order

Nov. 29 (UPI) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth denied ordering the U.S. military to “kill everybody” and said news reports claiming such are “fake news.”

Hegseth was responding to a report by the Washington Post on Friday that accused Hegseth of verbally ordering military personnel to kill all 11 crew members by carrying out a second strike on an alleged drug-smuggling vessel on Sept. 2.

That strike was the first of many targeting drug vessels in international waters, but the Washington Post only cited anonymous sources to back its claim, which the Defense Department has called fabricated and “fake news,” according to The Guardian.

“We told the Washington Post that this entire narrative was false yesterday,” Defense Department spokesman Sean Parnell said in a social media post on Friday.

“These people just fabricate anonymously sourced stories out of the whole cloth,” Parnell continued.

“Fake news is the enemy of the people,” he added.

Hegseth went further, calling the Washington Post report “fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.”

The Washington Post said Hegseth’s alleged verbal order resulted in a second strike on the vessel as two surviving crew members clung to the wreckage, which killed them.

The report on Friday prompted Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and ranking member Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., to order inquiries into the matter to determine the facts.

Hegseth said every strike carried out against alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean has been legal and only targeted members of designated foreign terrorist organizations.

A group of “former military attorneys” on Saturday released a report saying international law prohibits the targeting of attack survivors and requires the attacking force to “protect, rescue and, if applicable, treat them as prisoners of war,” the Washington Post reported.

The U.S. military has struck 21 vessels whose crews were alleged to be smuggling drugs to the United States and killed 83, according to USA Today.

CONCORD, N.H. — A college freshman trying to fly from Boston to Texas to surprise her family for Thanksgiving was instead deported to Honduras in violation of a court order, according to her attorney.

Any Lucia Lopez Belloza, 19, had already passed through security at Boston Logan International Airport on Nov. 20 when she was told there was an issue with her boarding pass, said attorney Todd Pomerleau. The Babson College student was then detained by immigration officials and within two days, sent to Texas and then Honduras, the country she left at age 7.

“She’s absolutely heartbroken,” Pomerleau said. “Her college dream has just been shattered.”

According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an immigration judge ordered Lopez Belloza to be deported in 2015. Pomerleau said she wasn’t aware of any removal order, however, and the only record he’s found indicates her case was closed in 2017.

“They’re holding her responsible for something they claim happened a decade ago that she’s completely unaware of and not showing any of the proof,” the lawyer said.

The day after Lopez Belloza was arrested, a federal judge issued an emergency order prohibiting the government from moving her out of Massachusetts or the United States for at least 72 hours. ICE did not respond to an email Friday from the Associated Press seeking comment about violating that order. Babson College also did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Lopez Belloza, who is staying with her grandparents in Honduras, told the Boston Globe she had been looking forward to telling her parents and younger sisters about her first semester studying business.

“That was my dream,” she said. “I’m losing everything.”

Ramer writes for the Associated Press.

Poland’s next submarines will be provided by Sweden, in the shape of the advanced A26 class. Under the long-running Orka acquisition program, Warsaw announced today that it will buy three of the boats, which use an air-independent propulsion system, to replace the Polish Navy’s single Soviet-era Kilo class submarine. The new multirole subs will be able to launch and recover uncrewed underwater vessels (UUVs), as well as be used for minelaying, intelligence collection, anti-surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, and more.

The Saab design was chosen in favor of competing offers from France’s Naval Group, Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, Italy’s Fincantieri, South Korea’s Hanwha Ocean, and Spain’s Navantia.

“We are honored to have been selected and look forward to the coming negotiations with the Armaments Agency in Poland,” said Micael Johansson, president and CEO of Saab, in a statement announcing the order today.

“The Swedish offer, featuring submarines tailored for the Baltic Sea, is the right choice for the Polish people. It will significantly enhance the operational capability of the Polish Navy and benefit the Polish economy,” Johansson added.

The Swedish offer was made by the country’s government on behalf of Saab. At this point, no contract has been signed, but Saab and the Swedish Defense Materiel Administration (FMV) will now complete the procurement process together with Polish authorities.

Statements on Poland’s selection of the A26 were also provided by the Prime Minister of Sweden, Ulf Kristersson, and Pål Jonson, the Swedish Minister of Defense:

Poland has chosen Sweden as partner for its submarine program.

This shows the strength not only of the cooperation between our countries, but also of Sweden as a defense-industry nation. It is confirmation that the Swedish defense industry stands strong. Saab has a… pic.twitter.com/WhSFlQru7n

— Ulf Kristersson (@SwedishPM) November 26, 2025

🇵🇱🇸🇪Today is a historic day for the Swedish-Polish partnership and for increased security in the Baltic Sea. Poland has selected Swedish submarines for the Polish navy. This will strengthen our common defence, security, and defence industrial base. pic.twitter.com/2WjiSu8o5L

— Pål Jonson (@PlJonson) November 26, 2025

Saab says that the deal will include industrial cooperation with Poland as well as technological transfer, as part of a broader strategic partnership between the two countries. For Sweden, the first export customer for this promising design provides a significant boost to the program, at a time when delays and cost overruns mean it’s much-needed. A total of five boats increases the demand for in-service support, and the Polish seal of approval could open the door to more exports.

Although it has been reported that the three submarines will cost $2.52 billion, it remains unclear when they might be delivered.

The A26 uses air-independent propulsion (AIP), a technology that The War Zone has examined in detail in the past. Specifically, as well as diesel engines, this employs a Stirling-type engine as previously used in the influential Swedish Gotland class design. The Stirling auxiliary engine burns liquid oxygen and diesel to drive electrical generators that can be used for either propulsion or charging the batteries. The result is a conventionally powered submarine that’s able to remain submerged for reportedly more than 18 days, without needing to surface or use a snorkel.

The A26 has the option of being fitted with vertical launch system (VLS) cells, compatible with Tomahawk land attack missiles, which might be of interest to Poland as it seeks to reinforce its long-range strike capabilities.

Another notable feature of the A26 design is its sail, which is raked along its leading edge and which flares out toward the top. As we have discussed in the past, this feature is understood to have been chosen to increase its stealth characteristics. The A26 also features an X-form rudder. As we have discussed in the past, this configuration provides improved maneuverability, efficiency, and safety, and also helps reduce the acoustic signature across significant parts of the submarine’s operating envelope compared to the more traditional cruciform system.

Other details of the A26 design include a length of around 217 feet and a surfaced displacement of 2,122 tons. The submarine has a standard complement of just 26 sailors but can also accommodate up to 35 more, including commandos for special forces missions. The commandos can be delivered via the Multi-Mission Portal, similar to an oversized torpedo tube, which provides access to a flexible payload lock.

The A26 is also being built for the Royal Swedish Navy, with two Blekinge class boats under construction at Saab’s Kockums shipyard in Karlskrona. Originally planned to be handed over in 2024 and 2025, it recently emerged that delays would push the delivery of the first of these boats to 2031, while increasing costs will see the program reach a price tag of 2.3 billion Euros (around $2.7 billion). The second Swedish submarine is scheduled to be delivered in 2033. Between them, the new boats will replace the Royal Swedish Navy’s two Södermanland class submarines.

Buying three advanced submarines marks a major advance for the Polish Navy, which has, for many years, only had a single Project 877E Kilo class submarine, the ORP Orzel, in its fleet. The age of this boat and the impossibility of obtaining spare parts and support from Russia mean that it’s unclear if the Orzel is currently operational.

As Saab’s Johansson pointed out, the Polish Navy will be getting a submarine that has been purpose-designed for the Baltic Sea. Notably shallow and confined, with dense littorals, including complex undersea obstacles and islands, the Baltic imposes very particular requirements on submarine designs, something that has long been reflected in successive classes built in Sweden (as well as in Germany).

In particular, the Baltic environment calls for diesel-electric submarines that are able to transit covertly in areas with a water depth of less than 82 feet and operate in an environment with a potentially high density of anti-submarine warfare forces and naval mines.

Warsaw’s investment in the three new submarines is just one part of a much larger defense spending spree — what the Polish Armed Forces themselves describe as “one of the highest levels of defense spending in NATO.”

The Polish Air Force is gearing up to receive 32 F-35A fighters, which will be armed with long-range precision weapons. Dozens of FA-50 light combat aircraft are also being delivered.

Poland’s first F-35 is on the move! 🏃‍♂️

AZ-01 has been moved to the final finishes facility to receive its stealth coating, bringing it one step closer to rollout.

Poland’s 32 F-35s will strengthen NATO and European allies in the region. pic.twitter.com/N8TqsMHBLG

— F-35 Lightning II (@thef35) July 31, 2024

Within the air defense branch, Poland plans by 2032 to introduce new air and missile defense systems procured under the Narew and Wisła programs, which cover the short-range and medium-range air defense segments, respectively.

Meanwhile, the Polish Land Forces are getting 250 of the latest Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 tanks, worth up to $6 billion, that will serve alongside a similar number of German-made Leopard 2s already in use. The Land Forces also expect to benefit from additional investments in operational fires, including new tube and rocket artillery, which will be employed in combination with 96 new AH-64E Apache attack helicopters. Furthermore, a significant South Korean arms package includes tanks, short-range ballistic missiles, and self-propelled artillery, as well as the aforementioned FA-50s.

Alongside the new submarines, Polish naval capabilities are also being reinforced by new coastal missile units and mine warfare technologies.

All of this military buildup comes in direct response to Russian aggression against Ukraine, which has provided Poland with a salutory reminder of the importance of robust defenses. With its choice of the A26 class, Poland will be getting one of the most capable conventionally powered submarines available and making another statement about how strongly it takes its defense.

Contact the author: [email protected]

When South Africa opens the 2025 G20 Summit on November 22nd in Cape Town, the meeting will not simply be another high-level diplomatic gathering. It will be a test of what global leadership looks like in an era defined by debt crises, climate shocks, and geopolitical fragmentation. It will also be a summit shaped as much by who is present as by who is absent.

For the first time since leaders began to regularly attend the G20, the United States is not expected to attend at the presidential level. That absence will hang heavily over a summit built around three themes that South Africa has placed at the core of its G20 hosting: solidarity, equality, and sustainability. This is not symbolic branding. These are principles that directly challenge the structure and priorities of the current international system and America’s decision not to participate will only magnify their political weight.

South Africa’s Vision for a More Equal Order

South Africa has been clear about what it wants this G20 to represent. The country’s diplomats have framed the summit as an opportunity to “rebalance global governance” and restore trust between advanced economies and the Global South. That begins with solidarity, not as a moral appeal but as a practical necessity in a world where the gaps in competition are tightening across virtually every sector.

South African officials have emphasized that the world is too interconnected, through supply chains, energy markets, debt exposures, and climate shocks, for any nation to pursue growth alone. Solidarity, in their framing, means shared responsibility for global risks and shared input into global rules.

Expect to see debt restructuring as a key component of the weekend. Dozens of low and middle-income countries are approaching insolvency. Many see the G20 as the only venue capable of compelling creditors, including China, Western banks, and the IMF to negotiate jointly. South Africa intends to push for more predictable mechanisms, faster timelines, and deeper reductions of overall debt.

The theme of equality is expected to be even more pointed. Pretoria has argued that the international financial system remains structurally biased. Voting power at the IMF does not reflect modern economic reality. Climate finance packages distribute risk upward and accountability downward. Supply chain standards reflect the priorities of wealthy states far more than those of producing states.

South Africa wants this summit to pressure advanced economies to move beyond incrementalism and to recognize developing nations as cooperators, not beneficiaries, of global economic design.

Sustainability as an Economic Imperative

As noted in the central theme of the summit, sustainability is the key talking point of the weekend. South Africa is expected to focus on climate adaptation financing, food security resilience, renewable infrastructure gaps, green industrialization, and the economic displacement climate change is already causing.

Pretoria’s message is blunt: sustainability is not the environmental chapter of the global economy, it is the global economy. The safeguards nations build today will determine whether their populations can withstand the shocks of the coming decade.

The Symbolism of America’s Absence

While the summit’s themes are forward-looking, the headlines thus far are dominated by one glaring issue; The United States is boycotting the event, and not sending a single delegate.

This absence is certainly meant to be received as a bold statement. In a moment when most of the global agenda is being rewritten around solidarity, shared burdens, debt relief, and climate vulnerability, the United States is choosing not to stand at the table.

Many delegations will read this as confirmation of what they already suspected: that the U.S. is prioritizing bilateral leverage and transactional deals over multilateral governance. In other words, America is choosing power over partnership.

That decision will have ripple effects. If Washington is not present to influence the language of solidarity or the scope of sustainability targets, other powers will be. The U.S. forfeits not only visibility, but the ability to shape norms that will define the next phase of global cooperation. The strongman tactic will prove less effective as the world continues to accelerate towards a multipolar world, as opposed to a unipolar order where D.C. stands above the rest.

China and India Eager to Fill the Vacuum

China is expected to enter the summit with a confident posture, despite Xi Jinping not attending. Beijing has spent the past several years positioning itself as the Global South’s premier development partner. A G20 centered around equality and solidarity aligns perfectly with China’s messaging: that it represents a more inclusive, less conditional model of global cooperation. This message will be even more prominent with an absentee America. To capitalize on the overall theme of moving away from Western dominated structures, it would be reasonable to assume that many lending systems denominated in the Yuan will be discussed on the sidelines.

India, meanwhile, will frame itself as the democratic partner of choice for developing economies. Expect New Delhi to emphasize supply chain diversification, digital equality, and climate-resilient infrastructure. India will also push for greater representation of Global South nations in multilateral institutions, a message that will resonate strongly in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Europe Attempts to Lead

European leaders will arrive prepared to engage deeply on sustainability and climate finance, but without Washington their influence will be limited. Europe cannot match America’s financial firepower nor China’s development machinery.

While Europeans tend to embrace the rhetoric of solidarity, they remain cautious about large-scale debt forgiveness, new climate financing mandates, and reforms that would dilute their institutional voting power. That tension prevents Europe from presenting itself as the natural successor to U.S. leadership, but rather an extension of it in the eyes of many developing nations.

A Summit That Signals a Changing Global Order

If South Africa succeeds in shaping the weekend around solidarity, equality, and sustainability, the summit could represent the most significant shift in G20 philosophy since its creation.

Tomorrow’s G20 will not be remembered for dramatic breakthroughs. It will be remembered for something subtler but more consequential; a turning point in global governance where the United States stepped back and the rest of the world showed it could step forward.

Texas redrew its voting map as part of US President Donald Trump’s plan to win extra Republican seats in the 2026 midterm elections.

The United States Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that found the Texas 2026 congressional redistricting plan likely discriminates on the basis of race.

The order signed on Friday by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito will remain in place at least for the next few days while the court considers whether to allow the new map, which is favourable to Republicans, to be used in the US midterm elections next year.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the ruling, which had granted an “administrative stay” and temporarily stopped the lower court’s “injunction against Texas’s map”.

“Radical left-wing activists are abusing the judicial system to derail the Republican agenda and steal the US House for Democrats. I am fighting to stop this blatant attempt to upend our political system,” Paxton said in an earlier post on social media.

Texas redrew its congressional map in August as part of US President Donald Trump’s efforts to preserve a slim Republican majority in the House of Representatives in next year’s mid-term elections, touching off a nationwide redistricting battle between Republicans and Democrats.

The new redistricting map for Texas was engineered to give Republicans five additional House seats, but a panel of federal judges in El Paso ruled 2-1 on Tuesday, saying that the civil rights groups that challenged the map on behalf of Black and Hispanic voters were likely to win their case.

The redrawn map was likely racially discriminatory in violation of US constitutional protections, the court found.

Nonprofit news outlet The Texas Tribune said the state is now back to using, temporarily, its 2025 congressional map for voting as the Supreme Court has not yet decided what map Texas should ultimately use, and the “legality of the map” will play out in court over the coming weeks and months.

Texas was the first state to meet Trump’s demands on redistricting. Missouri and North Carolina followed Texas with new redistricting maps that would add an additional Republican seat each.

To counter those moves, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats there.

Redrawn voter maps are now facing court challenges in California, Missouri and North Carolina.

Republicans currently hold slim majorities in both chambers of Congress, and ceding control of either the House or Senate to the Democrats in the November 2026 midterm elections would imperil Trump’s legislative agenda in the second half of his latest term in office.

There have been legal fights at the Supreme Court for decades over the practice known as gerrymandering – the redrawing of electoral district boundaries to marginalise a certain set of voters and increase the influence of others.

The court issued its most important ruling to date on the matter in 2019, declaring that gerrymandering for partisan reasons – to boost the electoral chances of one’s own party and weaken one’s political opponent – could not be challenged in federal courts.

But gerrymandering driven primarily by race remains unlawful under the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law and 15th Amendment prohibition on racial discrimination in voting.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that found Texas’ 2026 congressional redistricting plan likely discriminates on the basis of race.

The order signed by Justice Samuel Alito will remain in place at least for the next few days while the court considers whether to allow the new map favorable to Republicans to be used in the midterm elections.

The court’s conservative majority has blocked similar lower court rulings because they have come too close to elections.

The order came about an hour after the state called on the high court to intervene to avoid confusion as congressional primary elections approach in March. The justices have blocked past lower-court rulings in congressional redistricting cases, most recently in Alabama and Louisiana, that came several months before elections.

The order was signed by Alito because he is the justice who handles emergency appeals from Texas.

Texas redrew its congressional map in the summer as part of Trump’s efforts to preserve a slim Republican majority in the House in next year’s elections, touching off a nationwide redistricting battle.

The new redistricting map was engineered to give Republicans five additional House seats, but a panel of federal judges in El Paso ruled 2-1 Tuesday that the civil rights groups that challenged the map on behalf of Black and Hispanic voters were likely to win their case.

If the ruling holds for now, Texas could be forced to hold elections next year using the map drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature in 2021 based on the 2020 census.

Texas was the first state to meet Trump’s demands in what has become an expanding national battle over redistricting. Republicans drew the state’s new map to give the GOP five additional seats, and Missouri and North Carolina followed with new maps adding an additional Republican seat each. To counter those moves, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats.

The redrawn maps are facing court challenges in California, Missouri and North Carolina.

The Supreme Court is separately considering a case from Louisiana that could further limit race-based districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It’s not entirely clear how the current round of redistricting would be affected by the outcome in the Louisiana case.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge said Wednesday he plans to move ahead quickly on a contempt investigation of the Trump administration for failing to turn around planes carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador in March.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington said a ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave him the authority to proceed with the inquiry, which will determine whether there is sufficient evidence to refer the matter for prosecution. He asked attorneys to identify witnesses and offer plans for how to conduct the probe by Monday and said he’d like to start any hearings on Dec. 1.

The judge has previously warned he could seek to have officials in the administration prosecuted.

On March 15, Boasberg ordered the aircraft carrying accused gang members to return to the U.S., but they landed instead in El Salvador, where the migrants were held at a notorious prison.

“I am authorized to proceed just as I intended to do in April seven months ago,” the judge said during a hearing Wednesday. He added later, “I certainly intend to find out what happened on that day.”

Boasberg said having witnesses testify under oath appeared to be the best way to conduct the contempt probe, but he also suggested the government could provide written declarations to explain who gave orders to “defy” his ruling. He suggested one witness: a former U.S. Justice Department attorney who filed a whistleblower complaint that claims a top official in the department suggested the Trump administration might have to ignore court orders as it prepared to deport Venezuelan migrants it accused of being gang members.

The Trump administration has denied any violation, saying the judge’s directive to return the planes was made verbally in court but not included in his written order. Justice Department attorney Tiberius Davis told Boasberg the government objected to further contempt proceedings.

Boasberg previously found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court. The ruling marked a dramatic battle between the judicial and executive branches of government, but a divided three-judge appeals court panel later sided with the administration and threw out the finding. The two judges in the majority were appointed by President Trump.

On Friday, a larger panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit said the earlier ruling by their colleagues did not bar Boasberg from moving ahead with his contempt probe. Boasberg’s contempt finding was a “measured and essential response,” Judges Cornelia Pillard, Robert Wilkins and Bradley Garcia wrote.

“Obedience to court orders is vital to the ability of the judiciary to fulfill its constitutionally appointed role,” they wrote. “Judicial orders are not suggestions; they are binding commands that the Executive Branch, no less than any other party, must obey.”

The Trump administration invoked an 18th-century wartime law to send the migrants, whom it accused of membership in a Venezuelan gang, to a mega-prison in El Salvador known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. It argued that American courts could not order them freed.

In June, Boasberg ruled the Trump administration must give some of the migrants a chance to challenge their deportations, saying they hadn’t been able to formally contest the removals or allegations that they were members of Tren de Aragua.

The judge wrote that “significant evidence” had surfaced indicating that many of the migrants were not connected to the gang “and thus were languishing in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.”

More than 200 migrants were later released back to Venezuela in a prisoner swap with the U.S.

Their attorneys want Boasberg to issue another order requiring the administration to explain how it will give at least 137 of the men a chance to challenge their gang designation under the Alien Enemies Act.

The men are in danger in Venezuela and fear talking to attorneys, who have been able to contact about 30 of them, but they “overwhelmingly” want to pursue their cases, Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said Wednesday.

Davis said it may be hard to take the men into custody again given tensions between the U.S. and the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Boasberg did not immediately rule on the matter.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 16 (UPI) — Emergency flight reductions ordered at 40 major U.S. airports by the Federal Aviation Administration earlier this month will be lifted Monday morning, federal officials announced Sunday.

The flight reduction emergency order will be terminated at 6 a.m. Monday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said in a joint statement.

Since Nov. 7, the FAA has been enforcing an ordered 10% reduction in flights at 40 U.S. airports due to staffing shortages at air-traffic control facilities that were being exacerbated by the government shutdown, which began Oct. 1.

Amid the shutdown, millions of passengers were affected by the thousands of canceled and delayed flights, and officials warned the disruption could get worse heading into the upcoming holiday season if Congress failed to act on passing a government funding bill in time.

That bill was passed last week, and the government shutdown — the longest in U.S. history — ended Nov. 12.

According to the FAA, since the resumption of normal government operations, staffing levels at air-traffic controller facilities have continued to “snap back,” with this weekend seeing five staffing triggers Friday, eight on Saturday and only one on Sunday compared to a high of 81 on Nov. 8.

“Now we can refocus our efforts on surging controller hiring and building the brand-new, state-of-the-art air traffic control system the American people deserve,” Duffy said.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge on Wednesday denied a request from the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena seeking a temporary restraining order in their attempt to keep UCLA football games at the Rose Bowl, saying those entities had not demonstrated an emergency that would necessitate such an action.

Judge James C. Chalfant said previous cases in which the New York Yankees, New York Jets and Minnesota Twins were barred from moving games did not apply to this situation because those teams were scheduled to play in a matter of days or weeks and UCLA’s next scheduled game at the Rose Bowl after its home season finale against Washington on Nov. 22 isn’t until the fall of 2026.

The judge also said there was no indication that the Rose Bowl or Pasadena would suffer imminent financial harm because a contract to construct a field-level club in one end zone had not been signed.

The legal saga is far from over. Chalfant suggested the plaintiffs’ attorneys seek discovery information regarding the school’s discussions with SoFi Stadium and file a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Nima Mohebbi, an attorney representing the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena, said he had filed a public records request in an attempt to gather information about those discussions and was pleased with the judge’s statements.

“Even though he found that there was no immediate emergency,” Mohebbi said, “he made very clear in a lot of his statements that there’s irreparable harm, that UCLA has an obligation to play at the Rose Bowl through 2044 and we’re very confident in our facts of this case. So I think all in, we feel very, very good.”

After the hearing ended, Mary Osako, vice chancellor of strategic communications, said in a statement that “the court’s ruling speaks for itself. As we have said, while we continue to evaluate the long-term arrangement or UCLA football home games, no decision has been made.”

UCLA has played its home football games at the Rose Bowl since 1982. In 2014, Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California system, signed a long-term lease amendment that did not include an opt-out clause in exchange for the stadium committing to make nearly $200 million in improvements through the issue of public bonds. When the judge asked attorneys representing UCLA if they intended to terminate the agreement, they shook their heads in denial.

But Mohebbi accused UCLA of participating in a shell game in which it had furtively explored options for moving to SoFi Stadium.

“What they really want is to have a back-room discussion where they can offer some certain amount of money and pay the city off without having to account for this publicly,” Mohebbi said. “… UCLA has not only attempted to terminate [the contract], they have indicated in no uncertain terms that they are terminating.”

After Jordan McCrary, an attorney representing UCLA, contended that his counterparts in the dispute refused to engage with the school in resolution discussions, Mohebbi said, “there’s nothing to talk about. They have an obligation — we’re not negotiating a way out of this agreement.”

McCrary disputed Mohebbi’s contention that UCLA attorneys had signaled an intention to leave the Rose Bowl through direct conversations between counsel, saying “we believe they were settlement negotiations and we don’t believe they’re admissible” in future court proceedings.

When a UCLA attorney contended during the roughly 80-minute court session that the school’s relationship with the Rose Bowl was breaking down, Chalfant said, “I don’t know why UCLA can’t just show up and play football at the Rose Bowl. You don’t need to talk to them at all.”

Chalfant said he did not agree with the UCLA attorneys’ contention that the Rose Bowl lease amounted to a personal services contract for which specific performance — essentially an order compelling the Bruins to remain tenants — was not available. The judge said specific performance could be available in a situation involving an actual breach or an anticipatory breach of the contract.

Rose Bowl officials have filed litigation intended to compel the Bruins to honor a lease that runs through the 2043 season, saying that monetary damages would not be enough to offset the loss of their anchor tenant.

They are also seeking to prevent the case from being settled through arbitration.

“I know UCLA really wants to have this out of the public sphere,” Mohebbi said, “but the reality is this is a public interest case and there are issues here that absolutely require this case to be in a public forum.

“We’re talking about two public entities. This is not the Rams, or this is not the Lakers. This is a public institution playing with public money going up against another public institution that relies on this other public institution to protect its own taxpayers from dipping into the general fund that goes to things like police services, fire services. I mean, God forbid there’s a fire like the Eaton fire this last year that we’re not going to be able to even cover the bond payments through the general reserves.”

Decision follows Senate vote to reopen the government, but legal saga has brought uncertainty to millions who need food assistance.

The highest court in the United States has extended a previous order allowing President Donald Trump to withhold food assistance to tens of millions of people in the US amid the government shutdown.

In a ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court extended a previous pause that it had granted the Trump administration after a lower court ordered the government to pay out about $4bn in food benefits for November.

Advocates have said that withholding the funds could have calamitous effects on people who depend on food benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), although the issue could be made moot as the shutdown appears to be drawing to a close.

The Supreme Court decision comes one day after the Senate on Monday approved compromise legislation that would end the longest government shutdown in US history, breaking a weeks-long impasse that has disrupted food benefits for millions, left hundreds of thousands of federal workers unpaid and snarled air traffic as a lack of air traffic controllers forced cancellations.

The battle over SNAP benefits has underlined the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to slash government employment and roll back access to programmes that it had previously criticised under the auspices of the shutdown.

While it is common for some benefits and programmes to face delays or other issues during government shutdowns, food benefits ceased entirely at the start of November for the first time in the programme’s 60-year history.

The decision set off a series of legal challenges and several weeks of back-and-forth rulings that have kept those who rely on food assistance in a state of limbo.

A judge had ruled last week that the government must fully fund benefits for November, a decision the administration challenged. The Supreme Court had paused that order, but the stay was set to expire on Thursday.

The City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co. requested a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking to prevent UCLA from leaving the Rose Bowl or terminating its stadium lease until pending litigation against the school is resolved.

The filing contends that the plaintiffs would suffer “immediate and irreparable harm if the status quo is not preserved during the pendency of this lawsuit.” A hearing has tentatively been scheduled for Wednesday morning.

Last week, the plaintiffs sued to force the Bruins to honor the terms of the lease that requires them to stay at the Rose Bowl through the end of the 2043 season.

UCLA responded in a statement that it was still evaluating options for its football home, though someone familiar with the university’s thinking on the matter later confirmed to The Times that if the Bruins decided to leave for SoFi Stadium, they would want to do so for the 2026 season.

In their Monday filing, the plaintiffs contended that: “there is no way to sugarcoat it: UCLA has confirmed its imminent departure, severely destabilizing Plaintiffs’ core operations. Those operations are structured around and contingent upon UCLA. Without confirmation that UCLA intends to honor its contractual commitments — at least during the pendency of this litigation — Plaintiffs are deprived of the ability to plan and manage the stadium’s schedule and their ongoing business operations, including cultivating and securing future business partners and opportunities, retaining personnel, and maintaining confidence among the many vendors and sponsors who rely on UCLA Football.

“Equally troubling is the precedent UCLA is setting. Stadium and arena public-private partnerships, and the financing that makes them possible, turn on enforceable, long-term contracts, with terms that typically follow the public debt incurred. UCLA’s attempt to break its contract decades early critically undermines these structures.”

States administering a federal food aid program serving about 42 million Americans faced uncertainty Monday over whether they can — and should — provide full monthly benefits during an ongoing legal battle involving the U.S. government shutdown.

President Donald Trump’s administration over the weekend demanded that states “undo” full benefits that were paid under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during a one-day window between when a federal judge ordered full funding and a Supreme Court justice put a temporary pause on that order.

A federal appeals court in Boston left the full benefits order in place on Sunday, though the Supreme Court order ensures the government won’t have to pay out for at least 48 hours. The Trump administration is also expected to ask the justices to step in again, and Congress is considering whether to fund SNAP as part of a proposal to end the government shutdown.

Some states are warning of “catastrophic operational disruptions” if the Trump administration does not reimburse them for those SNAP benefits they already authorized. Meanwhile, other states are providing partial monthly SNAP benefits with federal money or using their own funds to load electronic benefit cards for SNAP recipients.

Millions receive aid while others wait

Trump’s administration initially said SNAP benefits would not be available in November because of the government shutdown. After some states and nonprofit groups sued, two judges each ruled the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely.

The administration then said it would use an emergency reserve fund to provide 65% of the maximum monthly benefit. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell said that wasn’t good enough, and ordered full funding for SNAP benefits by Friday.

Some states acted quickly to direct their EBT vendors to disburse full monthly benefits to SNAP recipients. Millions of people in those states received funds to buy groceries before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put McConnell’s order on hold Friday night, pending further deliberation by an appeals court.

Millions more people still have not received SNAP payments for November, because their states were waiting on further guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP.

Trump’s administration has argued that the judicial order to provide full benefits violates the Constitution by infringing on the spending power of the legislative and executive branches.

States are fighting attempt to freeze SNAP benefits

On Sunday, the Trump administration said states had moved too quickly and erroneously released full SNAP benefits after last week’s rulings.

“States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025,” Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture, wrote to state SNAP directors. He warned that states could face penalties if they did not comply.

Wisconsin, which was among the first to load full benefits after McConnell’s order, had its federal reimbursement frozen. As a result, the state’s SNAP account could be depleted as soon Monday, leaving no money to reimburse stores that sell food to SNAP recipients, according to a court filing submitted by those that had sued.

Some Democratic governors vowed to challenge any federal attempt to claw back money.

In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said “those who received their benefits should not worry about losing them.”

“No, Connecticut does not need to take back SNAP benefits already sent to the 360,000 people who depend on them for food and who should have never been caught in the middle of this political fight,” Lamont said. “We have their back.”

Lieb and Mulvihill write for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin; John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas; and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

For Los Angeles, it’s been a year of triumphs, trials and everything in between. From devastating wildfires to ICE raids that shook our immigrant communities, the city has weathered plenty. Still, L.A. found moments to rally (hello, Dodgers World Series win) that gave us all something to cheer for again.

Thanksgiving is a time to hold onto those small victories and give thanks for the bright spots amid the chaos. But if you won’t be brining a turkey or mashing a bowl of potatoes yourself, there are options.

Thankfully, restaurants across the city are stepping up with take-home feasts. Yes, there are the traditional roast turkeys and glazed hams, but also Caribbean jerk turkey legs, Chinese-inspired chicken ballotines, Indian biryanis, lamb Wellingtons and more.

Whether you’re hosting a big family gathering or keeping things intimate, check out these 26 spots designed to bring comfort, flavor and a little local pride to your Thanksgiving table.

Denise Richards’ estranged husband Aaron Phypers must continue to keep his distance from the actor and reality TV star as they move forward in their acrimonious divorce.

A Los Angeles judge on Friday granted the former “Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” star’s request to make her temporary restraining order against Phypers permanent. Richards was granted a five-year restraining order that restricts Phypers from buying or owning guns, contacting her or abusing her, among other restrictions, according to People. The order will expire Nov. 7, 2030.

Legal representatives for Richards and Phypers did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

The judgment comes after months of contentious hearings that uncovered scathing allegations about their relationship including accusations of infidelity, drug addiction and abuse.

Businessman Phypers, 53, filed to divorce Richards, 54, in July after six years of marriage. He cited irreconcilable differences and requested spousal support. According to court documents, Phypers said he has earned no money since closing down a business last year and estimates “Starship Troopers” actor Richards makes more than $250,000 a month from several business ventures including brand deals, TV and OnlyFans content. Phypers has asked to keep their assets and debts as separate property, including his power tools, motorcycle and sports car, legal documents showed.

Richards and Phypers began dating in 2017 and married in September 2018 in a private ceremony in Malibu. They share no children, though Richards has three: two daughters she shares with ex-husband Charlie Sheen and a teenage daughter she adopted as an infant. Phypers was previously married to “Desperate Housewives” star Nicollette Sheridan from 2015 to 2018.

Weeks after Phypers filed for divorce, Richards fired back and offered a damning account of their marriage. She accused her estranged spouse of abuse, death threats and possession of unregistered weapons in a request for a temporary restraining order that was granted by the Los Angeles County Superior Court in July. Phypers, who denied the allegations, at the time was ordered to stay 100 yards away from Richards and her car, workplace and home, and was told he could not possess firearms or body armor.

“Wild Things” actor Richards referred to abuse that allegedly occurred during their marriage, including between July 4 and July 14, after she had moved out of the family home and into three townhouses that she uses separately as a studio, an office and her residence.

Since July, the pair have fiercely traded barbs in public statements and legal documents. Phypers accused Richards of cheating on him with another man and of scaring his parents when she arrived at their Calabasas home in early August to retrieve her dogs, among other allegations. In court documents, Richards accused Phypers and his family of refusing to vacate that Calabasas abode after allegedly failing repeatedly to pay rent for the property. She also accused the Canadian and his family of trashing the home.

Amid their legal battle, Phypers was arrested in October after a heated courthouse hearing. Law enforcement took Phypers into custody and charged him with two felony counts of injuring a spouse and two felony counts of dissuading a witness by force or threat, according to TMZ. He was swiftly released after posting $200,000 bond.

Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.

The Trump administration spent Friday fighting to avoid restoring $4 billion in food assistance in jeopardy due to the government shutdown, suggesting it might need to “raid school-lunch money” in order to comply with court orders.

The claim was part of a break-neck appeal in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, where the government hoped to duck a court order that would force it to pay out for food stamps — formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — through November.

“There is no lawful basis for an order that directs USDA to somehow find $4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett A. Shumate wrote in the appeal.

The administration’s only option would be to “to starve Peter to feed Paul” by cutting school lunch programs, Shumate wrote.

On Friday afternoon, the appellate court declined to immediately block the lower court’s order, and said it would quickly rule on the merits of the funding decree.

SNAP benefits are a key fight in the ongoing government shutdown. California is one of several states suing the administration to restore the safety net program while negotiations continue to end the stalemate.

Millions of Americans have struggled to afford groceries since benefits lapsed Nov. 1, inspiring many Republican lawmakers to join Democrats in demanding an emergency stopgap.

The Trump administration was previously ordered to release contingency funding for the program that it said would cover benefits for about half of November.

But the process has been “confusing and chaotic” and “rife with errors,” according to a brief filed by 25 states and the District of Columbia.

Some states, including California, have started disbursing SNAP benefits for the month. Others say the partial funding is a functional lockout.

“Many states’ existing systems require complete reprogramming to accomplish this task, and given the sudden — and suddenly changing — nature of USDA’s guidance, that task is impossible to complete quickly,” the brief said.

“Recalculations required by [the government’s] plan will delay November benefits for [state] residents for weeks or months.”

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ordered the full food stamp payout by the end of the week. He accused the administration of withholding the benefit for political gain.

“Faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, [the administration] chose the latter — an outcome that predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers,” he wrote.

“This Court is not naïve to the administration’s true motivations,” McConnell wrote. “Far from being concerned with Child Nutrition funding, these statements make clear that the administration is withholding full SNAP benefits for political purposes.”

The appeal could extend that deadline by as little as a few hours, or nullify it entirely.

But the latter may be unlikely, especially following the appellate court’s decision late Friday. The 1st Circuit is currently the country’s most liberal, with five active judges, all of whom were named to the bench by Democratic presidents.

While the court deliberates, both sides are left sparring over how many children will go hungry if the other prevails.

More than 16 million children rely on SNAP benefits. Close to 30 million are fed through the National School Lunch Program, which the government now says it must gut to meet the court’s order.

But the same pool of cash has already been tapped to extend Women, Infants and Children, which is a federal program that pays for baby formula and other basics for some poor families.

“This clearly undermines the Defendants’ point, as WIC is an entirely separate program from the Child Nutrition Programs,” McConnell wrote.

In its Friday order, the 1st Circuit panel said it would issue a full ruling “as quickly as possible.”

BOSTON — President Trump ’s administration asked a federal appeals court Friday to block a judge’s order that it distribute November’s full monthly SNAP food benefits amid a U.S. government shutdown, even as at least some states said they were moving quickly to get the money to people.

The judge gave the Trump administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.

The court filing came even as Wisconsin said Friday that some SNAP recipients in the state already got their full November payments overnight on Thursday.

“We’ve received confirmation that payments went through, including members reporting they can now see their balances,” said Britt Cudaback, a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

Uncertainty remains for many SNAP recipients

The court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for the food program that serves about 1 in 8 Americans, mostly with lower incomes.

An individual can receive a monthly maximum food benefit of nearly $300 and a family of four up to nearly $1,000, although many receive less than that under a formula that takes into consideration their income. For many SNAP participants, it remains unclear exactly how much they will receive this month, and when they will receive it.

Jasmen Youngbey of Newark, N.J., waited in line Friday at a food pantry in the state’s largest city. As a single mom attending college, Youngbey said she relies on SNAP to help feed her 7-month-old and 4-year-old sons. But she said her account balance was at $0.

“Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said.

Tihinna Franklin, a school bus guard who was waiting in the same line outside the United Community Corp. food pantry, said her SNAP account balance was at 9 cents and she was down to three items in her freezer. She typically relies on the roughly $290 a month in SNAP benefits to help feed her grandchildren.

“If I don’t get it, I won’t be eating,” she said. “My money I get paid for, that goes to the bills, rent, electricity, personal items. That is not fair to us as mothers and caregivers.”

The legal battle over SNAP takes another twist

Because of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration originally had said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. However, two judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the shutdown. One of those judges was U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the full payments Thursday.

In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

Thursday’s federal court order rejected the Trump administration’s decision to cover only 65% of the maximum monthly benefit, a decision that could have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

In its court filing Friday, Trump’s administration contended that Thursday’s directive to fund full SNAP benefits runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

“This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend,” the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in its request to the court.

In response, attorneys for the cities and nonprofits challenging Trump’s administration said the government has plenty of available money and the court should “not allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now.”

States are taking different approaches to food aid

Some states said they stood ready to distribute SNAP money as quickly as possible.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services said it directed a vendor servicing its SNAP electronic benefit cards to issue full SNAP benefits soon after the federal funding is received.

Benefits are provided to individuals on different days of the month. Those who normally receive benefits on the third, fifth or seventh of the month should receive their full SNAP allotment within 48 hours of funds becoming available, the Michigan agency said, and others should receive their full benefits on their regularly scheduled dates.

Meanwhile, North Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services said that partial SNAP benefits were distributed Friday, based on the Trump administration’s previous decision. Officials in Illinois and North Dakota also said they were distributing partial November payments, starting as soon as Friday for some recipients.

In Missouri, where officials had been working on partial distribution, the latest court jostling raised new questions. A spokesperson for the state Department of Social Services said Friday that it is awaiting further guidance about how to proceed from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP.

Amid the federal uncertainty, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer said the state used its own funds Friday to provide the first of could be a weekly relief payment to SNAP recipients.

On Thursday, Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Jim Pillen downplayed the effect of paused SNAP benefits on families in his state, saying, “Nobody’s going to go hungry.” The multimillionaire said food pantries, churches and other charitable services would fill the gap.

Lieb, Casey and Bauer write for the Associated Press. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo., and Bauer from Madison, Wisc. AP writers Margery Beck in Omaha; Mike Catalini in Newark, N.J.; Jack Dura in Bismarck, N.D.; Mingson Lau in Claymont, Del.; John O’Connor, in Springfield, Ill.; and Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

Officials announced Thursday that Los Angeles County has automated the process of notifying law enforcement agencies when people who violate restraining orders fail to comply with judges’ orders to hand their guns over to authorities.

Previously, court clerks had to identify which of the county’s 88 law enforcement agencies to notify about a firearm relinquishment by looking up addresses for the accused, which could take multiple days, Presiding Judge Sergio C. Tapia II of the L.A. County Superior Court said during a news conference.

Now, “notices are sent within minutes” to the appropriate agencies, Tapia said.

“This new system represents a step forward in ensuring timely, consistent and efficient communication between the court and law enforcement,” he said, “helping to remove firearms from individuals who are legally prohibited from possessing them.”

According to a news release, the court launched the platform, which the Judicial Council of California funded with a $4.12 million grant in conjunction with the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department and district attorney’s office, and the L.A. Police Department and city attorney’s office.

The court also rolled out a new portal for law enforcement that “streamlines interagency communications by providing justice partners with a centralized list of relevant cases for review” and allows agencies “to view all firearm relinquishment restraining order violations within their jurisdiction,” according to the release.

The new digital approach “represents a major enhancement in public safety,” Luna said.

“Each of those firearms,” he said, “represents a potential tragedy prevented or a domestic violence situation that did not escalate, a life that was not lost to gun violence.”

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration Thursday to find the money to fully fund SNAP benefits for November.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. gave President Trump’s administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, though it’s unlikely the 42 million Americans — about 1 in 8, most of them in poverty — will see the money on the debit cards they use for groceries nearly that quickly.

The order was in response to a challenge from cities and nonprofits complaining that the administration was only offering to cover 65% of the maximum benefit, a decision that would have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

“The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP,” McConnell said in a ruling from the bench after a brief hearing. “They knew that there would be a long delay in paying partial SNAP payments and failed to consider the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

McConnell was one of two judges who ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the federal shutdown.

The Trump administration chose partial payments this week

Last month, the administration said that it would halt SNAP payments for November if the government shutdown wasn’t resolved.

A coalition of cities and nonprofits sued in federal court in Rhode Island and Democratic state officials from across the country did so in Massachusetts.

The judges in both cases ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

The partial funding brought on complications

McConnell harshly criticized the Trump administration for making that choice.

“Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” he said. “This should never happen in America. In fact, it’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here.”

Tyler Becker, the attorney for the government, unsuccessfully argued that the Trump administration had followed the court’s order in issuing the partial payments. “This all comes down to Congress not having appropriated funds because of the government shutdown,” he said.

Kristin Bateman, a lawyer for the coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations, told the judge the administration had other reasons for not fully funding the benefits.

“What defendants are really trying to do is to leverage people’s hunger to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown fight,” Bateman told the court.

McConnell said last week’s order required that those payments be made “expeditiously” and “efficiently” — and by Wednesday — or a full payment would be required. “Nothing was done consistent with the court’s order to clear the way to expeditiously resolve it,” McConnell said.

There were other twists and turns this week

The administration said in a court filing on Monday that it could take weeks or even months for some states to make calculations and system changes to load the debit cards used in the SNAP program. At the time, it said it would fund 50% of the maximum benefits.

The next day, Trump appeared to threaten not to pay the benefits at all unless Democrats in Congress agreed to reopen the government. His press secretary later said that the partial benefits were being paid for November — and that it is future payments that are at risk if the shutdown continues.

And Wednesday night, it recalculated, telling states that there was enough money to pay for 65% of the maximum benefits.

Under a decades-old formula in federal regulations, everyone who received less than the maximum benefit would get a larger percentage reduction. Some families would have received nothing and some single people and two-person households could have gotten as little as $16.

Carmel Scaife, a former day care owner in Milwaukee who hasn’t been able to work since receiving multiple severe injuries in a car accident seven years ago, said she normally receives $130 a month from SNAP. She said that despite bargain hunting, that is not nearly enough for a month’s worth of groceries.

Scaife, 56, said that any cuts to her benefit will mean she will need to further tap her Social Security income for groceries. “That’ll take away from the bills that I pay,” she said. “But that’s the only way I can survive.”

The next legal step is unclear

This type of order is usually not subject to an appeal, but the Trump administration has challenged other rulings like it before.

An organization whose lawyers filed the challenge signaled it would continue the battle if needed.

“We shouldn’t have to force the President to care for his citizens,” Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement, “but we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities.”

It often takes SNAP benefits a week or more to be loaded onto debit cards once states initiate the process.

Mulvihill and Casey write for the Associated Press. AP writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, La.; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn.; and Gary Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.

“The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances—even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.

“Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”

Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.

The Supreme Court has put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.

In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and non-binary persons.

Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.

The ACLU sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick who blocked the new policy from taking effect.

The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to Supreme Court last month.

They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.

“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely…{It} undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.

“Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.

A famous Civil War-era photo of an escaped slave who had been savagely whipped. Displays detailing how more than 120,000 U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry were forcibly imprisoned during WWII. Signs describing the effects of climate change on the coast of Maine.

In recent months, a small army of historians, librarians, scientists and other volunteers has fanned out across America’s national parks and museums to photograph and painstakingly archive cultural and intellectual treasures they fear are under threat from President Trump’s war against “woke.”

These volunteers are creating a “citizen’s record” of what exists now in case the administration carries out Trump’s orders to scrub public signs and displays of language he and his allies deem too negative about America’s past.

More than 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry were forcibly relocated and incarcerated in camps during World War II, including these Japanese Americans seen at Manzanar in the Owens Valley in 1942.

(LA Library)

“My deepest, darkest fear,” said Georgetown University history professor Chandra Manning, who helped organize an effort dubbed Citizen Historians for the Smithsonian, is that the administration plans to “rewrite and falsify who counts as an American.”

In March, Trump issued an executive order entitled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” arguing that, over the past decade, signs and displays at museums and parks across the country have been distorted by a “widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history,” replacing facts with liberal ideology.

“Under this historical revision,” he wrote, “our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.”

He ordered the National Parks Service and The Smithsonian to scrub their displays of content that “inappropriately disparages Americans” living or dead, and replace it with language that celebrates the nation’s greatness.

The Collins Bible — a detailed family history recorded by Richard Collins, a formerly enslaved man — is seen at the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C.

(Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)

That’s when Manning’s colleague at Georgetown University, James Millward, who specializes in Chinese history, told her, “this seems really eerie,” Manning recalled. It reminded him of the Chinese Communist Party’s dictates to “tell China’s story well,” which he said was code for censorship and falsification.

So the professors reached out to friends and discovered that there were like-minded folks across the country working like “monks” in the Middle Ages, who painstakingly copied ancient texts, to photograph and preserve what they regarded as national treasures.

“There’s a human tradition of doing exactly this,” Manning said. “It feels gratifying to be a part of that tradition, it makes me feel less isolated and less alone.”

Jenny McBurney, a government documents librarian at the University of Minnesota, said she found Trump’s language “quite dystopian.” That’s why she helped organize an effort called Save Our Signs, which aims to photograph and preserve all of the displays at national parks and monuments.

The sprawling network includes Manzanar National Historic Site, where Japanese American civilians were imprisoned during the Second World War; Fort Sumter National Monument, where Confederates fired the first shots of the Civil War; Ford’s Theater National Historic Site in Washington, D.C., where Abraham Lincoln was assassinated; and the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Park.

It would be difficult to tell those stories without disparaging at least some dead Americans — such as the assassins John Wilkes Booth and James Earl Ray — or violating Trump’s order to focus on America’s “unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity and human flourishing.”

At Acadia National Park in Maine, where the rising sun first hits the U.S. coast for much of the year, signs describing the effect of climate change on rising seas, storm surge and intense rain have already been removed.

McBurney doesn’t want volunteers to try to anticipate the federal government’s next moves and focus only on displays they think might be changed, she wants to preserve everything, “good, bad, negative or whatever,” she said in a recent interview. “As a librarian, I like complete sets of things.”

And if there were a complete archive of every sign in the national park system in private hands — out of the reach of the current administration — there would always be a “before” picture to look back at and see what had changed.

“We don’t want this information to just disappear in the dark,” McBurney said.

Another group, the Data Rescue Project, is hard at work filling private servers with at-risk databases, including health data from the Centers for Disease Control, climate data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the contents of government websites, many of which have been subject to the same kind of ideological scrubbing threatened at parks and museums.

Both efforts were “a real inspiration,” Manning said, as she and Millward pondered what they could do to contribute to the cause.

Then, in August, apparently frustrated by the lack of swift compliance with its directives, the Trump administration sent a formal letter to Lonnie G. Bunch III, the first Black Secretary of the Smithsonian, setting a 120-day limit to “begin implementing content corrections.”

Days later, President Trump took to Truth Social, the media platform he owns, to state his case less formally.

“The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL,” he wrote, “everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.”

Even though the Smithsonian celebrates American astronauts, military heroes and sports legends, Trump complained that the museums offered nothing about the “success” and “brightness” of America, concluding with, “We have the “HOTTEST” Country in the World, and we want people to talk about it.”

People visit the Smithsonian Museum of American History on the National Mall in Washington.

(Pablo Martinez Monsivais / Associated Press)

Immediately, Manning and Millward knew where they would focus.

They sent emails to people they knew, and reached out to neighborhood listservs, asking if anyone wanted to help document the displays at the 21 museums that make up the Smithsonian Institution — including the American History Museum and the Natural History Museum — the National Zoo and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Within about two weeks, they had 600 volunteers. Before long, the group had grown to over 1,600, Manning said, more people than they could assign galleries and exhibitions to.

“A lot of people feel upset and kind of paralyzed by these repeated assaults on our shared resources and our shared institutions,” Manning said, “and they’re really not sure what to do about it.”

With the help of all the volunteers, and a grad student, Jessica Dickenson Goodman, who had the computer skills to help archive their submissions, the Citizen Historians project now has an archive of over 50,000 photos and videos covering all of the sites. They finished the work Oct. 12, which was when the museums closed because of the government shutdown.

After several media outlets reported on the order to remove the photo of the whipped slave from the Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia — citing internal emails and people familiar with deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly — administration officials described the reports as “misinformation” but declined to specify which part was incorrect.

A National Parks Service spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

But the possibility that the administration is considering removing the Scourged Back photo is precisely what has prompted Manning, and so many others, to dedicate their time to preserving the historical record.

“I think we need the story that wrong sometimes exists and it is possible to do something about it,” Manning said.

The man in the photo escaped, joined the Union army, and became part of the fight to abolish slavery in the United States. If a powerful image like that disappears from public display, “we rob ourselves of the reminder that it’s possible to do something about the things that are wrong.”