News

Heavy flooding in Talisay City, Cebu has destroyed homes after Typhoon Kalmaegi dumped a month’s worth of rain. One person died in a low-income area that evacuated early, while dozens may be trapped in a nearby subdivision where residents did not leave. Al Jazeera’s Barnaby Lo is there.

Nov. 6 (UPI) — President Donald Trump’s calls to ramp up nuclear weapons testing last week have put nuclear watchdogs and world leaders on alert while experts say the United States has little to gain.

In a post on Truth Social on Oct. 29, Trump said he is ordering the Department of Defense to immediately begin testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis.” What this means remains unclear, though Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in an appearance on FOX News these would not be full-scale explosive tests.

“These are not nuclear explosions,” Wright said. “These are what we call non-critical explosions.”

The comment by Wright echoes the stance Brandon Williams, under secretary of energy for Nuclear Security in the Department of Energy, shared during his Senate confirmation hearing in May. Williams said testing nuclear weapons above the criticality threshold would not be advisable.

According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor, the United States possesses more than 5,000 nuclear weapons. It has performed 1,054 explosive nuclear tests, more than any other country.

The type of testing the president is calling for is an important distinction to make, Dylan Spaulding, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told UPI. The delivery systems of nuclear weapons and the components of the weapons are commonly tested.

Subcritical tests are also performed. These are tests that do not yield a sustained nuclear reaction that would cause an explosion.

“He did mention testing on an equal basis,” Spaulding said. “If that’s the case, in fact the United States already does conduct all the kinds of tests of our nuclear delivery systems and even the components of the weapons themselves that other countries do.”

The United States and most of the rest of the world, aside from North Korea, have refrained from full-scale nuclear weapons testing for more than 30 years. In 1993, the United States signed a unilateral moratorium on explosive testing under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Breaking from the treaty is likely to open the door to escalation in the form of other countries, including adversaries like China and Russia, openly testing nuclear explosives, Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, told UPI.

“What if those countries decided that maybe this is a cue for them to test?” Sokolski said. “Would that provoke any of the larger states that signed [the treaty] but didn’t ratify to test?”

The only country to break from the agreement in this treaty is North Korea, conducting six nuclear tests concluding in 2017.

Sokolski argues that the United States has the least to gain by breaking the moratorium and setting off a precedent for open nuclear weapons testing. The United States’ research in the field is extensive, beyond that of any other country. Other countries, such as Russia, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea stand to benefit the most from more explosive research while the United States would likely gain little more knowledge.”

“I spend a lot of time talking to weapons designers about this. You don’t test for reliability testing generally,” Sokolski said. “That requires 10 to 20 datapoints. That means 10 to 20 tests of each design. That seems kind of wasteful. You don’t design to prove things you’ve already proven.”

“If you’re doing a design that is totally radical, that’s something different, but we’re not,” he continued. “We’re fiddling with yield-to-weight ratios. There are countries like Israel who have tested once, in 1979, one test. Are you telling me their stockpile is unreliable and doesn’t work? If you want to make weapons you can do it very cheaply and quickly without testing.”

Spaulding agrees that full-scale testing is not necessary, adding that scientists continue to analyze data from the repository of the United States’ nuclear weapons testing history.

“We are still learning from those underground tests,” he said. “Other countries don’t have that advantage right now but we would be essentially giving them permission to catch up by returning to testing.

The argument for more live-testing of nuclear weapons capabilities is that it can insure and assure that the stockpile of weapons is reliable.

The United States has the Stockpile Stewardship Program that already tests the reliability and safety of its nuclear weapons. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, told UPI the scientific community is “very confident” in the program.

While the United States is one of only nine countries that have not ratified the treaty, it is legally bound as a signatory to not violate the object or purpose of the agreement, Kimball said. He is doubtful that this will deter Trump.

Of the 1,054 explosive nuclear tests performed by the United States, 928 have been conducted at the Nevada Nuclear Site in south-central Nevada about 65 miles outside of Las Vegas. The site is the only candidate for hosting further nuclear testing, according to experts.

The last explosive test was conducted in 1992 before the United States began observing the international moratorium.

Past tests at the site yielded observable health and environmental impacts on residents of the region and beyond.

“Anyone born in ’63 or earlier, they were exposed to some level of strontium 90, which was showing up in the baby teeth of American children in the 50s and 60s,” Kimball said. “It accumulates in the teeth because you drink milk and it gets concentrated in the teeth.”

The United States joined the Soviet Union and United Kingdom in the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, in part because of the baby teeth study. The treaty banned nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, outer space and underwater.

Subjects of the baby teeth study were children in the St. Louis area, more than 1,600 miles from the Nevada nuclear test site.

With the atmospheric testing ban in place, explosive testing was moved underground in deep boreholes. This was meant to limit nuclear fallout, lessening environmental and health implications.

The vertical testing shafts are reinforced to limit geological impacts but the powerful explosions still generate fractures in the earth and the leakage of radionuclides, a hazardous radioactive material.

People who lived downwind of the Nevada test site, known as downwinders, have experienced higher than average rates of cancer.

“These downwinders, in their second generation, they’re still suffering from some of these adverse health effects,” Kimball said. “They are particularly angry. Trump’s announcement is a slap in the face to them as they see it. They want to see all forms of testing, above and below ground, concluded.”

Restarting full-scale testing would be no small task, Sokolski said. What he refers to as a “quick and dirty” test, one that provides an explosion but little in the way of research, would take months and millions of dollars to prepare.

“To get data, depending on how much data, we could be talking about one to two years and much, much more money, maybe approaching a higher order of magnitude, a billion [dollars],” Sokolski said. “Those stumbling blocks are the ones of interest.”

The US Supreme Court has questioned US President Donald Trump’s authority to use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners around the world.

In a closely watched hearing on Wednesday in Washington, DC, conservative and liberal Supreme Court judges appeared sceptical about Trump’s tariff policy, which has already had ramifications for US carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers.

The US president had earlier claimed that his trade tariffs – which have been central to his foreign policy since he returned to power earlier this year – will not affect US businesses, workers and consumers.

But a legal challenge by a number of small American businesses, including toy firms and wine importers, filed earlier this year, has led to lower courts in the country ruling that Trump’s tariffs are illegal.

In May, the Court of International Trade, based in New York, said Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs and “the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, in August.

Now, the Supreme Court, the country’s top court, is hearing the issue. Last week, the small business leaders, who are being represented by Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal, told the Court that Trump’s import levies were severely harming their businesses and that many have been forced to lay off workers and cut prices as a result.

In a post on his Truth Social Platform on Sunday, Trump described the Supreme Court case as “one of the most important in the History of the Country”.

“If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World,” he added.

What happened in Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, and what could happen if the court rules against Trump’s tariffs?

Here’s what we know:

What was discussed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday?

During a hearing which lasted for nearly three hours, the Trump administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General D John Sauer, argued that the president’s tariff policy is legal under a 1977 national law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

According to US government documents, IEEPA gives a US president an array of economic powers, including to regulate trade, in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat”.

Trump invoked IEEPA in February to levy a new 25 percent tax on imports from Canada and Mexico, as well as a 10 percent levy on Chinese goods, on the basis that these countries were facilitating the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the US, and that this constituted a national emergency. He later paused the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but increased China’s to 20 percent. This was restored to 10 percent after Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping last month.

In April, when he imposed reciprocal tariffs on imports from a wide array of countries around the world, he said those levies were also in line with IEEPA since the US was running a trade deficit that posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to the nation.

Sauer argued that Trump had imposed the tariffs using IEEPA since “our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe”.

He also told the court that the levies are “regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs”.

But Neal Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses that have brought the case, countered this. “Tariffs are taxes,” Katyal said. “They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the US Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone.”

What did the judges say about tariffs?

The judges raised another sticking point: Also, under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to regulate tariffs. Justice John Roberts noted that “the [IEEPA] statute doesn’t use the word tariff.”

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan also told Sauer, “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.”

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term as president, asked Sauer, “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defence and industrial base?

“I mean, Spain, France? I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy,” Coney Barrett said.

Sauer replied that “there’s this sort of lack of reciprocity, this asymmetric treatment of our trade, with respect to foreign countries that does run across the board,” and reiterated the Trump administration’s power to use IEEPA.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took issue with the notion that the tariffs are not taxes, as asserted by Trump’s team. She said, “You want to say that tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

According to recent data released by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, as of the end of August, IEEPA tariffs had generated $89bn in revenues to the US Treasury.

During the court’s arguments on Wednesday, Justice Roberts also suggested that the court may have to invoke the “major questions” doctrine in this case after telling Sauer that the president’s tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress”.

The “major questions” doctrine checks a US executive agency’s power to impose a policy without Congress’s clear directive. The Supreme Court previously used this to block former President Joe Biden’s policies, including his student loan forgiveness plan.

Sauer argued that the “major questions” doctrine should not apply in this context since it would also affect the president’s power in foreign affairs.

Why is this case the ultimate test of Trump’s tariff policy?

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority and generally takes several months to make a decision. While it remains unclear when the court will make a decision on this case, according to analysts, the fact that this case was launched against Trump at all is significant.

In a recent report published by Max Yoeli, senior research fellow on the US and Americas Programme at UK-based think tank Chatham House, said, “The Supreme Court’s outcome will shape Trump’s presidency – and those that follow – across executive authority, global trade, and domestic fiscal and economic concerns.”

“It is likewise a salient moment for the Supreme Court, which has empowered Trump and showed little appetite to constrain him,” he added.

Penny Nass, acting senior vice president at the German Marshall Fund’s Washington DC office, told Al Jazeera that the verdict will be viewed by many as a test of Trump’s powers.

“A first impact will be the most direct judicial restraint at the highest level on Presidential power. After a year testing the limits of his power, President Trump will start to see some of constraints on his power,” she said.

According to international trade lawyer Shantanu Singh, who is based in India, the global implications of this case could also be huge.

“One objective of these tariffs was to use them as leverage to get trade partners to do deals with the US. Some countries have concluded trade deals, including to address the IEEPA tariffs,” he told Al Jazeera.

After the imposition of US reciprocal tariffs in April and again in August, several countries and economic blocs, including the EU, UK, Japan, Cambodia and Indonesia, have struck trade deals with the US to reduce tariffs.

But those countries were forced to make concessions to get those deals done. EU countries, for example, had to agree to buy $750bn of US energy and reduce steel tariffs through quotas.

Singh pointed out that an “adverse Supreme Court ruling could bring into doubt the perceived benefit for concluding deals with the US”.

“Further, trade partners who are currently negotiating with the US will have to also adjust their negotiating objectives in light of the ruling and how the administration reacts to it,” he added.

Other countries including India and China are currently actively engaged in trade talks with the US. Trade talks with Canada were terminated by Trump in late October over what Trump described as a “fraudulent” advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about trade tariffs, which was being aired in Canada.

What happens if the judges rule against Trump?

Following Wednesday’s Supreme Court Hearing, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was at the court with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, told Fox News that he was “very optimistic” that the outcome of the case would be in the government’s favour.

“The solicitor general made a very powerful case for the need for the president to have the power,” he said and refused to discuss the Trump administration’s plan if the court ruled against the tariff policy.

However, Singh said if the Supreme Court does find these tariffs illegal, one immediate concern will be how tariffs collected so far will be refunded to businesses, if at all.

“Given the importance that the current US administration places on tariffs as a policy tool, we can expect that it would quickly identify other legal authorities and work to reinstate the tariffs,” he said.

Nass added: “The President has many other tariff powers, and will likely quickly recalibrate to maintain his deal-making efforts with partners,” she said, adding that there would still be very complicated work for importers on what to do with the tariffs already collected in 2025 under IEEPA.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Coney Barrett asked Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses contesting Trump’s tariffs, whether this process of paying money back would be “a complete mess”.

Katyal said the businesses he’s representing should be given a refund, but added that it is “very complicated”.

“So, a mess,” Coney Barrett stated.

“It’s difficult, absolutely, we don’t deny that,” Katyal said in response.

In an interview with US broadcaster CNN in September, trade lawyers said the court could decide who gets the refunds. Ted Murphy, an international trade lawyer at Sidley Austin, told CNN that the US government “could also try to get the court to approve an administrative refund process, where importers have to affirmatively request a refund”.

What tariffs has Trump imposed so far, and what has their effect been?

Trump has imposed tariffs of varying rates on imports from almost every country in the world, arguing that these levies will enrich the US and protect the domestic US market. The tariff rates range from as high as 50 percent on India and Syria to as low as 10 percent on the UK.

The US president has also imposed a 50 percent tariff on all copper imports, 50 percent on steel and aluminium imports from every country except the UK, 100 percent on patented drugs, 25 percent levies on cars and car parts manufactured abroad, and 25 percent on heavy-duty trucks.

According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyses the US Treasury’s data, tariffs have brought in $223.9bn as of October 31. This is $142.2bn more than the same time last year.

In early July, Treasury Secretary Bessent said revenues from these tariffs could grow to $300bn by the end of 2025.

But in an August 7 report, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that “all 2025 US tariffs plus foreign retaliation lower real US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth by -0.5pp [percentage points] each over calendar years 2025 and 2026”.

Meanwhile, according to a Reuters news agency tracker, which follows how US companies are responding to Trump’s tariff threats, the first-quarter earnings season saw carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers take the worst hit from tariff threats. Levies on aluminium and electronics, such as semiconductors, also led to increased costs.

Reuters reported that as tariffs hit factory orders, big manufacturing companies around the world are also struggling.

In its latest World Economic Outlook report released last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the global economy had been less extreme.

“To date, more protectionist trade measures have had a limited impact on economic activity and prices,” it said.

However, the IMF warned that the current resilience of the global economy may not last.

“Looking past apparent resilience resulting from trade-related distortions in some of the incoming data and whipsawing growth forecasts from wild swings in trade policies, the outlook for the global economy continues to point to dim prospects, both in the short and the long term,” it said.

Imagine walking for days and nights to escape gunfire. You carry your child in your arms, guiding them through the darkness to avoid drone attacks. You have no food, no water, and nowhere safe to go.

This is the reality for families in Darfur and across Sudan, where civilians are being trapped, targeted, and terrorised as the country’s brutal war enters its third year. In el-Fasher and other parts of Darfur, entire communities have been besieged. Those who try to flee are attacked; those who remain face starvation, violence, and disease.

Behind these headlines are women and children who are suffering the most. Sexual violence is being used systematically to punish, to terrorise, and to destroy. Women and girls are abducted, forced to work for armed groups during the day, and then assaulted at night, often in front of others. Many survivors are children themselves. Some of the girls who have become pregnant through rape are so young and malnourished that they are unable to feed their babies.

Perpetrators no longer attempt to hide their crimes. Violence has become so widespread that recording or documenting cases can cost you your life. In Tawila, North Darfur, only one clinic run by Doctors Without Borders can provide care for rape survivors.

Boys are also being drawn into the conflict. Over the past 10 days, three trucks filled with children were reported heading towards Nyala, while in South Darfur, children are being armed and sent to fight. Families are disappearing without a trace.

Aid workers are also targeted. They are being kidnapped for ransom, assaulted, sometimes killed, and targeted because armed groups believe humanitarian organisations can pay. Many of those delivering aid are Sudanese women who risk their lives every day to bring food, water, and protection services to others.

Violence has also taken on an ethnic dimension. One displaced person told us, “I cannot go back, they will know by my skin colour which tribe I am from, and they will kill me.”

Sudan is now the world’s largest displacement crisis and one of its most severe humanitarian emergencies. More than 30 million people need urgent assistance. Fifteen million have been forced from their homes. Hunger and cholera are spreading fast. Clinics have been destroyed, schools are closed, and 13 million children are out of school, their education and futures slipping away.

Yet even amid this devastation, Sudanese women’s organisations are leading the response. They are running safe spaces, supporting survivors of violence, and keeping children learning where they can. They know their communities and continue their work despite constant danger. Their courage deserves not only recognition but also support.

The humanitarian response, however, remains catastrophically underfunded. Only about a quarter of what is needed has been received. Without immediate resources, millions will be left without food, medical care, or shelter as famine looms. Funding protection and psychosocial support for women and children is not optional. It is life-saving.

And this is not only a crisis of violence but also a crisis of indifference. Each day the world looks away, more lives are lost and more futures erased. The international community must support investigations into war crimes, including sexual violence, ethnic killings, and attacks on aid workers. Silence is not neutrality. Silence gives a blank cheque for horror to continue.

We must act now, urgently. Governments and donors must fully fund the humanitarian response and ensure access for those delivering aid. They must press all parties to immediately stop attacks on civilians, guarantee safe passage for those fleeing, and allow relief operations to reach those cut off by the fighting.

Humanitarian workers and grassroots organisations are risking their lives so that others might live. The world must match their courage with urgent action.

Above all, Sudan’s women and girls must be part of shaping peace. They are already leading by organising, sheltering, and rebuilding amid the chaos. Their courage offers a glimpse of the country Sudan could still become.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Deadly protests followed the 92-year-old president’s re-election, which opponents have called ‘fraudulent’.

Cameroon’s longtime leader, Paul Biya, has been sworn in for a new seven-year term following his victory in last month’s presidential election, which his opposition rival has described as “a constitutional coup”.

Addressing Parliament on Thursday, the world’s oldest president promised to stay faithful to the confidence of the Cameroonian people and pledged to work for a “united, stable and prosperous” country.

There were deadly protests in several parts of Cameroon days after the October 19 vote, followed by a three-day lockdown this week after former minister and key contender Issa Tchiroma claimed victory and alleged vote tampering.

The government has confirmed that at least five people were killed during the protests, although the opposition and civil society groups claim the figures are much higher.

The incumbent, Africa’s second-longest serving leader, took the oath of office during a session of Parliament in what residents describe as the heavily militarised and partially deserted capital, Yaounde.

Priscilla Ayimboh, a 40-year-old seamstress in Yaounde, does not see a new term for Biya as likely to change anything.

“I’m tired of Biya’s rule and I no longer care whatever he does. It’s a pity. I wonder what will become of Cameroon in the next seven years: there are no roads, water, and jobs,” she said.

Munjah Vitalis Fagha, a senior politics lecturer at Cameroon’s University of Buea, told The Associated Press news agency that Biya’s inauguration was “taking place in a tense yet controlled political atmosphere, marked by deep divisions between the ruling elite and a growingly disillusioned populace”.

Fagha added: “The ceremony occurs amid calls for political renewal, ongoing security challenges in the Anglophone regions, and widespread concerns over governance and succession.”

Cameroon’s top court on October 27 declared Biya the winner of the election, with 53.66 percent of the vote, ahead of his ally-turned-challenger, Tchiroma, who secured 35.19 percent.

Tchiroma insists Biya was awarded a “fraudulent” victory in the election.

“The will of the Cameroonian people was trampled that day, our sovereignty stolen in broad daylight,” Tchiroma wrote on Wednesday night. “This is not democracy, it is electoral theft, a constitutional coup as blatant as it is shameful.”

Biya came to power in 1982 following the resignation of Cameroon’s first president and has ruled since, following a 2008 constitutional amendment that abolished term limits. His health has been a topic of speculation as he spends most of his time in Europe, leaving governance to key party officials and family members.

He has led Cameroon longer than most of its citizens have been alive – more than 70 percent of the country’s almost 30 million population is below the age of 35. If he serves his entire term, Biya will leave office nearly 100 years old.

The results of his nearly half-century in power have been mixed; armed rebellions in the north and the west of the country, along with a stagnant economy, have left many young people disillusioned with the leader.

Nov. 6 (UPI) — An evaluation of the Louvre Museum’s security measures — underway long before a costly break-in last month — found Thursday that the Paris institution had fallen “considerably behind” in upgrading its technical infrastructure and security.

The report from the French Court of Auditors took a look at both the facilities of the museum and the Louvre Museum Endowment Fund from 2018 to 2024. It was completed before the Oct. 19 break-in during which thieves made off with eight bejeweled items worth millions.

The report said the theft highlighted “the importance of long-term investments in modernizing the museum’s infrastructure and restoring the palace.”

The authors of the report took issue with the Louvre’s acquirement of 2,754 items over eight years, one-fourth of which were on display. These items — and renovations of displays — represent an investment of $167 million, double what the Louvre allocated for maintenance, upgrades and building restoration.

“Throughout the period under review, the court observed that the museum prioritized visible and attractive operations, such as the acquisition of works, and the redesign of its displays, to the detriment of the maintenance and renovation of buildings and technical installations, particularly those related to safety and security,” the report said.

The report recommended that the Louvre eliminate a rule that requires the museum spend 20% of its ticket revenues — $143 million in 2024 — on acquiring new works. This would allow the facility to redirect funds to update the building without additional state funding. Auditors said the museum could also lean more heavily on its endowment fund to make the upgrades.

Police in France have arrested several people believed to be connected to the October heist. The theft saw four people use a truck with a ladder to break into the upper-floor Apollo Gallery and steal jewelry from display cases.

Among the items stolen were items once owned by French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and his wife, Empress Joséphine de Beauharnais.

After months of blockade and starvation in Gaza, Israel allowed a new United States venture – the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – to distribute food. Branded as a lifeline, its sites quickly became known by Palestinians and dozens of human rights groups as “death traps”.

Fault Lines investigates how civilians seeking aid were funnelled through militarised zones, where thousands were killed or injured under fire.

Through the testimonies of grieving families, a former contractor, and human rights experts, the film exposes how GHF’s operations replaced UNRWA’s proven aid system with a scheme critics say was designed for displacement, not relief. At the heart of this investigation is a haunting question: was GHF delivering humanitarian aid – or helping turn breadlines into killing fields?

From Broderick Turner: The buzz inside Crypto.com Arena for the Lakers and San Antonio Spurs game was created because generational talents Luka Doncic and Victor Wembanyana were performing. It was a show that even several members of the World Series champion Dodgers were on hand to watch.

But what they saw was a lot of fouls being called that made the game unsightly. Doncic picked up his fifth in the fourth quarter, and Wembanyama eventually fouled out.

In the end, Doncic produced 35 points, 13 assists and nine rebounds in leading the Lakers to their fifth straight win with a 118-116 victory over the Spurs on Wednesday night.

The Lakers won despite a horrible turnover late in the game, giving the Spurs a chance to tie the score.

Continue reading here

Lakers box score

NBA standings

DODGERS

From Jack Harris: The Dodgers wasted no time this week setting their sights on a potential World Series three-peat for next season.

Now, they embark on the winter-long process of building a roster capable of doing it.

For the most part, the core of the 2026 Dodgers shouldn’t change much. Shohei Ohtani, Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman and Will Smith will still lead the offense. Yoshinobu Yamamoto, Blake Snell and Tyler Glasnow will anchor the rotation.

However, with plenty of money coming off the books, several notable contributors to this year’s team now free agents, and plenty of opportunities lying ahead of them this offseason, the Dodgers have work to do and decisions to make as they attempt to defend their title again next year.

Continue reading here

The Dodgers-Blue Jays World Series had record-setting ratings. Here’s what it means

DODGERS POLL

We asked, “Who was the Dodgers’ hitting star in the World Series?”

After 1,691 votes, the results:

Will Smith, 55.8%
Shohei Ohtani, 27.4%
Miguel Rojas, 13.1%
Someone else, 3%
Max Muncy, 0.7%

RAMS

From Gary Klein: The Rams are no longer kicking the can down the road when it comes to their kicking problems.

On Wednesday, the Rams signed kicker Harrison Mevis to the practice squad to compete with second-year pro Joshua Karty. The move came a day after the team signed veteran long-snapper Jake McQuaide to compete with Alex Ward.

“It’s all geared toward trying to be able to just get some solutions and some kick consistency really with our field-goal operation,” coach Sean McVay said Wednesday. “I think it’s important to have good competition at some spots that we feel we can have improved play.”

Continue reading here

From Andrés Soto: Kaylon Miller was on the six-yard line in the fourth quarter, blocking on a USC run play when he saw King Miller, his running back and twin brother, blow right past him.

“Run, run, go, go!” he remembers shouting as King bumped it outside and crossed the Nebraska goal line for the go-ahead touchdown that ultimately would be the game winner in the Trojans’ 21-17 Big Ten win last Saturday in Lincoln.

When King turned around in the end zone, it was his brother who was the first to greet him; the two brothers shared a moment as their facemasks clashed into each other. Both walk ons. Both finding opportunities to get on the field as redshirt freshmen — and both making the most of those opportunities.

Continue reading here

Keith Browner, former USC linebacker and member of a large NFL family, dies at 63

THIS DAY IN SPORTS HISTORY

1869 — First U.S. college football game played, Rutgers 6, Princeton 4.

1934 — Joe Carter scores four touchdowns and Swede Hanson rushes for 190 yards as the Philadelphia Eagles crush the Cincinnati Reds 64-0.

1966 — Philadelphia’s Timmy Brown returns kickoffs 93 yards and 90 yards for touchdowns to lead the Eagles to a 24-23 victory over the Dallas Cowboys.

1981 — Larry Holmes knocks out Renaldo Snipes in the 11th round to retain the world heavyweight title in Pittsburgh.

1983 — James Wilder of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers rushes for 219 yards and a touchdown in a 17-12 victory over the Minnesota Vikings.

1988 — Britain’s Steve Jones win the New York City Marathon in 2:08:20, the fastest time in the world this year. His margin of victory, 3 minutes and 21 seconds over Salvatore Bettiol, is the largest in the history of the five-borough race. Grete Waitz wins an unprecedented ninth women’s title, finishing in 2:28:07 well ahead of Italy’s Laura Fogli (2:31:26).

1992 — Manon Rheaume of the Atlanta Knights becomes the first woman to suit up for a regular-season pro hockey game. The 20-year-old goalie doesn’t play in Atlanta’s 3-2 overtime loss to Cincinnati in the IHL game.

1993 — French-based Arcangues stages the biggest Breeders’ Cup upset, rallying to beat Bertrando by 2 lengths in the $3 million Classic at Santa Anita. Arcangues went off at 133-1 and returned $269.20 on a $2 bet.

1993 — Evander Holyfield regains the WBA and IBF heavyweight championships from Riddick Bowe in a fight disrupted by a parachutist. During the seventh round at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, the chutist tumbles into the ringside seats and stops the fight for 21 minutes. Holyfield becomes the fourth man to become a heavyweight champion at least twice.

1995 — Art Modell officially announces Cleveland Browns are moving to Baltimore.

1999 — Charles Roberts rushes for 409 yards and five touchdowns to lead Sacramento State past Idaho State 41-20, setting a new NCAA record for a single-game rushing performance.

2005 — Annika Sorenstam becomes the first player in LPGA Tour history to win a tournament five straight times, shooting an 8-under 64 for a three-stroke victory in the Mizuno Classic.

2010 — Michigan wins the highest scoring game in its 131-year history by stopping a 2-point conversion attempt in the third overtime for a 67-65 victory over Illinois.

2010 — Zenyatta comes within a head of finishing a perfect career. Horse racing’s biggest star closes from dead last, but Blame holds off the 6-year-old mare and wins the $5 million Breeders’ Cup Classic under the lights Churchill Downs. Zenyatta entered the race hoping to improve to 20-0 on her career.

Compiled by the Associated Press

Until next time…

That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at [email protected]. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.

Tigray was the centre of a devastating two-year war that pitted the TPLF against Ethiopia’s federal army.

Ethiopia’s Afar region has accused forces from neighbouring Tigray of crossing into its territory, seizing several villages and attacking civilians, in what it called a breach of the 2022 peace deal that ended the war in northern Ethiopia.

Between 2020 and 2022, Tigray was the centre of a devastating two-year war that pitted the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) against Ethiopia’s federal army and left at least 600,000 people dead, according to the African Union.

In a statement released late on Wednesday, Afar authorities said TPLF fighters “entered Afar territory by force today”.

The group, which governs the Tigray region, was accused of “controlling six villages and bombing civilians with mortars”. Officials did not provide details on casualties.

“The TPLF learns nothing from its mistakes,” the Afar administration said, condemning what it described as “acts of terror”.

The conflict earlier this decade also spread into neighbouring Ethiopian regions, including Afar, whose forces fought alongside federal troops.

According to Afar’s latest statement, Tigrayan forces attacked the Megale district in the northwest of the region “with heavy weapons fire on civilian herders”.

The authorities warned that if the TPLF “does not immediately cease its actions, the Afar Regional Administration will assume its defensive duty to protect itself against any external attack”.

The renewed fighting, they said, “openly destroys the Pretoria peace agreement”, referring to the deal signed in November 2022 between Ethiopia’s federal government and Tigrayan leaders, which ended two years of bloodshed.

While the fragile peace had largely held, tensions between Addis Ababa and the TPLF have deepened in recent months. The party, which dominated Ethiopian politics from 1991 to 2018, was officially removed from the country’s list of political parties in May amid internal divisions and growing mistrust from the federal government.

Federal officials have also accused the TPLF of re-establishing ties with neighbouring Eritrea, a country with a long and uneasy history with Ethiopia. Eritrea, once an Italian colony and later an Ethiopian province, fought a bloody independence war before gaining statehood in 1993.

A subsequent border war between the two nations from 1998 to 2000 killed tens of thousands. When Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed came to power in 2018, he signed a landmark peace deal with Eritrea, but relations have soured again since the end of the Tigray conflict.

England squad: AJ Brimson, Joe Burgess, Daryl Clark, Herbie Farnworth, Tom Johnstone, Mikey Lewis, Harry Newman, Mikolaj Oledzi, George Williams (capt), Harry Smith, Mike McMeeken, Jez Litten, Matty Lees, Kai Pearce-Paul, Kallum Watkins, Morgan Knowles, Owen Trout, Alex Walmsley, Morgan Smithies.

Australia XIII: Reece Walsh, Mark Nawaqanitawase, Kotoni Staggs, Gehamat Shibasaki, Josh Addo-Carr, Cameron Munster, Nathan Cleary, Patrick Carrigan, Harry Grant, Tino Fa’asuamaleaui, Angus Crichton, Hudson Young, Isaah Yeo (captain).

Interchanges: Tom Dearden, Lindsay Collins, Reuben Cotter, Keaon Koloamatangi.

Reserves: Bradman Best, Lindsay Smith, Mitchell Moses.