moves

An effort to exempt new apartment buildings in Los Angeles from the so-called mansion tax moved forward Wednesday, amid concerns that the tax is suppressing housing construction and making the affordability crisis worse.

In a 9 to 5 vote, the City Council directed the City Attorney to draft a ballot measure that would ask voters to change Measure ULA, which funds subsidized housing construction and homeless prevention efforts by taxing nearly all property sales over $5.3 million.

Once the proposal is drafted, it must come back to council for a final approval to make it onto the November ballot.

Wednesday was the deadline for the council to take the vote and stay on track to make the ballot this fall, said Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who introduced the proposal along with Councilmember Tim McOsker.

“We should protect what is working and fix what’s not,” Yaroslavsky told colleagues before the vote. “If we fail to act today, that door closes.”

The ULA tax, approved by voters in 2022, is known as the mansion tax but applies a 4% tax to nearly all properties — whether they are mansions or not — if they sell for more than $5.3 million, increasing to 5.5% for sales at or above $10.6 million.

Under the proposed ballot measure, the ULA tax wouldn’t apply to multifamily buildings sold within 10 years of construction. There would also be some more technical changes put before voters, including to allow ULA money to be spent on temporary housing for homeless people.

Since ULA passed, apartment construction in Los Angeles has plummeted. Some studies have found that the additional tax on property sales has played a big role in the drop-off by adding extra costs for developers.

That’s led to fears that the tax, in some ways, is making the affordability crisis worse by suppressing new supply.

A coalition of business groups and pro-development activists have been pushing the council to amend ULA, in part hoping that the effort will blunt another possible measure on November’s ballot that would cancel ULA and other similar taxes altogether.

ULA supporters, however, have fought the exemption for new construction and say that other factors — like high interest rates — are the reasons for the multi-year construction drop-off. They also point to a surge in new building during the first three months of this year to argue that it’s too early to know ULA’s long-term impact.

Also on Wednesday, the council, in a unanimous vote, directed the City Attorney to draft a separate ballot measure that would exempt homeowners impacted by the Palisades fire from paying the ULA tax for five years, retroactive to Jan. 7, 2025.

“ULA has been an impediment to the Palisades recovery, leaving properties sitting empty and people mired in tax and regulatory hell,” City Councilmember Traci Park, who represents Pacific Palisades, told colleagues before the vote. “We need to move forward with this exemption.”

Similar to the broader ULA changes, the Palisades changes must receive a second council approval to make the ballot.

WASHINGTON — Ever since Kevin Warsh was nominated by President Trump in late January to lead the Federal Reserve, a question has lingered: Will he seek to raise interest rates to tame inflation or cut them as Trump has long demanded?

On Wednesday, Warsh may provide the first hints of an answer when he oversees his first Fed policy meeting as chair and holds a news conference afterward. Bond markets, which can swing sharply on a chair’s pronouncements, will be watching particularly closely for any signs of which way he leans.

“We expect the press conference to be pivotal,” Jonathan Pingle, an economist at investment bank UBS, wrote in a note. “This will be Kevin Warsh’s first public appearance as Chair. … We do not really know what his policy views are.”

Economists say Warsh will likely aim for a neutral approach, largely because he is taking over the Fed at a challenging time. Rising inflation has made it all but impossible for the Fed to cut interest rates anytime soon, which could stimulate growth and further raise prices. Hiring has improved noticeably since the beginning of the year, removing another key rationale for rate cuts. And the other 11 policymakers on the Fed’s rate-setting committee — including Warsh’s predecessor, former chair Jerome Powell — are split on whether an increase in the Fed’s key rate will be needed or if it can stay unchanged.

High inflation puts Fed in tough spot

Oil prices have fallen sharply on news that the U.S. and Iran have reached an initial deal to end their war, which could eventually cool inflation. Yet it’s unclear whether a permanent agreement can be reached.

“The right thing to do now is wait and see,” said William English, an economist at the Yale School of Management and a former top Fed economist.

Inflation has jumped to a three-year high of 4.2%, the government said last week, mostly because of higher gas prices. Even Trump has backed off a bit from his relentless demands for lower rates, and instead has argued that rate hikes — which the Fed undertakes to cool the economy and slow inflation — aren’t necessary.

In an interview earlier this month on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Trump said, “Kevin is fantastic and I want him to do whatever he wants,” but added, “there’s no reason to raise rates.”

On Wednesday, the Fed is widely expected to keep its key rate at about 3.6%, where it has remained since last December. When the Fed reduces its rate, over time it can lower other borrowing costs for things like mortgages, auto loans, and business loans.

Changes likely to dash hopes for those seeking lower rates

Still, some changes are expected, which will disappoint those hoping for lower borrowing costs: The Fed is likely to drop language that suggests its next move will be a rate cut, and instead adopt wording that is more neutral. Several Fed policymakers in recent weeks have said that the Fed’s most likely next move is a hike, rather than a cut.

The central bank is also scheduled to release its quarterly economic projections, which include forecasts for how the Fed’s key rate will change over the next three years, on Wednesday. In March, those projections suggested the Fed would cut its rate once this year. Yet on Wednesday they will likely show no change in 2026, with maybe one or two cuts next year, economists say.

Warsh has criticized the projections for providing too much “forward guidance” to financial markets and leading Fed officials to stand by their forecasts for too long, even as the economy changes. Fed watchers will look closely to see if Warsh participates in the quarterly projections. If he doesn’t submit his own forecasts, it could be a sign he will seek to get rid of them entirely in the coming months.

Warsh to bring a new approach to Fed leadership

Outside of policy, Warsh is expected to bring a different style to the Fed than Powell, according to people who’ve worked with him. He wants Fed policymakers to give fewer speeches, have more debates behind closed doors and will likely avoid commenting on the daily ups and downs of the economy. Powell was relatively plainspoken and straightforward, while Warsh has suggested he sees the famously oracular Alan Greenspan, the Fed’s chair from 1987 to 2005, as a model.

“He’s just going to say less, because he doesn’t find that stuff very helpful,” said Robert Tetlow, a former senior policy adviser at the Fed.

Randall Kroszner, an economist at the University of Chicago who served on the Fed’s governing board from 2006 to 2009, when Warsh was also a governor, said the new chair would likely focus on bigger-picture questions, such as how AI will impact the economy. He will avoid thornier issues, such as whether tariffs raise inflation, which Powell was willing to address.

By avoiding such hot-button issues, the Fed could attract less negative attention from the White House, Kroszner said.

“He’s going to stay away from those,” Kroszner added. “If the Fed is to maintain its independence, it needs to maintain its focus.”

While seeking Trump’s nomination, Warsh called for “regime change” at the Fed and criticized the central bank for not preventing the 2021-22 inflation surge, when prices jumped 9.1% in a year, the biggest spike in four decades.

Yet Kroszner said Warsh will likely to seek to build consensus around changing things like the Fed’s communications policies, rather than imposing them. So far, former Fed officials say he hasn’t sought to fire top staff.

“He’s not there to break things,” Kroszner said.

During his Senate confirmation hearing in April, Warsh said he would focus on quelling inflation.

“Inflation is a choice, and the Fed must take responsibility for it,” he said then.

If he acts on that sentiment by keeping rates unchanged — or even raising them — Trump could end up disappointed in another Fed chair. He often threatened to fire Powell, whom he also appointed, for not cutting rates deeply enough.

“There’s at least a risk here that six months down the road, Trump is fulminating about how he didn’t get what he wanted from Warsh, and he’d like to fire Warsh,” English said.

Rugaber writes for The Associated Press.

Mum-of-one, Melanie is taking the plunge to leave the UK as she claims she feels stuck in an infinite cycle of ‘rise and repeat’ with the country sucking the soul out of her

A mum is selling all of her possessions in the UK to travel the world with her five-year-old son, as she said the country makes her “miserable”, claiming: “There is something about England energy-wise that is just so off.”

This isn’t the first time Melanie Bentley-Moore, 33, has decided to leave the UK for Asia, as she first left in 2017 with the intention of a brief trip.

“I used to live in Asia for two years so I’m very familiar with that area of the world,” she said. “I was only meant to go for three months but I ended up staying out there for a couple of years travelling around Asia.”

The mum-of-one spent two years in Asia with Vietnam being her main base. But, her long-extended trip came to a halt as she missed a British staple – a local chippy. She added: “My main base was Vietnam, I did some English teaching out there and came back home because, it’s something random, I really wanted chippy and Nando’s.”

She then decided to settle in the UK, after having her son, Antares Moore, in 2023. But the desire to go back has never left Melanie. She says the UK made her miserable and believed that it’s not an isolated feeling.

“The energy just feels heavy, it’s dark – there’s no room to grow, [the] majority of people are miserable because of all the [stuff] that’s going on, the cost of living, everything’s rising,” she said, “I just don’t feel alive here and I think that’s not just a ‘me’ problem either, everyone that I’m speaking to just feels soulless.”

In April 2026, Melanie’s landlord said he was selling her flat, which prompted the mum-of-one to take the same risk she took all those years ago, and leave the UK.

Melanie told her TikTok followers: “Just hearing everyone else complain, that weakens my spirit. Most people are miserable and they’re always complaining, it seeps into everything.”

“It’s like an infinite cycle of ‘rinse and repeat’ complaining. It’s just a feeling, I just don’t feel alive. It sucks the soul out of me.”

Ahead of her relocation, Melanie took her son out of school as she admired the Scandinavian education system which saw children beginning compulsory school between the ages of 6 and 7. In the UK, children start school from the age of 4.

“In Scandinavia there’s a reason why their children are the happiest and more successful because they don’t start school till they’re seven.”

Melanie hoped to show her son ‘real life’ as she preferred the values of life in Asia.

She said: “I’m going to go to Indonesia and then probably back to Vietnam, it just depends on the weather. See where life takes us, I’m very ‘flowy’.

“With the values and stuff, life’s just better over there. It’s slower, it’s sunny, the scenes are beautiful and you realise there is so much more to life than what I’m used to.”

By speaking up, Melanie hoped to inspire others to follow their dreams and see “there’s more to life”.

“I’m here to inspire people to follow their heart, go after what they want and that there’s more to life,” she said, “It’s no good talking, there’s a lot of talkers out there – I ‘do’.”

“I want to show my son real life as well. I’m going to do some charity work and volunteering with him. There is no better learning than real life.”

June 8 (Asia Today) — Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s government is moving forward with talks to revise Japan’s three core security documents, with defense spending, nuclear policy and artificial intelligence emerging as central issues.

The documents are Japan’s National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy and Defense Buildup Program. They set the direction for diplomacy and defense policy for about the next decade, as well as defense spending and major equipment plans for five years.

Japan first adopted a National Security Strategy in 2013 under former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s government revised all three documents in 2022.

Asahi Shimbun reported Monday that the Takaichi government’s review centers on eight issues: defense spending, Japan’s three non-nuclear principles, AI and drones, the defense industry, nuclear-powered submarines, ties with the United States, perceptions of China and economic security.

The largest issue is defense spending. The Kishida government’s 2022 documents called for raising defense-related spending to about 2% of gross domestic product by fiscal 2027. Takaichi’s government is seeking to reach that level in fiscal 2025 and then pursue another revision.

Asahi reported that the Trump administration has called on allies to raise defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, or 5% including related costs. If Japan applied the 3.5% target, annual defense spending could exceed 20 trillion yen, or about $125 billion.

Japan’s three non-nuclear principles are also under discussion. The principles commit Japan not to possess, produce or allow the introduction of nuclear weapons. The current National Security Strategy says Japan will maintain them.

Takaichi has questioned the realism of the principle barring the introduction of nuclear weapons, citing Japan’s reliance on U.S. nuclear deterrence. An Asahi poll conducted from March to April found that 75% of respondents supported maintaining the principles, compared with 21% who said they should be reviewed.

AI and drones are another major focus. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and conflicts in the Middle East have raised the importance of low-cost drones, AI-based information processing, cyberattacks and cognitive warfare. Japan is considering expanding drone procurement, building domestic supply chains and using AI in defense.

The defense industry is also expected to be included in the review. Takaichi’s government views the sector as one of 17 priority areas in its growth strategy. Japan revised its defense equipment transfer guidelines in April, expanding the path for exports of weapons with lethal capabilities.

Government and ruling party officials are also discussing whether the state should own ammunition and other military supply plants while allowing private companies to operate them.

Whether Japan should introduce nuclear-powered submarines is another key question. China and Russia operate nuclear-powered submarines and North Korea is believed to be pursuing them. South Korea has also announced plans to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the late 2030s.

Some Japanese officials and experts have argued for next-generation submarines that can remain submerged for long periods and travel long distances. Development costs, staffing and consistency with Japan’s Atomic Energy Basic Act remain challenges.

Relations with the United States and Japan’s view of China are also expected to shape the wording of the revised documents. The Trump administration is demanding greater defense burden-sharing from allies. If U.S. foreign policy priorities shift, Japan may need to adjust security plans that assume heavy reliance on Washington.

The 2022 documents described China as Japan’s “greatest strategic challenge.” Attention is now focused on how Japan will describe China after increased Chinese aircraft carrier operations, airspace incursions and concerns about a possible Taiwan contingency.

Economic security is expected to be treated as a separate pillar. Tensions in the Middle East, risks involving the Strait of Hormuz, dependence on energy and food imports and possible supply-chain disruptions are broadening Japan’s security debate. The Japanese government is emphasizing what it calls “collective autonomy” with allies and like-minded countries to maintain supply chains.

The Takaichi government is aiming to complete the revision by the end of the year. Asahi said the review could affect not only defense policy but also Japan’s national direction and public burden.

— 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=20260608010002583

Veteran Democratic politician Xavier Becerra won one of the top two spots in California’s primary election for governor, according to the Associated Press, a finish that puts him in a prime position to win in November and make history as California’s first elected Latino governor.

“The people of the great state of California, in the greatest nation on earth, have spoken — loudly and proudly,” Xavier Becerra said in a statement Friday. “We will not be bought. We will not be bullied. And we are never backing down. November, here we come.”

Former Fox News host Steve Hilton, a Republican, remains in a close second and appears on the cusp of securing the right to face off with Becerra in the November general election.

Tom Steyer, a hedge fund manager turned climate change activist, may be destined to finish in third place — which would be a disappointing end to a campaign that saturated California’s television screens, social media scrolls and mailboxes thanks to the progressive Democrat spending $216 million of his own wealth.

Becerra’s victory was declared by the Associated Press on Friday evening, three days after the June 2 election — an indication of the competitive race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom and California’s lengthy process of counting ballots. Still, Becerra and Hilton were within a percentage point of each other, though that could change as the vote tally continues. While his fate is not sealed, Steyer faces long odds to finish in the top two.

Under California’s primary system, only the two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary advance to the November general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Becerra would enter the general election campaign with a significant edge over Hilton since Democratic voters in California outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin, a telltale reason why no GOP candidate has won a statewide race since 2006.

President Trump’s endorsement of Hilton helped consolidate support from Republican voters, which was pivotal to his success in the primary, but would likely hurt him in a face-off against Becerra. Nearly two-thirds of voters in the state want a governor who will fight Trump’s policies, according to the survey by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

Becerra could make history by becoming the first Latino to be elected governor — and the first to lead the state in more than 150 years. The last time a Latino held the office was in 1875, when then-Lt. Gov. Romualdo Pacheco was elevated to fill a vacancy and served for 10 months.

“California has made history. Xavier Becerra’s advancement to the general election is a defining moment both for the state, and for the millions of Latino families who have been instrumental in shaping the state’s future. … As home to the nation’s largest Latino population, California will once again demonstrate the decisive power of Latino voters,” said Voto Latino Executive Director Beatriz Lopez.

Though Latinos make up about 40% of the state’s population and are California’s largest ethnic group, they historically have lower turnout in elections and are underrepresented in government. Though Becerra often cites his upbringing as a child of working-class Mexican immigrants, he will still need to demonstrate he can deliver for those communities, said Christian Arana, vice president of civic power and policy at the California-based Latino Community Foundation.

“There’s a lot of excitement about the representation side,” Arana said. “You can have Latino representation, but whether or not that will actually lead to tangible outcomes for Latino communities, that’s what people want to know.”

Once stuck in the single-digits in public opinion polls with a handful of other Democratic candidates, Becerra rose quickly and unexpectedly following the political demise of former Rep. Eric Swalwell.

Becerra’s rise began days after Swalwell dropped out in April following allegations of sexual assault and misconduct, which he denies. Becerra quickly consolidated support from elected officials including Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and influential groups like Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Medical Assn.

But both supporters and critics of Becerra struggle to explain exactly how or why he became the main beneficiary of Swalwell’s downfall.

Becerra’s campaign credits the timing of a major television and digital advertising push. The political ads began running just before the allegations against Swalwell came out and depicted Becerra as a calm, experienced leader with a record pushing back against Trump and support from Young Democrat groups.

Steyer’s campaign hired an intelligence firm to look into the online surge favoring Becerra and found thousands of bot accounts had amplified Becerra on various social media platforms. Becerra’s campaign denied any involvement and dismissed the influence of the fake accounts.

Political experts describe it as the stars aligning for the longtime Democratic politician. In the aftermath of the scandal, voters were apparently drawn to Becerra’s long resume and calm, thoughtful demeanor.

“He just never overreacted. Even when attacked [during debates], he was calm,” said Fernando Guerra, professor of Chicano Studies at Loyola Marymount University. That “gave the sense of being a moderate, while he’s really a liberal, so he was able to appeal not only to Latinos, but to liberals and to moderates.”

After Swalwell’s campaign crumbled, members of the political brain trust — many with ties to Newsom — that had been advising the former congressman began working for Becerra, including digital strategist Alf LaMont and veteran consultants Courtni Pugh and Lindsey Cobia.

“There was nothing going for him for a long, long time,” said Jason McDaniel, associate professor of political science at San Francisco State University. “I do think it was just people looking for someone who had a lot of experience who could win.”

Becerra’s first election victory was to the state Assembly in 1990. He served one term before successfully running for a Los Angeles congressional seat, which he held for 24 years.

Then-Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Becerra as state attorney general in 2017, a post he used to challenge Trump administration policies in the courts more than a 100 times — with great success. Becerra helped craft the Affordable Care Act in Congress and defended it as attorney general, and Joe Biden nominated him to serve as Health and Human Services secretary.

The 68-year-old veteran elected official has faced criticism on the campaign trail for his record leading the massive federal agency, particularly over a New York Times investigation that found thousands of unaccompanied migrant children ended up working in dangerous jobs after they were released to sponsors.

Some former Biden administration officials, many of them anonymous, have also criticized Becerra’s leadership of the agency.

Still, Becerra’s supporters said the candidate’s experience, particularly when it comes to fighting the Trump administration, qualifies him for California’s top job.

“He’s had some very important positions in government,” labor leader Dolores Huerta said at Becerra’s election night party in downtown Los Angeles. “He is qualified. He doesn’t have to go into a learning mode.”

“He’s a legal scholar,” said David Dixon, a political science professor at Cal State Dominguez Hills and brother to a longtime Becerra aide. “When our Constitution is threatened, we need people like him to be in positions of power to reclaim things we are losing now.”

Times staff writers Seema Mehta, Dakota Smith and Andrew Khouri contributed to this report.

“Dumbo” might not sound like the most flattering nickname, but In Gee Chun has embraced it.

Years ago, her coach in South Korea gave her the moniker because of her exceptionally keen hearing, the ability to hear someone clearing their throat or opening a soda two holes away. She leaned into it ever since. The Disney character adorns her golf bag and is her driver headcover, and her fans refer to themselves as the “Flying Dumbos.”

At the U.S. Women’s Open on Friday, everyone heard Chun’s footsteps. She shot a three-under-par 68 to claim an early share of the lead at Riviera with Jennifer Kupcho and Japan’s Hinako Shibuno.

Many of the contenders were still on the course at press time, but Chun assured herself of a prime position heading into the weekend, in the hunt for her fourth major championship. She won the Open in 2015, Evian in 2016, and Women’s PGA in 2022.

Were Chun to win this tournament, she would be in rarefied air with bookend victories separated by 11 years. According to Elias Sports Bureau, among women with multiple U.S. Open titles, Meg Mallon had the longest gap (13 years apart), followed by Annika Sorenstam (10 years).

Of course, there’s a big difference between being at a logjam atop the leaderboard on Friday and lifting the Harton S. Semple Trophy on Sunday.

“Just stick to the game plan, nothing changes,” Chun said of her mindset heading into the weekend. “I don’t want to think about the future to put extra pressure on me.”

Speaking of extra pressure, Kupcho has an arrangement with her mom. They’ll talk before and after the tournament, but not during it.

“Me and my mom kind of have an understanding,” she said, “like, ‘Just don’t text me. I don’t want to hear from you if I play good. I don’t want to hear from you if I play bad. We’ll talk at the end of the tournament.’”

Jennifer Kupcho hits out of a fairway bunker on No. 9 during the second round of the 81st U.S. Women’s Open at Riviera Country Club on Friday.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Kupcho, raised in Colorado, said she hasn’t banned her folks from attending, “But I don’t think they’re going to.”

Maybe she could have used some TLC on Friday. After leading outright Thursday with a 66, she came back to earth with a 73.

That was still enough to keep her squarely in the mix. The same could not be said for Michelle Wie West, who followed a 75 with a 74 — a deflating finish for the LPGA legend who came out of retirement to use her final year of exemption to play at Riviera.

“Obviously I would be lying to say I wasn’t disappointed. I would have loved to have made the cut today, granted all day,” Wie West said. “But I had a blast honestly, with playing here at Riv, such a special week to have played it, and to have family, friends, a lot of familiar faces coming out, it was a lot of fun.

“I hit some good shots, hit some good putts, and kind of felt that feeling again, which is awesome.”

Nelly Korda, ranked No. 1 in the world, was coming on strong Friday afternoon in the wake of a ho-hum 73 in the opening round. She had three birdies and six pars on the front nine in the second round.

Nelly Korda misses a birdie putt on No.3 during the second round of the U.S. Women’s Open on Friday.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Likewise gathering momentum was Alison Lee who shot a 70 on Thursday, and Friday had four birdies through her first 12 holes. She grew up in Valencia and played at UCLA.

Lee had a son, Levi Todd Kidd, in April of last year and was back on the LPGA Tour within four months. She made her 2026 debut at the LET Saudi Ladies International in February and opened with a two-under 70 despite playing with rental clubs, as her regular set was stuck in Amsterdam.

Balancing a major championship and motherhood is no simple challenge.

“It’s been really tough trying to juggle everything,” she told reporters before the Open. “I feel like sometimes I’m drowning under water, but thankfully I have some great people and great help around me where I can get through it.”

She’s staying with her parents in Valencia so she won’t disrupt her son’s schedule, and has a backup room at Megan Khang’s nearby rental home for early tee times.

Recently, her baby had the kind of breakthrough every parent can appreciate.

“He’s sleeping a lot better,” she said. “Therefore, my life has been a lot easier. … I’ve been able to get a little more rest. I’ve been able to work out a little bit more and practice a little bit more.”

Hungary’s political landscape has undergone a major shift following the electoral defeat of Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party after 16 years in power. The new governing Tisza party, led by Prime Minister Péter Magyar, is now reversing several institutions created under the previous administration, including the controversial Sovereignty Protection Office.

The office was established in 2023 under former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to monitor what the government described as foreign political interference in domestic affairs.

What Happened

The Tisza party has submitted a bill to parliament proposing the abolition of the Sovereignty Protection Office (SPO), arguing that it has no genuine public function and was used for political purposes.

According to the bill, the agency was designed to pressure opposition figures, journalists, civil society organizations, and media outlets by labeling them as serving “foreign interests.”

The SPO did not immediately respond to requests for comment. During its operation, it published studies aligned with the former government’s positions on issues such as migration, Ukraine, and relations with the European Union.

Why the Office Is Controversial

Critics have long argued that the Sovereignty Protection Office functioned as a political tool rather than an independent watchdog. It was frequently accused of targeting government critics and reinforcing narratives favorable to the ruling party at the time.

The European Commission had also launched infringement proceedings against Hungary over the law that created the agency, raising concerns about its compatibility with EU standards on media freedom and democratic oversight.

Opponents compared the SPO to similar legislation in other countries that restrict foreign-funded organizations, warning that it risked undermining press freedom and civil society independence.

Political Shift After the Election

The proposed abolition comes after a major political transition in Hungary, where the Tisza party defeated Orbán’s Fidesz in parliamentary elections, ending more than a decade of uninterrupted rule.

The new government has signaled a broader effort to dismantle institutions seen as politically aligned with the previous administration and restore institutional neutrality in governance.

What Comes Next

The bill will now be debated in parliament, where the Tisza party holds a governing majority. If passed, it would formally dissolve the Sovereignty Protection Office and potentially roll back other measures introduced under Orbán’s leadership.

The move is likely to deepen political divisions in Hungary, where debates over media freedom, foreign influence, and relations with the European Union remain highly contentious.

With information from Reuters.

Members of Congress are looking to block the U.S. Navy from starting construction of the first nuclear-powered Trump class battleship until the service provides assurances that key weapon systems are “sufficiently mature.” The battleships are to be armed with railguns, high-power laser directed energy weapons, and other advanced weapons that have yet to be fully proven out. Legislators are also looking to compel the Navy to devise a strategy for future subvariants of the FF(X) frigate, including the potential for a version with a built-in Vertical Launch System (VLS). TWZ was first to confirm that the initial FF(X) design would lack a VLS, a decision that has prompted questions and criticism.

The battleship and frigate provisions are included in an early draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2027 Fiscal Year, which the House Armed Services Committee released late yesterday. The Trump class battleship and FF(X) are set to be some of the Navy’s top shipbuilding priorities in the coming years.

Tying the battleship construction timeline to weapon system progress

The section in the proposed legislation regarding the Trump class battleship is brief, reading as follows:

“The Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a contract or other agreement that includes a scope of work for the construction of the lead ship of the Battleship program until the date on which the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the weapon systems planned for inclusion in such lead ship are at a sufficiently mature technology readiness level.”

The provision does not name any particular weapon systems or define what level of “technology readiness” would be accepted as “sufficiently mature.”

The Navy currently plans to arm the 35,000-ton-displacement Trump class battleships with a mixture of nuclear and conventional missiles, an electromagnetic railgun, a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns, various laser directed energy weapons, and additional weapon systems for close-in defense. The missiles, which will include hypersonic types, are to be loaded inside very large VLS arrays.

In terms of technological maturity, the railgun presents particular questions. Between 2005 and 2021, the Navy had an active railgun program. Despite promising developments, plans for an at-sea test were repeatedly pushed back before the entire effort was shelved. Major technical hurdles were cited as a key factor in that decision. The railgun itself was effectively placed in storage at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico.

However, it emerged earlier this year that the Navy had conducted a new round of testing of the railgun at WSMR in February 2025. Whether the Navy has any plans to pick up where it left off with this prototype design, which was developed by BAE Systems, or pursue a new one remains unclear. General Atomics, which previously supported U.S. Army railgun efforts, has publicly expressed interest in being involved in arming the Trump class.

While the Navy has been very active in developing and fielding laser directed energy weapons, this is another area where the service has faced continued challenges in expanding their operational use. The plans for the Trump class specifically call for a 300-kilowatt-class laser, which is far more powerful than any of the designs the Navy has integrated on its warships to date. The service currently has eight Arleigh Burke class destroyers with the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN), as well as another one of those warships with the High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS). HELIOS is a 60-kilowatt-class design, though there has been talk about scaling up its power rating to 150 kilowatts. ODIN’s power rating does not appear to be officially confirmed, but it is understood to be significantly lower than that of HELIOS. You can read more about all of this here.

The Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missile, another key component of the future Trump class arsenal, is also still in development. The first test launch from a warship, the stealth destroyer USS Zumwalt, is expected to come next year. IRCPS is the Navy half of a joint program with the U.S. Army, which is working to field a land-based version of the same missile. The Army refers to its complete weapon system as the Dark Eagle. The Army had suffered significant setbacks in the past with the Dark Eagle, but the service had blamed those issues on the launcher rather than the missile.

More context about what planned weapons systems for the Trump class may have prompted the House Armed Services Committee to include this section in the draft NDAA are likely to emerge as the proposed bill is refined. Nuclear propulsion and other planned aspects of the ship could present their own challenges during development and production. The U.S. Navy has not procured a nuclear-powered surface combatant of any kind since the Cold War.

For its part, the Navy has said it will leverage significant prior work on weapons and other systems to help reduce risk and ensure the battleship program remains on schedule.

“We intend to, with all we can do, use pull-through technologies, [including] things from that we’ve worked on with DDG(X),” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said at a hearing earlier this month. “It will have the SPY-6 radar. It will have the Baseline 10 Aegis combat system. It will pull through, of course, the A1B Ford class reactor plant and all the design that goes with that. The only thing inherently new to it will be the actual hull itself, and so most of the fixtures in it. And I would say the directed energy [weapons] and up gunning, that will also be new.”

One of the “mistakes that we’ve done before, quite frankly,” is “we’ve started to build before the design is mature enough,” the CNO also said at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2026 in April. “And we want to make sure that we’re at [sic] least a very, very high level – I won’t try to give a percentage, but you can think like 80% or more design – before the first weld is done.”

The Navy is understood to still be in the very early phases of laying out the Trump class design.

The provision in the draft NDAA could easily delay the start of work on the first of these battleships, which could set back the entire schedule for the program. As it stands now, the Navy is looking to order the lead ship, set to be named the USS Defiant, in Fiscal Year 2028. With an estimated price tag of $17 billion, this ship would cost more than each of the next three Ford class aircraft carriers, and is not expected to enter service in 2036. The Navy also currently plans to buy 14 more battleships between Fiscal Years 2029 and 2055. As TWZ has previously explored in detail, many significant questions remain about the future of the Trump class, including whether the program will ultimately come to fruition at all.

Plans for future FF(X) frigate subvariants

In its current form, the draft NDAA would also require the Secretary of the Navy to “submit to the congressional defense committees a strategy for the iterative development of the FF(X) class frigate” within 180 days of the bill becoming law. The Secretary would also be compelled to provide a briefing to update legislators on their progress in devising this strategy within 90 days.

The strategy would have to include the following:

• “Information on the estimated timeline for each planned variant (commonly known as a ‘‘Flight’’) of the FF(X) class frigate”
• “Details on the integration of additional capabilities for future Flights of the frigate, such as vertical launch systems or improved sensors, and implications for the space, weight, power, and cost of the hull form.”
• Any additional mission sets or combat functions that may be added to the concept of operation for FF(X) class frigates.”

The Navy has already confirmed that the FF(X) design will based on that of the Legend class cutter currently in service with the U.S. Coast Guard. As mentioned, the fact that the first of these frigates, at least, will lack a VLS array has raised significant questions about this program.

The FF(X) configuration that has been shown so far will have essentially the same integrated armament as the Navy’s much-maligned Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). The limitations of both subclasses of LCS explicitly led the Navy to pursue the Constellation class frigate. Despite the Constellation class being based on the established Franco-Italian Fregate Europea Multi-Missione (FREMM; European Multi-Mission Frigate in English), repeated design changes turned the program into a boondoggle. It was finally cancelled last November.

The Constellation class would have featured a 32-cell Mk 41 VLS array. There had already been a debate about whether this was sufficient VLS capacity to meet operational requirements, something TWZ previously explored in detail.

The Navy’s current stated vision for the Flight I FF(X) configuration is to utilize containerized weapons and other systems to make up for gaps in integrated capabilities. The frigates are also expected to act as motherships for future fleets of uncrewed surface vessels, which could provide additional distributed weapons and sensor capabilities and capacity.

“While Flight I of the FF(X) Class (currently planned as at least the first 2 ships) does not incorporate a traditional fixed VLS battery, it retains the capability to deploy VLS-equivalent payloads through modular, mission-tailored configurations,” according to the Navy’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request. “This approach provides an inherent growth path for VLS and other capabilities through containerized solutions in early flights, reinforcing the platform’s adaptability while mitigating cost, schedule, and integration risks associated with fixed VLS installation.”

A containerized VLS, in particular, would be far more limited in capacity than a traditional built-in Mk 41 and Mk 57 array.

At the same time, the Navy’s budget documents make clear that there are already plans for “studies for future flights [that] will consider expanded capabilities including Vertical Launch Systems, and Anti-Submarine Warfare systems.”

Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), the shipbuilder behind the Legend class design on which the FF(X) will be based, has shown multiple concepts for derivatives with integrated VLS arrays and other additional capabilities in the past, as seen in the video below.

Patrol Frigate Variants – Information Video

When it comes to the battleship and FF(X) provisions in the draft NDAA, it is also important to remember that this legislation is not yet finalized and could easily change in the weeks and months ahead. The House’s version of the bill will also need to be reconciled with what the Senate puts forward, a process often marked by lengthy negotiations. The House and Senate will both need to pass the finalized version, and then the President has to sign it into law.

As the name makes clear, the battleship program is of particular significance to President Donald Trump, which will be an important factor in these processes. Even before his first term, Trump had expressed interest in returning battleships to the Navy’s combat fleets, but there had been no indications of any formal moves to pursue this ship before last year. With the schedule the Navy has laid out now, major decisions about how to proceed in the production of these ships, if at all, will fall to the next administration. There are already massive competing priorities, and some members of Congress have already questioned whether the battleship effort is the best use of available resources.

It’s also worth noting here that Trump has long been very outspoken when it comes to Navy shipbuilding design decisions, especially from an aesthetic perspective.

The House Armed Services Committee has at least taken steps now toward putting a hold on production of the first Trump class battleship until it is confident that key weapon systems are mature, as well as pushing the Navy to lay a formal plan for future versions of the FF(X) frigate.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Lawmakers in the United States are quietly advancing a proposal that could deepen military ties between the US and Israel in unprecedented ways, at a time when public support for Israel among Americans is increasingly fractured.

Among the provisions included in the 2027 National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) released this week is Section 224, the “United States-Israel Defence Technology Cooperation Initiative”.

The NDAA, which Congress passes annually to set military policy and authorise defence spending, will undergo further debate and amendments before becoming law. Some legislators have already signalled opposition, with Representative Thomas Massie saying he would seek to remove the provision if it reaches the House floor.

The measure remains at an early stage, but analysts say if passed, it would limit political oversight over the defence relationship.

Analysts added that it could mark a significant shift in the US-Israel relationship, moving beyond a model centred on American military aid towards deeper institutional integration between the two countries’ defence industries and militaries.

Critics argue that such a move would make support for Israel less a matter of political choice and more a structural feature of US national security policy, embedding the relationship within joint military and industrial programmes that would be difficult to unwind.

What does the proposal include?

Section 224 incorporates elements of the US-Israel Future of Warfare Act legislation introduced by Representative Ronny Jackson, according to Track AIPAC. While the legislation did not advance as a standalone bill, key elements of it were instead folded into the NDAA.

The provision would require the US defence secretary to designate an official responsible for coordinating military cooperation between the two countries. According to the text, that official would be tasked with “synchronising cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel”, including “bilateral defence technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration and industrial cooperation”.

The legislation envisages cooperation across a wide range of military technologies. It specifically identifies as priority areas; “counter-unmanned systems including aerial, maritime and ground platforms”, “anti-tunnelling and subterranean threats”, and “missile and air defence technologies”.

The proposal also seeks to deepen collaboration on emerging technologies, including “artificial intelligence, quantum machine learning and autonomous systems”, as well as “directed energy and advanced sensing”, “cyber defence, electronic warfare and digital resilience”, and “biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and medical defence”.

The inclusion of “network integration” and “data fusion” has drawn particular attention because it suggests significantly closer integration of military information systems between the two countries.

The United States and Israel already cooperate on defence projects, including missile defence systems such as Iron Dome. However, analysts say that Section 224 would expand cooperation into nearly every major area of emerging military technology, and could create a “lock-in” between the two countries military infrastructure.

Mark Hilborne, a senior lecturer, the School of Security Studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera the proposal goes well beyond the traditional foundations of the US-Israel defence relationship.

“While historically, the US-Israel defence relationship has included US military aid and weapons transfers, joint missile defence programmes such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow, and intelligence and operational cooperation, the proposed agreement increases cooperation to include a wider set of emerging technologies,” he said.

“So this all suggests a much tighter integration – less about provision and perhaps sharing technologies and capabilities, and more about jointly developing these.

“It would point to a more institutionalised relationship, and perhaps one that might survive changing administrations in the US, as some of the development cycles could be very long and would become entrenched,” he said.

Why is it controversial?

The proposal comes amid growing debate in the US over military support for Israel, particularly as Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza continues, and concerns mount over the use of US-made weapons.

Human rights organisations and United Nations experts have repeatedly raised concerns about Israeli military actions in Gaza, where despite a so-called ceasefire in place since last October, at least 850 Palestinians have been killed. Israel is also advancing into southern Lebanon, where it has killed more than 3,000 people since the beginning of March.

These wars have led to increasing scepticism among Americans towards unconditional support for Israel, recent opinion polls suggest.

A New York Times poll in May found that only 30 percent of respondents believed Donald Trump made the right decision in ordering military strikes against Iran, while 64 percent said it was the wrong decision.

An Institute for Global Affairs poll released last week found that only 16 percent of Americans support continuing weapons transfers to Israel without additional restrictions. Thirty-eight percent said the US should stop supplying weapons entirely, while 24 percent said military aid should be conditioned on how the weapons are used.

Opposition has also emerged from parts of the Republican Party, which traditionally has always been aligned with Israel.

Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene criticised the proposal on social media, writing: “This is what complete capture to a foreign government looks like, and there hasn’t been a single shot fired.”

Massie, who has opposed military aid to Israel, likewise pledged to introduce an amendment removing the provision from the NDAA. The Republican senator was defeated in the primary elections last month, highlighting the financial and political influence of pro-Israel lobby groups in the US.

Influential conservative commentator, Tucker Carlson, has increasingly criticised US support for Israel, reflecting divisions within the broader MAGA movement. Criticism has also intensified among left-wing Democrats, with many calling for restrictions on military aid to Israel.

What could it mean in practice?

Critics of the measures warn that the proposal could create a form of institutional “lock-in” that makes both countries simultaneously reliant on each other for military development and procurement.

Some analysts say such integration would move key aspects of the US-Israel relationship away from highly visible aid votes or commercial contracting, and into the less transparent world of defence procurement and industrial partnerships at a state-to-state level.

Hilborne from the King’s College said the initiative could also have direct implications for Palestinians. “If joint R&D produces more effective technology, then systems related to surveillance, autonomous vehicles, AI and targeting, and various counter-drone or counter-missile technology would be improved, providing a capability boost to Israeli forces operating in Gaza or the West Bank,” he said.

“This enhanced integration would further embed US technology into Israeli forces. These would all be concerns from a Palestinian perspective.”

Critics also point to the economic implications, where expanded co-production agreements could lead to new manufacturing facilities and defence jobs in the United States, creating a further reliance on Israel.

Hilborne also argued that deeper integration could reduce Washington’s leverage over Israel. “The deeper integration may also mean that the US loses some degree of leverage over Israel, as it would be less able to withhold certain capabilities from Israel,” he said.

“As a consequence, Israel might be emboldened in its policies.”

The proposal could also have implications beyond the US-Israel relationship, according to Imad Salamey, an international relations professor at the Lebanese American University. “The proposed US-Israeli defence integration can be seen as the next phase of the Abraham Accords: moving from normalisation toward a US-backed regional security regime centred on Israel as the dominant military and technological hub,” he told Al Jazeera.

Such a framework would strengthen efforts to contain Iran, limit Turkiye’s independent regional influence and deepen security cooperation with Arab partners, he said.

“For Lebanon and Gaza, it may translate into greater pressure to accommodate Israeli-led security arrangements as part of a broader emerging Middle Eastern order.”

Whether Section 224 survives the legislative process is uncertain.

But its inclusion in the NDAA shows how some politicians, many backed by the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, are attempting to bind the two countries’ militaries closer together, creating long-term industrial links that future administrations may find difficult to reverse.

May 27 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said his cabinet meeting on Wednesday afternoon will be at the White House instead of Camp David, as was planned, due to weather.

“Based on the possible bad weather conditions tomorrow, we will be having our Cabinet Meeting in the White House, and will be postponing the Cabinet trip to Camp David,” Trump posted on Truth Social Tuesday afternoon.

Thunderstorms are expected in the region.

The meeting will “highlight recent successes of the administration, including economy and small business wins, Task Force to Eliminate Fraud highlights, and foreign policy updates,” a White House official told ABC News.

Trump hasn’t been to the Presidential Retreat at Camp David in Frederick County, Md., in nearly a year.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is expected to attend. She will depart her position at the end of June after announcing her resignation last week.

Iran is moving its World Cup training base from Tucson, Ariz., to Tijuana, the president of the country’s soccer federation said Saturday, removing one of the final hurdles to its participation in this summer’s tournament.

Iran is scheduled to open World Cup play at SoFi Stadium, facing New Zealand on June 15. It will play Belgium in Inglewood six days later before finishing the group stage against Egypt in Seattle. But there had been questions over the Iranian team’s security in the U.S. after American and Israeli attacks on the country began nearly four months ago.

This World Cup will be the first in which a qualifying team will play in a host country with which it was at war. In March, shortly after the war began, Iranian officials began to question whether they should travel to the U.S. for the tournament — doubts that increased after President Trump posted on social media to say he did not believe it was appropriate for Iran to come “for their own life and safety.”

Because the World Cup is being shared with Mexico and Canada, Iran requested permission to move its base across the border, a request Mehdi Taj, president of the Iran Football Federation, said Saturday had been granted.

FIFA, the World Cup organizer, did not immediately confirm to move.

“All team base camps for the countries participating in the World Cup must be approved [by] FIFA,” Taj said in his statement obtained by the Associated Press. “Fortunately, following the requests we submitted and the meetings we held with FIFA and World Cup officials in Istanbul, as well as the webinar meeting we had yesterday in Tehran with the respected FIFA secretary general, our request to change the team’s base from the United States to Mexico was approved.”

Iran’s federation said moving the base camp will resolve potential visa issues since the team will enter the U.S. through Mexico. Taj that the team “may even be able to travel to and from Mexico using Iran Air flights.”

Tijuana is about 50 minutes by air from LAX, about 55 minutes quicker than a flight from Tucson. Iranians have been banned by the U.S. government from receiving visas to enter the U.S., although exceptions are to be made for athletes, coaches, and support personnel involved in the World Cup.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday moved to withdraw his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns after reports that his administration was poised to create a fund to compensate some of his allies.

The disclosure was made in a filing in federal court in Florida, where the lawsuit was filed last year.

ABC News first reported last week that Trump was prepared to drop his lawsuit as part of a deal that would create a $1.7 billion fund to pay allies of the president who believe they were wrongly investigated and prosecuted.

The court filing did not mention terms of any potential deal.

News that the Trump administration was contemplating a fund to pay Trump allies drew an immediate backlash from Democrats, including Rep. Jamie Raskin, who called the idea “unconstitutional.”

“This, of course, is a political grievance fund that Donald Trump can use to pay off his friends,” Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“If these people have a valid cause of action, they should bring it to the court like every other American does, and use the system of due process, and proving things by clear and convincing evidence, or a preponderance of evidence, go and prove it. But the idea that Donald Trump can just pass it out like a pardon is absurd,” he added.

It was not immediately clear who precisely will stand to benefit from the fund but its creation reflects Trump’s long-running claims that the Biden administration Justice Department was weaponized against him.

He has cited as proof the since-dismissed criminal charges he faced between his first and second terms of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election he lost and of retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Several aides of his were also prosecuted, as were hundreds of Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Merrick Garland, who served as attorney general during the Biden administration, has repeatedly denied allegations of politicization and has said his decisions followed facts, the evidence and the law. His Justice Department also investigated Biden for his handling of classified information and brought separate tax and gun prosecutions against Biden’s son Hunter.

Nonetheless, Trump’s current Justice Department has actively pursued the president’s retribution campaign and grievances, bringing criminal charges against some of his perceived adversaries and initiating a wide-ranging investigation that aims to establish a years-long conspiracy between law enforcement and intelligence officials to destroy Trump’s political prospects and keep him power.

No charges have been brought in that investigation and it is not clear that any ever will be.

Trump filed a lawsuit earlier this year in a Florida federal court, alleging that a previous leak of his and the Trump Organization’s confidential tax records caused “reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”

The president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, are also named plaintiffs in the suit.

Hussein, Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

ASHLEY Roberts has stripped down to a tiny leather corset and red bra as she shook her bum while recreating iconic Pussycat Dolls moves.

The Heart Radio host, 44, turned up the heat as she tried on one of her racy outfits that she performed in back in the day.

Her waist cinched into the zipped up black corset which she paired with a sparkly red bra and the tiniest short shorts.

She turned around to reveal a bow and a piece of material on the back as she shook her bum in the air like she just didn’t care.

Shocked by the outfits they used to wear, she expressed: “No tights?,” before scrunching up her face and saying: “I don’t know about this one.”

Ashley then tried on a black top with straps which was paired with a high-waist ruffled grey skirt.

READ MORE ON ASHLEY ROBERTS

DATE NIGHT

Ashley Roberts, 44, enjoys date with boyfriend, 26, after I’m a Celeb final

huge fury

I’m A Celeb’s Ashley Roberts opens up on final saying ‘I thought I’d get smacked’

Clearly getting into the groove, she began dancing and singing to the group’s hit song ‘Don’t Cha’.

The I’m A Celebrity star showed off yet another look, as she posed in a long-sleeved red Adidas top which cut off at her midriff and went with some matching red shorts.

She captioned the post: “Dolls, you asked for it, had a lil @pussycatdolls archive to try on.”

Her fans rushed to the comments section as one gushed: “The Doll Domination tartan looks were THE moment.”

Another follower enthused: “The second outfit is everything!”

Somebody else said: “You are so beautiful woman,” and a fourth added: “So iconic Ash.”

In March, she announced the Pussycat Dolls were returning as a trio with Nicole Scherzinger and Kimberley Wyatt.

They revealed their comeback with their new single, Club Song and will also be embarking on a world tour this year.

They were due to begin the tour with 33 dates across US and Canada, starting in Palm Beach, California on June 5 but this will no longer be happening.

They struggled to sell tickets despite slashing prices to $30, and several dates still had as much as 80 percent of the seats available.

Rehearsals were due to start last month but were delayed and had not formally started before the plug was pulled.

However, they will go ahead with the European leg of the PCD Forever tour, which is due to begin in Copenhagen on September 9.

It will see the group perform arena concerts in Birmingham, Nottingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Dublin, Glasgow, Newcastle, Manchester and London.

Insiders insisted their ticket sales have been far better in Europe than in North America, with shows in Warsaw and Paris already sold out.

US Department of Energy moves to transfer 53.3 million barrels amid rising oil prices.

The United States has announced its latest release of emergency oil stockpiles in coordination with the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The US Department of Energy said on Monday that it had begun transferring 53.3 million barrels from the strategic petroleum reserve after awarding contracts to nine companies under its emergency exchange programme.

Trafigura Trading LLC, a Texas-based commodities trading company, was granted the biggest haul of nearly 13 million barrels, with Marathon Petroleum Corporation and ExxonMobil set to receive 12.4 million barrels and 11.4 million barrels, respectively.

Macquarie Commodities Trading US, Atlantic Trading & Marketing, BP Products North America, Energy Transfer Crude Marketing, Mercuria Energy America and Phillips 66 will receive between 1.05 million and 6.55 million barrels each, according to the Energy Department.

Under the department’s exchange scheme, participating firms are required to replenish the stockpile with new barrels at a later date.

“These actions continue to move oil swiftly into the market, address near-term supply needs, and ensure that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve remains strong through the return of premium barrels,” Kyle Haustveit, the head of the department’s Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office, said in a statement.

The transfer comes after US President Donald Trump’s administration agreed in March to release 172 million barrels of crude as part of the IEA’s coordination of the largest unloading of global stockpiles in history.

Oil prices have surged since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran in late February, with Tehran’s retaliatory blockade of the Strait of Hormuz paralysing one of the world’s most important trade routes.

Maritime traffic in the strait has ground to a halt amid Iranian threats against commercial shipping, disrupting about one-fifth of the global oil trade.

Oil prices continued to edge higher on Monday after Trump dismissed Iran’s latest peace proposal and warned that the ceasefire between the sides was “on life support”, dampening hopes for a quick resolution to the conflict.

Facing growing public discontent over rising fuel prices, Trump on Monday also pledged to waive the 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal tax on petrol, though taxation is the purview of the US Congress.

Futures for Brent crude, the international benchmark, were up about 1 percent in Asia on Tuesday morning, topping $105 a barrel.

Winger Leandro Trossard scores the only goal of the match as Arsenal survives VAR controversy to win at West Ham.

Arsenal cleared arguably the most dangerous ‌remaining obstacle in their path to the Premier League title by the skin of their teeth as Leandro Trossard’s late goal secured a ⁠dramatic 1-0 win at West Ham ⁠United to restore their five-point lead on Sunday.

The visitors were living dangerously at the London Stadium, but Trossard guided home a low shot from Martin Odegaard’s pass in the 83rd minute to spark delirium amongst the Arsenal fans and despair in the home ranks.

Arsenal ⁠rode their luck and survived a huge scare deep in stoppage time as West Ham substitute Callum Wilson had an equaliser ruled out for a foul after a long video assistant referee (VAR) review.

Victory put Arsenal a step closer to a first Premier League title since 2004, and they will be crowned football champions if they win their ⁠last two games at home to Burnley and away to Crystal Palace on the final day.

Arsenal have 79 points from 36 games with Manchester City, who have a game in hand, on 74.

For West Ham, it was a bitter pill to swallow as defeat left them staring at relegation, and they could find themselves four points from the safety zone with two games left if Tottenham Hotspur beat Leeds United on Monday.

If Arsenal do go on to lift the title, the incident in stoppage ‌time described by Sky Sports pundit Gary Neville as the “biggest VAR call in the history of the Premier League” will be just a detail in a season-long slog with Manchester City.

But it could have serious implications for West Ham, who would have deserved a point for a gritty display.

With time almost up and even West Ham keeper Mads Hermansen up for a corner, the ball broke for Wilson, who slammed a shot through a forest of legs and over the line.

West Ham fans went wild, and Manchester City’s probably did, too. Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta looked aghast, but when the VAR instructed referee Chris Kavanagh to look at a possible foul by West Ham substitute Pablo on Arsenal keeper David Raya in the build-up, the stadium fell silent.

He ⁠returned to announce that the goal was disallowed and Arsenal could breathe a huge sigh of relief.

Harry Poulton, 24, grew tired of life in the UK and decided to move to Benidorm, Spain, after falling in love with the popular hotspot. Now, he has zero plans to ever move back to England

A young British man took the dramatic step of moving to Benidorm for good following a lads’ holiday – and has pledged never to return to the UK again.

While Great Britain offers plenty of positives, it’s not without its shortcomings. Between the famously erratic weather and the ongoing cost of living crisis, it’s increasingly understandable why some people make the leap and move abroad. Such was the experience for 24-year-old Harry Poulton, who travelled to Benidorm for the first time on a lads’ holiday and immediately knew it was going to be his future home. For Harry, one of the factors that made his choice easy was the fun lifestyle available at a far lower cost than compared to “gloomy” Britain.

The travel vlogger, originally from Brighton, had become tired of life in “gloomy” England and, aged just 18, opted to transform his circumstances by abandoning his homeland in favour of Spain.

In a TikTok clip detailing his reasoning, he admitted one of the main motivations for moving was escaping the “horrible” British weather.

The cost of living was another reason behind his choice. Daily life in the Spanish coastal resort proves considerably more affordable for Harry.

He explained: “Everything in the UK is just going up, up, up and up, and no one knows when it’s going to stop. At least here in Spain, your money travels so much further – you’ll get way more for your money here in Spain than you would in the UK, and that’s my opinion.”

Speaking to Luxury Travel Daily, Harry explained: “I don’t know why anybody would want to live in Britain. It’s cold, dreary and gloomy all the time.

“There’s no room to have fun outside of the constant boring routine and work. After I visited Benidorm, I knew that it was the place I wanted to settle down.

“It offers great weather, beautiful beaches and such a laid-back vibe. It’s the complete opposite of the UK.”

Harry is a passionate advocate for Benidorm, convinced many Britons unfairly make a “mockery” of the beloved holiday hotspot. The Spanish municipality is known and loved for its thriving hotel and live entertainment industry, its golden beaches, and impressive skyscrapers.

The town is said to receive just as many tourists from abroad as it does from Spain. He said: “Stop making a mockery of such a wonderful place. If you live here, you’ll know better than any British tourists what this country is really like.”

Harry continued: “Everyone says not to visit Benidorm, as you’ll get scammed or mugged. And that bars will rip tourists off with extortionate prices for drinks – but that’s all absolute rubbish.

“It’s crazy what Brits believe. It’s not just for party-goers or stag dos. Benidorm has so much on offer and it’s not a place you’ll regret going. There are so many haters out there that like to spread misinformation or myths, stopping people from coming here.”

He added: “It’s mad. Look at the state of the UK – all of these things happen there more than they do in Benidorm.”

Harry believes he’s considerably happier living in Spain than he ever was in Britain.

For anyone contemplating a similarly dramatic overseas move, he suggested: “Learn some basic Spanish before coming. Ensure to plan financially, too. Be prepared for some paperwork, especially since Brexit, but it’s so worth it once you’re here.”

Looking back on making such a major decision at such a young age, he added: “It’s completely transformed my life – and being so young, I’m glad I leaped now rather than later. Who wants to wake up to grey skies every day, when you can have blue ones greeting you each morning? Benidorm is paradise – anyone who says otherwise is lying.”

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday voted in favor of new restrictions on so-called “pretextual” traffic stops, signaling a growing impatience with the Police Commission’s failure to rein in a controversial LAPD tactic that critics say enables racial discrimination.

The vote requests that the department’s all-civilian watchdog adopt new guidelines similar to San Francisco, which bars police officers from pulling people over for broken taillights and other minor equipment violations unless there is a safety threat.

“Board of Police Commissioners: Get this done; we’re watching, no excuses,” said Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who shared stories of her late father being stopped by police with no explanation. “This is what this generation wants.”

If the new policy were adopted, LAPD officers would be prohibited from stopping motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians for minor violations “except in cases where the violation poses a significant and imminent safety risk.”

The unanimous vote followed sometimes emotional testimony at a City Council meeting from Angelenos about how their lives had been shaken by discriminatory traffic stops and searches.

Several speakers pointed to a growing body of research showing that minor stops disproportionately affect Black and brown motorists and do little to combat violent crime while eroding public trust. In recent years, there have been several high-profile traffic stops that resulted in officers or drivers being killed.

The current LAPD policy, in place since 2022, requires officers to record themselves on their body-worn cameras stating the reasons for suspecting a more serious crime had occurred when making a stop for a minor infraction.

The measure passed Wednesday stops short of a categorical ban that some have sought, but was still met with cautious optimism by traffic safety reformers.

“It helps place the city of Los Angeles on a path of ending racial profiling by LAPD,” said Chauncee Smith, of Catalyst California, a group that advocates for racial justice.

Smith’s group recently released a report that said such stops have continued to disproportionately affect Black and Latino drivers.

Smith said the new policy advanced by the City Council represents “a more formal, explicit prohibition,” adding that he hopes the Police Commission will ultimately give officers even less discretion in deciding when to make stops.

In a brief statement after the vote, Mayor Karen Bass thanked Harris-Dawson for his “leadership and dedication in moving this updated policy forward.”

“I will work closely with the Police Commission and Chief [Jim] McDonnell to implement it and to provide officers with appropriate training,” Bass said.

Any changes to the policy will probably draw strong challenges from within the LAPD and the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the powerful union that represents the city’s rank-and-file officers.

McDonnell has publicly defended the stops as an essential law enforcement tool in the department’s fight against guns, gangs and drugs. He and some transportation safety advocates have argued that persistent traffic deaths — road fatalities have in recent years outpaced the number of homicides — indicate the city needs to crack down harder on reckless driving.

The proposed change comes against the backdrop of a broader effort by city leaders to wrest greater oversight of the LAPD from the Police Commission. A spokesperson for the civilian body said it would evaluate how to proceed.

“The Board intends to place this item on a forthcoming agenda to enable a full and transparent discussion of the Department’s pretextual stop policy, which will include the recommendations from the City Council,” the statement said.

McDonnell did not respond to a request for comment.

The vote was the latest move in a broader push to remove police officers from traffic enforcement. Some advocates have argued that more punitive approaches that prioritize arrests and traffic citations do little to keep city streets safe; instead, they argue the city should invest in unarmed civilian workers and speed bumps, roundabouts and other street modifications that could help curb unsafe driving.

Adrienna Wong, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said Wednesday’s vote showed city leaders taking action on an issue that was personal to them.

“I think what you saw today in council was the council members have lived experiences and are hearing from their constituents and are voting to represent their constituents in a way that the Police Commission has not,” she said.

May 5 (UPI) — Iran warned Tuesday that it was “just getting started” after its military clashed with U.S. forces attempting to guide commercial vessels marooned in the Persian Gulf out through the Strait of Hormuz.

Mohammad Ghalibaf, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, signaling Iran’s intention to exploit the United States’ need for a timely resolution to the conflict, said Iran was digging in for an extended fight that it was prepared to keep going for as long as necessary.

“The new equation in the Strait of Hormuz is being solidified. Shipping security and energy transit have been jeopardized by the U.S. and its allies with the cease-fire violations and blockade. However, their evil acts will fail. We know well that the continuation of the status quo is intolerable for America, while we are just getting started,” said Ghalibaf.

Speaking at a news briefing at the Pentagon on Tuesday morning, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to try to de-escalate the situation, stressing that the mission to free trapped merchant ships was a short-term, defensive operation purely aimed at providing protection for the hundreds of vessels he said “are lining up to transit.”

“Project Freedom is defensive in nature, focused in scope and temporary in duration, with one mission, protecting innocent commercial shipping from Iranian aggression. American forces won’t need to enter Iranian waters or airspace. It’s not necessary. We’re not looking for a fight,” he said.

However, echoing threats made by U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday night, Hegseth said that Iran “will face overwhelming firepower” if it attacks commercial shipping and that he expected other countries to “step up” to protect the strategically important sea lane “at the appropriate time.”

Day one of Trump’s Project Freedom on Monday saw Iran claim it fired on U.S. naval vessels approaching the strait, forcing one to turn around, while Trump said U.S. forces sank seven Iranian navy “fast boats,” prompting Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to dub the effort “Project Deadlock,” warning that the conflict could only be resolved through compromise.

The UAE also said it was targeted with Iranian missiles and drones for the first time since a cease-fire came into force April 9, blaming the attacks for a fire in its Fujairah Oil Industry Zone in which three people were injured.

“Events in Hormuz make clear that there’s no military solution to a political crisis. As talks are making progress with Pakistan’s gracious effort, the U.S. should be wary of being dragged back into a quagmire by ill-wishers. So should the UAE,” said Araghchi.

The comments came hours after Trump threatened to blow Iran “off the face of the Earth’ if it attacked U.S. vessels involved in Project Freedom.

U.S. Central Command said no U.S. Navy ships had taken fire while Iran rejected as “outright lies,” claims by CENTCOM that two U.S.-flagged merchant vessels “successfully transited through the Strait of Hormuz and are safely headed on their journey.”

Mark Allen’s bid to become the oldest first-time world champion in the modern era gathered momentum as he reached the semi-finals with a 13-11 victory over Barry Hawkins at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield.

The 40-year-old Northern Irishman is aiming to complete snooker’s Triple Crown having previously triumphed in the UK Championship and Masters.

However, snooker’s biggest prize has so far eluded him in 19 previous attempts with his win over Hawkins earning him a place in the last four for only the third time.

Having resumed at 8-8, Allen took the opening two frames of Wednesday morning’s session only to be pegged back by the 2013 finalist, who knocked in breaks of 70 and 83 in response.

The players traded frames before Allen constructed his third century of a high-quality affair to move 12-11 ahead.

In a dramatic final frame Allen took control with a break of 59 and sealed his passage to the single-table stage after the Englishman underhit an attempted snooker on the pink just seconds after fluking a red to give himself the chance to force a decider.

Allen will now face either Wu Yize or Hossein Vafaei in a best-of-33 encounter that begins on Thursday at 19:00 BST.

Should Allen win the world title he will become the oldest first-time winner in the modern era, eclipsing Stuart Bingham, who claimed the world title in 2015, aged 38 years and 343 days.

More to follow

Wiffen said that he was “already planning” on moving to Dublin even before the Irish Open.

He had targeted a time of seven minutes 42 seconds in the 800m, but came in at 7:58.08 on his way to winning gold in Bangor and also said his performance in the 1500m was “confirmation in my head that I wasn’t in the shape I wanted to be in” and that he should switch to Dublin.

“In 1500m I got to the 1000m mark in a second off PB [personal best] pace and I could feel it fading and it was all down to the training,” he added.

“I wasn’t doing the right type of work I used to do, so when it came to the decision, I sat down with Andy Reid [National Performance Director at Swim Ireland] and talked to him. We had talked of the back-up plan if California didn’t work when he was first appointed, so this was already in the thinking.”

Reflecting on his time in California, Wiffen was critical of the training in the US and says he “feels a lot fitter” since he started training in Dublin.

“In California it felt like you kind of didn’t know what you were doing. You were having to push yourself, there wasn’t much guidance or criticising technique.

“They didn’t want to mess up the Olympic champion is what I felt. They were trying to do what they wanted to do, not what’s good for me.”

Wiffen is now gearing up for a big summer with the Commonwealth Games and European Championships on the horizon and hopes a solid block of training in his new surroundings can get him up to speed to break more records.

“I don’t know how fast I’m going to be in the summer, but I have two benchmark meets before that I can compare to other years.

“I need to see how those go and how the training works. I have eyes on the world record in the summer, but if not I need to readjust some things.”

The Federal Communications Commission is considering an early review of the Walt Disney Co.’s broadcast TV licenses amid criticism of ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s provocative jokes ahead of the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner.

The order could come as soon as Tuesday, according to Semafor, which first reported that the review is expected. The licenses for ABC’s stations — which include KABC in Los Angeles — were not scheduled for renewal until 2028.

Disney has not commented on the possibility of a review.

The move was likely in the works before the latest kerfuffle over Kimmel, who is under fire for a comedic bit that satirized the annual Washington gala that Trump attended for the first time. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who has targeted the political content on the ABC daytime talk show “The View,” told The Times on Saturday that an action related to ABC programming was coming this week.

Carr has suggested “The View” should not be exempt from the FCC’s equal time rule that requires broadcasters to bring on a politician’s rival to provide balanced coverage and multiple viewpoints.

Carr, who was at the Saturday dinner, made the remark just hours before the event was shut down after a Torrance man breached security at the Washington Hilton while armed with a shotgun, handgun and several knives. The suspect, Cole Tomas Allen, was arrested and faces three criminal charges, including attempting to assassinate President Trump.

Right-wing commentators have gone into heavy rotation with the claim that a routine by Kimmel inspired Allen to act.

During the bit that aired Thursday, a tuxedo-clad Kimmel called First Lady Melania Trump “beautiful,” saying she had “the glow of an expectant widow.” The comic explained Monday that the gag was a reference to the age difference between Trump and his wife.

“It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he’s almost 80 and she’s younger than I am,” Kimmel said. “It was not, by any stretch of the definition, a call to assassination. And they know that.”

Since becoming FCC chairman last year, Carr has repeatedly threatened to use the levers of power he has to punish TV and radio stations that irritate Trump. His behavior has alarmed free speech advocates, including the FCC’s lone Democratic appointee Anna Gomez, who noted that early station renewal reviews are exceedingly rare and largely futile.

“This is unprecedented, unlawful, and going nowhere,” Gomez said in a statement. “It is a political stunt and it won’t stick. Companies should challenge it head-on. The 1st Amendment is on their side.”

Other White House administrations have threatened to pull TV station licenses in response to negative news coverage. At the height of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, Richard Nixon’s allies unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the TV licenses for three stations owned at the time by the Washington Post.

RKO General, a unit of the General Tire and Rubber Co., was the last company to lose broadcast TV station licenses in 1987, including Los Angeles outlet KHJ. The case was related to corporate malfeasance and not broadcast content on the stations.

The process to revoke the RKO licenses took seven years from the moment the FCC voted in favor of the move.