policy

Sudan was teetering on the edge of crisis long before open war erupted in April 2023. Decades of authoritarian rule under Omar al-Bashir resulted in a fragile economy, fragmented security forces, and entrenched paramilitary structures.

Following the coup that overthrew al-Bashir in 2019, a fragile civilian-military transitional arrangement failed to unite competing factions. Political instability, localised rebellions, and a simmering rivalry between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – the successor to the Popular Defence Forces, government-backed militia known as the Janjaweed who committed war crimes in Darfur in the early 2000s – escalated into full-blown conflict.

By mid-2023, Sudan was effectively split into contested zones, with major urban centres, such as Khartoum and Omdurman, transformed into battlefields, and millions of civilians displaced internally or forced across borders as refugees.

Although geographically removed, the European Union played a consequential role in these developments. For nearly a decade, it pursued a strategy of “externalising” migration control, directing aid, training, and equipment to African states ostensibly to reduce irregular migration towards Europe.

In Sudan, this approach produced unintended and devastating consequences that the EU is yet to be held accountable for. Funding initially justified under “migration management” and “capacity building” intersected with opaque arms flows, Gulf intermediaries, and weak oversight. European money and materiel, intended to stabilise populations and impose border forces to buffer the migratory ambitions of Africans, may have indirectly reinforced the very actors now perpetrating war crimes in Sudan.

Between 2014 and 2018, the EU channelled more than 200 million euros ($232m at the current exchange rate) into Sudan via the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) and the Better Migration Management (BMM) initiative.

These programmes formally aimed to strengthen migration control, border security and anti-trafficking enforcement. In reality, they entrenched cooperation between the EU and Sudan’s security structures, including units that effectively merged into the RSF.

As early as 2017, the Enough Project, an advocacy group focused on conflict, corruption and human rights, published a report titled Border Control from Hell, warning that “the gravest concern about the EU’s new partnership with Sudan is that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), one of the most abusive paramilitary groups in the country, stands to benefit from EU funding” and that “the equipment that enables identification and registration of migrants will also reinforce the surveillance capabilities of a Sudanese government that has violently suppressed Sudanese citizens for the past 28 years”.

Two years later, the EU had to suspend several migration-control activities in Sudan because there was a risk that resources could be “diverted for repressive aims”, according to an EU official document cited by German news outlet Deutsche Welle.

And yet, a factsheet titled What the EU really does in Sudan, published on the bloc’s website in 2018, claimed: “The EU does not provide any financial support to the Government of Sudan … The Rapid Support Forces of the Sudanese military do not benefit directly or indirectly from EU funding.”

All this raises an important question: If the EU knew of the risk of diversion, why did it still invest hundreds of millions into a context where control over the end use of training, equipment and funds was manifestly weak?

What is worse is that the EU’s role was not limited to supplying funds that could be misappropriated. It also provided weapons, albeit indirectly.

As the conflict deepened, investigators started uncovering foreign-manufactured weapons and ammunition circulating widely among the RSF and the SAF. Verified imagery, open-source analysis and serial number tracing have revealed European-manufactured systems on Sudan’s battlefields. In November 2024, Amnesty International released an investigation disclosing that Nimr Ajban armoured personnel carriers (APCs) were equipped with French-made Galix defensive systems. Amnesty’s analysts verified images and videos from multiple Sudanese locations and concluded that, if deployed in Darfur, their use would breach the longstanding United Nations arms embargo on the region.

In April, investigations by France24 and the Reuters news agency traced 81mm mortar shells found in an RSF convoy in North Darfur back to Bulgaria. The markings on this ammunition matched mortar bombs manufactured by a Bulgarian firm and exported legally to the United Arab Emirates in 2019. The Bulgarian government had not authorised the re-export of the shells from the UAE to Sudan.

In October, The Guardian reported that British military equipment, including small-arms target systems and engines for APCs, had been used by the RSF in Sudan, and they may have been supplied by the UAE.

Taken together, these findings illustrate a pattern: European-made arms and weapons systems, legally exported to third countries, have subsequently been diverted into Sudan’s conflict, despite embargoes and supposed safeguards.

Although the UAE denies it plays any role in the conflict, its position as an intermediary hub for re-exported weaponry has been repeatedly documented. Still, European suppliers, bound by end-user agreements and export-control frameworks, share responsibility for ensuring compliance.

Under the United Kingdom and EU regulations, governments must deny or revoke licences when there is a clear risk of diversion to conflict zones or human rights abusers. The use of European-made arms and weapons systems in Sudan, therefore, demands a rigorous reassessment of post-shipment monitoring and enforcement.

Despite this, European and British governments have continued to issue new export licences to potential violators, including the UAE. Recent reporting by Middle East Eye shows that the UK approved roughly $227m in military exports to the UAE between April and June this year, even after being informed that Emirati-supplied equipment had reached the RSF.

European countries are by far not an exception in failing to ensure that their weapons are not diverted to war zones under embargo.

My own country, South Africa, has also faced criticism over the lack of control over its arms shipments. In the mid-2010s, the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) faced international and domestic scrutiny after South African-manufactured weapons and ammunition were reportedly used by Saudi and Emirati forces in Yemen.

As a result, in 2019, the NCACC delayed or withheld export approvals, especially for “the most lethal” items, amid disputes over updated inspection clauses and human rights concerns. The South African authorities demanded that they be granted access to facilities in importer countries to ensure compliance with the end-user agreement – something the UAE and Saudi Arabia, along with several other countries, refused to provide. By 2022, previously withheld consignments were eventually cleared under renegotiated terms.

Today, evidence suggests that South African weapons may have been diverted to Sudan as well. Investigators and open-source analysts claim to have identified munitions consistent with South African manufacture in Sudan.

The South African case illustrates that even when there is political will to ensure compliance with the end-user agreements for arms sales, enforcement can be challenging. And yet, it is a necessary and crucial part of peacebuilding efforts.

If democratic governments wish to reclaim credibility, end-use monitoring must be enforceable, not a bureaucratic concession. The NCACC in Pretoria and export control authorities in Brussels, Sofia, Paris and London must publish transparent audits of past licences, investigate credible diversion cases, and suspend new approvals where risk remains unmitigated.

In parallel, the EU must ensure migration management funding cannot be coopted by armed actors.

Without such measures, Europe’s migration policy and South Africa’s defence trade risk complicity in a grim paradox: initiatives justified in the name of security that foster insecurity.

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

SACRAMENTO — It was a dark chapter in American history. For more than half a century, California and other states forcibly sterilized 60,000 mentally ill people as part of a misguided national campaign to eliminate crime, “feeblemindedness,” alcoholism, poverty and other problems blamed for dragging society down.

On Tuesday, Gov. Gray Davis apologized, placing California in a small group of states that have issued formal regrets.

“To the victims and their families of this past injustice,” Davis said in a statement, “the people of California are deeply sorry for the suffering you endured over the years. Our hearts are heavy for the pain caused by eugenics. It was a sad and regrettable chapter … one that must never be repeated.”

As eugenics was practiced in California and 31 other states at various times between 1909 and 1964, when it stopped, individuals considered defective included alcoholics, petty criminals, the poor, disabled and mentally ill.

About 20,000 people were involuntarily sterilized in an attempt to prevent their genes from being passed on to another generation.

Eugenics was intended to “clean up the gene pool,” Paul Lombardo, an expert on the subject, said during a presentation at the Capitol only hours before Davis acted.

The policy was horribly misguided and resulted in the human rights of thousands being routinely violated by a coercive government with the support of the Supreme Court, said Lombardo, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Medicine.

He spoke at a special California Senate hearing on eugenics and the history of mandatory sterilization of supposedly defective people.

Sen. Dede Alpert (D-San Diego) said she intends to introduce a resolution that will express the Legislature’s apology.

Davis issued the official regrets shortly after state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer apologized for one of his predecessors, Atty. Gen. Ulysses S. Webb, who enthusiastically supported forced sterilization as “enlightened” law free of legal “inhibitions.” Webb served from 1903 until 1939.

Lockyer said it is never too late to apologize for the bigotry practiced against the disabled and others who were “seen as misfits of the time.” He said the lessons of eugenics should not be lost in this era of cloning and genetic engineering advancements.

Lombardo said later that he was stunned that a gubernatorial apology from Davis would occur so quickly.

“I never expected that I’d finish a lecture at noon and the governor would make an apology by 3:30 p.m.,” Lombardo said.

He and George Cunningham, a genetic disease expert in the state Department of Health Services, said it was unknown how many forced-sterilization victims are living in California, but suggested that the number is probably small because most sterilizations occurred before World War II.

“There is no registry of these cases,” Lombardo said.

Davis’ apology did not propose reparations or other compensation to the victims or their families.

Lombardo said it would be difficult for survivors to collect damages in a lawsuit against the government because the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of forced sterilization in 1927.

He told the hearing of the Select Committee on Genetics, Genetic Technologies and Public Policy that Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich borrowed generously from U.S. laws when it imposed forced sterilization on “undesirables.”

Lombardo, a lawyer and historian, said eugenics started with the goal of encouraging development of a world of healthy individuals who would pass along their best traits to the next generation.

He said many leading minds of the late 1800s and early 1900s enthusiastically supported eugenics.

Contests were held to determine “perfect children,” movies publicized the movement, and major foundations financed eugenics research, Lombardo said.

He said supporters were successful in persuading the Los Angeles Times to run a series of favorable articles about eugenics in its Sunday magazine.

Lombardo said eugenics was an “incredibly popular movement” and a household word in America because Americans “all wanted to help the children.” Eugenics was defined as “to be well born” and to have a “happy heritage.”

At the time, the mantra was, “Let’s get rid of crime and poverty. Let’s have healthy children. Who could argue against it?”

In 1929, California became the second state to adopt forced sterilization as law and accounted for a third of the total cases nationally during the 35 years that eugenics was state policy, he said.

Many early supporters of eugenics became disillusioned with the movement, Lombardo said, when it got sidetracked into a policy for selective breeding.

DALLAS — Ross Perot, outlining how he would mend the U.S. economy, proposes a combination of tax cuts and loans for small business and tougher trade policy to create more jobs at home.

“We cannot be a superpower if we cannot manufacture here,” the Texas billionaire said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. He called for the United States to make almost everything it needs at home. “We have to manufacture here,” he said.

Perot, whose undeclared presidential candidacy has surged in opinion polls, described himself as a “fair and free trader” but believes that “agreements we’ve cut with countries around the world are not balanced at all.”

He said he would adjust the “tilted deck” of trade with Japan “in a very nice, diplomatic way. In this case (make) the Japanese say: ‘We’ll take the same deal on cars we’ve given you.’ ”

The effect, he said, would be to drastically reduce imports from Japan. “You are going to see the clock stop,” said Perot. “You could never unload the ships to this country; just could never unload the ships.”

In a similar vein, he opposes a free-trade agreement with Mexico, believing it would drain manufacturing jobs from a U.S. economy that cannot afford to lose them.

Perot said he is willing to have his mind changed. “This is a complicated, multi-piece equation that we need to think through very carefully. In carpenter’s terms, measure twice, cut once,” he said.

But in Mexico, “labor is a 25- year-old with little or no health-care expense working for a dollar an hour. You cannot compete with that in the U.S.A., period,” he said. “So you would have a surge in building factories down there but a long-term drought here at a time we cannot pay our budget deficits.”

The interview centered on Perot’s agenda on the issues of trade, taxes and the federal deficit. In Perot’s view, problems of the U.S. economy are interrelated, from trade to the national debt and the troubled public school system–which he calls “the least effective public education system in the industrialized world.”

“We’ve got a country $4 trillion in debt, adding $400 billion this year,” he said in his Dallas office–graced by portraits of his family and the painting “Spirit of ‘76” on a wall behind his desk.

“And we have a declining job base, which gives us a declining tax base at a time when we’ve run our debt through the ceiling. In business terms, that’s a ticket for disaster. Never forget that every time you lose a worker–who goes on welfare–the welfare check exceeds the tax payment that used to come to the IRS.”

Perot’s reference to a declining job base reflects his belief–disputed by some scholars–that jobs created in the 1980s were at lower wages than the jobs they replaced as manufacturing companies restructured. Most analysts and government data agree that wages for less educated, industrial workers have fallen over the last two decades. But there have been rising incomes at the same time for educated employees–especially those in new, computer-based information industries.

Perot, who will turn 62 this month, is a pioneer of the information-based industry. In 1962 he founded Electronic Data Systems, which innovated the business for organizing computer data for large companies and the government. It made Perot one of the nation’s wealthiest men. But Perot says that advanced industries alone cannot be the solution for the United States.

“Don’t bet the farm on high tech,” he said. “Information industry is all about intellectual acuity. And in a country with the least effective public education in the industrialized world, it kind of makes you grimace.

“What I’m saying is, right now, we can’t take people out of factories and send them to Microsoft (the leading computer software firm). If their children had a great education, we could. That’s generational change. But their children are not getting a great education.”

Perot made great efforts on behalf of educational reform in Texas in 1984, and has said he supports greatly expanded funding for education starting at preschool levels for all children. “It’s the best investment we can make,” he has said.

But education is for the future, and there is a need to create jobs now in the United States, not overseas, Perot declared.

“Do we need to make clothing in this country? Of course we do. Do we need to make shoes in this country? Of course we do. We have places in our country where people would be delighted to work in a shoe factory for reasonable wages.

“When I think of shoes, I think of Valley Forge (the winter encampment during the American Revolution where George Washington’s soldiers wrapped their feet in bandages and rags),” said Perot, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy.

“My mind bounces back and forth between the world I hope we have and the world that might be. We might be fighting barefooted.”

Perot contended that jobs can be created fastest in small companies.

“The quickest way to stimulate the economy and have a growing, dynamic job base is to stimulate small business. You’ll create more jobs faster by going through small business than through the huge industries,” said Perot, who started his business career as a salesman for IBM.

He said small-business people today are starved for credit and capital since banks are cautious of lending in the aftermath of the speculative 1980s, and small business doesn’t have access to big stock and bond markets.

But if he should become President, solving the credit problem will be “easy,” Perot said. “Change the regulations and the banks will loan the money,” he said, indicating that bank examiners should loosen their definitions about prudent loans and reduce the amount banks must reserve against potential losses.

Perot would attract investors to small business ventures by reducing the tax on capital gains. “I’ve got to give you a reason to take money out of Treasury bills to invest in a high-risk, wildcatting venture,” Perot explained.

“I can’t force you to take your money out of T-bills, so I have to create an environment where you want to take this risk.” That means a tax preference. “But I’m not changing capital gains for everybody. This is for the really high-risk start-up of a small company,” Perot said.

But “you will rarely hear me use the word ‘capital gains tax rate.’ I’ll be talking about money to create jobs,” he said.

Perot’s own considerable fortune, estimated by various business publications at $3.3 billion, is invested mostly in T-bills and corporate and high-rated municipal bonds. He has $200 million invested in Perot Systems, $350 million in real estate and about $40 million in funds for start-up companies, including a stake in Next Inc., the computer company headed by Apple co-founder Steven P. Jobs.

Perot also spoke of pushing for legislation to allow, and encourage, banks to make equity investments in start-up companies–a form of government-backed development bank.

“Or some other vehicle will emerge,” he said. “You find what seems to be the best way out–and then you adjust 1,000 times as you go. That’s the way you do anything, whether it’s cutting grass or making rockets.”

Perot’s views on big business are harsh. He believes a ruinous gap opened up between management and labor in large corporations, between executives who paid themselves handsomely while demanding reductions in the pay of ordinary workers. The result was a reduction in American competitiveness and hurt the U.S. economy, he says, repeating a theme he sounded often in two stormy years on General Motors’ board of directors.

Today, he is not surprised that the chief executives of more than a dozen major corporations, meeting last month at the Business Council in Hot Springs, Va., uniformly disapproved of him and his candidacy.

“They’re part of the Establishment,” Perot said. “The status quo works for them right now, and I’m talking about major, major change.”

Still, big companies should be enlisted in a drive to turn the U.S. economy to pursuits of peace, from what Perot terms “45 years of Cold War which drained us. The Cold War broke Russia, but it drained us.”

For all his distrust of foreign trade agreements, Perot admires the way Japanese companies do business–in particular Toyota, which he studied while a director of GM. “They work as a team and their products have quality,” Perot said. “Have you spent time in a Lexus dealership? All those guys selling Lexuses have to do is get you to drive it around the block.”

Perot himself drives an ’87 Oldsmobile. But he said U.S. industry should start doing things the way Japanese industry does, having senior business figures help small start-ups, “targeting industries of the future and making sure sacrifice in corporations starts at the top.”

Perot acknowledges that many things he admires in Japanese industry stem from that country’s different way of organizing society. “But my point is, you and I, our company is failing. And we have a competitor who’s winning. I would say, let’s go study him and figure out why he wins.”

To pay for his programs, Perot said, “We are not going to raise taxes unless we have to. But I ain’t stupid enough to say ‘Watch my lips.’ ”

He would “go to a new tax system because the one we have now is paper-laden, inefficient, not fair and so on.” But he claims to have no specific ideas yet on how to change taxes. “I would get people in, and in 60 days I’d have half a dozen new tax systems,” he said.

“My points on taxes are basically three: We’ve got to raise the revenues to make the country go.

“Two, we’ll get rid of the waste. The Department of Agriculture, with 2% of our people engaged in farming, is bigger than it was when a third of our people were farming. You’ve got to cut it down and you need a strong consensus to do that.”

He has been criticized for not being more specific on what other programs he would cut, and by how much. But as a third step, he said he would demand authority to selectively cut programs approved by Congress. “Give me the line-item veto, or don’t send me there,” said Perot, echoing a demand first raised by Ronald Reagan.

Perot has become linked with the idea that wealthy people might help reduce the federal deficit by giving up their rights to Social Security and Medicare. By one calculation, which Perot ascribes to Bush Administration chief economic adviser Michael J. Boskin, such a sacrifice by the wealthy could save the Treasury $100 billion a year–although Perot says that figure has proved dubious.

“I’d give up Social Security in a minute,” said the Texas billionaire. “And if a lot of people would give it up who did not need it, that’s worth looking at.”

Would that be subjecting the venerable Social Security program to a “means test,” which would adjust individual benefits based on income or assets.

“I never got down to what means testing is,” Perot said. “We’ve just got to go through and look at every single item. We have work to do.”

Kateryna Golizdra has been dealing with uncertainty about her legal status in the United States for six months. She hopes to endure another six months as she waits for the Trump administration to make decisions regarding a humanitarian program that allowed around 260,000 Ukrainians, displaced by the war, to live and work in the U. S. When her legal status expired in May, Golizdra became at risk of deportation, lost her job as a manager at the Ritz-Carlton that paid over $50,000, and lost her health insurance for a liver condition. She can no longer send financial support to her mother who lives in Germany.

As of March 31, nearly 200,000 Ukrainians faced similar risks due to processing delays in renewing their legal status caused by the Trump administration. The humanitarian program, which started in April 2022, was meant to offer short-term refuge to Ukrainians but is only a small part of the larger refugee crisis, with 5.9 million Ukrainian refugees globally. Golizdra is left unsure of when, or if, her legal status will be renewed, which creates a sense of ongoing anxiety about her future.

During interviews with various Ukrainian individuals affected by the temporary loss of their work permits, many shared stories of struggling financially. They reported dipping into their savings, seeking community assistance, and going into debt while they wait for updates. Some are afraid of being arrested by immigration authorities, prompting them to stay indoors or even leave the U. S. for safer locations in Canada, Europe, or South America. Returning to Ukraine is not an option for Golizdra, as her home was destroyed during the conflict.

The Trump administration halted processing applications for the humanitarian program in January, citing security concerns stemming from a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. While the program was not completely canceled, and a federal judge ordered officials to resume processing, only a tiny fraction of renewal applications have been processed since then. Additionally, a new spending package increased fees for humanitarian applications, adding to the burdens faced by these displaced individuals.

U. S. Representative Mike Quigley noted that his office has received numerous requests for help from Ukrainians in similar situations, with fears of deportation looming large for those whose applications are incomplete. Anne Smith, from the Ukraine Immigration Task Force, reported an uptick in calls from families worrying about detained relatives. This has led to chaotic interactions, with some being arrested while working or out in public.

Some Ukrainians have decided to leave the U. S. to avoid the risk of detention. Yevhenii Padafa, a software engineer, sought to renew his status but faced delays that left him without legal standing. Worrying about future complications, he tried to “self deport” using a government app that promised assistance for those voluntarily leaving the country. However, he encountered obstacles that made it difficult to relocate to a safer country. Instead, he ended up traveling to Argentina, which offers a humanitarian program, despite feeling financially strained upon arrival. He expressed the grim reality of preferring to be homeless in a foreign country rather than return to Ukraine, which is fraught with danger.

With information from Reuters

Ukraine announced it launched Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) short-range ballistic missiles at military targets in Russia. The attack appears to be the first use of these U.S.-made weapons into Russia under the Trump administration. It also points to the strong possibility that another batch of the prized missiles have been supplied to Ukraine, which is noteworthy in itself due to the limited U.S. stocks of the weapons, and/or that the White House has approved the type’s use once again.

“This is a significant development that underscores Ukraine’s unwavering commitment to its sovereignty,” the Ukrainian Armed Forces General Staff said of the attack. “Despite the ongoing pressure of Russian offensive actions, Ukrainians remain resilient, demonstrating determination and consistent resolve in defending their homeland.”

“The use of long-range strike capabilities, including systems such as ATACMS, will continue,” the Armed Forces General Staff added.

Ukrainian officials provided no details about the ATACMS targets or how many were launched. Newer variants of these missiles can reach to nearly 200 miles, with first generation models having just over half the range.

Ukrainian and Russian mibloggers suggested that Ukraine attacked locations in Russia’s Voronezh region, among them the Pogonovo training area, located roughly 105 miles from the border. However, there is no independent verification of that.

The following video, first published by the Supernova+ Telegram channel, purports to show one of the ATACMS being shot down.

Cluster warheads packed with submunitions would be an ideal weapon to fire at a location where troops might be concentrated in the open. Ukraine used cluster munitions-equipped ATACMS to hit a Russian training ground in the occupied Luhansk region in May 2024 to devastating effect. That strike was also captured on video, which you can see below.

Though Kyiv claimed it will continue using ATACMS, just how many it has left is a mystery. Considering the long stretch between known uses, it likely ran dry for an extended period of time until the U.S. supplied more. The Trump administration could have also blocked the use of the weapons, especially into Russian territory, until now, although we cannot confirm this at this time.

Ukraine still has a number of U.S.-made Army High Mobility Rocket System (HIMARS) and M270 MLRS launchers that fire ATACMs. However, the last of these munitions authorized to be sent to Ukraine by former President Joe Biden arrived in the spring, The Wall Street Journal reported in August. The publication noted that “Kyiv has a small supply left, according to U.S. officials.”

Meanwhile, in March, The Associated Press reported Ukraine ran out of ATACMs. A U.S. official told the wire service at the time that “Ukraine was given fewer than 40 of those missiles overall and that Ukraine ran out of them in late January.”

We cannot confirm that number, but we do know they were not furnished by the many hundreds or anything approaching that number. The U.S. inventory is thought to be the low thousands.

Senior U.S. defense leaders, including the previous Pentagon chief, Lloyd Austin, “had made it clear that only a limited number of the ATACMs would be delivered and that the U.S. and NATO allies considered other weapons to be more valuable in the fight,” according to the AP.

As we previously reported, the first tranche of about 20 early generation, shorter-range ATACMS variants arrived in Ukraine in October 2023 and were apparently mostly used during attacks on Russian-held airfields the same month. Ukraine has used the limited number of these prized weapons it has received with major results. Longer-range variants, which were not introduced into the war until the Spring of 2024, were first used in a wave of attacks on air bases and air defense installations across the Crimean peninsula, according to the Kyiv Post.

A major reason for the limited number of ATACMS given to Ukraine is that U.S. officials have expressed concern about their own stockpiles. However, in December 2023, the U.S. Army began receiving the first tranches of the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) short-range ballistic missiles. The Army, which sees PrSMs as the ATACMS successor, said in September 2023 that the advent of these weapons could reduce some of the readiness risks associated with giving Ukraine ATACMS. It is quite possible that PrSM deliveries had freed-up more ATACMS rounds for Ukraine, and, given the chill between the White House and the Kremlin, these weapons would work both as a tactical tool and a strategic message.

This is especially the case as discussions continue regarding the U.S. supplying even more advanced and longer-range weaponry to Ukraine. While Trump has seemed to sour on giving Ukraine Tomahawk cruise missiles, more ATACMS, which have far shorter range and do not set a new precedent, would be a likely alternative.

After meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in September, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said his American counterpart was open to lifting restrictions on Kyiv’s use of American-made long-range weapons to strike inside Russia, according to The Wall Street Journal. Trump didn’t make any commitments to do so, the newspaper reported.

A month earlier, the Journal wrote that the Pentagon had for months “been blocking Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles to strike inside Russia.”

“A high-level Defense Department approval procedure, which hasn’t been announced, has prevented Ukraine from firing ATACMS missiles against targets in Russia since late spring,” the Journal added. “On at least one occasion, Ukraine sought to use ATACMS against a target on Russian territory but was rejected.”

The last recorded case of a Ukrainian ATACMS strike inside Russia was on January 14 as part of a massive attack also using U.K.-made Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles and long-range drones. That took place in the waning days of the Joe Biden administration, which also took a circuitous route in giving Ukraine ATACMS and then allowing them to strike inside Russia. The following graphic, produced as Biden was debating allowing Ukraine to hit Russia with ATACMS, gave a sense of what kinds of targets could be reached.

The first such attack took place almost exactly a year ago. On Nov. 19, 2024, a munitions storage facility near the town of Karachev in the Bryansk region of western Russia was hit by ATACMS. The target was around 70 miles from the Ukrainian border, well within range of these missiles.

There are many questions unanswered about Ukraine’s claimed ATACMS strike today. We have reached out to the White House, Pentagon and State Department to see if we can get some answers about the last time Ukraine was given these weapons and the last time they were used in Russia. We will update this story if they give us any useful details.

While ATACMS did have major lasting battlefield effects, it never proved to be a game-changer based on the tiny quantities provided. But they are another long-range weapon that has existed in Ukraine’s arsenal that packs a punch far heavier than the long-range drones Kyiv has been using across Russia. With Ukraine’s introduction of home-made cruise missiles, this equation is changing, but still, ATACMS are survivable and hit very hard when equipped with a unitary warhead and its cluster warheads can blanket large areas with explosions and shrapnel.

If the strike occurred as stated today, it points to a shift in the Trump administration’s policy when it comes to long-range strikes with U.S. weapons into Russia and it could also indicate the ATACMS supplies are flowing once again.

Contact the author: [email protected]

British officials say they’re enforcing tougher policies for asylum seekers, including ending refugees’ automatic right to settle permanently in the UK. As Al Jazeera’s Rory Challands explains, the overhaul comes as polls show growing concerns about immigration.

Russia’s policy towards Southeast Asia is undergoing a remarkable adjustment period. From focusing on defense cooperation, which has been its traditional strength, Russia is gradually shifting its focus to more sustainable areas. This shift reflects Russia’s flexible efforts to maintain its presence in a region strongly affected by great power competition, while demonstrating its ambition to position itself as a reliable and independent partner, contributing to the balance of influence against the expanding US involvement in the Indo-Pacific.

From diplomatic presence to substantive cooperation

For many years, Russia’s Southeast Asia policy has been largely confined to diplomatic presence and participation in ASEAN-led multilateral forums. However, in the wake of Trump 2.0’s tariff adjustments, Moscow has increasingly recognized Southeast Asia as a potential market to fill the economic void left by sanctions. This realization has led to more proactive and substantive shifts in Russia’s regional policy.

Since the beginning of 2025, Russia has stepped up bilateral cooperation with key ASEAN economies such as Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand, focusing on areas that the US and China have not yet focused on competing in, such as oil and gas exploitation, agriculture, and civil nuclear power. At the same time, Russia has also expanded its network of embassies, cultural centers, and trade promotion agencies in most ASEAN countries, thereby creating a multi-layered approach from politics to economics.

One of the most notable changes is the shift of Russia’s traditional trade to non-dollar payment mechanisms to minimize the risk of sanctions. According to statistics from the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, in 2024, trade turnover between Russia and ASEAN reached a record for the second consecutive year, increasing by 5.8%. Over the past decade, trade turnover has increased by 70%, with most transactions being settled in local currencies or currency swaps. At the same time, Southeast Asia is also a potential area to promote exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), fertilizers, and military materials, helping to reposition Russia as a stable energy supplier.

Diversifying partners outside of China

The trend of diversifying partners beyond China has emerged as a new driving force in Russia’s Southeast Asia policy. After years of relying on the Chinese market as a “lifeline” for its wartime economy, Russia has increasingly recognized the asymmetry in its trade relations as China has gradually gained an overwhelming position. This has forced Russia to rebalance its dependence and expand its influence by seeking alternative partners.

The “multi-directional” policy that Russia is implementing is clearly demonstrated through the strengthening of bilateral economic relations with a number of countries in the region. According to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko, the international situation is opening up many new opportunities for Russia to strengthen relations with the region of more than 650 million people. On the contrary, from the perspective of ASEAN, cooperation with Russia has its own appeal, because investment capital from Russia is considered less politically binding than the “debt trap” risks often associated with projects within the framework of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, limited financial resources have caused this direction of Russia to largely stop at the level of framework agreements or projects waiting to be launched.

In addition, Russia has also proposed establishing cooperation mechanisms focusing on less sensitive areas such as maritime security, counter-terrorism, and disaster relief. Although these initiatives have not yet reached the institutional level, they reflect Russia’s efforts in the regional innovation race with the US and China.

Connecting Southeast Asia to the Eurasian Axis and the Global South

Since launching the “Pivot to the East” policy in 2014, Russia’s strategic interests have gradually shifted from the European region to a vision of Eurasian integration. While in the early stages, this policy was mainly aimed at demonstrating efforts to “pivot” according to the trend of global power shifts; entering the 2020s, Russia has concretized its orientation with in-depth initiatives.

Following the Free Trade Agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and Vietnam in 2015, Russia continued negotiations with Indonesia and Thailand, aiming to form an economic network that is less dependent on the dollar system. Russia is also promoting initiatives for the construction of a connecting corridor between the Russian Far East and Central Asia with maritime routes in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Speaking at the International Conference on Eurasian Security in Minsk, Belarus, on October 28, 2025, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov emphasized that Russia wants to build a common development structure for the entire region and does not exclude any country on this continent. Transcontinental connectivity projects such as the Vladivostok-Chennai transport corridor or the Asia-Europe maritime and air route are integrated by Russia into its vision of an expanded Asia-Europe economic space, reflecting its efforts to bring Southeast Asia into the Russia-led “Greater Eurasia” strategy.

At the same time, Russia has been actively promoting the “multipolarization” discourse through mechanisms such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), in collaboration with China and India, to strengthen the image of a post-Western order. Russia’s support for Indonesia’s entry into BRICS not only reflects the group’s efforts to expand its sphere of influence but also demonstrates Russia’s strategy of integrating Southeast Asia into the emerging South-South partnership network. Through this, Russia wants to demonstrate its flexible integration into the Asia-Pacific region while also being a voice to show that Russia is not isolated in the process of restructuring the global order.

Taking advantage of ASEAN principles

One of the factors that helps Russia maintain a stable position in Southeast Asia is its ability to effectively exploit ASEAN’s neutral space. Unlike the US or China, which often pursue a strategy of competing for influence by “choosing sides” under pressure, Moscow chooses a flexible approach based on the principle of non-interference in ASEAN’s internal affairs and consensus.

Thanks to these principles, Russia’s participation in ASEAN-led multilateral mechanisms is not interpreted as an attempt to form political alliances or challenge the existing order, but on the contrary, is seen as consistent with the spirit of openness and inclusiveness. It is ASEAN’s neutral space that provides Russia with access in a variety of roles, from observer to dialogue partner to direct participant, thereby legitimizing Russia’s presence in Southeast Asia.

In fact, Russia actively participates in ASEAN-led mechanisms such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting Plus (ADMM+), and the East Asia Summit (EAS) to promote cooperation in less sensitive areas, helping Russia both strengthen its image as a constructive contributor and avoid creating suspicion from the West.

Rebooting defense and energy diplomacy

Through the two pillars of defense and energy, Russia has put into its foreign policy to reaffirm its position. These are considered the spearheads by which Russia still maintains its most substantial competitive capacity compared to the US.

In the defense sector, Russia is restoring bilateral cooperation with traditional partners such as Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and Indonesia. Previously, Russia accounted for about 25% of the arms market share in Southeast Asia, maintaining its position as the largest supplier in the region. However, instead of continuing to rely on sales contracts, Russia is now focusing on expanding the “after-sales” sector, such as training, maintenance, technology transfer, and joint research in the defense industry. At the multilateral level, Russia actively participates in high-level defense dialogue mechanisms such as ADMM+ and ARF to demonstrate the voice of a responsible partner, promoting peace and stability in the region.

Along with defense, Russia considers energy a common concern to expand its influence in Southeast Asia. Russia takes advantage of its deep-sea oil and gas exploitation techniques and develops nuclear power technology to strengthen cooperation with developing economies with large energy consumption needs. Leading energy corporations such as Zarubezhneft and Rosatom have been cooperating with Vietnam in gas exploitation projects on the continental shelf of the East Sea. Russia also boosts LNG exports to Thailand and the Philippines to expand its market share in the region while cooperating with Indonesia’s Pertamina Group in developing petrochemical refining and building civil nuclear energy infrastructure. These steps reflect Moscow’s efforts to establish an Asian energy supply chain to replace the disrupted European market.

Position on the East Sea dispute

Russia’s stance on the East Sea dispute is clearly cautious. Basically, Russia supports the settlement of disputes by peaceful means based on international law and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), while emphasizing the central role of ASEAN in conflict management. Unlike the US, which always emphasizes the issue of freedom of navigation, Russia chooses the role of a “balancing third party,” maintaining cooperative relations with all parties. However, Russia also avoids making specific statements regarding China’s sovereignty claims in order not to harm the Russia-China relationship, which is currently the leading pillar of its foreign policy.

In addition, Russia also supports the early completion of the Code of Conduct in the East Sea (COC), considering it an important tool to maintain stability and calling on all parties to exercise restraint. Instead of directly engaging in disputes, Russia maintains its presence through limited oil and gas cooperation within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), demonstrating Russia’s commitment to the legitimate sovereignty of its partner countries. At the same time, participating in joint exercises with ASEAN countries also helps Russia affirm its image as a responsible power, promoting trust and the ability to coordinate security at sea.

However, Russia’s influence in the South China Sea is still limited. The war in Ukraine has significantly reduced the frequency of Russian military patrols in the region. In addition, the increasingly close relationship between Moscow and Beijing has also made some ASEAN countries cautious, worried that Russia’s “neutrality” could be broken.

The adjustments in Russia’s Southeast Asia policy clearly reflect Russia’s efforts to adapt to a situation where it has to allocate resources to multiple goals. It is easy to see that Russia has chosen to shift from an ideological orientation to a pragmatic strategy, focusing on areas that can generate specific benefits. Instead of directly confronting the US or competing for influence with China, Moscow seeks to exploit gaps to position itself as a balancing factor.

Russia’s current Southeast Asia policy is a survival adaptation, reflecting a strategic effort to maintain influence in a regional structure that is reshaping under the pressure of US-China competition. Under increasing pressure from the US, Russia is forced to pursue a more autonomous path in Southeast Asia to maintain its strategic space. However, Russia’s influence is still limited by its internal capacity and competition from other powers. Russia may not be able to shape the rules of the game or lead the order, but it is certainly a factor that cannot be left out of the Southeast Asian strategic chessboard.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s problems with fixing the high cost of living might be giving voters a feeling of deja vu.

Just like the president who came before him, Trump is trying to sell the country on his plans to create factory jobs. The Republican says he wants to lower prescription drug costs, as did Democratic President Biden. Both tried to shame companies for price increases.

Trump is even leaning on a message that echoes Biden’s assertions in 2021 that elevated inflation is a “transitory” problem that will soon vanish.

“We’re going to be hitting 1.5% pretty soon,” Trump told reporters Monday. ”It’s all coming down.”

Even as Trump keeps saying an economic boom is around the corner, there are signs that he has already exhausted voters’ patience as his campaign promises to quickly fix inflation have gone unfulfilled.

Voter frustration

Voters in this month’s elections swung hard to Democrats over concerns about affordability. That has left Trump, who dismisses his weak polling on the economy as fake, floating half-formed ideas to ease financial pressures.

He is promising a $2,000 rebate on his tariffs and said he may offer 50-year mortgages — 20 years longer than any available now — to reduce the size of monthly payments. On Friday, Trump scrapped his tariffs on beef, coffee, tea, fruit juice, cocoa, spices, bananas, oranges, tomatoes and certain fertilizers, acknowledging that they “may, in some cases,” have contributed to higher prices.

But those are largely “gimmicky” moves unlikely to move the needle much on inflation, said Bharat Ramamurti, a former deputy director of Biden’s National Economic Council.

“They’re in this very tough position where they’ve developed a reputation for not caring enough about costs, where the tools they have available to them are unlikely to be able to help people in the short term,” Ramamurti said.

Ramamurti said the Biden administration learned the hard way that voters are not appeased by a president saying his policies would ultimately cause their incomes to rise.

“That argument does not resonate,” he said. “Take it from me.”

Biden on inflation

Biden inherited an economy trying to rebound from the COVID-19 pandemic emergency, which had shut down schools and offices, causing mass layoffs and historic levels of government borrowing. In March 2021, he signed into law a $1.9-trillion relief package. Critics said it was excessive and could cause prices to rise.

As the economy reopened, there were shortages of computer chips, kitchen appliances, autos and even furniture. Cargo ships were stuck waiting to dock at ports, creating supply chain issues. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 pushed up energy and food costs, and consumer prices reached a four-decade high that June. The Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rates to cool inflation.

Biden tried to convince Americans that the economy was strong. “Bidenomics is working,” he said in a 2023 speech. “Today, the U.S. has had the highest economic growth rate, leading the world economies since the pandemic.”

Though many economic indicators compared with those of other nations at the time largely supported his assertions, his arguments did little to sway voters. Only 36% of U.S. adults in August 2023 approved of his handling of the economy, according to a poll at the time by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Trump on inflation

Republicans made the case that Biden’s policies made inflation worse. Democrats are using that same framing against Trump today.

Here is their argument: Trump’s tariffs are getting passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices; his cancellation of clean energy projects means there will be fewer new sources of electricity as utility bills climb; his mass deportations made it costlier for the immigrant-heavy construction sector to build houses.

Former Biden administration officials note that Trump came into office in January with strong economic growth, a solid job market and inflation declining close to historic levels, only for him to reverse those trends.

“It’s striking how many Americans are aware of his trade policy and rightly blame the turnaround in prices on that erratic policy,” said Gene Sperling, a senior Biden advisor who also led the National Economic Council in the Obama and Clinton administrations.

“He is in a tough trap of his own doing — and it’s not likely to get easier,” Sperling said.

Consumer prices had been increasing at an annual rate of 2.3% in April when Trump launched his tariffs, and that rate accelerated to 3% in September.

The inflationary surge has been less than what voters endured under Biden, but the political fallout so far appears to be similar: 67% of U.S. adults disapprove of Trump’s performance, according to November polling data from AP-NORC.

“In both instances, the president caused a nontrivial share of the inflation,” said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank. “I think President Biden didn’t take this concern seriously enough in his first few months in office and President Trump isn’t taking this concern seriously enough right now.”

Strain noted that the two presidents have even responded to the challenge in “weirdly, eerily similar ways” by playing down inflation as a problem, pointing to other economic indicators and looking to address concerns by issuing government checks.

White House strategies

Trump administration officials have made the case that their mix of income tax cuts, foreign investment frameworks tied to tariffs and changes in enforcing regulations will lead to more factories and jobs. All of that, they say, could increase the supply of goods and services and reduce the forces driving inflation.

“The policies that we’re pursuing right now are increasing supply,” Kevin Hassett, director of Trump’s National Economic Council, told the Economic Club of Washington on Wednesday.

The Fed has cut its benchmark interest rates, which could increase the supply of money in the economy for investment. But the central bank has done so because of a weakening job market despite inflation being above its 2% target, and there are concerns that rate cuts of the size Trump wants could fuel more inflation.

Time might not be on Trump’s side

It takes time for consumer sentiment to improve after the inflation rate drops, according to research done by Ryan Cummings, an economist who worked on Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers.

His read of the University of Michigan’s index of consumer sentiment is that the effects of the post-pandemic rise in inflation are no longer a driving factor. These days, voters are frustrated because Trump had primed them to believe he could lower grocery prices and other expenses, but has failed to deliver.

“When it comes to structural affordability issues — housing, child care, education and healthcare — Trump has pushed in the wrong direction in each one,” said Cummings, who is now chief of staff at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

He said Trump’s best chance of beating inflation now might be “if he gets a very lucky break on commodity prices” through a bumper harvest worldwide and oil production continuing to run ahead of demand.

For now, Trump has decided to continue to rely on attacking Biden for anything that has gone wrong in the economy, as he did last week in an interview with Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle.”

“The problem was that Biden did this,” Trump said.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

The plans, inspired by Denmark’s approach, aim to slash irregular immigration and counter the UK’s far right.

The United Kingdom has announced a drastic reduction in the protections for asylum seekers and refugees under a new plan aimed at slashing irregular immigration and countering the far right.

The measures, modelled on Denmark’s strict asylum system, were announced late on Saturday as Prime Minister Keir Starmer comes under pressure from surging popularity for the anti-immigrant Reform UK party.

“I’ll end UK’s golden ticket for asylum seekers,” Interior Minister Shabana Mahmood declared in a statement, with the Home Office, as her ministry is known, calling the new proposals the “largest overhaul of asylum policy in modern times”.

Mahmood is due to lay out the policy in parliament on Monday.

Meanwhile, the head of the UK’s Refugee Council warned the government that the measures would not deter people from trying to reach the country and urged a rethink.

“They should ensure that refugees who work hard and contribute to Britain can build secure, settled lives and give back to their communities,” Enver Solomon said.

Currently, people get refugee status for five years, after which they can apply for indefinite leave to remain and eventually, citizenship.

Mahmood’s ministry says it would cut the length of refugee status to 30 months. That protection will be “regularly reviewed”, and refugees will be forced to return to their home countries once they are deemed safe, it added.

The ministry also said it intended to make those refugees who were granted asylum wait 20 years before applying to be allowed to live in the UK long-term.

Asylum claims record high

Asylum claims in Britain are at a record high. Polls suggest immigration has overtaken the economy as voters’ top concern.

Some 109,343 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending March 2025, a 17 percent rise on the previous year and 6 percent above the 2002 peak of 103,081.

The Home Office said the reforms would make it less attractive for irregular migrants and refugees to come to the UK and make it easier to remove those already in the country.

A statutory legal duty to provide support to asylum seekers, introduced in a 2005 law, would also be revoked, the ministry said. That means housing and weekly financial allowances would no longer be guaranteed for asylum seekers.

It would be “discretionary”, meaning the government could deny assistance to any asylum seeker who could work or support themselves, or those who committed crimes.

Starmer, elected last year, is under pressure to stop migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats from France, something that also troubled his Conservative predecessors.

More than 39,000 people, many fleeing conflict, have arrived this year following such dangerous journeys – more than for the whole of 2024 but lower than the record set in 2022.

The crossings are helping raise the popularity of Reform, led by firebrand Nigel Farage, which has led Labour by double-digit margins in opinion polls for most of this year.

More than 100 British charities wrote to Mahmood, urging her to “end the scapegoating of migrants and performative policies that only cause harm”, saying such steps are prompting racism and violence.

In an era of global polarization and escalating crises, the promise of a Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) has emerged as a beacon of progressive change. Yet, a troubling paradox lies at its heart: while political support holds steady, the financial backbone of the movement—women’s rights organizations—faces a “life-threatening” funding crisis. In an exclusive multi-respondent Q&A, experts from the Feminist Foreign Policy Collaborative—Katie Whipkey, Spogmay Ahmed, and Beth Woroniuk—break down the alarming data from their latest report and outline the path from minimalist commitments to a truly transformative global agenda.

1. The Rhetoric-Reality Gap: A “Life-Threatening” Divide

Your report’s data reveals a world where support for FFP is growing, yet funding for women’s rights organizations is in “urgent alarm.” How do you explain this gap?

Katie Whipkey: The report found that feminist foreign policy is not experiencing the rollback that we might have expected during this time of deep polarization and gender backlash. However, to say that it is growing may not be quite right—the interest is holding steady. That gives us a lot of hope. FFP has enabled governments to double down on existing commitments to gender equality in multilateral spaces and push for more gender-inclusive language. However, when it comes to the tougher structural issues like funding, especially for non-traditional funding targets such as women’s rights organizations (WROs), we see a gap. The brash reduction in Official Development Assistance (ODA) and the continually miniscule funding for WROs is alarming. ODA dropped 9% in 2024 and is predicted to fall up to 17% in 2025. Many of the biggest ODA donors are FFP governments, and they are cutting development budgets while simultaneously increasing military spending. This is life-threatening as 90% of WROs in crisis contexts report disrupted operations due to funding cuts. So what we see is that gender equality has been better rhetorically mainstreamed while remaining fiscally marginalized.

Beth Woroniuk: This gap is not new. There has always been a huge divide between the statements of support for gender equality on the part of the development assistance donors, and their actual support for women’s rights organizations. Between 2014 and 2023, just 0.1 per cent of ODA reached women’s rights and women-led organisations directly. Another example: financing to support the implementation of the women, peace and security agenda has ‘failed to match the scale of the challenge.’ The hope was that countries with feminist foreign policies would start to reverse this trend. And we saw this start to happen. Unfortunately this momentum is threatened by the current trend to slash development assistance budgets.

2. Resisting Backlash: The Second Generation of FFP

We’ve seen high-profile FFP abandonments in Europe and the Americas. Where are you seeing the most effective resistance to this backlash, and what does that resistance look like on the ground?

Katie Whipkey: Resistance to backlash takes several forms. Perhaps the single strongest form is from within through institutionalization of as many elements of FFP as possible. When we move away from political feminism—declarations or speeches that can be reversed overnight—and toward institutional feminism—incorporating inclusive and responsive policy into laws, budgets, bureaucracies, and diplomatic culture—we have a chance to stave off conservative pushback. This is the second generation of FFP, where the architecture outlasts the architects. The report identifies five mechanisms for institutionalization: policy, through legislative or administrative provisions; architecture, through dedicated departments; budgetary, through earmarked funds; leadership, through dedicated high-level roles; and capacity, through staff training. Resistance also looks like feminist bureaucrats and civil servants quietly keeping feminist norms alive through budget tagging and gender audits even when political leadership changes.

Spogmay Ahmed: While our report identifies FFP abandonments across Europe and the Americas, it also points out that engagement in FFP discourse—primarily by civil society—has deepened and diversified. For example, our own Global Partner Network for Feminist Foreign Policy has grown from 14 to over 100 partners. Over the past few years, regional networks have launched and expanded. Likewise, academic coverage has greatly increased. While there is no shortage of skepticism, our report demonstrates that interest has persisted, evolved and broadened. That too is one form of resistance.

3. Following the Money: Where Gender-Focused Aid Really Goes

The data shows FFP countries give more gender-focused aid, but the actual amount reaching women’s rights organizations is “miniscule.” Where is the money actually going, and how can it be redirected?

Beth Woroniuk: Development assistance that is counted as ‘gender focused’ supports a wide variety of goals and is provided to governments, international organizations, private sector companies, and NGOs. The vast majority of this funding is for projects that have just one component that supports gender equality, while a small percentage supports projects that directly target gender equality objectives. Traditionally, women’s rights organizations have been seen as too small and too risky to be chosen as key ‘implementors.’ In recent years, new mechanisms have emerged to address these challenges. For example, women’s and feminist funds have mobilized both development assistance and philanthropic resources to provide core, flexible, and predictable funding. These funds allow bilateral assistance entities to reduce the high transaction costs involved in providing multiple small grants.

4. Protecting Resources: A Political Choice

The report’s 5R framework highlights “Resources” as a key pillar. With major donors cutting Official Development Assistance (ODA), how can FFP countries practically “ring-fence” and protect funding for gender equality?

Beth Woroniuk: Protecting development assistance funding for gender equality is a political choice. When ODA budgets are cut, choices have to be made about what programmes are reduced or eliminated. At this moment, governments have an opportunity to say ‘we stand for gender equality and we will not cut these strategic investments.

5. Signature Initiatives: Funding Models That Work

The reports mention “signature initiatives” that partner directly with civil society. What is one concrete example of a funding model that is successfully getting resources to feminist movements?

Spogmay Ahmed: In our report, we outline a few of these ‘signature initiatives,’ such as France’s Support Fund for Feminist Organizations, which is allocated EUR 250 million over five years. Similarly, Canada invested CAD 300 million in the Equality Fund. We point to the Equality Fund as a powerful example of ‘institutionalizing’ feminist foreign policy; by making a large early investment, Canada helped ensure the Fund’s continued global impact.

Beth Woroniuk: These ‘signature’ initiatives all respond to calls from feminist activists to both increase investments in gender equality and change the terms on which this money flows – focusing more on feminist movements and providing more flexible funding.

6. The Power of Regional Partnerships

Beyond money, how are regional partnerships, like the one between Chile and Mexico, proving to be a powerful tool for advancing FFP goals?

Spogmay Ahmed: Our report recognizes a marked increase in regional cooperation. We see this primarily through a rise in ‘South-South’ cooperation efforts. One example is Chile and Mexico institutionalizing their FFP partnership through a memorandum of understanding on FFP, diplomatic training and Indigenous cooperation. Through such partnerships, governments are able to share learnings, strengthen collaboration, and collectively push for gender equality and human rights.

7. True Partnership: Beyond Writing Checks

The report recommends that FFP countries “ally with women’s and feminist funds.” What does a true, equitable partnership look like in practice, beyond just writing a cheque?

Katie Whipkey: We see that true, equitable partnership is grounded in co-creation and power-sharing. It means shifting from donor-recipient models to structures based on shared decision-making. Practically, this looks like feminist groups being involved in decision-making about how funds are prioritized, distributed, and evaluated. Feminists from the Majority World would be viewed and valued as knowledge experts. It also means long-term, core funding that enables spending on administrative and political work – not just service delivery.

Beth Woroniuk: Most development assistance projects are highly bureaucratic. Women’s and feminist funds are rooted in and accountable to feminist movements. Working together as thought partners, co-creators, and innovators are promising examples of changing out-dated structures.

8. Learning from Outliers

The report notes that some non-FFP countries invest a greater percentage in gender equality than FFP countries. What can FFP champions learn from these outliers?

Beth Woroniuk: One of the lessons from the report is that you don’t have to have an FFP to invest development assistance in gender equality. There are countries supporting key initiatives who haven’t adopted this label. So one lesson is that all countries can boost their gender equality ODA investments. There can be feminist champions doing solid work, without the feminist label.

9. One Action for Real Commitment

If you could tell the leaders of the remaining FFP countries one thing they must do in the next year to prove their commitment is real, what would it be?

Spogmay Ahmed: Strengthen feminist principles across all areas of foreign policy. This brings us back to the ‘Reach’ in our global framework. I would encourage leaders to broaden the scope and application of their feminist foreign policies, as well as their ambition.

Katie Whipkey: Institutionalize. We need to guarantee our gains by legislating what we know works, including protecting staffing and training budgets, providing direct funding to women’s rights organizations, and mandating regular publishing of transparent progress reports.

Beth Woroniuk: I would encourage countries with FFPs to reach out and engage civil society organizations. Yes, activists are often critical, yet they are also an enormous source of strength and creativity. These relationships can be sources of inspiration, expertise, and accountability.

From Pledge to Power: The Road Ahead

The insights from Katie Whipkey, Spogmay Ahmed, and Beth Woroniuk paint a clear picture: the future of Feminist Foreign Policy depends on closing the gap between rhetoric and resources. While institutionalization and civil society partnerships offer hope, true progress requires political courage—to protect funding, share power with grassroots movements, and extend feminist principles across all areas of foreign policy. As Whipkey powerfully notes, “In a time of backlash, we need courage.” The stakes could not be higher, but neither could the resolve of those fighting for a foreign policy that serves all of humanity.

Nov. 13 (UPI) — America’s Catholic bishops sent sharp criticism of rising fear in the United States and ongoing mass deportations in a rebuke of Trump administration immigration policy.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said its some 273 active bishops were “disturbed” to see that “among our people a climate of fear and anxiety around questions of profiling and immigration enforcement.”

“We are saddened by the state of contemporary debate and the vilification of immigrants,” the group wrote in its statement.

It arrived after U.S.-born Pope Leo XIV directed bishops in the United States to be vocal and speak out against President Donald Trump‘s hardline crackdown on migration.

The U.S. religious leaders approved the rare “special message” with 5 votes against and 3 abstentions of 216 ballots cast at its meeting Wednesday in Baltimore, Md.

“We recognize that nations have a responsibility to regulate their borders and establish a just and orderly immigration system for the sake of the common good,” the plethora of all-male bishops added. “Without such processes, immigrants face the risk of trafficking and other forms of exploitation. Safe and legal pathways serve as an antidote to such risks.”

It marked the first time in 12 years the USCCB invoked its urgent way of collectively speaking as a body.

“We are concerned about the conditions in detention centers and the lack of access to pastoral care,” the bishops added. “We lament that some immigrants in the United States have arbitrarily lost their legal status.”

Trump has targeted immigration enforcement in Democratic-run cities such as the nation’s capital, Los Angeles and in Chicago with the presence of masked ICE agents leading to violent activity, arrests and sprayed tear gas.

The bishops wrote that Catholic teaching “exhorts nations to recognize the fundamental dignity of all persons, including immigrants.”

“We bishops advocate for a meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws and procedures,” they continued. “Human dignity and national security are not in conflict.”

The new pope has called for an end to Israel’s war in Gaza with the militant wing Hamas, expanded access to much-needed aid for hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and children and a cease to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

On Wednesday, the Catholic leaders said national security and human dignity both “are possible if people of good will work together.

Democrats’ caterwauling this week after a few of their senators caved to end the government shutdown couldn’t completely drown out another noise: the sound of President Trump pinballing dumb “policy” ideas as he flails to respond to voters’ unhappiness that his promised Golden Age is proving golden only for him, his family and his donors.

On social media (of course) and in interviews, the president has been blurting out proposals that are news even to the advisors who should be vetting them first. Rebates of $2,000 for most Americans and pay-downs of federal debt, all from supposed tariff windfalls. (Don’t count on either payoff; more below.) New 50-year mortgages to make home-buying more affordable (not). Docked pay for air traffic controllers who didn’t show up to work during the shutdown, without pay, and $10,000 bonuses for those who did. (He doesn’t have that power; the government isn’t his family business.) Most mind-boggling of all, Trump has resurrected his and Republicans’ long-buried promise to “repeal and replace” Obamacare.

It’s been five years since he promised a healthcare plan “in two weeks.” It’s been a year since he said he had “concepts of a plan” during the 2024 campaign. What he now calls “Trumpcare” (natch) apparently amounts to paying people to buy insurance. Details to come, he says, again.

With all this seat-of-the-pants policymaking, Trump only underscores the policy ignorance that’s been a defining trait since he first ran for office. No other president in memory put out such knee-jerk junk that’s easily discounted and mocked.

In his first term, Trump didn’t learn how to navigate the legislative process, and thus steer well-debated ideas into law. He didn’t want to. Even more in his second term, Trump avoids that deliberative democratic process, preferring rule by fiat and executive order (even if the results don’t outlast your presidency, or they fizzle in court). For Trump, ideas don’t percolate, infused with expertise and data. They pop into his head.

But diktats are not always possible, as the shutdown dramatized when Republicans couldn’t agree with Democrats on the must-pass legislation to keep the government funded.

With Republicans controlling the White House and Congress (and arguably the Supreme Court: see recent decisions siding with the Trump administration to block SNAP benefits), the Democrats were never going to actually win the shutdown showdown — not if winning meant forcing Republicans to agree to extend health insurance tax credits for millions of Americans. Expanding healthcare coverage has never been Republicans’ priority. Tax cuts are, mainly for the wealthy and corporations, and Republicans pocketed that win months ago with Trump’s big, ugly bill, paid for mainly by cuts to Medicaid.

Yet Democrats won something: They shoved the issue of spiraling healthcare costs back onto politics’ center stage, where it joins the broader question of affordability in an economy that doesn’t work for the working class. Drawing attention to the cruel priorities of Trump 2.0 is a big reason that I and many others supported Democrats forcing a shutdown, despite the unlikelihood of a policy “W.” (I did not support the Senate Democrats’ caving just yet, not so soon after Democrats won bigger-than-expected victories in last week’s off-year elections on the strength of their fight for affordability, including health insurance.)

The fight isn’t over. The Senate will debate and vote next month on extending tax credits for Obamacare that otherwise expire at year’s end, making coverage unaffordable for millions of people. Even if the Democrats win that vote — unlikely — the subsidies would be DOA in the House, a MAGA stronghold. What’s not dead, however, is the issue of rising insurance premiums for all Americans. It’s teed up for the midterm election campaigns.

Such pocketbook issues have thrown Trump on the defensive. The result is his string of politically tone-deaf remarks and unvetted, out-of-right-field initiatives.

On Monday night, having invited Fox News host Laura Ingraham into the White House for an interview and a tour of his gilt-and-marble renovations, he pooh-poohed her question about Americans’ anxiety about the costs of living with this unpolitic rejoinder: “More than anything else, it’s a con job by the Democrats.” When Ingraham, to her credit, reminded Trump that he’d slammed President Biden for “saying things were great, and things weren’t great,” Trump stood his shaky ground, sniping: “Polls are fake. We have the greatest economy we’ve ever had.” (False.)

On Saturday, Trump had posted that Republicans should take money “from the BIG, BAD Insurance Companies, give it to the people, and terminate” Obamacare. He told Ingraham, “Call it Trumpcare … anything but Obamacare.” Healthcare industry experts pounced: Such direct payments could allow younger, healthy people to get cheaper, no-frills coverage, but would leave the insurance pools with disproportionately more ailing people and, in turn, higher costs.

As for Trump’s promised $2,000 rebates and reductions in the $37 trillion federal debt, he posted early Sunday and again on Monday that “trillions of dollars” from tariffs would make both things possible soon. On Tuesday night, he sent a fundraising email: “Would you take a TARIFF rebate check signed by yours truly?”

Maybe if he’d talked to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who professed ignorance about the idea on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday, Trump would have learned that tariffs in the past year raised not trillions but $195 billion, significantly less than $2,000 rebates would cost. Not only would there be nothing to put toward the debt, but rebates would add $6 trillion in red ink over 10 years. That would put Trump just $2 trillion short of the amount of debt he added in his first term.

When Ingraham asked where he’d get the money to pay bonuses to air traffic controllers, Trump was quick with a nonanswer: “I don’t know. I’ll get it from someplace.” And when she told him the 50-year mortgage idea “has enraged your MAGA friends,” given the potential windfall of interest payment for banks, Trump was equally dismissive: “It’s not even a big deal.”

Not a big deal: That’s policymaking, Trump-style.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

A Virginia transportation security officer is accusing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of sex discrimination over a policy that bars transgender officers from performing security screening pat-downs, according to a federal lawsuit.

The Transportation Security Administration, which operates under DHS, enacted the policy in February to comply with President Trump’s executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes: male and female.

According to internal documents explaining the policy change that the Associated Press obtained from four independent sources, including one current and two former TSA workers, “transgender officers will no longer engage in pat-down duties, which are conducted based on both the traveler’s and officer’s biological sex. In addition, transgender officers will no longer serve as a TSA-required witness when a traveler elects to have a pat-down conducted in a private screening area.”

Until February, TSA assigned work consistent with officers’ gender identity under a 2021 management directive. The agency told the AP it rescinded that directive to comply with Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order.

Although transgender officers “shall continue to be eligible to perform all other security screening functions consistent with their certifications,” and must attend all required training, they will not be allowed to demonstrate how to conduct pat-downs as part of their training or while training others, according to the internal documents.

A transgender officer at Dulles International Airport, Danielle Mittereder, alleges in her lawsuit filed Friday that the new policy — which also bars her from using TSA facility restrooms that align with her gender identity — violates civil rights law.

“Solely because she is transgender, TSA now prohibits Plaintiff from conducting core functions of her job, impedes her advancement to higher-level positions and specialized certifications, excludes her from TSA-controlled facilities, and subjects her identity to unwanted and undue scrutiny each workday,” the complaint says.

Mittereder declined to speak with the AP but her lawyer, Jonathan Puth, called TSA’s policy “terribly demeaning and 100% illegal.”

TSA spokesperson Russell Read declined to comment, citing pending litigation. But he said the new policy directs that “Male Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on male passengers and female Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on female passengers, based on operational needs.”

The legal battle comes amid mounting reports of workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees during Trump’s second administration. It is also happening at a time when TSA’s ranks are already stretched thin due to the ongoing government shutdown that has left thousands of agents working without pay.

Other transgender officers describe similar challenges to Mittereder.

Kai Regan worked for six years at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas, but retired in July in large part because of the new policy. Regan, who is not involved in the Virginia case, transitioned from female to male in 2021 and said he had conducted pat-downs on men without issue until the policy change.

“It made me feel inadequate at my job, not because I can’t physically do it but because they put that on me,” said the 61-year-old, who worried that he would soon be fired for his gender identity, so he retired earlier than planned rather than “waiting for the bomb to drop.”

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward — a legal organization that has repeatedly challenged the second Trump administration in court — called TSA’s policy “arbitrary and discriminatory,” adding: “There’s no evidence or data we’re aware of to suggest that a person can’t perform their duties satisfactorily as a TSA agent based on their gender identity.”

DHS pushed back on assertions by some legal experts that its policy is discriminatory.

“Does the AP want female travelers to be subjected to pat-downs by male TSA officers?” Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin asked in a written response to questions by the AP. “What a useless and fundamentally dangerous idea, to prioritize mental delusion over the comfort and safety of American travelers.”

Airport security expert and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign professor Sheldon H. Jacobson, whose research contributed to the design of TSA PreCheck, said that the practice of matching the officer’s sex to the passenger’s is aimed at minimizing passenger discomfort during screening. Travelers can generally request another officer if they prefer, he added.

Deciding where transgender officers fit into this practice “creates a little bit of uncertainty,” Jacobson said. But because transgender officers likely make up a small percent of TSA’s workforce, he said the new policy is unlikely to cause major delays.

“It could be a bit of an inconvenience, but it would not inhibit the operation of the airport security checkpoint,” Jacobson said.

TSA’s policy for passengers is that they be screened based on physical appearance as judged by an officer, according to internal documents. If a passenger corrects an officer’s assumption, “the traveler should be patted down based on his/her declared sex.” For passengers who tell an officer “that they are neither a male nor female,” the policy says officers must advise “that pat-down screening must be conducted by an officer of the same sex,” and to contact a supervisor if concerns persist.

The documents also say that transgender officers “will not be adversely affected” in pay, promotions or awards, and that TSA “is committed to providing a work environment free from unlawful discrimination and retaliation.”

But the lawsuit argues otherwise, saying the policy impedes Mittereder’s career prospects because “all paths toward advancement require that she be able to perform pat-downs and train others to do so,” Puth said.

According to the lawsuit, Mittereder started in her role in June 2024 and never received complaints related to her job performance, including pat-down responsibilities. Supervisors awarded her the highest-available performance rating and “have praised her professionalism, skills, knowledge, and rapport with fellow officers and the public,” the lawsuit said.

“This is somebody who is really dedicated to her job and wants to make a career at TSA,” Puth said. “And while her gender identity was never an issue for her in the past, all of a sudden it’s something that has to be confronted every single day.”

Being unable to perform her full job duties has caused Mittereder to suffer fear, anxiety and depression, as well as embarrassment and humiliation by forcing her to disclose her gender identity to co-workers, the complaint says. It adds that the ban places additional burden on already-outnumbered female officers who have to pick up Mittereder’s pat-down duties.

American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley urged TSA leadership to reconsider the policy “for the good of its workforce and the flying public.”

“This policy does nothing to improve airport security,” Kelley said, “and in fact could lead to delays in the screening of airline passengers since it means there will be fewer officers available to perform pat-down searches.”

Savage writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Rio Yamat in Las Vegas contributed to this report.

Following the historic victory of democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani in the New York City mayoral election, many Los Angeles-based admirers of the 34-year-old politician’s campaign and agenda have longingly wondered: When will a political spark plug like that happen in L.A.?

Looking at the mayoral landscape of L.A. County, there are two existing mayors that espouse similarly progressive ideologies as Mamdani: Burbank Mayor Nikki Perez and Cudahy Mayor Elizabeth Alcantar Loza. Both elected officials have worked with and been recommended by the Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Nikki Perez

Perez was sworn in as Burbank’s youngest mayor in 2024 at the age of 30. She is also the first Indigenous and out LGBTQ+ mayor to serve the city. The politician was first voted onto the City Council in 2022.

She was raised by parents who emigrated from Guatemala and El Salvador to Burbank. Perez received her bachelor’s degree from UC Riverside and a master’s from UCLA.

Prior to becoming a council member, she worked as a social worker with the L.A. Unified School District, served in the state Assembly as the communications director and functioned as a development coordinator for the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

A key issue for Perez — and a common rallying point for democratic socialists — was having sufficient affordable housing options in the Media Capital of the World. The City Council has a goal of constructing 12,000 new housing units in the municipality and has accepted plans on two projects that are expected to create about 200 housing units.

“From the point of view of our average residents, most people just really want to be able to live, to work and to play in Burbank, so that’s what my priorities are,” then-Vice Mayor Perez told her constituents in 2024. “I want my very first priority to be continuing our efforts of alleviating the housing crisis.”

Cognizant of the unstable job market for production, or below-the-line, workers in the entertainment industry, Perez has attempted to combat the shrinking creative job prospects in her city.

In July — while celebrating the expansion of California’s film and television tax credit program alongside Gov. Gavin Newsom — Burbank launched a task force made up of professionals and stakeholders from across the entertainment sector to identify challenges, explore new opportunities and shape policies that help retain and grow industry jobs in the city.

Elizabeth Alcantar Loza

Before joining the City Council of her hometown of Cudahy, Alcantar Loza worked with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, to organize and educate community members about immigration issues. In November 2018, she was elected to the City Council and served as vice mayor of Cudahy.

She then served as Cudahy’s first Latina mayor beginning in 2020, when she led the southeast L.A. County city during the 2020 Delta jet fuel dump and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In November 2023, Alcantar Loza was a City Council member when Cudahy became the first city in Southern California to support the Palestinian people of Gaza with a resolution that not only called for a cease-fire, but declared Israel’s government as “engaging in collective punishment” in response to the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas militants. The resolution passed on a 3-1 vote after hours of public comments and deliberation.

Last year, she was reinstated as the largely Latino city’s mayor, and in December, she led the City Council to vote to divest from investments that contribute to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and what it considers genocide in Gaza. The five-member council voted unanimously to divest city funds from all arms and weapons manufacturing industries.

“As a progressive leader representing one of our SELA cities, I am committed to ethical governance that prioritizes integrity, accountability, and the trust of the people I serve. Every decision I make is guided by a deep responsibility to transparency and equity in every policy we enact, with a commitment to rejecting backroom deals and self-serving politics,” she wrote in a social media post about her political ideologies.

“True leadership is not just about upholding the highest ethical standards but actively building a government that serves the people — not special interests or the politically connected. I look forward to collaborating with other progressive elected officials across our region who share these values, working together to transform the experience of our residents and redefine the narrative of Southeast L.A.”

Following Mamdani’s win, Alcantar Loza expressed joy for a national recognition that progressive ideals are popular.

“It’s an exciting time to see someone that is so like-minded, that is talking about the issues that matter most to our communities, actually win and win big for our communities and have a plan that will hopefully support folks that are very similar to our folks here,” Alcantar Loza told The Times.

While her city doesn’t have the same monetary sway or resources as New York City, the 32-year-old mayor noted that Cudahy is working with its limited funds to address the needs of as many citizens as possible.

“We often hear the phrase that a city’s budget is a list of the city’s priorities, and it’s something that rings really true,” she said. “In Cudahy, we’re really pushing forward with advancing programs that support the community.

“We’re so used to funding certain programs over for others. It’s often thought that every budget is touchable, except police and fire services. Those are important services to fund, but so are community program services ensuring that our kids have somewhere to go after school so that they’re not engaging in violent activity or activities they shouldn’t be participating in.”

One of Alcantar Loza’s main concerns is ensuring renters’ rights and that their needs are taken care of as over 80% of housing units in Cudahy are rentals.

“It’s important for us to fund programs and staff that support the renter community in knowing their rights and knowing what they can and cannot do, just how to keep folks housed because we should be catering to the needs of our of our most vulnerable folks,” she added.

The fight for rent stabilization is one that Alcantar Loza has been fighting for over half a decade now. She first tried to push it forward in 2019, but it lacked the votes on the City Council and it failed to pass again in 2021, despite a robust campaigning effort. In 2023, Cudahy’s City Council was able to get a Latina majority and advanced rent stabilization.

Additionally, the city established a minimum threshold for eviction in October in cases where a tenant has missed rent. Under the ordinance, a landlord may only initiate an eviction if the amount of rent missed exceeds one month of the fair market rent for the Los Angeles metro area, as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

One obstacle that Alcantar Loza has noticed in her work has been with citizens envisioning what progress looks like in their day-to-day life.

“It’s difficult to help others visualize the opportunities in their community,” she said. “It’s easier for folks to imagine business as usual because it’s been happening for so long. They do not know how to visualize something new.

“Gifting people the opportunity to visualize something new, to think about other ways to support their community is a very powerful tool that we’ve been able to implement and show folks there are other ways to do policy other than what we’re used to.”

When I tell people what I cover for the Los Angeles Times, they’re delighted. A typical response is, “Sounds like fun!”

My beat is focused on wildlife and the outdoors. And in this world of fierce contention, over seemingly everything, it sounds downright peachy.

This is plenty of joy and wonder in the work. I’ve reported on the rehabilitation of a fuzzy baby sea otter by a surrogate mom and the resurgence of a rare songbird along the L.A. River.

However, there is also plenty of strife, messy politics and difficult decisions. (My inbox reflects the high emotion. I get hate and love mail, just like other reporters.)

Take a saga I’ve been writing about for more than a year concerning a plan by federal wildlife officials to shoot up to nearly half a million barred owls over three decades to save spotted owls in California, Washington and Oregon. Even someone who knows nothing about the matter can guess it’s controversial.

Since the strategy was approved last year by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, animal rights groups have fought to stop it, gaining traction with some U.S. lawmakers. Bipartisan legislators signed onto letters urging the Trump administration to cancel it, citing costs they said could top $1 billion. Then, this summer, Republicans in the House and Senate introduced resolutions that, if successful, would overturn the plan for good.

It was a nightmare scenario for environmental nonprofits, which acknowledge the moral quandary involved with killing so many animals, but say the barred owl population must be kept in check to prevent the extinction of the northern spotted owl, which is being muscled out of its native territory by its larger, more aggressive cousin. They also dispute that ten-figure price tag.

Then, at the eleventh hour, there was an upset in alliances. Logging advocates said canceling the plan could hinder timber sales in Oregon, and threaten production goals set by the Trump administration. That’s right: Loggers were now on the same side as conservationists, while right-wing politicians were aligned with animal welfare activists. Talk about unlikely, uncomfortable political bedfellows.

The loggers’ plea may have tipped the scales. Louisiana Republican John Kennedy, who spearheaded the Senate resolution, said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum — whose portfolio includes timber — personally asked him to abandon the effort. Kennedy, in colorful terms, declined to back down. He called the planned cull “DEI for owls” and said Burgum “loves it like the devil loves sin.” The resolution didn’t pass, splitting the Republican vote almost down the middle.

You don’t have to go to Washington, D.C., to find epic battles over wildlife management.

In California, there’s been much discussion in recent years about the best way to live alongside large predators such as mountain lions and wolves.

Wolves in California were wiped out by people about a century ago, and they started to recolonize the state only 14 years ago. The native species’ resurgence is celebrated by conservationists but derided by many ranchers who say the animals are hurting their bottom line when they eat their cattle.

State wildlife officials recently euthanized four gray wolves in the northern part of the state that were responsible for 70 livestock losses in less than six months, my colleague Clara Harter reported, marking the latest flashpoint in the effort to manage them.

“Wolves are one of the state’s most iconic species and coexistence is our collective future,” said Charlton Bonham, director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “But that comes with tremendous responsibility and sometimes hard decisions.”

Even hulking herbivores such as wild horses stir passionate disagreement.

In the Eastern Sierra last month, I walked among dozens of multi-colored equines with members of local Native American tribes, who told me of their deep connection to the animals — and their heartbreak over U.S. government plans to send them away.

Federal officials say the herd has surged to more than three times what the landscape can support, and pose a safety hazard on highways, while also damaging Mono Lake’s unique geologic formations. Under a plan approved earlier this year, hundreds are slated to be rounded up and removed.

A coalition that includes local tribes — which have cultural ties to the animals that go back generations — disputes many of these claims and argues that the removal plan is inhumane.

“I wish I had a magic wand and could solve it all,” Beth Pratt, of the National Wildlife Federation, told me after my article on the horses was published.

Stay tuned. I’ll be writing this newsletter about once a month to dig into important wildlife stories in the Golden State and beyond. Send me feedback, tips and cute cat photos at [email protected].

More recent wildlife news

Speaking of wolves: The Trump administration ordered Colorado to stop importing gray wolves from Canada as part of the state’s efforts to restore the predators, a shift that could hinder plans for more reintroductions this winter, according to the Associated Press’ Mead Gruver. The state has been releasing wolves west of the Continental Divide since 2023.

More than 17,000 acres of ancestral lands were returned to the Tule River Indian Tribe, which will allow for the reintroduction of Tule elk and the protection of habitat for California condors, among other conservation projects, my colleague Jessica Garrison reports.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called it “the largest ancestral land return in the history of the region and a major step in addressing historical wrongs against California Native American tribes.”

One year after the discovery of golden mussels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, dense colonies cling to boats and piers, threatening water for cities and farms — and there’s no help on the way, reports CalMatters’ Rachel Becker. State agencies have prioritized protecting other areas in the state from the infested Delta, the hub of the state’s water supply.

Will traditional holiday fare such as crab cakes be on the menu this year? As fellow Times reporter Susanne Rust writes, the need to protect humpback whales in California’s coastal waters, combined with widespread domoic acid contamination along the northern coast, has once again put the brakes on the Dungeness crab commercial fishery and parts of the recreational fishery this fall.

A few last things in climate news

My colleague Ian James wrote about a big shift in where L.A. will get its water: The city will double the size of a project to transform wastewater into purified drinking water, producing enough for 500,000 people. The recycled water will allow L.A. to stop taking water from creeks that feed Mono Lake, promising to resolve a long-running environmental conflict.

California’s proposed Zone Zero regulations, which would force homeowners to create an ember-resistant area around their houses, have stirred backlash. One provision causing consternation may require the removal of healthy plants from within five feet of their homes, which some say isn’t backed by science. Those in favor of the rules say they’re key to protecting dwellings from wildfires. Now, as The Times’ Noah Haggerty explains, state officials appear poised to miss a Dec. 31 deadline to finalize the regulations.

Clean energy stocks have surged 50% this year, significantly outpacing broader market gains despite Trump administration policies targeting the sector, Bloomberg reports. Demand for renewable power to fuel artificial intelligence data centers and China’s aggressive clean-tech expansion are driving the rally.

Park rangers furloughed by the federal shutdown are teaching preschoolers and elementary school students about nature, earning some extra income, my colleague Jenny Gold reports.

One more thing

If you’re not quite ready to let go of the Halloween mood, I have good news. November generally marks the end of tarantula mating season. As I reported, male tarantulas strike out every year from their burrows in search of a lover. Finding one can be fatal, whether she’s in the mood or not. Females are known to snack on their suitors. Gulp.

While the arachnids inhabit areas such as the Angeles National Forest and Santa Monica Mountains year-round, mating season — when the males are on the move — offers the best opportunity to spot one. Through the month of November, you can also gaze at them at the Natural History Museum’s spider pavilion.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more wildlife and outdoors news, follow Lila Seidman at @lilaseidman.bsky.social on Bluesky and @lila_seidman on X.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 (UPI) — Farmers for Free Trade, a nonprofit group that advocates for lower tariffs and expanded global market access, wrapped up its “Motorcade for Trade” tour Tuesday in Washington to urge policymakers to ease trade tensions and support struggling producers.

Dozens of farmers joined at different points along the route to participate in town halls and farm stops, contributing to discussions on trade priorities, export markets and challenges.

The organization has prioritized five issues, including tariff reductions, exemptions for agricultural necessities, such as fertilizer and equipment, and a timely review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

The caravan began Sept. 5 in Dorchester, Neb., with a cooperative event between farmers and Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb. The next three stops included sessions with Reps. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, and Jim Baird, R-Ind.

Although the Farmers for Free Trade team did not live in its RV, the group named it Ruth after driving more than 2,800 miles with it, spending many hours inside planning and being interviewed with their furry companion, a dog named Huckleberry.

“It’s really about getting information from farmers throughout the Midwest to understand what impact the administration’s trade and tariff policies have had on individuals,” said Brent Bible, an Indiana grain farmer. “It’s had an individual impact, not just on producers, but on communities throughout rural America,”

The caravan made 10 stops — in Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington.

“We hosted events throughout the Midwest — everything from meetings with members of Congress to farmer roundtables and tariff town halls,” said Brian Kuehl, the Farmers for Free Trade executive director.

Between the fourth and fifth stop, Kuehl said, it became increasingly difficult to set a schedule.

“Our No. 1 one priority was to meet with members of Congress, and a lot of times you wouldn’t know their schedule until a few days in advance. Then, in the middle of the tour, we had the government shutdown. A bunch of members we had events with canceled because they had to be in D.C.,” Kuehl said.

His team then pivoted to hosting listening sessions and trade talks with farmers, along with visiting the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the World Dairy Expo in Wisconsin and various farms.

Despite some adjustments, Kuehl shared his team’s optimism for the tour.

“One of the things that’s so cool about agriculture is how diverse it is throughout the United States,” he said. “In the Midwest, you’re looking at soybean and corn farms. As we moved east, we saw more dairies and hog farms. We even visited a winery in Pennsylvania. Pretty much the trade disruptions are impacting them all negatively.”

In Indiana, Bible said, “Our input costs have gone up dramatically because of tariffs on imports — fertilizer, equipment, steel, aluminum. If we need a replacement part or a new tractor, all of those things are impacted. We’re getting squeezed at both ends, and when that happens, there’s nothing left in the middle.”

In Ohio, corn, soy and cattle farmer Chris Gibbs said, he’s felt that squeeze firsthand. After more than 40 years in agriculture, he described 2025 as “a cash flow and working capital crisis,” noting that he’s paying well above production costs for major crops.

“We’re about $200 per acre under the cost of production for corn and about $100 under for soybeans,” Gibbs said.

Because of the shutdown — now the longest in history — the U.S. Department of Agriculture “is essentially not functioning,” Gibbs said. “They normally release reporting information that the market relies on, but that hasn’t been occurring. Farmers are having to make major business decisions without the data we depend on.”

Gibbs added: “I’ve been farming almost 50 years, and I’m struggling, If I’m having to move money around just to stay afloat, what happens to the young farmers who don’t have savings yet? They’re hanging on by a thread.”

Farmers strategically planned the finale of their motorcade to be in Washington this week in alignment with the Supreme Court of the United States’ schedule. The high court plans to hear oral arguments Wednesday on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes President Donald Trump to impose tariffs to the extent he has.

“We’re in a commodity business,” Bible said. “If we have a truly free, functioning market, we can be competitive. But that hasn’t been the case. Prices have been artificially manipulated by policy decisions and retaliation from other countries.”