen voting are not going to prevent Californians from casting our ballots,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. “Part of the strategy here is to distract people and scare people and raise fears, and the important thing is to continue to stay focused on … making a plan to vote.”

Status of cases

Federal courts have already rejected multiple Trump executive orders seeking to enforce nationwide voter ID and citizenship requirements. The Supreme Court blocked an administration plan for the U.S. Postal Service to vet mail ballots. The Justice Department has compiled a stunning record of losses in its 30 lawsuits demanding state voter rolls — with 26 of those cases, including the one in California, so far dismissed.

And election experts said they expect the Trump administration to rack up more losses in coming days — including in the Justice Department’s case challenging California officials’ refusal to segregate the ballots of some 20,000 voters based on the administration’s unsubstantiated claims they are noncitizens.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, shown in 2023, is overseeing a lawsuit in which the Department of Justice says 20,000 California ballots may have been sent to “likely noncitizens.”

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

That case was taken up — and scheduled for a Tuesday hearing — by Judge David O. Carter, an appointee of President Clinton who in January rejected the administration’s demand for California’s voter rolls, calling it a clear federal overreach that would have a “chilling effect” on voters and threaten American democracy.

California has called for the case to be dismissed outright, on the grounds that the administration has zero authority to make such demands, and that the demands are unlawful. The Trump administration has asked Carter to immediately rule in the matter.

“Every minute of [ballot] processing that occurs without segregating the ballots of suspected non-eligible voters causes untraceable disenfranchisement and dilution of the votes of United States citizens,” wrote Julie Hamill, an assistant U.S. attorney in Essayli’s office.

In D.C. federal court, Judge James E. Boasberg set an Oct. 30 hearing in a case in which UCLA Voting Rights Project attorneys, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, and a California voter named Pedro Trujillo are challenging the administration’s use of unproven federal databases to allege California voters aren’t citizens.

Carl Bergquist, an attorney for CHIRLA, said he looked forward to bringing a host of recent Trump administration actions to the court’s attention — including the administration’s lawsuit against California, the charging this week of 28 legal permanent residents in California with election-related crimes, and Trump’s threats to arrest California elections officials who don’t comply with his administration’s demands.

“The events of the last few days, from threats to state and local officials, increased general immigration operations, the random knocking on doors by federal agents and the recent arrests are causing a chill in the community,” Bergquist said. “People, including naturalized citizens, are making their plans to vote and the Federal Government is doing its utmost to quash their attempts to exercise this fundamental right that they have lawfully acquired.”

The argument that naturalized citizens are being intimidated also features prominently in a second lawsuit filed in D.C. federal court Tuesday, in which top Democrats in Congress joined Nevada party officials and a California immigrant named Erick Jose Jimenez to challenge the Trump administration’s unprecedented voter fraud probes.

That lawsuit, also assigned to Boasberg, says Jimenez, a naturalized citizen since 2006, fears being “unlawfully targeted for voting and disenfranchised (or worse).”

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor who studies elections and was a senior policy advisor on democracy and voting rights in the Biden White House, said there is “so much noise” around the election right now, in part because the administration has been making wild legal arguments about its authority over elections.

But he said “none of the federal government’s attempts to assert power that they do not have are working,” and voting “for 99.999% of the public” will remain “wonderfully normal.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday questioned the Trump administration’s claims surrounding its efforts to redevelop a historic Washington golf course, challenging its contention that a recent tree-cutting spree did not indicate work was moving forward on the project, which is temporarily blocked by a court order.

“There is no universe in which all of this coincidentally happened all at the same time,” U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said during a hearing over the fate of a project that has emerged as the latest legal flashpoint in President Trump’s campaign to leave his personal imprint on the nation’s capital.

Reyes last week ordered a halt to the golf course’s redevelopment plans until at least Oct. 26 after scolding the government for starting a large-scale tree removal at the course over a holiday weekend while providing little notice to the court or the plaintiffs trying to stop the makeover.

Then, on Sunday, Trump announced plans on social media to close the golf course for 15 months, starting on Nov. 15, and redevelop the 106-year-old park and course despite a court challenge by the D.C. Preservation League and two golfers. In a post on Monday, Trump said the work would start immediately.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys challenging the golf course renovation work have asked Reyes to extend her order that temporarily paused the work. They say the work is inflicting irreversible damage and that the redevelopment would violate the congressional act that created the park where the course is located.

The hearings on the century-old golf course have grown increasingly tense and on the eve of Monday’s hearing, Reyes rejected the administration’s request for her to recuse herself from the case. The government questioned her impartiality and accused her of engaging in “egregious” behavior from the bench during last week’s emergency hearing for the case.

Trump, a Republican, referred to Reyes as a “crazed lunatic” in his social media post on Monday.

“The United States Department of Interior wants to take a terrible and very unsafe golf course, and make it into a great, safe, and prestigious golf course. They have an absolute right to do so. It’s as simple as that!” Trump wrote.

Reyes, who was nominated by Democratic President Biden, said the government has failed “by any objective measure” to demonstrate the need for her recusal from the case.

“It is easy to weaponize selective quotations to bring a baseless recusal motion. But it is much harder to meet the demanding legal standard against a full record,” she wrote.

Trump has pledged to turn the course into a world-class golf venue — part of his grand vision for Washington, D.C., where he has torn down storied structures, remade or renamed others and deployed the National Guard for more than a year.

While it has been open to Washingtonians of all income levels, opponents of Trump’s plans for the golf course have argued it will alter the character of the space and make it less affordable to people.

Monday’s hearing started with a tense confrontation between Reyes and Justice Department official Stanley Woodward, when the judge asked if other any government attorneys in the room “as officers of the court” were willing to certify that everything within a Sunday filing was truthful and legally sound under federal rules of civil procedures.

In that filing Woodward argued that there were no final plans for the park.

“First, the plan is not final because the Park Service has not completed its review and the details of the proposal are subject to change during the review process,” the filing said.

Much of the hearing revolved around Trump’s social media posts over the weekend and his appearance last June at the golf course, accompanied by golf course architects and members of the administration and why there was such a sense of urgency for the cutting of the trees.

The witnesses at the hearing, Greg Wischer, deputy chief of staff at the Interior Department, and acting National Park Service director Jessica Bowron both acknowledged that they had only learned of the National Park Service Cultural Landscape Report in September that led to the tree cutting. That NPS report was from 2019.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

The biggest tech battles many people face are things like frequent two-factor authentication, a time suck that makes you want to hurl a device across the room, and sigh-inducing texts to parents letting them know that the video of a cat cooking eggs they 100% believe is real is actually AI slop.

But in “Cupertino,” the legal minds at the center of the show are taking on more consequential tech disputes in the courtroom.

The series joins a wave of recent films and TV shows exploring and confronting the rapidly evolving tech sector. Created by Robert and Michelle King, veterans of the legal drama genre with shows like “The Good Wife” and its spinoff “The Good Fight,” the Silicon Valley-set courtroom drama is interested in David vs. Goliath tension. It follows Michael Price (Mike Colter), an attorney fired by his tech startup employer S-Talk, as he teams up with fellow ousted lawyer Olivia Siffre (Rachel Keller) to launch their own ad-hoc law firm to take on cases — including their own — for everyday people against tech giants.

“There are big companies that have a lot of money, deep pockets — they could suffocate you, they can bog you down in litigation to the point where you can’t financially match them,” Colter said. “They’re planning on people just rolling over because they don’t want to deal with it. That’s where Michael and Olivia come in. We get the justice for people who otherwise won’t see any. I’m just excited and intrigued by the stories they [the Kings] want to tell here.”

The Kings’ exploration of tech’s litigation underbelly arrives at at a critical moment. High-stakes conflicts over artificial intelligence, data privacy, workplace culture, antitrust laws and other issues are dominating the news and defining our modern era. “The headlines, the way that it lines up is crazy,” Keller said. “It’s really important some of the cases they’re bringing to the show — real things that are happening to real people.”

But the show’s origins are grounded in personal history — Robert grew up in San José; his father worked on mainframes for IBM and the now-defunct Control Data Corp. before personal computers took over — and a desire to bring a fresh backdrop to the Kings’ signature legal drama style.

“When you go back and visit family, you started to see how Silicon Valley — we just call it the Bay Area — was changing,” Robert said. “Not only in the make of cars that everyone was buying, but in these massive offices that were taking over suburban streets; homes were just being plowed under and house values were going up. There was good and bad. It started with that — how much it was changing the world.”

They were also inspired to explore a new legal angle: “It felt like other shows weren’t really looking at the way tech was impacting the law,” he said.

“We were less interested in looking at the tech titans than the Davids of this world — the people that were fighting them,” Michelle added. But she stresses the show is not anti-tech or meant to be a soapbox, even while showing the power everyday people can and do wield: “It wasn’t created to be vegetables. It’s created to be crème brûlée — it’s meant to be funny, or tasty. If it isn’t delicious to people, I really feel as though we’ve wasted our time.”

Fans of “The Good Wife” or “The Good Fight” are familiar with how the Kings turned emerging tech issues — particularly ones involving Google, Amazon or Facebook — into narrative catalysts for cases. It was often through the lens of a fictional tech giant known as ChumHum, a Google-like search engine created by a guy named Neil Gross (John Benjamin Hickey), that got embroiled in a variety of cases, including ones about secrecy and search result modifications. “Cupertino” blends real and fictitious companies.

The second episode of the CBS drama aired Thursday. We spoke with the Kings to unpack some of the cases they chose to kick off the season.

WASHINGTON — New White House press secretary Katie Zacharia defended her legal background and justified her truncated inaugural briefing as she navigates a rocky first week as the president’s chief spokeswoman.

Zacharia sat down for an interview Thursday with the conservative Human Events outlet. In it, she said she did not have time to get fully prepared ahead of her first briefing on Tuesday and that it was always the plan to keep it short because President Trump would field questions from journalists later that morning.

“It was absolutely my goal to keep it short, considering he is his own best spokesperson, and he would love — and does love — gaggling with the media as he goes to Marine One,” Zacharia said. “So I wanted to give ample deference and not barge into his time.”

The initial briefing materials were given to Zacharia on Monday evening, then completed on Tuesday at 8 a.m., less than two hours before she would appear before the White House press corps. She had been up since 3 a.m. preparing, Zacharia said.

“I never had a full briefing beforehand, and I went out and I effectuated the briefing,” she said.

As for her legal background, Zacharia said she was preparing to take the bar exam in California at a time that she had just gotten married and was readying a move to China to join her new husband, who had been working in private equity in Beijing.

“I was obviously incredibly distracted and overwhelmed and excited for finally being married to someone who I’d been long distance from for at least a year,” Zacharia said.

She said the results of the bar exam, which she did not pass, were “somewhat inconsequential” because she would not need to be a barred attorney while living in China.

Zacharia, who has been under scrutiny for calling herself a “lawyer,” said she consulted several legal experts to ensure that title was accurate when offering legal analysis.

“It’s unfortunate that people dub this as some kind of conspiracy or want to put me in a camp. The truth is, I was very careful how I executed this, and I never came across as someone who was an attorney-at-law.”

She will not weigh in on legal matters in her White House capacity, Zacharia said.

She also divulged details of how she went about securing the White House press secretary job. Zacharia stressed that she did not want to be seen as lobbying for the position, left vacant when Karoline Leavitt announced she would depart the administration to spend more time with her family.

Zacharia, who was a communications advisor for the company that runs Truth Social, said she closely monitored the president’s social media posts to determine what was top of mind for him, then would go on air to talk about those topics.

“My philosophy is, I’m on TV enough where if he sees me and he likes me, then I will be recruited for the job. I do not believe that lobbying for that job would have been successful, and I wanted to work for it. I wanted to audition for it.”

Then on Oct. 7, as Zacharia was preparing to take one of her children to a pumpkin patch, she received a phone call from Trump about the press secretary position.

She promptly flew out the next day from her home in California to Washington, met with the president about the job on Friday and formally accepted the position later that day.

Kim writes for the Associated Press.

The White House is defending its new press secretary, Katie Zacharia, as she faces scrutiny over her legal credentials.

President Donald Trump described Zacharia as an attorney when announcing her appointment last week and she has referred to herself as a lawyer.

But when she was asked on Tuesday by a reporter in which state she had passed the bar exam required to be an attorney in the US, she said standing alongside the president: “When I moved to China.”

She does not appear to be registered to the bar in any state where she has lived. White House communications director Steven Cheung said Zacharia is “uniquely qualified and whip smart to help inform the American people”.

Responding to questions about her credentials, Zacharia said in a statement this week: “I practised international transaction law, with all the appropriate credentials.”

On Wednesday, a watchdog group, Campaign for Accountability, filed a complaint with the California State Bar Association.

They are seeking an investigation into whether Zacharia “repeatedly held herself out to the public as entitled to practise law without a licence to do so, conduct California law treats as a crime”.

The 42-year-old political strategist graduated from law school at Pepperdine University in California in 2011, the university confirmed.

A law degree is not a licence to practise law in the US.

The new White House press secretary told the New York Times on Wednesday that when she first began appearing on cable news, she had asked Pepperdine how she should identify herself.

She said she was advised by the university president that she could call herself a lawyer, but not an attorney.

Zacharia took the bar exam in California after graduating from law school but did not pass, according to the Wall Street Journal. California’s bar exam is widely regarded as one of the hardest in the US to pass.

A person with direct knowledge of the matter told the outlet that Zacharia took the exam around the same time that she was planning a wedding and preparing to move to China with her husband-to-be.

New restrictions have stripped Medicaid coverage from certain legal immigrants, including refugees and victims of human trafficking, as part of broader federal changes to the health insurance program that are expected to force millions off their coverage.

The change effective Oct. 1 cut from Medicaid what is estimated to be hundreds of thousands of people who legally immigrated to the United States, many of whom work and pay taxes, in the latest Trump administration policy to target foreigners.

The move is part of sweeping changes to Medicaid under President Donald Trump’s 2025 tax cut and policy law, with many set to take effect early next year. The Medicaid changes are projected to result in 7.5 million fewer people with health insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2025 estimate.

Advocates say that without Medicaid, people will not be able to afford private insurance and will either delay care or end up in emergency rooms, adding pressure to a strained health system. For immigrants, the cuts could be felt more acutely, compounding the effects of other administration efforts to restrict their access to public assistance as part of a broader immigration crackdown.

“This is about telling every immigrant in the United States that they are not welcome here and that they should leave,” said Ben D’Avanzo, a senior strategist at the National Immigration Law Center, which has pursued litigation against the Republican administration over its immigration agenda.

Refugees, asylum seekers, victims of human trafficking and domestic violence are among those who have lost coverage. Green-card holders were not impacted.

Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that “immigrants must be able to support themselves without taking from overburdened benefits programs paid for by hard-working American taxpayers.”

D’Avanzo said many people who have lost coverage will likely only realize when they need medical care. But for some, the change has been felt immediately.

Dwindling supplies of lifesaving medication

In Tucson, Arizona, María Chacon has been caring for her son Jesus for almost five years since a car accident at 17 left him unable to breathe on his own. He requires a ventilator, a feeding tube and daily medication, and must be turned once every two hours to stop sores from forming. Chacon said he sometimes opens his eyes.

The family is originally from Mexico and entered the U.S. on a T visa, offered to victims of human trafficking, in 2018.

Chacon said Medicaid has helped cover almost $25,000 per month of care for her son, which includes a small stipend for her and her husband as compensation for being long-term caregivers. She said doctors have explained that even if they both worked 24 hours a day, they would not be able to cover the cost of his care.

“Since that day I haven’t been able to sleep. We haven’t been able to eat or anything. We’re wondering what we’re going to do?” Chacon said.

Jesus takes medication that Chacon estimates costs $7,000 a month. The supply runs out in mid-October. Without coverage, she does not know how her son is going to survive.

Chacon found out just days before the cuts that she was losing care. She called the state’s Medicaid offices to appeal. Although she is in the process of obtaining a green card, Medicaid coverage would only kick in five years after she is approved.

Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, a right-leaning think tank that seeks less immigration, said the administration “is trying to nibble around the edges” with the Oct. 1 cuts, finding piecemeal ways to curb immigration into the U.S.

Camarota believes the government should screen legal immigrants for income potential and education, reducing the number who might rely on public benefits once they cross the border.

“You need immigrants who are unlikely to need welfare,” he said, or those with high educational attainment.

The administration recently revived a federal rule that could deny green cards to immigrants who use public benefits that could include food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers and others.

Chacon believes the cuts to Medicaid coverage are part of the administration’s clampdown on immigrants. She said her son is in no condition to travel.

“I know that’s what he’s doing, but, as my son is, I couldn’t go to Mexico,” Chacon said.

Millions more will be dropped from Medicaid

Medicaid, jointly funded by states and the federal government, has become a political focal point during Trump’s second term. The president has pushed to root out what he describes as fraud in the program. In July, the administration deferred over $1 billion in Medicaid payments to California and Minnesota, claiming there was suspected fraud; critics argued the move targeted Democratic-led states.

As more people are cut from Medicaid, the federal government is predicted to reduce program spending by $911 billion, according to healthcare research nonprofit KFF.

In Arizona, officials said 29,000 legal immigrants were cut from Medicaid rolls on Oct. 1. In Florida, estimates are closer to 177,000. Overall, more than 281,000 immigrants from nine states and the District of Columbia are estimated to lose Medicaid coverage, according to KFF.

As more states implement various restrictions to coverage, 7.5 million people are expected to lose coverage by 2034, according to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

Without coverage, people will turn to emergency rooms for care. When people delay seeing a doctor, conditions can worsen and become even more expensive to treat.

“At the end of the day, it does raise the cost for the states because once you get these people in for something that could have been prevented, they could not go to the doctor because they were uninsured; they most likely will end up at a hospital in an emergency room,” said Carmen Feliciano, the vice president of policy and advocacy at UnidosUS, a Latino civil rights organization.

UnidosUS partners with community organizations to help provide medical care, but Feliciano said they already are overwhelmed and would not be able to support the number of people who are going to lose medical coverage in the coming months.

“We are not going to have the capacity to serve all the people who need it,” Feliciano said.

Schuettler and Hussein write for the Associated Press.

Several of today’s papers lead with the government’s review of ADHD and autism diagnoses. A “stark warning over rising demand for NHS autism and ADHD care” tops the Guardian. Elsewhere, it reports that two Latvians have been arrested after they were “found inside RAF base”. And, after it was revealed that the three sisters who died in the Brighton sea had taken their own lives, the paper describes their “final pilgrimage”.

Halle Berry has several loved ones in her corner amid her contentious custody case with ex-husband Olivier Martinez, who accused the Oscar winner of physically abusing their 12-year-old son. Among the actor’s supporters is Nahla Aubry, the 18-year-old daughter Berry has kept largely out of the public eye.

Aubry, whom Berry shares with ex-boyfriend Gabriel Aubry, spoke against her former stepfather Martinez and in support of her mother in a declaration filed Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court. In his request for a restraining order filed last week, Martinez accused Berry of physically abusing their son, Maceo, “putting her hands around his neck, and choking him” during a Sept. 26 incident. Martinez was granted the restraining order and is seeking sole legal and physical custody. Nahla Aubry said in her declaration, obtained by The Times, that Martinez’s allegations left her “shocked, very sad, and very upset.”

“The statements Olivier claims my mom made are wholly inconsistent with the values she has taught me my entire life,” Aubry said. She added elsewhere in her declaration: “I have never witnessed her act violently toward anyone.”

A legal representative for Martinez did not immediately respond on Thursday to The Times’ request for comment.

In her declaration, Aubry spoke about her experiences splitting time between her mother and father’s homes amid their separation and and said her mother “consistently provided me with stability, support, guidance” and that she “never heard” the actor speak negatively about her family or her ex-boyfriend. Aubry said she lived with her brother for most of her life and has “never heard my mom say anything about Olivier” to her brother, contradicting claims Martinez raised in his request for a protective order.

Martinez pointed to an alleged 2023 incident when Berry is accused of telling their son, then 9, that his father is “ ‘a white b— trying to rob a Black woman’ due to child support issues,” according to court documents. She added that Berry has “always” encouraged her children to keep “loving relationships with our fathers.” Aubry also said in her declaration that while Berry can be strict, she is also “warm, supportive and deeply involved in our lives.”

“I have never witnessed her act violently toward anyone, however, I do remember Olivier beating up my father in our driveway when I was little,” she said, referring to a 2012 brawl between Gabriel Aubry and Martinez.

In addition to denying the claims of abuse against her mother, Aubry spoke about her stepbrother’s behavior, writing in his declaration he can be “very impulsive” and “often acts without thinking and then refuses to take responsibility for his actions.” Aubry noted she last spoke to her brother a day after the alleged September incident and that he did not seem upset, and that the current restraining order prohibits her from contacting her brother.

Berry’s fiancé, Van Hunt, and her attorneys also filed declarations in favor of the “Monster’s Ball” actor. Attorney Marina Z. Beck in her declaration accused Martinez of refusing to provide information to Berry about their son and his education, of interfering with their son’s therapy and of refusing to follow therapist recommendations. The court documents also include screenshots of text message exchanges between Berry and Martinez and an email from their son’s school about his disruptive behavior days after the alleged incident.

Berry and Martinez were married from 2013 from 2015. Their divorce finally ended in August 2023, when they agreed to joint custody of their son and Berry agreed to pay Martinez $8,000 a month in child support.

In his request for a restraining order, Martinez also asked that Berry refrain from drinking or partaking in other substances during her visitation time and asked that she complete sobriety testing “before, during and after” her visitation, according to court documents. The judge denied those sobriety testing requests until a further hearing for the order on Oct. 16.

Patrick Baghdaserians, an attorney for Martinez, told The Times last week the welfare and safety of Berry and Martinez’s child remains paramount.

Ukrainian reports of South Korean fuel exports to Russia come amid strained tensions between Seoul and Kyiv.

South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said the government will take legal action over illegal fuel shipments to Russia if allegations from an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are confirmed.

The Foreign Ministry said on Thursday it had not confirmed whether South Korean fuel, including diesel, had been exported to Russia.

It added that exports of some products, such as diesel and jet fuel for commercial purposes, were not included in a South Korean exports control list to Russia.

On Wednesday, the South Korean presidential office dismissed a statement by Vladyslav Vlasiuk, an adviser to the Ukrainian president on sanctions policy, that 176,000 tonnes of fuel were shipped from South Korea to Russia via sanctioned tankers in July and August.

Ukraine’s top sanctions official said the alleged findings run counter to South Korea’s sanctions policy towards Russia.

“Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, our government has consistently implemented sanctions and export controls against Russia in close cooperation with the international community,” South Korean presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said on Wednesday, according to the Yonhap news agency.

“We ask that Ukraine also refrain from distorting the relevant policies of the Republic of Korea without sufficient verification of the facts and making public remarks that can damage international trust,” she added.

Relations between South Korea and Ukraine have been strained for the past couple of weeks after Seoul accused Zelenskyy of having “unilaterally disclosed” to the United Nations General Assembly that Kyiv had transferred two North Korean prisoners of war to South Korea.

Seoul Korea demanded an official apology from Kyiv, claiming the Ukrainian president had breached a non-disclosure agreement. Kyiv said no such agreement was in place.

Pyongyang and Moscow, meanwhile, have deep ties, with the two countries having signed a mutual defence treaty in 2024. According to Ukrainian and South Korean estimates, about 14,000 to 15,000 North Korean soldiers were sent to support Russia’s war efforts against Ukraine.

North Korea and South Korea remain technically at war because the 1950–1953 Korean War ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty.

Argentina gives UK two weeks to cease operations or face maritime court action.

Argentinian President Javier Milei has threatened the British government with legal action unless it stops an oil project off the disputed Falkland Islands, the British-administered territory over which Buenos Aires claims sovereignty.

Milei gave the United Kingdom a two-week ultimatum on Monday evening, saying it must halt all work on the Sea Lion oil project or Argentina will ask the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, a maritime court in Hamburg, Germany, to order a stop to the project.

He called the operations “the illegal plundering of our resources” and declared “Argentina will not stand idly by” as the UK causes “irreversible and irreparable” damage.

The companies developing the project, Israel’s Navitas and Britain’s Rockhopper, have shrugged off Argentina’s threats, insisting they have valid exploration licences issued by the UK.

The tribunal, an independent court established under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, can issue legally binding emergency orders. But even if it ordered the UK to halt the project, it has no means of forcing the government to comply.

The UK rejects Argentina’s sovereignty claim, arguing that the islanders have the right to determine their own future and develop their natural resources. In a referendum in 2013, residents of the Falklands voted overwhelmingly to remain a British overseas territory. Argentina says the islands were populated illegally.

Milei’s administration has already taken legal action against the project authorised by Britain, arguing it violates a United Nations resolution calling for both sides to desist from unilateral actions in the islands until their dispute is resolved.

Buenos Aires has doubled down on its claim over the Falklands since United States President Donald Trump said Washington was open to reviewing its historically neutral stance on the territory.

The British government for its part has said it stands behind the businesses operating near the Falklands.

The dispute over the Falkland Islands led to a war between Britain and Argentina in 1982. It killed 649 Argentinian soldiers, 255 British soldiers and three islanders after Argentina invaded the archipelago that year.