order

Africa is burning, not metaphorically, but in measurable realities of conflict, collapse, and abandonment. Old wars refuse to end, new crises are born faster than diplomacy can name them, and the continent has become the gravitational centre of global disorder. This is not accidental. It is the consequence of a world order that has lost both its moral authority and its will to act reasonably. 

Across Africa, unresolved conflicts metastasise into permanent emergencies. From the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where rebellion has become cyclical rather than exceptional, to Nigeria, where life has become short and brutal, even for schoolchildren, to the broader Sahel, where state authority continues to retreat.

West Africa alone has recorded more military coups and counter-coups in recent years than any other region in the world, a stark signal of democratic erosion and widespread disillusionment with governance models that no longer deliver security or dignity.

At the same time, global terrorist organisations once concentrated in the Middle East, such as Al-Qaeda and the so-called Islamic State, have strategically relocated their operational centres to Africa. This shift is not because Africa is inherently prone to extremism, but because prolonged neglect, weak international engagement, and fragmented security cooperation have created fertile ground. Terrorism has followed power vacuums, not cultures.

Climate change compounds these failures. Shrinking water sources, desertification, and unpredictable weather patterns are intensifying violent competition over land and livelihoods in countries like Nigeria. Farmer–herder conflicts, insurgent recruitment, and forced displacement are increasingly linked to environmental stress. Africa, which has contributed the least to global carbon emissions, is paying one of the highest prices for climate inaction.

Meanwhile, the continent’s once-vibrant wildlife and ecological heritage are being depleted at alarming rates, seen as collateral damage of conflict, illegal exploitation, and weak global enforcement. The loss is a planetary failure dressed up as a regional problem.

Yet the world’s response is disturbingly muted.

The traditional self-appointed guardians of international order – the global ombudsmen who once spoke the language of human rights, rule of law, and humanitarian responsibility – are increasingly selective, inconsistent, or complicit in many wars. While African conflicts smoulder with minimal global outrage, these same powers are actively involved in or defending genocide in Gaza. International law, once presented as universal, is now applied with geopolitical discretion.

More troubling still is the open disregard for sovereignty and legal norms by states that brand themselves as “civilised democracies”. From extraterritorial military actions to extraordinary renditions and unilateral interventions, practices once condemned when carried out by authoritarian regimes are now normalised by democratic ones—often without consequence. 

This double standard carries profound implications for Africa. It weakens already fragile states, delegitimises global institutions, and reinforces the perception that African lives and laws matter less in the global calculus. When rules are enforced selectively, power, not justice, becomes the governing principle.

The world today is not merely facing a crisis of conflict; it is facing a crisis of leadership.

What is missing is rational, principled global leadership that upholds the rule of law not only within national borders but across them; leadership that does not excuse violations when committed by allies; leadership that understands Africa not as a theatre of endless emergencies but as a central pillar of global stability. Africa, long treated as the periphery of global concern, may yet prove to be the mirror in which the world’s moral failure is most clearly reflected.

OASIS star Liam Gallagher is facing a new court order to reveal how much money he has earned from the band’s hugely successful reunion tour, The Sun on Sunday can reveal.

A court hearing is set to be held in New York this month after the mother of the singer’s love child filed a fresh legal motion to access his latest finances.

Liza Ghorbani is trying to obtain the singer’s bank records, tax returns and credit card statements to show how much he is now worth, say experts.

It will be the first time the band’s tour finances — which are estimated to be more than £350million — face being exposed to public scrutiny.

Ms Ghorbani wants to use the fresh information to prove he should stump up the £500,000 a year she’s claiming for the care of their daughter Gemma, 12, who was born in 2013 after an affair.

Liam, 53, and his brother Noel, 58, are expected to have raked in millions of pounds for last year’s sell-out Oasis Live ’25 reunion world tour.

Read more on Liam Gallagher

HOME GOAL

Oasis singer Liam Gallagher buys £4.25m mansion from former England captain

LAST FAREWELL

Liam Gallagher carries Gary Mounfield’s coffin as Beckham leads mourners

The band, whose 1994 debut album Definitely Maybe has sold 15million copies worldwide, is estimated to have made £303million from ticket sales alone — with another £40million from sponsorship deals and merchandise.

More cash to come

Last week The Sun on Sunday told how Liam treated himself after the tour, splashing out on Arsenal star Tony Adams’s £4.25million Cotswolds mansion.

And there could be more cash to come as he has been teasing fans about new tour dates in the next couple of years.

It is understood that Ms Ghorbani, 51, is trying to access details on all of their tour-related income.

We can reveal that lawyers for the US music journalist have filed an application for an Order to Show Cause in New York’s Supreme Court.

The judge hearing their case, Mr ­Jeffrey Pearlman, has been asked to consider a motion to compel both sides to answer further questions and provide more information to help him make a decision.

He has set a date later this month for a fresh court hearing.

Ms Ghorbani has filed various documents into the court, including 15 exhibits setting out her specific requests on what she wants from Liam’s lawyers.

Details of her exact demands have not been disclosed.

But top New York family lawyer Morgan Mazer said Liam will have to hand over the documents relating to tour earnings during a process in the case called discovery.

Ms Mazer said: “Ms Ghorbani can get access to the tour merchandise sales, if it’s a side thing Mr Gallagher is earning money from.

He has been more than generous over the years and is standing firm with his legal team

Source close to Liam

“Ms Ghorbani will want to look at any employment and income, any perks that Mr Gallagher has.

“Credit card statements are relevant because some people don’t always show all their income on their tax returns.

“With the credit card statements you can glean what somebody is making based on their lifestyle. The powers to determine what you should pay in child support are broad.”

Yesterday a source close to the singer told The Sun on Sunday: “Liam has been focused on enjoying Christmas with his family and not letting this court case get to him.

“He has been more than generous over the years and is standing firm with his legal team.”

In March we revealed Ms Ghorbani had filed a lawsuit demanding more money despite the case being settled in 2015.

The rocker responded by slamming her on X as a “gold digger”.

He also posted a link to the 1963 Beatles song Money (That’s What I Want).

His tax returns will be sophisticated so you will likely want a forensic accountant to review them

Dror Bikel, New York family lawyer

Ms Ghorbani claims she needs more money because Gemma is autistic and her needs have changed.

Liam’s lawyer Judith Poller has called it an attempt to cash in on the Oasis tour.

Dror Bikel, another respected New York family lawyer, said the examination of Liam’s finances could be extensive.

He added: “When the accountants sink their teeth into it, people are in for a ride.

“His tax returns will be sophisticated so you will likely want a forensic accountant to review them and you can find out what investments he has, what property he owns.

“You start with the tax returns and go from there.”

And he said Liam could be held in ­contempt of court if he refuses to hand over more information.

Mr Bikel went on: “He could face financial penalties and the severest ­punishment is incarceration.

‘Could be consequences’

“If he doesn’t hand over his financial details there could be consequences.”

Mr Bikel also chided Liam for insulting Ms Ghorbani and said that it was “never a good idea” because “courts don’t like those kinds of things”.

In June the New York court heard Liam has paid out more than £750,000 since 2015. His lawyers said he later agreed to pay £180,000 towards Gemma’s school and autism-related expenses.

But Ms Ghorbani is demanding £510,000 a year to cover child support and expenses.

She and her daughter live in a £3,300-a-month Manhattan apartment. Her new demands include £22,500 a month for a home with a pool, £75,000 a year for a live-in nanny and a £5,000 holiday budget.

Liam, who has three other children, is said to have had a fling with Ms Ghorbani in 2011 soon after she interviewed him, while he was married to singer Nicole Appleton.

Additional reporting: Hannah Hope

Jan. 2 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order stopping a semiconductor chips deal between U.S. and Chinese companies citing national security concerns.

The $2.92 million deal would have seen HieFo Corp., a Delaware-based company operated out of China, acquire the semiconductor chips and wafer fabrication businesses of New Jersey’s EMCORE Corp. The two companies announced plans for the deal in 2024.

“There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that HieFo Corporation, a company organized under the laws of Delaware (HieFo) and controlled by a citizen of the People’s Republic of China … might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,” Trump’s order reads.

The executive order, issued under the Defense Production Act, prevents HieFo from having any interest or rights in Encore assets and orders HieFo to divest from Encore within 180 days. The divestment is expected to be overseen by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

WASHINGTON — A federal magistrate judge on Friday refused to order the pretrial release of a man charged with planting two pipe bombs outside the headquarters of the Democratic and Republican national parties on the eve of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew Sharbaugh ruled that Brian J. Cole Jr. must remain jailed before trial. The magistrate concluded there are no conditions of release that can reasonably protect the public from the danger that Cole allegedly poses.

Justice Department prosecutors say Cole confessed to placing pipe bombs outside the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee headquarters only hours before a mob of President Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol. According to prosecutors, Cole said he hoped the explosives would detonate and “hoped there would be news about it.”

“Mercifully, that did not happen,” Sharbaugh wrote. “But if the plan had succeeded, the results,” he said, could have been devastating, “creating a greater sense of terror on the eve of a high-security Congressional proceeding, causing serious property damage in the heart of Washington, D.C., grievously injuring DNC or RNC staff and other innocent bystanders, or worse.”

After his arrest last month, Cole told investigators that he believed someone needed to “speak up” for people who believed the 2020 election, which Democrat Joe Biden won, was stolen and that he wanted to target the country’s political parties because they were “in charge,” according to prosecutors.

If convicted of both charges against him, Cole faces up to 10 years of imprisonment on one charge and up to 20 years of imprisonment on a second charge that also carries a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence.

Cole’s attorneys asked for him to be released on home detention with GPS monitoring. They said Cole doesn’t have a criminal record, has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder, and lives in a stable home that he shared with his parents in Woodbridge, Va.

“Mr. Cole simply does not pose a danger to the community,” defense attorneys wrote. “Whatever risk the government posits is theoretical and backward-looking, belied by the past four years where Mr. Cole lived at home with his family without incident.”

Cole continued to purchase bomb-making components for months after the Jan. 6 riot, according to prosecutors. They said Cole told the FBI that he planted the pipe bombs because “something just snapped.”

“The sudden and abrupt motivation behind Mr. Cole’s alleged actions presents concerns about how quickly the same abrupt and impulsive conduct might recur,” Sharbaugh wrote.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.

In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.

With the court’s approval, the administration dismissed thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research grants, dismantled the agency that funds foreign aid and cleared the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.

But the court also put two important checks on the president’s power.

In April, the court twice ruled — including in a post-midnight order — that the Trump administration could not secretly whisk immigrants out of the country without giving them a hearing before a judge.

Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.

Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang.
Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.

They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.

And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.

Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.

The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

For much of the year, however, Roberts and the five other conservatives were in the majority ruling for Trump. In dissent, the three liberal justices said the court should stand aside for now and defer to district judges.

In May, the court agreed that Trump could end the Biden administration’s special temporary protections extended to more than 350,000 Venezuelans as well as an additional 530,000 migrants who arrived legally from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua or Venezuela.

It was easier to explain why the new administration’s policies were cruel and disruptive rather than why they were illegal.

Trump’s lawyers argued that the law gave the president’s top immigration officials the sole power to decide on these temporary protections and that “no judicial review” was authorized.

Nonetheless, a federal judge in San Francisco twice blocked the administration’s repeal of the temporary protected status for Venezuelans, and a federal judge in Boston blocked the repeal of the entry-level parole granted to migrants under Biden.

The court is also poised to uphold the president’s power to fire officials who have been appointed for fixed terms at independent agencies.

Since 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates, the government has had semi-independent boards and commissions led by a mix of Republicans and Democrats.

But Roberts and the court’s conservatives believe that because these agencies enforce the law, they come under the president’s “executive power.”

That ruling may come with an exception for the Federal Reserve Board, an independent agency whose nonpartisan stability is valued by business leaders.

Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, the former legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court has sent mixed signals.

“On the emergency docket, it has ruled consistently for the president, with some notable exceptions,” he said. “I do think it significant that it put a halt to the National Guard deployments and to the Alien Enemies Act deportations, at least for the time being. And I think by this time next year, it’s possible that the court will have overturned two of Trump’s signature initiatives — the birthright citizenship executive order and the tariffs.”

For much of 2025, the court was criticized for handing down temporary unsigned orders with little or no explanation.

That practice arose in 2017 in response to Trump’s use of executive orders to make abrupt, far-reaching changes in the law. In response, Democratic state attorneys and lawyers for progressive groups sued in friendly forums such as Seattle, San Francisco and Boston and won rulings from district judges who put Trump’s policies on hold.

The 2017 “travel ban” announced in Trump’s first week in the White House set the pattern. It suspended the entry of visitors and migrants from Venezuela and seven mostly-Muslim countries on the grounds that those countries had weak vetting procedures.

Judges blocked it from taking effect, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the order discriminated based on nationality.

A year later, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and upheld Trump’s order in a 5-4 ruling. Roberts pointed out that Congress in the immigration laws clearly gave this power to the president. If he “finds that the entry of … any class of aliens … would be detrimental,” it says, he may “suspend the entry” of all such migrants for as long as “he shall deem necessary.”

Since then, Roberts and the court’s conservatives have been less willing to stand aside while federal judges hand down nationwide rulings.

Democrats saw the same problem when Biden was president.

In April 2023, a federal judge in west Texas ruled for anti-abortion advocates and decreed that the Food and Drug Administration had wrongly approved abortion pills that can end an early pregnancy. He ordered that they be removed from the market before any appeals could be heard and decided.

The Biden administration filed an emergency appeal. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court set aside the judge’s order, over dissents from Thomas and Alito.

The next year, the court heard arguments and then threw out the entire lawsuit on the grounds that abortion foes did not have standing to sue.

Since Trump returned to the White House, the court’s conservative majority has not deferred to district judges. Instead, it has repeatedly lifted injunctions that blocked Trump’s policies from taking effect.

Although these are not final rulings, they are strong signs that the administration will prevail.

But Trump’s early wins do not mean he will win on some of his most disputed policies.

In November, the justices sounded skeptical of Trump’s claim that a 1977 trade law, which did not mention tariffs, gave him the power to set these import taxes on products coming from around the world.

In the spring, the court will hear Trump’s claim that he can change the principle of birthright citizenship set in the 14th Amendment and deny citizenship it to newborns whose parents are here illegally or entered as visitors.

Rulings on both cases will be handed down by late June.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A newly unsealed order in the criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia reveals that high-level Justice Department officials pushed for his indictment, calling it a “top priority,” only after he was mistakenly deported and then ordered returned to the U.S.

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty in federal court in Tennessee to charges of human smuggling. He is seeking to have the case dismissed on the grounds that the prosecution is vindictive — a way for President Trump’s administration to punish him for the embarrassment of his mistaken deportation.

To support that argument, he has asked the government to turn over documents that reveal how the decision was made to prosecute him in 2025 for an incident that occurred in 2022. On Dec. 3, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw filed an order under seal that compelled the government to provide some documents to Abrego Garcia and his attorneys. That order was unsealed on Tuesday and sheds new light on the case.

Earlier, Crenshaw found that there was “some evidence” that the prosecution of Abrego Garcia could be vindictive. He specifically cited a statement by Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on a Fox News program that seemed to suggest that the Department of Justice charged Abrego Garcia because he had won his wrongful deportation case.

Rob McGuire, who was the acting U.S. Atty. for the Middle District of Tennessee until late December, argued that those statements were irrelevant because he alone made the decision to prosecute, and he has no animus against Abrego Garcia.

In the newly unsealed order, Crenshaw writes, “Some of the documents suggest not only that McGuire was not a solitary decision-maker, but he in fact reported to others in DOJ and the decision to prosecute Abrego may have been a joint decision.”

The U.S. attorney’s office for the Middle District of Tennessee released a statement saying, “The emails cited in Judge Crenshaw’s order, specifically Mr. McGuire’s email on May 15, 2025, confirm that the ultimate decision on whether to prosecute was made by career prosecutors based on the facts, evidence, and established DOJ practice. Communications with the Deputy Attorney General’s Office about a high-profile case are both required and routine.”

The email referenced was from McGuire to his staff stating that Blanche “would like Garcia charged sooner rather than later,” according to Crenshaw’s order.

The human smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee in which Abrego Garcia was pulled over for speeding. There were nine passengers in the car, and state troopers discussed the possibility of human smuggling among themselves. However, he was ultimately allowed to leave with only a warning. The case was turned over to Homeland Security Investigations, but there is no record of any effort to charge him until April 2025, according to court records.

The order does not give a lot of detail on what is in the documents that were turned over to Abrego Garcia, but it shows that Aakash Singh, who works under Blanche in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, contacted McGuire about Abrego Garcia’s case on April 27, the same day that McGuire received a file on the case from Homeland Security Investigations. That was several days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Abrego Garcia’s favor on April 10.

On April 30, Singh said in an email to McGuire that the prosecution was a “top priority” for the Deputy Attorney General’s Office, according to the order. Singh and McGuire continued to communicate about the prosecution. On May 18, Singh wrote to McGuire and others to hold the draft indictment until they got “clearance” to file it. “The implication is that ‘clearance’ would come from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General,” Crenshaw writes.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss the case on the basis of vindictive prosecution is scheduled for Jan. 28.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

Isiah Whitlock Jr., best known for his role in HBO’s “The Wire” and his collaborations with director Spike Lee in films such as “BlacKkKlansman” and “Da 5 Bloods,” has died. He was 71.

Whitlock’s manager, Brian Liebman, shared news of his client’s death in an Instagram post on Tuesday.

“It is with tremendous sadness that I share the passing of my dear friend and client Isiah Whitlock Jr.,” Liebman wrote. “If you knew him — you loved him. A brilliant actor and even better person. May his memory forever be a blessing. Our hearts are so broken. He will be very, very missed.”

Liebman told Deadline that Whitlock died peacefully in New York after a short illness.

Born in South Bend, Ind., Whitlock had dreams of playing pro football. He told NPR in 2021 that, while playing at Southwest Minnesota State University, he got “banged up … concussions, broken ankles.”

“To me it just didn’t seem to make sense anymore. … I wandered by the theater department.” After nabbing a role in “The Crucible,” he said he’d been “working ever since.”

After graduating in 1976, Whitlock joined the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco.

At the start of his career, the actor picked up roles in procedurals and dramas, including iterations of the “Law & Order” franchise, notably “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” and “Law & Order: Criminal Intent.”

He most famously left his mark on HBO’s “The Wire” as corrupt Maryland State Sen. Clay Davis, whose drawn-out, drawled profanity, “s—,” became a memorable element of the 60-episode crime drama.

After brief appearances on multiple short-lived TV series, including Fox’s “New Amsterdam,” ABC’s “The Unusuals,” CBS’ “Chaos,” and others, Whitlock made his HBO return with a recurring role on the political satire “Veep” as George Maddox, the secretary of defense and presidential candidate.

Whitlock also appeared on CBS shows “The Good Wife,” “Elementary,” FX’s “Louie,” “Atlanta,” Fox’s “Gotham,” NBC’s “The Carmichael Show” among many more. His final TV role was as Chief of Police Larry Dokes in Netflix’s 2025 mystery comedy drama “The Residence.”

On the big screen, Whitlock appeared in the black comedy horror film “Cocaine Bear” in 2023, as well as multiple movies directed by Lee, including “She Hate Me” (2004), “Chi-Raq” (2015), “BlacKkKlansman” (2018) and “Da 5 Bloods” (2020).

The director shared a photo of the two on his Instagram account, writing, “Today I learned of the passing of my dear beloved brother Isiah Whitlock. God Bless.”

Whitlock is slated for two posthumous releases, the 2026 Pixar animated film “Hoppers” and the Irish American film “The Body Is Water,” directed by Vicky Wight.

State regulators ordered Southern California Edison to identify fire risks on its unused transmission lines like the century-old equipment suspected of igniting the devastating Eaton wildfire.

Edison also must tell regulators how its 355 miles of out-of-service transmission lines located in areas of high fire risk will be used in the future, according to a document issued by the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety on Dec. 23.

State regulations require utilities to remove abandoned lines so they don’t become a public hazard. Edison executives said they did not remove the Eaton Canyon line because they believed it would be used in the future. It last carried power in 1971.

The Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety said Edison must determine which unused transmission lines are most at risk of igniting fires and create a plan to decrease that risk. In some cases that might mean removing the equipment entirely.

While the OEIS report focuses on Edison, the agency said it also will require the state’s other electric companies to take similar actions with their idle transmission lines.

Scott Johnson, an Edison spokesman, said Monday that the company already had been reviewing idle lines and planned to respond to the regulators’ requests. He said Edison often keeps idle lines in place “to support long-term system needs, such as future electrification, backup capacity or regional growth.”

“If idle lines are identified to have no future use, they are removed,” he said.

Johnson said that since 2018, Edison has removed idle lines that no longer had a purpose seven times and provided a list of those projects.

The investigation into the cause of the Eaton wildfire by state and local fire officials has not yet been released. Edison has said the leading theory is that the dormant transmission line in Eaton Canyon briefly reenergized on the night of Jan. 7, sparking the fire.

Unused lines can become energized from electrified lines running parallel to them through a process called induction.

The Eaton wildfire killed at least 19 people and destroyed more than 9,000 homes and structures in Altadena.

After the fires, Edison said it had added more grounding equipment to its old transmission lines no longer in service. The added devices give any unexpected electricity on the line more places to disperse into the ground, making them less likely to spark a fire.

The OEIS issued its latest directives after Edison executives informed the agency they had no plans to remove any out-of-service lines between now and 2028, the report said.

State regulators and the utilities have long known that old transmission lines can ignite wildfires.

The Times reported how Edison and other utilities defeated a state regulatory plan, introduced in 2001, which would’ve forced the companies to remove abandoned lines unless they could prove they would use them again.

In its report the OEIS noted it would require Edison and other electric companies to provide details of how often each idle line was inspected and how long it took to fix problems found in those inspections.

Edison has said it inspected the unused line in Eaton Canyon annually before the fire — just as often as it inspects live lines. The company declined to provide The Times with documentation of those inspections.

In the OEIS report, energy safety regulators said they expect to to approve Edison’s wildfire mitigation plan for the next three years despite the problems they found with the approach.

For example, the report noted that Edison is behind in replacing or reinforcing aging and deteriorating transmission and distribution poles. The regulators said the backlog “includes many work orders on [Edison’s] riskiest circuits.” A circuit is a line or other infrastructure that provides a pathway for electricity.

Officials said the company must work on reducing that backlog. They also criticized Edison executives for not incorporating any lessons they learned from the Jan. 7 wildfires into the company’s fire prevention plans.

Johnson, Edison’s spokesperson, said the company already improved the backlog of pole replacements. He said the company also planned to tell regulators more about the lessons it learned after the Eaton fire.

Under state law, the OEIS must approve a utility’s wildfire mitigation plan before it can issue the company a safety certificate that protects the company from liability if its equipment ignites a catastrophic fire.

The OEIS issued Edison’s last safety certificate less than a month before the Eaton fire — despite the company having had thousands of open work orders, including some on the transmission lines above Altadena, at the time.

Edison is offering to pay for damages suffered by Eaton fire victims and a handful already accepted its offers. The utility says that because it held a safety certificate at the time of the fire it expects to be reimbursed for most or all of the payments by a $21-billion state wildfire fund.

If that fund doesn’t cover the damages, a law passed this year enables Edison to raise its electric rates to make up the difference.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers passed laws to create the state fund and safety certificate program to protect utilities from bankruptcy if their equipment starts costly wildfires. Critics say the laws have gone too far, potentially leaving utilities financially unharmed from fires caused by their negligence.

Edison is fighting hundreds of lawsuits filed by victims of the Eaton fire. The company says it acted prudently in maintaining the safety of its system before the fire.

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company, told The Times this month that he believed the company had been “a reasonable operator” of its system before the fire.

“Accidents can happen,” Pizarro said. “Perfection is not something you can achieve, but prudency is a standard to which we’re held.”

The military rulers expand emergency powers, warning that people, property, and services may be requisitioned.

Niger’s military rulers have approved a general mobilisation and authorised the requisition of people and goods as they intensify the fight against armed groups across the country, according to a government statement.

The decision followed a cabinet meeting on Friday and marks a major escalation by the military government, which seized power in a July 2023 coup that toppled the country’s democratically elected president, Mohamed Bazoum.

“People, property, and services may be requisitioned during general mobilisation to contribute to the defence of the homeland, in compliance with the legislation and regulations in force,” the government said in a statement issued late on Saturday.

“Every citizen is required to respond immediately to any call-up or recall order, to comply without delay with the implementation of measures for the defence of the homeland, and to submit to requisition,” it added.

The authorities said the measures aim to “preserve the integrity of the national territory” and “protect the population” as Niger continues to face attacks by armed groups operating across several regions.

Niger has been embroiled in deadly armed conflict for more than a decade, with violence linked to fighters affiliated with al-Qaeda and the ISIL (ISIS) group. Nearly 2,000 people have been killed, according to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), which tracks political violence.

The southeast of the country has also suffered repeated attacks by Boko Haram and its splinter group, the ISIL affiliate in West Africa Province (ISWAP), further stretching Niger’s security forces.

The mobilisation order comes five years after Niger expanded its armed forces to around 50,000 troops and raised the retirement age for senior officers from 47 to 52. Since taking power, the military government has also urged citizens to make “voluntary” financial contributions to a fund launched in 2023 to support military spending and agricultural projects.

Soon after the coup, Niger’s rulers ordered French and United States troops, who had supported operations to combat rebel fighters, to withdraw from the country.

Niger has since deepened security cooperation with neighbouring Mali and Burkina Faso, also ruled by a military government. The three Sahel states have formed a joint force of 5,000 troops, presenting it as a regional response to armed groups while further distancing themselves from Western partners.

The Bush Administration’s long-heralded gag order–a regulation that prevents federally funded family planning centers from providing abortion counseling–went into effect Thursday, leaving a bureaucratic ball of confusion for California clinics leading a nationwide fight to thwart the rule.

The state’s 220 clinics, which receive $12 million a year in federal family planning funds, have implemented an elaborate bookkeeping plan that takes advantage of state law, which contradicts the federal regulation by mandating that clinics suggest abortion as an option for pregnant women.

Under the plan, staff members whose salaries are paid with state or private money will continue to offer the counseling while those who are paid by the federal government will not.

Barbara Jackson, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino counties, said her organization simply made adjustments to use state money for pregnancy testing and options counseling and to redirect federal money for approved services. “We’re not changing our service one iota,” Jackson said Thursday. “We’re providing the same level of care for our patients that we always have and always will.

“We had made the decision that we could not deny our patients information, and we’ve not renegged on that commitment to our patients. We’ve simply been practical and decided that if we can’t use federal money for that service, we’ll use other money for that service.”

At Planned Parenthood’s five Orange County clinics Thursday, patients found signs explaining that federal money was not sudisidizing pregnancy counseling or testing. Those patients who received those services signed release forms stating that they understood that their care was funded by the state, not the federal government.

“The only thing different is simply making it clear to our patients, to anyone that is concerned about this issue, that these particular services are not funded by federal dollars,” Jackson said.

Last year, Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino counties received $122,000 in Title 10 federal funds–those that cannot now be used for pregnancy testing and counseling. That is only about 3.7% of the program’s $3.3-million budget, which made it somewhat simple to divert the funds from the prohibited activities, Jackson said. Because California has a state family planning office that funds clinics, the ruling “has a much greater impact in other parts of the country.”

But even in Southern California, some clinic’s found Thursday that while the fund-diversion plan sounded good in theory, it was not easy in practice–and could put the clinics on shaky legal ground.

At the T.H.E. Clinic for Women in Los Angeles’ Crenshaw district–where 2,500 largely poor, mostly minority women come each year for family planning services–nurse practitioners must account for every hour of their time and who is paying for it.

If a woman tests positive for pregnancy in the morning, when the nurses are being paid with state funds, she will receive counseling and pamphlets outlining her options–carrying the baby to term and raising it, placing the child up for adoption or in a foster home, or terminating the pregnancy.

But if a patient visits in the afternoon, when the nurses’ salaries are drawn from federal money, any discussion of abortion will be taboo and the woman will be told euphemistically to come back another time if she wants to talk about further options.

Across the nation, many family planning centers are following California’s lead, said Judith DeSarno, executive director of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn., which represents 90% of the nation’s 4,000 federally funded family planning clinics. “Everyone is trying a variation of the California theme,” she said.

The new system was put to the test Thursday morning at T.H.E. Clinic for Women, when nursing director Marilyn Norwood received a visit from a 21-year-old college student who is 10 weeks pregnant and wanted information about abortion. During the session, Norwood told the young woman–who had not heard of the gag order–that she would have been out of luck if she had arrived an hour later. Norwood found the encounter frustrating–and infuriating.

“I am angry,” said the bespectacled, 61-year-old nurse practitioner who has worked at the clinic for 18 years. “Now, (in the afternoons) all of a sudden I have to sit there like I have tape across my mouth?”

To Sylvia Drew Ivie, the clinic’s executive director, the plan is “a real bureaucratic nightmare. . . . We have never before had to account for time spent on what you are permitted to say and what you are not permitted to say.”

But the real hardship, Ivie said, will be on patients, many of whom have to take public transportation to the clinic and have difficulty coming for visits–let alone coming back a second time at a precise hour for counseling that was once available any time.

In rural Tulare County, Family Planning Program Inc. serves 7,000 patients each year in its three clinics. Executive Director Kay Truesdale said the program’s one full-time bookkeeper must design a system for keeping track of which money is spent on what. Truesdale is worried that the clinics will be forced to spend more on administration, which could mean a cutback in other services.

“It’s going to be difficult. We are a very small agency and it’s going to add a burden to our clinic. . . . Each layer of (bureaucracy) adds to the cost of doing business and that takes away from the money that we can use to see patients, no matter how you slice it.”

The gag order, initiated by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, goes into effect amid a flurry of activity in Washington that has opponents hoping the regulation will not remain in effect for long. The Senate on Thursday overrode President Bush’s veto of a bill that would have nullified the regulation, although the House is expected to sustain the veto.

Meanwhile, two legal challenges are pending. A federal judge in Washington may rule today on a request brought by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. for an injunction to delay implementation of the rule. And an appeals court hearing is scheduled Oct. 14 in another lawsuit, also brought by that group.

In the interim, DeSarno said, her organization is concerned that the government could crack down on California and other states that are using creative maneuvers to get around the rule, particularly because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has not given explicit approval to their methods. Health and Human Services officials have only said that the California plan is under review.

“There are severe federal penalties if you say you are going to comply with regulations and then you don’t,” DeSarno said. “It’s considered fraud. We now don’t know–are we complying or are we not complying? People are being put at great risk. The California clinics may be put at great risk.”

California clinic administrators have been outspoken opponents of the abortion gag rules. Officials of the California Family Planning Council said more than a year ago that the clinics would forfeit federal assistance rather than deny women full discussion of their options. Instead, the clinics decided to try the new plan–a decision that was encouraged by a favorable court ruling in one of the lawsuits and wavering by the federal government on the precise scope of the regulations.

Sima Michaels, associate director of the council, said the organization has instructed its member clinics to post signs informing clients that federal funds are not being used for pregnancy counseling. In addition, she said, patients are being asked to sign consent forms stating that they understand that federal money is not being used for the services.

“So far,” she said, “we have not heard that our plan is not acceptable. We are complying with the gag rule. We’re just being creative about it.”

Times staff writer Jodi Wilgoren contributed to this story.

DIVISIVE ISSUE: Senate votes to override Bush abortion counseling veto. A27

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a March presidential memorandum to revoke the security clearance of prominent Washington attorney Mark Zaid, ruling that the order — which also targeted 14 other individuals — could not be applied to him.

The decision marked the administration’s second legal setback on Tuesday, after the Supreme Court declined to allow Trump to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area, capping a first year in office in which President Trump’s efforts to impose a sweeping agenda and pursue retribution against political adversaries have been repeatedly slowed by the courts.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington granted Zaid’s request for a preliminary injunction, after he sued the Trump administration in May over the revocation of his security clearance. Zaid’s request called it an act of “improper political retribution” that jeopardized his ability to continue representing clients in sensitive national security cases.

The March presidential memorandum singled out Zaid and 14 other individuals who the White House asserted were unsuitable to retain their clearances because it was “no longer in the national interest.” The list included targets of Trump’s fury from both the political and legal spheres, including former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, New York Attorney General Letitia James, former President Joe Biden and members of his family.

The action was part of a much broader retribution campaign that Trump has waged since returning to the White House, including directing specific Justice Department investigations against perceived adversaries and issuing sweeping executive orders targeting law firms over legal work he does not like.

In August, the Trump administration said it was revoking the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials. Ordering the revocation of clearances has been a favored retributive tactic that Trump has wielded — or at least tried to — against high-profile political figures, lawyers and intelligence officials in his second term.

Zaid said in his lawsuit that he has represented clients across the political spectrum over nearly 35 years, including government officials, law enforcement and military officials and whistleblowers. In 2019, he represented an intelligence community whistleblower whose account of a conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy helped set the stage for the first of two impeachment cases against Trump in his first term.

“This court joins the several others in this district that have enjoined the government from using the summary revocation of security clearances to penalize lawyers for representing people adverse to it,” Ali wrote in his order.

Ali emphasized that his order does not prevent the government from revoking or suspending Zaid’s clearance for reasons independent of the presidential memorandum and through normal agency processes. The preliminary injunction does not go into effect until January 13.

Zaid said in a statement, “This is not just a victory for me, it’s an indictment of the Trump administration’s attempts to intimidate and silence the legal community, especially lawyers who represent people who dare to question or hold this government accountable.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

A transgender employee of the National Security Agency is suing the Trump administration and seeking to block enforcement of a presidential executive order and other policies the employee says violate federal civil rights law.

Sarah O’Neill, an NSA data scientist who is transgender, is challenging President Trump’s Inauguration Day executive order that required the federal government, in all operations and printed materials, to recognize only two “immutable” sexes: male and female.

According to the lawsuit filed Monday in a U.S. District Court in Maryland, Trump’s order “declares that it is the policy of the United States government to deny Ms. O’Neill’s very existence.”

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

The order, which reflected Trump’s 2024 campaign rhetoric, spurred policies that O’Neill is challenging, as well.

Since Trump’s initial executive action, O’Neill asserts the NSA has canceled its policy recognizing her transgender identity and “right to a workplace free of unlawful harassment,” while “prohibiting her from identifying her pronouns as female in written communications” and “barring her from using the women’s restroom at work.”

O’Neill contends those policies and the orders behind them create a hostile work environment and violate Section VII of the Civil Rights Act. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that Section VII’s prohibition on discrimination based on sex applied to gender identity.

“We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex,” the court’s majority opinion stated. “But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”

O’Neill’s lawsuit argued, “The Executive Order rejects the existence of gender identity altogether, let alone the possibility that someone’s gender identity can differ from their sex, which it characterizes as ‘gender ideology.’ ”

In addition to restoring her workplace rights and protections, O’Neill is seeking financial damages.

Trump’s order was among a flurry of executive actions he took hours after taking office. He has continued using executive action aggressively in his second presidency, prompting many legal challenges that are still working their way through the federal judiciary.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

The executive order calls on the US attorney general to expedite federal reclassification, creating fewer barriers for studies.

United States President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to federally reclassify marijuana as less dangerous.

The move on Thursday requires Attorney General Pam Bondi to expedite the process under the Drug Enforcement Administration for reclassifying marijuana.

In the US, drugs and other chemical substances are divided into a five-tier classification system, with Schedule I representing the most restricted tier and Schedule V the least.

Marijuana was previously in the Schedule I category, where it was classed alongside potent narcotics like heroin and LSD. With Thursday’s order, it would be fast-tracked down to Schedule III, in a class with ketamine and anabolic steroids.

Trump said the change “is not the legalisation” of marijuana, and he added that it “in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug”.

The change, however, will make it easier to conduct research on marijuana, as studies on Schedule III drugs require far less approval than for Schedule I substances.

Speaking earlier in the week, Trump told reporters the change was popular “because it leads to tremendous amounts of research that can’t be done unless you reclassify, so we are looking at that very strongly”.

The change is in line with several states that have moved to legalise marijuana for both medical and recreational use. That has created a patchwork of state-level regulations at odds with federal law, wherein marijuana remains illegal.

Former US President Joe Biden had taken several steps to lessen federal penalties related to marijuana, including a mass pardon for those handed harsh sentences for simple possession.

Such convictions had disproportionately affected minority communities and fuelled mass incarceration in the US.

The Biden administration had also begun the process of reclassifying marijuana to Schedule III, but the effort was not completed before the Democratic president left office in January.

Trump has faced some pushback from within his party about the classification shift. Earlier this year, 20 Republican senators signed a letter urging the president to keep the more severe restrictions.

The group argued that marijuana continues to be dangerous and that a shift would “undermine your strong efforts to Make America Great Again”, a reference to Trump’s campaign slogan.

Meanwhile, public support for legalising marijuana for recreational use has nearly doubled in recent years, increasing from 36 percent support in 2005 to 68 percent in 2024, according to Gallup polls.

Dec. 15 (UPI) — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday said President Donald Trump’s executive order last week seeking national rules on artificial intelligence doesn’t prevent states from imposing laws on the use of the technology.

Speaking at an AI event at Florida Atlantic University, DeSantis said Florida will move forward on AI policies he has dubbed a “Citizen Bill of Rights for Artificial Intelligence.”

“The president issued an executive order. Some people were saying, ‘well, no, this blocks the states,'” DeSantis said, according to The Hill. “It doesn’t.”

Trump signed an executive order Thursday seeking to give the United States a “global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework.”

“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” the order says. “But excessive state regulation thwarts this imperative.”

Politico reported the Trump administration has said it’s prepared to file lawsuits and without funding to states that interfere with federal AI plans.

DeSantis said, though, that an executive order can’t block states.

“You can preempt states under Article 1 powers through congressional legislation on certain issues, but you can’t do it through executive order,” he said.

“But if you read it, they actually say a lot of the stuff we’re talking about are things that they’re encouraging states to do. So even reading very broadly, I think the stuff we’re doing is going to be very consistent. But irrespective, clearly we have the right to do this.”