limit

In a striking demonstration of support, hundreds of fired up Californians rallied in Santa Monica to speak out against the Trump administration’s attempt to wrest local control over the state’s beloved coastline.

The Golden State’s top environmental leaders, along with prominent elected officials, environmentalists, business coalitions, community activists, Indigenous groups and everyday citizens, packed a public hearing Monday before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Coastal Management, which has been tasked with conducting an unprecedented investigation that could ultimately strip California of its power to say no to federal projects.

Experts see the investigation — framed as a performance review of the state’s coastal management practices — as a thinly veiled attempt by Trump officials to open California’s coast to more offshore oil drilling, more rocket launches and possibly even floating nuclear reactors. If the federal government succeeds, many worry it could set the stage for similar actions in other coastal states.

“I’m scared, not because we haven’t built something worth protecting — we have. I’m scared because this meeting is performance theater. In some ways, the decision seems already made,” said Maureen Ellenberger, a resident of Santa Barbara who said she is haunted by the possibility of another oil spill. “But I’m speaking today anyway, so there’s a record. So years from now… everyone will know we fought, that we did not consent.”

Kate Huckelbridge, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, speaks during a NOAA hearing as Larry Goldzband, executive director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, awaits his turn to make comments.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

Citing California’s “environmental extremism,” Trump officials are attempting to decertify the state’s authority under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, or CZMA. The act grants coastal states the right to review and object to any project in federal waters that clashes with state policy.

For the last five decades, the CZMA has been celebrated as a bipartisan co-management framework between coastal states and the federal government — and in California, the process had been relatively smooth through every presidential administration until Trump’s.

Tensions escalated in May when U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick declared that “California has repeatedly and unfoundedly obstructed spaceport development in bad faith” and announced that he was ordering a fresh evaluation of the state’s CZMA compliance using a “new approach.” He specifically instructed NOAA, which is under his purview, to take offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, spaceport infrastructure, desalination projects and undersea cables into consideration, citing national priorities and economic interests.

Performance reviews under the CZMA are not uncommon (most states are subject to a routine review every five to 10 years) but what’s unusual in this case is the callout to specific industries, as well as the politically charged nature of how the review was announced (state officials learned they were under review through a social media post from the U.S. Department of Commerce.)

What was also unusual was the fact California had also just undergone a routine review during the Biden administration.

A draft of that review, which was completed in 2024, but not finalized because of the change in administration, gave top marks to the three California agencies charged with implementing the CZMA — the California Coastal Commission, the California State Coastal Conservancy and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The review found no issues.

Joelle Gore, left, chief of the stewardship division at the NOAA Office for Coastal Management and Keelin Kuipers, right, acting director at NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management, listen to more than four hours of public comments.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

The new Lutnick-ordered review began in earnest on Monday with the only hearing that people can attend in-person during the 45-day-public comment period. (Two virtual hearings will be held Tuesday and Wednesday, and NOAA is required to review all written comments that are submitted from members of the public through Aug. 22.)

More than 15,000 people have written comments so far, and for more than four hours Monday, surfers, fishers, marine scientists, community activists, business owners, real estate brokers and Californians from a wide swath of interest groups — many traveling from Marin, San Jose, Mendocino and other parts of the state — lined up to speak before NOAA’s acting director for coastal management.

Nobody in attendance spoke in favor of the federal review. As people in the crowd held up signs declaring “NO FEDERAL TAKEOVER” and “NO SELLOUTS FOR BIG OIL,” speakers expressed their love for the California coast and urged federal officials to take note of the state’s thriving marine economy.

The crowd erupted in whoops and applause after each person spoke their three minutes of public comments. A number of speakers, some moved to tears, expressed afterward that they had never been more proud to be a Californian.

“It was just example after example after example of how the state’s coastal management program is working — it was really putting into the record those facts and also just so many personal stories,” said Jennifer Savage, a longtime policy advocate for Surfrider Foundation who drove more than 670 miles from Humboldt to testify at the hearing. “It showed more than anything that being able to go to the beach is such a unifying shared joy in California.”

The State’s top environmental leaders also took turns speaking about how the CZMA has long facilitated open dialogue and collaboration between the state and federal government.

“We sincerely hope that this review is not merely a pretense for removing California’s ability to hold public hearings on offshore oil and gas projects,” said Kate Huckelbridge, executive director of the Coastal Commission. “California has received very little information about why this new federal review is being undertaken. Still, we welcome a fair and transparent evaluation. Our record speaks for itself.”

Wade Crowfoot, California Secretary for Natural Resources, provides public comment during a NOAA hearing.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

Out of the more than 3,700 federal actions that have come before the Coastal Commission for review since the 1970s, the commission has aligned with the federal actions 96% of the time, Huckelbridge said.

Current and former coastal officials also spoke about their experiences with past reviews and questioned the unusual timing of this evaluation and how it doesn’t follow standard procedure.

“I have personally participated in several periodic reviews, and what has happened in this review is unprecedented and, quite frankly, bizarre. There is absolutely no basis for reopening the periodic review conducted in 2024,” said Jack Ainsworth, who had worked at the coastal commission for 34 years and led it for seven of those years. “I would also note that California is recognized as the gold standard for integrated coastal management in the United States and around the world.”

At a NOAA hearing Monday, the crowd applauded after each speaker expressed their love for the California coast and urged federal officials to keep things the way they are.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

What happens after this week’s hearings will be uncharted territory, but experts say that if the review does end up taking issue with California’s coastal management program, the state should be given the opportunity to respond to any proposed changes. The process laid out in the law appears to include multiple steps and opportunities for discussion, they said.

At a rally outside the meeting room Monday, more than a hundred environmentalists gathered alongside congressmembers, county supervisors, Indigenous leaders, environmental justice groups and business coalitions to further amplify the many voices that represent California.

Toni Cordero, a board member of Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples, Surfrider Foundation, and Environmental Defense Center, speaks at a rally before a NOAA hearing Monday.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

“The Creator put us here to coexist and to collaborate in caring for our mother ocean and for all her relatives, all of her inhabitants and all those who call this coast home,” said Toni Cordero, a former tribal chair of the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation who also served as a deputy state attorney general for more than 25 years. “We must remember them. It is their homelands, their well-being and their futures that are also at stake under the guise of ensuring compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act.”

The crowd waved signs and cheered again as Wade Crowfoot, California’s Secretary for Natural Resources, stepped up to speak.

“It has been clear from Governor Newsom to Attorney General Bonta to our legislators to our congressional delegation: California’s coast is not for sale, and a hostile takeover of our coast by the federal government… won’t be tolerated,” Crowfoot declared.

“So rest assured,” he said. “We stand in strong solidarity with everyone here today — whether you’re a tribal government, a local government, a conservation organization or just somebody that likes to get out and be on a beach that’s safe and healthy, we are making our voices heard.”

LORD Alan Sugar has publicly hit out at a credit card company for allegedly refusing to increase his spend limit.

It comes despite the businessman’s reported £1.138 billion net worth and his reputation as a entrepreneurial tycoon.

Taking to his X account on Monday, the billionaire – who has no qualms about speaking his mind – slammed card issuer American Express as he claimed they haven’t allowed him to borrow more money on his credit card.

He wrote: “I spent a hour on the phone with American Express. I was passed to 4 different people.”

“I was asking for an increase in my credit limit.

“Finally I got to speak to a person in the UK at Brighton who knew who I was and my financial status. However my request was refused due to their system.”

HAPPY COUPLE

Olympian and CBB star marries TikTok influencer in romantic Denmark wedding

NIP-YUCK

Moment Olivia Attwood shakes & walks out of filming over star’s graphic surgery

In the replies, several users were confused as to why Lord Sugar – who fronts BBC show The Apprentice – would need more money on his credit card.

One wrote: “I’m not sure why anyone worth a billion pounds needs a credit card”.

Another joked: “I have a spare 20 quid I can lend you if you’re struggling to see the month out? Just let me know.”

Responding to users questioning him, Lord Sugar explained he needs a credit card ‘to buy things’ as he ‘doesn’t carry bags of cash’.

He wrote in one response: “DO PRACTICE BEING AN IDIOT. I DON’T WALK AROUND WITH BAGS FULL OF CASH. I NEED A CREDIT CARD TO BUY THINGS .”

“I AM NOT MOANING JUST EXPOSING WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS AMEX ARE,” he said in another tweet.

The Sun has reached out to American Express for comment.

The famous businessman began building his fortune by founding consumer electronics company Amstrad.

He now has a portfolio of companies under his umbrella, as well as his booming TV career on the BBC.

President Donald Trump has signed an order that calls for fewer childhood vaccines and also recommends splitting the mumps, measles and rubella (MMR) shots.

“Decades ago, children received only a small fraction of the vaccines required today,” Trump said on Monday. “In those times, people were much healthier and of course the high rates of autism now observed did not exist.”

The president has long cast doubt on the safety of MMR vaccines, but multiple studies have found no connection between the shots and autism.

The order also recommends that the number of childhood vaccines drop to 11 from the existing 18 recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

Speaking in the Oval Office, Trump said that his administration “is recognising gold standard childhood vaccine recommendations for only 11 core vaccinations against the most serious and dangerous diseases”.

The immunisations recommended for all children under the order are for measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type B, pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus, and varicella or chicken pox.

“We’re reducing them,” Trump said. “It’s not only that you’re doing fewer vaccines, or jabs, as they say, but you’re doing them in a series of visits to the doctor.”

The president suggested that the MMR vaccine could be “quite lethal” if given at once. He compared it to pouring a bottle of soda into a child’s body.

Experts say that allowing time between jabs means children are more likely to contract diseases in the interim or that they are more likely to miss appointments if there are multiple shots.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, external (CDC), there is “no published scientific evidence that shows any benefit in separating the combination MMR vaccine into three individual shots”.

The agency says “most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it”, and that getting the vaccine “is much safer than getting measles, mumps, or rubella”.

Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F Kennedy Jr said the proposed changes were meant to give parents choice, not prohibit access to childhood vaccines.

The federal government does not have the authority to implement the new recommendations. Shots that are required for school attendance are set at the state level.

Dr Andrew Racine, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, called Trump’s executive order “disheartening” and “dangerous”, pointing out it comes as measles cases reach a 35-year high in the US. Measles cases have also been rising globally.

“Instead of ensuring every family can access life-saving vaccines for measles, influenza, RSV and more, federal leaders are once again spreading misleading claims,” Racine said in a statement on Monday.

He said there was no new evidence to justify the significant changes, adding that the order was not based on “gold-standard science”.

“Delaying or skipping shots is risky, especially as measles continues to spread and children go back to school,” Racine said.

Republican Senator Bill Cassidy also admonished Trump’s executive order on Monday, labelling it “wrong”.

“The President does not have the expertise to make these changes,” Cassidy, who is a physician, wrote on social media. “Vaccines are overwhelmingly safe. Vaccines are effective. Vaccines DO NOT cause autism.”

The lawmaker, who chairs the Senate health committee, urged parents to “listen to their child’s pediatrician about vaccines rather than listening to an inaccurate executive order”.

Experts fear that if parents refrain from getting their children vaccinated as a result of the discredited idea that childhood vaccines are linked to autism, it risks the re-emergence of diseases like measles.

Multiple studies have found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. A recent high-quality study from Denmark in 2019 looked at 657,461 children and concluded that the data did not support the MMR vaccine causing or triggering autism.

On its website, the US CDC recommends that two doses of the combined MMR vaccine be given to children, starting with the first dose at 12-15 months and the second between the ages of four and six.

How often and how many vaccines children in the US receive is based on the times when vaccines will work best with their immune systems and when they are most vulnerable to certain diseases, according to the AAP.

There is no medical reason to delay or skip recommended immunisations, the AAP says.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is trying again to limit the number of people born in the country who can become American citizens, in a sign that even after his first attempt at limiting birthright citizenship was rejected by the Supreme Court, he’s ready to renew his efforts.

The president said he was signing two executive actions on immigration, including one limiting the number of people eligible for citizenship after being born in the United States. The written executive order released Thursday was narrower in scope than the previous one shot down by the Supreme Court and appeared to focus on restricting automatic citizenship to specific categories of people, including children born to adults with connections to foreign embassies or organizations as well as anyone considered an “alien enemy” of the United States.

It also aimed to restrict birthright citizenship to anyone whose parents “engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship.”

A second order seeks to curb what Trump called “birth tourism” by increasing restrictions on visitors to the U.S. who want to obtain visas to give birth while in the country.

Trump said he thought his latest actions would be constitutional.

“I thought we were going to win it at the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, we had a bad decision, very unfair decision. Our country suffers because of it and we’re ending it a different way,” Trump said.

In June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s previous efforts to declare that children born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily aren’t American citizens, and upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship.

On the first day of Trump’s second term, he signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, which allows anyone born in the United States to automatically become an American citizen.

Trump’s administration immediately was sued by opponents who said the executive order went against the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, which makes anyone born in the country a citizen, with very limited exceptions.

The executive order was blocked by several lower courts and never took effect.

In June, the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s order by a 6-3 vote. But the vote was too close for many immigration advocates and legal observers who felt the legal question of birthright citizenship was a long-settled issue.

Weissert and Santana write for the Associated Press.

Trump’s latest effort to limit birthright citizenship comes after Supreme Court ruled against his initial push to reinterpret the constitutional right.

United States President Donald Trump has signed two executive orders seeking to limit birthright citizenship, weeks after the Supreme Court upheld the practice as protected under the Constitution.

The orders signed on Thursday were far more narrow than Trump’s previous attempt to restrict the practice, which confers citizenship to nearly all children born on US soil.

One of the orders seeks to expand a narrow exception to birthright citizenship, which bars US citizenship from being conferred to the babies of foreign diplomats or invading forces.

The second order calls on the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security to halt so-called “birth tourism”, the practice of mothers travelling to the US for the sole purpose of giving birth.

Like Trump’s earlier attempt, the new executive orders are expected to face legal challenges.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump denounced the Supreme Court for making a “very unfortunate decision” in striking down his initial effort to limit birthright citizenship.

“They’ve taken birthright citizenship and they’ve made a joke out of it,” said Trump, adding that his administration is “making adjustments” to its approach.

On January 20, 2025 — the first day of his second term — Trump had signed an executive order seeking to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to tighten the category of people who qualified for birthright citizenship.

That order argued that the children born to immigrants on temporary visas or without documentation were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US — and therefore could not  be automatically granted citizenship.

But in June, the US Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s “attempts to narrow” birthright citizenship were unlawful, citing the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause.

“If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design,” the majority opinion said.

Trump has made a hardline approach to immigration a centre-piece of his political career. However, the Supreme Court ruling represented one of the largest legal setbacks of his second term.

Despite a conservative supermajority on the nine-judge panel, six justices voted against Trump’s effort to transform who is eligible for birthright citizenship.

The crux of the administration’s argument was that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply only to the children born to newly freed slaves and had been misinterpreted since its ratification in 1868.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, wrote that there was “scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view”.

“The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,” he wrote. “We keep that promise today.”

The Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 in favor of allowing TV station ownership groups to own more outlets, easing the way for more consolidation.

The Thursday vote that favored the change means companies can own local stations that cover more than 39% of the U.S. They could also own more than two stations in a single market.

The measure supported by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr will allow the agency to approve deals that put station ownership groups over the cap if the agency determines that they are promoting the public interest. Carr has said the agency would consider such issues as commitment to local journalism and “viewpoint diversity.”

“In my view, if you care about trusted sources of local news and information, you have to care about the future of local TV stations,” Carr said. “They are the economic engines that produce the paychecks for so many of the local journalists that remain in the business. So how can the FCC maximize the odds that those institutions continue to survive and hopefully thrive into the future? To start, we should stop hamstringing this one segment of the broader market with outdated restrictions.”

The station groups say the ability of tech companies such as Google and Netflix to reach every consumer in the U.S. puts them at a disadvantage. At the same time, streaming now accounts for more than 40% of all viewing, according to Nielsen, pulling consumers away from traditional TV. Television stations are also seeing their share of carriage fees from cable and satellite companies shrink due to cord-cutting.

Declining viewership and revenue have also made it more challenging to sustain multiple local TV news operations in a single market.

Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the commission, opposed the measure, saying the rule change will only help big firms get bigger and more powerful.

“Eliminating the cap does not free local broadcasters from economic pressure, it just changes who is doing the squeezing,” Gomez said in a statement issued ahead of the vote. “The large station groups positioned to grow even larger under this decision are not local broadcasters, they are national companies that own local stations and increasingly dictate what airs on them.”

The measure ending the cap limits also faced push back from consumer groups and state government officials who believe station consolidation will result in journalist layoffs and fewer voices for the communities they serve.

TV station owners and its lobbying group the National Assn. of Broadcasters have been clamoring for a change in the rule, citing the changes in technology that have occurred since the ownership limit. The 39% threshold was set in 2004 when streaming video was still a nascent business.

Jeff McCall, a professor of communications at DePaux University, agrees the current limit is outdated in the current media environment. “Local broadcasters are struggling in terms of audience and revenue, and this plan could give them some needed relief,” he said.

But McCall added that having the FCC decide who benefits from the rule change will face resistance.
“it will give the FCC wide discretionary powers and open up any decisions to second-guessing and, of course, court challenges,” he said.

There are also likely to be questions on how even-handed Carr will be when faced with a proposal that puts a station owner over the caps. The chairman has made his name by threatening to pull the broadcast licenses of TV stations that irritate President Trump with their coverage and commentary. Even Trump-supporting Republicans such as Sen. John Kennedy, R- La., have raised concerns the FCC’s scrutiny of broadcast content could be violating the right to free speech.

In April, the FCC called for an early review of the licenses for Disney’s eight broadcast TV stations, a day after Trump demanded that ABC fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

Carr also questioned whether ABC’s daytime show “The View,” where negative Trump commentary occurs often, should qualify as a bona fide news program that is exempt from giving equal time to qualified candidates.

Carr also believes large media companies such as Disney and NBCUniversal parent Comcast hold too much sway over the stations affiliated with their networks.

“New York and Hollywood interests have steamrolled those local TV stations and the broader media market in recent years in ways that run directly counter to the regulatory framework that Congress and the FCC put in place,” he wrote. “Their national programs naturally reflect the values of the New York and Hollywood executives that produce them. This power imbalance has contributed to a steady decline in locally produced news — and with it, a weakening of the public’s trust in the media.”

Earlier this year, a group of attorneys general filed suit to block Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2-billion acquisition of Tegna, arguing it violates a 112-year-old U.S. antitrust law by knocking out a major competitor. The deal would give Irving, Texas-based Nexstar control of 265 television stations across the country, up from 164. And, in dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple TV network affiliates.

U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley issued a preliminary injunction in April that forbids Nexstar — which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles — and Tegna, from combining operations. Nexstar is appealing.

Ty Simpson did not make any jaw-dropping plays.

He also did not make any major errors.

So call it a quiet, workmanlike beginning for the 13th player taken in the NFL draft, a quarterback the Rams ostensibly chose to become Matthew Stafford’s heir apparent.

On Sunday, in the Rams’ first training camp practice, Stafford was held out as part of the plan to limit his reps, putting all eyes on Simpson and fourth-year pro Stetson Bennett as they began their competition to back up the reigning NFL most valuable player.

With Stafford, 38, back for an 18th season, the Rams are favored to win the Super Bowl.

But with Jimmy Garoppolo enjoying retirement — probably until an NFL team in desperate need comes calling — the Rams require a capable backup should something befall Stafford, who remains the most important player on a star-studded team favored to win Super Bowl LXI at SoFi Stadium.

Nate Scheelhaase, the Rams’ first-year offensive coordinator, praised Bennett and Simpson.

“We require so much of those guys, from what we do with formations with motions, with adjustments that they’re going to make before the ball is even snapped,” Scheelhaase said. “And so, if you can’t get that right, it’s going to be hard to get anything right post snap.

“So that’s the starting point. That’s the foundation.”

Rams quarterback Ty Simpson prepares to take a snap in training camp at Loyola Marymount on Sunday.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Last season, with Stafford sidelined throughout camp because of a back issue, Bennett took second-team reps behind Garoppolo.

Bennett has never taken a regular-season snap for the Rams, who selected him in the fourth round of the 2023 draft after he led Georgia to two national titles.

“He competes,” Scheelhaase said. “And I think anybody enjoys playing with a quarterback who competes, who’s going to throw it all in there, and that’s the mentality he has. … That’s something that’s been kind of his calling card.”

Bennett completed several passes to receivers Puka Nacua and Davante Adams and running back Kyren Williams.

He also was on the wrong side of the play of the day.

Bennett’s deep pass for Adams along the left sideline was tipped by new cornerback Jaylen Watson and intercepted by safety Kamren Kinchens.

Rams quarterback Stetson Bennett, left, twirls a football in front of quarterback Ty Simpson at training camp on Sunday.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Simpson started only 15 games for Alabama, but the Rams apparently saw enough to determine he was worthy of using their highest pick since selecting quarterback Jared Goff No. 1 overall in 2016.

On Sunday, Simpson completed several short passes. His deepest attempt, for tight end Terrance Ferguson, was broken up by cornerback Cam Lampkin.

Bennett and Simpson will continue to compete during 10 more training camp workouts, preseason practices — including joint practices with the Dallas Cowboys and New Orleans Saints — and preseason games against the Kansas City Chiefs, the Saints and the Chargers.

On Monday, in keeping with coach Sean McVay’s stated plan to have Stafford practice in the second and fourth practices of each four-day block, the starting quarterback will practice for the first time.

Etc.

Offensive lineman Justin Dedich was placed on the non-football injury list. Dedich, a third-year pro who played at USC, started six games last season. … Second-year running back Jarquez Hunter broke off a run for a long gain.

July 25 (UPI) — A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration cannot implement tighter rules for mail-in voting in the mid-term elections this November.

The ruling, handed down by the First U.S. Circuit of Appeals on Saturday, will prevent his administration from creating a list of eligible voters and from requiring the U.S. Postal Service to refuse to deliver ballots to people who are not on the list, The Hill and Bloomberg News reported.

The three-judge panel rejected the administration’s appeal of lower court rulings in late June and early July that an executive order issued in April to expand the federal government’s role in managing elections could not be put into effect.

The April 1 executive order was condemned by critics at the time as an attempt by President Donald Trump and the administration to interfere with the mid-term elections, and led to 23 states and the District of Columbia to file suit to stop it.

The appeals court said in its ruling that the federal government failed to make its case for lifting the federal government’s injunction, which was partially based on the lower court preventing the executive order from going into effect.

“To be sure, the injunction prevents the federal Defendants from enforcing the EO in the Plaintiff states’ upcoming primary and general federal elections in September and November,” the judges wrote.

Trump, who continues to falsely claim that he won the 2020 election, signed the order under the guise of election integrity based on his also false claims of widespread voter fraud.

The fraud allegations center on ineligible people casting mail-in ballots, of which Trump and his administration have not shown happened in significant numbers during the 2020 election.

The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to build a state citizenship list based on federal date, to send the lists to state elections officials to verify mail-in ballots go to eligible voters and for the USPS not to send out absentee or mail-in ballots to people who do not appear on the lists.

The Senate was also expected to vote on War Powers resolution, in largely symbolic move attempting to reign in Trump.

Four Republicans in the United States House of Representatives have again joined Democrats in voting to constrain President Donald Trump’s power to wage war against Iran.

The resolution passed on Thursday, nearly a week after three US military personnel were killed by an Iranian attack on a base in Jordan, with a 214-208 vote. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said Democrats will also force a War Powers vote in the Senate on Thursday.

Both the House and Senate had previously passed a resolution in June that called on Trump to seek congressional approval before launching further attacks. However, because the resolution was passed as a so-called “concurrent resolution”, it was not sent to Trump’s desk.

Even if the measure had been passed as a joint resolution, requiring it to be sent to Trump for approval, the president could veto it. Overriding such a veto requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

Democrats have said the latest resolution sends an important message that lawmakers oppose Trump’s approach to the war, which has re-escalated after a ceasefire broke down in early July.

Both the US and Iran have traded 12 days of consecutive attacks, with some analysts warning an even greater US escalation may be on the horizon, as Trump has repeatedly threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure and a possible ground invasion.

“This is a vote that requires us to find the strength to do what is right for the American people, and to send the clearest, even stronger message to this president of the United States that the United States Congress, the House of Representatives, is reasserting our authority over war,” Representative Pramila Jayapal said from the House floor on Wednesday.

“This war must end,” she said.

Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war, something it has not done since World War II, although presidents can commit forces in instances of pressing self-defence.

Trump has argued that the culmination of Iran’s actions since 1979 represents such an imminent threat, a claim many constitutional law experts have rejected.

Under the 1973 War Powers Act, presidents must receive congressional approval within 60 days of committing troops. While the US-Israel war with Iran began on February 28, the Trump administration claimed that hostilities had “terminated” following a temporary pause in fighting reached in April.

War powers experts and some members of Congress have said the attempted workaround flouts the law. The administration again notified Congress that fighting had resumed before the most recent round of attacks.

In a statement on Thursday, David Janovsky, acting director of The Constitution Project at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), said the House vote “reaffirmed what people across the country have been saying all along: We want no part in an illegal war”.

“Contrary to the administration’s claims, the latest hostilities are not a new war. We’re now months past the constitutional deadline for the administration to end this unauthorised war,” he said.

He also noted that the House on Tuesday approved a sprawling $1.15 trillion defence bill that includes tens of billions more in funding for the war. The Senate has not yet voted on the package.

“If Congress is serious about bringing an end to this prolonged conflict, it must also refuse the administration’s request to fund it,” he said.

People should check their specific airport before travelling this summer

Airports in the UK have slightly different rules that could catch some travellers out this summer if they do not check them before packing. Certain airports have been upgraded to help relax a major security rule, while others have yet to make any changes.

The 100ml liquid-limit security rule means passengers can only bring liquids in containers of 100ml or less in hand luggage. The rule was put in place back in 2006 when police foiled a major terrorist plot, which prevented a group that planned to smuggle liquid explosives on board a flight leaving London that was bound for North America.

At the time, standard airport security X-ray machines were designed to detect metal weapons (such as guns and knives) and solid explosives, with no way to distinguish between a simple bottle of water and volatile liquids. For years, the rule has remained in place for the vast majority of airports.

But in 2022, the Government confirmed plans to relax the rules. As technology has advanced, some airports are relaxing the rules in 2026.

Certain UK airports featuring new 3D security scanners now allow passengers to carry liquids, gels, and aerosols in individual containers that can hold up to two litres (2000ml). These airports allow you to leave liquids in your hand luggage without needing clear plastic bags.

As of July 15, 2026, the following airports have fully upgraded their systems to include new scanners that officially allow passengers to carry liquids in containers up to two litres in their hand luggage:

• London Heathrow (All Terminals)
• London Gatwick
• Birmingham
• Bristol
• Edinburgh
• Belfast International
• Belfast City
• Teesside International

Even at these hubs, reusable metal, insulated, or double-walled vacuum bottles must be empty when passing through security. ^{You can refill them once you are inside the departure lounge.}

Every other UK airport has yet to follow suit with the change, and still follows the commonly known limit of 100ml. But even with the same cap on liquids, certain airports have different ways of letting items through security.

For example. certain airports remain the same as last summer, where passengers need to use 100ml containers and place them in a clear, resealable plastic bag for scanning. These airports include:

• London Stansted
• London Luton
• Glasgow International
• East Midlands
• Liverpool John Lennon
• Cardiff

But, certain airports have relaxed the rules slightly. Although the strict limit on the amount of liquids is still in place, passengers can keep their liquids and electronics inside their bags for processing at these airports:

• London City
• Manchester
• Newcastle
• Leeds Bradford
• Aberdeen
• Southend

Why aren’t all airports changing at once?

The UK Government’s original goal was a blanket lifting of the 100ml rule, but issues arose, meaning the change had to be implemented gradually. To prevent massive security bottlenecks during the peak summer rush, the Department of Transport has largely frozen rule changes at airports that haven’t yet reached 100% compliance.

Major remaining hubs, such as Stansted, Luton, and Manchester, are continually updating their lanes behind the scenes. Gradual transitions to the “in-bag” rules are expected to resume late autumn/winter 2026 as travel volume drops.

People have been reminded to think before they start maxxing out their luggage limit, as their return journey could be what catches them out. Even if you fly out of a 2L-friendly airport like Heathrow, most international destinations still enforce the strict 100ml rule, so if you buy full-sized toiletries in the UK, you may have to check them into hold luggage on the way back or throw any leftovers away before coming home.

A new rule proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally overhaul the way federal grants are awarded and overseen — a sweeping change that one scientific society said “would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government.”

Proposed in late May, the rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over federal grants for research, education and infrastructure, and specifies that government funds can only be spent on projects “aligned with administration policies and priorities,” according to a copy of the proposed rule.

The rule would also restrict research topics, limit U.S. scientists’ ability to collaborate with colleagues in other countries and make it easier for the government to suspend or cancel grants at any time.

The changes are intended to improve “transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards” while “ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused,” according to the White House office.

But critics say that if the rule is implemented, the final sign-off for grants will no longer be in the hands of subject-matter experts within individual agencies, but in those of political appointees.

“This touches all parts of American life,” said Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, a psychiatrist who practices at the Veterans Administration and San Diego County’s psychiatric hospital.

“Control of how all of the federal grants and programs are funded will fall under a small group of highly partisan individuals who would have very few limits on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars,” said Rafla-Yuan, who also chairs the Committee to Protect Public Mental Health advocacy group. “This touches everyone’s life, even if they don’t realize it.”

OMB published the proposed rule May 29, opening a 45-day comment period that closes July 13.

Opposition to the proposed rule has mobilized multiple sectors of society. Professional groups representing cancer researchers, civil engineers, county governments, medical schools, housing agencies, city and municipal governments, nonprofits and others have publicly expressed concerns about potential consequences.

By midday Thursday, the Federal Register logged nearly 100,000 comments about the proposal, many of them expressing concern.

“I understand the need for oversight, fiscal responsibility, and accountability. That is not the issue,” wrote Jack Feldman, a neuroscientist who holds the David Geffen School of Medicine Chair in Neuroscience at UCLA. “The issue is whether scientific research is to be judged by scientific merit, or whether it can be approved, denied, or terminated according to broad political criteria that may change from one administration to the next.”

Crucially, the rule converts policies governing federal grants from “guidance” into binding regulations that all agencies would be required to follow. It would give political appointees power to override federal agencies’ merit-based reviews and mandate that a political appointee review decisions to ensure that all awards “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The elevation of political appointees in what were previously merit-based decisions has alarmed many scientists.

“The proposed rule changes would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government,” read a statement from the Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space research.

Researchers and science groups have also expressed concern about a section of the rule prohibiting the promotion of “theories of disparate-impact liability” — a legal concept that refers to policies that appear neutral but cause disproportionate harm to certain groups.

The section’s vague language and many loopholes could have a chilling effect on any research that studies the effects of a disease, policy or public health intervention on any specific group of people, Rafla-Yuan said.

As an example, he said, “if there’s a specific age range that is at higher risk for suicide, and we want to figure out, well, what’s going on with people that are aged 14 to 19 … we can’t do that under the wording in this rule.”

New restrictions on collaborations with scientists in other countries would hinder opportunities for U.S. researchers and limit innovation, said Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.

“Science is a global enterprise. Especially in biomedical and public health fields, diseases don’t care about borders or government policies,” she said.

California’s congressional delegation sent a letter Wednesday asking OMB to rescind the proposal, outlining concerns about its impact on scientific innovation, U.S. competitiveness and the fiscal stability of local governments, many of which rely on federal grants for local services.

The proposed rule grants the federal government broad powers to suspend or cancel grants for any reason, introducing “unprecedented unpredictability into local governance,” the lawmakers wrote, “leaving vital infrastructure projects unfinished and abandoning vulnerable populations who rely on these services.”

Republican Sen. Susan Collins has also asked the White House to withdraw certain parts of the letter and extend the public comment period, saying the proposed rule as written would “harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born here are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were here illegally or temporarily.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.

But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.

The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.

In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.

In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.

He left after an hour having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.

It was the rare Supreme Court case which was decided based simply on the words of the Constitution.

The justices, both conservative and liberal, say they look to what the Constitution says and how its words were originally understood.

The 14th Amendment adopted in 1868 says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside.”

The amendment overturned the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which declared that Black persons could not become U.S. citizens.

In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.

In the 19th Century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.

In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in this country.

The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark who born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.

“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”

Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.

But in his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.

“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote, and in the future, it will not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visa, he said.

His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.

In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”

By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.

Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws. Instead, he chose to try to change the law and revise the Constitution by executive order.

Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney pointed to the surge of illegal immigration in recent decades.

“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.

“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” responded Roberts.

A bill to tighten California’s rules on mental health diversion — a process that allows certain criminal defendants to avoid prison for arrests linked to mental illness — is now on the verge of being signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Assembly Bill 46, authored by Stephanie Nguyen (D-Elk Grove), gives judges much wider discretion to decide whether a defendant should be eligible for diversion. Under the current law, judges must presume mental illness was a factor if a defendant with a legitimate diagnosis seeks diversion. In order to defeat a diversion request, the burden is on prosecutors to prove mental health issues were not a factor in the alleged crime.

The new measure — which moved through the state Senate with no opposition last month and is expected to clear the reconciliation process in the Assembly this week — also gives judges more latitude to block diversion if a defendant poses “a risk of danger to public safety,” as opposed to the higher “unreasonable risk” standard that was passed in 2018. Defendants charged with attempted murder will no longer be eligible for diversion under the new bill.

Proponents of more inclusive diversion policies argue that many people with mental health issues are locked up in California prisons and jails, where they are unable to receive the help they need.

The pending bill’s supporters say its changes are designed to address cases like that of Gilberto Guttierrez, a Los Angeles County man who has been accused of attacking his wife four times over the last 12 years.

In 2014, a misdemeanor domestic violence allegation landed Guttierrez on probation. Three years later, Guttierrez was ordered to take anger management classes after prosecutors brought felony domestic violence charges against him. Last February, prosecutors allege, he carried out a “brutal attack” on his wife with a glass bottle, leaving her with “extensive injuries,” according to a motion filed in his current criminal case. That time, the court filings show, Guttierrez threatened to kill her.

Despite objections from prosecutors and L.A. County probation officials, a judge granted a request to give Guttierrez mental health diversion last July.

A month later, prosecutors allege, he beat his wife until she fell into a coma.

When it passed in 2018, the original mental health diversion law was heralded as a needed off-ramp for defendants suffering from serious psychological issues — offering treatment to those who need it rather than a prison cell. But with voters statewide souring on progressive criminal justice reforms, lawmakers have sought to make it harder for defendants to qualify.

“AB 46 preserves diversion as an important pathway to care while ensuring judges have a clearer and more workable standard when serious public safety concerns are present,” Nguyen said in a statement last month.

Under the existing rules, defendants who successfully argue for pretrial mental health diversion spend two years undergoing a court-appointed treatment plan instead of facing a conviction. Prosecutors must prove the defendant is likely to commit a serious violent crime, a so-called “super strike,” again in order to block diversion.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, one of many prosecutors statewide who supported Nguyen’s bill, said that has been a nearly impossible standard to overcome.

“Guttierrez being your example: Judge, if you release him, he’s going to probably beat his wife up again, and if he does this time, he could kill her. But for the grace of God, he hasn’t killed her up until now,” Hochman said.

He added that due to the judge’s decision to grant diversion in Guttierrez’s case, “you have three little kids who likely won’t have their mom for the rest of their life.”

A spokesperson for Newsom did not respond to a request for comment about his plans for the legislation.

A 2020 Rand Corporation study found 61% of the nearly 5,500 mentally ill inmates housed in Los Angeles County at that time were “likely appropriate candidates” for diversion.

But a number of troubling incidents have led to pushback against the existing diversion law.

In a letter supporting Nguyen’s bill, the California District Attorneys Assn. rattled off a list of cases in which prosecutors say the law’s shortcomings had deadly consequences. They pointed to a case in Sacramento where a defendant stabbed a 40-year-old man to death after he was granted diversion in a robbery case. In Santa Clara, the letter said, a woman on mental health diversion for carjacking proceeded to steal another car and slam it into an outside table at a restaurant, leaving one person dead and others injured.

Nikhil Ramnaney, a former federal prosecutor who now works as a defense attorney in Southern California, said thousands of people benefit from mental health diversion every year without reoffending and chastised the bill’s supporters for cherry-picking horrible — but rare — cases to muster support for their proposal.

“This is their most effective strategy because it works. Pick up the most visceral, outrageous anecdotes and then repeat them and amplify them as much as possible,” he said. “That’s how we get bad policy.”

Defense attorney Alexandra Kazarian said California politicians are repeating age-old mistakes of trying to arrest their way out of a mental health crisis.

“Without this option, you throw them into prison for a couple of years, they get out, and nothing changes. I’ve seen real change in my clients who have been granted these and who have just been on horrific mental health breaks and who, two years later, fully have their lives together,” she said. “You’re always going to be able to find an outlier. You’re always going to be able to find somebody who ruins what is a great project or program.”

Hochman said the modified mental health diversion law is a “rebalancing” of the scales in California after years of attempts to lower the state’s overcrowded jail populations affected public safety.

“In the end, I’m not looking for pendulum swings,” he said. “I think we did have a pendulum swing when these laws were being passed and people weren’t really discussing, or at least understanding, the public safety impact of laws that seem on their surface to be very — I wouldn’t even use the word ‘progressive,’ but very helpful to people who are suffering.”

SAN FRANCISCO — The toughest decision of the Sparks’ season to date is fast approaching.

Within the next few games, the team will have to decide whether they are going to keep fan-favorite Kate Martin around.

She joined the roster on a developmental contract at the start of the season after being waived by the Golden State Valkyries the day of roster releases. Developmental contracts were introduced this year as part of the league’s new collective bargaining agreement.

Each team can carry up to two players on developmental deals. Those players are allowed to practice and travel with the team, but they can only be active for a maximum of 12 games during the season.

The Sparks’ Kate Martin shoots over the Fire’s Nyadiew Puoch at Crypto.com Arena on June 7.

(Luiza Moraes / Getty Images)

Typically, developmental players are used as emergency depth, stepping into the lineup only when injuries create a short-term need. That hasn’t been the case for Martin, who has been active for eight of the Sparks’ first 13 games, making her a regular part of the team’s plans.

“I’ve been activated for quite a few games and that is a blessing,” Martin said. “I feel very grateful to have been activated for so many games so far, but I think just like not knowing until like game day, trying to figure out, like, ‘Oh, am I going to be activated, am I not?’ I think that’s probably the biggest difference, but you know, they don’t treat me any differently.”

When given the opportunity, Martin has brought energy and impact off the bench. She is shooting 47.4% from the field and taking 1.6 shots from three-point range per game despite playing just 7.4 minutes. Martin often receives the loudest cheers from fans during home games.

She delivered her strongest offensive performance in a loss to the Tempo on May 17, scoring 11 points on 4-of-7 shooting, but since then she has been used as a first-half rotation player to rest the Sparks guards as a reliable shooter and defender.

Even with the Sparks at full strength against the Portland Fire last week, Martin still earned eight minutes of play. Then she played four minutes in Saturday’s overtime win against Phoenix.

“We’re figuring it out in real time,” Sparks coach Lynne Roberts said. “These are new positions, and so each player only gets 12 games, but Kate does have experience. She is a spark off the bench. Everyone out there trusts her. There’s value to that. It’s hard, though, as a [developmental] player, to play one game and not play the next, and like it’s just hard for the rest of the group. So that part’s been tricky, and we’re figuring it out as we go.”

With seven active appearances already used, Martin has just four games remaining under the terms of her developmental contract. The Sparks must either preserve those appearances for later in the season or make a long-term commitment by signing her to a standard contract or she will become a free agent again.

The challenge is that Los Angeles does not currently have an open roster spot, meaning the team would need to waive a player to make room.

The Sparks’ Dearica Hamby and Kate Martin chest bump to celebrate after scoring against the Dallas Wings at Crypto.com Arena on June 5.

(Luiza Moraes / Getty Images)

Rookies Jihyun Park and 2026 second-round draft pick Ta’Niya Latson have both appeared in fewer games than Martin, as have veteran Emma Cannon and second-year forward Sania Feagin, who was injured earlier this season but hasn’t claimed a rotation spot since her return.

Martin was a regular part of the rotation with the Valkyries in her one season with the franchise, playing in 42 games and averaging 6.2 points per game and 31% shooting from three-point range. She was inconsistent at times, but also provided a spark off the bench and it was a surprise when they cut her.

After an emotional few days after being waived, Martin joined the Sparks, where she was excited for the opportunity to develop. Now, she sees herself as a fit beyond the 12-game limit.

“The system that we want to run at a very fast pace,” Martin said. “Spread the floor and shoot a lot of threes, and I think that I am good at spacing the floor, and I think that what they want to run here offensively benefits my game in a lot of ways, and I think I fit kind of seamlessly in that way.”

A federal judge has declined to halt President Trump’s executive order creating a federal voter list and limiting mail voting, clearing the way for potential sweeping changes in how American elections are run shortly before this year’s midterm elections.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee in Washington, late Wednesday rejected the request by Democrats and civil rights groups that had argued Trump’s order would likely be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. Nichols agreed with the Republican Trump administration’s contention that it was too early to block the order because it has yet to be implemented.

Nichols’ ruling leaves the door open for further challenges when the Trump administration moves to implement the president’s directive. A separate lawsuit seeking to block the executive order is underway in Boston. No matter how rapidly the administration acts, no voting changes are expected during primary elections, which continue into next month.

“The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws,” Nichols wrote. “Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.”

The Trump administration has yet to formally issue lists of eligible voters, and those who filed the initial request for a temporary halt said they’d be back if the administration moves in that direction.

“We are ready to resume the fight if and when the administration takes those next steps,” said Juan Proaño, chief executive officer of the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the organizations that sought the stay from Nichols.

Trump issued the order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.

Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.

Democrats and civil rights groups argued it was urgent that Nichols issue a restraining order in the midst of primary season and with states already gearing up for the fall midterm elections.

This was Trump’s second executive order seeking to overhaul elections and voting. His initial election executive order, issued just months after he took office in his second term, has been blocked by multiplefederal judges. That order sought to require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, among other changes.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump on Thursday announced that grocery stories and air conditioning companies will be allowed to keep using high-polluting refrigerants for longer than they would have under a law he signed during his first administration.

“This was a tremendous burden, a tremendous cost,” said Trump, surrounded in the Oval Office by executives from supermarket chains including Kroger, Fairway, Neimann Foods and Piggly Wiggly. “It was making the equipment unaffordable, and the actual benefit was nothing.”

The move loosens rules meant to restrict hydroflourocarbons, a class of climate-damaging chemicals used in cooling equipment. HFCs are known as “super pollutants” because their impact on climate change can be tens of thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide during their shorter lifespans.

In the move Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency extends the deadline for companies to comply with a 2023 rule transitioning refrigerators and air conditioners off HFCs and onto new cooling technologies. Reducing these chemicals and moving to cleaner refrigerants has long been a bipartisan issue.

Trump is also proposing exemptions from a rule requiring leak repairs on large-scale refrigeration systems.

The administration framed the changes as part of its effort to bring down high grocery costs. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the actions will save $2.4 billion for Americans and safeguard 350,000 jobs.

“Americans who wanted to be able to fix their equipment were instead being required to buy far more costly new equipment and that just doesn’t make any sense,” said Zeldin.

David Doniger, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the move will not only harm the climate, but U.S. competitiveness in global refrigerant markets as well.

“The EPA is catering to a small group of straggling companies by derailing the shift away from these climate super-pollutants,” he said. “The industry at large supports the HFC phasedown and has already invested in making new refrigerants and equipment, currently installed in thousands of stores.”

Danielle Wright, executive director of the North American Sustainable Refrigeration Council, an environmental nonprofit, said any perceived near-term savings from the rollbacks will be outweighed by the future costs.

“Business owners are far more worried about the escalating cost of keeping aging, high‑global-warming-potential equipment running than they are about the cost of installing new, compliant systems,” she said.

Trump dismissed the climate concerns, saying his changes “are not going to have any impact on the environment.”

He said he wants to get rid of the technology transition rule entirely in the future.