pledge

Oct. 14 (UPI) — News organizations on Tuesday broadly rejected new rules from the Pentagon demanding journalists only report approved information or risk losing their press credentials.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth unveiled the new rules last month requiring journalists to sign a pledge stating they would neither access nor report any information that had not been signed off by the Pentagon – even if it was unclassified. The Department of Defense threatened to revoke the press credentials of journalists, barring them from accessing facilities, if they refused to sign.

Press organizations immediately blasted the rules, calling them an affront to the First Amendment and independent reporting on the military and national security. Now, many national media outlets have refused the ultimatum.

ABC News, CBS News, CNN, FOX News Media and NBC News issued a joint statement indicating declined to agree to the new requirements.

“The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections,” the outlets said in the statement. “We will continue to cover the U.S. military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.”

Hegseth has had a contentious relationship with the media, blaming the press after he came under scrutiny for sharing sensitive military information on the Signal app. The former Fox News personality has previously issued a series of rules restricting press activities within the Pentagon to prevent inadvertent leaks.

The Pentagon Press Association also issued a statement Tuesday saying the latest rule contradicted Hegseth’s pledge to improve transparency at the department. The association called it an “entirely one-sided move” that would cut the public off from reporting on issues of sexual assault in the military, conflicts of interest, corruption, as well as the well-being of service members.

“The Pentagon certainly has the right to make its own policies, within the constraints of the law,” the association said. “There is no need or justification, however, for it to require reporters to affirm their understanding of vague, likely unconstitutional policies as a precondition to reporting from Pentagon facilities.”

Hegseth on Tuesday downplayed the rules, writing on X that the “Pentagon now has same rules as every U.S military installation.”

Other outlets that refused to sign the pledge include The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Atlantic.

Hegseth responded on X with an emoji waving goodbye.

“This level of gambling advertising during the Premier League’s first weekend is frankly astonishing,” said Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, chair of the Gambling Reform All Party Parliamentary Group.

“The industry claimed it was taking steps to self-regulate and reduce advertising, but yet again they have not kept to their word. The whistle-to-whistle ban is far too limited and is ineffective.”

Overall, there were 27,440 gambling messages measured across the entire opening weekend, a slight decrease from last year but still more than triple the tally from 2023.

The total is found by adding together every individual instance of gambling messaging from live match coverage, plus output on TalkSport, Sky Sports News and some social media channels.

There have been growing calls for a ban on gambling advertising, akin to the 2002 ban on tobacco promotion, and in 2023 the Gambling Commission recommended the government should limit the amount and frequency of gambling ads promoted within elite sports venues.

Lord Foster of Bath, chair of Peers for Gambling Reform, said: “The government must simply step in to reduce people’s and particularly children’s exposure to gambling advertising that we know can lead to harm. The government has all the powers it needs to protect people and it must do so now.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport told the BBC: “The government recognises that more work needs to be done to ensure that gambling advertising is appropriate, responsible, and does not exacerbate harm.

“We are consulting a wide range of evidence to inform our next steps in this space and working with industry to further raise standards.”

The Premier League did not provide a comment.

More than three years after 11 U.S. cities were awarded the right to host games during next summer’s World Cup and just two months before the tournament draw, President Trump is threatening to move matches out of places he considers “a little bit dangerous.”

Trump made the comments while speaking to reporters Thursday in the Oval Office and the cities that appear to be in his crosshairs are Democratic ones such as Seattle and San Francisco, which have not supported the president’s immigration policies.

“They’re run by radical left lunatics who don’t know what they’re doing,” Trump said.

Seattle is scheduled to host six games, including a group-stage match featuring the U.S. Six matches will also be played at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, about 40 miles south of San Francisco. The tournament will kick off June 11 and end July 19 with the final in East Rutherford, N.J.

The president did not mention Inglewood, which will stage eight matches — including at least two U.S. games — at SoFi Stadium. The eight other U.S. host cities are Atlanta; Boston; Arlington, Texas; Houston; Kansas City, Mo., Miami; East Rutherford, N.J.; and Philadelphia. The 2026 World Cup will be the first to be shared by three countries with matches also scheduled to be played in Mexico and Canada.

“If any city we think is going to be even a little bit dangerous for the World Cup, or for the [2028] Olympics … but for the World Cup in particular, because they’re playing in so many cities, we won’t allow it,” Trump said.

“We’ll move it around a little bit. But I hope that’s not going to happen.”

Trump does not have the authority to relocate World Cup matches, which are overseen by FIFA, soccer’s global governing body. But FIFA leader Gianni Infantino, who Trump calls his “great friend,” has given in to the president before. Just last month, FIFA agreed to Trump’s unusual request to move the World Cup draw, which will set the matchups for the group stage, to the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C.

A FIFA spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. But another person heavily involved in World Cup preparations in multiple cities said Trump’s threat to move games is all bluster.

“As a practical matter, it would be impossible,” said the person, who is not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), whose district abuts Inglewood, agreed.

“It’s so laughable, it’ll make you want to take a Tylenol,” she said.

“No one is taking this seriously,” she continued. “He has absolutely no power over that. The World Cup is not about Donald Trump. It’s also not about the United States. So another distraction and another example of ego and ignorance.

“My hope is that this president would be focusing on making sure that the U.S. host cities have the infrastructure that they need.”

According to the Athletic, FIFA’s contracts with host cities say the group “shall not have the right for ordinary termination” of the agreements. Most host cities have already spent millions of dollars to prepare for the World Cup and are anticipating a sizable economic boost from the tournament.

A study released last summer by Micronomics, a Long Beach-based economic research and consulting firm, found that the World Cup will have an economic impact of $594 million on Los Angeles County, including $343 million in direct spending from an estimated 180,000 out-of-town visitors.

Trump wouldn’t have to move games to make things difficult for cities he disfavors, however. In July, Congress allocated $625 million in federal funds for World Cup security. According to Andrew Giuliani, head of the White House World Cup task force chaired by Trump, cities will submit their expenditures with requests for reimbursement, but the task force will have wide latitude in deciding which bills to pay.

Trump has made crime and retribution a major theme of his administration, sending national guard troops — or threatening to send them — to Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis and Chicago, all cities with Democratic mayors. Nine of the 11 World Cup host cities in the U.S. have Democratic mayors.

French President Emmanuel Macron has said that there is “no doubt” the United States will support security efforts in Ukraine after 26 European countries pledged to send troops to the war-battered country after fighting ends.

Macron spoke after a meeting of the so-called coalition of the willing in Paris on Thursday that was followed by a video call to United States President Donald Trump aiming to get a clearer sense of Washington’s commitment to Ukrainian security, viewed as essential to any peacekeeping efforts.

The French president said that US support for the “reassurance force” would be finalised “in the coming days” and that Washington would collaborate with European countries in imposing new sanctions if Russia were to continue to refuse a deal to end the three-and-a-half-year war.

The summit in Paris included European leaders, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff in attendance, and was part of a push to show Europe’s ability to act independently after mixed signals from Washington since Trump entered office in January.

Reporting from Paris, Al Jazeera’s Natacha Butler said that Macron had indicated the call with Trump was “positive”, with further news to come on what the US might have to offer in terms of security guarantees.

“Until now, that has been very vague indeed,” she said, noting that Trump had previously said that US troops would not be sent to Ukraine.

Experts say that any European operation would hinge on the US providing intelligence support and airpower in countries outside Ukraine.

‘Concrete step’

The guarantees by the 26 countries in the coalition of the willing – largely European, with the inclusion of Canada, Australia and Japan – are expected to include ramped-up training for the Ukrainian army and deployment of troops by some European states.

“We have today 26 countries who have formally committed … to deploy as ‘reassurance force’ troops in Ukraine, or be present on the ground, in the sea, or in the air,” Macron said alongside Zelenskyy.

He specified that troops would not be deployed “on the front line” and would aim to “prevent any new major aggression”.

Zelensky hailed the move: “I think that today, for the first time in a long time, this is the first such serious concrete step,” he said.

During the summit, United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer said it was necessary “to go even further to apply pressure on Putin to secure a cessation of hostilities”, a Downing Street spokeswoman said.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also urged more pressure, but remained cautious about the scope of involvement.

“Germany will decide on military involvement at the appropriate time once the framework conditions have been clarified,” a government spokesman said after the summit.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s office said her country would not send troops to Ukraine, but it could help monitor any potential peace deal.

Peace talks stall

Countries met to discuss Ukraine’s security amid growing concern that Russian President Vladimir Putin is currently showing no interest in a peace accord, with alarm intensifying after his high-profile visit to Beijing this week.

Al Jazeera’s Butler said that while Zelenskyy was “very pleased that things seemed to be moving forward”, he had said Putin had “no intention of coming to the table for any form of peace talks”.

Putin had earlier said he would be willing to meet Zelenskyy in Moscow, a call that many viewed as a call for capitulation.

Trump, who has not yet managed to broker talks between Zelenskyy and Putin, warned this week that the Russian leader would “see things happen” if he was unhappy with Moscow’s next steps.

Putin has said Moscow is willing to “resolve all our tasks militarily” in the absence of a peace deal acceptable to the Kremlin. He has also indicated he does not want to see European troops in post-war Ukraine,

“It’s not for them to decide,” NATO chief Mark Rutte shot back Thursday. “I think we really have to stop making Putin too powerful.”

Trump ‘dissatisfied’

Following the video call with Trump, Zelenskyy said the US president was “very dissatisfied” that European countries were still buying Russian oil, pointing the finger specifically at “Hungary and Slovakia”.

The European Union imposed a ban on most oil imports from Russia in 2022, but it made an exception for imports to Slovakia and Hungary to give the landlocked central European countries time to find alternative oil supplies.

Ukraine has targeted Russia’s Druzhba oil pipeline, which carries Russian oil to Slovakia and Hungary, throughout the conflict. Both nations have asked the European Commission to act against Ukraine’s attacks.

A White House official cited by news agency Reuters confirmed that Trump had “emphasised” that European countries must stop purchasing Russian oil, adding that Russia received 1.1 billion euros ($1.28bn) in fuel sales from the EU in one year.

“The president also emphasised that European leaders must place economic pressure on China for funding Russia’s war efforts,” the official said.

The European Commission has proposed legislation to phase out EU imports of Russian oil and gas by January 1, 2028.

The Trump administration has also imposed tariffs on India for buying Russian oil in efforts to pressure the Kremlin to end the war. But the US has been accused of double standards for sparing China – the largest buyer of Russian crude.

Chinese President Xi Jinping outlines plans for new development bank and financing options for SCO members.

China and Russia presented their vision of a new international order at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, where Beijing offered new financial incentives to countries aligned with the Beijing-led economic and security group.

“Global governance has reached a new crossroads,” Chinese President Xi Jinping told the summit on Monday, in remarks that were widely seen as a critique of the United States.

“We must continue to take a clear stand against hegemonism and power politics, and practise true multilateralism,” Xi said.

Xi’s remarks were echoed by those of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said the SCO would revive “genuine multilateralism” as it laid “the political and socioeconomic groundwork for the formation of a new system of stability and security in Eurasia”.

Xi and Putin spoke to more than 20 leaders, primarily from the Middle East and Asia, who had gathered on Sunday and Monday for the summit in the northern Chinese city of Tianjin.

Seen as an alternative power structure to most US-led international institutions, the 10-member SCO includes much of Central Asia, Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Belarus, with more than a dozen permanent dialogue partner countries, including Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, Qatar, and Turkiye.

Though the work of the SCO has been largely symbolic since its founding in 2001, Xi outlined grander ambitions for the bloc at the summit.

Xi called for the creation of a new SCO development bank, and announced 2 billion RMB ($280m) in grants plus another 10 billion RMB ($1.4bn) in loans for SCO members.

The pivot into international finance marks a major turning point for the institution, said Eric Olander, the editor-in-chief of The China-Global South Project.

“Since the SCO’s founding 24 years ago, it has been a largely ineffective body with very few notable accomplishments. I think that’s going to change as the membership expands and Xi backs the SCO with development finance money, which is something we haven’t seen before,” he told Al Jazeera.

Xi also outlined a new “Global Governance Initiative” (GGI).

While light on details beyond espousing values such as “multilateralism” and “sovereign equality”, Olander said Xi’s speech offers insight into Beijing’s global ambitions.

“With the GGI, Xi is basically saying the quiet part out loud, that China is seeking to create a parallel global governance system outside the US and European-led order, something that would have been inconceivable a decade ago,” Olander said.

He attributed the shift to changing perceptions of the US in world affairs and demand from the Global South for a greater say in international affairs.

China’s push for multilateralism also comes at a time of growing distrust with the US under the leadership of President Donald Trump, whose trade war has provided SCO members and sometimes-rivals – such as China and India – with common grievances.

Ties between New Delhi and China plummeted in 2020 following skirmishes along their joint border in the Himalayas.

While relations began to normalise last year following a border agreement, Trump’s trade war has helped to speed up thawing diplomatic ties between the countries, according to analysts.

Xi and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged to resolve their differences at the summit, which came just days after Trump imposed a punitive 50 percent tariff on Indian goods and blasted the country for its purchase of Russian energy exports.

Xi, Modi, and Putin were also photographed talking and walking together, in another sign of diplomatic unity.

Most of the world leaders attending the SCO are expected to remain in China this week to attend a huge military parade in Beijing on Wednesday, commemorating the end of World War II in Asia.

They will be joined by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who is expected to have a prominent position at the parade alongside Xi and Putin.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has unveiled his ambition for a new global security and economic order to challenge the United States and Europe. Xi was joined by Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in China.

Aug. 31 (UPI) — Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Sunday that the world’s two largest economies should be “partners and not rivals” as Russian President Vladimir Putin made his way to a summit in the city of Tianjin with the leaders.

Meeting on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, Modi and Xi “noted the need” to strengthen ties between their populations by resuming direct flights and tourist visa approvals, India’s Press Information Bureau said in a statement.

Flights between the countries have been paused since deadly clashes between their troops in the Himalayas in 2020 over a longstanding border dispute. The visit marks Modi’s first trip to China in seven years, though the pair met in Kazan in 2024, which Xi praised Sunday as the “restart of China-India relations.”

“India is willing to work with China to seek a fair, reasonable, and mutually acceptable solution to the border issue,” China’s Foreign Ministry said in its own statement Sunday. China noted that the border remains “peaceful and stable,” but no timeline was given for when the flights might resume.

Modi noted that India and China both pursue strategic autonomy, and their relations “should not be seen through a third country lens,” India’s statement said. China echoed that sentiment, stating that “bilateral relations will not be influenced by third parties.”

“The two leaders deemed it necessary to expand common ground on bilateral, regional, and global issues and challenges, like terrorism and fair trade in multilateral platforms,” India’s statement reads.

Essentially, the Indian government expressed that India and China are seeking non-U.S.-centric alignment on their shared interests in a “multi-polar” world,” despite their differences in other areas. China’s Foreign Ministry further highlighted their roles as important members of the “Global South.”

“China and India, two ancient Eastern civilizations, are the world’s two most populous countries, and important members of the Global South,” China’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement after the meeting. “Being good-neighborly friends and partners for mutual success and achieving a ‘Dancing of the Dragon and the Elephant’ should be the right choice for both China and India.”

The summit comes after President Donald Trump placed stiff sanctions on India for continuing to buy Russian oil as Russia faces the threat of U.S. sanctions for the war in Ukraine. Putin is also seeking to project a united front with India and China as internal tension in his country over the cost of the war grows.

Russia’s economy has been under growing strain as inflation, currently hovering around 9%, continues to bite, having been fueled by Putin’s wartime expenditures and the ongoing effects of Western sanctions.

On July 25, the Bank of Russia lowered its main interest rate by 2 percentage points, bringing it down to 18% per year, because inflation is easing faster than expected and the economy is gradually stabilizing with price growth slowing significantly earlier in the year, it said in a press release.

The bank said, however, that monetary policy will stay tight for a while. On average, the central bank expects interest rates to stay between 18.8% and 19.6% for 2025, then ease to about 13% in 2026 to make sure inflation continues to fall to its official 4% target by 2026.

Russian economists believe the country can sustain its war efforts for another year or so but new sanctions from the Trump administration, like those on India, could hurt Putin’s war effort.

Other members of the summit include Pakistan and Iran. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also met with Xi ahead of the summit and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is also expected to attend.

A LIP reader has revealed Vladimir Putin’s pledge to Donald Trump as the two leaders met in Alaska.

The US President greeted his Russian counterpart on the tarmac at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Air Base on Friday.

7

7

7

The pair went on to address the world in a brief press conference and negotiate with their teams in private, but they also shared words in front of cameras that couldn’t be heard.

That hidden speech can tell us a lot about their pair’s relationship and hint at what could be happening behind closed doors.

Forensic lipreader Nicola Hickling has now revealed what the powerful men said when they greeted each other airport.

The world’s eyes were on the moment when Putin walked towards Trump to shake hands.

Putin looked relaxed as he walked down a red carpet towards Trump – giving the US leader a thumbs-up before greeting him with a warm handshake.

Trump begins clapping as Putin approaches and the American says: “Finally,” according to Hickling.

Hickling then said that as the pair shook hands Trump added: “You made it, fantastic to see you and appreciated.”

The pair then appear to begin talking about Ukraine and the bringing the fighting to an end with a ceasefire.

Putin responds in English, saying: “Thank you — and you.”

He also makes a pledge to Trump: “I am here to help you.”

Trump replies: “I’ll help you.”

Pointing towards Trump, Putin says: “All they need is to ask.”

Trump answers simply: “Okay.”

Putin continues: “I will bring it to a rest.”

7

7

Trump responds: “I hope it does.”

Turning towards the vehicle, Hickling said Trump smiles and says: “Come on, let’s get straight into the vehicle. We need to move forward, both giving it attention. I know this is serious, it’s quite long. What a journey it is.”

Trump salutes and says: “Thank you.”

On the podium, Trump says: “Thank you. Let’s shake hands — it gives a good impression.”

Putin nods in agreement, shakes his hand, and says: “Thank you.”

The pair then shared a moment alone in Trump’s presidential limo – known as The Beast – which drove them to the summit venue.

They were then next seen when they posed for photos in front of the press to record the historic moment.

7

7

But the photocall descended into chaos when the journalists started shouting at Trump and the tyrant – who doesn’t face that sort of opposition in Russia.

Hickling said that Trump noticed Putin wasn’t happy with a question or remark made.

The American leans in to his aide, according to the lipreader, and whispers: “I’m uncomfortable, we need to move them quickly.”

Putin then makes a face after being on the receiving end of the aggressive questioning.

Hickling said the Russian tells a reporter: “You is ignorant.” 

Then, as he cups his hands to his mouth to shout above the chaos, he says again: “You are ignorant.”

After nearly three hours of talks in Alaska, the US president said the pair “agreed on some big points” they said in a brief press conferece.

There was a lot of flattery between the pair as they spoke in front of the world.

Hickling’s analysis of the chumminess between the pair out of range of the microphones suggests that there could possibly be a real relationship between the pair, despite the geopolitical differences.

What was the outcome of the historic peace talks?

Following the historic talks, Donald Trump said there is still disagreement, adding: “There is no deal until there is a deal” and “we didn’t get there” despite progress.

Trump said he would “making some calls” to European leaders and Volodymyr Zelensky soon – and added “we have a very good chance of reaching a deal”.

Vladimir Putin says he is “sincerely interested” in ending the conflict, which he called a “tragedy.”

He insists Russia must eliminate the “primary causes” of the war – a Kremlin talking point he has been saying since the start of the conflict.

Putin invited Trump to hold a next meeting in Moscow.

“We’ll speak to you very soon and probably see you again very soon,” Trump said.

“Next time in Moscow,” Putin replied.

“That’s an interesting one,” Trump laughed.

“I’ll get a little heat on that one, but I could see it possibly happening.”

Los Angeles Unified school police, staff and community volunteers will form protective perimeters around at least 100 schools when classes begin Thursday to help ensure the safe passage of children — an announcement that came on a day that immigration agents reportedly handcuffed, detained and drew their guns on a student outside Arleta High School in a case of mistaken identity, officials said.

The 15-year-old boy, a student with disabilities, was visiting Arleta High School with family members when federal agents detained him, L.A. Unified officials said. Family members intervened and, after a few tense moments, the agents released the boy. The school’s principal also came out to assess the situation. Agents left behind some bullets on the sidewalk, apparently by mistake, which were collected by school police.

“Such actions — violently detaining a child just outside a public school — are absolutely reprehensible and should have no place in our country,” school board member Kelly Gonez, who represents Arleta High, said in a social media post.

A spokesperson from the Department of Homeland Security could not immediately be reached for comment.

Across Los Angeles Unified, parents, teachers and staff have expressed deep fears about school safety amid immigration raids. Citywide, leaders are concerned that children whose parents are living in the country without legal status will be kept home as families grapple with the climate of fear.

L.A. schools Supt. Alberto Carvalho spoke Monday at a news conference near district headquarters, saying the district is doubling down on efforts to protect students and families by creating and expanding “safe zones” around campuses, before and after school, with the help of community workers, school police and local police departments.

Bass was not specific about what role the Los Angeles Police Department would play.

“The school police and the Los Angeles Police Department have a strong working relationship and will continue to share information as appropriate as needed,” Bass said. “But neither police departments assist with immigration enforcement and have not for many, many years. There will be adults in the community who will serve as eyes and ears on the street.”

At least two mayors from smaller cities pledged direct police assistance in patrolling areas around schools.

Although local police are not legally allowed to stop or interfere with federal law enforcement actions, authorities will alert parents along walking routes if agents are in the area. Also, they will trigger a communication chain to alert all nearby campuses of raids so that schools can take lockdown actions as necessary.

The public commitment was intended to reassure families that school will be a safe place and that officials also will do what they can to protect families on their way to and from campuses.

In a string of recent appearances, Carvalho has reviewed a list of measures taken by the nation’s second-largest school system.

These included home visits and calls in recent weeks to more than 10,000 families considered at risk of immigration enforcement or at risk of not coming to schools. The school system also is distributing family preparedness packets, “all the information in one single form, in a multitude of languages,” said Carvalho, with the goal of “explaining the rights of our children and their parents, but also providing easy access to the resources that we have available to all of them.”

The district also has created a “compassion fund” to provide general help for families, including legal assistance.

In addition to students from immigrant families, the school system also has more than 350 employees who are working legally but who could have their legal status revoked.

“They continue to be the valiant, productive workers they are with us,” Carvalho said last week.

The district is working to reroute buses to make transportation more accessible to families. For the most part, the busing system is used by students with disabilities — for whom transportation is legally required — and students attending magnet programs at campuses far from where they live.

But this could change when the parameter for riding a bus is safety. In this light, neighborhood proximity to bus stops matters a lot, because families can be exposed to immigration enforcement while traveling to and from a stop.

The buses themselves will be a considered an extension of the campus environment and federal agents will not be permitted to board them.

The Monday news conference took place at Roybal Learning Center, just west of downtown, which also is the headquarters of the L.A. Unified School Police Department, which is expected to have a role in monitoring immigration enforcement and potentially confronting it.

Others in attendance included members of the L.A. Board of Education as well as South Gate Mayor Maria Davila. West Hollywood Mayor Chelsea Lee Byers and Bell Mayor Mayor Ali Saleh.

Los Angeles Unified covers an area totaling 710 square miles, which includes most of the city of Los Angeles, along with all or portions of 25 cities and some unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. About 4.8 million people live within school-district boundaries.

July 15 (UPI) — Dozens of U.S. ice cream manufacturers are pledging to eliminate the use of artificial food colors from their ice cream products made with real milk by the end of 2027, the U.S. dairy manufacturing and marketing trade association said.

Announced Monday by the International Dairy Foods Association, the companies have agreed to remove certified artificial colors Red No. 3, Red No. 40, Green No. 3, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6 from their frozen dairy products by 2028.

According to the dairy trade association, the commitment is from companies that together make more than 90% of the ice cream sold in the United States.

“Americans are passionate about their ice cream, and the IDFA Ice Cream Commitment will ensure wholesome, indulgent ice cream products made with real milk from American dairy farmers remain a special part of our lives as state and federal policies evolve,” Michael Dykes, president and CEO of IDFA, said in a statement.

The announcement comes as the Food and Drug Administration has been seeking to remove artificial food colorings from the U.S. market.

During the final days of the previous Biden administration, the FDA announced it had revoked authorization for the use of synthetic food dye Red No. 3 after a linkage to cancer was found in animal studies, with its use to be phased out by 2028.

Under the Trump administration, the FDA announced in April plans to phase out petroleum-based dyes, including those U.S. ice cream makers pledged Monday to eliminate from their products.

“These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children’s health and development,” Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement making the announcement. “That era is coming to an end.”

While phasing out artificial color dyes, the FDA has been approving natural color additives, announcing the authorization of galdieria extract blue, butterfly pea flower extract and calcium phosphate, in May.

The FDA also approved the use of a new blue color additive from the gardenia fruit on Monday.

The IDFA said the Monday commitment from U.S. ice cream makers only applies to products made with real milk sold at food retail and does not apply to products made with non-dairy ingredients or those made in-house by small ice cream shops or restaurants.

On Friday, the Consumer Brands Association announced a voluntary commitment to encourage U.S. food and beverage makers to remove certified Food, Drug and Cosmetic colors from products served in schools nationwide by the start of the 2026-27 school year.

KERRVILLE, Texas — As President Trump heads to Texas on Friday for a firsthand look at the devastation from catastrophic flooding, he has remained conspicuously quiet about his previous promises to do away with the federal agency in charge of disaster relief.

The Trump administration isn’t backing away from its pledges to shutter the Federal Emergency Management Agency and return disaster response to the states. But since the July 4 disaster, which has killed at least 120 people and left more than 170 missing, the president has focused on the once-in-a-lifetime nature of what occurred and the human tragedy rather than the government-slashing crusade that’s been popular with Trump’s core supporters.

“It’s a horrible thing,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House. That echoes him telling NBC News on Thursday, ”This is a once-in-every-200-year deal.”

Also Friday, Trump approved Texas’ request to extend the major disaster declaration beyond Kerr County to eight additional counties, making them eligible for direct financial assistance to recover and rebuild.

Trump’s shift in focus underscores how tragedy can complicate political calculations, even though Trump has made slashing the federal workforce and dramatically shrinking the size of government centerpieces of his administration’s opening months.

The president is expected to tour some of the hard-hit areas by air. The White House says he will also visit the state emergency operations center to meet with first responders and relatives of flood victims.

Trump will also get a briefing from officials. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz are joining the visit, with the senators expected to fly to their state aboard Air Force One.

It’s relatively common for presidents visiting disaster sites to tour the damage by air, a move that can ease the logistical burdens on authorities on the ground.

Trump’s predecessor, President Joe Biden, observed the aftermath of Hurricane Helene in western North Carolina and Hurricane Milton in Florida last fall by air before meeting with disaster response officials and victims on the ground.

Trump, though, has also used past disaster response efforts to launch political attacks. While still a candidate trying to win back the presidency, Trump made his own visit to North Carolina after Helene last year and accused the Biden administration of blocking disaster aid to victims in Republican-heavy areas.

First lady Melania Trump is accompanying the president, marking the second time this term that she has joined her husband to tour a natural disaster site.

During his first weekend back in the White House, Trump again visited North Carolina to scope out Helene damage. He also toured the aftermath of devastating wildfires in Los Angeles but used both trips to sharply criticize the Biden administration and California officials.

Trump has promised repeatedly — and as recently as last month — to begin “phasing out” FEMA and bring disaster response management “down to the state level.”

During Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting, Trump did not mention those plans and instead praised the federal flooding response. Turning to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department oversees FEMA, he said, “You had people there as fast as anybody’s ever seen.”

Pressed this week on whether the White House will continue to work to shutter FEMA, press secretary Karoline Leavitt would not say.

“The president wants to ensure American citizens always have what they need during times of need,” Leavitt said. “Whether that assistance comes from states or the federal government, that is a policy discussion that will continue.”

Before Trump left Friday, Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, similarly dodged questions from reporters at the the White House about FEMA’s future, instead noting that the agency has billions of dollars in reserves “to continue to pay for necessary expenses” and that the president has promised Texas, “Anything it needs, it will get.”

“We also want FEMA to be reformed,” Vought added. “The president is going to continue to be asking tough questions of all of us agencies, no different than any other opportunity to have better government.”

While the focus is on FEMA at the federal level, local officials in Texas have come under mounting scrutiny over how much they were prepared and how quickly they acted. But not everyone affected has been quick to point fingers.

Darrin Potter, a Kerr County, Texas, resident for 25 years who saw ankle-deep flooding in his home and knew people who were killed, said, “As far as early warnings, I’m sure they can improve on that.”

But he said all the talk about evacuating missed something important. The area where a wall of water ripped through was a two-lane road, he said.

“If you would have evacuated at 5 in the morning, all of those people would have been washed away on this road,” he said.

During the Cabinet meeting, Noem described traveling to Texas and seeing heartbreaking scenes, including around Camp Mystic, the century-old all-girls Christian summer camp where at least 27 people were killed.

“The parents that were looking for their children and picking up their daughter’s stuffed animals out of the mud and finding their daughter’s shoe that might be laying in the cabin,” she said.

Noem said that “just hugging and comforting people matters a lot” and “this is a time for all of us in this country to remember that we were created to serve each other.”

But the secretary also co-chairs a FEMA review council charged with submitting suggestions for how to overhaul the agency in coming months.

“We as a federal government don’t manage these disasters. The state does,” Noem told Trump on Tuesday.

She also referenced the administration’s government-reducing efforts, saying: ”We’re cutting through the paperwork of the old FEMA. Streamlining it, much like your vision of how FEMA should operate.”

Murphy and Weissert write for the Associated Press. Weissert reported from Washington. AP writers Seung Min Kim in Washington and Nadia Lathan in Ingram, Texas, contributed to this report.

NATO’s leaders agreed this week to invest 5 percent of their countries’ gross domestic product (GDP) on “core defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035”. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte called it a “quantum leap” in spending that would guarantee “freedom and security” for the military alliance’s one billion people. It certainly is historic in terms of military escalation, but will it deliver security – and if so, for whom?

The headline demand for 5 percent GDP spending has been so loud, it’s easy to forget that for a long time, many NATO members considered the previous 2 percent goal either unachievable or unimportant. NATO first committed to its 2 percent GDP goal in 2002, but by 2021, only six of its members had achieved it. Yet three years later, 23 members had met the goal and all 32 are expected to comply by the end of 2025.

This week, NATO has committed to more than doubling its spending to 5 percent of GDP. This will be partly met through creative accounting and reflects a desire to trumpet a big number to satisfy a petulant President Trump. The 5 percent headline includes 1.5 percent spent on military-related infrastructure, which could be broadly defined to include civilian expenditure. Even so, it reflects a huge escalation of military expenditure over the next decade from an already very high level.

Last year, NATO spent $1.5 trillion on the military – more than half of global military spending. If members comply with the core 3.5 percent target by 2030, that would mean a total of $13.4 trillion in military expenditure. It’s an impossible figure to grasp, but if you stacked it in one-dollar bills, you could make almost four piles that reach the moon. It could also be distributed as a one-off cash bonus of $1,674 to every person on the planet.

In reality, the money will be diverted – most of all from social and environmental spending – even though 30 percent of Europeans report difficulty in making ends meet and climate scientists warn that we have two years left to keep temperature increases below the international target of 1.5 degrees Celsius (34.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who fought for a partial exemption from the 5 percent goal, was the most honest about this costly trade-off: “If we had accepted 5 percent, Spain would have to spend by 2035 an extra 300 billion euros on defence. Where would it come from? From cuts in health and education.”

Social and environmental spending is already on the chopping block. In February, the United Kingdom announced it would reduce its aid budget to 0.3 percent of GDP to pay for military spending increases – a year after it won an election committing to increase foreign aid. Belgium, the Netherlands and France followed suit, announcing aid cuts of 25 to 37 percent. The United States, under Trump, has decimated its overseas aid and climate programmes and reduced healthcare funding while proposing a record $1 trillion expenditure on the Pentagon.

Europe is falling far behind on its own environmental and social goals, with its primary funding vehicle, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), expiring in 2026. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) concludes that most European NATO members will be unable to meet the 3.5 percent NATO target without cutting budgets, raising taxes or changing fiscal rules.

NATO’s spending spree will not only divert money – it will worsen the climate crisis. As one of the world’s biggest carbon polluters, it is investing in more gas-guzzling jets, tanks and missiles. Military emissions are notoriously hard to track due to limited data, but one report estimates that 3.5 percent of GDP spending would lead to 2,330 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gases by 2030 – roughly the same as the combined annual emissions of Brazil and Japan.

NATO’s justification is that increased investment is needed to confront the threats of “Russia” and “terrorism”. Yet there is no rationale behind the 5 percent target or details on why threats to NATO have so drastically increased. Nor is there self-examination on how NATO’s actions partly set the stage for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia has increased military spending, but it still spends 10 times less than NATO. Nor could it catch up militarily with NATO’s 32-strong alliance, given its economy: $2 trillion in 2024 (nominal GDP), compared with $26 trillion for non-US NATO countries and $29 trillion for the US alone. As for “terrorism”, the idea that NATO’s increased spending could deter it ignores the failures of the “War on Terror”, where NATO interventions in Afghanistan and Libya prompted instability and fighter recruitment.

The security NATO seems most concerned with is that of its arms firms. Long before Trump’s pressure, arms firms have pushed for higher European military spending through lobbying groups like the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD). They have successfully made military security an overriding European Union objective, winning ever more public money for research and industry support. Now they are reaping the rewards with booming revenues and profits. Before the NATO summit, BlackRock released an investment report celebrating the arms industry as a “dynamic growth industry” and a “mega force” that will drive investment trends in the coming years.

NATO’s idea of security diverts money from social needs, worsens the climate crisis, rewards arms firms profiting from global conflict, and chooses war over diplomacy. Its bellicose stance in The Hague this week makes it one of the greatest threats to global security – even to life on this planet. It is up to the peoples of NATO countries to reject this deadly path and reclaim security based on cooperation, justice and peace.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Hamas responded to a US ceasefire proposal by saying it is prepared to release 10 living Israeli hostages and 18 dead hostages in exchange for a number of Palestinian prisoners, while requesting some amendments to the plan.

The group repeated its demands for a permanent truce, a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and guarantees for the continuous flow of humanitarian aid. None of these are in the deal on the table.

It was neither an explicit rejection nor a clear acceptance of the US terms, which Washington says Israel has accepted.

Hamas said it had submitted its response to the US draft proposed by Steve Witkoff, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy for the Middle East.

In a statement, Witkoff said: “I received the Hamas response to the United States’ proposal. It is totally unacceptable and only takes us backward. Hamas should accept the framework proposal we put forward as the basis for proximity talks, which we can begin immediately this coming week.

“That is the only way we can close a 60-day ceasefire deal in the coming days.”

A statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said: “While Israel has agreed to the updated Witkoff outline for the release of our hostages, Hamas continues to adhere to its refusal.”

Hamas, a proscribed terror group in the US, UK and EU, said it was insisting on a “permanent ceasefire” and “complete withdrawal” of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip.

The group demanded a sustained flow of aid for Palestinians living in the enclave, and said it would release 10 living hostages and the bodies of 18 dead hostages in exchange for “an agreed upon number” of Palestinian prisoners in Israel.

But Hamas now finds itself in the most complex and difficult position it has faced since the war began.

Under intense pressure from 2.2 million people living in the worst conditions in their history and from the mediators, the movement is unable to accept an American proposal that is, by all accounts, less generous than previous offers it has rejected multiple times, the most recent being in March.

At that time, senior Hamas official and head negotiator Khalil al-Hayya stated unequivocally that the movement would not agree to partial deals that fail to secure a complete and permanent end to the war.

Yet, Hamas also finds itself unable to reject the latest US offer outright, fully aware that Israel is preparing to escalate its ground offensive in Gaza.

The movement lacks the military capacity to prevent or even seriously resist such an assault.

Caught between these two realities, Hamas, in effect, responded to the US proposal not with an answer – but with an entirely new counterproposal.

The full details of the US plan have not been made public and are unconfirmed, but these key points are reportedly included:

• A 60-day pause in fighting

• The release of 28 Israeli hostages – alive and dead – in the first week, and the release of 30 more once a permanent ceasefire is in place

• The release of 1,236 Palestinian prisoners and the remains of 180 dead Palestinians

• The sending of humanitarian aid to Gaza via the UN and other agencies

The terms on offer were the ones Israel could accept – the White House made sure of that by getting Israel’s approval before passing the proposal to Hamas.

It is unlikely that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be willing to negotiate the changes Hamas wants.

He is under pressure to bring the hostages home and has said he is willing to accept a temporary ceasefire to do so.

But the Israeli government has always insisted on the right to return to hostilities, despite Hamas’s core demand for guarantees that the temporary truce be a path to ending the war.

Netanyahu has said the war will end when Hamas “lays down its arms, is no longer in government [and] its leaders are exiled from the Gaza Strip”.

Defence Minister Israel Katz was more blunt this week. “The Hamas murderers will now be forced to choose: accept the terms of the ‘Witkoff Deal’ for the release of the hostages – or be annihilated,” he said.

Responding to Witkoff’s latest comments, Hamas official Basem Naim told the BBC the group had last week come to an agreement with him on a proposal “which he deemed acceptable for negotiation” – but that the Israeli response “disagreed with all the provisions we had agreed upon”.

“Why, each time, is the Israeli response considered the only response for negotiation?” he said.

“This violates the integrity and fairness of mediation and constitutes a complete bias towards the other side.”

Earlier on Saturday, the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry said 60 people were killed and another 284 injured in the past 24-hours in Israeli strikes.

That does not include numbers from hospitals located in the North Gaza Strip Governorate because of the difficulty of accessing the area, it adds.

Israel launched a military campaign in Gaza in response to Hamas’s cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 54,381 people have been killed in Gaza since then, including 4,117 since Israel resumed its offensive on 18 March, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

As California positions itself as a leader on climate change, former Los Angeles mayor and gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa is pivoting away from his own track record as an environmental champion to defend the state’s struggling oil industry.

Villaraigosa’s work to expand mass transit, plant trees and reduce carbon emissions made him a favorite of the environmental movement, but the former state Assembly speaker also accepted more than $1 million in campaign contributions and other financial support from oil companies and other donors tied to the industry over more than three decades in public life, according to city and state fundraising disclosures reviewed by The Times.

Since entering the race last year to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, Villaraigosa has accepted more than $176,000 from donors with ties to the oil industry, including from a company that operates oil fields in the San Joaquin Valley and in Los Angeles County, the disclosures show.

The clash between Villaraigosa’s environmentalist credentials and oil-industry ties surfaced in the governor’s race after Valero announced in late April that its Bay Area refinery would close next year, not long after Phillips 66 said its Wilmington refinery would close in 2025.

Villaraigosa is now warning that California drivers could see gas prices soar, blasting as “absurd” policies that he said could have led to the refinery closures.

“I’m not fighting for refineries,” Villaraigosa said in an interview. “I’m fighting for the people who pay for gas in this state.”

The refineries are a sore spot for Newsom and for California Democrats, pitting their environmental goals against concerns about the rising cost of living and two of the state’s most powerful interest groups — organized labor and environmentalists — against each other.

Villaraigosa said Democrats are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good in their approach to fighting climate change.

He said he hoped no more refineries would close until the state hits more electrification milestones, including building more transmission lines, green-energy storage systems and charging stations for electric cars. The only way for the state to reach “net zero” emissions, he said, is an “all-of-the-above” approach that includes solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear power and oil and gas.

“The notion that we’re not going to do that is poppycock,” Villaraigosa said.

Villaraigosa’s vocal support for the oil industry has upset some environmental groups that saw him as a longtime ally.

“I’m honestly shocked at just how bad it is,” said RL Miller, the president of Climate Hawks Vote and the chair of the California Democratic Party’s environmental caucus, of the contributions Villaraigosa has accepted since entering the race in July.

Miller said Villaraigosa signed a pledge during his unsuccessful run for governor in 2018 not to accept campaign contributions from oil companies and “named executives” at fossil-fuel entities. She said he took the pledge shortly after accepting the maximum allowable contributions from several oil donors in 2017.

Miller said that more than $100,000 in donations that Villaraigosa has accepted in this gubernatorial cycle were clear violations of the pledge.

That included contributions from the state’s largest oil and gas producer, California Resources Corp. and its subsidiaries, as well as the founder of Rocky Mountain Resources, a leader of the oil company Berry Corp., and Excalibur Well Services.

“This is bear-hugging the oil industry,” she said.

Environmental activists view the pledge as binding for future campaigns. Villaraigosa said he has not signed it for this campaign.

The economy is dramatically different than it was in 2018, Villaraigosa said, and working-class Americans are being hammered, which he said was a major factor in recent Democratic losses.

“We’re losing working people, particularly working people who don’t have a college education,” he said. “Why are we losing them? The cost of living, the cost of gas, the cost of utilities, the cost of groceries.”

Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, said such statements are consistent with Villaraigosa’s messaging in recent years.

“Villaraigosa is squarely in the moderate lane in the governor’s race. That doomed him in 2018, when voters wanted to counterbalance President Trump and Villaraigosa was outflanked by Newsom,” Kousser said. “But today, even some Democrats may want to counterbalance the direction that they see Sacramento taking, especially when it comes to cost-of-living issues and the price of gas.”

He added that the fossil-fuel donations may not be the basis for Villaraigosa’s apparent embrace of oil and gas priorities.

“When a politician takes campaign contributions from an industry and also takes positions that favor it, that raises the possibility of corruption, of money influencing votes,” Kousser said. “But it is also possible that it was the politician’s own approach to an issue that attracted the contributions, that their votes attracted money but were not in any way corrupted by it. That may be the case here, where Villaraigosa has held fairly consistent positions on this issue and consistently attracted support from an industry because of those positions.”

Other Democrats in the 2026 governor’s race, including Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, former state Controller Betty Yee and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, have signed the pledge not to accept contributions from oil industry interests, Miller said.

Former California Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and businessman Stephen Cloobeck have not. (Cloobeck has never run for office before and has not been asked to sign.)

Other gubernatorial candidates have also accepted fossil-fuel contributions, although in smaller numbers than Villaraigosa, state and federal filings show.

Becerra accepted contributions from Chevron and California Resources Corp., formerly Occidental Petroleum, while running for attorney general. Atkins took donations from Chevron, Occidental and a trade group for oil companies while running for state Assembly and state Senate. And while running for lieutenant governor, Kounalakis took contributions from executives at oil and mining companies.

Campaign representatives for the two main Republican candidates in the race, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, said they welcomed oil-industry donations.

Villaraigosa is a fierce defender of his environmental record dating back to his first years as an elected official in the California Assembly.

As mayor of Los Angeles from 2005 to 2013, Villaraigosa set new goals to reduce emissions at the Port of Los Angeles, end the use of coal-burning power plants and shift the city’s energy generation toward solar, wind and geothermal sources.

The child of a woman who relied on Metro buses, he also branded himself the “transportation mayor.” Villaraigosa was a vocal champion for the 2008 sales tax increase that provided the first funding for the extension of the Wilshire Boulevard subway to the Westside.

But, he said, Democrats in 2025 have to be realistic that the refinery closures and their goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions could disproportionately affect low-income residents who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Villaraigosa’s comments underscore a broader divide among Democrats about how to fight climate change without making California even more expensive, or driving out more high-paying jobs that don’t require a college education.

Lorena Gonzalez, a former state lawmaker who became the leader of the California Labor Federation in 2022, said that while climate change is a real threat, so is shutting down refineries.

“That’s a threat to those workers’ jobs and lives, and it’s also a threat to the price of gas,” Gonzalez said.

California is not currently positioned to end its reliance on fossil fuels, she said. If the state reduces its refining capacity, she said, it will have to rely on exports from nations that have less environmental and labor safeguards.

“Anyone running for governor has to acknowledge that,” Gonzalez said.

Villaraigosa said that while the loss of union jobs at Valero’s Bay Area refinery worried him, his primary concern was over the cost of gasoline and household budgets.

His comments come as California prepares to square off yet again against the Trump administration over its environmental policies.

The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to revoke a federal waiver that allowed California to set its own vehicle emission standards, including a rule that would have ultimately banned the sale of new gas-fueled cars in 2035. Villaraigosa denounced the vote, but said that efforts to fight climate change can’t come at the expense of working-class Americans.

President Trump has also declared a national energy emergency, calling for increased fossil-fuel production, eliminating environmental reviews and the fast-tracking of projects in potentially sensitive ecosystems and habitats. The Trump administration is also targeting California’s environmental standards.

Villaraigosa, an Eastside native, started his career as a labor organizer and rose to speaker of the state Assembly before becoming the mayor of Los Angeles. Now 72, Villaraigosa has not held elected office for more than a decade; he finished a distant third in the 2018 gubernatorial primary.

Over the years, donors affiliated with the fossil-fuel industry have contributed more than $1 million to Villaraigosa’s political campaigns and his nonprofit causes, including an after-school program, the city’s sports and entertainment commission and an effort to reduce violence by providing programming at city parks during summer nights, according to city and state disclosures.

More than half of the contributions and support for Villaraigosa’s pet causes, over $582,000, came during his years at Los Angeles City Hall as a council member and mayor.

In 2008, billionaire oil and gas magnate T. Boone Pickens donated $150,000 to a city proposition backed by Villaraigosa that levied a new tax on phone and internet use.

Pickens made the donation as his company was vying for business at the port of Los Angeles, which is overseen by mayoral appointees and was seeking to reduce emissions by replacing diesel-powered trucks with vehicles fueled by liquid natural gas.

The rest of the contributions and other financial support flowed to Villaraigosa’s campaign accounts and affiliated committees while he served in the Assembly and during his two gubernatorial runs. These figures do not include donations to independent expenditure committees, since candidates cannot legally be involved in those efforts.

Villaraigosa said that while such voters don’t subscribe to Republicans’ “drill, baby, drill” ethos, he slammed the Democratic Party’s focus on such matters and Trump instead of kitchen-table issues.

“The cost of everything we’re doing is on the backs of the people who work the hardest and who make the least, and that’s why so many of them — even when we were saying Trump is a threat to democracy — they were saying, yeah, but what about my gas prices, grocery prices, the cost of eggs?” he said.

Times staff writer Sandra McDonald in Sacramento contributed to this report.

MIAMI — Juan Serrano, a 28-year-old Colombian migrant with no criminal record, attended a hearing in immigration court in Miami on Wednesday for what he thought would be a quick check-in.

The musty, glass-paneled courthouse sees hundreds of such hearings every day. Most last less than five minutes and end with a judge ordering those who appear to return in two years’ time to plead their case against deportation.

So it came as a surprise when, rather than set a future court date, government attorneys asked to drop the case. “You’re free to go,” Judge Monica Neumann told Serrano.

Except he really wasn’t.

Waiting for him as he exited the small courtroom were five federal agents who cuffed him against the wall, escorted him to the garage and whisked him away in a van along with a dozen other immigrants detained the same day.

They weren’t the only ones. Across the United States in immigration courts from New York to Seattle this week, Homeland Security officials are ramping up enforcement actions in what appears to be a coordinated dragnet testing out new legal levers deployed by President Trump’s administration to carry out mass arrests.

While Trump campaigned on a pledge of mass removals of what he calls “illegals,” he’s struggled to carry out his plans amid a series of lawsuits, the refusal of some foreign governments to take back their nationals and a lack of detention facilities to house migrants.

Arrests are extremely rare in or immediately near immigration courts, which are run by the Justice Department. When they have occurred, it was usually because the individual was charged with a criminal offense or their asylum claim had been denied.

“All this is to accelerate detentions and expedite removals,” said immigration attorney Wilfredo Allen, who has represented migrants at the Miami court for decades.

Dismissal orders came down this week, officials say

Three U.S. immigration officials said government attorneys were given the order to start dismissing cases when they showed up for work Monday, knowing full well that federal agents would then have a free hand to arrest those same individuals as soon as they stepped out of the courtroom. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared losing their jobs.

AP reporters on Wednesday witnessed detentions and arrests or spoke to attorneys whose clients were picked up at immigration courthouses in Los Angeles, Phoenix, New York, Seattle, Chicago and Texas.

The latest effort includes people who have no criminal records, migrants with no legal representation and people who are seeking asylum, according to reports received by the American Immigration Lawyers Assn. While detentions have been happening over the past few months, on Tuesday the number of reports skyrocketed, said Vanessa Dojaquez-Torres, practice and policy counsel at the association.

In the case of Serrano in Miami, the request for dismissal was delivered by a government attorney who spoke without identifying herself on the record. When the AP asked for the woman’s name, she refused and hastily exited the courtroom past one of the groups of plainclothes federal agents stationed throughout the building.

The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees immigration courts, referred questions to the Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is part of Homeland Security, said in a statement that it was detaining people who are subject to fast-track deportation authority.

Outside the Miami courthouse on Wednesday, a Cuban man was waiting for one last glimpse of his 22-year-old son. Initially, when his son’s case was dismissed, his father assumed it was a first, positive step toward legal residency. But the hoped-for reprieve quickly turned into a nightmare.

“My whole world came crashing down,” said the father, breaking down in tears. The man, who asked not to be identified for fear of arrest, described his son as a good kid who rarely left his Miami home except to go to work.

“We thought coming here was a good thing,” he said of his son’s court appearance.

Antonio Ramos, an immigration attorney with an office next to the Miami courthouse, said the government’s new tactics are likely to have a chilling effect in Miami’s large migrant community, discouraging otherwise law-abiding individuals from showing up for their court appearances for fear of arrest.

“People are going to freak out like never before,” he said.

‘He didn’t even have a speeding ticket’

Serrano entered the U.S. in September 2022 after fleeing his homeland due to threats associated with his work as an advisor to a politician in the Colombian capital, Bogota, according to his girlfriend, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being arrested and deported. Last year, he submitted a request for asylum, she said.

She said the couple met working on a cleanup crew to remove debris near Tampa following Hurricane Ian in September 2022.

“He was shy and I’m extroverted,” said the woman, who is from Venezuela.

The couple slept on the streets when they relocated to Miami but eventually scrounged together enough money — she cleaning houses, he working construction — to buy a used car and rent a one-bedroom apartment for $1,400 a month.

The apartment is decorated with photos of the two in better times, standing in front of the Statue of Liberty in New York, visiting a theme park and lounging at the beach. She said the two worked hard, socialized little and lived a law-abiding life.

“He didn’t even have a speeding ticket. We both drive like grandparents,” she said.

The woman was waiting outside the courthouse when she received a call from her boyfriend. “He told me to go, that he had been arrested and there was nothing more to do,” she said.

She was still processing the news and deciding how she would break it to his elderly parents. Meanwhile, she called an attorney recommended by a friend to see if anything could be done to reverse the arrest.

“I’m grateful for any help,” she said as she shuffled through her boyfriend’s passport, migration papers and IRS tax receipts. “Unfortunately, not a lot of Americans want to help us.”

Goodman and Salomon write for the Associated Press. AP reporters Martha Bellisle in Seattle, Sophia Tareen in Chicago, Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas, and Amy Taxin in Santa Ana, Calif., contributed to this report.