Britain is seeking a closer economic relationship with the European Union by asking to participate in the bloc’s “Made in Europe” industrial strategy, as Prime Minister Andy Burnham argues that the UK and EU face many of the same economic and industrial challenges.
Travelling to New York for his first United Nations General Assembly as prime minister, Burnham said Britain would seek to become a “trusted partner” in the initiative, which is intended to strengthen European production and reduce dependence on Chinese components.
“Europe’s argument is not with us,” Burnham told reporters on Monday. He said Britain and the EU faced similar pressures, particularly in industries such as steel, and argued that the UK should not face unintended consequences from a policy aimed at addressing dependence on China.
The British government has warned that excluding UK companies could disrupt established supply chains and create additional trade barriers between Britain and EU member states.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
The EU’s Made in Europe initiative is part of a broader effort to increase domestic industrial capacity and reduce reliance on overseas supply chains, particularly those involving China.
For Britain, exclusion could have consequences for sectors that remain closely integrated with European markets. The automotive industry, for example, relies on supply chains that cross the English Channel in both directions. Industry representatives have warned that excluding British manufacturers from European incentives and procurement opportunities could affect the competitiveness of both British and European companies.
British officials therefore want the EU to treat the UK as a partner in the initiative rather than as an external supplier.
Burnham has argued that British participation would reflect the practical connections that remain between the UK and European economies despite Brexit.
The dispute over Made in Europe is taking place as Burnham’s government seeks to deepen Britain’s relationship with the EU.
The UK government has already been pursuing closer cooperation with European countries in areas including defence, technology and manufacturing. Finance Minister John Healey recently urged EU counterparts not to exclude Britain from the bloc’s industrial strategy.
The government has also been seeking greater cooperation on European security. However, negotiations over British participation in the EU’s SAFE defence fund broke down, creating another obstacle to the government’s efforts to expand cooperation with Brussels.
Burnham has said he wants to move further and faster in rebuilding ties with the EU. His government has also been working toward a UK EU summit that was delayed following the change in prime minister.
Britain’s request for access is not simply a matter of negotiating with EU institutions. Member states also have different interests in how far the bloc’s industrial policies should extend to non member countries.
The proposed policy is intended to direct European economic activity toward European production and strengthen industrial resilience. Extending its benefits to British companies could therefore raise questions about what obligations Britain would have in return and how EU based businesses would compete with UK firms.
There are also broader questions about the meaning of the UK’s post Brexit relationship with the bloc. The British government is seeking closer economic and security cooperation without reversing the country’s decision to leave the EU.
That creates a difficult balance. London wants greater access to European programmes and markets, while Brussels must determine the conditions under which a non member state can participate in policies designed partly to strengthen the EU’s own industrial base.
Burnham’s immediate objective is to secure British participation in the Made in Europe framework while avoiding new barriers for industries whose supply chains remain closely connected to the continent.
The issue could become part of wider negotiations over the future of UK EU relations. Burnham has said his focus is on a renewed summit with European leaders, which he hopes can take place before the end of the year.
The outcome will indicate how far Britain and the EU can move toward closer economic cooperation without reopening the fundamental question of Britain’s membership.
For London, the argument is that Britain and Europe face shared challenges from global supply chain disruption and dependence on foreign production. For the EU, the question is how to strengthen European industrial capacity while determining the appropriate role for a neighbouring non member economy.
The debate over Made in Europe therefore reflects a broader post Brexit question: how closely can Britain integrate with European economic and security structures while remaining outside the bloc?
With information from Reuters.
WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance and other Trump administration officials said Tuesday they plan to remove 760,000 Affordable Care Act enrollees from public healthcare exchanges, alleging that the individuals were fraudulently enrolled in the program, or simply do not exist.
Vance said the discovery and canceled subsidy payments for hundreds of thousands of people from the exchanges would result in $2.2 billion in cost savings.
“We’re actually making sure that the people receiving Obamacare subsidies are actually entitled to receive them,” Vance, who leads a government-wide task force to eliminate fraud, said in a public address at the White House, Tuesday. He was flanked by Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and other administration officials.
The Trump administration also announced a six-month suspension on new brokers who sign up enrollees for healthcare coverage, who officials say commit a disproportionate amount of the fraud they uncovered.
Tuesday’s announcement is the latest in an administration-wide initiative to address fraud around the country, including in federal healthcare programs, which officials say is needed to rein in runaway spending and protect taxpayers.
The announcement comes as inflation and rising healthcare costs pressure the Trump administration to come up with a plan to bring down costs for Americans heading into the midterms.
The price of ACA insurance has skyrocketed for many Americans during Trump’s second term, after Republicans opposed extending COVID-era subsidies that had helped offset the costs of health insurance for most enrollees during Biden’s term.
Premiums doubled or tripled for many enrollees, prompting millions to downgrade their plans or exit the program entirely after the Republican-led Congress allowed the subsidies to expire this year.
Roughly 19.2 million Americans are actively enrolled in ACA marketplace health plans as of early 2026, according to the HHS website.
The White House referred The Associated Press to the Vice President’s team for additional comment on bigger plans to address healthcare affordability.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the news of the Trump administration’s plan to remove ACA enrollees from public exchanges.
Hussein writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michelle Price contributed to this report.
ImageegamI/iStock via Getty Images
Canada and France plan to cooperate on space-launch systems and ground-based infrastructure as Ottawa seeks closer economic and security ties with Europe.
Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the initiative Sunday with French President Emmanuel Macron in Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, the French
The top U.S. Air Force officer in Europe, who also serves as the NATO Allied Air Command leader, said he has been tasked with enacting new alliance plans to defend against cruise missiles and drones. He was responding to questions about a drone that NATO had to shoot down after it entered Lithuanian airspace overnight. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Tuesday morning that the incident was “part of a broader pattern of Russian aggression and provocation against Europe, testing our readiness and our resolve.”
The drone incursion into Lithuania took place against the backdrop of the ongoing Russian war on Ukraine and amid a spate of so-called ‘hybrid’ or ‘gray zone’ actions Moscow has been accused of carrying out throughout Europe, including a recent attempted drone attack on the Leipzig-Halle airport in Germany.
We now know that Russia is responsible for the attempted explosive attack at Leipzig airport. Russia’s repeated hybrid attacks on Germany and Europe are unacceptable. (1/4) pic.twitter.com/o3vBjgpeb1
— German Embassy Washington (@GermanyinUSA) September 1, 2026
“I don’t know what’s in the mind of Putin or his fielded forces about those one-way attack drones or even cruise missiles, like we’ve seen enter Polish airspace just a few months ago. In July, we had an AS-23 cruise missile enter Poland,” Lt. Gen. Jason T. Hinds, Commander, U.S. Air Forces in Europe/U.S. Air Forces Africa (USAFE), and Commander of the Allied Air Command, said in response to a question about the drone shootdown over Lithuania. He was speaking during a media roundtable at the Air & Space Forces Air, Space and Cyber Conference that TWZ is attending.
Hinds added that while he doesn’t “know the why behind” the drone incursion into Lithuania, he has been tasked by U.S. Air Force Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, who serves as NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), “to fully implement EVA [Enhanced Vigilance Activity] Eastern Sentry and now its Standing Defense Plan 12000, which gives the nations the capabilities that they need to defend their airspace against either one-way attack drones like the one that you described last night, or a cruise missile.”
EVA Eastern Sentry is a mission NATO stood up in September 2025 after “an unprecedented number of Russian drones and planes violated the airspace of several NATO Allies,” according to the alliance. “Allies are contributing additional capabilities and assets to NATO’s deterrence and defense – for instance, more fighter jets, helicopters, transport aircraft, air defense systems, surveillance aircraft and frigates – and improving the coordination of these assets through NATO.”
Is the Kremlin testing Europe’s defenses with drone incursions? | DW News
Standing Defense Plan 12000 is a new plan for integrated air and missile defense across the alliance. Grynkewich introduced the concept during testimony to Congress in March.
Hinds acknowledged that Russia could be testing the alliance.
“It’s not about the small UASs; that’s typically a national responsibility, and it could be probing,” the Air Force general noted. “Regardless of the intent behind it, what we want to be prepared for is the second that a one-way attack drone or a cruise missile is first and foremost detected – hopefully well before it enters NATO territory – we want to know it. We want to know where it’s coming from. We want to have the capability to sense it. We want to be able to have the C2 [command and control] systems to be able to decide what to do about it, and then have the right kit to be able to act.”
Despite an integrated air and missile defense system that includes Patriot surface-to-air missile batteries, NATO currently is primarily “using air power” against drones and cruise missiles “and that’s not putting us on the right side of the cost curve,” Hinds stated. “But we want to get there.”
Using NATO jets to take down drones “is very effective, just like what you saw last night, and many other times,” but not necessarily efficient, Hinds explained.
Video shows debris after NATO jets shoot down a drone over Lithuania
“I think there’s been at least five other cases of allied nations providing air power to shoot down one-way attack drones,” he proffered. “I want to get to the point where we’re doing it efficiently, using lower-cost interceptors, hopefully ground-based, and in some cases air-based that are cheaper to use, so we’ll see what the intent may be. Intelligence organizations are going to provide us with that intelligence later on, but I just don’t know yet.”
You can see one of those NATO jet engagements with drones in the following video.
It should be noted that Europe is starting to follow the American lead in using less expensive laser-guided, air-to-air rockets as drone-killing weapons. TWZ was the first to report about the use of 70mm Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) rockets by the U.S. The U.K. Royal Air Force announced in May of this year that its Typhoons were now equipped with APKWS rockets while the French recently tested their own 68mm laser-guided rockets from Rafale fighters.
The Defence Procurement Agency has successfully completed integration testing of 68 mm laser-guided rockets on the Rafale fighter jet. The time between the contract being awarded for this new capability and initial operational capability being achieved was less than 8 months. pic.twitter.com/rR2Nij9EzY
— French Aid to Europe 🇨🇵 🇪🇺 (@aidefranceukr) July 13, 2026
As the threats have evolved, NATO has “transitioned away from air policing, and we’ve transitioned to air defense for some specific reasons,” the general pointed out. “One is readiness. Air policing is a readiness decrementing mission that the alliance has done for years. There’s also an assurance mission that we did for 32 nations. That’s transitioned to air defense now. Air defense means we have the right kit, multi-domain, to be able to be put in the right place based on indications, warnings, or real threats, like you saw last night, inside of the Baltic nations, to be able to respond decisively and quickly.”
“There’s also a deterrence value there,” Hinds added. “So if Russia does fly a one-way attack drone or a cruise missile, they know that we’re going to be in the right spot to be able to detect it and then defend against it.”
“These are limited incursions, right? Small numbers. Here’s what I see: hybrid activities may, in fact, only be one of the few levers that Putin has available to him, because he sees that he does not have an advantage in geography, domain, or readiness,” Hinds suggested.
“Think about that,” he urged. “So what are we seeing? We’re not seeing a massing of forces across the opposite side of Finland, a new NATO nation. We’re not seeing a massing of forces whatsoever in any domain opposite of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia. You’re seeing a significant number of one-way attack drones in the Black Sea targeting Ukraine. Some of them are entering Romania. What you’re not seeing is a direct confrontation in geography. We’re not seeing direct competition in domains. And I think Putin knows that we are ready. I know he knows that we’re a defensive alliance. I know he knows that we have an advantage in every domain against them, and I think that’s likely why you’re seeing things like what you’re seeing with hybrid activity.”
Though below the level of armed conflict, these Russian activities raise the potential for something worse, Hinds posited.
“The risk about hybrid activity, from my perspective, is it could lead to escalation, and that’s where I hope that we get back towards deterrence again, and that the nations they’re going to decide to do what they want to do when it comes to these hybrid activities,” the general said. “Some of them are law enforcement. Some of them are military responses, and that’s up to the nations to decide how they’re going to deal with that. Not me.”
“But what I owe General Grynkewich is to ensure that we are demonstrating our deterrence each and every day, and we’re doing that effectively across all domains,” Hinds added. “And to ensure that Putin knows that if he tries something against the alliance, that we will be there, and we’re ready to win decisively if challenged.”
Contact the author: howard@twz.com
WASHINGTON — Thousands of people joined outside the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Friday evening to protest President Trump’s plans for the facility, lending their voices to a chorus of organizations and individuals who have been horrified that he might make good on his threat to close and tear down the storied institution.
The crowd streamed in from the nearest subway stop, crowding streets in the Foggy Bottom area of Washington and locking down traffic as they walked, many carrying signs, as they joined in an event dubbed “Hands Around the Kennedy Center.” At one point some held hands, forming a human chain around the center.
Chris Raleigh, co-founder of Hands Off the Arts, which set up the gathering, said in an interview that he hoped it would show that people are willing to fight to keep Trump’s plans for the building at bay.
One of the most iconic buildings on the Potomac River waterfront, the Kennedy Center has been a focus of Trump’s remake of Washington since 2025, when he began installing his loyalists on its governing board. Late last year, he had his named placed on the center in front of that of President Kennedy. A judge ruled that Trump’s name was illegally added and ordered it removed.
The Kennedy Center board, which remains aligned with the president, voted Tuesday to close the center indefinitely for repairs hours after U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper blocked their plans to return Trump’s name to the building. On Thursday, the judge ordered the Kennedy Center to provide 30 days’ notice before making any major physical changes to the building, including demolishing it.
Raleigh said he, like others, is concerned that Trump could take the step without notifying the court. “Look at the East Wing,” he said, referring to the demolished portion of the White House. “We got up one morning and there was a giant hole there.”
Raleigh said the Kennedy Center is more in the public eye than the East Wing was. He added that he doesn’t believe the president fully understands why people are so upset, “but that’s our job, right? This may be the line that no one expected, but this is where the line is going to be.”
Protesters talked about the importance of the center as the pinnacle of the nation’s performing arts world.
Bud Wilkinson, a local member of the arts community, set up a chalkboard with Trump’s name written on it hundreds of times. Protesters flocked to him to erase the names and replace them with hearts.
“The Kennedy Center is vital to the arts in Washington. We need it. We need this,” Wilkinson said. “This is not just about putting the president’s name on the Kennedy Center. It’s about censoring the performances and the programming. That’s what started all this. So that’s what the nitty-gritty really is about this. So I want to replace all of this with love. That’s why there’s a heart.”
Alina Baciu talked about the opportunities and relationships that students at the Duke Ellington School of the Arts have with the center and how those relationships might be affected by what’s going on.
Her daughter had opportunities to take advantage of all the center had to offer as a student at the Ellington school, she said. “I mean, they borrowed the beautiful costumes and the beautiful dresses from the Washington National Opera for their performances at Duke Ellington,” she said. They also performed on the center’s Millennium Stage.
“All of those things have gone away because of this craziness. And it just hurts my heart,” Baciu said.
Laura Steinberg, a volunteer for the last 10 years, said the loss of performances has already been heart-wrenching. “This reminds me of that picture from Tiananmen Square, where that young man stood in front of the tank,” she said of the throngs present. “This was my visceral response to this. I’ll stand in front of the wrecking ball if it’s going to come to that. My guess is many of these people would come down because we saw what he did to the East Wing. Nobody thought he would actually do it. So I think the shock has mobilized people.”
Friday’s event followed a tumultuous week in federal courts in Washington, where filings and counter-filings flooded the courts as the administration continues pushing for the president’s vanity projects. The administration has made substantive steps to begin work on a number of projects, despite the fact they are still being litigated. Such projects include Trump’s triumphal arch and the administration’s takeover of East Potomac Golf Links and the U.S. Institute of Peace.
Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said he was willing to save the center, which he said was losing money. He did not address a question about demolishing it.
“We have a lot of people working very hard on it to save it,” he said. “I can save it easily, but why should we be doing that and then raise money for the rest of our lives to keep it afloat? Because that’s what you have to do, if we get no recognition. I think the Trump administration should be recognized as having saved the Kennedy Center.”
Fields writes for the Associated Press.
COMSTOCK, Texas — The Trump administration has started building a border wall through a west Texas section of the Big Bend region, marking the first major construction in an area of the U.S.-Mexico border where the administration’s plans have met heavy, bipartisan opposition.
The start of construction marks a milestone in the administration’s $46-billion efforts to line the border with walls, barriers, roads and technology as it seeks to make good on a campaign promise by President Trump to finish the wall. And it comes as Customs and Border Protection says it has doubled the pace at which it is building the wall across the border.
Customs and Border Protection said in a statement to the Associated Press that “border wall panel installation is underway” in a 47-mile stretch of Hudspeth County in west Texas known as Big Bend 1. There are five project areas that make up the roughly 500-mile Big Bend region stretching from an area of Hudspeth County south of El Paso to Lake Amistad.
CBP said the first panels were erected Wednesday. On a map on the agency’s website where it posts updates of wall construction along the southern border, a photo showed a crane lifting one of the 30-foot-tall steel wall panels into place as construction workers looked on.
The new activity was separate from a border infrastructure project in the nearby Big Bend National Park, where the administration has suspended construction in an attempt to reach out to opponents.
In the broader Big Bend region of Texas, CBP has run up against concerted opposition from landowners, environmental groups, business owners and ranchers who say the remote region isn’t a high-traffic area for illegal immigration. Political leaders from both parties, including U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), have joined the opposition.
Activists said Friday they would continue opposing the border infrastructure projects in the rest of the Big Bend region, even as the panels were being installed.
Clara Benson, one of the founders of the No Big Bend Wall Coalition, which has been fighting against CBP’s plans, said in an interview Friday that the organization had been receiving reports of trucks moving supplies into the remote area along the Rio Grande and that contractors had been clearing yards to stage supplies.
Speaking from Washington, D.C., where she and others in the coalition were meeting with lawmakers, she said that the organization and others would continue to fight the wall-building plans across the region.
“We will continue to fight for this land no matter what the outcome is. We will continue fighting to the end,” said Benson. “You talk to people in west Texas and they say even if they put it up, we’ll fight for them to take it down. So this fight is not over.”
The news comes as the administration is speeding forward with a plan to line the entire border with a combination of 30-foot-tall steel bollard walls, barriers designed to stop vehicles from crossing the border, new patrol roads, and various technologies to deter and detect migrants or smugglers from crossing the border.
Customs and Border Protection said it is building an average of 12 miles of barriers per week along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico and recently reached a milestone of 200 miles of new barriers built since the second Trump administration took office. The 12-miles-a-week average is double the pace that the agency’s head, Rodney Scott, cited earlier this year.
The agency has faced opposition from environmental groups, a small town that worries the wall will cause flooding in its area, Native Americans who say the construction is disturbing sacred sites and landowners who say the construction will infringe on their land.
In Texas, much of the opposition has centered on the agency’s plans for Big Bend National Park, in the state’s southwest on the Rio Grande that is a draw for tourists from around the world. But up- and downriver outside the park, much of the land is owned by private landowners, many of whom have organized against the government’s efforts.
Earlier this week, landowners, ranchers and business owners in the Big Bend region along with a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the region’s landscape and heritage sued to stop the administration’s plans.
Activists and landowners have also shown up at county meetings to push their elected officials not to cooperate with contractors hired by CBP to build the wall, and many landowners have refused to allow government officials or contractors onto their land to survey it.
Santana writes for the Associated Press.
US judges affirm migrants must have opportunities to voice safety concerns before deportation to unfamiliar nations.
Published On 19 Sep 202619 Sep 2026
A US federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s policy of rapidly deporting migrants to countries other than their own – a ruling that could next go before the Supreme Court.
On Friday, a three-judge panel of the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston largely upheld a February decision that found the Department of Homeland Security’s so-called third-country removal policy unlawful.
list of 3 itemsend of list
The case stems from a class-action lawsuit testing what due process migrants are owed before being sent to nations with which they have no ties.
Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Seth Aframe said migrants must be given a “meaningful” chance to raise safety concerns before removal, rejecting the Trump administration’s narrower reading of the law.
The court did overturn part of the ruling on procedural grounds, concerning whether officials must first try deporting migrants to countries they have ties to.
Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the decision confirmed that “due process and the protections Congress enacted against persecution and torture cannot be circumvented by putting someone on a plane to a country that was never part of their removal proceedings”.
The DHS did not immediately comment. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the ruling.
Under Trump, the US has struck agreements allowing it to send more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries, most often Mexico, according to Third Country Deportation Watch, a tracker run by the rights groups Refugees International and Human Rights First.
The policy, adopted in March 2025, allowed removals with only minimal notice if officials had diplomatic assurances against persecution.
The controversial programme has reached the Supreme Court twice.
In 2025, the justices cleared the way for eight men, including nationals of Cuba, Myanmar and Vietnam, to be deported to South Sudan, a country the US State Department advises against visiting because of “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict”.
The DHS called the removals “a win”, while rights groups said they flouted basic protections.
The Trump administration’s immigration agenda has faced a string of setbacks this month.
A federal judge blocked planned caps on student and journalist visas, calling the government’s justification “exceptionally weak”, while a coalition of 22 states and Washington, DC, sued to stop a separate rule that would let officials deny green cards to immigrants who lawfully use public benefits.
Coronation Street fans think they know what Lucy Parkinson has planned for poor Sally Metcalfe(Image: ITV)
Fans of Coronation Street think Lucy Parkinson’s plans for Sally Metcalfe could get very sinister.
While Lucy has been lashing out at Sally, who has been caring for her since her mother Rachel’s murder, and her dad Richie’s imprisonment for the crime, she also appears to be setting her up. Things are set to continue when next week, Sally is alarmed by a picture Lucy has drawn.
Sally is soon confiding in her husband Tim Metcalfe about Lucy lashing out, and the drama with the picture. But with Sally not sure she can keep looking after Lucy, there could be worrying twists ahead.
Some fans now think they know what Lucy’s plan is, and where this might lead. With Lucy also targeting the kids Sally and Tim have fostered, will Lucy have them taken away from them?
One fan predicted: “After watching tonight’s episode, I’m sure Lucy’s plan is that Tim and Sally lose custody of Joanie, Shanice and herself.” Another fan said: “I am really worried for Sally, she’s either going to get hurt or Lucy is going to get her reported to the care worker which will have consequences for the other kids.”
A third viewer said: “Tim and Sally will be lucky to get out of this alive and still together.” A fourth fan commented: “She really seems to have it out for Sally and manipulates Tim.”
Another theory saw fans wonder if Sally would be attacked. One said: “I strongly suspect this is all building up to Lucy losing it and attacking Sally.” Another said: “There’s going to be a potential stabbing for Sally.”
Another fan wondered if Lucy had targeted someone else before Sally. They said: “After seeing Lucy had obviously given herself the mark and blamed sally, do we think this isn’t the first time she’s done this?
“What if she’s hurt herself before, and blamed her mum, so her dad killed her out of anger?” It comes as some fans speculated over who attacks Eva Price next week, after spoilers teased someone hurts her.
It’s not yet clear if Eva falls down the stairs or is pushed. One theory is that Lucy attacks her after drama airing next week. Other names thrown into the mix as possible attackers are Jodie Ramsey and Ross Wilkes.
Coronation Street airs weeknights at 8:30pm on ITV1 and ITV X. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump threatened on Wednesday to cut trade with the European Union after the bloc proposed to make Canada its first ever associate member.
EU chief Ursula von der Leyen raised the prospect a day before Canadian leader Mark Carney was due to address the European Parliament.
Her pitch comes as both Canada and the European Union seek to pivot away from an aggressive United States under Trump’s leadership.
“I think it’s laughable,” Trump told reporters when asked about the plan.
“If they do that, if I think it’s at all a hostile act, I will put very serious tariffs or stop trading with Europe, on many things.”
He added: “If it’s a good intention, that’s fine. If it’s a bad intention, we’ll put very heavy tariffs on Europe, which is a possibility.”
Von der Leyen pitched closer cooperation on tech, defense and energy to Carney, who became the first non-European head of government to attend the annual “State of the European Union” speech.
The German told the European Parliament in Strasbourg that, as democracies face a “fracture in the international rules-based system,” Brussels and Ottawa needed to pull closer together.
“I would like to work with you on opening the door for Canada to be the first associate member of the EU,” von der Leyen told the Canadian premier, drawing a standing ovation in the chamber.
A broader alliance
Carney has been pursuing closer ties with the European Union as Canada gets drawn ever deeper into a trade war with the United States.
He is set to address the parliament on Thursday, with his visit meant to act as a catalyst ahead of an EU-Canada summit in Montreal next month.
Von der Leyen said it was time to move from cooperation based on trade to a broader “alliance for the future” and “bring the relationship with Canada to the highest level possible.”
“We will work on intelligent manufacturing. We will create a tech alliance. We will integrate defense industrial bases. We will make the Arctic a flagship joint project,” she said.
She listed energy, critical minerals, batteries, AI, cyber and economic security as other fields of cooperation.
“This is a partnership not against anyone else, but for our common strength,” she said.
But both the EU and Canada have been buffeted by tariffs and territorial threats from the US and competition from China.
“In a more dangerous and divided world, Canada is forging stronger relationships with trusted partners,” Carney’s office said in a statement.
What’s in a name?
While EU treaties do not envision the possibility of becoming an “associate member,” the idea was first floated by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz this year for Ukraine.
Under that plan, which met a cold reception from a country pushing for full membership, Ukraine would have been allowed to attend the bloc’s summits and have a representative in the European Commission.
It would have also benefited from parts of the EU budget, but without full voting rights.
“We don’t really know yet what it means,” said Tobias Cremer, a center-left European lawmaker from Germany and the main sponsor of a resolution urging stronger EU-Canada cooperation, after von der Leyen’s “associate membership” pitch.
Under EU rules, member states have to approve any form of partnership with a third country and it was unclear how much support von der Leyen’s proposal would receive from capitals.
Brussels and Ottawa already enjoy a considerable level of cooperation.
The CETA free-trade agreement that abolished almost all tariffs has been credited with boosting trade in goods and services by more than 80 percent since 2016.
And this year Canada became the first non-EU country to join a flagship defense loan program.
Carney later flew to Britain for his first meeting with new UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
They attended a football match between Everton and Wolverhampton together before Carney’s return to Strasbourg for his Thursday speech.
By Matthew LeeAP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON — The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee said Wednesday that he’s going to block a proposed sale of $2.8 billion in heavy weaponry to Israel over concerns that the powerful bombs may not be used in line with U.S. and international law.
Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York said he would withhold approval for the sale because of “grave, unresolved concerns” about how these munitions could be used in densely populated areas of Gaza and Lebanon by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
“The Trump administration has not provided sufficient assurances that these weapons will be used by the Netanyahu government in accordance with U.S. law and with appropriate protections for civilians,” Meeks said in a statement. “I therefore will not clear this sale at this time.”
Meeks’ objections, however, likely will not affect the sale, which was informally notified to lawmakers on Tuesday. Once it is formally notified to Congress, Secretary of State Marco Rubio can bypass the normal congressional review process by making an emergency determination that the transaction is an urgent national security interest.
Rubio has done so in the past, including bypassing a normal congressional review process to approve a nearly $3-billion sale to Israel last year. The administration then approved a new series of arms sales to Israel totaling $6.67 billion in January.
The State Department did not respond to requests for comment about either the new proposed sale or Meeks’ objection to it.
The $2.8-billion package includes 40,000 powerful 2,000-pound bombs, the Associated Press has reported. The transfer of 2,000-pound bombs had been paused by the Biden administration over concerns about the possibility of mass casualties.
The proposed sale is just the latest in a series of Trump administration steps to improve Israel’s military capacity and it comes as Israel is facing increased international isolation over its war in Gaza in response to the deadly Oct. 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas.
The conflict in Gaza has left tens of thousands of Palestinians dead and decimated the enclave. The U.S. brokered a fragile ceasefire, but violence has continued.
Lee writes for the Associated Press.
MARFA, Texas — Landowners, ranchers and business owners in the Big Bend region of Texas along with a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the region’s landscape and heritage are suing to stop the Trump administration’s plans to build a wall and other border infrastructure through the remote section of the state.
The lawsuit, filed by Conserve Big Bend and with the support of dozens of landowners, comes as the administration is ramping up a $46-billion effort to line the roughly 2,000-mile southern border with a collection of 30-foot steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers and technology intended to keep out smugglers and migrants.
In Texas, the effort has run up against numerous lawsuits and bipartisan opposition from sheriffs, elected officials, tour guides, environmental groups and landowners.
Officials backing the wall “were woefully unprepared for the hornet’s nest they stirred up because they had no idea how much we love this place,” said David Keller, an archaeologist and historian who specializes in the Big Bend and lives in the region.
“For us, the Big Bend is not an empty place on the map,” he said. “It is our home.”
As part of its wall-building efforts, the administration has waived numerous regulations and statutes designed to protect the environment, archaeology or wildlife, on the basis that there’s an urgent need to protect the border in what Homeland Security has called areas of “high illegal entry.”
But in the lawsuit announced Monday, the plaintiffs argue that when it comes to the Big Bend region, that’s not an accurate description. They’ve cited historical statistics issued by Customs and Border Protection showing how few people cross the border in Big Bend compared with other areas along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Big Bend has about 500 miles of border with Mexico — roughly one quarter of the length of the border from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. But the region only accounted for about 1% of arrests, according to the lawsuit’s stats.
The plaintiffs are arguing that the Department of Homeland Security is misusing powers from Congress that allow the secretary broad authority to waive regulations in order to build border walls or other infrastructure in areas where there are large numbers of people trying to cross into the country illegally.
“That determination is legally and factually unsound and unsupported,” the plaintiffs wrote.
The lawsuit filed Monday is the latest in efforts to slow or stop the administration’s plans in Texas and elsewhere.
The biggest outcry has come over Customs and Border Protection’s plans for the Big Bend National Park, which sits in a far southwestern corner of Texas where the Rio Grande separates the U.S. from Mexico.
The park’s remote and rugged location, its steep limestone canyon walls and crystal clear starry night views attract visitors from around the world. The government has said in court hearings that no final plans have been decided for what will be built in the park but plans made public so far have included building a new road, installing detection technology and barriers to stop vehicles from crossing the border.
When bulldozers were spotted clearing land in the park in August, people across the state were outraged. CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott temporarily paused construction-related activity in the park but many activists and residents would like to see even more changes to the administration’s plans in the broader Big Bend region.
Native American groups have argued that the construction could inhibit their ability to practice their faith and is damaging important religious sites while environmentalists worry the wall will cause flooding or keep animals from migrating.
Landowners who’ve lived and worked along the Rio Grande for years have questioned how they’ll feed livestock or water their crops if they can’t access the river.
Santana writes for the Associated Press.
Democratic state parties announced Monday that they are launching an operation for the midterm elections they’re calling the “New Battlefield Project,” intended to recruit 10,000 volunteers to guard polling places in case armed federal officers show up.
Activists are planning mass protests if the Trump administration tries to interfere with voting or ballot counting. And legal scholars are distributing white papers advising judges what they should do if the government tries to seize ballots.
The unprecedented efforts are in response to President Trump’s equally unprecedented moves to interfere in this year’s midterm elections, which include attempts to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements to register to vote and directing the Postal Service to play a central role in deciding which voters should get a mail ballot.
The anxious contingency planning as voting gets underway has become a marker for how fraught democracy has become in the country that once stood as an example to the world.
“We have never prepared for an election sabotage event like we have now,” said Ezra Levin of the left-leaning group Indivisible.
Democrats say they have reason to plan for doomsday scenarios. During his first term, Trump refused to accept his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden and attempted to overturn the vote, only to be defied by career officials and more establishment Republicans. Upon returning to power, Trump has stocked his administration with those who helped his 2020 efforts, has used the federal government to target his political enemies and pardoned more than 1,000 people prosecuted for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that was intended to halt the certification of Biden’s win.
Incumbent presidents’ parties usually lose ground in the midterms, but Trump has pulled out the stops to try to keep that from happening this time. He’s demanded Republicans redraw maps to create more safe seats for themselves in the House of Representatives, held last week’s unusual midterm convention and tried to change election rules even as states begin to send out ballots.
The advice for judges asked to approve search warrants for ballots, for example, was inspired by the Trump administration’s seizure of 2020 ballots and other election records in Fulton County, Georgia, which includes Atlanta, based on old, disproven conspiracy theories.
Rick Hasen, a UCLA Law professor and director of the school’s Safeguarding Democracy Project, noted that Trump has expressed regret that he didn’t take more aggressive action to overturn the 2020 results, such as ordering voting machines to be seized.
“All these things take what was off the wall and put it on the wall,” Hasen said. He said that while it is important not to unduly scare voters about what might happen, it’s “hard to walk the line between alarmism and complacency.”
Last year, Democrats worried that Trump might intervene in off-year elections in California, Virginia and elsewhere, only to have voting go smoothly with no clashes with the federal government.
“The only ‘fears’ Americans have about our elections are being fueled by extreme liberal Democrats who refuse to support commonsense legislation that ensures Americans, and Americans only, decide our elections and other basic election security measures like Voter ID,” White House spokeswoman Lauren Blis said in a statement.
Still, the stakes are far higher in the midterms, which will determine whether Republicans continue to control both houses of Congress. So far Trump has been unable to change voting procedures before the midterms.
Courts halted Trump’s first attempt to reshape election rules via executive order last year. The president backed a bill in Congress to make even more sweeping changes but it’s stalled in the Senate because of opposition from Democrats and some Republicans.
Then Trump tried to limit mail voting by executive order, but the courts again blocked it, saying the changes couldn’t happen before the midterms. That case is before the Supreme Court. Election officials warn that it would be impossible to implement Trump’s requirements in time for this election.
Litigation about election rules has reached such a pitch that the National Bar Association last week announced an initiative to help voters of both parties understand last-minute election rule changes and to create a hotline for those who encounter trouble casting ballots.
Every election, the two major parties mobilize massive operations of attorneys, staffers and volunteers to monitor polling places and ballot counting. The Republican National Committee said it’s already recruited a record number of poll watchers.
“The RNC has spent this entire cycle preparing not just to defy history in November, but to protect it,” spokeswoman Ally Triolo said. “We’ve built the largest election integrity operation in Republican Party history because our mission is simple: secure every legal vote and ensure Americans can trust the outcome of our elections.”
Democrats also have expanded their operations, and the Association of State Democratic Parties is adding to that effort with its “battlefield” recruitment project. That also will include a network to share information about online threats and manipulation, said Jane Kleeb, the chair of the group and of the Nebraska Democratic Party.
“If they’re saying they’re going to put armed people outside polling places, we should put friendly people outside polling locations to film them,” Kleeb said in an interview. “There’s a whole new battlefield we have now.”
Kleeb was referring to widespread fears among Democrats that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will be deployed to the polls, something that multiple administration officials for months have denied will happen. There have been scattered instances of ICE officers at polling places over the past year, usually saying they’re in pursuit of or investigating a specific person. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said this month it’s possible that could happen again in November.
In an indication of the distrust of the administration’s reassurances, civil rights groups and the city of Denver last week filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to formally bar ICE from polling places. They cited a law dating to the Civil War era prohibiting armed federal agents at election sites.
“This administration is basically using the rhetoric that undocumented citizens are voting and that they’re going to have DHS and ICE at the polls to try and intimidate and suppress the Latino vote,” said Juan Proaño, CEO of the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the plaintiffs.
A staple of the election buildup is a series of tabletop exercises in which each side runs hypothetical scenarios to practice its response. As part of that, Democrats and civil rights groups are rehearsing for the possible deployment of ICE agents or the National Guard to polling sites, although the Pentagon has said it has no plans to deploy troops to the polls.
Levin, of Indivisible, said his group has run 17 different scenarios preparing for what could happen in November. But the first priority, he said, is to boost turnout.
The No Kings network, which has spearheaded large anti-Trump protests over the president’s second term and includes Indivisible, is launching a campaign encouraging early voting that will peak with rallies Oct. 17.
Others are organizing among both left-wing and more traditional groups to push back if the administration is aggressive in November. Some look to the anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis as a possible model.
Two activists were shot and killed by ICE agents during those January demonstrations, and the administration eventually backed off the aggressive crackdown the president had launched against the city.
“We recognize there might be a similar moment in November, where Trump attempts to do that again, where everyday working people and students need to band together and say, ‘Actually, no, this is our country, you don’t get to decide who gets elected or who gets to take office,’” said Kidus Girma of the left-wing Sunrise Movement.
Riccardi and Brown write for the Associated Press.
Published on •Updated
France will push back against a European Commission plan to fast-track ratification of trade agreements by circulating only English-language versions during talks with EU governments and lawmakers, skipping translation into the bloc’s 24 official languages, according to several sources.
The slow ratification of the contentious EU–Mercosur trade deal has frustrated the Commission, which wants to accelerate negotiations and bring deals into force more quickly as it seeks new markets amid rising geopolitical tensions.
Translating the agreements into every official EU language can take months due to the legal scrubbing required before the ratification process begins.
The EU executive has confirmed to Euronews that trade chief Maroš Šefčovič told EU trade ministers in February that the trade deal with India concluded on 27 January could serve as a test case for using English as the main language during ratification.
“We lost almost €300 billion by not having the Mercosur agreement in place since 2021, if it comes to the GDP, and more than €200 billion in export opportunities,” Šefčovič told journalists after meeting ministers on 20 February, adding that once negotiations end it can take up to 2.5 years before businesses can operate in partner countries.
“In today’s world, we cannot simply lose the time,” he said.
Šefčovič said the Commission would ensure the agreements are translated into all 24 official EU languages once published in the Official Journal, i.e. after ratification. He added the proposal was backed by at least seven member states at the meeting, though not all countries had time to speak.
French sources who spoke to Euronews were insistent that Paris would vigorously oppose the move to English-only agreements if necessary.
“As a matter of principle, we defend the use of all the languages of the Union, and in particular French, which is one of the EU’s working languages,” one official told Euronews.
Language policy in the bloc’s institutions remains politically sensitive for countries such as France, whose language has declined sharply over the past decades as English massively dominates daily work in the European Union institutions – despite French, German and English being the three official working languages.
“Switching entirely to English raises a legal and democratic issue, and the Commission is well aware of it,” another French official told Euronews.
On its website, the European Commission says linguistic diversity is essential and that the EU promotes multilingualism in its institutional work.
The bloc once even had a commissioner dedicated to multilingualism, though the portfolio was gradually merged with others and eventually disappeared.
“I have the impression that in some cases the Commission seizes the opportunity to push the idea that English has a superior status, and that the other official languages are translation languages that can come later,” Michele Gazzola, expert in language policy, said.
He added that relying only on English during ratification could pose problems for members of the European Parliament, and even more so if national parliaments are involved.
“It’s a matter of transparency, precision and understanding.”
WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ruled that a plan by the Trump administration to slash staffing at the federal agency tasked with responding to disasters by 50% was unlawful.
The opinion issued late Friday marked a victory for labor groups who had sued the agency. The labor organizations had argued that plans by the Department of Homeland Security, which was then led by Secretary Kristi Noem, violated congressional protections that were designed to safeguard the independence of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The issue of the FEMA staffing was part of a much larger lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees and other labor groups, contesting efforts by the Trump administration to slash the federal workforce.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote in her opinion that top Homeland Security officials late last year directed FEMA’s leadership to submit a staffing plan that included a 50% staffing cut even though the agency’s own supervisors objected.
“Frankly, the FEMA staffing plan number appears as if pulled from thin air,” wrote Illston.
FEMA responded in a statement late Saturday saying that while it does not comment on personnel matters and ongoing litigation, “DHS and FEMA are ready for the 2026 hurricane season.”
“We’re ensuring workforce stability and a strong, deployable force for upcoming national events and potential disasters; making the agency leaner, faster and laser-focused on supporting state, local, tribal and territorial partners before, during and after disasters,” the statement said. “FEMA continues to maintain a roster of experienced leadership and support staff across headquarters and regional offices.”
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In the opinion, Illston wrote that it was clear that the government violated rules established after 2005’s Hurricane Katrina that put decisions on staffing levels squarely in the hands of FEMA, not the Department of Homeland Security, and that prevented Homeland Security from “substantially” reducing the “functions” of FEMA.
Illston didn’t order a specific remedy to carry out her opinion but directed the two sides to meet and decide on a course of relief.
Although FEMA has experienced terminations, the 50% staffing cuts ultimately were not carried out. In recent months, after top leadership changes at FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, the agency has rehired some staffers who were let go.
FEMA was one of the agencies targeted for staff reductions in the federal government as part of a broad Trump administration plan to reduce the size of government. The embattled agency has been buffeted by mass staff departures, disruptions of grant programs and delays of disaster aid.
In May, a Trump-appointed FEMA Review Council submitted a final report recommending sweeping changes to how the agency supports states, tribes and territories in disaster.
The final version backed away from the recommendation to cut the FEMA workforce by 50%, which was included in a December 2025 draft reviewed by the Associated Press.
The council instead recommended the agency conduct a “strategic review” to determine “appropriate staffing levels.”
In an August report, the Government Accountability Office said it found that the departures of thousands of staff in 2025 resulted in a “loss of institutional knowledge and experienced personnel” and “exacerbated longstanding workforce challenges.”
More than 4,300 employees, or about 17% of FEMA’s workforce, separated from the agency in the 2025 budget year, with over 1,500 through voluntary reductions. The agency also made about 2,900 new hires.
The GAO recently recommended to Congress that it “consider requiring” FEMA to base “significant workforce decisions” on a more strategic planning process.
Without it, the GAO found, “FEMA cannot be assured that the agency is positioned to effectively meet its mission needs.”
Santana writes for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON: A federal judge has ruled that a plan by the Trump administration to slash staffing at the federal agency tasked with responding to disasters by 50% was unlawful.
The opinion issued late Friday marked a victory for labor groups who had sued the agency. The labor organization had argued that plans by the Department of Homeland Security violated congressional protections that were designed to safeguard the independence of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The issue of the FEMA staffing was part of a much larger lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees and other labor groups, pushing back on efforts by the Trump administration to slash the federal workforce.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote in her opinion that top Homeland Security officials late last year directed FEMA’s leadership to submit a staffing plan that included a 50% staffing cut even though the agency’s own supervisors objected.
“Frankly, the FEMA staffing plan number appears as if pulled from thin air,” wrote Illston.
The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Illston wrote that it was clear that the government violated rules established after 2005’s Hurricane Katrina that put decisions on staffing levels squarely in the hands of FEMA, not the Department of Homeland Security and that prevented DHS from “substantially” reducing the “functions” of FEMA.
Illston didn’t order a specific remedy to carry out her opinion but directed the two sides to meet and decide on a course of relief.
Although FEMA has experienced terminations, the 50% staffing cuts ultimately were not carried out. In recent months, after top leadership changes at FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, the agency has rehired some staffers who were let go.
FEMA was one of the agencies targeted in the federal government for staff reductions as part of a broad Trump administration plan to reduce the size of government. The embattled agency has been buffeted by mass staff departures, disruptions of grant programs, and delays of disaster aid.
In May, a Trump-appointed FEMA Review Council submitted a final report recommending sweeping changes to how the agency supports states, tribes and territories in disaster.
The final version backed away from the recommendation to cut the FEMA workforce by 50%, which was included in a December 2025 draft reviewed by The Associated Press.
The council instead recommended the agency conduct a “strategic review” to determine “appropriate staffing levels.”
In an August report, the Government Accountability Office said it found the departures of thousands of staff in 2025 resulted in a “loss of institutional knowledge and experienced personnel” and “exacerbated longstanding workforce challenges.”
More than 4,300 employees, or about 17% of FEMA’s workforce, separated from the agency in the 2025 budget year, with over 1,500 through voluntary reductions. The agency also made about 2,900 new hires.
The GAO recently recommended to Congress that it “consider requiring” FEMA to base “significant workforce decisions” on a more strategic planning process.
Without it, the GAO found, “FEMA cannot be assured that the agency is positioned to effectively meet its mission needs.”
Published on •Updated
France will push back against a European Commission plan to fast-track ratification of trade agreements by circulating only English-language versions during talks with EU governments and lawmakers, skipping translation into the bloc’s 24 official languages, according to several sources.
The slow ratification of the contentious EU–Mercosur trade deal has frustrated the Commission, which wants to accelerate negotiations and bring deals into force more quickly as it seeks new markets amid rising geopolitical tensions.
Translating the agreements into every official EU language can take months due to the legal scrubbing required before the ratification process begins.
The EU executive has confirmed to Euronews that trade chief Maroš Šefčovič told EU trade ministers in February that the trade deal with India concluded on 27 January could serve as a test case for using English as the main language during ratification.
“We lost almost €300 billion by not having the Mercosur agreement in place since 2021, if it comes to the GDP, and more than €200 billion in export opportunities,” Šefčovič told journalists after meeting ministers on 20 February, adding that once negotiations end it can take up to 2.5 years before businesses can operate in partner countries.
“In today’s world, we cannot simply lose the time,” he said.
Šefčovič said the Commission would ensure the agreements are translated into all 24 official EU languages once published in the Official Journal, i.e. after ratification. He added the proposal was backed by at least seven member states at the meeting, though not all countries had time to speak.
French sources who spoke to Euronews were insistent that Paris would vigorously oppose the move to English-only agreements if necessary.
“As a matter of principle, we defend the use of all the languages of the Union, and in particular French, which is one of the EU’s working languages,” one official told Euronews.
Language policy in the bloc’s institutions remains politically sensitive for countries such as France, whose language has declined sharply over the past decades as English massively dominates daily work in the European Union institutions – despite French, German and English being the three official working languages.
“Switching entirely to English raises a legal and democratic issue, and the Commission is well aware of it,” another French official told Euronews.
On its website, the European Commission says linguistic diversity is essential and that the EU promotes multilingualism in its institutional work.
The bloc once even had a commissioner dedicated to multilingualism, though the portfolio was gradually merged with others and eventually disappeared.
“I have the impression that in some cases the Commission seizes the opportunity to push the idea that English has a superior status, and that the other official languages are translation languages that can come later,” Michele Gazzola, expert in language policy, said.
He added that relying only on English during ratification could pose problems for members of the European Parliament, and even more so if national parliaments are involved.
“It’s a matter of transparency, precision and understanding.”
The Trump administration is proposing a dramatic overhaul of the once-a-decade U.S. Census head count that could leave out millions of immigrants based on status and key racial and ethnic data, jeopardizing the allocation of resources and the country’s voting map.
The potential changes, announced Wednesday, would exclude undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and anyone without permanent status. Certain demographic questions from the traditional questionnaire would also be eliminated.
It echoes Trump’s previous idea to add a citizenship question to the 2030 census.
The U.S. Census Bureau, in a post on the Federal Register website, argued “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, as they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politic, or persons with a ‘usual residence’ in the United States due to their lack of a sufficient tie and allegiance to the United States.”
The census also “should be colorblind and should not be distorted in any way by questions about immaterial personal characteristics, such as race,” the agency said. It also is considering nixing questions related to people who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community.
These changes would harm the quality of the data, said Beth Jarosz, a data researcher and vice president of the Association of Public Data Users. She called the proposals “unprecedented.”
“Not counting all of the people who reside here is actually where the real threat is,” Jarosz said. “If you think about all of the ways that census data are used.”
Census figures are traditionally used for an “apportionment count” to determine how many seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives. That count also determines the number of votes in the Electoral College.
“You can imagine if we have undercounts or if we have people counted in the wrong place,” Jarosz said. “Then their political power or their political representation gets diluted.”
Historically, the decennial census has not sought to conduct a full count of people by citizenship status, she added. It may come up in the Census’ periodic American Community Survey.
Getting an accurate count of immigrants of various statuses is useful when assigning resources for public health emergencies or natural or human-made disasters.
“If you don’t have a count of everyone who’s there, you’re not going to have the resources you need,” Jarosz said. “And that puts everybody at risk.”
Race-related questions have been on the once-a-decade census since 1790. Starting in 2000, the U.S. census began allowing people to identify by more than one race. A 2015 Pew Research Center study found that multiracial people in the U.S. were growing at a rate three times faster than the general population. By 2020, 33.8 million people in the U.S. identified as being more than one race, according to the census.
Race and ethnicity data is essential for researchers who gauge discrimination, crime rates and wealth gaps in communities of color.
Manjusha Kulkarni is co-founder of Stop AAPI Hate and executive director of AAPI Equity Alliance, two advocacy groups that rely on census counts of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. The proposed changes would have tremendous impact on the populations they serve, she said.
“It also seeks to exclude important demographic data from millions that enables lawmakers, health care providers, public safety officials and community advocates — really anyone who cares about the health, safety and well-being of all Americans — from having the necessary data to keep us safe and healthy,” Kulkarni said via text message.
Dropping race and ethnicity data as well as some immigrants sends a message that these communities don’t matter, she added.
Collecting data for the 2030 Census with all these missing elements would be detrimental, Jarosz said.
“These changes are like trying to land an airplane when you are in thick fog and someone has thrown paint across the front window and your instruments are also not working,” she said.
Tang writes for the Associated Press.
The Trump administration is proposing a dramatic overhaul of the once-a-decade US Census head count that could leave out millions of immigrants based on status and key racial and ethnic data, jeopardizing the allocation of resources and the country’s voting map.
The potential changes, announced Wednesday, would exclude undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and anyone without permanent status. Certain demographic questions from the traditional questionnaire would also be eliminated.
It echoes Trump’s previous idea to add a citizenship question to the 2030 census.
The US Census Bureau, in a post on the Federal Register website, argued “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, as they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politic, or persons with a ‘usual residence’ in the United States due to their lack of a sufficient tie and allegiance to the United States.”
The census also “should be colorblind and should not be distorted in any way by questions about immaterial personal characteristics, such as race,” the agency said. It also is considering nixing questions related to people who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community.
These changes would harm the quality of the data, said Beth Jarosz, a data researcher and vice president of the Association of Public Data Users. She called the proposals “unprecedented.”
“Not counting all of the people who reside here is actually where the real threat is,” Jarosz said. “If you think about all of the ways that census data are used.”
Census figures are traditionally used for an “apportionment count” to determine how many seats each state will have in the US House of Representatives. That count also determines the number of votes in the Electoral College.
“You can imagine if we have undercounts or if we have people counted in the wrong place,” Jarosz said. “Then their political power or their political representation gets diluted.”
Immigrants of every status have historically been counted
Historically, the decennial census has not sought to conduct a full count of people by citizenship status, she added. It may come up in the Census’ periodic American Community Survey.
Getting an accurate count of immigrants of various statuses is useful when assigning resources for public health emergencies or natural or man-made disasters.
“If you don’t have a count of everyone who’s there, you’re not going to have the resources you need,” Jarosz said. “And that puts everybody at risk.”
Why race and ethnicity census data matters
Race-related questions have been on the once-a-decade census since 1790. Starting in 2000, the US census began allowing people to identify by more than one race. A 2015 Pew Research Center study found that multiracial people in the US were growing at a rate three times faster than the general population. By 2020, 33.8 million people in the US identified as being more than one race, according to the census.
Race and ethnicity data is essential for researchers who gauge discrimination, crime rates and wealth gaps in communities of color.
Collecting data for the 2030 Census with all these missing elements would be detrimental, Jarosz said.
“These changes are like trying to land an airplane when you are in thick fog and someone has thrown paint across the front window and your instruments are also not working,” she said.
By Fatima Hussein and Ali Swenson
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is promising $500 rebate checks to an estimated 1 million Affordable Care Act enrollees across 30 states, who the White House alleged were overcharged by the Biden administration for exchange fees.
The promise comes after Trump pledged Wednesday to send every American adult $5,000 if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections and as affordability has become a central issue for voters heading into November.
“The relief begins with refunding everyone who was overcharged and the rebates are going out in just a few weeks,” President Trump said in a recorded address released on the White House X account Thursday. Enrollees who can expect refunds are those who do not receive premium assistance.
Critics called the move a “gimmick” that doesn’t represent a plan for addressing soaring healthcare costs.
Trump in his address accused former President Biden’s administration of “gross mismanagement” of ACA funds, without providing evidence, and said that the Biden administration collected user fees from insurance companies that consumers paid through higher premiums.
In a fact sheet, the White House claimed that Biden’s administration “accumulated a significant surplus of funds that were not used to benefit the Americans who paid these higher premiums.” It said the rebates would be sent out beginning next month.
It is unclear whether the $500 rebate represents what each enrollee may have overpaid, where the money for the rebates would come from and whether it requires congressional approval for disbursement.
Trump’s announcement comes as the price of ACA insurance has skyrocketed for many Americans during his own second term. The Trump administration opposed extending COVID-era subsidies that had helped offset the costs of health insurance for most enrollees during Biden’s term.
After the Republican-led Congress allowed the subsidies to expire this year, premiums doubled or tripled for many enrollees, prompting millions to downgrade their plans or exit the program entirely.
Brad Woodhouse, a Democratic strategist and executive director of advocacy group Protect Our Care, called the rebate plan “an absolute joke” in a statement.
“Since Republicans took away tax credits from working families, millions of people have seen their monthly premiums rise by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars,” Woodhouse said. “At a time when people are scraping by to keep up with the high cost of groceries, rent, and healthcare, this $500 gimmick won’t even begin to dig them out of the hole that Trump and Republicans created.”
Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services did not respond to Associated Press requests for comment, and a White House official referred back to the fact sheet.
Roughly 19 million people receive insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchange.
Hussein and Swenson write for the Associated Press.
Comparing the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art to a spaceship has become an internet cliche, but the otherworldly campus really does feel like it exists in a galaxy far, far away. Nestled in Exposition Park beside the Natural History Museum and down the block from the soon-to-open Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center (with its actual spaceship), the Lucas Museum’s Ma Yansong-designed building sticks out like a green thumb.
There are 11 acres of lush public park space to explore, dotted with “Star Wars”-themed statues and a hanging garden, as well as benches and an amphitheater for outdoor events. A waterfall tucked on the north end of the building acts as a cooling mechanism for the 300,000-square-foot structure, but also serves as a gathering spot for jovial seagulls.
If you get peckish, there are two options: A cafe on the ground floor with typical sandwich and salad fare as well as a Starbucks; and a fifth-floor restaurant called Skywalker Grill with a full bar, curved cherry wood walls and lovely views of downtown L.A. (Nab a reservation or you’ll likely never get in.)
There are 100,000 square feet of gallery space, with the art spread mostly across the fourth floor — and in a fifth-floor murals gallery where you’ll find a selection of Banksys hidden in a back corner. More than 30 discrete galleries have something for almost everyone and are curated by broad themes including motherhood, community, romance, sports, science fiction and comics.
And, yes, there is a “Star Wars” exhibit, but it’s just a small part of the overall scene. If you come explicitly for that, your day will be filled with unexpected discovery.
Here’s a useful map to guide your way.
1/3
1. Galleries
2. Galleries
3. Library
4. Sculpture garden
2/3
5. Education lobby
6. Lucas plaza
7. Oculus
8. Galleries
9. Private event space
10. Main lobby
11. Cafe
12. Gift shop
3/3
13. Theaters
14. Skywalker Grill
15. Galleries
16. The History of Narrative Art: Heroes, Myths, The Sacred
17. Waterfall
1/3
4th Floor Galleries
2/3
4th Floor Galleries
3/3
4th Floor Galleries
Netflix users will have another price rise….(Image: Getty)
There is bad news for Netflix users after bosses raised the prices of UK subscriptions for the second time this year.
The streaming platform, which houses Stranger Things, Love Is Blind, Bridgerton, Selling Sunset and many other beloved programmes, has updated its pricing – with the cheapest rising by a third.
Customers will be given 30 days’ notice by email before the changes. Those with the standard plan with ads will now pay £7.99 a month, up from £5.99, while the advert-free option has moved from £12.99 to £13.99.
Users who have a premium plan, which allows them to add extra members and stream on more devices, will pay £20.99 from their next billing cycle, a change of £2.
For viewers who want to add an extra member for their subscription, they will have to pay £5.99 under new guidelines, up from £4.99.
This is the second time that the prices have increased this year, with previous changes being introduced in February.
A spokesperson said, via Deadline, that the changes “reflect improvements to our wide range of entertainment and the quality of our service.”
“Our approach remains the same: we continue offering a range of prices and plans to meet a variety of needs, and as we deliver more value to our members, we reinvest in quality entertainment and improve their experience by updating our prices,” the statement added.
“We know members have never had more choices in entertainment, and we’re committed to delivering an experience that meets and exceeds their expectations.”
The news was confirmed just after the second series of Guy Ritchie’s acclaimed drama, The Gentlemen, landed on the platform, with many high-profile releases still to come.
Keira Knightley will be returning in season two of Black Doves in November, while a documentary on late Friends actor Matthew Perry will hit screens at the end of October.
In recent years, original shows including Adolescence, Baby Reindeer, The Crown and Ozark have collected a string of awards. Fans have also raved about Netflix’s film slate, including Voicemails for Isabelle, Nonnas, Carry-On and Rebel Ridge.
Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .