official

Masanaga Kageyama was on a flight to Chile for the Under-20 World Cup when the crew raised the alarm.

A senior Japanese Football Association official has been sentenced to an 18-month suspended jail term in France for “viewing child pornography images” during a plane journey.

Masanaga Kageyama, the association’s technical director, was arrested during a stopover at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris on the way to Chile last week, according to Le Parisien newspaper.

It is believed he was heading to Chile for the Under-20 World Cup.

“The facts were discovered by the plane’s flight crew, who raised the alarm after noticing that the convicted man was viewing child pornography images on the plane,” the court prosecutor’s office in Bobigny, north of Paris, said on Tuesday.

The court sentenced the 58-year-old on Monday to a suspended jail term of 18 months and a fine of 5,000 euros ($5,830) for importing, possessing, recording or saving pornographic images of a minor below the age of 15.

His sentence includes a ban on working with minors for 10 years and a ban on returning to France for the period.

Kageyama will also be added to the French national sex offenders’ register.

Le Parisien reported that flight attendants caught him viewing the images on his laptop in the business class cabin of an Air France flight.

He claimed to be an artist and insisted the photos had been generated by artificial intelligence.

During his court appearance, the report said, Kageyama admitted viewing the images, saying he did not realise it was illegal in France and that he was ashamed.

He was held in police custody over the weekend until his court appearance on Monday. He was released after the hearing.

Kageyama is responsible for implementing measures to strengthen Japan’s football teams, including the national team, as well as educating coaches and nurturing youth players.

He was a professional J-League footballer himself and also coached several J-League clubs. He had also managed Japan’s under-20, under-19 and under-18 teams.

Oct. 7 (UPI) — Federal prosecutors have charged an alleged member of a Chicago-based gang of ordering a hit on a prominent border patrol leader, according to documents unsealed Monday.

The criminal complaint accuses Juan Espinoza Martinez of orchestrating a murder-for-hire scheme, alleging that he offered $10,000 in Snapchat messages to other members of the Latin Kings street gang to kill the unnamed official.

The Homeland Security Department later named that official as U.S. Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino, a formerly obscure regional agent who has risen to prominence amid President Donald Trump‘s aggressive efforts to deport undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles and Chicago.

Those efforts include Operation Midway Blitz, a crackdown in Chicago that has drawn protests and pushback from local officials. The charges against Martinez were filed as the Trump administration remains locked in legal battles with Democratic governors who object to his deployment of federal troops to cities.

The complaint is based on information provided to law enforcement by a confidential informant who described Martinez as a high-ranking member in the gang. After border patrol agents shot a woman on Saturday in the Brighton Park neighborhood of Chicago, Martinez ordered gang members to increase their presence in the area, the complaint states.

Screenshots included in the complaint show that Martinez offered $2,000 for information on Bovino or “10k if u take him down.”

“Placing a bounty on the head of a federal officer is an attack on the rule of law and on every American who depends on law enforcement to keep them safe,” Deputy Attorney General Robert Blanche said in a statement. “This case is exactly what we mean when we say Take Back America – taking back every neighborhood and street corner from violent thugs and criminal gangs and returning them to the law-abiding members of our communities.”

It’s not clear if Martinez has legal counsel and he has not made any public statements.

President Trump has tapped a career government attorney who worked behind the scenes for years to root out misconduct in federal law enforcement to serve as the Justice Department’s next internal watchdog.

The White House on Friday named Don R. Berthiaume to serve as the department’s acting inspector general, a high-profile position that oversees internal investigations into fraud, waste and abuse in the department and its component agencies, including the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons.

Berthiaume is taking the oversight role at a time the Justice Department is in tumult. Prosecutors, agents and other employees have endured waves of firings and resignations as part of the Republican administration’s purge of those suspected of being disloyal to the president. The department has also dropped several high-profile criminal cases, including the indictment of New York Mayor Eric Adams, and Trump pardoned more than 1,500 people charged and convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, the most sprawling investigation in the department’s history.

Concerns deepened last month that Trump has weaponized the Justice Department to pursue investigations of his perceived enemies following the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey.

Berthiaume’s appointment, which takes effect at the end of the month, comes amid Trump’s upending of the federal government, including his firing of more than a dozen IGs on his fourth full day in office. Several of those former watchdogs filed a federal lawsuit seeking reinstatement, saying their dismissals violated the law. That case is pending.

Berthiaume, 51, worked as an attorney in the Justice Department inspector general’s office for 10 years until 2020. Among his highest-profile assignments was detailing errors in the use of wiretaps in the federal investigation into alleged ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The last Senate-confirmed inspector general was Michael Horowitz, a former boss of Berthiaume and one of the few inspectors general who was not fired by Trump. In June, Horowitz was appointed to lead the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General.

Created by Congress in the wake of the Watergate scandal, inspectors general serve as the first line of defense within agencies to stop waste, fraud and abuses of power. Their findings often lead to policy changes. Their investigators can also spearhead criminal probes.

Though inspectors general are presidential appointees, some have served presidents of both major political parties. Federal law requires they be hired “without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability.”

“It’s a very important job, but Trump’s firings have created a threat environment the likes of which IGs have never seen before,” said former Justice Department inspector general Michael Bromwich, who served in the role from 1994 to 1999. “IGs need to be prepared to investigate credible allegations of waste, fraud, and misconduct. If they are too afraid to do so, IGs are no longer fulfilling their mission.”

Given the recent turmoil, Department of Justice employees could perceive the inspector general’s office as “hostile territory,” said Stacey Young, a former department attorney who founded Justice Connection, an organization supporting the agency’s employees.

“Responsible oversight of DOJ’s actions has never been more important,” Young said, “and I hope the next inspector general will exercise the independence and fortitude required to do it.”

The department’s inspector general handles some of the most explosive and politically sensitive inquiries in Washington.

In 2019, for example, Horowitz released a report faulting the FBI for surveillance warrant applications in Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation into whether Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign had coordinated with Russia to interfere in the election. The IG determined the investigation had been opened for a legitimate purpose and did not find evidence that partisan bias had guided investigative decisions.

Special counsel Robert Mueller determined that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election through hacking and a covert social media offensive and that the Trump campaign embraced the help and expected to benefit from it against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. But Mueller found no evidence that Trump’s campaign “conspired or coordinated” with Moscow to influence the election.

Berthiaume had a role in the inspector general’s review of Crossfire Hurricane and helped write a 2013 report on dysfunction and deep partisan divisions inside the Justice Department’s Civil Rights unit. His other work at the Office of Inspector General included exposing improper hiring of relatives and friends by senior leaders of the U.S. Marshals Service and probing a botched investigation into U.S. firearms traffickers suspected of selling grenades to Mexican cartels, according to his LinkedIn page.

Since 2023, Berthiaume has served as senior counsel to the inspector general at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where he oversees attorneys investigating housing fraud and runs the agency’s whistleblower protection program.

Before joining HUD, Berthiaume spent three years at the Drug Enforcement Administration, managing the narcotics agency’s relationship with the Justice Department. He began his legal career prosecuting bank and credit card fraud cases at the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

Goodman and Mustian write for the Associated Press. Goodman reported from Miami, Mustian from New York.

The Pentagon has published its first official set of images of USMC F-35Bs forward-deployed to the former Roosevelt Roads Naval Station in Puerto Rico. The jets, 10 in total, first arrived at the installation on September 13th, where they joined a growing mix of forces spread across the region that are taking part in the Trump administration’s counter-narcotics operations.

As more assets arrive in the Caribbean, it’s becoming more likely that U.S. military activities will evolve beyond maritime drug interdiction operations, with the possibility of direct actions inland on cartels becoming a real possibility. In particular, the Trump administration has its eye on Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro and the affiliated Tren de Aragua drug gang.

The F-35 images were taken on September 13th, the day of the jets’ arrival in Puerto Rico, after making the long haul from Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma in Arizona, but were just posted today. As we noted in our original report on their arrival, the unit markings have been stripped on the jets, but the captions of the photos state the aircraft belong to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 225 (VMFA-225), which seems strange if operational security was a major consideration in removing their tail codes and unit markings.

A number of the pictures notably show lightning rods positioned around the jets. This has been a feature of F-35 deployments away from home bases for years now, and has been driven by safety issues tied to the aircraft’s fuel system, as you can read more about here. The F-35 Joint Program Office and manufacturer Lockheed Martin have worked to mitigate those concerns in the past, but clearly lightning strike protection remains an important part of the ground support package for the jets.

The F-35s have already been active on patrols, including those off the coast of Venezuela, according to claims made by open-source flight trackers. Venezuela’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López claimed today that the country’s armed forces had tracked some of the jets flying off the coast in the Maiquetía Flight Information Region (FIR).

TEHRAN, Iran — The United States will deport hundreds of Iranians back to Iran in the coming weeks, with the first 120 deportees being prepared for a flight in the next day or two, Iran said Tuesday.

The deportation of Iranians, not yet publicly acknowledged by the U.S. government, comes as tensions remain high between the two countries following the American bombings of Iranian nuclear sites in June.

Meanwhile, the United Nations reimposed sanctions on Iran this past week over its nuclear program, putting new pressure on the Islamic Republic’s ailing economy.

The deportations also represent a collision of a top priority of President Trump — targeting illegal immigration — against a decadeslong practice by the U.S. of welcoming Iranian dissidents, exiles and others since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

As many as 400 Iranians would be returning to Iran as part of the deal with the U.S., Iranian state television said, citing Hossein Noushabadi, director-general for parliamentary affairs at Iran’s Foreign Ministry. He said the majority of those people had crossed into the U.S. from Mexico illegally, while some faced other immigration issues.

Noushabadi said the first planeload of Iranians would arrive in a day or two, after stopping over in Qatar on the way. Authorities in Qatar have not confirmed that.

The U.S. State Department referred questions to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond. The New York Times first reported the deportations.

In the lead up to and after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, a large number of Iranians fled to the U.S. In the decades since, the U.S. had been sensitive in allowing those fleeing from Iran over religious, sexual or political persecution to seek residency.

In the 2024 fiscal year, for instance, the U.S. deported only 20 Iranians, according to statistics from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Iran has criticized Washington for hosting dissidents and others in the past. U.S. federal prosecutors have accused Iran of hiring hitmen to target dissidents as well in America.

It’s unclear exactly what has changed now in American policy. However, since returning to the White House, Trump has cracked down on those living in the U.S. illegally.

Noushabadi said that American authorities unilaterally made the decision without consultations with Iran.

But The New York Times said Tuesday, citing anonymous Iranian officials, that the deportations were “the culmination of months of discussions between the two countries.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, as well as President Masoud Pezeshkian, both attended the U.N. General Assembly in New York last week as a last-ditch effort to stop the reimposed sanctions. However, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei boxed in their efforts by describing diplomacy with the U.S. as a “sheer dead end.”

Speaking to state TV in footage aired Tuesday, Araghchi acknowledged that direct communication from Iran went to the U.S. government during the U.N. visit — something he had been careful not to highlight during five rounds of nuclear negotiations with the Americans earlier this year.

“With Americans, both directly and indirectly, messages were exchanged, and eventually, we are relieved that we did whatever it was necessary,” Araghchi said. “It was clear and evident to us after the interpretation the Supreme Leader made that negotiations with Americans is an obvious dead-end.”

Vahdat writes for the Associated Press.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court rendered obsolete the 4th Amendment’s prohibition on suspicionless seizures by the police. When the court stayed the district court’s decision in Noem vs. Vasquez Perdomo, it green-lighted an era of policing in which people can be stopped and seized for little more than how they look, the job they work or the language they speak.

Because the decision was issued on the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket,” the justices’ reasoning is unknown. All we have is Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s solo concurrence defending law enforcement’s use of race and ethnicity as a factor in deciding whom to police, while at the same time playing down the risk that comes with every stop — prolonged detention, wanton violence, wrongful deportation and sometimes even death. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her impassioned dissent (joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson): “We should not live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.” But now, we do.

The practical effect of this decision is enormous. It strips away what little remained of the guardrails that prevented police (including agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement) from indiscriminately seizing anyone with only a flimsy pretext.

Now there is no real limit on police seizures. History teaches us that people of color will bear the brunt of this policing regime, including the millions of immigrants who are already subject to police roundups, sweeps and raids.

This decision is no surprise for those of us who study the 4th Amendment. The police have long needed very little to justify a stop, and racial profiling is not new. Yet prior to the Vasquez Perdomo order in most instances, police had to at least articulate a non-race-based reason to stop someone — even if as minor as driving with a broken taillight, not stopping at a stop sign long enough, or walking away from the police too quickly.

Now, police no longer need race-neutral person-specific suspicion (pretextual or real) to seize someone. Appearing “Latino” — itself an indeterminate descriptor because it is an ethnicity, not defined by shared physical traits — along with speaking Spanish and appearing to work a low-wage job is enough, even if you have done nothing to raise suspicion.

Some might believe that if you have nothing to hide there is no reason to fear a police stop — that if you just show police your papers or offer an explanation you can go on your way. Even if that were the case, this sort of oppressive militarized police state — where anyone can be stopped for any reason — is exactly what the 4th Amendment rejected and was meant to prevent.

Moreover, ICE agents and police are not in the business of carefully examining documents (assuming people have the right ones on them) or listening to explanations. They stop, seize and detain — citizens and noncitizens alike. If lucky, some people are released, but many are not — including citizens suspected of being in the country illegally, or individuals whose only alleged crimes are often minor (and the product of poverty) or living peacefully (often for years) in the United States without legal status. And as evidenced by plaintiffs in this case, even if eventually released, a single stop can mean harassment, violence, detention or a life permanently upended.

Even if the 4th Amendment doesn’t prevent them, can’t race-based discrimination and police violence often be addressed through civil rights lawsuits? U.S. Code Section 1983 allows individuals to sue officials who violate their rights. But the reality plays out differently. In a recent decision, this Supreme Court dramatically limited class-action lawsuits, the primary vehicle that would allow widespread relief. The court has created a world in which law enforcement can largely act with impunity under the doctrine of qualified immunity. And there is likely no recourse if a federal official such as an ICE agent violates one’s constitutional rights, as the Supreme Court has sharply limited the ability to sue federal officials for money damages even if they commit a clear constitutional wrong.

The recent decision virtually declaring that the 4th Amendment allows police to engage in express racial profiling may not be the final word on the matter. We hope it isn’t. But longstanding court doctrine had already allowed racial profiling to flourish under the guise of seemingly neutral language of “reasonable suspicion” and “consent.” By allowing a further erosion of the limits on seizures, the Court entrenches a system in which the scope of one’s constitutional rights depends upon the color of one’s skin. If the 4th Amendment is to retain meaning, it must be interpreted to constrain — not enable — the racialized policing practices that have become routine in America.

Daniel Harawa and Kate Weisburd are law professors at NYU Law School and UC Law San Francisco, respectively.

DES MOINES — Officials put the leader of Iowa’s largest school district on administrative leave Saturday, a day after federal immigration agents arrested him because they said he was in the country illegally.

The Des Moines school board voted unanimously to place Supt. Ian Roberts on paid leave. The board said during a three-minute meeting that Roberts was not available to carry out his duties for the 30,000-student district and that officials would reassess his status after getting more information.

After the meeting, school board President Jackie Norris read a statement saying that word of Roberts’ arrest Friday made for a “jarring day,” but noting that board members still didn’t have all the facts.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said agents detained Roberts because he was in the country illegally, didn’t have authorization to work and was subject to a final removal order issued in 2024. ICE agents stopped Roberts while he was driving a school-issued vehicle, and the agency said he then fled into a wooded area before being apprehended with help from Iowa State Patrol officers.

He was held in the Woodbury County Jail in Sioux City, in northwest Iowa, about 150 miles from Des Moines.

“I want to be clear, no one here was aware of any citizenship or immigration issues that Dr. Roberts may have been facing,” Norris said. “The accusations ICE had made against Dr. Roberts are very serious, and we are taking them very seriously.”

Norris said Roberts has retained a Des Moines law firm to represent him. Lawyer Alfredo Parrish confirmed his firm was representing Roberts, but declined to comment on his case.

Norris also repeated that the district had done a background check on Roberts before he was hired that didn’t indicate any problems and that he signed a form affirming he was a U.S. citizen. A company that aided in the search for a superintendent in 2023 also hired another firm to conduct “comprehensive criminal, credit and background checks” on Roberts that didn’t indicate any citizenship problems, Norris said.

Also Saturday, the Iowa Department of Education released a statement saying Roberts stated he was a U.S. citizen when he applied for an administrator license. The department said the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners conducted a criminal history check with state and federal authorities before issuing a license.

The department said it is reviewing the Des Moines district’s hiring procedures for ensuring people are authorized to work in the U.S.

Roberts had previously said he was born to immigrant parents from Guyana and spent much of his childhood in Brooklyn, N.Y. He competed in the 2000 Olympics in track and field for Guyana.

ICE said he entered the U.S. on a student visa in 1999.

A former senior Guyanese police official on Saturday remembered Roberts as a middle-distance runner who could have risen through the ranks of the South American country’s police force had he not emigrated to the U.S. decades ago. Retired Assistant Guyana Police Force Commissioner Paul Slowe said Roberts entered the police force after graduating from the country’s standard military officers’ course.

“He served for a few years and then left. He was not dismissed or dishonorably discharged at all; he just moved on,” Slowe told the Associated Press. “He was a good, promising and disciplined man.”

McFetridge writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Bert Wilkinson in Georgetown, Guyana, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday it will decide on reversing a 90-year precedent that has protected independent agencies from direct control by the president.

The court’s conservative majority has already upheld President Trump’s firing of Democratic appointees at the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. And in a separate order on Monday, it upheld Trump’s removal of a Democratic appointee at the Federal Trade Commission.

Those orders signal the court is likely to rule for the president and that he has the full authority to fire officials at independent agencies, if Congress said they had fixed terms.

The only hint of doubt has focused on the Federal Reserve Board. In May, when the court upheld the firing of an NLRB official, it said it decision does not threaten the independence of Federal Reserve.

The court described it as “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.” Trump did not share that view. He threatened to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell during the summer because he had not lowered interest rates.

And he is now seeking to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a Biden appointee, based on the allegation she may have committed mortgage fraud when she took out two home loans in 2021.

Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court last week seeking to have Cook removed now.

Long before Trump’s presidency, Chief Justice John G. Roberts had argued that the president has the constitutional power to control federal agencies and to hire or fire all officials who exercise significant executive authority.

But that view stands in conflict with what the court has said for more than a century. Since 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates, lawmakers on Capitol Hill believed they had the authority to create independent boards and commissions.

Typically, the president would be authorized appoint officials who would serve a fixed term set by law. At times, Congress also required the boards have a mix of both Republican and Democratic appointees.

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld that understanding in a 1935 case called Humphrey’s Executor. The justices said then these officials made judicial-type decisions, and they should be shielded from direct control by the president.

That decision was a defeat for President Franklin Roosevelt who tried to fire a Republican appointee on the Federal Trade Commission.

In recent years, the chief justice and his conservative colleagues have questioned the idea that Congress can shield officials from direct control by the president.

In Monday’s order, the court said it will hear arguments in December on “whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.”

Justice Elena Kagan has repeatedly dissented in these cases and argued that Congress has the power to make the law and structure the government, not the president.

Joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she objected on Monday that the court has continued to fire independent officials at Trump’s request.

“Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,” she wrote. “Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.”

PEP GUARDIOLA bizarrely KISSED fourth official Craig Pawson during Manchester City’s game with Arsenal.

City were leading 1-0 thanks to Erling Haaland’s ninth-minute opener at the Emirates.

1

And Guardiola’s men looked to be heading for the three points as the game entered the final stages.

Maybe City’s legendary manager was feeling too jubilant too early as he grabbed Pawson by the cheek and tried to give him a smooch on the cheek.

Pawson managed to just about swerve the peck but fans were still left absolutely baffled by Guardiola’s moment of madness.

One said: “Have I just seen Pep kiss the ref??”

Another added: “WHAT’S BLUD DOING!”

One asked: “Pep trying to kiss ref??”

Another said: “Did Guardiola just kiss the fourth official?”

Ironically, it was City who kissed their lead goodbye after Gabriel Martinelli levelled the game in injury time.

MORE TO FOLLOW

WASHINGTON — Early in his first term, President Trump held a modest ceremony directing NASA to return humans to the moon for the first time in 50 years. It was a goalpost set without a road map. Veterans of the space community reflected on the 2017 document, conspicuously silent on budgets and timelines, equivocating between excitement and concern.

Was Trump setting up a giveaway to special interests in the aerospace community? Or was he setting forth a real strategic vision for the coming decade, to secure American leadership in the heavens?

• Share via Close extra sharing options

It was a return to a plan first proposed by President George W. Bush in 2004, then abandoned by President Obama in 2010, asserting the moon as a vital part of American ambitions in space. Whether to return to the lunar surface at all — or skip it to focus on Mars — was a long-standing debate governing the division of resources at NASA, where every project is precious, holding extraordinary promise for the knowledge of mankind, yet requiring consistent, high-dollar funding commitments from a capricious Congress.

Eight years on, the debate is over. Trump’s policy shift has blazed a new American trail in space — and spawned an urgent race with China that is fast approaching the finish line.

Both nations are in a sprint toward manned missions to the lunar surface by the end of this decade, with sights on 2029 as a common deadline — marking the end of Trump’s presidency and, in China, the 80th anniversary of the People’s Republic.

A “What Will 2030 Look Like?” sign behind Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who chairs the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, during a confirmation hearing in April.

(Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

It is a far different race from the original, against the Soviet Union, when U.S. astronauts inspired the world with a televised landing in 1969. This time, Washington would not just plant a flag and return its astronauts home. Instead, the Americans plan to stay, establishing a lunar base that would test humanity’s ability to live beyond Earth.

China has similar plans. And with both countries aiming for the same strategic area of the surface — the south pole of the moon, where peaks of eternal light shine alongside crevices of permanent darkness, believed to store frozen water — the stakes of the race are grounded in national security. Whichever nation establishes a presence there first could lay claim to the region for themselves.

The world’s first full-scale model of the crewed pressurized lunar rover, to be used in the Artemis moon exploration program, is displayed during a press preview in July.

(Kazuhiro Nogi/AFP via Getty Images)

Advocates of the U.S. effort, called the Artemis program, increasingly fear that delays at NASA and its private sector partners, coupled with proposed funding cuts to NASA from the Trump administration, could ensure China’s victory in a race with broad consequences for U.S. interests.

So it is a race that Trump started. The question is whether he can finish it.

While U.S. intelligence officials have assessed that Beijing is on track to meet its goals, NASA veterans say that accomplishing a manned mission before the Chinese appears increasingly out of reach.

“It’s a stretch,” said G. Scott Hubbard, a leader in human space exploration for the last half-century who served as NASA’s first “Mars czar” and former director of the Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif. “Bottom line, yes, it is doable. It’ll take an intense effort by the best engineers, and appropriate funding.

“It’s not inconceivable,” he added.

Visitors take photos of a space suit during an event marking China’s Space Day at the Harbin Institute of Technology in Harbin, capital of northeast China’s Heilongjiang province.

(Wang Jianwei/Xinhua via Getty Images)

The White House said Trump is committed to making “American leadership in space great again,” noting his first-term push to return U.S. astronauts to the moon and his efforts to deregulate the U.S. space industry. But officials declined to comment on a timeline for the mission or on China’s steady progress.

“Being first and beating China to the moon matters because it sets the rules of the road,” Sean Duffy, Transportation secretary and acting NASA administrator, told The Times. “We’re committed to doing this right — safely, peacefully, and ahead of strategic competitors — because American leadership on the moon secures our future in space.”

The success of the Artemis program, Duffy said, is about ensuring the United States leads in space for generations to come. “Those who lead in space lead on Earth,” he added.

NASA officials, granted anonymity to speak candidly, expressed concern that while leadership on the Artemis program has remained relatively stable, talent on robotics and in other key areas has left the agency at a critical time in the race, with potentially less than two years to go before China launches its first robotic mission to the south pole — a scout, of sorts, for a manned landing to follow.

A proposal to cut NASA research funding by roughly 47% has gripped officials there with doubt, jeopardizing a sense of job security at the agency and destabilizing a talent pipeline that could prove critical to success.

In the 1960s, the federal government increased spending on NASA to 4.4% of GDP to secure victory in the first space race.

“There’s too much uncertainty,” one NASA official said, raising the specter of the Trump administration impounding funds for the agency even if Congress continues to fund it.

Inside NASA headquarters, Hubbard said, “the feeling right now is terrified uncertainty — everyone is walking on eggshells.”

“They’re treading water,” he added. “People want to be given clear direction, and they’re not getting it.”

A Chinese Smart Dragon-3 rocket carrying satellites lifts off from sea on Sept. 9.

(VCG/VCG via Getty Images)

China’s long march gets closer

Beijing conducted a series of tests over the last several weeks viewed in Washington as crucial milestones for China on its journey to the moon.

A launch of its Lanyue lander, equipped to carry two taikonauts to the lunar surface, “validated” its landing and takeoff system, state media reported. Two subsequent tests of China’s Long March 10, a super-heavy lift rocket designed to jump-start the mission, were a “complete success,” according to the China Manned Space Agency.

Unlike in the United States, China’s manned space flight program is housed within its military.

“We have seen them steadily progress on all of the various pieces that they are going to need,” said Dean Cheng, senior advisor to the China program at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

“You need a vehicle to launch, because current rockets simply don’t have enough throw-weight. They’re testing the lander to carry astronauts to the surface,” Cheng said. “These are key pieces, and significant advances — this is a brand new rocket and a lunar lander with new technology.”

China initially set a goal for its manned mission by 2035, but has since moved up its plans, an expression of confidence from Beijing and an unusual break from typical party protocol. Now, China aims not only to have completed that mission, but to begin establishing an International Lunar Research Station on its surface, in conjunction with Russia, by 2030.

They are expected to target the south pole.

“There’s room for two powers under schemes of coordination, but there’s not room in an uncoordinated environment. There can easily be a competition for resources,” said Thomas González Roberts, an assistant professor of international affairs and aerospace engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Landing and takeoff of spacecraft on the moon will kick up lunar dust and rocks, risking the safety of astronauts on the ground and sensitive equipment across a base site — considerations that are likely driving Beijing’s strategy to get there first. Those enjoying the benefits of first arrival could set up generous routes for rovers, equipment at dig sites for deposits, telecommunication assets, and even a nuclear reactor to assert a large area of domain.

Since his first term, Trump and his aides have sought to avoid a showdown on the lunar surface, drafting a new set of international rules to govern an otherwise untamed frontier. The Artemis Accords “set out a practical set of principles to guide space exploration,” according to the State Department. President Biden embraced and extended the initiative, growing the list of signatories to 56 nations.

But China is not one of them, prohibited by Congress during the Obama era from cooperating with the United States in space after attempting to steal U.S. technology on intercontinental ballistic missiles and thermonuclear weapons. Instead, Beijing has recruited a small list of countries to join its lunar base program, including Russia, Venezuela, Pakistan, Egypt, Nicaragua, Belarus and South Africa.

“I don’t think there will be extreme congestion on the moon, but if you really define an area of interest — and there is that, with these peaks of eternal light next to permanently shadowed regions — you could manufacture congestion,” Roberts added.

“How do you benefit from obfuscation?” he asked. “If you’re the first arrival, you spread yourself out.”

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket lifts off from launch pad 40 at Cape Canaveral, carrying Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus XL cargo spacecraft toward the International Space Station.

(Manuel Mazzanti/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The promise and burden of Musk’s Starship

Last month, Duffy warned NASA staff that the Trump administration suspects Beijing is planning to deliver a nuclear reactor to power a long-term presence at its lunar base by 2029.

The move, Duffy said, could allow China to “declare a keep-out zone, which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first.” He ordered the agency to collect proposals by October on delivering a U.S. reactor to the surface no later than that year.

The administration’s success relies on a man whose relationship with Trump has crashed spectacularly to Earth.

Starship, a super heavy-lift launch vehicle produced by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, is the rocket Trump is relying on to accomplish the Artemis mission. Yet repeated setbacks in the Starship program have raised alarm at NASA over its fundamental constitution. A concerning series of tests have already delayed the U.S. manned launch, known as Artemis III, toward the end of Trump’s term.

Last month, in its 10th test flight, the rocket finally succeeded in a suborbital mission. But “Starship has yet to reach orbit,” Hubbard said, “and once it reaches orbit, they’ve got to demonstrate microgravity transfer of cryogenic propellant.”

“That’s something that’s never been done before,” he added. “So to say that they’ll be ready to do all of that in two years is a real stretch.”

Setbacks are common course in the history of the U.S. space program. But the success of China’s recent tests has shown the Trump administration that NASA and its partners have run out of time for further delays.

Duffy said that Artemis II, a manned mission to orbit the moon, will take place early next year, overcoming a separate set of design flaws that faced Lockheed Martin’s Orion spacecraft. Artemis III would keep astronauts on the surface for more than a week and deliver payloads to help begin the foundation of a base.

Whether the Trump administration will commit to the funding and leadership necessary for the mission is an open question. The White House declined to say who within the West Wing is leading the effort. Trump has not named a permanent NASA administrator for Senate confirmation.

Success on the moon is meant to provide a testing ground and a launching pad for more ambitious, challenging manned missions to Mars. But Trump’s commitment to those ventures are equally in doubt. The administration has proposed canceling funds for a landmark program decades in the making to return samples from the red planet, despite a NASA announcement last week revealed it had discovered signs of ancient Martian life.

“I’ve been on the inside of it — you waste enormous amounts of time just trying to find workarounds to get funding in to stay on schedule,” Hubbard said. “If you really, really want to beat the Chinese, give NASA the funding and some stability — because you’re not going to beat them if every day, week or month, there’s a different direction, a different budget, a different administrator.

“And China may still win,” he said, adding: “It would be another claim that they’re the dominant power in the world.”

Hamas official Ghazi Hamad was at the location Israel attacked in Qatar last week, describing it as ‘intense’.

A senior Hamas official has spoken for the first time since last week’s Israeli attack on the group’s leadership in the Qatari capital Doha, describing the moment of the attack and how the officials managed to barely escape.

“We were in a meeting, the negotiating delegation and some advisers. Less than an hour after we began reviewing the American proposal that we received from the Qatari mediators, we heard loud explosions,” Ghazi Hamad told Al Jazeera Arabic on Wednesday.

“We immediately left the scene, because we knew from the start that the explosions were Israeli shelling. We’ve lived in Gaza and experienced Israeli shelling before,” Hamad added.

Israel killed five Hamas members and a Qatari security official while trying to assassinate senior Hamas leaders. Those targeted were involved in negotiating a ceasefire and captives proposal put forward by United States President Donald Trump.

“The shelling was so intense, the situation was terrifying, and the rockets continued unabated. There were about 12 rockets in less than a minute, but by God’s decree … we survived this aggression.”

Hamas said its senior leaders survived the bombardment, which Trump said he was “very unhappy” about. On Monday, he reiterated his claim that Israel would refrain from launching further attacks on Qatar.

In response to the Israeli attack – its first on Qatar – leaders of Arab and Islamic nations convened in Doha for an emergency summit, denouncing what they called Israel’s “cowardly” strike.

However, the gathering concluded without pledges of tangible measures.

Hamad told Al Jazeera that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to change the Middle East needed an Arab response.

He also added that Hamas had a “bitter” experience during the ceasefire negotiations, and that the US did not have credibility as an honest broker.

“He [Trump] doesn’t scare us,” said Hamad, commenting on threats from Trump concerning the treatment of Israeli captives held in Gaza. Hamad added that the captives were treated “according to our values” and were only being put in danger as a result of Israel’s actions.

Israeli forces have killed more than 65,000 people since October 2023, including some 19,000 children, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.

On Tuesday, a United Nations inquiry announced that Israel’s war on Gaza is a genocide, a finding several major human rights groups have also reached, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

In 2023, South Africa brought a case before the International Court of Justice, arguing that Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip amounted to genocide. The proceedings are ongoing.

In the queer enclave of West Hollywood, some residents were furious at the sight of a Pride flag and a transgender flag lowered to half-staff to mourn Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

In the city of Los Angeles, an internal Fire Department memo saying flags should stay raised sparked conservative anger at Mayor Karen Bass.

And in Huntington Beach, where MAGA politics are warmly received, officials pledged to honor Kirk’s memory by keeping flags lowered for an additional week past the mourning period set by President Trump.

The controversial right-wing commentator’s slaying last Wednesday ruptured cultural fault lines across the country, exacerbating fears of political violence, triggering campaigns to punish those who responded crudely and prompting the president to escalate attacks on his foes.

Amid the national maelstrom, Trump’s unusual decision to order flags lowered to half-staff at public buildings to memorialize a private citizen has been a flash point at the municipal level.

The fallout has exacerbated tensions in major cities and small towns, including in Southern California, as local officials chose whether to comply — and found wrath on either end of the decision.

Kirk, 31, founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA and a close Trump ally, was an incendiary figure. In life, he was lionized by the far right and castigated by many others for anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-Black remarks, among other offensive rhetoric. He galvanized a generation of young Americans to turn toward the GOP, with even critics acknowledging his organizing skills and impact.

It’s not unprecedented for a president to order flags lowered to half-staff for a civilian, according to James Ferrigan, a flag expert who previously served as protocol officer at the North American Vexillological Assn.

Trump called for flags to be lowered in August after two children were shot to death at a Minneapolis Catholic school, but not after Democratic Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed in June.

Two days after Kirk’s death, a screenshot of an internal Los Angeles Fire Department memo that said city flags should remain raised “unless directed by the mayor” began to go viral on social media. Many lambasted Bass for not ordering the flags lowered, with some accusing her of defying the president.

Fire Department spokesperson Margaret Stewart said the department follows city flag directives and had not been instructed to lower its flags. The internal memo was not sent at the request of the mayor or anyone in her office, according to someone with knowledge of the situation who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Bass spokesperson Zach Seidl declined to comment on the memo but noted that during Bass’ tenure, flags have been lowered to mourn the deaths of elected officials and first responders.

Ferrigan said that a local official’s choice not to lower flags after a president’s executive directive might be seen as somewhat ill-mannered but wouldn’t be breaking any rules.

“Is it a breach of protocol? Probably not,” Ferrigan explained. “Is it a breach of etiquette? Well, maybe.”

Fox 11, which first published the Fire Department memo, reported that several firehouses lowered their flags to half-staff anyway.

In fiercely progressive West Hollywood, a local news outlet posted an Instagram video of the city’s rainbow Pride flag and a blue-white-and-pink transgender flag lowered to half-staff, blowing in a light breeze.

Thousands of people commented, with most irate or confused that the city was memorializing one of the nation’s most prominent anti-transgender voices — especially with the Pride and transgender flags. Some asked whether it was meant as satire. The flag was located in Matthew Shepard Square, which honors a gay teen who was viciously slain in 1998.

Weho Times, the local outlet in question, reported that a sign was placed Sunday in the square reading: “Shame on West Hollywood for lowering our flags in honor of a racist, transphobic, homophobic, Nazi-loving monster.”

“In particular, there has been significant outrage regarding the lowering of the LGBTQ+ flags, which are prominently flown in our city as a symbol of pride, inclusion, and community identity,” West Hollywood City Manager David Wilson said during Monday’s City Council meeting, according to written comments provided by the city.

The decision to lower the flags “should not be interpreted as an expression of alignment with, or endorsement of, Mr. Kirk’s political views or actions,” Wilson said, adding that city protocol has long been to follow presidential flag lowering directives.

But, he continued, the city’s flag policy will be taken up at a council meeting next month, and potentially reconsidered.

Ferrigan, the flag expert, wasn’t entirely surprised by the battles flaring up in municipalities across the American map.

“Remember, this might be a little $10 worth of cloth,” he said. “But these are bits of cloth that people will kill for or die for.”

WASHINGTON — After a late-night vote and last-minute ruling, the Federal Reserve began a key meeting on interest rate policy Tuesday with both a new Trump administration appointee and an official the White House has targeted for removal.

Stephen Miran, a top White House economist who was confirmed by the Senate with unusual speed late Monday, was sworn in Tuesday as a member of the Fed’s board of governors. He will vote on the Fed’s interest rate decision on Wednesday, when the central bank is expected to reduce its key rate by a quarter-point. Miran may dissent in favor of a larger cut.

Also attending the meeting is Fed governor Lisa Cook, whom the Trump administration has sought to fire in an unprecedented attempt to reshape the Fed, which historically is considered independent of day-to-day politics. An appeals court late Monday upheld an earlier ruling that the firing violated Cook’s due process rights. A lower court had earlier also ruled that President Trump did not provide sufficient “cause” to remove Cook.

With both officials in place, the Fed’s two-day meeting could be unusually contentious for an institution that typically prefers to operate by consensus. It’s possible that as many as three of the seven governors could dissent from a decision to reduce rates by just a quarter-point in favor of a half-point. That would be the first time since 1988 that three governors have dissented. Economists also say that one of the five regional Fed bank presidents who also vote on rates could dissent in favor of keeping rates unchanged.

On Tuesday, the White House said it would appeal Cook’s case to the Supreme Court, though did not specify when.

“The President lawfully removed Lisa Cook for cause,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said. “The Administration will appeal this decision and looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

The reported visit follows one in March 2025 which led to the release of a US citizen held for more than two years in Afghanistan.

United States officials have agreed to a prisoner exchange after a rare talk with the authorities in Kabul, according to the Taliban administration’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Adam Boehler, the Trump administration’s special envoy for hostage response, and Zalmay Khalilzad, a former US special envoy for Afghanistan, met with the Taliban’s Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi.

“Adam Boehler, referring to the issue of detained citizens between Afghanistan and the United States, said that both countries will exchange prisoners,” deputy prime minister Abdul Ghani Baradar’s office said after their meeting.

There was no immediate statement from Washington regarding the meeting, and Khalilzad did not immediately respond to a phone call from Reuters when asked for comment.

Mahmood Habibi, a naturalised US citizen and businessman who previously worked for a telecommunications company in Kabul, is the highest-profile American detainee, according to Washington. The US is offering a $5 million reward for information to find him, with the Taliban authorities denying any involvement in his 2022 disappearance.

The Taliban has reportedly pressed for the release of Muhammad Rahim, the last Afghan national held at Guantanamo Bay, who has been detained without charge since 2008.

Another American, airline mechanic George Glezmann, was freed after more than two years in detention during a March visit to Kabul by Boehler.

That deal, mediated by Qatar, was described by the Taliban as a “humanitarian” gesture and a “sign of goodwill”.

Before that, in January 2025, the two sides carried out a prisoner exchange in which US citizens Ryan Corbett and William Wallace McKenty were released in exchange for Khan Mohammad, an Afghan national serving two life sentences in the US.

Both sides also agreed to continue discussions regarding nationals imprisoned in each other’s countries, the statement added.

The Taliban administration, which took power in 2021 after 20 years of US military intervention in Afghanistan, is not recognised by Washington.

OMAHA — No formal agreement has been signed to convert a remote state prison in Nebraska into the latest immigration detention center for President Trump’s sweeping crackdown, more than three weeks since the governor announced the plan and as lawmakers and nearby residents grow increasingly skeptical.

Corrections officials insist the facility could start housing hundreds of male detainees next month, with classrooms and other spaces at the McCook Work Ethic Camp retrofitted for beds. However, lawmakers briefed last week by state officials said they got few concrete answers about cost, staffing and oversight.

“There was more unanswered questions than answered questions in terms of what they know,” state Sen. Wendy DeBoer said.

Officials in the city of McCook were caught off guard in mid-August when Republican Gov. Jim Pillen announced that the minimum-security prison in rural southwest Nebraska would serve as a Midwest hub for immigration detainees. Pillen and federal officials dubbed it the “Cornhusker Clink,” in line with other alliterative detention center names such as “ Alligator Alcatraz ” in Florida and the “Speedway Slammer ” in Indiana.

“City leaders were given absolutely no choice in the matter,” said Mike O’Dell, publisher of the local newspaper, the McCook Gazette.

McCook is the seat of Red Willow County, where voters favored Trump in the 2024 election by nearly 80%. Most of them likely support the president’s immigration crackdown, O’Dell said. However, the city of around 7,000 has also grown accustomed to the camp’s low-level offenders working on roads, in parks, county and city offices and even local schools.

“People here have gotten to know them in many cases,” O’Dell said. “I think there is a feeling here that people want to know where these folks are going to end up and that they’ll be OK.”

The Work Ethic Camp first opened in 2001 and currently houses around 155 inmates who participate in education, treatment and work programs to help them transition to life outside prison. State leaders often praise it as a success story for reducing prisoner recidivism.

Some lawmakers have complained that Pillen acted rashly in offering up the facility, noting that the state’s prison system is already one of the nation’s most overcrowded and perpetually understaffed. The governor’s office and state prison officials met with members of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee last week to answer questions about the transfer.

What the lawmakers got, several said, were estimates and speculation.

Lawmakers were told it was the governor’s office that approached federal officials with the offer after Trump “made a generalized, widespread call that we need more room or something for detainees,” said DeBoer, a Democrat in the officially nonpartisan Legislature.

Lawmakers were also told the facility — which was designed to house around 100 but is currently outfitted to hold twice that — would house between 200 and 300 detainees. The prison’s current staff of 97 is to be retrained and stay on.

The costs of the transition would be borne by the state, with the expectation that the federal government would reimburse that cost, DeBoer recalled.

A formal agreement between the state and federal agency had yet to be signed by Friday.

Asked how much the state is anticipated to spend on the conversion, the agency said “that number has not yet been determined,” but that any state expenditures would be reimbursed. The state plans to hire additional staffers for the center, the agency said.

A letter signed by 13 lawmakers called into question whether Pillen had the authority to unilaterally transfer use of a state prison to federal authorities without legislative approval.

To that end, state Sen. Terrell McKinney — chairman of the Legislature’s Urban Affairs Committee and a vocal critic of Nebraska’s overcrowded prison system — convened a public hearing Friday to seek answers from Pillen’s office and state corrections officials, citing concerns over building code violations that fall under the committee’s purview.

“How can you take a facility that was built for 125 people and take that to a capacity of 200 to 300 people without creating, you know, a security risk?” McKinney asked.

Pillen maintains state law gives him the authority to make the move, saying the Department of Correctional Services falls under the umbrella of the executive branch. He and state prison officials declined to show up at Friday’s hearing.

But dozens of Nebraska residents did attend, with most of them opposed the new ICE detention center.

Beck writes for the Associated Press.

When a door slammed shut in the childhood home of Andry Hernández Romero, he wasn’t just startled. He winced, recoiling from the noise.

Nearly a month had passed since Hernández Romero, a 32-year-old makeup artist, and 251 other Venezuelans were released from a notorious Salvadoran mega-prison.

In a Zoom interview in August from Venezuela, Hernández Romero listed the ways in which the trauma of the ordeal still manifests itself.

“When doors are slammed — did you notice [my reaction] when the door made noise just now?” he said. “I can’t stand keys. Being touched when I’m asleep. If I see an officer with cuffs in their hand, I get scared and nervous.”

Trump administration officials accused the Venezuelan men of being members of the transnational gang Tren de Aragua and a national security threat, though many, including Hernández Romero, had no criminal histories in the U.S. or Venezuela.

While he was confined, with no access to his attorneys or the news, Hernández Romero had no idea he had become a poster child for the movement to free the prisoners.

“Before I was Andry the makeup artist, Andry the stylist, Andry the designer,” he said. “I was somewhat recognized, but not as directly. Right now, if you type my name into Google, TikTok, YouTube — any platform — my entire life shows up.”

Days after he was sent to El Salvador on March 15, CBS News published a leaked deportation manifest with his name on it. His lawyer Lindsay Toczylowski, who co-founded the Los Angeles-based Immigrant Defenders Law Center, denounced his removal on “The Rachel Maddow Show” and a “60 Minutes” expose.

In the “60 Minutes” episode, Time photojournalist Philip Holsinger recounted hearing a man at the prison cry for his mother, saying, “I’m not a gang member. I’m gay. I’m a stylist,” while prison guards slapped him and shaved his head.

Outrage grew. On social media, users declared him disappeared, asking, “Is Andry Hernández Romero alive?”

Activists made signs and banners demanding the federal government “FREE ANDRY.” During Pride Month, the Human Rights Campaign held a rally about him in Washington, D.C. The New Queens Pride Parade in New York named him honorary grand marshal.

Congressional Democrats traveled to El Salvador to push for information about the detainees and came back empty-handed.

“Let’s get real for a moment,” Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) said in an April 9 video on X. The video cut to a glamour shot of Hernández Romero peering from behind three smoldering makeup brushes.

“When was the last time you saw a gay makeup artist in a transnational gang?” Torres said.

Hernández Romero walks through a market in his hometown of Capacho Nuevo.

Hernández Romero shows the crown tattoos that U.S. authorities claimed linked him to the Tren de Aragua gang.

Hernández Romero fled Venezuela after facing persecution for his sexuality and political views, according to his lawyers.

He entered the U.S. legally at the San Ysidro Port of Entry on Aug. 29, 2024, after obtaining an appointment through CBP One, the asylum application process used in the Biden administration. The elation of getting through lasted just a few minutes, he said.

Hernández Romero spent six months at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. He had passed a “credible fear” interview — the first step in the asylum process — but immigration officials had lasered in on two of his nine tattoos: a crown on each wrist with “Mom” and “Dad” in English.

Immigrant detainees are given blue, orange or red uniforms, depending on their classification level. A guard once explained that detainees wearing orange, like him, could be criminals. Hernández Romero said he replied, “Is being a gay a crime? Or is doing makeup a crime?”

When his deportation flight landed in El Salvador, he saw tanks and officials dressed in all black, carrying big guns.

A Salvadoran man got off first — Kilmar Abrego García, whose case became a focus of controversy after federal officials acknowledged he had been wrongly deported.

Eight Venezuelan women got off next, but Salvadoran officials rejected them and they were led back onto the plane. Hernández Romero said the remaining Venezuelans felt relieved, thinking they too would be rejected.

Instead, they ended up in prison.

Hernández Romero does the makeup for Gabriela Mora, the fiancee of his fellow prisoner Carlos Uzcátegui, hours before their civil wedding in the town of Lobatera.

“I saw myself hit, I saw myself carried by two officials with my head toward the ground, receiving blows and kicks,” Hernández Romero said. “After that reality kind of strikes me: I was in a cell in El Salvador, in a maximum-security prison with nine other people and asking myself, ‘What am I doing here?’”

As a stylist, he said, having his hair shaved off was particularly devastating. Even worse were the accompanying blows and homophobic insults.

He remembers the photographer snapping shots of him and feeling the sting of his privacy being violated. Now, he understands their significance: “It’s thanks to those photos that we are now back in our homes.”

At the prison, guards taunted them, Hernández Romero said, telling them, “You all are going to die here.”

Hernández Romero befriended Carlos Uzcátegui, 32, who was held in the cell across the hall. Prisoners weren’t allowed to talk with people outside their cells, but the pair quietly got to know each other whenever the guards were distracted.

Uzcátegui said he was also detained for having a crown tattoo and for another depicting three stars, one for each of his younger sisters.

A prisoner is moved by a guard at the Terrorist Confinement Center, a high-security prison in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 26. (Alex Brandon, Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

As prisoners looks on, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem speaks during a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center on March 26. (Alex Brandon, Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

Hernández Romero said he noticed that some of the guards would stare at him when he showered. He told reporters that guards took him to a small, windowless room known as “La Isla,” or “The Island,” after noticing him bathing with a bucket outside of designated hours. There, he said, he was beaten by three guards wearing masks and forced to perform oral sex on one of them, according to NPR and other outlets.

Hernández Romero no longer wishes to talk about the details of the alleged abuse. His lawyers are looking into available legal options.

“Perhaps those people will escape earthly justice, the justice of man, but when it comes to the justice of our Father God, no one escapes,” he said. “Life is a restaurant — no one leaves without paying.”

Uzcátegui said guards once pulled out his toenails and denied him medication despite a high fever. He had already showered, but as his fever worsened he took a second shower, which wasn’t allowed.

He said guards pushed him down, kicked him repeatedly in the stomach, then left him in “La Isla” for three days.

In July, rumors began circulating in the prison that the Venezuelans might be released, but the detainees didn’t believe the talk until the pastor who gave their daily sermon appeared uncharacteristically emotional. He told them: “The miracle is done. Tomorrow is a new day for you all.”

Uzcátegui remained unconvinced. That night, he couldn’t sleep because of the noise of people moving around the prison. He said usually that meant that guards would enter their cell block early in the morning to beat them.

Hernández Romero noticed his friend was restless. “We’re leaving today,” he said.

“I don’t believe it,” Uzcátegui replied. “It’s always the same.”

Hernández Romero knew they had spent 125 days imprisoned because when any detainee went for a medical consult, they would unobtrusively note the calendar in the room and report back to the group. The detainees would then mark the day on their metal bed frames using soap.

On July 18, buses arrived at the prison at 3 a.m. to take the Venezuelans to the airport. Officials called out Hernández Romero and Arturo Suárez-Trejo, a singer whose case had also drawn public attention, for individual photos. Hernández Romero said they were puzzled but obliged.

Migrants deported by the United States to El Salvador under the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown arrive at Simon Bolívar International Airport in Maiquetia, Venezuela, on July 18.

(Ariana Cubillos / Associated Press)

When their flight touched down, an official told them: “Welcome to Venezuela.” Walking down the plane steps, Hernández Romero felt the Caribbean breeze on his face and thanked God.

A few days later, he was back in his hometown, Capacho Nuevo, hugging his parents and brother in the center of a swarm of journalists and supporters chanting his name.

“I left home with a suitcase full of dreams, with dreams of helping my people, of helping my family, but unfortunately, that suitcase of dreams turned into a suitcase of nightmares,” he told reporters there.

Hernández Romero said he wants to see his name cleared. For him, justice would mean “that the people who kidnapped us and unfairly blamed us should pay.”

President Trump had invoked an 18th century wartime law to quickly remove many of the Venezuelans to El Salvador in March. In a 2-1 decision on Sept. 2, a panel of judges from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the administration acted unlawfully, saying there has been “no invasion or predatory incursion.”

Trump administration officials have told a federal judge that they would facilitate the return of Venezuelans to the U.S. if they wish to continue the asylum proceedings that were dismissed after they were sent to El Salvador. If there’s another chance to fulfill his dreams, Hernández Romero said he’s “not closed off to anything.”

Uzcátegui sees it differently. After everything he went through, he said, he probably would not go back.

Now he suffers from nightmares that it’s happening again. “Despite everything, you end up feeling like it’s not true that we’re out of there,” he said. “You wake up thinking you’re still there.”

Carlos Uzcátegui exchanges vows with Gabriela Mora during their wedding in August as Hernández Romero, right, in cap, looks on.

As he restarts his career, Hernández Romero is redeveloping a client list as a makeup artist. Last month, he worked a particularly special wedding: Uzcátegui’s. He did makeup for his friend’s bride, Gabriela Mora.

“He lived the same things I did in there,” Uzcátegui said. “It was like knowing that we are finally free — that despite all the things we talked about that we never thought would happen, that friendship remains. We’re like family.”

Reality TV star Spencer Pratt joined two Republican senators on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to bring attention to a newly launched congressional investigation into the response to the Palisades fire in Los Angeles.

“I feel like this is going to be so powerful for all of the United States because there shouldn’t be disasters that are preventable,” Pratt, who lost his home during the fire, told reporters.

Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said the main goal of the investigation is to figure out why the fire happened, why the state and local governments were unable to prevent it and how officials are helping the victims recover.

“We are going to get answers,” Scott said. “We are going to do everything we can to help the victim and we’re going to do everything we can to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

The congressional investigation, which launched on Monday, is focused only on the Palisades fire, but Scott said the probe could expand to other destructive fires that have taken place in Los Angeles County.

“We are going to start with this,” Scott said. “We’ll just let the facts take us where they are.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has welcomed the congressional investigation. At the news conference, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin warned that if officials fail to cooperate, the panel is ready to issue subpoenas to compel them to do so.

“We don’t want to use it and we hope we don’t have to,” Johnson said. “It is a good sign Gov. Newsom is willing to do so, and that’s the best way of doing it. But if they don’t, you’ve always got that backstop of compelling testimony, compelling documents, and that’s what we’ll do if we have to.”

“But I don’t think we will have to, quite honestly,” he added.

THIS IS the awkward moment Kerry Katona’s toyboy lover met her daughter Heidi for the first time on Celebs Go Dating.

This comes as the couple go official on the long-running Channel 4 reality series.

6

6

6

Over the years, Kerry Katona, has had a turbulent love life, divorcing Brian McFadden in 2004 and Mark Croft in 2011.

She also previously split from fiance Ryan Mahoney in November last year after six years together.

She had five children with three different partners, which includes her 18-year-old daughter Heidi.

On Celebs Go Dating, the teenager went face-to-face with her mum’s new toyboy lover Paolo Margaglione, 33, for the first time as they went public.

Her lover – who is 11-years younger – also faced up to Kerry’s best friend Danielle Brown, sister of Scary Spice, Mel B.

In agonising scenes, the former Atomic Kitten star confessed: “I am absolutely s******* myself only because I really like Paolo.

“I want them to really like him too. So getting their approval means everything to me, but I’m a nervous wreck.”

As Paolo went to give the pair a hug, he only received a tentative embrace from Heidi as Kerry was seen aggressively pointing at her daughter.

He confidently exclaimed: “Nice to see you,” as Heidi gave off a nervous giggle.

“Nice to see you too,” she replied back, but it was Danielle who took charge of the grilling.

“We’ve been friends for like 16 years. Is it? So I’m ride or die, got her back.”

Paolo replied: “Obviously, I really like Kerry. We get on very well. The fact that I’ve met her was like mind blowing.”

This is when Kerry asked her daughter why she was being “so quiet,” who declared that she was ‘nervous’.

It seems Kerry was feeling the exact same way as she admitted: “I’m sorry, I’m sweating so much. Honestly, no. Don’t touch me. I’m really dripping.”

Celebs Go Dating 2025 cast

But Danielle confidently carried on with the questioning as she said: “So, I’m just saying she’s my best, best friend. So I’ve got questions.

“The whole fame thing, because Kerry does get papped a lot when you’re out and stuff like that.

“You need to know what you’re dealing with, really, don’t you?Because for me, as a friend in 16 years, I’ve seen so, like many people, trying to get with Kerry, and they’re on the fame and they’re on the money and they’re on the attention.”

However, Paolo admitted that his intentions are only admirable as he already has daughters and he just wants to settle down.

I want them to really like him too. So getting their approval means everything to me, but I’m a nervous wreck.

Kerry KatonaCelebs Go Dating

He explained: “This sounds really weird, but I already feel like the richest man in the world, I’ve got my daughters.

“So my daughter’s made that and then I’ve met somebody that I really connect with as well.

“So for me, I don’t need anything from anyone. I’ve been fully transparent from the beginning. So yeah, I think that’s really important.”

Paolo added” “I think if we just have the conversations, the awkward ones or whatever, get to know each other straight away, all your cards on the table.

Channel 4’s best competition shows

Channel 4 boasts a number impressive competition shows, but which ones are really the best?

Four in a Bed

• Reality competition show Four in a Bed has been airing on Channel 4 since 2010. It follows four couples as they take turns to stay at each others B&Bs and hotels, rating their stays along the way. The couple with the establishment voted best value for money are the winners.

Come Dine With Me

• Come Dine With Me has been staple British viewing since 2005, providing some outrageous telly moments over the years. Like Four in a Bed, the series moves around to different properties as it follows four contestants as they each host a (supposedly) gourmet dinner party for each other. After each dinner the guests score the host out of 10, will the winner being revealed on the final evening.

The Great British Bake Off

• Another national treasure, The Great British Bake Off welcomes a group of 12 amateur bakers to put their culinary skills to the test with Paul Hollywood and Prue Leith judging their efforts. One contestant is eliminated each week until the final three face off in the last week.

Bake Off: The Professionals

• Bake Off: The Professionals puts a twist on GBBO, pitting two teams of professional pastry chefs against each other in every episode. It’s up to judges Benoit Blin and Cherish Finden to determine who has what it takes to make it through to the final.

Admiring his remarks, Heidi noted: “He’s very emotionally mature.”

To finish off the interrogation, Danielle asked Paolo what Kerry’s ideal weekend would look like in one final test.

He answered: “Her ideal day off would be to just get cozy, watch some movies and chill.”

Danielle admired his response as she then replied: “You know her well then.”

6

6

6

Celebs Go Dating continues on Channel 4.

China officially unveiled a nuclear-capable air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) called the JL-1 at its sprawling military parade in Beijing yesterday. With the JL-1 displayed alongside submarine-launched and intercontinental ballistic missiles (SLBM/ICBM), the event also marked the first time that elements of all three legs of the current Chinese strategic nuclear triad had been shown together publicly.

The JL-1 was one of many notable reveals at yesterday’s parade, as TWZ had already been reporting on as preparations had gotten underway earlier in the summer. It is important to note up front that the JL-1 (Jinglei-1) ALBM should not be confused in any way with the now-retired JL-1 (Julang-1) SLBM. Jinglei translates into English variously as sudden thunder, thunderbolt, or thunderclap, while Julang is typically translated as huge wave.

The JL-1 ALBM is very likely to be the same missile that has been referred to in the past in the West as the CH-AS-X-13, and which is understood to have been in development since at least the mid-2010s. Grainy images of an extremely similar, if not identical missile have been seen loaded underneath the fuselages of specialized H-6N missile carrier aircraft on several occasions in the past, but Chinese authorities have not previously acknowledged its existence. The H-6N, which is also capable of being refueled in flight to extend its range, was officially shown to the public for the first time at another major parade in Beijing back in 2019.

The CH-AS-X-13 has also been referred to as the KF-21 in the past, based on past reports that it is derived, at least in part, from the DF-21 series of two-stage ground-launched ballistic missiles. Though this connection has yet to be officially confirmed, the JL-1s, or mockups thereof, shown at the parade yesterday are broadly in line with the design of the DF-21D, which consists of a main stage and a maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV) on top that detaches in the latter stage of flight. The JL-1 also has a three-fin tail configuration indicative of an air-launched missile. The DF-21D is conventionally armed and optimized for anti-ship strikes. China’s longer-range DF-26 also has a two-stage configuration with a MARV, but is notably larger than the DF-21. Depending on their exact design, MARVs can allow for additional terminal phase course corrections for improved accuracy, as well as maneuvering to make any attempt at an intercept more difficult.

Imagery had also emerged in the past, as seen below, which has contributed to discussions about the possibility of a second variation on the CH-AS-X-13, or another different missile for the H-6N, with what may be a wedge-shaped unpowered hypersonic boost-glide vehicle (HBGV) on top. Conical HBGV designs that can look similar externally to a MARV also exist.

However they are designed, HBGVs are fundamentally different from MARVs, the latter of which still follow a roughly ballistic path to their impact point. In contrast, after release, HBGVs are designed to proceed along relatively shallow, atmospheric flight paths to their targets while also being able to maneuver erratically along the way. Coupled with hypersonic speed, defined as anything about Mach 5, presents additional challenges for defenders. It is worth noting here that larger ballistic missiles also reach hypersonic speeds in the terminal phase of flight.

The Pentagon has also posited in the past that the CH-AS-X-13 may be capable of carrying conventional or nuclear warheads, as is the case with the DF-21 series and the DF-26. The connection to the DF-21, and the DF-21D most specifically, has also prompted previous discussions about the H-6N having an anti-ship role, particularly against U.S. carrier strike groups. Few hard details were offered during the parade about the JL-1, but it was explicitly described as a nuclear weapon, though this would not preclude the existence of a conventionally-armed version for use against targets at sea or on land.

During the event, state media narrators also reportedly said the JL-1 has a range of approximately 4,970 miles (8,000 kilometers). If true, this is substantially longer than the assessed maximum range of current-generation DF-21 variants, as well as the DF-26. The Pentagon’s most recent unclassified annual report to Congress on Chinese military developments, released in 2024, said the DF-21D “has a range exceeding 1,500 km [932 miles].” That same report pegged the DF-26’s range at approximately 2,485 miles (4,000 kilometers).

As a general rule, missiles fired from aircraft benefit from the speed and altitude of the launch platform, particularly when it comes to range. As such, an air-launched ballistic missile can reasonably be expected to have greater reach than a comparable design launched from the ground or a vessel at sea. As an example, Russia’s air-launched Kinzhal is understood to have an appreciably longer range than the ground-launched Iskander-M short-range ballistic missile it is based on.

Whatever its exact capabilities might be, the JL-1’s appearance at the parade yesterday had the additional and perhaps greater significance of being the first official display of the aerial component of China’s present nuclear triad to the public. Of the currently accepted nine nuclear powers globally (which includes Israel and its unacknowledged stockpile), only the United States, Russia, China, and India field triads in any form. The core arguments for having a nuclear triad are the operational flexibility it offers, as well as its resilience to attack. Even if one or two legs were to be neutralized, capacity would remain to launch retaliatory strikes.

The Pentagon had publicly assessed back in 2019 that the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) was moving to resume a strategic nuclear deterrence role with the appearance of the H-6N. Before then, the exact status of China’s stockpile of air-dropped nuclear bombs had become unclear. With the operational fielding of the H-6N in 2020, the Pentagon further assessed that the PLA had established a “nascent nuclear triad.”

“The PLAAF has operationally fielded the H-6N bomber, providing a platform for the air component of the PRC’s [People’s Republic of China] nuclear triad. The H-6N, compared to other H-6 bombers, adds an air-to-air refueling probe as well as its recessed fuselage modifications that enable external carriage of a nuclear-capable ALBM,” the Pentagon wrote in its unclassified 2024 report to Congress on Chinese military developments. “The ALBM carried by the H-6N appears to be armed with a maneuvering reentry vehicle, indicating the ALBM – along with the DF-26 IRBM [intermediate-range ballistic missile] – likely can conduct nuclear precision strikes against targets in the Indo-Pacific theater.”

China’s triad, which we now know officially includes the JL-1, is part of a larger nuclear build-up underway in the country that also includes expanding the land and sea-based legs. The construction of vast new fields of silos for ICBMs in recent years has been a particularly visible component of this broader effort. Those silos may not all be intended to hold missiles as part of a ‘shell game’ to create targeting complications for opponents.

“Over the next decade, the PRC [People’s Republic of China] probably will continue to modernize, diversify, and expand its nuclear forces rapidly. The PLA seeks a larger and more diverse nuclear force, comprised of systems ranging from low-yield precision strike missiles to ICBMs with multi-megaton yields to provide it multiple options on the escalation ladder,” according to the Pentagon’s 2024 report on China to Congress. “In 2023, Beijing continued its rapid nuclear expansion. DoD estimates the PRC has surpassed 600 operational nuclear warheads in its stockpile as of mid-2024 and will have over 1,000 operational nuclear warheads by 2030, much of which will be deployed at higher readiness levels. The PRC will continue growing its force through at least 2035.”

“The PRC has not publicly or formally acknowledged or explained its nuclear expansion and modernization. The buildup almost certainly is due to the PRC’s broader and longer-term perceptions of progressively increased U.S.-PRC strategic competition. The PLA’s nuclear expansion and modernization very likely are tied to its overall military strategy – seeking to close capability gaps and become a competitive global power,” the report added. “As a result, the PRC probably perceives that a stronger nuclear force is needed to deter U.S. intervention, check potential nuclear escalation or first strike, and will allow for increased control of the scope and scale of escalation during a conflict in a way its previously smaller and less diverse nuclear force could not.”

All of this is in line with the establishment of a nuclear triad, as well as the Pentagon’s past assessment that China has been moving to adopt a launch-on-warning (LOW) deterrent posture. LOW entails a plan to execute a massive counterstrike upon detecting incoming nuclear threats, primarily to help ensure a retaliatory strike can be successfully initiated before the hostile weapons reach their targets.

There have also been separate discussions about how the growing size of China’s nuclear stockpile points to plans for so-called countervalue targeting, in which weapons would also be aimed at an enemy’s population centers. Strikes directed at military targets are referred to as counterforce.

Altogether, the public debut of China’s JL-1 ALBM is a very important development with ramifications well beyond the missile itself.

Contact the author: [email protected]