million

Attacks on multiple commercial ships in the waters around Iran on Wednesday increased global energy concerns, pushed nations to unleash strategic oil reserves and sparked fresh critiques of the Trump administration’s readiness for a war it started.

As Trump administration and U.S. military officials continued to claim increasing success and advantage in the conflict — and authorities downplayed a reported threat of drone attacks on California — leaders around the world scrambled to respond to the latest attacks and the International Energy Agency’s call for the largest ever release of strategic oil reserves by its members to help stem energy price spikes.

President Trump also faced renewed questions about a deadly strike on an Iranian elementary school at the start of the war, after the New York Times reported Wednesday that a military investigation had determined the U.S. was responsible.

“I don’t know about it,” Trump said when asked about the report.

In an address Wednesday morning, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said energy shipments through the Strait of Hormuz had “all but stopped” amid the conflict, driving massive global competition for oil and gas in wealthier countries and fuel rationing in poorer nations.

He said the IEA’s 32 member nations have brought a “sense of urgency and solidarity” to recent discussions on the matter, and had unanimously agreed to “launch the largest ever release of emergency oil stocks in our agency’s history,” making 400 million barrels of oil available.

However, he said the most needed change is the “resumption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.”

A vendor pumps petrol from Iranian fuel oil tankers for resale near the Bashmakh border crossing between Iraq and Iran.

(Ozan Kose / AFP/Getty Images)

Several countries, including Germany, Austria and Japan, had already confirmed their plans to release reserves.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on any U.S. plans to release its strategic reserves, or how much would be released. The U.S. is an IEA member.

Trump told reporters Wednesday that the U.S. has hit Iran “harder than virtually any country in history has been hit,” including by wiping out its naval fleet and eliminating other vessels capable of laying mines, and that he believes oil companies should resume shipments through the strait despite the recent attacks.

U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum backed the idea of releasing oil reserves in a Fox News interview.

“Certainly these are the kinds of moments that these reserves are used for, because what we have here is not a shortage of energy in the world; we’ve got a transit problem, which is temporary,” Burgum said. “When you have a temporary transit problem that we’re resolving militarily and diplomatically — which we can resolve and will resolve — this is the perfect time to think about releasing some of those, to take some pressure off of the global price.”

Burgum said that while Iran is “holding the entire world hostage economically by threatening to close the strait,” Trump has made the consequences of such actions “very clear,” and “there’s a lot of options between ourselves and our allies in the region, including our Arab friends in the region, to make sure that those straits keep open and that energy keeps flowing for the global economy.”

The IEA did not provide details as to the release of the 400 million barrels, part of a broader reserve of some 1.2 billion barrels held by its members. It said the reserves “will be made available to the market over a time frame that is appropriate to the national circumstances of each Member country and will be supplemented by additional emergency measures by some countries.”

The agency said an average of 20 million barrels of crude oil and oil products transited the strait per day in 2025, and that options for bypassing the strait are “limited.”

While some tankers believed linked to Iran were still getting through the Strait of Hormuz, which under normal circumstances carries about 20% of the world’s oil and natural gas, Iranian officials threatened attacks on other vessels — saying they would not allow “even a single liter of oil” tied to the U.S., Israel or their allies through the channel, which connects to the Persian Gulf.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. and its powerful Navy would support commercial vessels and ensure the strait remains open to oil shipments, but that has not been the case.

Tankers wait off the Mediterranean coast of southern France on Wednesday.

(Thibaud Moritz / AFP/Getty Images)

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center, run by the British military, reported at least three ships struck in the region Wednesday — including ships off the United Arab Emirates and a cargo ship that was struck by a projectile in the strait just north of Oman, setting it ablaze.

The Trump administration and the U.S. military, meanwhile, have been pushing out messaging about wiping out Iran’s ability to plant mines in the strait — posting dramatic videos of major strikes on tiny boats on small docks.

Adm. Brad Cooper, the leader of U.S. Central Command, said in a video posted to X on Wednesday morning that “in short, U.S. forces continue delivering devastating combat power against the Iranian regime.”

“I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: U.S. combat power is building, Iranian combat power is declining,” he said.

The U.S. has struck more than 60 Iranian ships, and just “took out the last of four Soleimani-class warships,” he said. “That’s an entire class of Iranian ships now out of the fight.”

Cooper said Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks have “dropped drastically” since the start of the war, though “it’s worth pointing out that Iranian forces continue to target innocent civilians in gulf countries, while hiding behind their own people as they launch attacks from highly populated cities in Iran.”

He also addressed the attacks on commercial shipping in the region directly, saying that “for years, the Iranian regime has threatened commercial shipping and U.S. forces in international waters,” and that the U.S. military’s “mission is to end their ability to project power and harass shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Other U.S. leaders called the U.S. war plan — and specifically its approach to protecting the Strait of Hormuz — into question.

In a series of posts to X late Tuesday, which he said followed a two-hour classified briefing on the war, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) slammed the administration’s plans as “incoherent and incomplete.”

Murphy wrote that the administration’s goals for the war seemed to be focused primarily on “destroying lots of missiles and boats and drone factories,” and without a clear plan for what to do when Iran — still led by “a hardline regime” — begins rebuilding that infrastructure, other than to continue bombing them. “Which is, of course, endless war,” he wrote.

Murphy also specifically criticized the administration’s plan for the Strait of Hormuz — which he said simply doesn’t exist.

“And on the Strait of Hormuz, they had NO PLAN,” he wrote. “I can’t go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait, but suffice it [to] say, right now, they don’t know how to get it safely back open. Which is unforgiveable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable.”

Ships in the strait remained under threat of various forms of attack Wednesday, as did much of the region as the war raged on.

There was an attack on a U.S. Embassy operations center at Baghdad’s airport, which officials attributed to a drone launched by Iranian proxies based in Iraq. No casualties were reported.

Lebanon’s Health Ministry reported the death toll there — from fighting between Israel and Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters — had risen to 634 since last week, including 91 children. Another 1,500 people had been wounded, the ministry said.

Iranian authorities have said U.S. and Israeli attacks have killed 1,255 people since Feb. 28. That includes many Iranian leaders, including then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. U.S. officials have said Iranian attacks in the region have killed seven U.S. service members, with another 140 wounded.

CBS News reported Wednesday that dozens of those injuries were sustained by service members in the March 1 Iranian drone attack on a tactical operations center in Kuwait — which is also where six of the seven deaths occurred.

The outlet reported that the attack was more severe than the Trump administration has revealed, with more than 30 military members still in hospitals Tuesday with a range of battle injuries including “brain trauma, shrapnel wounds and burns.”

Threats extended beyond the Middle East, too — including to California, where law enforcement agencies were warned by federal authorities that Iran “allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack” on California using drones launched from a vessel off the U.S. coast.

However, sources told The Times that advisory was cautionary and not backed by credible intelligence.

Times staff writer Gavin J. Quinton, in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

March 11 (UPI) — The International Energy Agency agreed to take emergency action and release 400 million barrels of oil into the market, the coalition announced Wednesday.

The 32 members of the IEA unanimously agreed to tap into their emergency reserves in response to the strain on the oil market from the war in Iran.

“The oil market challenges we are facing are unprecedented in scale, therefore I am very glad that IEA member countries have responded with an emergency collective action of unprecedented size,” Fatih Birol, IEA executive director, said in a statement.

“Oil markets are global so the response to major disruptions needs to be global too. Energy security is the founding mandate of the IEA, and I am pleased that IEA members are showing strong solidarity in taking decisive action together.”

The IEA said oil will be released to the market “over a timeframe that is appropriate to the national circumstances of each member country.”

The release of emergency reserves is the sixth in the coalition’s history since being founded in 1974.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said Wednesday that Japan plans to begin releasing oil from its stockpile possibly next week. Japan is an IEA member.

Oil prices soared after the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran. Iran has threatened vessels traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route in the oil trade, in response.

About 25% of the world’s seaborne oil is transported through the Strait of Hormuz.

The IEA has an emergency stockpile of more than 1.2 billion barrels of oil, There are 600 million additional barrels obligated by member governments.

EXPLAINER

More than half of the 62 million people in the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are foreign workers.

Nearly 62 million people living in the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have been caught in the crossfire of the latest US-Israel war on Iran.

Known for their economic opportunities, these countries, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), collectively host nearly 35 million foreign workers from around the world, predominantly from South Asia.

With the exception of Saudi Arabia and Oman, foreign workers make up the bulk of the populations of people living in the remaining four GCC countries.

The map below illustrates the national and non-national populations in each of the GCC countries.

Where do GCC foreign workers come from?

Generations of foreign workers in the GCC countries have significantly contributed to the workforce, including labourers, construction workers, household staff, security personnel, and cleaners, all vital to building the modern infrastructures that Gulf nations are known for.

Millions consider the Gulf their home, despite holding nationalities from other countries.

Additionally, highly skilled foreign workers have a long history in industries such as banking, finance, technology, engineering, aviation, medicine and the media.

According to Global Media Insight, a digital marketing agency based out of the UAE,  the 10 largest groups of non-nationals living across the six GCC countries are from:

• India: 9.1 million
• Bangladesh: 5 million
• Pakistan: 4.9 million
• Egypt: 3.3 million
• Philippines: 2.2 million
• Yemen: 2.2 million
• Sudan: 1.1 million
• Nepal: 1.2 million
• Syria: 694,000
• Sri Lanka: 650,000

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is the largest of the six GCC countries, with a population of nearly 37 million.

The oil-rich country has a local population of about 20.5 million and an additional 16.4 million foreign residents.

The five largest groups of non-nationals living in Saudi Arabia are people from:

• Bangladesh: 2,590,000
• India: 2,310,000
• Pakistan: 2,230,000
• Yemen: 2,210,000
• Egypt: 1,800,000
• Sudan: 1,000,000

The UAE

The United Arab Emirates has the second-largest population in the GCC, totaling some 11.3 million people.

It consists of seven emirates, including the capital Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm Al Quwain, Ras Al Khaimah, and Fujairah.

Emiratis make up nearly 12 percent of the population, with foreigners at almost 88 percent.

The five largest groups of non-nationals living in the UAE are from:

• India: 4,360,000
• Pakistan: 1,900,000
• Bangladesh: 840,000
• Philippines: 780,000
• Iran: 540,000
• Egypt: 480,000

Kuwait

With a population of 4.8 million, Kuwait has the third-largest population in the GCC.

Approximately 1.56 million are Kuwaiti citizens, and 2.16 million are foreign workers.

The five largest groups of non-nationals living in Kuwait are from:

• India: 1,000,000
• Egypt: 700,000
• Bangladesh: 350,000
• Philippines: 250,000
• Pakistan: 200,000
• Nepal: 120,000

Oman

Oman’s population stands at approximately 4.7 million people. Oman’s 2.5 million citizens account for nearly 59 percent of the population, while the remaining 2.05 million (or 41 percent) are foreign workers.

The five largest groups of non-nationals living in Oman are from:

• India: 766,735
• Bangladesh: 718,856
• Pakistan: 268,868
• Egypt: 46,970
• Philippines: 45,213
• Uganda: 20,886

Qatar

Qatar has a population of some 3.2 million people, with 2.87 million foreign workers accounting for about 88 percent of them. Qatari citizens number around 330,000, making up 12 percent.

The five largest groups of non-nationals living in Qatar are from:

• India: 700,000
• Bangladesh: 400,000
• Nepal: 400,000
• Egypt: 300,000
• Philippines: 236,000
• Pakistan: 180,000

Bahrain

With a total population of 1.58 million, Bahrain has the smallest population in the GCC. Bahraini citizens make up just under half of the population.

The five largest groups of non-nationals living in Bahrain are from:

• India: 350,000
• Bangladesh: 150,000
• Pakistan: 120,000
• Philippines: 80,000
• Egypt: 60,000
• Nepal: 35,000

Walt Disney Co. and Pixar’s “Hoppers” took the box office crown this weekend in an encouraging sign for the company’s original animated films.

The film generated $46 million in ticket sales in the U.S. and Canada, marking the highest domestic opening for an original animated movie since 2017’s “Coco,” according to studio estimates. The global box office total for “Hoppers” was $88 million.

The zany movie features a young environmental advocate who “hops” her consciousness into a robotic beaver and bands together with other woodland creatures to stop a planned freeway expansion through a glade.

The film is directed by Daniel Chong, who created the Cartoon Network animated series “We Bare Bears.”

The muscular debut for “Hoppers,” as well as the strong performance from Sony Pictures Animation’s “Goat” last month, has been a positive sign for audience interest in original animated films.

Since the pandemic, theatrical returns for animated sequels have far surpassed that of original films. Disney’s “Zootopia 2,” for instance, has now grossed more than $1.8 billion in global box office revenue, with more than $426 million domestically. Disney and Pixar’s 2024 hit “Inside Out 2” also crossed more than $1.6 billion globally.

By contrast, Disney and Pixar’s 2025 original film “Elio” brought in about $154 million in worldwide box office revenue.

Original films are vital to Pixar’s future, as the Emeryville-based studio built its reputation on its string of nearly uninterrupted original blockbuster hits, including 1995’s “Toy Story” and 2004’s “The Incredibles.”

Paramount Pictures and Spyglass Media Group’s “Scream 7” came in second at the box office with $17.3 million in its second weekend in theaters. Warner Bros. Pictures’ “The Bride!,” Sony’s “Goat” and Warner Bros.’ “Wuthering Heights” rounded out the top five at the box office, according to data from Comscore.

With several strong releases, as well as popular holdover films from 2025 that continue to bring in revenue, the first few months at the box office have been a notable improvement over last year’s dismal first quarter.

Domestic box office revenue so far is up more than 12% compared to the same time period in 2025, according to Comscore.

Los Angeles cannabis businesses that owe back taxes wouldn’t have to pay late fees and interest under an “amnesty” program proposed by the City Council.

To qualify, the businesses would have to pay their city taxes within three years.

The council’s unanimous vote on Tuesday, asking the Office of Finance to draft language creating the program, comes at a time when city leaders are searching for money to cover basic services after closing a $1-billion budget gap.

More than 500 of the roughly 700 licensed cannabis businesses in the city collectively owed about $400 million in taxes — an amount that includes $100 million in penalties and $35 million in interest, according to an October report from the Office of Finance.

The total amount owed increased to $417 million as of December, according to Matthew Crawford, the office’s assistant director.

But only about $150 million is collectible, since some tax debts are outside of the three-year statute of limitations and some cannabis businesses are no longer operating.

Based on a projection that about half of eligible cannabis businesses would take part in the program, the city would collect about $30 million in back taxes while waiving about $25 million in penalties, the October report said.

Under the amnesty program, about 20% of the revenue would go to the city’s general fund and the Office of Finance. The Los Angeles Police Department and the city attorney’s office would receive about 40% for illegal cannabis enforcement, and the remaining 40% would fund social equity grants to cannabis operators, particularly members of low-income and minority communities that have been subject to disparate enforcement of criminal cannabis laws.

“The city finds itself with a unique opportunity to bring businesses into compliance and, at the same time, properly fund cannabis industry-centric programming,” City Councilmember Imelda Padilla said during Tuesday’s meeting.

Owners of cannabis businesses say the 10% city tax rate on their gross sales is exorbitant, at the same time that illegal cannabis businesses have carved out a chunk of the market.

“Not only are we competing against the illicit market, we’re competing against licensed dispensaries that the city is allowing to stay open who have made it their business model to not pay tax,” Daniel Sosa, who owns four cannabis dispensaries in the city, told the council on Tuesday.

The amnesty program should be mandatory for businesses that are behind on their taxes, and those who default on their payments should have their licenses stripped, Sosa said.

Sosa said that the tax on cannabis sales should be “just like every other business pays in the city: guns, tobacco, alcohol, major, major billion dollar corporations.”

Other business tax rates in the city range from 0.11% to 0.425%, according to Crawford.

Last month, the council placed a cannabis-related measure on the June 2 ballot that, if approved by voters, would close a tax loophole for illegal cannabis businesses and open them up to the threat of civil collection.

SACRAMENTO — A proposed initiative to require Californians to show identification every time they vote, and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens, appears to have enough support to qualify for the November ballot.

Proponents say they have collected more than 1.3 million voter signatures on petitions supporting the ballot measure, far more than required under California law, and plan to submit them to county elections officials Monday for verification.

The Republican-led push for the voter ID initiative comes at a time of growing distrust in the integrity of the electoral process nationwide, a wariness intensified by President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him and false assertions that droves of undocumented immigrants are swaying elections with illegal votes.

Proponents of voter ID contend that such laws prevent election fraud and, along with proof of citizenship mandates, prevent noncitizens from voting. Opponents say ID mandates threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans who do not have the mandated documentation readily available, and that the restrictions are unnecessary given that voting by noncitizens is rare and already outlawed in the U.S.

The partisan divide over whether voters must provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, one of Trump’s top priorities, continues to consume Washington. House Republicans passed the mandate in early February but the legislation — known as the SAVE Act — has bogged down in the Senate.

Democrats say that under the SAVE Act, many state driver’s licenses would not be adequate documentation to prove U.S. citizenship, forcing people to produce a passport or birth certificate — which many voters do not have. According to a 2023 survey by the Brennan Center for Justice and others, 9% of U.S. adult citizens do not have proof of their citizenship that’s readily available. The survey found that 11% of adult citizens of color were unable to readily access those documents, compared with 8% for white American adults. They accused Republicans of trying to prevent millions of Americans from voting in the next election in order to keep Congress under GOP control.

UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said that both the SAVE Act and proposed ballot measure in California are not only unnecessary, but harmful to democracy.

“Both are aimed at solving problems that don’t exist,” Chemerinsky said. “There is no evidence of a problem of non-citizens voting. Nor is there evidence of significant fraud with voters casting votes under false names. But both would limit who can vote. As for the SAVE Act, many people don’t have a birth certificate or passport.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) speaks during a news conference on Feb. 11 at the U.S. Capitol. Johnson was joined by Republicans to speak about the passage of the SAVE America Act, an election bill backed by President Donald Trump that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and require photo identification at the ballot box.

(Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona), who supports and voted for the SAVE Act, said it is a simple way to restore voter confidence in elections. But he said the bill’s fate appears grim.

“I don’t think they have the votes,” Calvert said Friday.

Which is why, Calvert says, California must join other states and enact commonsense voter ID and citizenship requirements that can attract bipartisan support. The longtime Republican congressman said he does not believe there has been widespread voter fraud in the U.S., or a that a flood of noncitizens has been voting, but that does not mean those have not happened to some degree and would sway both tightly contested local elections and congressional races.

“I’ve always said it’s probably a small amount, but it’s enough to change an outcome of elections, and could change the numbers we have in Congress,” Calvert said.

The California ballot measure

The petitions being submitted for the California Voter ID Initiative will be reviewed by county election officials, who must verify that the people who signed are registered voters in the state and that the proponents collected at least the 874,641 valid signatures required to qualify for the November ballot.

The ballot measure will make significant changes to how Californians vote, and enact new mandates on county elections officials. Among the top changes being proposed:

• Every time a voter casts a ballot in person in any election in California, they must present government-issued identification.
• Californians voting by mail will be required to list on the ballot envelope the last four digits of a “unique identifying number from a government issued identification” — essentially a pin number like people use at an ATM — that matches the one the voter designated when they registered to vote.
• The California secretary of state and county election officials will be required to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.
• The secretary of state and county election officials must maintain accurate voter registration lists.
• If requested, the state would be required to a provide eligible voters with free voter identification cards for use during elections.

“We’re creating the legal obligation that in California, when we do voting, we want our election officers to actually give a damn about whether someone’s a citizen,” said Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), one of the main forces behind the proposed ballot measure. “That’s what we’re asking. That’s why voters support this, because it’s not a burden on the voter. It really is a burden on the election officers to do their job.”

Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego speaks at a press conference in July to announce a campaign to require voter identification in California.

(Tran Nguyen / Associated Press)

But Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, called the proposed ballot measure an underhanded attempt by Trump and Republicans to make it even harder for people in the state to vote — which they see as a political advantage. The Californians who will suffer the most are “communities of color, people with disabilities, elderly folks, folks who move around a lot, folks who have recently experienced a name change.”

“California elections are already secure. This initiative isn’t really about election integrity. It’s part of this broader national playbook from President Trump and the current federal administration to make voting harder and to create doubts in the minds of the public and to really sow chaos on election day,” Farrell said. “The measure would create new strict barriers for eligible voters. It could wrongfully flag naturalized citizens, and it will create new ways to challenge results.”

Noncitizens who vote in California risk being charged with a felony and deported, she said.

Farrell’s organization has joined with the ACLU of Northern and Southern California, Common Cause, Disability Rights California and other groups to oppose the proposed measure.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office estimates the new requirements under the proposed ballot measure could potentially cost state and local governments “tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars” annually.

What’s the law now in California?

Currently, 36 states require or request that voters provide identification at the time they cast a ballot, and 10 states have strict laws requiring people to produce government-issued photo IDs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Under current law, Californians are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail. They are required to provide identification when registering to vote, and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and a U.S. citizen.

To register to vote, Californians must provide their driver’s license number or state identification card number and the last four digits of their Social Security number, along with other information. The state is required to validate the information using relevant databases, including records at the state Department of Motor Vehicles and Social Security Administration.

Along with a driver’s license, U.S. passport or state identification card, acceptable identification also can include photo identification cards issued by a school, a credit card company, a gym, an insurance company, an employer or a public housing agency. Californians have the option of providing certain other documents, as long as they contain the person’s name and address, including: utility bills, bank statements, government checks, rental statements or government-issued bus passes.

First-time voters who did not present identification when they registered to vote must present ID the first time they cast a ballot in a federal election.

When ballots are sent by mail, election officials are required to verify a voter’s signature on the ballot by comparing it with the signature on the official voter registration records on file.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — To receive Medicaid health coverage, some adults will soon have to show they are working, volunteering or taking classes. But to gather that proof, many states first will have to spend millions of dollars improving their computer systems.

Across the nation, states face an immense task and high costs to prepare for the Jan. 1 kickoff of new Medicaid eligibility mandates affecting millions of lower-income adults in the government-funded healthcare program.

The first half of a $200-million federal allotment has already begun flowing to states to help implement the new requirements. But the tab for the needed technology improvements and additional staff is likely to exceed $1 billion, according to an Associated Press analysis of budget projections in more than 25 states. That extra cost will be borne by a mixture of federal and state tax dollars.

The task is not as simple as pushing through a software update on your smartphone or personal computer. That’s because each state has its own system for managing Medicaid, often requiring experts to make customized changes.

“Our current eligibility systems are pretty old, and the ability to change them is very, very difficult,” said Toi Wilde, chief information officer for the Missouri Department of Social Services.

As a consequence of states’ new financial burden, some eligible people may lose their healthcare coverage, officials warn.

New requirements affect millions, but not all

The Republican tax and spending law signed last year by President Trump is financed, in part, by sweeping Medicaid changes intended to cut government spending. Two of the most prominent will apply in four-fifths of the states, affecting Medicaid enrollees ages 19 through 64, without young children, whose incomes are above the typical eligibility cutoff.

Those Medicaid participants will have to work or do community service at least 80 hours a month, or enroll at least half-time as a student. They also will face eligibility reviews every six months, instead of annually, meaning they could lose coverage more quickly when their circumstances change.

The two provisions together are projected to save the federal government $388 billion over the next decade, resulting in 6 million fewer people with health insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But states first must update their online portals used by Medicaid participants, their aging computer systems used by state workers and their methods of verifying information through various databases.

Most will have to turn to private contractors to meet the time crunch. At least 10 companies have agreed to offer discounted services, according to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Making those technology upgrades “is going to be a lift. It’s not something straightforward. It’s not easy,” said Jason Reilly, a partner at Guidehouse, a firm that is advising several states on the Medicaid requirements.

Most states don’t currently collect employment or education information about Medicaid participants. So states are looking to tap into outside sources to verify job and school data. But there’s no database of community volunteers.

And states are still waiting on federal rules — not due until June — to define some of the exceptions to the work requirements, such as how to determine who qualifies as “medically frail.”

States face extra pressure to get it right because the federal government will start penalizing states with too many Medicaid payment errors in October 2029.

Congress guaranteed all states a share of the $200 million allotted for Medicaid work and eligibility changes. But states must apply for additional federal money. The federal government covers up to 90% of states’ costs to develop systems for determining Medicaid eligibility, 75% of costs to maintain those systems and half of most other administrative costs.

Missouri won early approval for the 90% federal funding rate. State lawmakers now are fast-tracking a $32-million appropriation needed to solicit bids for vendors to start upgrading technology platforms and improving a chatbot for Medicaid participants. Over the next year, the state’s social services agency expects to need about 120 additional workers — at a cost of $12.5 million — to handle the extra administrative workload.

Other states also project large costs. Maryland expects to spend over $32 million in federal and state funds to implement the Medicaid changes, Kentucky more than $46 million, and Colorado over $51 million. Arizona estimates it could cost $65 million — and require 150 additional staffers — to implement the new federal requirements.

Some states surveyed by the AP reported even higher expected costs, though they didn’t always provide a breakdown for how much is due to new Medicaid mandates and how much pertains to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program changes also contained in Trump’s massive law.

Several states, including Arkansas, said they are still working on cost estimates for the Medicaid changes. Arkansas instituted a Medicaid work requirement in 2018-19, and thousands of people were dropped from the rolls before a federal court ended it. Many of the technology changes required by the new federal mandates could be covered under an existing vendor contract and have “a minimal financial impact on our Medicaid budget,” the Arkansas Department of Human Services said in an email.

Nebraska has said it plans to launch Medicaid work requirements in May, seven months ahead of the federal deadline. But the state has not detailed any associated costs and did not respond to inquiries from the AP.

Georgia’s work requirement prompts concerns

Georgia is currently the only state requiring some Medicaid recipients to work, after receiving special federal approval several years ago to expand coverage to some adults not otherwise eligible.

The Georgia Pathways to Coverage program racked up more than $54 million of administrative costs from 2021 through the first part of 2025 — twice the amount of medical assistance paid out over that same period, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Almost all of those costs came from technology changes to its eligibility and enrollment system.

Some Medicaid analysts point to Georgia’s costs and Arkansas’ enrollment losses as reasons for caution as work requirements roll out in other states.

“A huge amount of funding is going to go to vendors to construct these complicated red-tape systems that prevent people who need it from getting healthcare,” said Joan Alker, executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University.

“In my view, that is a big, big risk.”

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

SEOUL, Feb. 27 (UPI) — OCI Energy, a U.S. affiliate of South Korea’s OCI Holdings, said its joint venture with Arava Power has secured nearly $400 million for Project SunRoper, a 347-megawatt solar project in Wharton County, Texas.

OCI Energy joined with Israel’s Arava Power for the project. As sole lead arranger, ING Capital will underwrite the financing package, which includes a mix of loans and letters of credit.

The total investment is estimated to be about $394 million, according to OCI Energy. The construction financing is backed by a 20-year power purchase agreement with a Fortune 100 company, whose identity OCI Energy did not disclose.

Situated some 60 miles southwest of Houston, Project SunRoper is expected to begin commercial operation in the third quarter of next year, supporting grid reliability and emissions reduction.

“The close of construction financing for Project SunRoper represents an important milestone for OCI Energy and our partners,” OCI Energy CEO Sabah Bayatli said in a statement.

“This transaction reflects our continued commitment to delivering high-quality, utility-scale solar projects that strengthen grid reliability and provide affordable energy infrastructure,” he said.

ING Capital Managing Director Sven Wellock said the new initiative would deliver reliable, affordable clean energy for years to come.

“This project exemplifies the high-quality renewable infrastructure we seek to finance — a strong sponsor partnership, a long-term contracted revenue profile and a well-located asset in one of the most dynamic power markets in the United States,” he said.

This is not the first time that OCI Energy has collaborated with ING. They previously worked together on financing for the Alamo City Battery Energy Storage System project in Texas.

Four years ago, Boyle Heights and Skid Row had something to celebrate: state grants to build new sidewalks and protected bike lanes.

But now, more than $100 million from the state for the transportation projects in some of the neediest parts of Los Angeles is in jeopardy because city officials say they don’t have enough staff to complete the projects.

The issue is part of the continuing fallout from a $1-billion budget shortfall the city faced last year. Officials avoided mass layoffs but closed the gap with budget cuts to city departments, including the Bureau of Engineering, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Street Lighting and Bureau of Street Services. Those cuts included eliminating open positions, resulting in smaller staffs.

“To know that the funding is there and that we have to give it back because the city says it can’t find the bodies to do the work is a scandal,” said Estela Lopez, executive director for the L.A. Downtown Industrial District Business Improvement District. She has long advocated for more resources on Skid Row, including improved accessibility for pedestrians.

“It would be transformative in a way that wasn’t just in spirit,” she said.

On Monday, the Bureau of Street Services confirmed that it will apply with the state for a two-year extension to allow more time to begin the transportation projects in Boyle Heights, Skid Row and Wilmington.

The move came after L.A. City Councilmembers Ysabel Jurado and Tim McOsker introduced a motion to cancel the state funds, citing “staffing, funding, and implementation constraints.” Jurado said that plan is “now on hold.” McOsker, whose district includes the Wilmington project, also confirmed his support for an extension.

“After hearing directly from my constituents, I urged the Bureau of Street Services to explore every option to keep these projects moving forward,” Jurado said in a statement this week.

The Boyle Heights project would enhance bike lanes and pedestrian-level lighting, as well as extend street curbs and plant more than 300 shade trees. On Skid Row, existing bike and pedestrian pathways would be connected through downtown L.A. to schools, health facilities and job centers. In Wilmington, near the busiest port in the country, crumbling sidewalks would be fixed and a new traffic signal and high-visibility crosswalks would be added.

The city must contribute about $23 million in matching funds.

Jurado, whose district includes Boyle Heights and Skid Row, said the two areas “have waited too long for these investments for them to slip away.” Her predecessor, Kevin de León, and his staff pitched the projects and spent about $250,000 in discretionary funds to hire consultants to put together the applications for both projects.

Dan Halden, director of external relations for the Bureau of Street Services, said in a statement that the agency acknowledges the challenges ahead, including resources, cost and timeliness, and would work to identify a path forward.

De León said in an interview this week that now is not the time for the city to return state dollars.

“It would be at best, political malpractice, at worst, criminal, if the city made the decision to return the money in a time when we need every imaginable dollar for the well-being of Angelenos,” De León said. “This is not the moment to return dollars back to the state government, especially for historically under-served and under-invested communities.”

Michael Schneider, founder and chief executive of the bicyclist and pedestrian advocacy group Streets for All, said that losing the projects would be “heartbreaking.” He said he was involved in one of the grant applications two years ago and saw the amount of resources that went into it.

“This is that times three. It’s beyond the pale,” Schneider said. “This is a lot of money for those projects that are not that complicated, already designed.”

Schneider said he is concerned that if L.A. backs out this time, the state would prioritize other jurisdictions for future funding. An extension could be putting off the inevitable unless something changes and the projects become a priority for the city, he said.

“If it goes away, all it means is that some of the most dangerous streets that we’re aware of in the city are going to remain dangerous for decades,” he said. “The projects have merit. They were chosen for a reason.”

In a video posted online last week, City Controller Kenneth Mejia highlighted the budget cuts that are jeopardizing the state grants, including a 26% cut, or $61 million, to the Bureau of Street Services, the lead agency for the projects.

“The city is actually very successful in securing these large grants,” Mejia said in the video. “However, departments are constrained by the budget and staffing cuts, which makes the city unable to deliver all of them within the deadline required by the grants.”

Lopez of the business improvement district said the state money would fund a crosswalk in front of the Union Rescue Mission on Skid Row, where pedestrians now resort to jaywalking and where she has witnessed accidents.

She said she has been in touch with Jurado’s office to offer her help in keeping the projects alive.

“The city of Los Angeles can do more than one thing at a time,” she said. “We can figure this out.”

Times staff writer David Zahniser contributed to this report.

Over 32.6 million viewers watched President Trump address the nation on Tuesday night, according to Nielsen data.

It’s both the smallest audience Trump has received for the annual speech to a joint session of Congress, and the longest State of the Union address in recent history.

This was the president’s first State of the Union address of his second term. Previously, his addresses scored 45.5 million in 2018, 46.8 million in 2019 and 37.1 million in 2020, the Nielsen data show.

This year’s speech clocked in at 107 minutes, topping the previous record set by President Clinton in 2000.

Facing low approval ratings, Trump played up positive economic numbers, some of which were misstated, and the administration’s aggressive crackdown on undocumented immigrants, drawing polarized reactions in the chamber.

Trump also recognized the Men’s Olympic hockey team, which won its first gold medal since 1980 on Sunday with its victory against Canada, and a number of other guests attended the address, including the widow of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk and Paramount Skydance’s CEO David Ellison.

The U.S. Olympic men’s ice hockey team arrives for the State of the Union address .

(Kenny Holston / Pool, Getty Images)

There were 15 networks that televised the speech. Fox News had the largest audience with 9.1 million viewers. ABC was second with 5.1 million, followed by NBC‘s 3.6 million, CBS’ 3.3 million, MS NOW’s 2.4 million, CNN’s 2.2 million, and the Fox broadcast network’s 2.1 million.

An independent expenditure committee backed by Silicon Valley executives spent $4.8 million on television ads supporting San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan’s gubernatorial bid that will begin airing Thursday.

The two 30-second ads highlight the Democrat’s life story — being raised in a working-class family and working on a grounds crew and as a middle school teacher — and his accomplishments leading the state’s third-largest city.

Mahan’s parents “taught him the difference between nice to have and need to have,” a narrator says in one of the ads. “So as mayor of San Jose, Matt focused on the basics and delivered results on the things that matter most. The safest big city in America, a sharp drop in street homelessness and thousands of homes built. As governor, Matt Mahan will focus on results Californians need to have, like affordable homes, safe neighborhoods and good schools.”

The ads, which will air statewide on broadcast and cable TV, were paid for by an independent-expenditure committee called California Back to Basics Supporting Matt Mahan for Governor 2026.

The group has not yet filed any fundraising reports with the secretary of state’s office, but the ads’ disclosure says the top donors are billionaire venture capitalist Michael Moritz, luxury sleepwear company founder Ashley Merrill and Silicon Valley entrepreneur Michael Seibel.

Billionaire Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso, who considered running for governor or mayor of Los Angeles but ultimately decided against seeking either post, is involved in the effort, according to a strategist working for the committee who requested anonymity to speak about it.

The committee legally cannot coordinate with Mahan’s campaign, which he launched four weeks ago. Although Mahan lacks the name recognition of several other candidates in the crowded field running to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, his fundraising prowess, notably among tech industry leaders, is notable. He has raised nearly $9.2 million in large donations since entering the gubernatorial race.

NEW passport rules are being introduced from today – and anyone breaking then could be banned from their flight.

From today (February 25), dual national passport holders can no longer use their foreign passport to enter the UK.

Affecting as many as 1.2million people who hold more than one passport in the UK, they must now use a valid British passport when arriving into the UK.

Anyone without this must instead have a certificate of entitlement, which costs £589.

Passengers trying to enter the country by plane, ferry or train without this risks being banned from travelling.

A Home Office spokesperson previously explained: “From February 25, 2026, all dual British citizens will need to present either a valid British passport or certificate of entitlement to avoid delays at the border.”

PASS IT ON

Major airline rolls out strict new passport rule for Brits from TODAY

PASS IT ON

New passport rules starting this week to affect more than one million people

Many have slammed the new rules, which were only announced earlier this month, for not allowing enough time for people living abroad to buy a new passport.

New British passports can take up to three weeks, while first time applications can take as long as 10 weeks.

The government suggested that airlines may allow passengers to travel with an expired passport, however this is at their own discretion.

A spokesperson told The Sun: “At their own discretion, carriers can accept an expired British passport as alternative documentation.”

Not only that, but it must be no older than an expiry of 1989 or later.

They also confirmed that anyone who previously held a British passport, but it has now expired, can instead get an emergency travel document to enter the UK instead.

The new rules are in line with the electronic travel authorisation (ETA), which has also launched from today.

Any non-British national must now may for the £16 ETA to enter the country.

Lasting up to six months, it will be required from people who are from destinations like Europe, the US and Australia.

Anyone who is a dual national cannot apply for an ETA under the new rules.

Brits will not need an ETA when returning to the UK.

Here are some other passport rules you need to be aware of.

And we explain how to apply for your child’s first passport.

Feb. 24 (Asia Today) — Average household debt per borrower in South Korea rose to a record 97.39 million won ($73,000) at the end of last year, as mortgage lending expanded amid rising home prices, according to data released Monday by the Bank of Korea.

The figure marked the first time per-borrower debt has exceeded 97 million won, up 2.24 million won ($1,680) from a year earlier. Total household loan balances reached about 1,853 trillion won ($1.39 trillion), an increase of 51 trillion won ($38.3 billion) from the previous year.

The central bank said the average rose as overall loan balances increased while the number of borrowers declined slightly, pointing to a growing concentration of debt.

Mortgage loans accounted for much of the increase, particularly among borrowers in their 20s to 40s. The average mortgage balance for borrowers in their 30s climbed to 225.41 million won ($169,000), the highest among age groups.

Loans were concentrated in the Seoul metropolitan area, where home prices continued to rise. According to the Korea Real Estate Board, apartment prices in Seoul increased 13.5% last year, the steepest gain since 2021.

Despite a slowdown in new lending following the government’s Oct. 15 real estate measures, authorities are moving to tighten controls further as household debt approaches 2,000 trillion won ($1.5 trillion), a level widely viewed as a risk to economic stability.

The Financial Services Commission has said it will set a lower annual loan growth target than last year’s 1.8% and is considering imposing separate caps on mortgage lending, the core component of total loan management.

Regulators are also reviewing a plan to raise risk-weighted asset ratios on mortgage loans from 20% to 25%, a move that would effectively make banks more cautious in extending housing credit.

Major commercial banks have already begun reducing household loan balances in line with regulatory guidance. As of Sunday, the combined household loan balance of the five largest banks stood at 765.6 trillion won ($574 billion), down about 200 billion won ($150 million) from the end of January.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260224010007193

NEW passport rules are causing chaos for more than one million people – and they start this week.

It was announced earlier this month that all dual national citizens will no longer be able to use their foreign passport to enter the UK.

Instead, from February 25, they must show their British passport to return to the country.

Anyone without one must instead pay for a “certificate of entitlement” that costs £589 and it attached to the passport.

Passengers trying to enter without either could face being banned from their flight and prevented from returning to the UK.

A Home Office spokesperson previously explained: “From February 25, 2026, all dual British citizens will need to present either a valid British passport or certificate of entitlement to avoid delays at the border.”

PASS ON

Airlines could accept expired passports from 1million passengers ahead of new rules

PASS IT ON

New passports being rolled out across the UK will be ‘most secure ever’

It is thought as many as 1.2million people across England and Wales currently hold more than one passport.

This works out to just over two per cent of the population.

Yet the new rules have sparked fury due to the lack of notice given.

Many people currently living abroad have slammed the change as it doesn’t allow enough time to order a new passport.

Dual national Kara Przybylski, from Brisbane, doesn’t have a British passport, and said: “It sucks for people who have flights booked, the government should have allowed more time before it comes into effect.”

The UK government said last week that an expired British passport could be used as “alternative documentation.”

Yet this is at the airline’s discretion, so could still risk families being turned away at the border.

A Home Office official told Sun Travel: “We recognise that this is a significant change for carriers and travellers, but we have been clear on requirements for dual British citizens to travel with a valid British passport or Certificate of Entitlement, in line with those for all British citizens.

“At their own discretion, carriers can accept an expired British passport as alternative documentation.

“Separately, individuals who have previously had a British passport can apply for an emergency travel document if they urgently need to enter the UK.

The new passport change is on the same day as the rollout of the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA).

Costing £16, any non-British or non-Irish tourists will have to pay the fee to enter the country, with it acting like a visa waiver.

Dual nationals are not able to apply for it.

Brits living in the UK will also not need an ETA, although will need an ETIAS later is travelling to Europe.

Set to start later this year (with a confirmed date yet to be announced) it will cost £17 and act like an American ESTA, lasting three years.

Here are some other passport rules that are still catching Brits out.

Some British nationals could face problems at the border when the change begins on February 25, 2026

A cluster of UK citizens are bracing themselves for the prospect of obtaining a new passport or shelling out hundreds of pounds due to an impending border change set to kick in on Wednesday. Dual British nationals, including children, could be denied entry into the UK unless they hold a British passport, under fresh regulations slated to come into force later this month.

An estimated 1.2 million dual British citizens are scattered across the globe. From February 25, 2026, those journeying to the UK will need an Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA). Travellers without an ETA will be prohibited from boarding their flight, ferry or train.

British and Irish citizens, which includes dual nationals, are exempt from this requirement but must adhere to other stipulations. To travel to the UK, dual nationals will now require a valid British passport.

Alternatively, they can fork out £589 for a certificate of entitlement to attach to their second nationality passport. In the past, dual nationals were able to enter the UK using their non-British passport at no cost.

Dual nationals attempting to gain entry to the UK solely with a foreign passport may face hurdles. Although British citizens have a legal right to reside in the UK, travellers could be subjected to extra scrutiny while their status is verified. They might also be barred from boarding if they fail to prove their right of entry.

The Government rolled out these regulations last year, but numerous dual nationals have argued the changes arrived with insufficient warning and inadequate communication. Anxiety is growing that getaways or work journeys could face disruption if people don’t obtain a passport or certificate of entitlement quickly enough.

Why have ETAs been introduced?

ETAs have been brought in as part of wider plans for a “more streamlined, digital immigration system” which the Government expects will be faster and more secure for the millions crossing the UK border each year. It’s a digital travel authorisation – not a visa or levy, simply granting someone permission to travel to the UK.

Government officials maintain that introducing ETAs mirrors the approach numerous other countries have taken for border security, such as the US and Australia.

At present, an ETA costs £16 and permits multiple journeys to the UK for stays of up to six months at a time across a two-year period. There are plans to raise the charge to £20 down the line.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “From February 25, 2026, all dual British citizens will need to present either a valid British passport or certificate of entitlement when travelling to the UK. Without one, carriers cannot verify they are a British citizen, which may lead to delays or refused boarding.

“Public information advising dual nationals to carry the correct documentation has been available since October 2024 and a substantive communications campaign about the introduction of ETA has been running since 2023. This requirement applies to all British citizens regardless of other nationality and is the same approach taken by other countries, including the United States, Canada and Australia.”

Pikachu? More like Pi-ka-ching.

A rare Pokémon card owned by wrestler and social media personality Logan Paul sold for $16.5 million on Monday, setting a new record for the auction price of a trading card. Paul had acquired the Pikachu Illustrator card in a trade worth $5.275 million in 2021 — the most expensive Pokémon trading card sold at a private sale at the time.

The retail price for a standard pack of Pokémon cards is usually around $5 for 10 cards — though, much like hunting for shiny Pokémon, successfully purchasing a new pack may require some luck, strategy and patience as the cards have exploded in value in recent years. Paul, who began unboxing Pokémon cards on video during the COVID-19 pandemic, is often credited with helping propel the boom.

Described as an “unimaginable Holy Grail piece,” the card Paul sold features beloved Pokémon mascot Pikachu holding a pen and feather sweeper. The art on the card is by Atsuko Nishida — the graphic artist who designed a number of popular Pokémon, including Pikachu. It is believed only around 40 were ever printed, and they were given out as prizes for an illustration contest in the late 1990s.

The Pikachu Illustrator Pokémon trading card once owned by Logan Paul.

(Goldin)

Paul’s card was graded 10 by Professional Sports Authenticators, or PSA, a third-party service that authenticates and grades trading cards and other collectibles. According to Goldin, the auction house that organized the trading card auction, Paul’s is the only Pikachu Illustrator card to achieve that “virtually perfect” PSA grading.

On top of its rarity and quality, this Pikachu Illustrator card had been placed in a bejeweled case on a diamond necklace and was worn by Paul at WWE WrestleMania 38 in 2022. The card was also featured in Season 3 of Netflix’s “King of Collectibles: The Goldin Touch.”

The winning bid for the rare card was placed by venture capitalist AJ Scaramucci, the son of former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci.

According to People, AJ Scaramucci is on a quest of “collecting the uncollectable.” He reportedly also hopes to eventually buy “a T-Rex dinosaur fossil” and the Declaration of Independence on his “planetary treasure hunt.”

Walt Disney Co. will pay $2.75 million to settle allegations that it violated the California Consumer Privacy Act by not fully complying with consumers’ requests to opt out of data sharing on its streaming services, the state attorney general’s office said Wednesday.

The Burbank media and entertainment company allegedly restricted the extent of opt-out requests, including complying with users’ petitions only on the device or streaming services they processed it from, or stopping the sharing of consumers’ personal data through Disney’s advertising platform but not those of specific ad-tech companies whose code was embedded on Disney websites and apps, the attorney general’s office said.

In addition to the fine, the settlement, which is subject to court approval, will require Disney to enact a “consumer-friendly, easy to execute” process that allows users to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their data with as few steps as possible, according to court documents.

“Consumers shouldn’t have to go to infinity and beyond to assert their privacy rights,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “In California, asking a business to stop selling your data should not be complicated or cumbersome.”

A Disney spokesperson said in a statement that the company “continues to invest significant resources to set the standard for responsible and transparent data practices across our streaming services.”

“As technology and media continue to evolve, protecting the privacy and preserving the experience of Californians and fans everywhere remains a longstanding priority for Disney,” the spokesperson said.

The settlement with Disney stemmed from a 2024 investigation by the attorney general’s office into streaming devices and apps for alleged violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, which governs the collection of consumers’ personal data by businesses.

Under the law, businesses that sell or share personal data for targeted advertising must give users the right to opt-out.

Disney’s $2.75-million payment is the largest such settlement under the state privacy act, Bonta’s office said.

The attorney general has also reached settlements with companies such as beauty retailer Sephora, food delivery app DoorDash and SlingTV for alleged violations of the privacy act.

Some of the biggest names behind the artificial intelligence boom are looking to stack Congress with allies who support lighter regulation of the emerging technology by drawing on the crypto industry’s 2024 election success.

Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman are among tech leaders who’ve poured $50 million into a new super political action committee to help AI-friendly candidates prevail in November’s congressional races. Known as Leading the Future, the super PAC has taken center stage as voters grow increasingly concerned that AI risks driving up energy costs and taking away jobs.

As it launches operations, Leading the Future is deploying a strategy that worked two years ago for crypto advocates: talk about what’s likely to resonate with voters, not the industry or its interests and controversies. For AI, that means its ads won’t tout the technology but instead discuss core issues including economic opportunity and immigration — even if that means not mentioning AI at all.

“They’re trying to be helpful in a campaign rather than talking about their own issue all the time,” said Craig Murphy, a Republican political consultant in Texas, where Leading the Future has backed Chris Gober, an ally of President Trump, in the state’s hotly contested 10th congressional district.

This year, the group plans to spend up to $125 million on candidates who favor a single, national approach to AI regulation, regardless of party affiliation. The election comes at a crucial moment for the industry as it invests hundreds of billions of dollars in AI infrastructure that will put fresh strains on resources, with new data centers already blamed for driving up utility bills.

Leading the Future faces a growing challenge from AI safety advocates, who’ve started their own super PAC called Public First with a goal of raising $50 million for candidates who favor stricter oversight. On Thursday, Public First landed a $20-million pledge from Anthropic PBC, a rival to OpenAI that has set itself apart from other AI companies by supporting tougher rules.

Polls show deepening public concern over AI’s impact on everything from jobs to education to the environment. Sixty-two percent of US adults say they interact with AI at least several times a week, and 58% are concerned the government will not go far enough in regulating it, according to the Pew Research Center.

Jesse Hunt, a Leading the Future spokesman, said the group is “committed to supporting policymakers who want a smart national regulatory framework for AI,” one that boosts US employment while winning the race against China. Hunt said the super PAC backs ways to protect consumers “without ceding America’s technological future to extreme ideological gatekeepers.”

The political and economic stakes are enormous for OpenAI and others behind Leading the Future, including venture capitalists Andreessen and Horowitz. Their firm, a16z, is the richest in Silicon Valley with billions of dollars invested in AI upstarts including coding startup Cursor and AI leaderboard platform LM Arena.

For now, their super PAC is doing most of the talking for the AI industry in the midterm races. Meta Platforms Inc. has announced plans for AI-related political spending on state-level contests, with $20 million for its California-based super PAC and $45 million for its American Technology Excellence Project, according to Politico.

Other companies with massive AI investment plans — Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc. and Microsoft Corp. — have their own corporate PACs to dole out bipartisan federal campaign donations. Nvidia Corp., the chip giant driving AI policy in Washington, doesn’t have its own PAC.

Bipartisan push

To ensure consistent messaging across party lines, Leading the Future has created two affiliated super PACs — one spending on Republicans and another on Democrats. The aim is to build a bipartisan coalition that can be effective in Washington regardless of which party is in power.

Texas, home of OpenAI’s massive Stargate project, is one of the states where Leading the Future has already jumped in. Its Republican arm, American Mission, has spent nearly $750,000 on ads touting Gober, a political lawyer who’s previously worked for Elon Musk’s super PAC and is in a crowded GOP primary field for an open House seat.

The ads hail Gober as a “MAGA warrior” who “will fight for Texas families, lowering everyday costs.” Gober’s campaign website lists “ensuring America’s AI dominance” as one of his top campaign priorities. Gober’s campaign didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In New York, Leading the Future’s Democratic arm, Think Big, has spent $1.1 million on television ads and messages attacking Alex Bores, a New York state assemblyman who has called for tougher AI safety protocols and is now running for an open congressional seat encompassing much of central Manhattan.

The ads seize on Democrats’ revulsion over Trump’s immigration crackdown and target Bores for his work at Palantir Technologies Inc., which contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Think Big has circulated mailings and text messages citing Bores’ work with Palantir, urging voters to “Reject Bores’ hypocrisy on ICE.”

In an interview, Bores called the claims in the ads false, explaining that he left Palantir because of its work with ICE. He pointed out the irony that Joe Lonsdale, a Palantir co-founder who’s backed the administration’s border crackdown, is a donor to Leading the Future.

“They’re not being ideologically consistent,” Bores said. “The fact that they have been so transparent and said, ‘Hey, we’re the AI industry and Alex Bores will regulate AI and that scares us,’ has been nothing but a benefit so far.”

Leading the Future’s Democratic arm also plans to spend seven figures to support Democrats in two Illinois congressional races: former Illinois Representatives Jesse Jackson Jr. and Melissa Bean.

Following crypto’s path

Leading the Future is following the path carved by Fairshake, a pro-cryptocurrency super PAC that joined affiliates in putting $133 million into congressional races in 2024. Fairshake made an early mark by spending $10 million to attack progressive Katie Porter in the California Democratic Senate primary, helping knock her out of the race in favor of Adam Schiff, the eventual winner who’s seen as more friendly to digital currency.

The group also backed successful primary challengers against House incumbents, including Democrats Cori Bush in Missouri and Jamaal Bowman in New York. Both were rated among the harshest critics of digital assets by the Stand With Crypto Alliance, an industry group.

In its highest-profile 2024 win, Fairshake spent $40 million to help Republican Bernie Moreno defeat incumbent Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, a crypto skeptic who led the Senate Banking Committee. Overall, it backed winners in 52 of the 61 races where it spent at least $100,000, including victories in three Senate and nine House battlegrounds.

Fairshake and Leading the Future share more than a strategy. Josh Vlasto, one of Leading the Future’s political strategists, does communications work for Fairshake. Andreessen and Horowitz are also among Fairshake’s biggest donors, combining to give $23.8 million last year.

But Leading the Future occasionally conflicts with Fairshake’s past spending. The AI group said Wednesday it plans to spend half a million dollars on an ad campaign for Laurie Buckhout, a former Pentagon official who’s seeking a congressional seat in North Carolina with calls to slash rules “strangling American innovation.” In 2024, during Buckhout’s unsuccessful run for the post, Fairshake spent $2.3 million supporting her opponent and eventual winner, Democratic Rep. Donald Davis.

Regulation proponents

“The fact that they tried to replay the crypto battle means that we have to engage,” said Brad Carson, a former Democratic congressman from Texas who helped launch Public First. “I’d say Leading the Future was the forcing function.”

Unlike crypto, proponents of stricter AI regulations have backers within the industry. Even before its contribution to Public First, Anthropic had pressed for “responsible AI” with sturdier regulations for the fast-moving technology and opposed efforts to preempt state laws.

Anthropic employees have also contributed to candidates targeted by Leading the Future, including a total of $168,500 for Bores, Federal Election Commission records show. A super PAC Dream NYC, whose only donor in 2025 was an Anthropic machine learning researcher who gave $50,000, is backing Bores as well.

Carson, who’s co-leading the super PAC with former Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, cites public polling that more than 80% of US adults believe the government should maintain rules for AI safety and data security, and says voter sentiment is on Public First’s side.

Public First didn’t disclose receiving any donations last year, according to FEC filings. But one of the group’s affiliated super PACs, Defend our Values PAC, reported receiving $50,000 from Public First Action Inc., the group’s advocacy arm. The PAC hasn’t yet spent any of that money on candidates.

Crypto’s clout looms large in lawmakers’ memory, casting a shadow over any effort to regulate the big tech companies, said Doug Calidas, head of government affairs for AI safety group Americans for Responsible Innovation.

“Fairshake was just so effective,” said Calidas, whose group has called for tougher AI regulations. “Democrats and Republicans are scared they’re going to replicate that model.”

Allison and Birnbaum write for Bloomberg.

NEW passport rules are being rolled out by the UK government this week, and it affects anyone with two passports.

From February 25, dual British nationals will have to carry a valid British passport.

Anyone who tries to travel into the UK – via train, ferry or plane – could be banned from boarding if they are unable to show one.

The only alternative to having a British passport is instead paying for a £589 “certificate of entitlement,” the Guardian reports.

A Home Office spokesperson explains: “From February 25, 2026, all dual British citizens will need to present either a valid British passport or certificate of entitlement to avoid delays at the border.”

This will be attached to the non-British passport instead.

PASSED OVER

Mum forced to miss £820 holiday & is banned from flight after passport mistake

GO ON

All the little-known websites for cheap or FREE tickets to gigs, theatre & festivals

It is thought as many as 1.26million people in England and Wales hold more than one passport – working out to 2.1 per cent of the population.

The new rules follow the roll out of the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA), which requires any non-British or non-Irish tourists to £16 for.

The UK government said the changes were to create a “seamless travel experience”.

Some have slammed the rules, claiming there is not enough time to allow them to get a British passport or change flights.

Kara Przybylski, 26, from Brisbane, is a dual citizen but doesn’t currently have a British passport.

She said: “It sucks for people who have flights booked, the government should have allowed more time before it comes into effect.”

Others worry for their children – one British woman in Germany said that it would affect their kids.

She called the rule change “short-notice, shortsighted [and] arbitrary”.

The Sun’s Head of Travel Lisa Minot explains: “People abroad have said they weren’t told enough in advance this was happening.

“Getting a passport is going to be a lengthy process, and expensive for families to have two passports per person.

“You could be denied boarding unless you have a British passport or this certificate”.

British nationals living in the UK will not be affected by the rule change, nor do they need to purchase an ETA when returning to Britain.

However, an ETIAS will be required from Brits heading to Europe when it is rolled out later this year.

Yet to confirm an official date, the visa-waiver will be similar to the ESTA required for the US.

Costing around £17, it will last three years, although will be free for under 18s and over 70s.

And here is what to know about the new Entry/Exit System (ESS) being rolled out across Europe as well.

A federal judge on Thursday blocked a Trump administration order slashing $600 million in federal grant funding for HIV programs in California and three other states, finding merit in the states’ argument that the move was politically motivated by disagreements over unrelated state sanctuary policies.

U.S. District Judge Manish Shah, an Obama appointee in Illinois, found that California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota were likely to succeed in arguing that President Trump and other administration officials targeted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding for termination “based on arbitrary, capricious, or unconstitutional rationales.”

Namely, Shah wrote that while Trump administration officials said the programs were cut for breaking with CDC priorities, other “recent statements” by officials “plausibly suggest that the reason for the direction is hostility to what the federal government calls ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ or ‘sanctuary cities.’”

Shah found that the states had shown they would “suffer irreparable harm” from the cuts, and that the public interest would not be harmed by temporarily halting them — and as a result granted the states a temporary restraining order halting the administration’s action for 14 days while the litigation continues.

Shah wrote that while he may not have jurisdiction to block a simple grant termination, he did have jurisdiction to halt an administration directive to terminate funding based on unconstitutional grounds.

“More factual development is necessary and it may be that the only government action at issue is termination of grants for which I have no jurisdiction to review,” Shah wrote. “But as discussed, plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that defendants issued internal guidance to terminate public-health grants for unlawful reasons; that guidance is enjoined as the parties develop a record.”

The cuts targeted a slate of programs aimed at tracking and curtailing HIV and other disease outbreaks, including one of California’s main early-warning systems for HIV outbreaks, state and local officials said. Some were oriented toward serving the LGBTQ+ community. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office said California faced “the largest share” of the cuts.

The White House said the cuts were to programs that “promote DEI and radical gender ideology,” while federal health officials said the programs in question did not reflect the CDC’s “priorities.”

Bonta cheered Shah’s order in a statement, saying he and his fellow attorneys general who sued are “confident that the facts and the law favor a permanent block of these reckless and illegal funding cuts.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill on Wednesday to provide $90 million to Planned Parenthood, a move intended to help offset the losses from recent federal cuts targeting abortion providers.

“These cuts were designed to attack and assault Planned Parenthood,” said Newsom, speaking at a news conference near the Capitol. “They were not abortion cuts; they were attacks on wellness and screenings and they were attacks on women’s healthcare.”

The Republican-backed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” signed last year by President Trump, blocked federal Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood. More than 80% of the nearly 1.3 million annual patient visits to Planned Parenthood in California were previously reimbursed by Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.

Sen. John Laird, who authored the legislation for the funding, Senate Bill 106, said the measure showed that California won’t back down. “This is us standing up to the immediate cut that was in that bill,” said Laird, (D-Santa Cruz). “This is how we are fighting back.”

Jodi Hicks, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, thanked legislators for their support and said the organization could not survive without support from the state. She said Planned Parenthood would always fight against federal attacks but “needed an army” this time to stand beside them.

During the news conference, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom expressed frustration with reporters for asking off-topic questions and said the media should be more concerned about women’s issues.

“All of these questions have really been about other issues,” she said. “This happens over and over and over again — (and we) wonder why we have such a horrific war on women in this country.”

Planned Parenthood offers a range of services, including abortions, birth control, cancer screenings and testings for sexually transmitted diseases. A coalition of states, including California, filed a lawsuit last year against the Trump administration over the cuts to the nonprofit. The states argue in the ongoing lawsuit that the measure violates the spending powers of Congress by singling out Planned Parenthood for negative treatment.

Senate Bill 106 has drawn ire from Republicans, who question why funding is going to Planned Parenthood when many hospitals in the state need more financial support.

“For rural Californians, this conversation is about access to care,” Sen. Megan Dahle (R-Bieber) said in a statement from the Senate Republican Caucus. “Hospitals are cutting services or facing closure, forcing families to drive hours for life-saving treatment. State lawmakers should prioritize stability for these communities.”