plan

Oct. 22 (UPI) — American cattle ranchers are calling on the Trump administration to abandon plans to buy Argentine beef, as the rift between the two sides deepens.

President Donald Trump has been arguing to buy beef from the South American country as an effort to lower beef prices at U.S. grocery stores, while U.S. cattle ranchers are criticizing his plan as misguided and harmful, stating it will have little effect on grocery bills.

“The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and its members cannot stand behind the President while he undercuts the future of family farmers and ranchers by importing Argentinian beef in an attempt to influence prices,” NCBA CEO Colin Woodall said in a statement.

“It is imperative that President Trump and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins let the cattle markets work.”

The cost of beef in the United States has hit records this year, steadily rising since December. According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, the cost has increased 13.9% higher in August compared to a year earlier and is predicted to increase 11.6% percent this year.

The rift between Trump and cattle ranchers opened earlier this week when Trump told reporters on Air Force One that they are considering importing beef from Argentina to get those prices down.

Argentina, led by vocal Trump ally President Javier Milei, earlier this month entered a $20 billion financial bailout agreement with the United States.

The bailout has attracted criticism from American farmers, already hurting under the weight of Trump’s tariffs. In particular, soybean growers were upset with the bailout as the United States and Argentina directly compete in the crop for the Chinese market.

The comment about buying beef from Buenos Aires prompted swift criticism from American ranchers, already frustrated that Argentina sold more than $801 million worth of beef into the U.S. market, compared to the roughly $7 million worth of American beef sold in its market.

Trump on Wednesday said U.S. cattle ranchers “don’t understand that the only reason they are doing so well” is because of his tariffs.

“If it weren’t for me, they would be doing just as they’ve done for the past 20 years — Terrible!” Trump said on his Truth Social media platform.

“It would be nice if they would understand that, but they also have to get their prices down, because the consumer is a very big factor in my thinking, also!”

Amid the controversy, the USDA on Wednesday announced a series of actions, including those to promote and protect American beef through the voluntary Country of Origin Labeling program.

However, ranchers are saying it’s not good enough.

Farm Action, a nonpartisan agricultural sector watchdog, is urging the Trump administration to make country of origin labeling mandatory and to launch investigations into the so-called Big Four meatpackers, saying they control the price of beef, not U.S. ranchers.

“Ranchers need support to rebuild their herds — that’s how we truly increase beef supply and lower prices long-term,” the watchdog said in a statement Wednesday.

“After years of drought, high input costs and selling into a rigged market, we deserve policies that strengthen rural America, not ones that reward foreign competitors and corporate monopolies.”

Wyoming’s Meriwether Farms called on Trump to immediately use his executive powers to institute mandatory country of origin labeling.

“This is not good enough,” it said of the USDA’s initiatives announced Wednesday.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has begun demolition of the East Wing as he remakes the White House in his image, ignoring rules, breaking promises and taking a wrecking ball to the approval process in an echo of the strategies he deployed in Florida and New York as he built his real estate empire.

An excavator ripped off the facade and parts of the roof on Monday, exposing the stone shell below. Windows have been removed. A truck carried trees outside the White House gates and down Pennsylvania Avenue. A crowd gathered outside to witness the partial tear-down of the historic building — which Trump said just weeks ago would not be touched in his plans to build a new ballroom.

“Over the next few days, it’s going to be demolished,” Trump said at a White House dinner last week for donors to the 90,000-square-foot structure estimated to cost between $200 million and $250 million.

“Everything out there is coming down, and we’re replacing it with one of the most beautiful ballrooms that you’ve ever seen.”

He described the forthcoming structure as “four sides of beautiful glass.”

But similar to the rule-breaking tactics he used when pushing through changes to Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach and building his Trump Tower in New York, Trump’s sudden and dramatic White House overhaul has been made possible by his disdain for the rules that have protected Washington’s cohesive design. To date, he hasn’t submitted plans for review to the National Capital Planning Commission, which oversees renovation and additions to the federal buildings in the capital, including the president’s historic residence.

Not that the commission — now stacked with Trump’s allies — is complaining.

This summer, the president appointed his top aides — staff secretary Will Scharf, deputy chief of staff James Blair and Office of Management and Budget energy official Stuart Levenbach — to sit on the governing body.

Scharf, a longtime loyal Trump aide who hands him his executive orders to sign, was named chairman by the president. The appointments were so sudden that Scharf, at his first commission meeting on July 10, apologized for not connecting with any of his fellow commissioners ahead of time, noting his appointment had happened the night before.

At the commission’s next meeting, on Sept. 4, Scharf launched into a defense of Trump’s building project, arguing the commission does not have jurisdiction over demolition and site preparation work for federal property; that it just deals with construction.

“I think any assertion that this commission should have been consulted earlier than it has been, or it will be, is simply false,” he said.

The commission will just “play a role in the ballroom project when the time is appropriate for us to do so,” he said.

Not so fast, say past commissioners.

Preston Bryant, a former chairman of the commission, told the Miami Herald in an email that in his nine years on the job “the Commission always works on proposed capital projects in three stages — Conceptual, Preliminary Approval, and Final Approval. Even before conceptual, there’s early consultation.”

Trump is familiar with the process. When he and his Trump Organization were remodeling the Old Post Office Pavilion into a Trump Hotel in 2014, they had to get their plans approved by the commission, which was strict in its adherence to preserving the historical structure of the building.

His team submitted a 52-page proposal showing the design changes, drawings of the new interior and exterior, and detailed the effect the changes would have on local traffic.

But now Trump has plowed on, bulldozing any opposition.

“We’ll have the most beautiful ballroom in the country,” he said Monday at an event in the East Room of the White House, apologizing for any construction noise the guests may hear. “It just started today so that’s good luck.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Trump, in a post on Truth Social, said the new ballroom will be “completely separate from the White House itself, the East Wing is being fully modernized as part of this process, and will be more beautiful than ever when it is complete!”

As photos and videos of the destruction went viral on social media, his top administration aides took to their accounts to defend the project, pointing out that the ballroom was being paid for with private donations and noting other presidents have made changes to the White House.

Past presidents, however, consulted advisers and architects, along with groups like the White House Historical Association and the Committee for the Preservation of the White House in addition to working with the commission, which is currently closed as part of the government shutdown.

One former commissioner noted that Washington, D.C., is a carefully planned city and that the commission strives to keep to the original vision of Pierre L’Enfant, who designed the layout of the capitol.

“If you don’t have a review process you’re basically saying one individual can say what the capital looks like. Washington doesn’t look this way by accident,” the commissioner, who asked for anonymity in order to speak freely, said.

Trump’s history of flouting the rules

Brushing aside red tape has long been a Trump strategy when it comes to changes at historic properties.

In 2006, Trump added an 80-foot flagpole with a 5-feet-by-25-feet flag on the front lawn of Mar-a-Lago — without the proper permit or permission. Palm Beach restricts flagpoles to no higher than 42 feet and flags that are a maximum of 4 feet by 6 feet.

The town fined Trump $250 a day. He countered with a $250 million lawsuit, accusing Palm Beach of violating his First Amendment rights and publicly blasted local officials for fining his patriotic display.

Trump and the town government finally came to an agreement: Trump filed for a permit and was allowed an oversized pole that was 10 feet shorter than the original pole. In return he would donate $100,000 to veterans’ charities.

He also warred with Palm Beach over his original plan for Mar-a-Lago, which was to turn its 17 acres into a subdivision. With millions in upkeep and no income generated, the property was costing him a fortune.

The Palm Beach Town Council vetoed all his construction plans. Once again, Trump sued.

Another deal was made: Trump offered to drop his lawsuit if the town let him turn the estate into a lucrative private club. The council agreed but also set a series of requirements, including capping the membership price and its capacity along with a restriction that no one was to spend more than 21 nights a year at the property.

Trump, however, has hiked the membership fees and, after he left the White House in the first term, he named Mar-a-Lago his permanent residence, getting an exemption to the 21-night stay rule.

Similar actions took place when he built Trump Tower in New York.

In 1980, Trump acquired the historic Bonwit Teller building. He demolished the 1929 Art Deco building to build his namesake tower.

Before the project began, several prominent residents expressed concern about the original building’s limestone relief panels, considered prominent works of art.

Trump agreed to preserve the panels and donate them to The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

But as construction continued, Trump changed his mind and had the panels demolished with the building, saying they had little value and were “without artistic merit.”

It’s a slight still felt in some circles in New York society.

‘Pays total respect to the existing building’

Back in Washington, heads are shaking over the demolition of one-third of the White House structure.

After all, in July, Trump said the current building wouldn’t be touched.

“It won’t interfere with the current building. It won’t be. It’ll be near it but not touching it — and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of,” he said.

Now, in addition to the destruction of the wing, he may touch parts of the original White House. Trump on Monday indicated part of one of East Wing walls will come down to connect his ballroom to the residence.

“That’s a knockout panel — you knock it out,” he explained.

The East Wing was built in 1902 as a guest entrance and expanded in 1942 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It houses the offices of the first lady and her staff, the military office and the visitors office.

It’s unclear what process FDR went through. The planning commission wasn’t established until 1952. But part of the reason he had it built was to cover the underground presidential bunker which was installed for security reasons.

Trump has already made his mark on the White House. He’s added gold gilding to the Oval Office and stacked its walls with portraits. He’s moved around presidential portraits throughout the complex and added paintings of himself.

On the colonnade, which is the walkway leading from the residence to the West Wing, Trump added a photo of each American president. One exception was Joe Biden. Trump instead placed a photo of a pen, referring to his constant criticism for Biden using the auto pen for his signature during his presidency.

He paved over the Rose Garden to make it look similar to the patio at Mar-a-Lago, putting out chairs and tables with yellow umbrellas brought up from his Florida club. And he’s installed two massive flags atop large poles — one on the North Lawn and one on the South Lawn.

And there could be more changes to come.

Scharf, at his September planning commission meeting, mentioned an upcoming beautification and redesign of Pennsylvania Avenue.

He didn’t offer any details but an earlier presentation to the commission showed plans to turn the iconic avenue into a more pedestrian friendly walkway, with a national stage for events, markets and green spaces.

The Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which sits next door to the White House and houses most of the administration staff, could be in his sights. In his first term, Trump mulled adding gold leaf to the white granite building.

But, for now, Trump is working on plans to build a ceremonial arch outside of Arlington National Cemetery, on a traffic circle that sits between it and Memorial Bridge.

It would commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary next year. The president showed off design models and drawings to the ballroom donors, telling them there were three sizes to pick from and he was leaning toward the largest.

“Whichever one would look good. I happen to think the large one,” Trump said as the group laughed. “Why are you shocked?”

The drawings show an arch similar to France’s Arc de Triomphe with columns, eagles, wreaths and a gilded, winged figure.

Trump, earlier this month, had a model of it on his desk in the Oval Office when he was speaking to reporters on another matter.

The journalists noticed the piece and asked who it was for.

“Me,” he replied.

Emily Goodin writes for The Miami Herald and Tribune News Services.

RALEIGH, N.C. — Democrats rallying Tuesday against a new U.S. House map proposed by North Carolina Republicans seeking another GOP seat at President Trump’s behest acknowledged they’ll probably be unable to halt the redraw for now. But they vowed to defeat the plan in the long run.

The new map offered by Republican legislative leaders seeks to stop the reelection of Democratic Rep. Don Davis, one of North Carolina’s three Black representatives, by redrawing two of the state’s 14 congressional districts. Statewide election data suggest the proposal would result in Republicans winning 11 of those seats, up from the current 10.

The proposal attempts to satisfy Trump’s call for states led by Republicans to conduct mid-decade redistricting to gain more seats and retain his party’s grip on Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. Democrats need to gain just three more seats to seize control of the House, and the president’s party historically has lost seats in midterm elections.

With Republicans in the majority in both General Assembly chambers and state law preventing Democratic Gov. Josh Stein from using his veto stamp against a redistricting plan, the GOP-drawn map appeared headed to enactment after final House votes as soon as Wednesday. The state Senate gave its final approval early Tuesday on a party-line vote. A House redistricting committee debated the plan later Tuesday.

Still, about 300 protesters, Democratic Party officials and lawmakers gathering outside the old state Capitol pledged repeatedly Tuesday that redrawing the congressional map would have negative consequences for the GOP at the ballot box in 2026 and beyond. Litigation to challenge the enactment on the map also is likely on allegations of unlawful racial gerrymandering.

“We know we may not have the ability to stop the Republicans in Raleigh right now … but we are here to show that people across this state and across this nation are watching them,” North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said to cheers.

The gathering served Democrats to censure state Republicans they accuse of agreeing to kneel to Trump through a corrupt redrawing of district lines to target Davis.

State GOP leaders defended their action, saying Trump has won the state’s electoral votes all three times that he’s run for president — albeit narrowly — and thus merits more potential support in Congress.

The national redistricting battle began over the summer when Trump urged Republican-led Texas to reshape its U.S. House districts. After Texas lawmakers acted, California Democrats reciprocated by passing their own plan, which still needs voter approval in November.

Republicans argue that other Democratic-leaning states had already given themselves a disproportionate number of seats well before this national redistricting fight started.

“It is incumbent upon us to react to this environment, to respond to this environment, and not let these tactics that have happened in blue states dominate the control of Congress,” state Sen. Ralph Hise, the map’s chief author, said during Tuesday’s Senate debate.

Seminera and Robertson write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Plans are on hold for President Trump to sit down with Russian leader Vladimir Putin to talk about resolving the war in Ukraine, according to a U.S. official.

The meeting had been announced last week. It was supposed to take place in Budapest, although a date had not been set.

The decision was made following a call between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The official requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly.

The back-and-forth over Trump’s plans are the latest bout of whiplash caused by his stutter-step efforts to resolve a conflict that has persisted for nearly four years.

Lee writes for the Associated Press. This is a developing story that will update.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said she plans to scrap “needless form filling” in a bid to boost business growth.

Speaking at a regional investment summit in Birmingham, the chancellor said the reforms would boost growth and “make the UK a top destination for global capital”.

Ahead of the Budget next month, Reeves acknowledged that “for too many people” the economy was “not working as it should”.

The government has been criticised by firms who say increased employers’ National Insurance contributions and the Employment Rights Bill add to the burdens facing businesses.

The chancellor said the changes will save firms almost £6bn a year by the end of the parliamentary term.

The measures include plans to reform the company merger process. New “simpler corporate rules” will remove requirements for small businesses to submit lengthy reports to Companies House, the Treasury said.

The changes will apply to over 100,000 firms such as family-run cafes.

Earlier on Tuesday, Business Secretary Peter Kyle defended Labour’s approach to business, telling the BBC the government would implement changes in a way that is “pro-worker and pro-business”.

The measures could include temporary exemptions for new AI software from regulation, Kyle told the Today programme.

“In certain circumstances when new AI technology is being developed, we can remove it from all regulation for a period of time to give it the space to really grow, to develop, to be commercialised really rapidly,” he said.

This, he said, would enable the tech to be used “to benefit the health, the wealth, the education of our nations”.

“We’ll use that in a very targeted, a very safe way.”

The government has pledged to reduce the administrative cost of regulation by a quarter by the end of this Parliament.

Kyle said the previous government “did not do enough on deregulation” despite pledging to do so, particularly after Brexit.

“If you look at some of the reporting that needs to be done by directors, for example, directors’ reports to Companies House, I’m eliminating a great deal of that today because some of it is just so unnecessary,” he said.

But pushed on whether the government’s changes to employment rights would add costs to businesses, Kyle insisted that the changes would be fair for both employers and employees.

“We are making sure that the rights and responsibilities that people have in the workplace as employers and as employees [are] right for the age we’re living in.”

Jane Gratton, the deputy director of public policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, said the plans would be welcomed by businesses.

“The burden of unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy ramps up their costs and damages competitiveness,” she said.

Tina McKenzie, policy chair at the Federation of Small Businesses, said Tuesday’s announcement will “ring hollow” if the chancellor raises taxes for employers in next month’s budget.

“The true test of whether Rachel Reeves will deliver for business will be at the Budget – small firms and entrepreneurs have heard these warm words on regulation before.

“The burden of compliance – in terms of money, time, and stress – weighs heavily on small firms, and cutting it needs to be a project undertaken by every part of the government.”

But the Liberal Democrats’ Treasury spokeswoman Daisy Cooper said: “If the chancellor was serious about cutting red tape she would tackle the mind-blowing two billion extra pieces of business paperwork created by Brexit by pursuing an ambitious tailor-made UK-EU customs union.”

SAN FRANCISCO — About 24 hours after President Trump declared San Francisco such a crime-ridden “mess” that he was recommending federal forces be sent to restore order, Manit Limlamai, 43, and Kai Saetern, 32, rolled their eyes at the suggestion.

The pair — both in the software industry — were with friends Thursday in Dolores Park, a vibrant green space with sweeping views of downtown, playing volleyball under a blue sky and shining autumn sun. All around them, people sat on benches with books, flew kites, played with dogs or otherwise lounged away the afternoon on blankets in the grass.

Both Limlamai and Saetern said San Francisco of course has issues, and some rougher neighborhoods — but that’s any city.

“I’ve lived here for 10 years and I haven’t felt unsafe, and I’ve lived all over the city,” Saetern said. “Every city has its problems, and I don’t think San Francisco is any different,” but “it’s not a hellscape,” said Limlamai, who has been in the city since 2021.

Both said Trump’s suggestion that he might send in troops was more alarming than reassuring — especially, Limlamai said, on top of his recent remark that American cities should serve as “training grounds” for U.S. military forces.

“I don’t think that’s appropriate at all,” he said. “The military is not trained to do what needs to be done in these cities.”

Across San Francisco, residents, visitors and prominent local leaders expressed similar ideas — if not much sharper condemnation of any troop deployment. None shied away from the fact that San Francisco has problems, especially with homelessness. Several also mentioned a creeping urban decay, and that the city needs a bit of a polish.

But federal troops? That was a hard no.

A range of people on Market Street in downtown San Francisco on Thursday.

“It’s just more of [Trump’s] insanity,” said Peter Hill, 81, as he played chess in a slightly edgier park near City Hall. Hill said using troops domestically was a fascist power play, and “a bad thing for the entire country.”

“It’s fascism,” agreed local activist Wendy Aragon, who was hailing a cab nearby. Her Latino family has been in the country for generations, she said, but she now fears speaking Spanish on the street given that immigration agents have admitted targeting people who look or sound Latino, and troops in the city would only exacerbate those fears. “My community is under attack right now.”

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said troop deployments to the city were “completely unnecessary” and “typical Trump: petty, vindictive retaliation.”

“He wants to attack anyone who he perceives as an enemy, and that includes cities, and so he started with L.A. and Southern California because of its large immigrant community, and then he proceeded to cities with large Black populations like Chicago, and now he’s moving on to cities that are just perceived as very lefty like Portland and now San Francisco,” Wiener said.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, defended such deployments and noted crime reductions in cities, including Washington, D.C., and Memphis, where local officials — including D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat — have embraced them.

“America’s once great cities have descended into chaos and crime as a result of Democrat policies that put criminals first and law-abiding citizens last. Making America Safe Again — especially crime-ridden cities — was a key campaign promise from the President that the American people elected him to fulfill,” Jackson said. “San Francisco Democrats should look at the tremendous results in DC and Memphis and listen to fellow Democrat Mayor Bowser and welcome the President in to clean up their city.”

A police officer shuts the door to his car after a person was allegedly caught carrying a knife near a sign promoting an AI-powered museum exhibit in downtown San Francisco.

A presidential ‘passion’

San Francisco — a bastion of liberal politics that overwhelmingly voted against Trump in the last election — has been derided by the conservative right for generations as a great American jewel lost to destructive progressive policies.

With its tech-heavy economy and downtown core hit hard by the pandemic and the nation’s shift toward remote work, the city has had a particularly rough go in recent years, which only exacerbated its image as a city in decline. That it produced some of Trump’s most prominent political opponents — including Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris — has only made it more of a punching bag.

In August, Trump suggested San Francisco needed federal intervention. “You look at what the Democrats have done to San Francisco — they’ve destroyed it,” he said in the Oval Office. “We’ll clean that one up, too.”

Then, earlier this month, to the chagrin of liberal leaders across the city, Marc Benioff, the billionaire Salesforce founder and Time magazine owner who has long been a booster of San Francisco, said in an interview with the New York Times that he supported Trump and welcomed Guard troops in the city.

“We don’t have enough cops, so if they can be cops, I’m all for it,” Benioff said, just as his company was preparing to open its annual Dreamforce convention in the city, complete with hundreds of private security officers.

The U.S. Constitution generally precludes military forces from serving in police roles in the U.S.

On Friday, Benioff reversed himself and apologized for his earlier stance. “Having listened closely to my fellow San Franciscans and our local officials, and after the largest and safest Dreamforce in our history, I do not believe the National Guard is needed to address safety in San Francisco,” he wrote on X.

He also apologized for “the concern” his earlier support for troops in the city had caused, and praised San Francisco’s new mayor, Daniel Lurie, for bringing crime down.

Billionaire Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, also called for federal intervention in the city, writing on his X platform that downtown San Francisco is “a drug zombie apocalypse” and that federal intervention was “the only solution at this point.”

Trump made his latest remarks bashing San Francisco on Wednesday, again from the Oval Office.

Trump said it was “one of our great cities 10 years ago, 15 years ago,” but “now it’s a mess” — and that he was recommending federal forces move into the city to make it safer. “I’m gonna be strongly recommending — at the request of government officials, which is always nice — that you start looking at San Francisco,” he said to leading members of his law enforcement team.

Trump did not specify exactly what sort of deployment he meant, or which kinds of federal forces might be involved. He also didn’t say which local officials had allegedly requested help — a claim Wiener called a lie.

“Every American deserves to live in a community where they’re not afraid of being mugged, murdered, robbed, raped, assaulted or shot, and that’s exactly what our administration is working to deliver,” Trump said, before adding that sending federal forces into American cities had become “a passion” of his.

Kai Saetern, 32, was playing volleyball in Dolores Park on Thursday. Saetern said he has never felt unsafe living in neighborhoods all over the city for the last 10 years.

Crime is down citywide

The responses from San Francisco, both to Benioff and Trump, came swiftly, ranging from calm discouragement to full-blown outrage.

Lurie did not respond directly, but his office pointed reporters to his recent statements that crime is down 30% citywide, homicides are at a 70-year low, car break-ins are at a 22-year low and tent encampments are at their lowest number on record.

“We have a lot of work to do,” Lurie said. “But I trust our local law enforcement.”

San Francisco Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins was much more fiery, writing online that Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had turned “so-called public safety and immigration enforcement into a form of government sponsored violence against U.S. citizens, families, and ethnic groups,” and that she stood ready to prosecute federal officers if they harm city residents.

Attendees exit the Dreamforce convention downtown on Thursday in San Francisco.

“If you come to San Francisco and illegally harass our residents … I will not hesitate to do my job and hold you accountable just like I do other violators of the law every single day,” she said.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) — whose seat Wiener is reportedly going to seek — said the city “does not want or need Donald Trump’s chaos” and will continue to increase public safety locally and “without the interference of a President seeking headlines.”

Newsom said the use of federal troops in American cities is a “clear violation” of federal law, and that the state was prepared to challenge any such deployment to San Francisco in court, just as it challenged such deployments in Los Angeles earlier this year.

The federal appellate court that oversees California and much of the American West has so far allowed troops to remain in L.A., but is set to continue hearing arguments in the L.A. case soon.

Trump had used anti-immigration enforcement protests in L.A. as a justification to send troops there. In San Francisco, Newsom said, he lacks any justification or “pretext” whatsoever.

“There’s no existing protest at a federal building. There’s no operation that’s being impeded. I guess it’s just a ‘training ground’ for the President of United States,” Newsom said. “It is grossly illegal, it’s immoral, it’s rather delusional.”

Nancy DeStefanis, 76, a longtime labor and environmental activist who was at San Francisco City Hall on Thursday to complain about Golden Gate Park being shut to regular visitors for paid events, was similarly derisive of troops entering the city.

“As far as I’m concerned, and I think most San Franciscans are concerned, we don’t want troops here. We don’t need them,” she said.

Passengers walk past a cracked window from the Civic Center BART station in downtown San Francisco.

‘An image I don’t want to see’

Not far away, throngs of people wearing Dreamforce lanyards streamed in and out of the Moscone Center, heading back and forth to nearby Market Street and pouring into restaurants, coffee shops and take-out joints. The city’s problems — including homelessness and associated grittiness — were apparent at the corners of the crowds, even as chipper convention ambassadors and security officers moved would-be stragglers along.

Not everyone was keen to be identified discussing Trump or safety in the city, with some citing business reasons and others a fear of Trump retaliating against them. But lots of people had opinions.

Sanjiv, a self-described “techie” in his mid-50s, said he preferred to use only his first name because, although he is a U.S. citizen now, he emigrated from India and didn’t want to stick his neck out by publicly criticizing Trump.

He called homelessness a “rampant problem” in San Francisco, but less so than in the past — and hardly something that would justify sending in military troops.

“It’s absolutely ridiculous,” he said. “It’s not like the city’s under siege.”

Claire Roeland, 30, from Austin, Texas, said she has visited San Francisco a handful of times in recent years and had “mixed” experiences. She has family who live in surrounding neighborhoods and find it completely safe, she said, but when she’s in town it’s “predominantly in the business district” — where it’s hard not to be disheartened by the obvious suffering of people with addiction and mental illness and the grime that has accumulated in the emptied-out core.

“There’s a lot of unfortunate urban decay happening, and that makes you feel more unsafe than you actually are,” she said, but there isn’t “any realistic need to send in federal troops.”

She said she doesn’t know what troops would do other than confront homeless people, and “that’s an image I don’t want to see.”

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Coronation Street Becky Swain works on getting close again with her ex Lisa Swain next week, amid her plan to ‘oust’ Carla Connor out of the family on the ITV soap

Becky Swain gets to work on winning over her ex Lisa Swain on Coronation Street next week.

A new preview reveals the moment the pair grow closer again, as they reminisce about the past and discuss the moment that tore them apart. Becky faked her death four years ago and fled to Spain, with it revealed someone was after her.

DI Costello helped cover it all up and now it’s been teased the pair are hiding much more, and that Becky is “a villain”. Corrie boss Kate Brooks has revealed that we’re yet to see just what Becky is fully capable of, but she’s out to “oust” Carla Connor from the family.

Lisa was ‘widowed’ after Becky’s fake demise four years ago, and in the past year she’s grown close to new partner Carla. Just months ago the pair got engaged, only for Becky to rock up – and now it’s clear she’s out to ruin it all.

READ MORE: EastEnders fans ‘work out’ who Okie’s dad is as he opens up – and it’s ‘someone we know’READ MORE: Emmerdale preview teases Robert’s predicament over Aaron and Kev ahead of bombshell

While it’s not known what she has up her sleeve, we do know she’s desperate to have her wife and their daughter Betsy Swain back. She wants the family back together again, and Carla is stopping that.

Carla’s existence alone proves difficult for Becky’s agenda, never mind the fact Carla is clearly suspicious of her ‘rival’. So perhaps with Carla in Ireland, we’re about to see Becky make her first move.

In a new preview clip, Becky spends some time alone with Lisa amid trouble with Betsy after her arrest. The pair are on the sofa having enjoyed a curry and a glass of wine.

Lisa is a little tipsy, and the pair are debating whether or not to watch Game of Thrones “like they used to”. Becky very quickly reminds Lisa of the life they once had, and how they’d spent nights often at home with a takeaway and watching the telly.

Lisa is thoughtful as she remembers this well, but she quickly points out the reason it all stopped was because Becky died, or at last she thought. Becky guilt trips Lisa with a comment about it not being fun and games for her, having to hide out from criminals.

As she tells Becky how hard it was without her, Becky tells her she wishes she could turn the clocks back to a time that they were together as a family, wishing she could have stopped everything that led to her fleeing. Caught up in the emotions, Lisa agrees with her that she too wishes they could go back.

As Lisa appears emotional, Becky strokes her hair, leading to Lisa grabbing her hand and placing it against her face. This, and the fact that Lisa misses the way things were, leaves Becky smiling, no doubt believing she may have a chance of winning Lisa back.

But what will Lisa do, and is the moment on the sofa not what it seems? After all, Corrie boss Kate hinted Swarla, Carla and Lisa, could survive the drama with Becky, with twists ahead for the newcomer – but how far will Becky go to get what she wants?

Coronation Street airs Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 8pm on ITV1 and ITV X. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok, Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads.

A federal judge said the layoffs by the administration of US President Donald Trump seem politically motivated and ‘you can’t do that in a nation of laws’.

A United States federal judge in California has ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to halt mass layoffs during a partial government shutdown while she considers claims by unions that the job cuts are illegal.

During a hearing in San Francisco on Wednesday, US District Judge Susan Illston granted a request by two unions to block layoffs at more than 30 agencies pending further litigation.

Her ruling came shortly after White House Budget Director Russell Vought said on “The Charlie Kirk Show” that more than 10,000 federal workers could lose their jobs because of the shutdown, which entered its 15th day on Wednesday.

Illston at the hearing cited a series of public statements by Trump and Vought that she said showed explicit political motivations for the layoffs, such as Trump saying that cuts would target “Democrat agencies”.

“You can’t do that in a nation of laws. And we have laws here, and the things that are being articulated here are not within the law,” said Illston, an appointee of Democratic former President Bill Clinton, adding that the cuts were being carried out without much thought.

“It’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs, and it has a human cost,” she said. “It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated.”

Illston said she agreed with the unions that the administration was unlawfully using the lapse in government funding that began October 1 to carry out its agenda of downsizing the federal government.

A US Department of Justice lawyer, Elizabeth Hedges, said she was not prepared to address Illston’s concerns about the legality of the layoffs. She instead argued that the unions must bring their claims to a federal labour board before going to court.

‘Won’t negotiate’

The judge’s decision came after federal agencies on Friday started issuing layoff notices aimed at reducing the size of the federal government. The layoff notices are part of an effort by Trump’s Republican administration to exert more pressure on Democratic lawmakers as the government shutdown continues.

Democratic lawmakers are demanding that any deal to reopen the federal government address their healthcare demands. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson predicted the shutdown may become the longest in history, saying he “won’t negotiate” with Democrats until they hit pause on those demands and reopen.

Democrats have demanded that healthcare subsidies, first put in place in 2021 and extended a year later, be extended again. They also want any government funding bill to reverse the Medicaid cuts in Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill that was passed earlier this year.

About 4,100 workers at eight agencies have been notified that they are being laid off so far, according to a Tuesday court filing by the administration.

The Trump administration has been paying the military and pursuing its crackdown on immigration while slashing jobs in health and education, including in special education and after-school programmes. Trump said programmes favoured by Democrats are being targeted and “they’re never going to come back, in many cases.”

The American Federation of Government Employees and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees claim that implementing layoffs is not an essential service that can be performed during a lapse in government funding, and that the shutdown does not justify mass job cuts because most federal workers have been furloughed without pay.

US President Donald Trump says Hamas may need to be disarmed ‘violently’ as part of the Gaza peace plan. Hamas has so far not agreed publicly to give up its weapons. Soraya Lennie looks at the key questions over how the process is supposed to work.

OLIVIA Attwood and Bradley Dack are working to ‘save their marriage’ after she confessed they’re going through a rough patch.

The presenter, 34, this week consulted a psychic and asked if things “will get better” in her relationship.

Now it’s been reported Olivia and footballer Bradley, 31, are determined to start putting each other first.

A source said: “Olivia and Bradley have grown up together, it’s been 10 years since they first started dating.

“She will be the first to admit that this year she has put her career first, which Bradley completely supports.

“But for the first time in years, Olivia asked for a week off work, giving her the chance to catch up with her personal life and spend anytime she can, when he’s not training, with Bradley.”

liv and learn

Olivia Attwood reveals her marriage is ‘unsettled’ as she consults a psychic

The insider added to the MailOnline: “They’re looking forward to the future and are house hunting for a place closer to London, which should help give them more stability.”

Olivia and Brad tied the knot in 2023 but their marriage was thrown into the spotlight this summer after cosy photos emerged of her on holiday with pal Pete Wicks.

During an episode of her Sunday Roast Reheated podcast, Olivia asked psychic Deborah: “What’s coming in my love life this year, are things going to get better?”

Deborah replied: “It does feel slightly unsettled at the moment but mostly okay for you, a little bit up and downy but it will settle.”

Olivia also had a cryptic response when the psychic predicted children in the “near future”, asking: “Who’s the dad?”

It comes after she confessed that she and Brad are going through a rough period right now. 

During an Instagram Q&A, Olivia was asked by a fan why she hadn’t been posting much of him. 

She replied: “He’s alive I swear. 

“Ten years of us. A lot has changed. Marriage is frikinnn hard (no one wants to say that part out loud) and I’m just not a faker.

“I’m not posting pictures if they don’t reflect our reality. We are doing our thing and if there are any more updates you will be the first to know.”

United States President Donald Trump says his Gaza ceasefire deal will bring peace to the Middle East.

Some 20 world leaders, including Trump, signed the agreement at a special summit in Egypt on Monday.

The deal outlines the steps both Hamas and Israel must take to maintain the ceasefire and end the war in Gaza.

But it does not quite address the bigger question of what will happen in the Palestinian territory beyond the next few months.

What about Israel’s larger occupation? And the establishment of a viable Palestinian state?

How will Trump’s plan address these important issues?

Presenter: Nick Clark

Guests:

Ori Goldberg – political commentator

Phyllis Bennis – fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies

Muhammad Shehada – visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations

Big Brother fans believe they have worked out that Elsa is heavily encouraging a narrative of love between her and Marcus in a desperate bid to land brand deals on exit from the show

Big Brother fans are convinced that Elsa is desperate to force a love narrative between her and fellow housemate Marcus in order to secure couple brand deals. The blonde housemate revealed following this week’s eviction, that she was prepared to drop a love bombshell on Marcus if she was evicted from the show.

She told her housemates that she was prepared to tell him that she loved him, leaving her housemates in utter shock. And this has caused a stir among fans on X, who now believe that she entered the house with an agenda.

One person wrote: “Elsa was going to tell a dude she’s known for two weeks she loves him. She wants those couples brand deals BAD #BBUK.” Another person said: “I’ve had ‘relationships’ in primary school more realistic than Marcus and Elsa #bbuk.”

READ MORE: Big Brother star reveals why she still doesn’t speak to Denise Welch after iconic rowREAD MORE: ITV Big Brother housemate ‘fuming’ as latest rule break sparks chaos

Meanwhile a third person added: “if i was gonna go i was gonna tell marcus i loved him” ..elsa girl please chill you bunny boiler you’ve known him less than 3 weeks #bbuk.”

And a fourth person chimed in saying: “marcus please your not going to get with elsa your just saying that to make good tv but we don’t care this is big brother not love island.”

A fifth said: “Marcus has no intentions of seeing Elsa after this. You can see it on his face #bbuk.”

In a private conversation her fellow housemate Zelah, Elsa confessed that she was in love with him, leaving the wannabe star in utter shock. A coy looking Elsa simply smiled.

However, further into the evening shown in tonight’s show Zelah and Marcus found themselves in a conversation in the garden where the pair were talking about his feelings for Elsa. And it seems he does not share the same feelings for the reality TV star.

When asked if the location between the two would be an obstacle that they would have to overcome, Marcus made it clear that his doubts were more focused on the dynamics within the house.

Marcus appeared concerned that the feelings the pair have for one another in the house may change in the outside world when the reality of their situation is put to the test.

The couple have been heavily flirting with one another since entering the iconic Big Brother house. At one point, Caroline is seen telling Marcus: “I think she’s in love.”

Marcus then quipped: “I know, I don’t blame her.” Beckoning for her to come over to him he shouted out “come here Elsa.” And Caroline then joked: “The romance is coming.”

READ MORE: ‘Warm and cosy’ electric blanket is ‘much cheaper than having the heating on’

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, You Tube and Threads.

French President Emmanuel Macron urged full support for the US plan to end the Gaza war, calling for a permanent ceasefire, release of all captives, and humanitarian access. Macron, however, blasted expanding West Bank settlements, which he said threaten Palestinian statehood and regional peace.

A government spokesperson has laid out how Israel will implement the first phase of US President Donald Trump’s peace plan in Gaza, saying it will start after today’s Israeli government cabinet meeting.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Seated next to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer during a visit to the United Kingdom in September, United States President Donald Trump made clear he was eyeing a plot of land his country’s military once controlled nearly 8,000km (4,970 miles) away: Bagram airbase in Afghanistan.

“We gave it to [the Taliban] for nothing. We want that base back,” he said. Two days later, this time opting to express his views on social media, Trump wrote: “If Afghanistan doesn’t give Bagram air base back to those that built it, the United States of America, bad things are going to happen!”

The Taliban, predictably, bristled at the demand and stressed that under “no circumstances” will Afghans hand over the base to any third country.

On Tuesday, the Taliban, who have ruled Afghanistan since their takeover of Kabul in August 2021, won a remarkable show of support for their opposition to any US military return to the country, from a broad swath of neighbours who otherwise rarely see eye-to-eye geopolitically.

At a meeting in Moscow, officials from Russia, India, Pakistan, China, Iran, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan joined their Taliban counterparts in coming down hard on any attempt to set up foreign military bases in Afghanistan. They did not name the US, but the target was clear, say experts.

“They called unacceptable the attempts by countries to deploy their military infrastructure in Afghanistan and neighbouring states, since this does not serve the interests of regional peace and stability,” said the joint statement (PDF) published by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on October 7 at the conclusion of the seventh edition of what are known as the Moscow Format Consultations between Afghanistan’s neighbours.

Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran had opposed “the reestablishment of military bases” in a similar declaration last month on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. But the Moscow communique brought together a much wider range of nations – some with competing interests – on a single page.

India and Pakistan have long vied for influence over Afghanistan. India also worries about China’s growing investments in that country. Iran has often viewed any Pakistani presence in Afghanistan with suspicion. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have long feared violence in Afghanistan spilling over into their territory. And in recent years, Pakistan has had tense relations with the Taliban – a group that it supported and sheltered for decades previously.

The confluence of these countries, despite these differences, into a unanimous position to keep the US out of the region reflects a shared regional view that Afghan affairs are a “regional responsibility”, not a matter to be externally managed, said Taimur Khan, a researcher at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (ISSI).

“Despite their differences, regional countries share a common position that Afghanistan should not once again host a foreign military presence,” Khan told Al Jazeera.

That shared position, articulated in Moscow, also strengthens the Taliban’s hands as it seeks to push back against pressure from Trump over Bagram, while giving Afghanistan’s rulers regional legitimacy. Most of their neighbours are deepening engagements with them, even though Russia is the only country that has formally recognised them diplomatically as the Afghan government.

A symbolic, strategic prize

The groundwork for the Afghan Taliban’s return to power was laid in Doha in January 2020, under Trump’s first administration; they ultimately took over the country in August 2021, during the tenure of the administration of former President Joe Biden.

Yet in February this year, a month after taking the oath for his second term, Trump insisted: “We were going to keep Bagram. We were going to keep a small force on Bagram.”

Bagram, 44km (27 miles) north of Kabul, was originally built by the Soviet Union in the 1950s. The base has two concrete runways – one 3.6km long (2.2 miles), the other 3km (1.9 miles) – and is one of the few places in Afghanistan suitable for landing large military planes and weapons carriers.

It became a strategic base for the many powers that have occupied, controlled and fought over Afghanistan over the past half-century. Taken over by US-led NATO forces after the invasion of Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks, Bagram was a central facility in Washington’s so-called “war on terror”.

Afghanistan’s rugged, mountainous terrain means there are limited sites capable of serving as large military logistics hubs. That scarcity is why Bagram retains its strategic significance, four years after the US withdrew from the country.

Kamran Bokhari, senior director at the Washington, DC-based New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy, said he was sceptical about the US seriously planning any redeployment of forces to Afghanistan, despite Trump’s comments.

“The new US geostrategy is about military retrenchment. There is no appetite in Washington for any such military commitment, which would be a major logistical undertaking,” Bokhari told Al Jazeera. “Even if the Taliban were to agree to allow the Americans to regain Bagram, the cost of maintaining such a facility far outstrips its utility.”

At the same time, Bokhari said that the Moscow meet worked as an opportunity for Russia to show that it retains influence in Central Asia, a region in which its footprint has been eroded by the war in Ukraine and by China’s rising geoeconomic presence.

But the concerns about any renewed US footprint in Afghanistan aren’t limited to Russia, or even China, America’s biggest long-term rival. Amid heightened tensions with the US and Israel, Iran will not want an American military presence in Afghanistan.

Other regional nations – India and Pakistan among them – are also eager to show that the neighbourhood can manage the vacuum created in Afghanistan by the withdrawal of US security forces, Bokhari said. Though a close partner of the US, India’s ties with Washington have frayed during Trump’s second term, with the American president imposing 50 percent tariffs on imports from India, in part because of New Delhi’s continued purchase of oil from Russia.

And then there are the Central Asian countries that share long, porous borders with Afghanistan – and fear their soil might be used by violent groups energised by any return of the US, militarily, to Bagram.

Central Asia’s security calculus

The four Central Asian countries that were part of the Moscow Format – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – together with Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, form a bloc of six landlocked nations whose geography gives them a unique vantage point in regional politics, while also compelling them to seek access to warmer waters for trade.

Analysts argue an American presence in the region would be “undesirable” for many of these nations.

“This is not knee-jerk anti-Americanism,” Kuat Akizhanov, a Kazakh analyst and deputy director of the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Institute (CAREC) said.

“A US base would put host states on the front line of US-Russia-China rivalry. Moscow and Beijing have both signalled opposition to any renewed US presence, and aligning with that consensus reduces coercive pressure and economic or security retaliation on our much smaller economies,” Akizhanov told Al Jazeera.

He added that regional actors now prefer regional groupings such as the Moscow Format, or even the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) led by Moscow and Beijing, for cooperation on security and the neighbourhood’s stability, to any US presence.

What do the Taliban and Afghanistan’s other neighbours fear?

Many of Afghanistan’s bigger neighbours have their own concerns.

“They fear that a revived US military presence could potentially reintroduce intelligence operations, fuel instability, and once again turn Afghanistan into a proxy battleground,” Khan from the Islamabad-based ISSI said.

“This is the lens from which regional countries now view Afghanistan: a space that must be stabilised through regional cooperation and economic integration, and not through renewed Western intervention or strategic containment efforts,” he added.

For the Taliban, meanwhile, Trump’s Bagram demands pose a dilemma, say experts.

Ibraheem Bahiss, a Kabul-based senior analyst for Crisis Group, said he believed that Trump’s Bagram demand was primarily driven by the US president’s “personal inclination” rather than any consensus within the US strategic establishment. “There might be a sense that Afghanistan remains an unfinished business for him,” the analyst told Al Jazeera.

For the Taliban, surrendering Bagram is unthinkable. “Kabul cannot offer Bagram as it would antagonise their own support base and might lead to resistance against their own government if [the] US comes here,” Bahiss said.

At the same time, Bokhari, of the New Lines Institute, said that the Taliban know international sanctions are a major obstacle to governance and economic recovery, and for that, they will need to engage the West, and especially the US.

“The Taliban are asking for sanctions relief, but the question is, what do they offer? Washington is more interested in Central Asia, to which it does not have easy access to. The region is otherwise blocked by Russia, China and Iran,” he said.

Trump has cited Bagram’s proximity to China and its missile factories as a reason for wanting to take back control of the base. Bagram is about 800km (about 500 miles) from the Chinese border, and about 2,400km (about 1,500 miles) from a missile facility in Xinjiang.

“It is not in the US interest in allowing China to monopolise the region,” Bokhari said.

Against that backdrop, the Bagram demand might be a signal from the US that it is eager to explore new ways to do business with the Taliban, Bokhari and Bahiss agreed.

Washington isn’t the only one reaching out to the group, which until a few years ago was largely a global pariah. In fact, the US is late – the Taliban have already been making major headways, diplomatically, in its neighbourhood.

Engagement, not recognition

Since taking control of a country of more than 40 million people in August 2021, the Taliban have faced international scepticism over their style of governance.

Afghanistan’s rulers have imposed a hardline interpretation of Islam and have placed several restrictions on women, including limits on working and education.

International sanctions have further weakened an already fragile economy, while the presence of multiple armed groups – including Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) – continues to alarm neighbouring states. The Taliban insist that they do not support the use of Afghan soil to attack neighbours.

Pakistan, once seen as the primary benefactor of the Taliban, says it has grown increasingly frustrated over the past four years at what it sees as the Afghan government’s inability to clamp down on militants.

The year 2024 was one of the deadliest for Pakistan in nearly a decade, with more than 2,500 casualties from violence, many of which Islamabad attributes to groups that it says operate from Afghan soil, allegations rejected by Kabul.

On Wednesday, several soldiers were killed in an ambush by the TTP near the Afghan border in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

Still, Pakistan upgraded diplomatic ties with the Taliban in May. That month, Afghanistan’s acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi hosted his counterpart from Pakistan, spoke on the phone with India’s foreign minister, and flew to Iran and China for summits.

Muttaqi was in Moscow for the recent regional consultations that produced the criticism of Trump’s Bagram plans, and on Thursday is due to arrive in New Delhi for a historic, weeklong visit to India, a country that viewed the Taliban as a Pakistan proxy – and an enemy – until a few years ago.

Bahiss said the compulsion for regional nations to deal with the Taliban is driven by shared, pragmatic goals, which include keeping borders calm, guaranteeing counterterrorism assurances, and securing trade routes.

Akizhanov, the CAREC analyst, meanwhile, said that the wider regional interaction with Afghan officials “normalise working channels [with the Taliban] and reinforces their narrative that regional futures will be decided locally, not by outside militaries”.

However, “legitimacy remains conditional in capitals of each country, hinging on counterterrorism guarantees, cross-border security, economic connectivity, and basic rights, especially for women and girls,” said the analyst, who is based in Urumqi, China.

ISSI’s Khan agreed.

“What we are witnessing is not formal recognition, but a functional understanding that Afghanistan’s isolation serves no one’s interests,” he said.

United States President Donald Trump says Hamas and Israel have agreed on the first phase of his plan for a ceasefire in the war on Gaza and an exchange of captives.

“I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan,” the US president wrote on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday.

“ALL the hostages will be released very soon, and Israel withdraw their troops to an agreed upon line,” he added.

Mediator Qatar said that more details of the agreement would be announced at a later date.

“The mediators announce that tonight an agreement was reached on all the provisions and implementation mechanisms of the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement, which will lead to ending the war, the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, and the entry of aid. The details will be announced later,” Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Majed al-Ansari wrote on X.

The announcement came hours after Trump said negotiations were going “very well” and that he may travel to the Middle East later this week.

“I may go there sometime toward the end of the week, maybe on Sunday,” he told reporters at the White House on Wednesday.

Senior officials from Qatar, Turkiye, Egypt and the US joined the delegations in Egypt’s Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh on Wednesday, the third day of the talks, as the mediators pressed the two sides to resolve their differences over Trump’s 20-point proposal.

The first phase of the plan calls for a ceasefire and the release of 48 Israeli captives held in Gaza, including 20 who are believed to be alive, and the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.

Hamas has submitted its list of detainees to be freed as part of the proposed swap.

Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and special envoy Steve Witkoff, as well as Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer – a close aide of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – were participating in the negotiations on Wednesday, Israeli and Palestinian sources said.

Also joining the discussions was the prime minister of longstanding key mediator Qatar, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani.

The Hamas delegation includes leaders Khalil al-Hayya and Zaher Jabarin, two negotiators who survived an Israeli assassination attempt in Qatar’s capital Doha that killed five people last month.

In a statement released late Wednesday, senior Hamas official Izzat al-Risheq said the group welcomes the participation of Qatar’s prime minister and Turkiye’s intelligence chief, alongside Egypt’s intelligence chief, in the current round of talks.

He said their involvement gives the negotiations “a strong boost” towards achieving positive results on ending the war and facilitating a prisoner exchange.

A delegation from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) armed group is also set to arrive in Egypt to participate in the indirect talks, according to a statement from the group.

The PIJ is the smaller of the two main Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip and is currently holding some Israeli captives.

For his part, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said the mediated negotiations had made “a lot of headway” and that a ceasefire would be declared if they reached a positive outcome.

Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst Marwan Bishara says the talks remain tense with “some serious disagreements”, as crucial details are yet to be hammered out – including the timing and the extent of an Israeli withdrawal, the makeup of the post-war administration for the Gaza Strip and the fate of Hamas.

“You could say that the initial phase of the initial phase is working out,” Bishara said. According to him, both sides appeared to agree on “some sort of parameters” for a captive-prisoner exchange.

“According to the plan, … after Hamas hands over the captives, then the war should be over,” Bishara said. “Israel says no, the war will be over only after Hamas disarms.”

Israeli attacks continue

Even as the talks progressed on Wednesday, Israel continued its attacks on Gaza. At least eight Palestinians were killed across Gaza over the previous 24 hours, the Palestinian Health Ministry said on Wednesday. At least 61 others were injured in attacks, it said.

Gaza’s Government Media Office said in a statement on Wednesday that Israel carried out 271 air and artillery strikes over the past five days despite calls from the US to stop the bombardment. The attacks targeted densely populated areas and shelters for displaced people across the enclave, killing 126 civilians, including women and children – with 75 of them in Gaza City alone.

Al Jazeera’s Tareq Abu Azzoum, reporting from central Gaza’s az-Zawayda, said the situation on the ground “looks extremely bleak” as Israeli drones are still targeting residential buildings, particularly in Gaza City.

“Civilians have said the scale of bombardment sounds less intense in comparison with the days preceding the onset of the current round of negotiations,” Abu Azzoum said.

“They say that might be a sign that mediators are exerting further pressure on Israel to at least mitigate the scale of its bombardment on Gaza for one reason: It’s to allow for Hamas fighters to retrieve bodies of Israeli captives as part of the first phase of the ceasefire deal,” he said.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that just 14 of Gaza’s 36 hospitals are partially functioning, and only a third of 176 primary care facilities work.

Hanan Balkhy, WHO regional director for the Eastern Mediterranean, said Gaza has been struggling with “dire shortages” of electricity, clean water and medicine, as well as broken equipment and damaged infrastructure in those health facilities still working.

“Some facilities have been hit and rehabilitated and hit once more,” she said.

Israel’s genocide in Gaza has killed more than 67,000 people, according to health authorities, and has destroyed large swaths of land in the enclave where almost all two million residents have been forcibly displaced.

The European Union’s plan to hike tariffs on steel imported over and above its annual threshold could tip the United Kingdom’s steel industry into its worst crisis in history, industry leaders have warned.

On Tuesday, the European Commission proposed that the 27-member bloc would slash its tariff-free steel import quota by 47 percent to 18.3 million tonnes and would impose a tariff of 50 percent on any steel imported in excess of this amount.

This represents a sharp hike: The EU’s current annual steel import quota stands at 33 million tonnes, and imports above this limit are subject to a 25 percent tariff.

The announcement has rattled the British steel industry, which exports nearly 80 percent of its steel to the EU.

“This is perhaps the biggest crisis the UK steel industry has ever faced,” Gareth Stace, director general of the lobby group UK Steel, said on Tuesday. He described the move as a “disaster” for British steel.

Community, a trade union representing UK steelworkers, said the EU’s proposal represents an “existential threat” to the UK steel industry.

Here’s what we know about the EU’s new levies and why the UK is worried:

Why has the EU announced a tariff hike for steel imports?

The new tariff is expected to come into effect from June 2026, as long as EU countries and the European Parliament approve it.

The EU says it has no choice but to bring in the new tariff as it seeks to protect its own markets from a flood of subsidised Asian steel, which has been diverted by US President Donald Trump’s latest 50 percent tariff on all steel imports to the US.

The EU also wants to protect its steel sector from the challenge of global overcapacity.

In a speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday, the European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maros Sefcovic, defended the bloc’s steel tariffs proposal as a move to “protect the bloc’s vital sector” whose steel trade balance has “deteriorated dramatically”.

Sefcovic added that more than 30,000 jobs have been lost since 2018 in the EU’s steel industry, which employs about 300,000 people overall.

While the industry is ailing, he said, other countries have begun imposing tariffs and other safeguards to ensure their own domestic steel industries expand. The Commission’s proposal, therefore, seeks to “restore balance to the EU steel market”.

More succinctly, a senior EU official told The Times newspaper: “My dear UK friends, you have to understand that we have no choice but to limit the total volumes of imports that come into the EU, so this is the logic that we apply clearly. Not acting could result in potentially fatal effects for us.”

The EC’s proposal comes as the bloc’s steel sector faces stiff competition from countries like China, where steel production is heavily subsidised.

China produced more than a billion metric tonnes of steel last year, followed by India, at 149 million metric tonnes, and Japan, at 84 million metric tonnes, according to the World Steel Association, a nonprofit organisation with headquarters in Brussels.

By comparison, said Sefcovic, the EU produces 126 million tonnes per year but only requires 67 percent of this for its own use – “well below the healthy 80 percent benchmark and below profitable levels”.

Moreover, steel production within the EU has declined by 65 million tonnes per year since 2007 – with nearly half of that lost since 2018.

“A strong, decarbonised steel sector is vital for the European Union’s competitiveness, economic security and strategic autonomy. Global overcapacity is damaging our industry,” EC President Ursula von der Leyen said.

The Commission’s industry chief, Stephane Sejourne, told reporters in Strasbourg that “the European steel industry was on the verge of collapse” and said that through the tariffs plan, the Commission is “protecting it [EU’s steel industry] so that it can invest, decarbonise and become competitive again”.

Sejourne added that the Commission’s plan is “in line with our [EU] values and international law”.

Why would the UK bear the brunt of EU steel tariffs?

The EU is the UK’s largest market for steel exports by far. In 2024, the UK exported 1.9 million metric tonnes of steel, worth about 3 billion pounds ($4.02bn) and representing 78 percent of its home-made steel products to the EU.

While the EC’s steel tariffs proposal does not apply to members of the European Economic Area, namely Norway and Iceland, it will apply to the UK and Switzerland. Ukraine will also be exempt from the tariff quota since it is facing “an exceptional and immediate security situation”, according to the EC.

The EU says it is open to negotiations with the UK once it has formally notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) of the new levy. For now, however, uncertainty looms.

Compounding this, the UK also fears being flooded by cheaper, subsidised steel from Asia as both the EU and US markets close their doors to it.

In a statement, UK Steel added: “The potential for millions of tonnes that will be barred from the EU market, to be redirected towards the UK is another existential threat.”

Nicolai von Ondarza, an associate fellow at Chatham House, the London-based policy institute, told Al Jazeera that cheap steel diverted by the EU’s planned tariffs will mostly come from countries like China, “putting additional pressure on its industry”.

The British steel sector is also shouldering Trump’s 25 percent tariff on British steel imports, a global supply glut, and higher energy prices, and has been embattled by job losses in some of its biggest steelworks due to green transition initiatives.

Can the UK negotiate its way out of this?

That is currently its best hope, according to industry leaders.

“We would urge the UK and EU to begin urgent negotiations and do everything possible to prevent the crushing impact these proposals would have on our steel industry,” he added.

Chatham House’s Ondarza told Al Jazeera: “For the UK, the first route is to try to negotiate a carve-out of these EU tariffs. Both the EC and the UK have already signalled willingness to talk. These negotiations are likely to be tricky, but not unlikely that they come to an agreement.”

On his way for a two-day business trip to India, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer told reporters that his country is “in discussions with the EU” about the proposal.

“I’ll be able to tell you more in due course, but we are in discussions, as you’d expect,” he said.

Meanwhile, Chris McDonald, the UK industry minister, has suggested that retaliatory measures may not be completely off the table.

“We continue to explore stronger trade measures to protect UK steel producers from unfair behaviours,” he told reporters.

If the US caused this, can it help to solve it?

While the EU’s tariffs proposal has led to an outcry in the UK, it is also a measure which seeks to bring the US to the negotiating table, the EC says.

In August, the EU and US agreed a trade deal under which Washington will levy 15 percent tariffs on 70 percent of Europe’s exports to the country. Brussels and Washington have yet to discuss how tariffs would apply to European steel, which still faces a 50 percent tariff under Trump’s new trade regime.

Sefcovic told reporters the Commission’s steel tariffs proposal would be a good foundation to engage with the US and also fight the challenge of overcapacity as “like-minded partners”.

As I fell asleep in a tent to the sounds of waves crashing on the beach and no cell phone service anywhere in the vicinity, I thought, this is the respite I needed. That is, until the wee hours of the morning when I heard something rumbling.

I slowly unzipped the tent door, poked my head out and saw it: a lone bison head-butting a picnic table, lifting one end into the air with alarming ease. I quickly snuck back into my hideaway and stayed quiet, listening to the gnarled sounds of this massive animal grazing just feet away from me.

A North American Bison roams free and grazes near Little Harbor campground in Catalina

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

The experience of bikepacking around Catalina Island was more than I had expected — both in its natural beauty and in its surprises. Within two days, 40-plus miles and some 5,000 feet of elevation, I was gobsmacked by the vistas, the morning light on the canyons and the solitude on the campground — aside from the abundant wildlife.

While not an “easy” trip (did I mention 5,000 feet in elevation?), the route from Catalina’s East End to Little Harbor and back to Avalon is one I’d recommend to both experienced adventurers and those newer to bikepacking, a blend of cycling and backpacking. It just requires some planning. Here’s what you should know, from getting your bike pass to planning out your stops.

Before the trip

The author’s bike of choice for this trip: a Surly Pugsley.

(James Murren)

Make your bicycle, camping and Catalina Express reservations

All cyclists on Catalina Island must have a Freewheeler Bike Pass, which can be obtained by purchasing a Catalina Island Conservancy membership. The cheapest $50 membership gets you one bike pass for the year, along with free admission to the Wrigley Memorial & Botanic Garden, discounts on Catalina Island campsites and other perks.

Once you have a pass, you must book a reservation to ride on Conservancy land. (You’ll get your physical bike pass when you arrive on Avalon and visit the Trailhead Visitor Center or Two Harbors Visitor Services.)

Camping reservations are also made through the Catalina Island Conservancy website. I reserved one night at Little Harbor Campground, but if I were to do it again, I would book two nights.

To get to and from Catalina, take the Catalina Express, which runs multiple trips a day from three locations in the Los Angeles area. When purchasing your ticket, you’ll pay a separate “additional article” fee to bring your bike onto the ferry.

What to pack

The essentials at the Little Harbor Campground.

(James Murren)

Your bike. I decided to bring my Surly Pugsley fat bike simply because I love my state of mind when I’m on it. I feel like I’m going with the flow, stopping and taking pictures and having a good time. Time is not of the essence. A gravel or mountain bike will work fine on Catalina. E-bikes with pedals are also permitted and hard-shelled helmets are required for all bikers.

Bikepacking bags, a sleeping pad and sleeping bag. Just note that you’re allowed two pieces of luggage on the Catalina Express.

Clothes. Bring whatever you like to ride in and sleep in at night. I’d suggest a light puffy jacket if there’s no rain in the forecast, and pants and thermal leggings to keep the chill off. If rain is expected, pack appropriately, but also know that the Conservancy does shut down the trails and roads if the conditions seem dangerous.

Food. Sustenance for an overnighter can be covered by using the Airport in the Sky Restaurant near the Catalina Airport as a feed station. You can also fill your water containers there. Have a nice-sized meal at the café and buy what you need to eat while on your bike. I had the café pack me a sandwich for camping that evening. You can also bring food supplies with you or stop by Vons on the island to get what you need. At Little Harbor Campground, there is potable water, along with Porta Potties and cold showers.

Note: Fuel canisters/containers are not permitted on the Catalina Express. When you arrive on Avalon, Chet’s Hardware offers small canisters. If you buy one and do not end up using it, they will allow you to return it if the seal is intact. I ended up not using my stove. Overnight oats and cold instant coffee got me going.

My bikepacking journey — and what you might expect

Day one

Catalina Island boasts 40 miles of trails and roads that are open to mountain biking.

(James Murren)

I woke in Avalon and pedaled my fat bike along Pebbly Beach Road to the turnoff for Wrigley Road. Climbing up Wrigley, I turned left on Renton Road, going around the gate and ascending up the remote double track. I had not seen another person for quite a while as I biked deeper into the hinterlands of the island, connecting to East End Light Road. Along the “backside” of the southern end of Catalina, it felt even more remote. East End afforded stunning views of the ocean and San Clemente Island to the south.

East End Road met up with Divide Road, as the trail map showed. The ocean sparkled in the distance, little crystals dancing on its surface. I scanned for whales but didn’t see any this time.

A view of the boats in the Avalon harbor.

(James Murren)

The start of the route at East End Road.

(James Murren)

Divide Road merged with the Airport Road at the Wrigley Reservoir, which was empty of water. There was a slight challenge here, though, in that I came to a chain-link fence with an opening for people to step through. Luckily, a touring group in an open-air truck was going by and the driver pointed out that I could walk around the fence to the right, where there was a clear path to do so.

The Airport in the Sky was my lunch destination. My wife took a shuttle bus from the Conservancy to the airport and met up with me. After lunch, I set out from the airport on the mostly six-mile descent to Little Harbor campground. El Rancho Escondido Road had a bump or two along the way, breaking up the downhill riding with a little climbing. I turned right onto Little Harbor Road and made my way to my campsite. My tent set up and food safely stored in the provided metal boxes, I went over to the tiny beach and sat on a driftwood log, relaxing under the sun’s warm rays.

1

2

1. Catalina Island’s Airport in the Sky restaurant is a great place to refuel. (James Murren) 2. The island at dusk. (James Murren / For The Times)

In the middle of the night, as I mentioned above, a lone bison visited my campsite. Thankfully, nothing happened to me (other than not getting much sleep from that point on to sunrise) but Catalina Island officials warn visitors that there is no safe distance away from the large animal. “Never approach, touch or attempt to feed bison. If you feel threatened, identify an escape route,” the Conservancy states. “Place a large object between you and the bison (tree, rock, vehicle), and give the bison a path to avoid you.”

Day two

A stop at Cottonwood Beach. During the rainy season, you may see a small waterfall here.

(James Murren)

From the campground the next morning, I went around to Middle Ranch Road. More stunning views of the Pacific marked the first few miles as I climbed, then descended, and climbed some more. It was somewhere around 8:30 in the morning and it felt like I had the entire place to myself.

Eventually, Middle Ranch turned inland. The terrain was gradual in its ascent and once I reached Quail Valley and Middle Ranch, the recently graded road was fast hardpack that allowed for cranking away the miles. I was big-ringin’ it and cruising. Getting into a pedaling cadence was great.

Looking out at the blue ocean and sky.

(James Murren)

Middle Ranch met up with Airport Road, where I turned right and pedaled to Stagecoach Road. Stagecoach descended to Avalon, the hard road quickly dropping with forever views of the big blue ocean.

My overnighter came to a close and I thought of moments during both days when I was by stunned by the beauty that surrounded me — I was even able to see snowcapped San Gorgonio back on the mainland. I thought of friends that I wanted to bring along next time. Yes, no doubt, there will be a next time.

Donald Trump says a Middle East peace deal is “very close,” pledging US security guarantees for Gaza two years after the war began. American envoys are heading to Egypt for what officials describe as the most promising talks yet to end the devastating conflict.

Some 8% of adults surveyed said they use the technology to give them ideas for where to go on holiday, up from 4% a year earlier, a poll suggests

Double the number of people are turning to artificial intelligence (AI) for holiday planning inspiration compared to last year, fresh research reveals.

Travel industry body Abta, which commissioned the study, branded the technology a “creative co-pilot” that holidaymakers can utilise to research, plan and book their getaways. Around 8% of participants in a survey of 2,001 UK adults carried out in July admitted they use AI to spark ideas for their holiday destinations.

This marks a rise from 4% twelve months ago. Abta’s director of communications Graeme Buck suggested there is “a potential for this acceleration” to persist, stating: “I wouldn’t be surprised if that 8% becomes 16% next year.”

The most recent findings showed that those aged 25-34 are most inclined to harness the technology for holiday brainstorming, with 18% of participants in this age bracket confirming they do so.

OPINION

Milo Boyd

READ MORE: How much money you’ll need in your account to enter each EU country from Sunday

This was followed by 35 to 44 year olds (14%). Among those 65 and over, the proportion dropped to merely 1%.

AI travel applications encompass services including chatbots and resources for translation and itinerary creation.

More than two in five (43%) survey participants indicated they would feel somewhat confident using AI to organise a holiday, though this fell to 38% when it came to actually making reservations.

Steve Heapy, CEO of Jet2, addressed travel industry leaders at Abta’s annual convention in Calvia, Spain, stating that technology like AI will “continue to become a bigger part of what customers do before they book”.

He added: “We’re all going to have to work harder to justify the margin that we want to earn by demonstrating superior knowledge of the product and providing that anticipation and excitement.”

Neil Swanson, UK managing director of Tui, forecasted that AI will “completely transform” the travel industry, but many customers will still prefer to book their trips through human travel agents.

He said: “That is not going away anytime soon, in my view, because of that group of customers who value that. They use the technology a lot of those customers, but they still want to go in and look someone in the eye when they’re booking something. They value that trust element.”

Abta CEO Mark Tanzer said: “The challenge is to harness the potential which AI has to support our businesses, while continuing to celebrate and champion the value of the personal touch and expertise which comes with booking with a travel agent or tour operator.”