plan

A report on how Olympic organizers will tackle civil rights, homeless and human trafficking ahead and during the 2028 Games has not been made public by the city more than two months after it was filed and no date for its release has been set, leaving human rights advocates fearing the issues will not get the attention and funding they deserve.

Council president Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who chairs the ad-hoc committee on the LA28 Games, has not included the human rights report on the committee’s agenda. His office did not respond to requests for comment and Sharon Tso, the city’s chief legislative analyst, and Matthew Szabo, the city’s administrative officer, both said they have not seen the report and “nothing appears on the council file,” according to Tso.

The delay is limiting discussion on an important topic, said Stephanie Richard, a clinical professor who leads the Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking Initiative at Loyola Law School, which released its own comprehensive report on human trafficking and the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics in December.

“From an anti-trafficking perspective, this is a historic moment” she said. “Yet the public has no access to the draft.

“Without transparency, Los Angeles cannot responsibly prepare, and advocates cannot provide informed guidance. LA28 is setting a global precedent — one that currently lacks public accountability.”

LA28, the private nonprofit organizing committee for the 2028 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games in Los Angeles, was responsible for developing a human rights strategy around the Games. Its report was due Dec. 31, a deadline it met, according to a spokesperson for the group. LA28 is not allowed to release the report publicly until the city does.

“As per our Games Agreement with the City, LA28 completed the Human Rights Strategy at the end of 2025,” said Jacie Prieto Lopez, the group’s vice-president of communications and public affairs, in LA28’s first public statement on the report. “We are now working closely with city leaders on next steps.”

What those next steps are and when they’ll be taken, no one seems to know.

FIFA is producing its own report on human rights and human trafficking around this summer’s World Cup, which will feature eight games at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.

“In each host city, human rights teams are working towards tailored FIFA World Cup Human Rights Action Plans in consultation with local human rights stakeholders and in line with FIFA guidance,” a FIFA spokesperson said in a written statement. “Plans will be published ahead of the tournament. This work reflects a sustained and consistent commitment by FIFA to embed human rights considerations throughout the planning and delivery of the tournament.”

The FIFA report for Los Angeles isn’t expected to be released until May, according to sources close to the process not authorized to speak publicly, about a month before the tournament kicks off. Some of the other 11 U.S. host cities, among them Seattle and Houston, have already rolled out their own initiatives addressing the issue.

Richard, who was invited by the city to consult with LA28 on its study, said the release of both the Olympic and World Cup reports is important for Los Angeles because it allows for public comment and oversight.

Richard’s group has called on LA28 and FIFA to allocate between $2.75 and $3.1 million specifically for anti-trafficking implementation; to fund a public-awareness campaign and independent audits to ensure accountability and transparency; and to invest in long-term programs that extend beyond the two sporting events.

“One of the things our report starts from is the only evidence-based data connected to major sporting events is that labor trafficking increases,” Richard said. “Major sporting events requires an influx, a large influx, of workers, a lot of time immigrant workers who are highly vulnerable in the construction industry..

“Presumably a lot of these workers are brought in months ahead of time to do some of this work.”

Richard said the continued presence of federal immigration officers in Los Angeles adds another layer of complexity to the human trafficking mix.

In mid-February, nine state legislators signed a letter calling for LA28, FIFA and local officials to incorporate the recommendations made by Richards’ group into their own plans and to release the report publicly as “a critical step toward accountability.”

But when asked about the letter this month, the signatories contacted refused to comment. A spokesperson for assemblywoman Celeste Rodriguez, who represents the eastern San Fernando Valley, said Rodriguez was “unavailable to talk on this issue.”

Attacks on multiple commercial ships in the waters around Iran on Wednesday increased global energy concerns, pushed nations to unleash strategic oil reserves and sparked fresh critiques of the Trump administration’s readiness for a war it started.

As Trump administration and U.S. military officials continued to claim increasing success and advantage in the conflict — and authorities downplayed a reported threat of drone attacks on California — leaders around the world scrambled to respond to the latest attacks and the International Energy Agency’s call for the largest ever release of strategic oil reserves by its members to help stem energy price spikes.

President Trump also faced renewed questions about a deadly strike on an Iranian elementary school at the start of the war, after the New York Times reported Wednesday that a military investigation had determined the U.S. was responsible.

“I don’t know about it,” Trump said when asked about the report.

In an address Wednesday morning, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said energy shipments through the Strait of Hormuz had “all but stopped” amid the conflict, driving massive global competition for oil and gas in wealthier countries and fuel rationing in poorer nations.

He said the IEA’s 32 member nations have brought a “sense of urgency and solidarity” to recent discussions on the matter, and had unanimously agreed to “launch the largest ever release of emergency oil stocks in our agency’s history,” making 400 million barrels of oil available.

However, he said the most needed change is the “resumption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.”

A vendor pumps petrol from Iranian fuel oil tankers for resale near the Bashmakh border crossing between Iraq and Iran.

(Ozan Kose / AFP/Getty Images)

Several countries, including Germany, Austria and Japan, had already confirmed their plans to release reserves.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on any U.S. plans to release its strategic reserves, or how much would be released. The U.S. is an IEA member.

Trump told reporters Wednesday that the U.S. has hit Iran “harder than virtually any country in history has been hit,” including by wiping out its naval fleet and eliminating other vessels capable of laying mines, and that he believes oil companies should resume shipments through the strait despite the recent attacks.

U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum backed the idea of releasing oil reserves in a Fox News interview.

“Certainly these are the kinds of moments that these reserves are used for, because what we have here is not a shortage of energy in the world; we’ve got a transit problem, which is temporary,” Burgum said. “When you have a temporary transit problem that we’re resolving militarily and diplomatically — which we can resolve and will resolve — this is the perfect time to think about releasing some of those, to take some pressure off of the global price.”

Burgum said that while Iran is “holding the entire world hostage economically by threatening to close the strait,” Trump has made the consequences of such actions “very clear,” and “there’s a lot of options between ourselves and our allies in the region, including our Arab friends in the region, to make sure that those straits keep open and that energy keeps flowing for the global economy.”

The IEA did not provide details as to the release of the 400 million barrels, part of a broader reserve of some 1.2 billion barrels held by its members. It said the reserves “will be made available to the market over a time frame that is appropriate to the national circumstances of each Member country and will be supplemented by additional emergency measures by some countries.”

The agency said an average of 20 million barrels of crude oil and oil products transited the strait per day in 2025, and that options for bypassing the strait are “limited.”

While some tankers believed linked to Iran were still getting through the Strait of Hormuz, which under normal circumstances carries about 20% of the world’s oil and natural gas, Iranian officials threatened attacks on other vessels — saying they would not allow “even a single liter of oil” tied to the U.S., Israel or their allies through the channel, which connects to the Persian Gulf.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. and its powerful Navy would support commercial vessels and ensure the strait remains open to oil shipments, but that has not been the case.

Tankers wait off the Mediterranean coast of southern France on Wednesday.

(Thibaud Moritz / AFP/Getty Images)

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center, run by the British military, reported at least three ships struck in the region Wednesday — including ships off the United Arab Emirates and a cargo ship that was struck by a projectile in the strait just north of Oman, setting it ablaze.

The Trump administration and the U.S. military, meanwhile, have been pushing out messaging about wiping out Iran’s ability to plant mines in the strait — posting dramatic videos of major strikes on tiny boats on small docks.

Adm. Brad Cooper, the leader of U.S. Central Command, said in a video posted to X on Wednesday morning that “in short, U.S. forces continue delivering devastating combat power against the Iranian regime.”

“I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: U.S. combat power is building, Iranian combat power is declining,” he said.

The U.S. has struck more than 60 Iranian ships, and just “took out the last of four Soleimani-class warships,” he said. “That’s an entire class of Iranian ships now out of the fight.”

Cooper said Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks have “dropped drastically” since the start of the war, though “it’s worth pointing out that Iranian forces continue to target innocent civilians in gulf countries, while hiding behind their own people as they launch attacks from highly populated cities in Iran.”

He also addressed the attacks on commercial shipping in the region directly, saying that “for years, the Iranian regime has threatened commercial shipping and U.S. forces in international waters,” and that the U.S. military’s “mission is to end their ability to project power and harass shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Other U.S. leaders called the U.S. war plan — and specifically its approach to protecting the Strait of Hormuz — into question.

In a series of posts to X late Tuesday, which he said followed a two-hour classified briefing on the war, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) slammed the administration’s plans as “incoherent and incomplete.”

Murphy wrote that the administration’s goals for the war seemed to be focused primarily on “destroying lots of missiles and boats and drone factories,” and without a clear plan for what to do when Iran — still led by “a hardline regime” — begins rebuilding that infrastructure, other than to continue bombing them. “Which is, of course, endless war,” he wrote.

Murphy also specifically criticized the administration’s plan for the Strait of Hormuz — which he said simply doesn’t exist.

“And on the Strait of Hormuz, they had NO PLAN,” he wrote. “I can’t go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait, but suffice it [to] say, right now, they don’t know how to get it safely back open. Which is unforgiveable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable.”

Ships in the strait remained under threat of various forms of attack Wednesday, as did much of the region as the war raged on.

There was an attack on a U.S. Embassy operations center at Baghdad’s airport, which officials attributed to a drone launched by Iranian proxies based in Iraq. No casualties were reported.

Lebanon’s Health Ministry reported the death toll there — from fighting between Israel and Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters — had risen to 634 since last week, including 91 children. Another 1,500 people had been wounded, the ministry said.

Iranian authorities have said U.S. and Israeli attacks have killed 1,255 people since Feb. 28. That includes many Iranian leaders, including then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. U.S. officials have said Iranian attacks in the region have killed seven U.S. service members, with another 140 wounded.

CBS News reported Wednesday that dozens of those injuries were sustained by service members in the March 1 Iranian drone attack on a tactical operations center in Kuwait — which is also where six of the seven deaths occurred.

The outlet reported that the attack was more severe than the Trump administration has revealed, with more than 30 military members still in hospitals Tuesday with a range of battle injuries including “brain trauma, shrapnel wounds and burns.”

Threats extended beyond the Middle East, too — including to California, where law enforcement agencies were warned by federal authorities that Iran “allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack” on California using drones launched from a vessel off the U.S. coast.

However, sources told The Times that advisory was cautionary and not backed by credible intelligence.

Times staff writer Gavin J. Quinton, in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

The reported idea of a special operation to seize Iran’s uranium should alarm anyone who still thinks there is a line between pressure and recklessness. Sending foreign forces into Iranian territory to capture nuclear material would be far beyond coercion. It would be war in plain sight. That risk looks even sharper when it is paired with talk of unconditional surrender and a revived maximum pressure campaign. Officials call that flexibility. In practice, it often creates confusion and a dangerous illusion of control.

Strategic Ambiguity Has Limits

Trump has long preferred threat inflation as a negotiating tool, and his administration’s National Security Presidential Memorandum on Iran makes clear that Washington wants to deny Tehran every path to a bomb. But there is a difference between pressure meant to shape diplomacy and rhetoric that drifts toward occupation logic. A raid assumes the United States can enter a sovereign state, take possession of fissile material, and leave without igniting a larger conflict. That is not strategy. It is a gamble.

A Raid Would Not Stay Small

Iran is not an isolated militia camp. It is a large state with layered security organs, missile capacity, regional partners, and a long memory of external intervention. Any attempt to seize uranium by force would expose American troops, bases, shipping lanes, diplomats, and partners to retaliation across several fronts. Even before talk of a raid, Washington and Tehran had been engaged in indirect nuclear talks in Oman. Replacing diplomacy with a ground mission would not create leverage. It would destroy what remains of a controlled bargaining space.

The Nuclear Picture Is Already Murky

The hardest fact in this debate is that the nuclear picture is already uncertain. In its February 2026 safeguards report, the IAEA said it could not verify the current status of facilities hit in June 2025. Reuters later highlighted that same report’s estimate that Iran had 440.9 kilograms enriched up to 60 percent before the strikes, while the Associated Press noted the wider stockpile had reached 9,874.9 kilograms of enriched uranium in total. Reuters also reported a cat-and-mouse hunt for missing material and confirmed that tunnel entrances at Isfahan were hit. Those facts do not make a commando operation look cleaner. They make it look less knowable.

Force Has Already Damaged Oversight

This is the contradiction hawks avoid. Military action may damage buildings, but it can also damage the inspection system needed to track what survives. The IAEA chief said that returning to Iranian sites was the top priority after the attacks because the agency had lost visibility. Reuters warned even before the war that any new Iran deal would have to address serious watchdog blind spots. Rafael Grossi had already reminded the Security Council that nuclear facilities must never be attacked and later stressed that inspectors must be allowed to do their job. Once oversight is broken, claims about perfect control become less credible.

Pressure Without Diplomacy Can Harden Iran

Advocates of seizure argue that urgency changes the rules. Their point is easy to grasp. If material has been moved, hidden, or split across sites, then delay is dangerous. But urgency cuts both ways. The less certainty there is, the more any raid grows in scope. A supposedly limited mission can quickly expand into repeated searches, broader strikes, and pressure for a longer presence. That trajectory sits uneasily with both the basic ban on the use of force in the UN Charter and the logic of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which depends on verification and compliance, not theatrical confiscation. Reuters has also shown that the damage from earlier strikes was difficult to measure and that U.S. officials later said there was no known intelligence that Iran had moved the uranium. That uncertainty is exactly why fantasies of a clean raid should be treated with suspicion.

Containment Is Less Dramatic, but Safer

There is another reason to reject this path. Public overstatement can create policy traps. Trump has already brushed aside internal caution, including when Reuters reported that he said his own intelligence chief was wrong about Iran’s program. Tehran, for its part, has insisted through officials speaking to Reuters that it will not give up enrichment under pressure. That is not a recipe for surrender. It is a recipe for concealment and hardening. Serious policy should focus on intelligence work, restored IAEA access, sustained diplomatic pressure backed by credible penalties, and a clear effort to prevent a regional war that would leave the uranium question even murkier.

The appeal of seizure is obvious. It sounds decisive and final. But nuclear crises rarely yield to cinematic solutions. They are managed through verification, containment, bargaining, and steady pressure, not through fantasies of absolute control. If this idea is truly being weighed in Washington, it should be rejected before rhetoric turns into mission planning. A ground effort to capture uranium inside Iran would not settle the problem. It could widen the war, shatter what diplomacy still exists, and leave the world with the same material, less oversight, and far more bloodshed.

The Chargers bolstered their efforts to protect quarterback Justin Herbert all while diversifying their offense by agreeing to terms with veteran fullback Alec Ingold on Sunday, according to multiple reports.

Ingold’s deal with the Chargers reportedly is for two years and $7.5 million.

Ingold will be no stranger to the Chargers’ plans on offense. He played the last four seasons in Miami under coach Mike McDaniel, the Chargers’ new offensive coordinator. Last year he caught eight passes for 52 yards and ran the ball twice in 17 games.

Ingold caught 47 passes for 372 yards and rushed for 34 yards in 20 carries in four seasons with the Dolphins. He also had two rushing touchdowns and a receiving touchdown.

Before his time in Miami, Ingold played three seasons with the Raiders.

The deal comes two days after the Chargers signed veteran center Tyler Biadasz to take over over for the retiring Bradley Bozeman. They agreed to terms on a one-year deal with edge rusher Khalil Mack on Saturday.

With the free agency negotiation period set to begin Monday at 9 a.m. PDT, the Chargers remain in strong position to be significant players in the free-agent market. They rank among the top-five teams in salary cap space, per Overthecap.com.

Published on
07/03/2026 – 8:00 GMT+1

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

‘Transparency, precision and understanding’

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 working languages.

“Switching entirely to English raises a legal and democratic issue, and the Commission is well aware of it,” an EU diplomat 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.”

As the deadline approaches to file to run for office, veteran Republican Rep. Darrell Issa has decided not to run for reelection in his newly-configured congressional district in San Diego and Riverside counties, according to two GOP strategists familiar with his plans.

An Issa spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment, but the congressman’s decision was confirmed by two veteran Republican strategists who requested not to be named because they were not authorized to speak about Issa’s plans.

Issa, among the wealthiest members of Congress, began telling people earlier this week that he would retire from Congress, those sources said. The Republican congressman is backing San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond to replace him, they said.

Desmond has been running in a neighboring congressional district that straddles Orange and San Diego counties that is currently represented by Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano). Desmond withdrew from that race and filed to run in Issa’s district on Thursday, according to the San Diego County registrar of voters.

Desmond’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Issa, 72, has represented various San Diego-area districts in Congress for more than 23 years. Issa’s once solidly Republican district had been trending more moderate in recent years. Then, his district was redrawn to favor Democrats in the Proposition 50 redistricting plan voters passed in November to counter President Trump’s efforts to push GOP-led states to redraw their congressional lines to favor Republicans.

Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by more than four percentage points in the new district, which spans San Diego and Riverside counties and was reshaped to include liberal communities such as Palm Springs, according to the nonpartisan California Target Book. Issa’s current congressional district had a 12-percentage-point GOP edge in voter registration in 2024.

As soon as the new districts were approved, speculation began swirling about Issa‘s reelection plans. Some of his supporters in Texas urged him to move there to run in a GOP-friendly Dallas-area district, but he said in December that he declined and would instead seek reelection in California.

“I believe that the people of San Diego County, who have elected me so many times, will, in fact, regardless of registration, vote for me,” Issa told the Fox affiliate in San Diego in December. “This is my home, and I’m going to fight for it.”

Several Democrats had already announced plans to challenge Issa.

The high school dropout and Army veteran made his fortune by purchasing a struggling electronics business in 1980 and transforming it into the Viper car alarm system, with Issa’s voice warning potential thieves to “stand back.”