order

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday that he intends to seek a court order in an attempt to stop President Trump’s deployment of California National Guard troops to Oregon.

Calling the president’s action a “breathtaking abuse of power,” Newsom said in a statement that 300 California National Guard personnel were being deployed to Portland, Ore., a city the president has called “war-ravaged.”

“They are on their way there now,” Newsom said of the National Guard. “This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power.”

Trump’s move came a day after a federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the federalization of Oregon’s National Guard.

The president, who mobilized the California National Guard amid immigration protests earlier this year, has pursued the use of the military to fight crime in cities including Chicago and Washington, D.C., sparking outrage among Democratic officials in those cities. Local leaders, including those in Portland, have said the actions are unnecessary and without legal justification.

“The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words — ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents,” Newsom said.

In June, Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a federal lawsuit over Trump’s mobilization of the state’s National Guard during immigration protests in Los Angeles. California officials are expected to file the court order over Sunday’s deployment using that existing lawsuit.

Newsom has ratcheted up his rhetoric about Trump in recent days: On Friday, the governor lashed out at universities that may sign the president’s higher education compact, which demands rightward campus policy shifts in exchange for priority federal funding.

“I need to put pressure on this moment and pressure test where we are in U.S. history, not just California history,” Newsom said. “…This is it. We are losing this country.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has ruled for a second time that the Trump administration may cancel the “temporary protected status” given to about 600,000 Venezuelans under the Biden administration.

The move, advocates for the Venezuelans said, means thousands of lawfully present individuals could lose their jobs, be detained in immigration facilities and deported to a country that the U.S. government considers unsafe to visit.

The high court granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside decisions of U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties’ legal arguments and relative harms generally have not. The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here,” the court said in an unsigned order Friday.

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the appeal.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. “I view today’s decision as yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” she wrote. “Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent.”

Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had overstepped her legal authority by canceling the legal protection.

Her decision “threw the future of these Venezuelan citizens into disarray and exposed them to substantial risk of wrongful removal, separation from their families and loss of employment,” the panel wrote.

But Trump’s lawyers said the law bars judges from reviewing these decisions by U.S. immigration officials.

Homeland Security applauded the Supreme Court’s action. “Temporary Protected Status was always supposed to be just that: Temporary,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “Yet, previous administrations abused, exploited, and mangled TPS into a de facto amnesty program.”

Congress authorized this protected status for people who are already in the United States but cannot return home because their native countries are not safe.

The Biden administration offered the protections to Venezuelans because of the political and economic collapse brought about by the authoritarian regime of Nicolás Maduro.

Alejandro Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary under Biden, granted the protected status to groups of Venezuelans in 2021 and 2023, totaling about 607,000 people.

Mayorkas extended it again in January, three days before Trump was sworn in. That same month, Noem decided to reverse the extension, which was set to expire for both groups of Venezuelans in October 2026.

Shortly afterward, Noem announced the termination of protections for the 2023 group by April.

In March, Chen issued an order temporarily pausing Noem’s repeal, which the Supreme Court set aside in May with only Jackson in dissent.

The San Francisco judge then held a hearing on the issue and concluded Noem’s repeal violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was arbitrary and and not justified.

He said his earlier order imposing a temporary pause did not prevent him from ruling on the legality of the repeal, and the 9th Circuit agreed.

The approximately 350,000 Venezuelans who had TPS through the 2023 designation saw their legal status restored. Many reapplied for work authorization, said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, and a counsel for the plaintiffs.

In the meantime, Noem announced the cancellation of the 2021 designation, effective Nov. 7.

Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, went back to the Supreme Court in September and urged the justices to set aside the second order from Chen.

“This case is familiar to the Court and involves the increasingly familiar and untenable phenomenon of lower courts disregarding this Court’s orders on the emergency docket,” he said.

The Supreme Court’s decision once again reverses the legal status of the 2023 group and cements the end of legal protections for the 2021 group next month.

In a further complication, the Supreme Court’s previous decision said that anyone who had already received documents verifying their TPS status or employment authorization through next year is entitled to keep it.

That, Arulanantham said, “creates another totally bizarre situation, where there are some people who will have TPS through October 2026 as they’re supposed to because the Supreme Court says if you already got a document it can’t be canceled. Which to me just underscores how arbitrary and irrational the whole situation is.”

Advocates for the Venezuelans said the Trump administration has failed to show that their presence in the U.S. is an emergency requiring immediate court relief.

In a brief filed Monday, attorneys for the National TPS Alliance argued the Supreme Court should deny the Trump administration’s request because Homeland Security officials acted outside the scope of their authority by revoking the TPS protections early.

“Stripping the lawful immigration status of 600,000 people on 60 days’ notice is unprecedented,” Jessica Bansal, an attorney representing the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, wrote in a statement. “Doing it after promising an additional 18 months protection is illegal.”

WASHINGTON — Historically, the U.S. military has been an engine for cultural and social change in America. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s vision for the armed forces he leads runs counter to that.

In comments Tuesday to hundreds of military leaders and their chief enlisted advisers, Hegseth made clear he was not interested in a diverse or inclusive force. His address at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, verbalized what Hegseth has been doing as he takes on any program that can be labeled diversity, equity or inclusion, as well as targeting transgender personnel. Separately, the focus on immigration also is sweeping up veterans.

For too long, “the military has been forced by foolish and reckless politicians to focus on the wrong things. In many ways, this speech is about fixing decades of decay, some of it obvious, some of it hidden,” Hegseth said. “Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading, and we lost our way. We became the woke department, but not anymore.”

Hegseth’s actions — and plans for more — are a reversal of the role the military has often played.

“The military has often been ahead of at least some broader social, cultural, political movements,” said Ronit Stahl, associate professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley. ”The desegregation of the armed forces is perhaps the most classic example.”

President Harry S. Truman’s desegregation order in 1948 came six years before the Supreme Court ordered school desegregation in the Brown vs. Board of Education case — and, Stahl said, “that obviously takes a long time to implement, if it ever fully is implemented.”

It has been a circuitous path

Truman’s order was not a short progression through American society. Although the military was one of the few places where there was organizational diversity, the races did not mix in their actual service. Units like the Tuskegee Airmen, the Navajo Code Talkers and the Buffalo Soldiers, formed in 1866, were segregated until the order opened the door to integrated units.

Women were given full status to serve in 1948 with the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act. There were restrictions on how many could serve and they were generally not allowed to command men or serve in combat. Before then, they had wartime roles and they did not serve in combat, although hundreds of nurses died and women were pilots, including Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASPs.

The WASPs and Tuskegee Airmen were among the first groups this year to be affected when Hegseth issued his DEI order. The Air Force removed training videos of the airmen along with ones showing the World War II contributions of the WASPs at the basic training base in San Antonio. The videos were restored after widespread bipartisan outcry over their removal.

Other issues over time have included “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that allowed gay and lesbian service members to serve as long as their sexual orientation was not public. That was repealed during the Obama administration. Women were allowed to serve on combat aircraft and combat ships in the early 1990s — then all combat positions after a ban was lifted in 2015.

“The military has always had to confront the question of social change and the question of who would serve, how they would serve and in what capacity they would serve. These are questions that have been long-standing back to the founding in some ways, but certainly in the 20th century,” said David Kieran, distinguished chair in Military History at Columbus State University in Columbus, Georgia. “These are not new questions.”

Generally the answer has come down to what “the military writ large” has concluded. “‘How do we achieve our mission best?’” Kieran said. “And a lot of these things have been really hotly debated.”

Part of a larger, longer debate

Kieran offered one example: changes the Army made in the 1960s when it was dealing with a climate of racism and racial tensions. Without that, he said, “the military can’t fight the war in Vietnam effectively.”

The same considerations were given to how to address the problem of sexual harassment. Part of the answer involved what was morally right, but “the larger issue is: If soldiers are being harassed, can the Army carry out its mission effectively?”

While “it is important to see these actions as part of a longer history and a larger debate,” Kieran said, “it’s certainly also true that the current administration is moving at a far more aggressive and faster pace than we’ve seen in earlier administrations.”

Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution, questioned some of the actions that Trump’s Defense Department has taken, including replacing the chairman of the joint chiefs, Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr.

“He was a fine Air Force officer,” O’Hanlon said. Even if he got the job in part because of his race, “it wouldn’t be disqualifying in my book, unless he was unqualified — and he wasn’t.”

Matthew Delmont, a professor of history at Dartmouth College, said the current attitudes he is seeing toward the military suggest a misunderstanding of the armed forces and why the changes have been made.

“The military, for more than seven decades now, has been more on the leading edge in terms of figuring out how to put together an organization that tries to take advantage of the talents and capacities of all Americans,” Delmont said. Since Truman signed his executive order, “the military has moved faster and farther than almost any other organization in thinking about issues of racial equality, and then later thinking about the issues related to gender and sexuality.”

Delmont said bias, prejudice and racism remain in the military, but the armed services have done more “than a lot of corporations, universities, other organizations to try to address those head-on.”

“I wouldn’t say it was because they were particularly interested in trying to advance the social agenda,” he said. “I think they did it because they recognized you can’t have a unified fighting force if the troops are fighting each other, or if you’re actively turning away people who desire to serve their country.”

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

DUBAI — President Trump has signed an executive order vowing to use all measures, including U.S. military action, to defend the energy-rich nation of Qatar — though it remains unclear just what weight the pledge will carry.

The text of the order, available Wednesday on the White House’s website but dated Monday, appears to be another measure by Trump to assure the Qataris following Israel’s surprise attack on the country targeting Hamas leaders as they weighed accepting a ceasefire with Israel over the war in the Gaza Strip.

The order cites the two countries’ “close cooperation” and “shared interest,” vowing to “guarantee the security and territorial integrity of the state of Qatar against external attack.”

“The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory, sovereignty or critical infrastructure of the state of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States,” the order says.

“In the event of such an attack, the United States shall take all lawful and appropriate measures — including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military — to defend the interests of the United States and of the state of Qatar and to restore peace and stability.”

The order apparently came during a visit to Washington on Monday by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump organized a call by Netanyahu to Qatar during the visit in which Netanyahu “expressed his deep regret” over the strike that killed six people, including a member of the Qatari security forces, the White House said.

Qatari officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump’s order. However, the Qatari-funded satellite news network Al Jazeera prominently reported about it Wednesday under the headline: “New Trump executive order guarantees Qatar security after Israeli attack.”

The true scope of the pledge remains in question. Typically, legally binding agreements, or treaties, need to receive the approval of the U.S. Senate. However, presidents have entered international agreements without the Senate’s approval, as President Obama did with Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers.

And ultimately, any decision to take military action rests with the president. That uncertainty has clouded previous U.S. defense agreements in Trump’s second term, such as NATO’s Article 5 guarantees.

Qatar, a peninsular nation that sticks out into the Persian Gulf, became fantastically wealthy through its natural gas reserves. It has been a key U.S. military partner, allowing America’s Central Command to have its forward operating base at its vast Al Udeid Air Base. President Biden named Qatar a major non-NATO ally in 2022, in part due to its help during America’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.

In the aftermath of the Israeli attack, Saudi Arabia entered a mutual defense agreement with Pakistan, bringing the kingdom under Islamabad’s nuclear umbrella. It’s unclear whether other Gulf Arab countries, worried about Israel as well as Iran as it faces reimposed United Nations sanctions over its nuclear program, may seek similar arrangements as well with the region’s longtime security guarantor.

“The Gulf’s centrality in the Middle East and its significance to the United States warrants specific U.S. guarantees beyond President Donald J. Trump’s assurances of nonrepetition and dinner meetings,” wrote Bader al-Saif, a history professor at Kuwait University who analyzes Gulf Arab affairs.

Gambrell writes for the Associated Press.

A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily halted a Trump administration plan to reduce disaster relief and anti-terrorism funding for states with so-called sanctuary policies for undocumented immigrants.

U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy granted the temporary restraining order curtailing the cuts at the request of California, 10 other states and the District of Columbia, which argued in a lawsuit Monday that the policy appeared to have illegally cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

The states said they were first notified of the cuts over the weekend. McElroy made her decision during an emergency hearing on the states’ motion in Rhode Island District Court on Tuesday afternoon.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta cheered the decision as the state’s latest win in pushing back against what he described as a series of unlawful, funding-related power grabs by the Trump administration.

“Over and over, the courts have stopped the Trump Administration’s illegal efforts to tie unrelated grant funding to state policies,” Bonta said. “It’s a little thing called state sovereignty, but given the President’s propensity to violate the Constitution, it’s unsurprising that he’s unfamiliar with it.”

Neither the White House nor the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the funding and notified the states of the cuts, immediately responded to a request for comment Tuesday.

Sanctuary policies are not uniform and the term is imprecise, but it generally refers to policies that bar states and localities — and their local law enforcement agencies — from participating in federal immigration raids or other enforcement initiatives.

The Trump administration and other Republicans have cast such policies as undermining law and order. Democrats and progressives including in California say instead that states and cities have finite public safety resources and that engaging in immigration enforcement serves only to undermine the trust they and their law enforcement agencies need to maintain with the public in order to prevent and solve crime, including in large immigrant communities.

In their lawsuit Monday, the states said the funding being reduced was part of billions in federal dollars annually distributed to the states to “prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters,” and which administrations of both political parties distributed “evenhandedly” for decades before Trump.

Authorized by Congress after events such as Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina, the funding covers the salaries of first responders, testing of state computer networks for cyberattack vulnerabilities, mutual aid compacts between regional partners and emergency responses after disasters, the states said.

Bonta’s office said California was informed over the weekend by Homeland Security officials that it would be receiving $110 million instead of $165 million, a reduction of its budget by about a third. The states’ lawsuit said other blue states saw even more dramatic cuts, with Illinois seeing a 69% reduction and New York receiving a 79% reduction, while red states saw substantial funding increases.

Bonta on Tuesday said the administration’s reshuffling of funds based on state compliance with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement priorities was illegal and needed to be halted — and restored to previous levels based on risk assessment — in order to keep everyone in the country safe.

“California uses the grant funding at stake in our lawsuit to protect the safety of our communities from acts of terrorism and other disasters — meaning the stakes are quite literally life and death,” he said. “This is not something to play politics with. I’m grateful to the court for seeing the urgency of this dangerous diversion of homeland security funding.”

Homeland Security officials have previously argued that the agency should be able to withhold funding from states that it believes are not upholding or are actively undermining its core mission of defending the nation from threats, including the threat it sees from illegal immigration.

Other judges have also ruled against the administration conditioning disaster and public safety funding on states and localities complying with federal immigration policies.

Joining California in Monday’s lawsuit were Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration said Monday that it will open 13 million acres of federal lands for coal mining and provide $625 million to recommission or modernize coal-fired power plants as President Trump continues his efforts to reverse the yearlong decline in the U.S. coal industry.

Actions by the Energy and Interior departments and the Environmental Protection Agency follow executive orders Trump issued in April to revive coal, a reliable but polluting energy source that’s long been shrinking amid environmental regulations and competition from cheaper natural gas.

Environmental groups denounced the announcement, which comes as the Trump administration has clamped down on renewable energy, including freezing permits for offshore wind projects, ending clean energy tax credits and blocking wind and solar projects on federal lands.

Under Trump’s orders, the Energy Department has required fossil-fueled power plants in Michigan and Pennsylvania to keep operating past their retirement dates to meet rising U.S. power demand amid growth in data centers, artificial intelligence and electric cars. The latest announcement would allow those efforts to expand as a precaution against possible electricity shortfalls.

Trump also has directed federal agencies to identify coal resources on federal lands, lift barriers to coal mining and prioritize coal leasing on U.S. lands. A sweeping tax bill approved by Republicans and signed by Trump reduces royalty rates for coal mining from 12.5% to 7%, a significant decrease that officials said will help ensure U.S. coal producers can compete in global markets.

‘Mine baby, mine’

The new law also mandates increased availability for coal mining on federal lands and streamlines federal reviews of coal leases.

“Everybody likes to say, ‘drill baby, drill.’ I know that President Trump has another initiative for us, which is ‘mine baby, mine,’” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said at a news conference Monday at Interior headquarters. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin and Energy Undersecretary Wells Griffith also spoke at the event. All three agencies signed orders boosting coal.

“By reducing the royalty rate for coal, increasing coal acres available for leasing and unlocking critical minerals from mine waste, we are strengthening our economy, protecting national security and ensuring that communities from Montana to Alabama benefit from good-paying jobs,” Burgum said.

Zeldin called coal a reliable energy source that has supported American communities and economic growth for generations.

“Americans are suffering because the past administration attempted to apply heavy-handed regulations to coal and other forms of energy it deemed unfavorable,” he said.

Trump has clamped down on renewable energy

Environmental groups said Trump was wasting federal tax dollars by handing them to owners of the oldest, most expensive and dirtiest source of electricity.

“Subsidizing coal means propping up dirty, uncompetitive plants from last century — and saddling families with their high costs and pollution,” said Ted Kelly, clean energy director for the Environmental Defense Fund. “We need modern, affordable clean energy solutions to power a modern economy, but the Trump administration wants to drag us back to a 1950s electric grid.’’

Solar, wind and battery storage are the cheapest and fastest ways to bring new power to the grid, Kelly and other advocates said. “It makes no sense to cut off your best, most affordable options while doubling down on the most expensive ones,” Kelly said.

The EPA said Monday that it will open a 60-day public comment period on potential changes to a regional haze rule that has helped reduce pollution-fueled haze hanging over national parks, wilderness areas and tribal reservations. Zeldin announced in March that the haze rule would be among dozens of landmark environmental regulations that he plans to roll back or eliminate, including a 2009 finding that climate change harms human health and the environment.

Coal production has dropped steeply

Burgum, who also chairs Trump’s National Energy Dominance Council, said the actions announced Monday, along with the tax law and previous presidential and secretarial orders, will ensure “abundant, affordable energy while reducing reliance on foreign sources of coal and minerals.’’

The Republican president has long promised to boost what he calls “beautiful” coal to fire power plants and for other uses, but the industry has been in decline for decades.

Coal once provided more than half of U.S. electricity production, but its share dropped to about 15% in 2024, down from about 45% as recently as 2010. Natural gas provides about 43% of U.S. electricity, with the remainder from nuclear energy and renewables such as wind, solar and hydropower.

Energy experts say any bump for coal under Trump is likely to be temporary because natural gas is cheaper, and there’s a durable market for wind and solar power no matter who holds the White House.

Daly writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Todd Richmond in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.

Sept. 27 (UPI) — The superintendent of Des Moines Public Schools in Iowa was apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on a deportation order and in possession of a loaded gun in a district vehicle.

Ian Andre Roberts, 54, entered from Guyana in 1999 on a student visa and had a final order for removal by an immigration judge in May 2024, ICE said in a news release Friday.

“This suspect was arrested in possession of a loaded weapon in a vehicle provided by Des Moines Public Schools after fleeing federal law enforcement,” Sam Olson, ICE field office director in St. Paul, Minn., said in the release.

“This should be a wake-up call for our communities to the great work that our officers are doing every day to remove public safety threats. How this illegal alien was hired without work authorization, a final order of removal, and a prior weapons charge is beyond comprehension and should alarm the parents of that school district,” he said.

On Friday, ICE officers approached Roberts in the vehicle and, after identifying himself, he sped away, the agency said. His vehicle was found later near a wooded area.

At 8:45 a.m., the Iowa Department of Public Safety said in a news release that the agency received a mutual aid request to assist ICE in finding someone who fled from a traffic stop.

Iowa State Patrol troopers and special agents assisted ICE in finding Roberts, and he was taken into custody. Initially, he was listed as detained at the Pottawattamie County Jail, although the ICE website later removed any mention of a specific detention facility.

In 2021, Roberts pleaded guilty in Erie., Pa. to unlawful possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle, which is a fifth-degree penalty, according to court records. It is a violation of law for someone without legal status in the United States to possess a firearm and ammunition.

On Friday, he also was in possession of a fixed-blade hunting knife and $3,000 in cash.

Roberts began working for the school district in 2023 after the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners granted Roberts a license to serve in Iowa as a superintendent.

Before coming to Iowa, he had been the superintendent of Middlecreek Township School District in Erie, Pa., since August 2020. Before that, he was chief schools officer for Aspire Public Schools Oakland, Calif., from 2018-2020.

The district said a third-party comprehensive background check was conducted on Roberts, and he was required to verify employment eligibility for all employees. The search found he held educational leadership positions in the U.S. for more than 20 years.

“We do not have all the facts. There is much we do not know,” school board President Jackie Norris said Friday during a news conference. “However, what we do know is Dr. Roberts has been an integral part of our school community since he joined two years ago.”

Later Friday, the district said in a news release that it “has not been formally notified by ICE about this matter, nor have we been able to talk with Dr. Roberts since his detention.”

Weapons are prohibited on school grounds, at school-sponsored events and at school-related activities.

Associate Superintendent Matt Smith will serve as interim superintendent, having previously served as interim superintendent during the 2022-23 school year. The district is the largest in Iowa with more than 30,000 students and nearly 5,000 teachers in more than 60 schools, according to its website.

“Unfortunate situations like today underscore exactly why we must fix our broken immigration system. An individual with a prior weapons charge and an active deportation order should never have been placed in this position of public trust,” Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn, who serves the Des Moines area, posted on X.

U.S. Rep. and Iowa Senate candidate Ashley Hinson wrote on X that “He should be deported immediately. He should have never been anywhere around Iowa kids in the first place!”

Roberts, who was born in Guyana in 1973, competed for the South American nation in the 2000 Sydney Olympics in track and field as an 800-meter runner, coming in next to last in his heat.

“After transitioning from my professional track and field career, I embarked on a mission to transform schools,” he wrote on his LinkedIn Profile. “I’ve been in the trenches as a teacher in Brooklyn, New York, Prince Georges County, Maryland, and Baltimore City, where I earned the honor of being named Teacher of the Year for two consecutive years.

“Throughout my career, my Olympic tenacity has fueled my commitment to achieving excellence in education. I’ve led schools to achieve unprecedented gains in college acceptance/enrollment, increased attendance, and academic achievement.”

He received a doctorate from Trident University in Arizona, masters’ degrees from St. John’s and Georgetown and a bachelor’s from Morgan State. He went to Harvard’s graduate school of education and MIT’s School of Management.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold President Trump’s birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The appeal, shared with the Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.

Lower-court judges have blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.

The Justice Department’s petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.

Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.

“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.

“This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.

Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.

While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or probably violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved people, had citizenship.

The administration is appealing two cases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.

Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Sherman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

The acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento has said she was fired after telling the Border Patrol chief in charge of immigration raids in California that his agents were not allowed to arrest people without probable cause in the Central Valley.

Michele Beckwith, a career prosecutor who was made the acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of California earlier this year, told the New York Times that she was let go after she warned Gregory Bovino, chief of the Border Patrol’s El Centro Sector, that a court injunction blocked him from carrying out indiscriminate immigration raids in Sacramento.

Beckwith did not respond to a request for comment from the L.A. Times, but told the New York Times that “we have to stand up and insist the laws be followed.”

The U.S. attorney’s office in Sacramento declined to comment. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment Friday evening.

Bovino presided over a series of raids in Los Angeles starting in June in which agents spent weeks pursuing Latino-looking workers outside of Home Depots, car washes, bus stops and other areas. The agents often wore masks and used unmarked vehicles.

But such indiscriminate tactics were not allowed in California’s Eastern District after the American Civil Liberties Union and United Farm Workers filed suit against the Border Patrol earlier in the year and won an injunction.

The suit followed a January operation in Kern County called “Operation Return to Sender,” in which agents swarmed a Home Depot and Latino market, among other areas frequented by laborers. In April, a federal district court judge ruled that the Border Patrol likely violated the Constitution’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

As Beckwith described it to New York Times reporters, she received a phone call from Bovino on July 14 in which he said he was bringing agents to Sacramento.

She said she told him that the injunction filed after the Kern County raid meant he could not stop people indiscriminately in the Eastern District. The next day, she wrote him an email in which, as quoted in the New York Times, she stressed the need for “compliance with court orders and the Constitution.”

Shortly thereafter her work cell phone and her work computer stopped working. A bit before 5 p.m. she received an email informing her that her employment was being terminated effective immediately.

It was the end of a 15-year career in in the Department of Justice in which she had served as the office’s Criminal Division Chief and First Assistant and prosecuted members of the Aryan Brotherhood, suspected terrorists, and fentanyl traffickers.

Two days later on July 17, Bovino and his agents moved into Sacramento, conducting a raid at a Home Depot south of downtown.

In an interview with Fox News that day, Bovino said the raids were targeted and based on intelligence. “Everything we do is targeted,” he said. “We did have prior intelligence that there were targets that we were interested in and around that Home Depot, as well as other targeted enforcement packages in and around the Sacramento area.”

He also said that his operations would not slow down. “There is no sanctuary anywhere,” he said. “We’re here to stay. We’re not going anywhere. We’re going to affect this mission and secure the homeland.”

Beckwith is one of a number of top prosecutors who have quit or been fired as the Trump administration pushes the Department of Justice to aggressively carry out his policies, including investigating people who have been the president’s political targets.

In March, a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles was fired after lawyers for a fast-food executive he was prosecuting pushed officials in Washington to drop all charges against him, according to multiple sources.

In July, Maurene Comey, a federal prosecutor in Manhattan and the daughter of former FBI director James Comey, was fired by the Trump administration, according to the New York Times.

And just last week, a U. S. attorney in Virginia was pushed out after he had determined there was insufficient evidence to prosecute James B. Comey. A new prosecutor this week won a grand jury indictment against Comey on one count of making a false statement and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order that would allow hugely popular social video app TikTok to continue to operate in the United States.

TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, had been under pressure to divest its ownership in the app’s U.S. operations or face a nationwide ban, due to security concerns over the company’s ties to China.

Congress passed legislation calling for a TikTok ban to go into effect in January, but Trump has repeatedly signed orders that have allowed TikTok to keep operating in the country.

Under an agreement that Trump said was approved by China’s President Xi Jinping, TikTok’s U.S. operations will be operated through a joint venture run by a majority-American investor group. ByteDance and its affiliates would hold less than 20% ownership in the venture.

About 170 million Americans use TikTok, known for its viral entertaining videos.

“These safeguards would protect the American people from the misuse of their data and the influence of a foreign adversary, while also allowing the millions of American viewers, creators, and businesses that rely on the TikTok application to continue using it,” Trump stated in his executive order.

Trump, who years ago led the push to ban TikTok from the U.S., said at a press event that he feels the deal satisfies security concerns.

“The biggest reason is that it’s owned by Americans … and people that love the country and very smart Americans, so they don’t want anything like that to happen,” Trump said.

Trump said on Thursday that people involved in the deal include Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, Dell Technologies Chief Executive Michael Dell and media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Vice President JD Vance said the new entity controlling TikTok’s U.S. operations would have a value of around $14 billion.

Murdoch’s involvement would probably entail Fox Corp. investing in the deal, a source familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly told The Times. Fox Corp. owns Fox News, whose opinion hosts are vocally supportive of Trump.

The algorithms and code would be under control of the joint venture. The order requires the storage of sensitive U.S. user data to be under a U.S. cloud computing company.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News last Saturday that the app’s data and privacy in the U.S. would be led by Oracle.

Ellison is a Trump ally who is the world’s second-richest person, according to Forbes.

TikTok already works with Oracle. Since October 2022, “all new protected U.S. user data has been stored in the secure Oracle infrastructure, not on TikTok or ByteDance servers,” TikTok says on its website.

Ellison is also preparing a bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, the media company that owns HBO, TNT and CNN, after already completing a takeover of Paramount, one of Hollywood’s original studios.

“The most important thing is it does protect Americans’ data security,” Vance said at a press gathering on Thursday. “What this deal ensures is that the American entity and the American investors will actually control the algorithm. We don’t want this used as a propaganda tool by any foreign government.”

TikTok, which has a large presence in Los Angeles, did not respond to a request for comment.

Terms of the deal are still unclear. Trump discussed the TikTok deal with China’s Xi Jinping in an extended phone call last week. Chinese and U.S. officials have until Dec. 16 to finalize the details.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

PHOENIX — The Dodgers might’ve finally found an answer to their long-maddening bullpen problems.

Just use some starters.

In a 5-4 extra-innings win over the Arizona Diamondbacks that lowered their magic number to clinch the National League West to one, the Dodgers again squandered a late-game lead when their traditional relievers faltered. They still didn’t make winning look as simple as it should have.

But win, they did on this night — thanks in large part to two scoreless innings of relief from Roki Sasaki and Clayton Kershaw.

The game wasn’t decided until the 11th inning, when Tommy Edman gave the Dodgers a lead they finally wouldn’t relinquish.

It never would’ve gotten there, however, without the contributions of Sasaki and Kershaw out of the bullpen.

Activated from the injured list shortly before the game, and making his first appearance in the majors since suffering a shoulder injury in early May, Sasaki flashed promising signs with a scoreless frame in the bottom of the seventh, protecting a 3-1 lead the team had been staked to by Blake Snell’s six-inning, one-run start, and an early offensive outburst that included a two-run homer from Andy Pages.

Sasaki’s fastball averaged 98-99 mph, was located with precision on the corners of the strike zone, and even induced a couple of swing-and-misses, things he never did consistently while posting a 4.72 ERA in eight starts at the beginning of the season.

He paired it with a trademark splitter that was also commanded with more precision than at any point in his initial MLB stint.

Sasaki needed only 13 pitches to retire the side in order, punctuating his outing with a pair of strikeouts on 99-mph four-seamers. As he walked back to the dugout, he glanced toward his teammates with a stoic glare. Just about all of them, including Shohei Ohtani, applauded in approval.

Disaster did strike in the eighth, after the Dodgers extended their lead to 4-1 on Teoscar Hernández’s RBI double in the top half of the inning.

The bullpen’s one season-long stalwart, Alex Vesia, ran into trouble by giving up a single to Ketel Marte, a walk to Geraldo Perdomo, and an RBI double to Corbin Carroll — all with one out.

Hard-throwing rookie righty Edgardo Henriquez couldn’t put out the fire from there, giving up one run on a swinging bunt from Gabriel Moreno in front of the plate that spun away from catcher Ben Rortvedt, then another when pinch-hitter Adrian Del Castillo stayed alive on a generous two-strike call (which was no doubt impacted by Rortvedt dropping the pitch behind the plate) before lifting a sacrifice fly to center.

For the second straight night, a late-game three-run lead had evaporated into thin air.

This time, however, manager Dave Roberts had a new card to play. A night after Kershaw volunteered to pitch in relief, the future Hall of Fame left-hander was summoned for the ninth inning.

In what was his first relief appearance since the infamous fifth game of the 2019 NL Division Series, Kershaw was effective. He retired the side in order with the help of a diving catch from Tommy Edman in center. He looked comfortable in the kind of high-leverage relief role the Dodgers might need him to fill come October.

In extras, the rest of the bullpen finally held up. Blake Treinen inherited a bases-loaded jam with two out in the 10th, but got James McCann to fly out to shallow right field. Justin Wrobleski (another pitcher who began this season as a starter) was handed a save situation in the 11th, after Edman singled home a run with his third hit of the night, and retired all three batters he faced.

The United Nations General Assembly’s 80th session was meant to be a sombre assessment of a world on fire. The Sustainable Development Goals are failing, wars rage on multiple continents and the planet itself is burning. Yet the most significant drama of the 80th session was not about any single crisis but a deeper, more fundamental schism that played out in the very language used within the hall. It seems that the UN is no longer a forum for managing a shared global order; it has become the arena where two irreconcilable visions of world order are fighting for supremacy.

On one side stands the traditional, albeit, weary mulitlateralist project. Its champions, exemplified by European leaders cautiously inching towards recognition of a Palestinian state, still operate on the premise that legitimacy is derived from international law and consensus. Theirs is a world of treaties, institutions and patient diplomacy. On the other side stands a resurgent sovereigntist assault, championed most vocally by President Donald Trump, who returned to the UN stage not to engage, but to dismantle. In a nearly hour-long speech Trump admonished the UN over what he views as its ineffectiveness, framing global cooperation not as a necessity, but as a folly. The 80th UNGA revealed that the transatlantic split is no longer a policy disagreement; it is a philosophical chasm over the soul of global governance.

The issue of Palestine serves as a perfect case study in this clash of legitimacies. The moves by a growing number of countries to recognize Palestine were calculated acts of multilateralism. They were an attempt to salvage the two-state solution, a cornerstone of UN resolutions for decades, by working within the established system. The recognition was a message: that statehood is not a prize to be won through force but a status conferred by the international community.

This logic is an anathema to the Trumpian worldview. From this perspective, such recognition is not diplomacy; it is a dangerous reward for adversaries. Trump framed it as a “reward for Hamas”, reducing a complex decades-long struggle for self-determination to a simplistic binary form of terrorism. The sovereigntist argument holds that these decisions are not the UN’s to make. Power, not consensus, is the ultimate arbiter. The conflict is no longer about land; it is about who gets to decide the rules of the game.

Nowhere is this divide more stark than on the existential threat of climate change. For the multilateralist project, the climate crisis is its ultimate validation. A warming planet is a problem that no single nation, no matter how powerful, can solve alone. It necessitates the very cooperation the UN was founded to foster.

Trump’s address systematically dismantled this premise. He pulled the rug out from under the entire premise by blasting climate change as “the greatest con job ever perpetuated on the world.” This is not merely a policy difference; it is a declaration that the central problem the UN is trying to solve is a fiction. If there is no global problem, there is no need for a global solution. The institution, in this view, becomes not just ineffective, but illegitimate.

The sovereigntist vision extends to a radical critique of domestic governance, further highlighting the divide. When Trump declared that some countries “are going to hell” over their immigration policies, he was doing more than critcizing a policy. He was asserting a model where nationa borders are absolute and the internal choices of sovereign nations, particularly those of his allies, are open for public condemnation if they deviate from his ideology. This creates a world not of mutual respect and non-interference, but of perpetual, transactional pressure.

The  consequence of this great unraveling is a world adrift. The UN was built on the fragile hope that great powers, despite their rivalries, would see a greater interest in maintaining a common system. That foundation is now cracked. We’re moving towards a multi-order world, where countries selectively engage with institutions, cherry-picking rules that suit them and ignoring those that don’t. The Global South watches this spectacle with a cynical detachment, caught between a multilateral system that has often failed them and a sovereigntist alternative that promises even greater volatility.

The 80th session offered no resolutions to this core conflict. Instead, it held up a mirror. The speeches, the sideline meetings, the starkly different vocabularies – all revealed an institution that can no longer paper over its divides. The question is no longer whether the UN can solve the world’s problems, but whether the world believes in the idea of the UN itself. As the great powers turn inward, the 80th General Assembly may be remembered not for what it achieved, but as the moment the post-war order finally conceded that it’s no longer governed by a shared vision, but by a deepening and potentially unbridgeable rift.

The Home Office has been refused permission to appeal against a temporary injunction blocking an Eritrean man from being removed to France as part of the “one in, one out” agreement between the two countries.

Last week, the 25-year-old, who arrived in the UK on a small boat, was due to be among the first people sent to France under the pilot scheme.

However, in a last-minute reprieve, the High Court in London gave him at least 14 days to make representations to support his claim that he was a victim of modern slavery.

The government had argued the order risked undermining the new returns policy, but the Court of Appeal refused Home Office lawyers permission to appeal against that decision.

The “one in, one out” scheme was announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in July.

Under the treaty, France agreed to take back migrants who had travelled to the UK by small boat and had their asylum claim withdrawn or declared inadmissible.

For each person returned to France, the UK will accept someone with a case for protection as a refugee who has not attempted to cross the Channel.

Lawyers for the Home Office had argued that Mr Justice Sheldon, the High Court judge that granted the last-minute order halting the removal, had made a mistake when he did so.

“The judge’s decision to grant interim relief, and for such a significant period in the context of this policy, causes real damage to the public interest and undermines a central policy objective,” Kate Grange KC said on behalf of the Home Office.

Sonali Naik KC, who represented the asylum seeker, said the judge was “entitled to grant the order in the urgent circumstances he did, for the reasons he gave and for the period he did”.

Ms Naik said the man’s case “should be considered in its own context and on its own facts”, adding that it did not have wider significance for others whom the government might seek to remove as part of the returns pilot scheme.

In their judgement on Tuesday, Court of Appeal judges said the lower court had been “correct to hold that there was a serious issue to be tried on the question of whether the Secretary of state was acting unlawfully” by seeking to remove the man in those circumstances.

A federal judge Thursday said she was “inclined to extend” an earlier ruling and order the Trump administration to restore an additional $500 million in UCLA medical research grants that were frozen in response to the university’s alleged campus antisemitism violations.

Although she did not issue a formal ruling late Thursday, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin indicated she is leaning toward reversing — for now — the vast majority of funding freezes that University of California leaders say have endangered the future of the 10-campus, multi-hospital system.

Lin, a judge in the Northern District of California, said she was prepared to add UCLA’s National Institutes of Health grant recipients to an ongoing class-action lawsuit that has already led to the reversal of tens of millions of dollars in grants from the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Endowment for the Humanities and other federal agencies to UC campuses.

The judge’s reasoning: The UCLA grants were suspended by form letters that were unspecific to the research, a likely violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which regulates executive branch rulemaking.

Though Lin said she had a “lot of homework to do” on the matter, she indicated that reversing the grant cuts was “likely where I will land” and she would issue an order “shortly.”

Lin said the Trump administration had undertaken a “fundamental sin” in its “un-reasoned mass terminations” of the grants using “letters that don’t go through the required factors that the agency is supposed to consider.”

The possible preliminary injunction would be in place as the case proceeds through the courts. But in saying she leaned toward broadening the case, Lin suggested she believed there would be irreparable harm if the suspensions were not immediately reversed.

The suit was filed in June by UC San Francisco and UC Berkeley professors fighting a separate, earlier round of Trump administration grant clawbacks. The University of California is not a party in the case.

A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, Jason Altabet, said Thursday that instead of a federal district court lawsuit filed by professors, the proper venue would be the U.S. Court of Federal Claims filed by UC. Altabet based his arguments on a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the government’s suspension of $783 million in NIH grants — to universities and research centers throughout the country — in part because the issue, the high court said, was not properly within the jurisdiction of a lower federal court.

Altabet said the administration was “fully embracing the principles in the Supreme Court’s recent opinions.”

The hundreds of NIH grants on hold at UCLA look into Parkinson’s disease treatment, cancer recovery, cell regeneration in nerves and other areas that campus leaders argue are pivotal for improving the health of Americans.

The Trump administration has proposed a roughly $1.2-billion fine and demanded campus changes over admission of international students and protest rules. Federal officials have also called for UCLA to release detailed admission data, ban gender-affirming healthcare for minors and give the government deep access to UCLA internal campus data, among other demands, in exchange for restoring $584 million in funding to the university.

In addition to allegations that the university has not seriously dealt with complaints of antisemitism on campus, the government also said it slashed UCLA funding in response to its findings that the campus illegally considers race in admissions and “discriminates against and endangers women” by recognizing the identities of transgender people.

UCLA has said it has made changes to improve campus climate for Jewish communities and does not use race in admissions. Its chancellor, Julio Frenk, has said that defunding medical research “does nothing” to address discrimination allegations. The university displays websites and policies that recognize different gender identities and maintains services for LGBTQ+ communities.

UC leaders said they will not pay the $1.2-billion fine and are negotiating with the Trump administration over its other demands. They have told The Times that many settlement proposals cross the university’s red lines.

“Recent federal cuts to research funding threaten lifesaving biomedical research, hobble U.S. economic competitiveness and jeopardize the health of Americans who depend on cutting-edge medical science and innovation,” a UC spokesperson said in a statement Thursday. “While the University of California is not a party to this suit, the UC system is engaged in numerous legal and advocacy efforts to restore funding to vital research programs across the humanities, social sciences and STEM fields.”

A ruling Lin issued in the case last month resulted in $81 million in NSF grants restored to UCLA. If the UCLA NIH grants are reinstated, it would leave about $3 million from the July suspensions — all Department of Energy grants — still frozen at UCLA.

Lin also said she leaned toward adding Transportation and Defense department grants to the case, which run in the millions of dollars but are small compared with UC’s NIH grants.

The hearing was closely watched by researchers at the Westwood campus, who have cut back on lab hours, reduced operations and considered layoffs as the crisis at UCLA moves toward the two-month mark.

In interviews, they said they were hopeful grants would be reinstated but remain concerned over the instability of their work under the recent federal actions.

Lydia Daboussi, a UCLA assistant professor of neurobiology whose $1-million grant researching nerve injury is suspended, observed the hearing online.

Aftewards, Daboussi said she was “cautiously optimistic” about her grant being reinstated.

“I would really like this to be the relief that my lab needs to get our research back online,” said Daboussi, who is employed at the David Geffen School of Medicine. “If the preliminary injunction is granted, that is a wonderful step in the right direction.”

Grant funding, she said, “was how we bought the antibodies we needed for experiments, how we purchased our reagents and our consumable supplies.” The lab consists of nine other people, including two PhD students and one senior scientist.

So far, none of Daboussi’s lab members have departed. But, she said, if “this goes on for too much longer, at some point, people’s hours will have to be reduced.”

“I do find myself having to pay more attention to volatilities outside of our lab space,” she said. “I’ve now become acquainted with our legal system in ways that I didn’t know would be necessary for my job.”

Elle Rathbun, a sixth-year neuroscience PhD candidate at UCLA, lost a roughly $160,000 NIH grant that funded her study of stroke recovery treatment.

“If there is a chance that these suspensions are lifted, that is phenomenal news,” said Rathbun, who presented at UCLA’s “Science Fair for Suspended Research” this month.

“Lifting these suspensions would then allow us to continue these really critical projects that have already been determined to be important for American health and the future of American health,” she said.

Rathbun’s research is focused on a potential treatment that would be injected into the brain to help rebuild it after a stroke. Since the suspension of her grant, Rathbun, who works out of a lab at UCLA’s neurology department, has been seeking other funding sources.

“Applying to grants takes a lot of time,” she said. “So that really slowed down my progress in my project.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEOUL, Sept. 15 (UPI) — South Korea’s Hyundai Engineering & Construction said Monday that it received a $3 billion order to build a mega-sized seawater treatment plant in Iraq.

It is a Water Infrastructure Project, Iraq’s state initiative aimed at constructing a seawater treatment facility at Khor Al-Zubair Port about 310 miles southeast of Baghdad.

Hyundai E&C noted that the plant would supply up to 5 million barrels of water every day to major oil fields in southern Iraq, including West Qurna and Rumaila, to enhance crude oil output.

The Seoul-based contractor will break ground on the project this November, with the goal of completing construction by the end of 2029.

Iraq, which derives more than 90% of its national revenue from oil exports, is seeking to nearly double daily production to 8 million barrels from 4.2 billion by 2030, according to Hyundai E&C.

The contract was awarded by TotalEnergies, a French multinational energy company that invested in WIP with Qatar’s state-run Qatar Energy and Iraq’s government-backed Basrah Oil Co.

The agreement marks Hyundai E&C’s second-largest construction project in the Arab country after the $6 billion deal to establish an oil refinery in Karbala, which was finished in 2023.

“We will put forth effort to secure a competitive edge in bidding for future projects in Iraq, including refineries, power plants, and housing, which are expected to see continued demand,” Hyundai E&C said in a statement.

Hyundai E&C’s share price rose 1.01% on the Seoul bourse Monday.

Donald Trump says crime in Democratic cities is “out of control”. And after deployments to Los Angeles and Washington, DC, he’s now planning to send in the National Guard to other Democratic cities, like Memphis, in the Republican-run state of Tennessee. But FBI stats show crime is falling nationwide. So why the crackdown? Jillian Wolf takes a look at the evidence in this Fact Check.

Subscribe to our channel: http://bit.ly/AJSubscribe
Follow us on X : https://twitter.com/AJEnglish
Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera
Check our website: http://www.aljazeera.com/
Check out our Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/aljazeeraenglish/
Download AJE Mobile App: https://aje.io/AJEMobile

#aljazeera
#aljazeeraenglish
#aljazeeranewslive

UNICEF spokesperson Tess Ingram explains the desperate conditions families find themselves in while being forcibly displaced from Gaza City by Israeli evacuation orders.

Israel’s latest forced displacement order for Gaza City is one too many for Nahd al-Rafati. He is refusing to leave, weary of what seems like a never-ending cycle of expulsion.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s emergency order over the nation’s capital, which federalized its police force and launched a surge of law enforcement into the city, is set to expire overnight Wednesday after Congress failed to extend it.

But the clash between Republicans and the heavily Democratic district over its autonomy was only set to intensify, with a House committee beginning to debate 13 bills that would wrest away even more of the city’s control if approved.

Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office said the order expires at midnight. The National Guard and some other federal agencies will continue their deployment and it’s not clear when that might end.

Trump’s takeover of Washington’s policing and Wednesday’s discussions in the House underscore how interlinked the capital is with the federal government and how much the city’s capacity to govern is beholden to federal decisions.

Trump’s order federalized the local police force

For the last 30 days, the city’s local Metropolitan Police Department has been under the control of the president for use in what he described as a crime-fighting initiative.

Local police joined hundreds of federal law enforcement officers and agents on sweeps and roundups and other police operations. About 2,000 members of the National Guard from D.C. as well as seven states were also part of the surge of law enforcement.

Crime has dropped during the surge, according to figures from the White House and the local police department, but data also showed crime was falling in the lead up to the federal takeover.

Congress, satisfied by steps that Bowser has taken to ensure that the cooperation with the city will continue, decided not to extend the emergency, returning the police to district control.

But Bowser, who has walked a tightrope in collaborating with Trump in an effort to protect the city’s home rule, must now pivot to a Congress that has jurisdiction over the city. The next order of business is a series of proposals that will be debated Wednesday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Some of the House bills focus on law enforcement

Thirteen of the bills call for repealing or changing D.C. laws. Some provisions in play would remove the district’s elected attorney general, who recently asked a judge to intervene in the takeover. Others would allow the president to appoint someone to the position.

There is also a move to lower the age of trying juveniles to 14 from 16 for certain crimes, and one to change the bail system and remove methods the council can use to extend emergency bills.

Even if the bills pass the committee and House, the question is whether they can get through the filibuster-proof Senate. D.C. activists have already begun lobbying Senate Democrats.

Bowser urged the leaders of the House Oversight Committee to reject those proposals.

She argued that a bill sponsored by Rep. Paul Gosar, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, would “make the District less efficient, competitive, and responsive.” She said she looks forward to working with the committee to build a “productive partnership” that “respects the will of D.C. residents and honors the principles of home rule.”

Republican Rep. Ron Estes and several Republican colleagues said they want their constituents to feel safe visiting the capital, and noted the recent murder of an intern who worked in Estes’ office. “We want to make sure that we have a capital that Americans are proud of,” Estes said.

Members of the Republican Study Committee in the House held a news conference Sept. 2 praising Trump’s intervention and supporting codifying his executive order.

“Congress has a clear constitutional authority over D.C., and we will use it without hesitation to continue making D.C. safe and great again,” said Rep. August Pfluger, chairman of that committee.

D.C. mayor says the bills challenge the city’s autonomy

Bowser said the bills are an affront to the city’s autonomy and said “laws affecting the district should be made by the district.”

The district is granted autonomy through a limited home rule agreement passed in 1973 but federal political leaders retain significant control over local affairs, including the approval of the budget and laws passed by the D.C council.

Bowser has said repeatedly that statehood, a nonstarter for Republicans in Congress, is the only solution.

Fields and Askarinam write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Ashraf Khalil contributed to this report.