Politics

President Donald Trump has designated Saudi Arabia a major non-NATO ally of the United States during a visit by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to Washington, DC, where the two leaders reached agreements covering arms sales, civil nuclear cooperation, artificial intelligence and critical minerals.

During a formal black-tie dinner at the White House on Tuesday evening, Trump made the announcement that he was taking “military cooperation to even greater heights by formally designating Saudi Arabia as a major non-NATO ally”.

Trump said the designation was “something that is very important to them, and I’m just telling you now for the first time because I wanted to keep a little secret for tonight”.

The designation means a US partner benefits from military and economic privileges but it does not entail security commitments.

Saudi Arabia and the US also signed a “historic strategic defence agreement”, Trump said.

A White House fact sheet said the defence agreement, “fortifies deterrence across the Middle East”, makes it easier for US defence firms to operate in Saudi Arabia and secures “new burden-sharing funds from Saudi Arabia to defray US costs”.

The White House also announced that Trump had approved future deliveries of F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia while the kingdom had agreed to purchase 300 American tanks.

“I’m pleased to announce that we are taking our military cooperation to even greater heights by formally designating Saudi Arabia as a major non-NATO ally.” – President Donald J. Trump 🇺🇸🇸🇦 pic.twitter.com/PXXGGCBPGU

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) November 19, 2025

Saudi F-35 deal raises questions about Israel’s ‘qualitative military edge’

Saudi Arabia’s purchase of the stealth fighter jets would mark the first US sale of the advanced fighter planes to Riyadh. The kingdom has reportedly requested to buy 48 of the aircraft.

The move is seen as a significant policy shift by Washington that could alter the military balance of power in the Middle East, where US law states that Israel must maintain a “qualitative military edge”.

Israel has been the only country in the Middle East to have the F-35 until now.

Asked by Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett about the impact of the jet fighter deal on Israel’s “qualitative military edge”, Trump said he was aware that Israel would prefer that Riyadh receive warplanes of “reduced calibre”.

“I don’t think that makes you too happy,” Trump said, addressing the crown prince, who was seated beside him in the White House.

“They’ve been a great ally. Israel’s been a great ally. … As far as I’m concerned, I think they are both at a level where they should get top of the line,” Trump said of the F-35 deal.

Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher, reporting from the White House, said part of the almost $1 trillion investment in the US announced by Prince Mohammed included $142bn for the procurement of the F-35 fighter jets, “the most advanced of their kind in the world”.

Fisher also said the Israeli government and lobbyists had tried to block the sale of F-35s to Saudi Arabia.

The agreements announced were about “much more” than Saudi investment in the US, he added.

“It’s about helping each other’s economy, business and defence. Politics isn’t near the top of the agenda, but both countries believe these deals could create a political reset in the Middle East,” Fisher said.

‘A clear path’ for Palestinian state

The two countries also signed a joint declaration on the completion of negotiations on civil nuclear energy cooperation, which the White House said would build the legal foundation for a long-term nuclear energy partnership with Riyadh.

Israeli officials had suggested that they would not be opposed to Saudi Arabia getting F-35s as long as Saudi Arabia normalises relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords framework.

The Saudis, however, have said they would join the Abraham Accords but only after there is a credible and guaranteed path to Palestinian statehood, a position Prince Mohammed repeated in the meeting with Trump.

“We want to be part of the Abraham Accords, but we want also to be sure that we secure a clear path of a two-state solution,” he said.

“We’re going to work on that to be sure that we come prepared for the situation as soon as possible to have that,” he added.

Dhaka, Bangladesh – Shahina Begum broke down in tears the moment a special court in capital Dhaka sentenced deposed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her close aide, former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan, to death for crimes against humanity.

Begum’s 20-year-old son Sajjat Hosen Sojal was shot and his body burned by the police on August 5, 2024, hours before a student-led uprising forced Hasina to resign and flee the country she had ruled with an iron first for 15 years.

Prosecutors allege that six student protesters were killed that day in Ashulia, a readymade garments hub on the outskirts of Dhaka: five shot and their bodies burned, while another was allegedly burned alive inside the police station.

The killings, allegedly ordered by Hasina in a desperate bid to hang on to power, were part of a brutal crackdown by security forces on what is referred to in Bangladesh as the July Uprising, during which more than 1,400 protesters were killed, according to the United Nations.

After a months-long trial held in absentia as Hasina and Khan had fled to neighbouring India, Dhaka’s International Crimes Tribunal on Monday sentenced the two to death, while a third accused – former police chief Chowdhury Abdullah al-Mamun – was given a five-year jail term because he had turned a state witness.

“I cannot be calm until she [Hasina] is brought back and hanged in this country,” Begum told Al Jazeera on Monday night, as the historic verdict triggered a surge of emotions across the country of 170 million people.

“My son screamed for help inside that police station. No one saved him. I will not rest until those who burned him can never harm another mother’s child again.”

But as hundreds of families who lost their loved ones during last year’s uprising come to terms with Monday’s landmark sentencing, many wonder if Hasina will actually face justice.

There are questions around whether India, a close ally of Hasina during her 15 years of rule, would extradite her and Khan, or whether it might instead help them escape justice.

“They took five minutes to burn my son alive, but it took almost a year and a half to deliver this verdict,” said Begum from her ancestral home in Shyampur village in the northern Gaibandha district.

“Can this government really bring her back from India? What happens if the government changes and the next one protects Hasina and her collaborators? Who will guarantee that these killers won’t escape?”

‘Sentence must be carried out’

As hundreds gathered outside the tribunal building in Dhaka on Monday, Mir Mahbubur Rahman Snigdho – whose brother Mir Mugdho was shot dead during the uprising – said Hasina “deserves the maximum penalty many times over,” urging the authorities to bring her back to Bangladesh to enforce the judgement.

Standing close to him was Syed Gazi Rahman, father of killed protester Mutasir Rahman. He called for the sentence to be carried out “swiftly and publicly,” accusing Hasina of “emptying the hearts of thousands of families”.

Some 300km (186 miles) away, at Bhabnapur Jaforpara village in the northern district of Rangpur, family members of Abu Sayeed also welcomed the death sentence against the former prime minister.

Sayeed was the first casualty of the July Uprising, which started with mainly student-led protests against a controversial quota system for government jobs that disproportionately favoured the children of people who fought in the 1971 war for independence from Pakistan.

On July 16, 2024, Sayeed, a student leader, was shot dead by the police while demonstrating in Rangpur.

“My heart has finally cooled down. I am satisfied. She must be brought back from India and executed in Bangladesh without delay,” said his father, Mokbul Hossain.

“My son is gone. It pains me. The sentence must be carried out,” added his mother, Monowara Begum. She said the family distributed sweets to those visiting them after the verdict.

Sanjida Khan Dipti, mother of Shahriar Khan Anas, a 10th-grade student who was shot dead in Dhaka’s Chankharpul neighbourhood on August 5, 2024, told Al Jazeera the verdict is “only a consolation”.

“Justice will be served the day it is executed,” she said.

“As a mother, even 1,400 death sentences would be insufficient for someone who emptied the hearts of thousands of mothers. The world must see the consequences when a ruler unleashes mass killing to cling to power. God may grant you time, but He does not spare.”

Dipti said she was not satisfied with the verdict against former police chief al-Mamun.

“Abdullah al-Mamun should have received a longer sentence because, as part of the nation’s security force, he became a killer of our children,” she said.

‘No dictator should rise again’

Several processions were taken out in Dhaka and other parts of the country on Monday after Hasina was sentenced to death.

During a march inside the campus of the Dhaka University, Ar Rafi, a second-year undergraduate student, said they will rally to demand Hasina’s extradition from India.

“We are happy for now. But we want Hasina brought back from India and executed. We, the students, will remain on the streets until her sentence is carried out,” he told Al Jazeera.

Meanwhile, a group called Maulik Bangla staged a symbolic enactment of Hasina’s execution at Dhaka’s Shahbagh intersection area after the tribunal’s verdict.

“This is a message that no dictator should rise again,” said Sharif Osman bin Hadi, spokesperson for Inquilab Manch (Revolution Front), a non-partisan cultural organisation inspired by the July Uprising.

Political parties, including the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), and the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami party, also welcomed the verdict.

“This judgement proves that no matter how powerful a fascist or autocrat becomes, they will one day have to stand in the dock,” BNP leader Salahuddin Ahmed told reporters on Monday.

Jamaat leader Mia Golam Porwar said the ruling proves that “no head of government or powerful political leader is above the law”, and that the verdict offers “some measure of comfort” to families of those killed during the uprising.

The United Nations human rights office said while it considered the verdict was “an important moment for the victims”, it stressed that a trial held in absentia and resulting in a death sentence may not have followed due process and fair trial standards, as it reiterated its opposition to capital punishment.

Rights group Amnesty International also raised concerns about the fairness of the trial, saying the victims “deserve far better” and warning that rushed proceedings in absentia risk undermining justice.

“Victims need justice and accountability, yet the death penalty simply compounds human rights violations. It’s the ultimate cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment and has no place in any justice process,” it said.

But the families of the victims say the verdict was a recognition of the brutality of the crackdown, and raises hopes for a closure.

“This verdict sends a message: justice is inevitable,” said Atikul Gazi, a 21-year-old TikToker from Dhaka’s Uttara area who survived being shot at point-blank range on August 5, 2024, but ended up losing his left arm.

A selfie video of him smiling – despite missing an arm – went viral last year, making him a symbol of resilience. “It feels like the souls of the July martyrs will now find some peace,” Gazi told Al Jazeera.

Nov. 18 (UPI) — A federal court ordered Texas on Tuesday to throw out its redrawn Republican-friendly congressional maps for the 2026 election after finding it constituted an illegal racial gerrymander.

The 2-1 order by the three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court of Western Texas is a significant setback for Republicans after they pushed through an unusual redistricting of Texas’ congressional seats to insulate their slim House majority ahead of next year’s midterms.

President Donald Trump openly urged Texas state lawmakers to adopt the new congressional map in order to help the party’s prospects in Washington. Democratic lawmakers responded by fleeing the state in what was ultimately an unsuccessful attempt to deny Republicans the quorum needed to pass the new maps.

State Rep. Gene Wu, a Democrat who led the quorum break, welcomed the court’s ruling in a post on X.

“Texas House Dems stood up to Abbott & Trump,” he wrote. “We broke quorum & we fought in the courts! We did not back down.”

However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a post on X that he would appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court. He criticized what he called partisan gerrymandering in Democratic-led states, including California, Illinois and New York. He added that he expects the Supreme Court to “uphold Texas’s sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas’ 38 House seats, and the now-scrapped redistricting was expected to give the party an edge by diluting Democratic strongholds.

But U.S. Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, instead focused on how the new map would affect the racial makeup of Texas’ congressional districts.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” Brown wrote. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

In his ruling, Brown cited a July letter from U.S. Department of Justice officials to Paxton and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, directing the state to correct four districts because they were illegal racial gerrymanders.

Brown wrote that the letter was difficult to assess because it contained “so many factual, legal and typographical errors.” But Brown pointed out that Abbott cited the letter as the reason he added congressional redistricting to the legislature’s special session earlier this year.

On his second day as chief of the Los Angeles Fire Department, Jaime Moore criticized what he called media efforts to “smear” firefighters who responded to the worst wildfire in city history.

Moore’s comments Tuesday appeared to be in reference to a Times report that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to roll up their hoses and leave the burn area of the Jan. 1 Lachman fire, which days later reignited into the deadly Palisades fire, even though they had complained that the ground was still smoldering.

The Times reviewed text messages between firefighters and a third party, sent in the weeks and months after the Palisades fire, indicating that crews had expressed concerns that the Lachman fire would reignite if left unprotected.

“The audacity for people to make comments and say that there’s text messages out there that say that we did not put the fire out, that we did not extinguish the fire,” Moore told the Board of Fire Commissioners. “Yet I have yet to see any of those text messages.”

Moore’s statements represented a dramatic shift from his comments last week, when he told the L.A. City Council’s public safety committee — two days before the full council approved his appointment as chief — that the reports had generated an “understandable mistrust” of the fire department.

“The most alarming thing to me is … our members were not listened to, or they were not heard,” he said last Wednesday.

In response to Mayor Karen Bass’ request that he investigate the department’s missteps during the Lachman fire, Moore had called for an outside organization to conduct the probe.

On Tuesday, he said he would review LAFD’s response to the Lachman fire, though he did not specify who would conduct the investigation.

“I will do as Mayor Bass asked, and I will look into the Lachman fire, and we will look at how that was handled, and we will learn from it, and we’ll be better from it,” he said.

In one text message reviewed by The Times, a firefighter who was at the Lachman scene Jan. 2 wrote that the battalion chief in charge had been told it was a “bad idea” to leave because of visible signs of smoldering terrain.

A second firefighter was told that tree stumps were still hot at the location when the crew packed up and left, according to the texts. And another firefighter said in more recent texts that crew members were upset when directed to leave the scene, but that they could not ignore orders.

The firefighters’ accounts line up with a video recorded by a hiker above Skull Rock Trailhead late in the morning Jan. 2 — almost 36 hours after the Lachman fire started — that shows smoke rising from the dirt. “It’s still smoldering,” the hiker says from behind the camera.

At least one battalion chief assigned to LAFD’s risk management section knew about the complaints for months, The Times found. But the department did not include that finding, or any detailed examination of the reignition, in its after-action report on the Jan. 7 Palisades fire — or otherwise make the information public — despite victims demanding answers for months about how the blaze started and whether more could have been done to prevent it.

Moore, a 30-year LAFD veteran, told the City Council on Friday that one of his top priorities is raising morale in a department that has come under heavy criticism for its handling of the Palisades fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes.

In January, The Times reported that LAFD officials decided not to pre-deploy any engines or firefighters to the Palisades — as they had done in the past — despite being warned that some of the most dangerous winds in recent years were headed for the region.

The LAFD after-action report released last month described fire officials’ chaotic response, which was plagued by major staffing and communication issues, as the massive blaze overwhelmed them.

After Bass ousted Fire Chief Kristin Crowley over her handling of the Palisades fire, the department was led by interim Chief Ronnie Villanueva until Moore took over Monday.

Genethia Hudley Hayes, president of the Board of Fire Commissioners, which provides civilian oversight for the fire department, said at Tuesday’s meeting that she had not seen the text messages quoted in The Times. Because she hadn’t seen them, she said, the messages have “no bearing on the work of the fire commission.”

She also said that the commission supported the fire department’s after-action report, noting that that the report was not about the rekindling of the Lachman fire, but about the first 72 hours of the department’s response to the Palisades fire.

“It has nothing to do and should not have had anything to do with the Lachman fire, because that is not what we asked for,” Hudley Hayes said.

The vote represents a major step in the years-long effort to make government documents on the late sex offender public.

The United States Congress has approved a bill to release government documents related to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, clearing the way for making the files public.

The House of Representatives adopted the measure in a 427-1 vote on Tuesday, sending it to the Senate, which swiftly agreed to pass it by unanimous consent even before it was formally transmitted to the chamber.

Once the bill is formally approved, it will go to the desk of President Donald Trump, who said he would sign it into law.

The case of Epstein – a financier who sexually abused girls and young women for years – has sparked intrigue in the US for years, given his connections to powerful people in the media, politics and academia, including ties to Trump.

Trump initially opposed releasing the files, calling the controversy around the late sex offender a “hoax” before reversing course this month.

The president and his Department of Justice do not need to wait for Congress to pass the legislation to release the files. They have the authority to make them public.

Before the vote on Tuesday, members of Congress who have been leading the bill – Democrat Ro Khanna and Republicans Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene – spoke alongside survivors of Epstein’s abuse outside the US Capitol.

“We fought the president, the attorney general, the FBI director, the speaker of the House and the vice president to get this win. They’re on our side today, so let’s give them some credit as well,” Massie told reporters.

Jena-Lisa Jones, one of the survivors, held up a photo of herself when she was 14 – the age when she met Epstein.

“I was a child. I was in ninth grade. I was hopeful for life and what the future had held for me. He stole a lot from me,” she said.

Epstein first pleaded guilty to charges of solicitation of prostitution with a minor in 2008. He served 13 months in a minimum-security prison and was allowed to leave for 12 hours a day to work. Critics said the punishment did not match the severity of the offence.

After the Miami Herald investigated the prosecution against Epstein, federal authorities reopened the case against him, arrested him and charged him with sex trafficking of minors in 2019.

Two months later, he was found dead in his jail cell in New York City. His death was ruled a suicide.

Epstein’s associates over the years included former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the United Kingdom’s Prince Andrew and former US President Bill Clinton.

Even after his first conviction, Epstein continued to have close personal relationships with influential figures, including former Harvard University President Larry Summers, who recently apologised for maintaining ties to the sex offender.

On Tuesday, Trump lashed out at an ABC News reporter who quizzed him about why he would not release the files on his own, stressing that Epstein was a major donor for Democratic politicians.

“You just keep going on the Epstein files. And what the Epstein is is a Democrat hoax,” the US president said.

Earlier in the day when asked why Trump would not make the documents public, Massie said Epstein’s connections were above partisan politics.

“I believe he’s trying to protect friends and donors. And by the way, these aren’t necessarily Republicans,” Massie said. “Once you get to a billion dollars, you see, you transcend parties.”

WASHINGTON — A federal court has blocked Texas from moving forward with a new congressional map hastily drawn in recent months to net Republicans up to five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections.

The ruling on Tuesday is a major political blow to the Trump administration, which set off a redistricting arms race throughout the country earlier this year by encouraging Texas lawmakers to redraw its congressional district boundaries mid-decade — an extraordinary move bucking traditional practice.

The three-judge federal court panel in El Paso said in a 2-1 decision that “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map,” ordering the state to revert to the maps it had drawn in 2021.

Texas’ Republican governor, Greg Abbott, who at Trump’s behest directed GOP state lawmakers to proceed with the plan, vowed on Tuesday that the state would appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

Californians responded to Texas’ attempted move by voting on Nov. 4 to approve a new, temporary congressional map for the state, giving Democrats the opportunity to pick up five new seats.

Initially, the proposal pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, known as Prop. 50, had trigger language that would have conditioned new California maps going into effect based on whether Texas approved its new congressional districts.

But that language was stripped out last minute, raising the possibility that Democrats enter the 2026 midterm election with a distinct advantage. The language was removed because Texas had already passed its redistricting plan, making the trigger no longer needed, said Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the maps for Prop. 50.

“Our legislature eliminated the trigger because Texas had already triggered it,” Mitchell said Tuesday.

Newsom celebrated the ruling in a statement to The Times, which he also posted on the social media site X.

“Donald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned — and democracy won,” Newsom said. “This ruling is a win for Texas, and for every American who fights for free and fair elections.”

Legal scholars had warned that Texas’ bid would invite accusations and legal challenges of racial gerrymandering that California’s maps would not.

The new Texas redistricting plan appears to have been instigated by a letter from Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, who threatened Texas with legal action over three “coalition districts” that she argued were unconstitutional.

Coalition districts feature multiple minority communities, none of which comprises the majority. The newly configured districts passed by Texas redrew all three, potentially “cracking” racially diverse communities while preserving white-majority districts, legal scholars said.

While the Supreme Court’s rulings on redistricting have been sporadic, the justices have generally ruled that purely political redistricting is legal, but that racial gerrymandering is not — a more difficult line to draw in southern states where racial and political lines overlap.

In 2023, addressing a redistricting fight in Alabama over Black voter representation, the high court ruled in Allen vs. Milligan that discriminating against minority voters in gerrymandering is unconstitutional, ordering the Southern state to create a second minority-majority district.

The Justice Department is also suing California to attempt to block the use of its new maps in next year’s elections.

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

Paramount Skydance is reportedly preparing a bid to acquire Warner Bros Discovery.

Variety, an entertainment industry trade magazine in the United States, first reported the looming proposal on Tuesday, quoting sources familiar with the talks.

The publication said the company formed an investment consortium with the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi to submit a $71bn bid for Warner Bros Discovery.

The report said Paramount Skydance would contribute about $50bn towards the proposed acquisition with the remainder coming from the wealth funds.

Paramount Skydance has described the involvement of the sovereign wealth funds as “categorically inaccurate”.

Paramount Skydance is now led by David Ellison, the son of Larry Ellison, cofounder of Oracle and a close ally of US President Donald Trump. Warner Bros Discovery previously rejected a bid from the Ellison family, which holds all board voting power at Paramount Skydance.

Neither Paramount nor Warner Bros Discovery responded to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Under the proposed structure, the wealth funds would take small minority stakes and each would receive “an IP, a movie premiere, a movie shoot”, the report said.

Warner Bros Discovery – home to the DC film universe and television studios, HBO, CNN, TNT and Warner Bros Games – is on the verge of breaking up, crippled by declines in its television business.

The company said in October that it has been considering a range of options, including a planned separation, a deal for the entire company or separate transactions for its Warner Bros or Discovery Global businesses.

Nonbinding, first-round bids are due on Thursday.

Paramount is the only company currently considering a full buyout according to the US news website Axios. Warner Bros Discovery also wants to have a deal by the end of the year, according to Axios’s reporting.

Political pressures

The looming deal is shaped in part by how the Trump administration views coverage by the news outlets owned by Warner Bros Discovery.

Netflix and Comcast are also reportedly exploring bids, but any Comcast-led effort would need regulatory approval.

Trump has also repeatedly attacked Comcast over its TV news coverage, saying the company “should be forced to pay vast sums of money for the damage they’ve done to our country”.

Comcast owns NBC News and its subsidiary Versant Media, the parent company of MS-Now – formerly MSNBC – and CNBC.

CBS, owned by Paramount Skydance, has taken a more conciliatory posture towards the administration, including hiring a Trump nominee as an ombudsman to investigate bias allegations after settling a Trump lawsuit claiming its flagship programme 60 Minutes deceptively edited an interview with 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, who lost to Trump.

Paramount Skydance also recently tapped Bari Weiss, a right-leaning opinion journalist with no television background, to lead the CBS broadcast news division.

Any of the deals that are being discussed raise antitrust concerns. But if Paramount Skydance, which already owns CBS, now purchases CNN as part of Warner Bros Discovery, “that would create an added civic risk”, Rodney Benson, professor of media, culture and communication at New York University, told Al Jazeera.

“Such a deal would put two leading news outlets under the roof of the same large, multi-industry conglomerate with avowed close relations to the party in power – and that could lead to more conflicts of interest, less independent watchdog reporting and a narrowing of diverse voices and viewpoints in the public sphere,” Benson said.

Warner Bros Discovery remains the parent company of CNN.

On Wall Street, Paramount Skydance shares were up 1.7 percent in midday trading. Warner Bros Discovery was also up 2.8 percent from the market open. Comcast gained 0.5 percent, and Netflix climbed 3.5 percent.

Why is anyone still listening to Megyn Kelly?

No matter how many times the former Fox News personality reinvents herself — friendly NBC daytime talk show, serious Sunday night news magazine anchor, desperate-to-cash-in right-wing podcaster — the old Megyn Kelly sabotages the new one.

The veteran media personality has done it again, this time managing to unite the left and right in disgust against her definition of pedophilia following last week’s dump of more documents from the Epstein files.

Last week on her eponymous SiriusXM show, Kelly said that calling the late, disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein a pedophile wasn’t all that accurate because he was “into the barely legal type” of minors, “like 15-year-olds.”

Speaking with NewsNation host Batya Ungar-Sargon, Kelly claimed to know “somebody very, very close to [the Epstein] case who is in a position to know virtually everything,” and “this person has told me from the start, years and years ago, that Jeffrey Epstein, in this person’s view, was not a pedophile.”

Epstein was charged in 2019 with the sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. He denied the charges and pleaded not guilty before killing himself in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial.

“He liked 15-year-old girls,” continued Kelly on her show. “I realize this is disgusting. I’m definitely not trying to make an excuse for this, I’m just giving you facts that he wasn’t into, like, 8-year-olds.”

Then she gunned it off the side of a cliff, Thelma and Louise-style, but without the heroism or the cool, vintage convertible.

“I don’t know what’s true about him, but we have yet to see anybody come forward and say, ‘I was 8, I was under 10, I was under 14, when I first came within his purview,’” Kelly said. “You can say that’s a distinction without a difference.”

Ungar-Sargon pushed back: “No, it’s not.”

Kelly replied, “I think there is a difference. There’s a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old, you know?”

No, we don’t know. Sex with a minor equals pedophilia. Period.

It’s one more instance of Kelly, 55, doing or saying whatever it takes to game the attention economy, no matter how cynical or craven.

Her clumsy attempts to make the news rather than report it didn’t particularly stand out during her 12 years at Fox News simply because she was surrounded by peers who are masters at the art of fabricating outrage for ratings, clicks and follows.

“Santa Claus is white!”

“Antifa is watching!”

“Immigrants are in your pantry, snacking on your dog!”

Kelly made it to the top of news feeds when she departed Fox in 2017. She was among a group of women who spoke out against Roger Ailes, head of the conservative cable news station, accusing him of sexual harassment and assault. Ailes resigned in 2016. Kelly became an outspoken proponent of the #MeToo movement and rode that blue-ish wave out of the conservative media ecosystem and into the mainstream with NBC News.

But by 2019, NBC canceled her talk show, “Megyn Kelly Today” after Kelly questioned if wearing blackface was really racist during a segment on Halloween costumes. She was defending Luann de Lesseps, a cast member of the reality show “The Real Housewives of New York,” who had darkened her skin to dress as Diana Ross. Kelly said that when she was a child, it “was OK, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character.”

Just as the media ecosystem has changed, so has Kelly. She’s now partnered with Mark Halperin, a former NBC News and MSNBC contributor whose contract was canceled in 2017 amid sexual misconduct allegations. Together, they hope to build her MK media empire, jumping off the popularity of “The Megyn Kelly Show.” It’s one of the nation’s most popular right-leaning podcasts. According to data from media tracker The Righting, the program ranked as the third-largest conservative podcast, behind those hosted by Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson.

Defending a pedophile could prove to be her latest act of self-sabotage. If not, there are still plenty of chances for her to fecklessly ride the political tides, aligning with new victors while alienating whoever still believes she stands for something other than her own brand. But she’s running out of new demographics to appeal to. And the public is running out of patience with her.

The majority on a federal court in El Paso, Texas, found that the new map used race to redraw congressional districts.

A panel of federal judges has ruled that Texas’s newly redrawn congressional districts cannot be used in next year’s 2026 midterm elections, striking a blow to Republican efforts to tilt races in their favour.

On Tuesday, a two-to-one majority at the US District Court for western Texas blocked the map, on the basis that there was “substantial evidence” to show “that Texas racially gerrymandered” the districts.

Partisan gerrymandering has generally been considered legal under court precedent, but dividing congressional maps along racial lines is considered a violation of the US Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics. To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics,” the court’s majority wrote in the opening of its 160-page opinion.

The ruling marked a major setback to efforts to redraw congressional districts ahead of the critically important midterms, which decide the composition of the US Congress.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be up for grabs in that election. With Republicans holding a narrow 219-seat majority, analysts speculate that control of the chamber could potentially switch parties.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, had kicked off a nationwide race to redesign congressional districts in favour of one party or the other.

In June, news reports emerged that the administration of President Donald Trump had reached out to state officials to redraw the red state’s map, in order to gain five additional House seats for Republicans.

Despite hesitations and a walkout by state Democrats, the Texas legislature passed a new, gerrymandered map in August.

That inspired other right-leaning states, notably North Carolina and Missouri, to similarly redraw their districts. North Carolina and Missouri each passed a map that would gain Republicans one additional House seat.

Texas’s actions also sparked a Democratic backlash. California Governor Gavin Newsom spearheaded a ballot campaign in his heavily blue state to pass a proposition in November that would suspend an independent districting commission and instead pass a partisan map, skewed in favour of Democrats.

Voters passed the ballot initiative overwhelmingly in November, teeing up Democrats to gain five extra seats in California next year.

The state redistricting battle has sparked myriad legal challenges, including the one decided in Texas on Tuesday.

In that case, civil rights groups accused the Texas government of attempting to dilute the power of Black and Hispanic voters.

Judges David Guaderrama, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Jeffrey V Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority decision in favour of the plaintiffs.

A third judge — Jerry Smith, appointed under Ronald Reagan — dissented from their decision.

Writing for the majority, Brown said that Trump official Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, made the “legally incorrect assertion” that four congressional districts in the state were “unconstitutional” because they had non-white majorities.

The letter Dhillon sent containing that assertion helped prompt the Texas redistricting fight, Brown argued.

The judge also pointed to statements Texas Governor Greg Abbott made, seeming to reference the racial composition of the districts. If the new map’s aims were purely partisan and not racial, Brown indicated that it was curious no majority-white districts were targeted.

Tuesday’s ruling restores the 2021 map of Texas congressional districts. Currently, the state is represented by 25 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the US House.

Already, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has pledged to appeal the ruling before the US Supreme Court.

“The radical left is once again trying to undermine the will of the people. The Big Beautiful Map was entirely legal and passed for partisan purposes to better represent the political affiliations of Texas,” Paxton wrote in a statement posted to social media.

He expressed optimism about his odds before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. “I fully expect the Court to uphold Texas’s sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

California’s new congressional map likewise faces a legal challenge, with the Trump administration suing alongside state Republicans.

The US House of Representatives voted 427 to 1 to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which if enacted will require the Department of Justice to release documents related to sexual offender Jeffrey Epstein. It still needs to pass the Senate and be signed by President Trump into law.

WASHINGTON — When President Trump doesn’t like someone, he knows how to show it. In just the last few days, he’s described Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as a traitor, mocked Rep. Thomas Massie’s second marriage after his first wife died and demanded that comedian Seth Meyers get fired from his late-night television show.

But he had nothing bad to say about two people roiling his party: white nationalist Nick Fuentes and conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. The former Fox News host recently hosted Fuentes for a friendly interview, where he declined to challenge his guest’s bigoted beliefs or a remark about problems with “organized Jewry in America.”

Asked about the controversy that has been rippling through Republican circles for weeks, Trump did not criticize Fuentes and praised Carlson for having “said good things about me over the years.”

The president’s answer echoes his longstanding reluctance to disavow — and sometimes, his willingness to embrace — right-wing figures who have inched their way from the political fringe to the Republican mainstream.

“We are disappointed in President Trump,” said Morton Klein, president of the conservative Zionist Organization of America, adding that he should “rethink and retract” his comments.

The threat of antisemitism, which has percolated across the political spectrum, will likely be a recurring political issue in the coming year, as Democrats and Republicans battle for control of Congress in the midterms. Although Trump has targeted left-wing campus activism as a hive of anti-Jewish sentiment, Fuentes’ influence is a test of whether conservatives are willing to accommodate bigots as part of their political coalition.

A top conservative group faces antisemitism controversy

The turmoil has already engulfed the Heritage Foundation, a leading think tank whose president Kevin Roberts initially refused to distance himself from Carlson. A member of Heritage’s board of trustees, Robert George, announced his resignation Monday, which followed a recent decision by an antisemitism task force to sever its ties with the organization.

Although Roberts has apologized, George said “we reached an impasse” because he didn’t fully retract his original support for Carlson.

“I pray that Heritage’s research and advocacy will be guided by the conviction that each and every member of the human family, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, or anything else, as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, is ‘created equal’ and ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,’” George wrote on Facebook, quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Laurie Cardoza-Moore, an evangelical conservative activist and film producer, joined Heritage’s antisemitism task force in June but stepped away when Roberts refused to resign.

“If we aren’t solid on condemning antisemitism, shame on us,” she said Monday.

Cardoza-Moore praised Trump’s record on supporting Israel but said he fell short on Sunday while talking about Carlson and Fuentes.

“We can all agree — and I wish — that he would have gone further,” she said.

It’s unclear what kind of pressure Trump will face despite his previous dalliance with Fuentes, who had dinner with the past-and-future president at his Mar-a-Lago club in between his two terms.

“I don’t think President Trump during his first or second term could be acting more strongly to prevent antisemitism,” said Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He noted Trump’s first-term relocation of the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and, more recently, the president’s handling of the war in Gaza.

This is not the first time Trump has shied away from criticizing fringe elements on the right. During his first campaign for president, Trump initially declined to disavow support from white nationalist David Duke, saying, “I just don’t know anything about him.”

He claimed there were “very fine people on both sides” during racist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. While running for reelection, he told the extremist Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.”

Trump’s unwillingness to condemn either Fuentes or Carlson has the potential to prolong a rift within the Republican Party. On Sunday, as he prepared to fly back to Washington from a weekend in Florida, Trump praised Carlson and said “you can’t tell him who to interview.”

“If he wants to interview Nick Fuentes — I don’t know much about him — but if he wants to do it, get the word out,” Trump said. “People have to decide.”

Fuentes liked what he heard, posting “Thank you Mr. President!” on social media.

Trump’s remarks run counter to a wave of objections that have flowed from key Republicans. The issue will be the focus of a planned gathering of pro-Israel conservative leaders on Tuesday in Washington called “Exposing and Countering Extremism and Antisemitism on the Political Right.”

The event features U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, and Klein, of the Zionist Organization of America.

Perkins said the event has been discussed for some time. “But with recent comments by folks like Tucker, there was an urgency to go ahead and hold the conference,” he said.

The recent annual summit of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas was similarly focused on condemning antisemitism within the party, a shift from the original plans to celebrate the ceasefire in Gaza and the return of Hamas-held hostages.

Brooks said at the time, “We are at this point in what I consider sort of the early stages of an undeclared civil war within the Republican Party, as it relates to Israel, and antisemitism and the Jewish community.”

“And it’s really going to be our challenge going forward to combat that before it has a chance to grow and metastasize in the Republican Party,” Brooks said.

During one part of the conference, college students waved red signs that read, “Tucker is not MAGA.”

Trump addressed the summit by prerecorded video, using his time to promote his administration’s support for Israel. He did not mention the controversy that had dominated the conference.

Megerian and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. Beaumont reported from Des Moines, Iowa. Adriana Gomez Licon in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The House is poised to vote overwhelmingly on Tuesday to demand the Justice Department release all documents tied to its investigation of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

President Trump, who initially worked to thwart the vote before reversing course on Sunday night, has said he will sign the measure if it reaches his desk. For that to happen, the bill will also need to pass the Senate, which could consider the measure as soon as Tuesday night.

Republicans for months pushed back on the release of the Epstein files, joining Trump in claiming the Epstein issue was being brought up by Democrats as a way to distract from Republicans’ legislative successes.

But that all seismically shifted Sunday when Trump had a drastic reversal and urged Republicans to vote to release the documents, saying there was “nothing to hide.”

“It’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The reversal came days after 20,000 documents from Epstein’s private estate were released by lawmakers in the House Oversight Committee. The files referenced Trump more than 1,000 times.

In private emails, Epstein wrote that Trump had “spent hours” at his house and “knew about the girls,” a revelation that reignited the push in Congress for further disclosures.

Trump has continued to deny wrongdoing in the Epstein saga despite opposing the release of files from the federal probe into the conduct of his former friend, a convicted sex offender and alleged sex trafficker. He died by suicide while in federal custody in 2019.

Many members of Trump’s MAGA base have demanded the files be released, convinced they contain revelations about powerful people involved in Epstein’s abuse of what is believed to be more than 200 women and girls. Tension among his base spiked when Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in July that an “Epstein client list” did not exist, after saying in February that the list was sitting on her desk awaiting review. She later said she was referring to the Epstein files more generally.

Trump’s call to release the files now highlights how he is trying to prevent an embarrassing defeat as a growing number of Republicans in the House have joined Democrats to vote for the legislation in recent days.

The Epstein files have been a hugely divisive congressional fight in recent months, with Democrats pushing the release, but Republican congressional leaders largely refusing to take the votes. The issue even led to a rift within the MAGA movement, and Trump to cut ties with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia who had long been an ardent support of the president.

“Watching this actually turn into a fight has ripped MAGA apart,” Greene said at a news conference Tuesday in reference to the resistance to release the files.

Democrats have accused Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of delaying the swearing-in of Rep. Adelita Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, because she promised to cast the final vote needed to move a so-called discharge petition, which would force a vote on the floor. Johnson has denied those claims.

If the House and Senate do vote to release the files, all eyes will turn to the Department of Justice, and what exactly it will choose to publicly release.

“The fight, the real fight, will happen after that,” Greene said. “The real test will be: Will the Department of Justice release the files? Or will it all remain tied up in an investigation?”

Several Epstein survivors joined lawmakers at the news conference to talk about how important the vote was for them.

Haley Robson, one of the survivors, questioned Trump’s resistance to the vote even now as he supports it.

“While I do understand that your position has changed on the Epstein files, and I’m grateful that you have pledged to sign this bill, I can’t help to be skeptical of what the agenda is,” Robson said.

If signed into law by Trump, the bill would prohibit the attorney general, Bondi, from withholding, delaying or redacting “any record, document, communication, or investigative material on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

But caveats in the bill could provide Trump and Bondi with loopholes to keep records related to the president concealed.

In the spring, FBI Director Kash Patel directed a Freedom of Information Act team to comb through the entire trove of files from the investigation, and ordered it to redact references to Trump, citing his status as a private citizen with privacy protections when the probe first launched in 2006, Bloomberg reported at the time.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, said the Trump administration will be forced to release the files with an act of Congress.

“They will be breaking the law if they do not release these files,” he said.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Federal immigration authorities will expand their enforcement action in North Carolina to Raleigh as soon as Tuesday, the mayor of the state’s capital city said, while Customs and Border Protection agents continue operating in Charlotte following a weekend that saw arrests of more than 130 people in that city.

Mayor Janet Cowell said Monday that she didn’t know how large the operation would be or how long agents would be present. Immigration authorities haven’t spoken about it. The Democrat said in a statement that crime was lower in Raleigh this year compared to last and that public safety was a priority for her and the city council.

“I ask Raleigh to remember our values and maintain peace and respect through any upcoming challenges,” Cowell said in a statement.

U.S. immigration agents arrested more than 130 people over the weekend in a sweep through Charlotte, North Carolina’s largest city, a federal official said Monday.

The movements in North Carolina come after the Trump administration launched immigration crackdowns in Los Angeles and Chicago. Both of those are deep blue cities in deep blue states run by nationally prominent officials who make no secret of their anger at the White House. The political reasoning there seemed obvious.

But why North Carolina and why was Charlotte the first target there?

Sure the mayor is a Democrat, as is the governor, but neither is known for wading into national political battles. In a state where divided government has become the norm, Gov. Josh Stein in particular has tried hard to get along with the GOP-controlled state legislature. The state’s two U.S. senators are both Republican and President Trump won the state in the last three presidential elections.

The Department of Homeland Security has said it is focusing on North Carolina because of so-called sanctuary policies, which limit cooperation between local authorities and immigration agents.

But maybe focusing on a place where politics is less outwardly bloody was part of the equation, some observers say.

The White House “can have enough opposition (to its crackdown), but it’s a weaker version” than what it faced in places like Chicago, said Rick Su, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law who studies local government, immigration and federalism.

“They’re not interested in just deporting people. They’re interested in the show,” he said.

The crackdown

The Trump administration has made Charlotte, a Democratic city of about 950,000 people, its latest focus for an immigration enforcement surge it says will combat crime — despite local opposition and declining crime rates. Residents reported encounters with immigration agents near churches, apartment complexes and stores.

Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that Border Patrol officers had arrested “over 130 illegal aliens who have all broken” immigration laws. The agency said the records of those arrested included gang membership, aggravated assault, shoplifting and other crimes, but it did not say how many cases had resulted in convictions, how many people had been facing charges or any other details.

The crackdown set off fierce objections from area leaders.

“We’ve seen masked, heavily armed agents in paramilitary garb driving unmarked cars, targeting American citizens based on their skin color,” Stein said in a video statement late Sunday. “This is not making us safer. It’s stoking fear and dividing our community.”

Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles said Monday she was “deeply concerned” about videos she’s seen of the crackdown but also said she appreciates protesters’ peacefulness.

“To everyone in Charlotte who is feeling anxious or fearful: You are not alone. Your city stands with you,” she said in a statement.

The debate over crime and immigration

Charlotte and surrounding Mecklenburg County have both found themselves part of America’s debates over crime and immigration, two of the most important issues to the White House.

The most prominent was the fatal stabbing this summer of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte light-rail train, an attack captured on video. While the suspect was from the U.S., the Trump administration repeatedly highlighted that he had been arrested previously more than a dozen times.

Charlotte, which had a Republican mayor as recently as 2009, is now a city dominated by Democrats, with a growing population brought by a booming economy. The racially diverse city includes more than 150,000 foreign-born residents, officials say.

Lyles easily won a fifth term as mayor earlier this month, defeating her Republican rival by 45 percentage points even as GOP critics blasted city and state leaders for what they call rising incidents of crime. Following the Nov. 4 election, Democrats are poised to hold 10 of the other 11 seats on the city council.

While the Department of Homeland Security has said it is focusing on the state because of sanctuary policies, North Carolina county jails have long honored “detainers,” or requests from federal officials to hold an arrested immigrant for a limited time so agents can take custody of them. Nevertheless, some common, noncooperation policies have existed in a handful of places, including Charlotte, where the police do not help with immigration enforcement.

In Mecklenburg County, the jail did not honor detainer requests for several years, until after state law effectively made it mandatory starting last year.

DHS said about 1,400 detainers across North Carolina had not been honored since October 2020, putting the public at risk.

For years, Mecklenburg Sheriff Garry McFadden pushed back against efforts by the Republican-controlled state legislature to force him and a handful of sheriffs from other urban counties to accept U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers.

Republicans ultimately overrode a veto by then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper late last year to enact the bill into law.

While McFadden has said his office is complying with the law’s requirement, he continued a public feud with ICE leaders in early 2025 that led to a new state law toughening those rules. Stein vetoed that measure, but the veto was overridden.

Republican House Speaker Destin Hall said in a Monday post on X that immigration agents are in Charlotte because of McFadden’s past inaction: “They’re stepping in to clean up his mess and restore safety to the city.”

Last month, McFadden said he’d had a productive meeting with an ICE representative.

“I made it clear that I do not want to stop ICE from doing their job, but I do want them to do it safely, responsibly, and with proper coordination by notifying our agency ahead of time,” McFadden said in a statement.

But such talk doesn’t calm the political waters.

“Democrats at all levels are choosing to protect criminal illegals over North Carolina citizens,” state GOP Chairman Jason Simmons said Monday.

Verduzco, Sullivan and Robertson write for the Associated Press. Sullivan reported from Minneapolis and Robertson from Raleigh, N.C. AP writers Brian Witte in Annapolis, Md., and Rebecca Santana in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is set to fete Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Tuesday when the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia makes his first White House visit since the 2018 killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents.

The U.S.-Saudi relationship had been sent into a tailspin by the operation targeting Khashoggi, a fierce critic of the kingdom, that U.S. intelligence agencies later determined Prince Mohammed likely directed the agents to carry out.

But seven years later, the dark clouds over the relationship have been cleared away. And Trump has tightened his embrace of the 40-year-old crown prince he views as an indispensable player in shaping the Middle East in the decades to come. Prince Mohammed, for his part, denies involvement in the killing of Khashoggi, a Saudi citizen and Virginia resident.

Khashoggi will likely be an afterthought as the two leaders unveil billions of dollars in deals and huddle with aides to discuss the tricky path ahead in a volatile Middle East. They’ll end their day with an evening White House soiree, organized by first lady Melania Trump, to honor the prince.

“They have been a great ally,” Trump said of the Saudis on the eve of the visit.

Rolling out the red carpet

Technically, it’s not a state visit, because the crown prince is not the head of state. But Prince Mohammed has taken charge of the day-to-day governing for his father, King Salman, 89, who has endured health problems in recent years.

Most foreign leaders who come to meet with Trump are driven up to the doors of the West Wing, where the president often greets them. But Prince Mohammed, accompanied by the Saudi prime minister, will be welcomed with an arrival ceremony on the South Lawn.

An Oval Office meeting and luncheon in the Cabinet Room will follow.

Trump will then see the crown prince off in the afternoon but he’s expected to return to the South Lawn, with the first lady, to welcome the crown prince when he returns for the evening East Room dinner.

In addition to White House pomp, the two nations are also planning an investment summit at the Kennedy Center on Wednesday that will include the heads of Salesforce, Qualcomm, Pfizer, the Cleveland Clinic, Chevron and Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s national oil and natural gas company, where even more deals with the Saudis could be announced.

Fighter jets and business deals

Ahead of Prince Mohammed’s arrival, Trump announced he has agreed to sell the Saudis F-35 fighter jets despite some concerns within the administration that the sale could lead to China gaining access to the U.S. technology behind the advanced weapon system.

Trump’s announcement is also surprising because some in the Republican administration have been wary about upsetting Israel’s qualitative military edge over its neighbors, especially at a time when Trump is depending on Israeli support for the success of his Gaza peace plan.

But the unexpected move comes at a moment when Trump is trying to nudge the Saudis toward normalizing relations with Israel.

The president in his first term had helped forge commercial and diplomatic ties between Israel and Bahrain, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates through an effort dubbed the Abraham Accords.

Trump sees expansion of the accords as essential to his broader efforts to build stability in the Middle East after the two-year Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

And getting Saudi Arabia — the largest Arab economy and the birthplace of Islam — to sign on would create an enormous domino effect, he argues. The president in recent weeks has even predicted that once Saudi Arabia signs on to the accords, “everybody” in the Arab world “goes in.”

But the Saudis have maintained that a clear path toward Palestinian statehood must first be established before normalizing relations with Israel can be considered. The Israelis, meanwhile, remain steadfastly opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state.

The U.N. Security Council on Monday approved a U.S. plan for Gaza that authorizes an international stabilization force to provide security in the devastated territory and envisions a possible future path to an independent Palestinian state.

Assurances on U.S. military support

The leaders certainly will have plenty to talk about including maintaining the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, mutual concerns about Iran’s malign behavior, and a brutal civil war in Sudan.

And the Saudis are looking to receive formal assurances from Trump defining the scope of U.S. military protection for the kingdom, even though anything not ratified by Congress can be undone by the next president.

Prince Mohammed, 40, who has stayed away from the West after the Khashoggi killing, is also looking to reestablish his position as a global player and a leader determined to diversify the Saudi economy away from oil by investing in sectors like mining, technology and tourism.

To that end, Saudi Arabia is expected to announce a multi-billion dollar investment in U.S. artificial intelligence infrastructure, and the two countries will lay out details about new cooperation in the civil nuclear energy sector, according to a senior Trump administration official who was not authorized to comment publicly ahead of the formal announcement.

A coalition of 11 human rights groups ahead of the crown prince’s visit called on the Trump administration to use its leverage to press Saudi authorities, who badly want to broaden its business and defense connections with the U.S., to make concrete commitments on human rights and press freedom during the visit.

The activists say Saudi authorities continue to harshly repress dissent, including by arresting human rights defenders, journalists, and political dissidents for criticism against the kingdom. Human rights organizations have also documented a surge in executions in Saudi Arabia that they connect to an effort to suppress internal dissent.

“Saudi Arabia’s crown prince is trying to rebrand himself as a global statesman, but the reality at home is mass repression, record numbers of executions, and zero tolerance for dissent,” Sarah Yager, Washington director at the group Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. “U.S. officials should be pressing for change, not posing for photos.”

Madhani writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Josh Boak and Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

US Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse sharply criticised President Donald Trump for previously attempting to block a House vote on the release of files related to Epstein. Trump on Sunday dropped his opposition and the measure now is expected to overwhelmingly pass.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Adam Gray was one of only six House Democrats — and the only one from California — who voted with Republicans in favor of a deal to end the government shutdown, and there was a calculated reason behind that decision.

Gray, a first-term Democrat from the Central Valley, is running for reelection in a majority Latino district that national Republicans are expected to heavily target as they defend their narrow House majority in next fall’s midterm elections. Last year, Gray won his seat by 187 votes, and although redistricting has since made the 13th District more favorable to Democrats, it remains highly competitive.

The Merced Democrat’s vote reflects the political reality of representing one of the nation’s few battleground districts. Gray is positioning himself as an independent-minded Democrat willing to buck leadership on politically divisive issues. The shutdown deal gave him a rare opportunity to put that in practice, even at the risk of frustrating members of his own party.

“I know it is not comfortable, and I know there’s people that are going to be mad at me,” Gray told The Times. “But I am not here to win an argument. I am here to actually help fix problems with people in my community, and I know I did the right thing.”

Democratic representatives and senators for weeks were steadfast in opposing a shutdown deal that did not include language to extend Obamacare tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year, and as a result, leave millions of Americans with higher healthcare costs.

In Gray’s district, more than half of residents rely on Medi-Cal or have coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace, making them vulnerable to rising healthcare costs — a pocketbook issue that is likely to factor into an already competitive congressional race.

Beyond healthcare, nearly 48,000 families in his largely rural district rely on food benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, according to the latest data provided by the Department of Agriculture. Those benefits were put at risk during the shutdown as funding for the federal program commonly called food stamps was caught up in legal disputes.

As the shutdown dragged on without meaningful negotiations on healthcare, Gray said, he grew concerned that Republicans were too comfortable “using vulnerable Americans as political leverage.”

Ultimately, Gray was among just 13 Democrats — six in the House, seven in the Senate — who went against their party to end the shutdown that had dragged on an historic 43 days.

“The government is reopening because Democrats were willing to compromise,” Gray said.

The deal, which was signed by President Trump last week, will fund the government through January 2026 and reinstate federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown. It will also fund SNAP through September 2026, a provision that Gray says he wanted to secure because he worries that partisanship could lead to another shutdown in January.

Republicans attack his position

Although Gray voted with Republicans over the shutdown, national Republican operatives still see his seat as a main target ahead of next year’s election — and there is good reason for that.

The seat has a history of party flipping.

In 2024, Gray won his seat by 187 votes, the slimmest margin of any race in the country. His opponent, Republican John Duarte, who cast himself a centrist in the race, had only held the seat for one term before being beat. (And he defeated Gray two years earlier by just 564 votes.)

President Trump carried the 13th last year by five points, underscoring the competitiveness of the Central Valley district which backed Joe Biden in the first Biden-Trump matchup of 2020.

The passage of Proposition 50 has made the district safer for Democrats as the new congressional map shifts parts of Stockton, Modesto and northern Stanislaus County into the district, while removing more conservative, rural territory west of Fresno. Still, it remains a highly competitive district.

Like Duarte, Gray has positioned himself as a centrist, but that hasn’t stopped Republicans from portraying him as being from the party’s far-left flank.

Christian Martinez, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, is now focusing on Gray’s voting history on the shutdown as a reason to criticize the incumbent. Specifically, how Gray in September abstained from voting on a bill that would have prevented the shutdown.

“Instead of delivering results for Californians, out-of-touch Democrat Adam Gray is too busy appeasing his radical socialist base, and now he’s fully responsible for holding Americans hostage with the longest government shutdown in history,” Martinez said.

Martinez added that “hardworking Californians paid the price for his refusal to vote to keep the government open, and next November, they’ll send him packing.”

Gray is now facing a Republican challenge from former Stockton Mayor Kevin Lincoln. When Lincoln announced his bid on Nov. 6, before the shutdown deal vote, he criticized Gray for not doing enough to prevent the shutdown in the first place.

“Washington politicians like Adam Gray have fallen in line with a failed liberal agenda that’s made life less affordable and less safe,” Lincoln said in a statement.

Moving forward, Gray sees the vote as an opportunity to reset negotiations and find a bipartisan solution before funding runs out again on Jan. 30, 2026.

“I think we’re moving in the right direction,” Gray said. “I hope my colleagues have the courage to do the right thing over the next days.”

Back in his district, Democrats have had a mixed reaction to his vote. As for his congressional colleagues, they have not offered up much criticism, choosing to let Gray explain his vote to the ever-changeable 13th District.

WASHINGTON — In political exile at his mansion in Florida, under investigation for possessing highly classified documents, Donald Trump summoned his lawyer in 2022 for a fateful conversation. A folder had been compiled with 38 documents that should have been returned to the federal government. But Trump had other ideas.

Making a plucking motion, Trump suggested his attorney, Evan Corcoran, remove the most incriminating material. “Why don’t you take them with you to your hotel room, and if there’s anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out,” Corcoran memorialized in a series of notes that surfaced during criminal proceedings.

Trump’s purported willingness to conceal evidence from law enforcement as a private citizen is now fueling concern on Capitol Hill that his efforts to thwart the release of Justice Department files in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation could lead to similar obstructive efforts — this time wielding the powers of the presidency.

Since resuming office in January, Trump has opposed releasing files from the federal probe into the conduct of his former friend, a convicted sex offender and alleged sex trafficker who is believed to have abused more than 200 women and girls. But bipartisan fervor has only grown over the case, with House lawmakers across party lines expected to unite behind a bill on Tuesday that would compel the release of the documents.

Last week, facing intensifying public pressure, the House Oversight Committee released over 20,000 files from Epstein’s estate that referenced Trump more than 1,000 times.

Those files, which included emails from Epstein himself, showed the notorious financier believed that Trump had intimate knowledge of his criminal conduct. “He knew about the girls,” Epstein wrote, referring to Trump as the “dog that hasn’t barked.”

Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), a member of the oversight committee, noted Trump could order the release of the Justice Department files without any action from Congress.

“The fact that he has not done so, coupled with his long and well documented history of lying and obstructing justice, raises serious concerns that he is still trying to stop this investigation,” Min said in an interview, “either by trying to persuade Senate Republicans to vote against the release or through other mechanisms.”

A spokesperson for Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that altering or destroying portions of the Epstein files “would violate a wide range of federal laws.”

“The senator is certainly concerned that Donald Trump, who was investigated and indicted for obstruction, will persist in trying to stonewall and otherwise prevent the full release of all the documents and information in the U.S. government’s possession,” the spokesperson said, “even if the law is passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.”

After the House votes on the bill, titled the Epstein Files Transparency Act, bipartisan support in the Senate would be required to pass the measure. Trump would then have to sign it into law.

Trump encouraged Republican House members to support it over the weekend after enough GOP lawmakers broke ranks last week to compel a vote, overriding opposition from the speaker of the House. Still, it is unclear whether the president will support the measure as it proceeds to his desk.

On Monday, Trump said he would sign the bill if it ultimately passes. “Let the Senate look at it,” he told reporters.

The bill prohibits the attorney general, Pam Bondi, from withholding, delaying or redacting the publication of “any record, document, communication, or investigative material on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

But caveats in the bill could provide Trump and Bondi with loopholes to keep records related to the president concealed.

“Because DOJ possesses and controls these files, it is far from certain that a vote to disclose ‘the Epstein files’ will include documents pertaining to Donald Trump,” said Barbara McQuade, who served as the United States attorney for the eastern district of Michigan from 2010 until 2017, when Trump requested a slew of resignations from U.S. attorneys.

Already, this past spring, FBI Director Kash Patel directed a Freedom of Information Act team to work with hundreds of agents to comb through the entire trove of files from the investigation, and directed them to redact references to Trump, citing his status as a private citizen with privacy protections when the probe first launched in 2006, Bloomberg reported at the time.

“It would be improper for Trump to order the documents destroyed, but Bondi could redact or remove some in the name of grand jury secrecy or privacy laws,” McQuade added. “As long as there’s a pending criminal investigation, I think she can either block disclosure of the entire file or block disclosure of individuals who are not being charged, including Trump.”

Destroying the documents would be a taller task, and “would need a loyal secretary or equivalent,” said Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, a professor emeritus and FBI historian at the University of Edinburgh.

Jeffreys-Jones recalled J. Edgar Hoover’s assistant, Helen Gandy, spending weeks at his home destroying the famed FBI director’s personal file on the dirty secrets of America’s rich and powerful.

It would also be illegal, scholars say, pointing to the Federal Records Act that prohibits anyone — including presidents — from destroying government documents.

After President Nixon attempted to assert executive authority over a collection of incriminating tapes that would ultimately end his presidency, Congress passed the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, asserting that government documents and presidential records are federal property. Courts have repeatedly upheld the law.

While presidents are immune from prosecution over their official conduct, ordering the destruction of documents from a criminal investigation would not fall under presidential duties, legal scholars said, exposing Trump to charges of obstructing justice if he were to do so.

“Multiple federal laws bar anyone, including the president or those around him, from destroying or altering material contained in the Epstein files, including various federal record-keeping laws and criminal statutes. But that doesn’t mean that Trump or his cronies won’t consider trying,” said Norm Eisen, who served as chief ethics lawyer for President Obama and counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment trial.

The Democracy Defenders Fund, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Eisen, has sued the Trump administration for all records in the Epstein investigation related to Trump, warning that “court supervision is needed” to ensure Trump doesn’t attempt to subvert a lawful directive to release them.

“Perhaps the greatest danger is not altering documents but wrongly withholding them or producing and redacting them,” Eisen added. “Those are both issues that we can get at in our litigation, and where court supervision can be valuable.”

Jeffreys-Jones also said that Trump may attempt to order redactions based on claims of national security. But “this might be unconvincing for two reasons,” he said.

“Trump was not yet president at the time,” he said, and “it would raise ancillary questions if redactions did not operate in the case of President Clinton.”

Last week, Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s ties to Democratic figures, including Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn’s co-founder and a major Democratic donor.

He made no request for the department to similarly investigate Republicans.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.

At a White House event on Nov. 6 announcing price cuts for those blockbuster weight-loss drugs, Medicare and Medicaid Administrator Mehmet Oz made an astonishing claim.

Because the price cuts would vastly improve access to the prescription drugs, Oz said, by next year’s midterm elections in November, “Americans will lose 135 billion pounds.”

As though to make sure nobody missed the magnitude of the achievement, Oz hit the word “billion” with all its plosive force: “135 BILLION pounds.”

Well, that would be some achievement. The U.S. population is just over 340 million. Do the math, and Oz’s figure works out to an average weight loss of 347 pounds for every man, woman and child in America.

Oz called the calculation “our estimate based on company numbers,” referring to Lilly and Novo Nordisk, the makers of the most popular drugs in the category. His figure was a vast improvement over what he said was his agency’s original estimate of 125 million pounds.

Perhaps Oz just misspoke; it’s certainly not uncommon for people to substitute “billions” for “millions” in quotidian speech. (More on that shortly.) But his casual retailing of obviously bogus arithmetic points to a broader issue with the numbers the Trump White House routinely injects into its policy statements.

The administration’s suspect arithmetic is in many respects deliberately aimed at portraying some condition as better than the real numbers show.

It’s also reliant, however, on people’s proverbial dislike, even fear, of math — whether we’re talking about calculating the tip at a restaurant or the statistical risk of dying from a lightning strike or in a terrorist attack. The mathematician John Allen Poulos described this phenomenon as “innumeracy,” the title of his classic 1989 book on the topic.

As is the case in all hierarchical organizations, the problem starts at the top. President Trump loves to define his ostensible political achievements and goals with big numbers. For example, he claimed in August to have cut prescription drug prices “by 1,200, 1,300 and 1,400, 1,500%.”

To an unwary listener, that sounds like another major achievement. In mathematical terms, though, it’s impossible: A 1,500% reduction would mean reducing a $100 drug bill to negative $1,400, meaning that the drug company would be paying you to use its product.

In recent weeks, Trumpian innumeracy has cropped up in official dispatches not only in relation to healthcare, but also home mortgages and (especially) inflation. The partisan value of mathematical deception is manifest. But it’s also dangerous.

“One rarely discussed consequence of innumeracy is its link with pseudoscience,” Poulos wrote. That’s at the core of the anti-vaccine movement and the doubts sown by partisan actors in the science of COVID-19‘s origins — specifically, the evidence-free assertions that the virus was concocted in a Chinese laboratory.

Let’s examine the most recent displays of bogus math from the Trump administration.

Healthcare math: Oz employed his weight-loss conjecture to dress up the effect of Trump’s price negotiations with Lilly and Novo Nordisk. The figure he offered as the administration’s initial estimate of 125 million pounds lost by next November’s election was not especially impressive, as it implied an average loss of about one-third of a pound per capita.

If we adjust these stats to cover the 12% of American adults who have taken the drugs — about 3.12 million users — that’s a loss of 40 pounds per user, which is at the very high end of per-user weight loss experiences. A 2023 study found that about one-third of users lost more than 5% of their body weight after about 18 months; for a 250-pound user, that’s a loss of about 12.5 pounds in a year and a half.

I asked the Department of Health and Human Services, Oz’s parent agency, to clarify his statement but didn’t receive a reply. I also asked Novo Nordisk and Lilly what “company numbers” he might have been referring to. Lilly didn’t reply, and Novo Nordisk emailed me to say it had nothing to say on the matter.

Mortgage math: As an ostensible solution to the diminishing affordability of home ownership, the administration advanced the idea of giving homebuyers the option of 50-year mortgages. That’s a big departure from the standard 30-year, fixed-rate home loan, the most popular option.

Trump endorsed this fundamentally unserviceable idea with a Truth Social post in which he depicted himself as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s equal as a “great American President” — indeed, as going one better than FDR, to whom he attributed the introduction of the 30-year mortgage.

(Actually, under FDR the standard mortgage, a three-to-five-year loan with interest-only payments ending in a balloon payment and required refinancing, gave way to fully amortized loans that would be paid off in 15 years; the 30-year mortgage didn’t become the standard until the 1950s.)

What makes the 50-year mortgage such a chuckleheaded product? Let’s do the math.

Here’s a nugget of truth about it: The monthly payment on the same size mortgage at the same rate would be lower on a 50-year term than on a 30-year term. On a $400,000 loan at 6%, the interest and principal payment would be $2,106 for the former versus $2,398 on the latter, an apparent savings of $292 a month. For borrowers living on the edge, that’s a sizable difference.

Here are the catches, however. First, over the life of the loan, borrowers will pay much more in interest for the longer loan — in our examples, the total in interest on the 50-year loan comes to about $650,000, versus $461,000 over 30 years.

Moreover, it’s almost certain that lenders will charge a higher rate for the longer-term loan. No one is quite sure how much higher, but Adam Levitin of Georgetown Law conjectures that it might be higher by a percentage point or more. The monthly payment on a 50-year, $400,000 loan at 7% would be $2,407 — higher than the payment on the shorter loan at the lower rate — and the total interest paid over the term rises to about $774,500.

It’s true that very few borrowers pay off their entire mortgage; Americans stay in their homes an average of 12 years, real estate experts say. That brings the issue of home equity into play.

This is important because a home is the largest single investment for most Americans, with the growth of home equity the financial holy grail of home ownership. Yet equity grows much more slowly under the longer-term loan. At the beginning, most of the monthly payment goes to pay down interest, not principal.

After 12 years of payments, the holder of a 30-year, $400,000 loan at 6% would have accumulated nearly $84,000 in home equity. The holder of a 50-year loan would have accumulated only about $22,000 in equity. (If that loan were at 7%, the gain would be even less — only about $16,500.)

“Homeowners are not building much wealth with a 50-year mortgage,” economist Dean Baker observes.

The 50-year mortgage idea reportedly was sold to Trump by Bill Pulte, the real estate scion serving as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency who’s best known as the instigator of the mortgage fraud accusations against Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, and other Trump critics.

After his idea was pilloried by sources including the Wall Street Journal, Pulte stated in a tweet that it was one of “a wide arsenal of solutions” to housing costs. The only solutions he mentioned were assumable mortgages and portable mortgages. The first are loans that can be assumed by new buyers of existing homes, the second are loans that borrowers can apply to their own new homes.

These are pigs in a poke. Mortgage lenders generally are averse to carrying existing loans over to new borrowers or new properties, at least without new appraisals, credit checks and other paperwork. No one in the administration can wave a wand and make them happen. I asked Pulte’s agency to explain his thinking but received no reply.

That brings us to the White House’s inflation math.

On Nov. 10, after the government shutdown rendered the monthly inflation report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics missing in action (perhaps permanently), the White House issued a statement asserting, “President Trump has tamed inflation.”

The statement drew heavily from a report on the consumer economy issued last week by the gig delivery company DoorDash, principally its Breakfast Basics Index, which showed a decline in breakfast prices of 14% from March through September. The index measures price movements for three eggs, a glass of milk, a bagel and an avocado.

A couple of points about this: First, the company acknowledges that the driver of the index decline was the price of eggs; those for the other commodities were stable. Second, Trump has had nothing to do with the price of eggs. They’ve come down sharply since March because of the passing of the avian flu epidemic, which devastated flocks and accordingly the supply of fresh eggs. Finally, the price of eggs bottomed out in early October .

The White House tried to take credit for ending bird flu. “Egg prices are down because the Trump administration implemented a robust plan to tackle bird flu and increase egg production,” White House spokesman Kush Desai told me by email. “The bird flu crisis did not magically disappear.”

Nope, it didn’t: After a lull in cases this summer, bird flu is again on the rise, after a marked increase in infections in October. And — surprise! — that’s when egg prices started heading higher too. Anyway, Desai insisted that “the Trump administration’s policies have cooled inflation.”

DoorDash told me that although its report was published this month, its data collection ended in September. But the company’s full report shows price increases over the last year in baked, canned and jarred goods, and automotive supplies and clothing. The average price of a cheeseburger, soda and fries, it says, rose by 3.8% in the year through September.

The White House still is trying to hide the effects of its economic policies on inflation — especially its tariffs. Just last week, Trump moved to roll back tariffs on coffee, beef, bananas and other foodstuffs to bring prices down.

Despite Trump’s insistence that foreign exports pay the tariffs, his move is an implicit admission that U.S. consumers are paying the price. Desai explained Trump’s tariff climb down as demonstrating Trump’s “nimble, nuanced, and multi-faceted strategy on trade and tariffs.”

The bottom line is that one shouldn’t trust the math coming from this White House. If you do the calculations for yourself, you’ll see why.

More than 130 people suspected of being in the United States illegally have been detained in Charlotte, North Carolina, authorities said, as President Donald Trump’s nationwide deportation push intensifies. The raids took place over just two days.

Here is what we know:

What happened in Charlotte?

Federal agents swept into Charlotte, North Carolina, on Saturday, escalating Trump’s widening immigration crackdown and turning the city into the latest focal point for large-scale arrests in Democratic-led areas. Charlotte is a Democratic-leaning city of about 950,000 people and a financial services hub.

Officers were seen outside churches, around apartment complexes, and along busy shopping corridors as the operation unfolded.

“We are increasing the presence of DHS law enforcement in Charlotte to keep Americans safe and remove threats to public safety,” Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said on Saturday.

According to Homeland Security officials, 44 of the detainees have criminal records, including two described as gang members. The alleged offences include driving while intoxicated, assault, trespassing, larceny and hit-and-run. One arrested person, according to the commander leading the raids, is a registered sex offender.

President Trump and Secretary Noem will not back down from their mission to make America safe again.

North Carolina sanctuary politicians are protecting the nearly 1,400 criminal illegal aliens in Charlotte’s jails by REFUSING to turn them over to ICE, ultimately releasing these… pic.twitter.com/rM2kt3gLuB

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) November 17, 2025

What exactly is Operation Charlotte’s Web?

The DHS has labelled the raids Operation Charlotte’s Web, playing on the title of the famous children’s book, which is not about North Carolina.

The book, Charlotte’s Web, follows a pig named Wilbur and his friendship with a spider named Charlotte. When Wilbur is in danger of being killed, Charlotte writes messages in her web to try to save him.

But in Charlotte, the city, the web is not a saviour — it is the dragnet to catch immigrants.

“Wherever the wind takes us. High, low. Near, far. East, west. North, south. We take to the breeze, we go as we please,” Gregory Bovino, the DHS commander leading the raids, said on X on Saturday, quoting from the iconic book.

“This time, the breeze hit Charlotte like a storm. From border towns to the Queen City, our agents go where the mission calls.”

‘Wherever the wind takes us. High, low. Near, far. East, west. North, south. We take to the breeze, we go as we please.’ — Charlotte’s Web

This time, the breeze hit Charlotte like a storm. From border towns to the Queen City, our agents go where the mission calls.#DHS #CBP… pic.twitter.com/de0nqHn3vR

— Commander Op At Large CA Gregory K. Bovino (@CMDROpAtLargeCA) November 16, 2025

Yet the DHS decision to use a popular children’s book title for a campaign that is expected to break up several families has also faced criticism, including from the granddaughter of EB White, the author of Charlotte’s Web.

“He believed in the rule of law and due process,” Martha White said in a statement, referring to her grandfather. “He certainly didn’t believe in masked men, in unmarked cars, raiding people’s homes and workplaces without IDs or summons.”

What is driving the immigration raid?

Officials insist the surge is aimed at tackling crime, arguing — as the Trump administration has in other cities that have been targeted in similar raids — that local authorities have failed to ensure law and order.

However, local leaders have objected to the raids and pointed to police data, which shows that crime has been declining.

According to data released by the city, crime has dropped 8 percent from last year, with violent crimes down 20 percent.

However, Charlotte nevertheless grabbed national and global attention this summer when Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska was fatally stabbed on a light-rail train, in an attack captured on video. The suspect is a US citizen, but the Trump administration repeatedly emphasised that he had been arrested more than a dozen times before.

The DHS also said the Charlotte raids happened because local officials did not honour nearly 1,400 requests to hold people for up to 48 hours after their release, which would have allowed immigration agents to take them into custody.

“I made it clear that I do not want to stop ICE from doing their job, but I do want them to do it safely, responsibly, and with proper coordination by notifying our agency ahead of time,” Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden said in a statement, referring to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a part of the DHS that has been leading anti-immigrant raids in multiple urban areas across the country. Charlotte falls in Mecklenburg County.

Tensions remain high. “Democrats at all levels are choosing to protect criminal illegals over North Carolina citizens,” state Republican chairman Jason Simmons said on Monday, even though ICE agents have also arrested several visa holders and permanent residents — all living legally in the US — during the raids.

Who is Gregory Bovino?

Gregory Bovino is a senior US Border Patrol official who has become a central figure in Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdowns in big cities. He has led the high-profile enforcement campaign in Chicago since September and has also been involved in operations in Los Angeles and now Charlotte.

Bovino has frequently served as the public face of these efforts — holding press briefings, giving interviews, and promoting arrest numbers as signs of success.

His approach has drawn controversy. Civil rights groups, local officials, and legal experts have criticised tactics used under his command, including aggressive arrests, the use of chemical agents against detainees, and the use of Border Patrol troops far from the US border. Several operations have faced legal challenges, and judges as well as local leaders have questioned whether federal agents are acting within their jurisdiction.

Regarding the use of chemical agents, Bovino told The Associated Press news agency that using chemical agents is “far less lethal” than what his agents encounter. “We use the least amount of force necessary to effect the arrest,” he said. “If I had more CS gas, I would have deployed it.” CS gas is a tear gas commonly used by federal agents.

What do we know about the communities affected?

Local reporting shows that Charlotte’s immigrant neighbourhoods felt the impact immediately. The Charlotte Observer described how a baker, Manuel “Manolo” Betancur, shut down his bakery on Saturday afternoon — the first closure in its 28-year history — after learning that Border Patrol agents had arrived in the city.

He said he has no idea when he will reopen.

“The amount of fear that we have right now is no good,” Betancur said, outside Manolo’s Bakery on Central Avenue, a major hub for the city’s immigrant community.

“It’s not worth it to take that risk,” he said. “We need to protect our families and [prevent] family separation.”

The bakery was not the only one. Businesses along Central Avenue shut their doors as masked federal agents conducted arrests, prompting anger and anxiety in the community.

Pisco Peruvian Gastrolounge posted on Saturday that it would be temporarily closing. “We cannot wait for the moment we can safely welcome you back and continue sharing our culture, our food, and our vibes,” the restaurant shared on Instagram.

What’s next?

Federal immigration officials are preparing to widen their activities in North Carolina, with Raleigh expected to be included in the enforcement effort as soon as Tuesday, the city’s mayor said.

Raleigh Mayor Janet Cowell noted on Monday that she had received no details about how large the operation would be or how long it might last, and immigration authorities have yet to make any public statements.

“I ask Raleigh to remember our values and maintain peace and respect through any upcoming challenges,” Cowell said in a statement.

Raleigh, with a population of more than 460,000, is North Carolina’s second-largest city after Charlotte, and is part of a region known as the Research Triangle that is home to several leading universities, including Duke and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The possible expansion of immigration raids comes as nationwide detention figures reach historic levels. ICE held 59,762 people in custody as of September 21, 2025, according to TRAC Reports, a nonpartisan data-gathering platform. This is the highest number of ICE arrests ever recorded. Roughly 71.5 percent of those detained had no criminal conviction, and many of those with convictions had only minor offences, such as traffic violations.

Chinese state media says distributors made ‘prudent’ decision to postpone releases due to audience sentiment.

Chinese film distributors have suspended the release of two Japanese anime films amid an escalating diplomatic row over Taiwan.

Crayon Shin-chan the Movie: Super Hot! The Spicy Kasukabe Dancers and Cells at Work! will not be screened in mainland China as originally scheduled, Chinese state-run broadcaster CCTV said on Tuesday.

The move comes as relations between Tokyo and Beijing are at their lowest ebb in years following Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s suggestion that Tokyo could intervene militarily if China attempted to take control of Taiwan.

CCTV said distributors made the “prudent” decision to postpone the releases in view of the overall market performance of Japanese films and “Chinese audience sentiment”.

Film distributors reported that Takaichi’s “provocative remarks” would inevitably affect Chinese audience perceptions of Japanese cinema, CCTV said, adding that the companies would follow “market principles and respect audience preferences” by delaying the releases.

Naoise McDonagh, an expert in economic coercion at Edith Cowan University in Western Australia, said the postponements followed a well-worn playbook in Chinese statecraft.

“China is usually careful to target trade that is non-essential for China, but which will impact Japanese firms, creating both financial costs and symbolic pressure,” McDonagh told Al Jazeera.

Such incidents allow Beijing to signal that parties who act against its interests will face costs, “providing China some degree of influence on other governmental decision-making processes that impact China’s red line,” McDonagh said.

The delayed film releases follow a series of retaliatory moves by Beijing in response to Takaichi’s comments, including an advisory warning its citizens against travel to Japan and the deployment of warships to waters near the disputed Senkaku Islands.

Japan on Monday issued its own travel advisory for China, warning its citizens to respect local customs, avoid crowded places and exercise caution in their interactions with Chinese people.

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara on Tuesday told a regular media briefing that its advisories were based on “the social situations” of various countries and its latest statement reflected recent reports on the Tokyo-Beijing tensions.

Kihara also said that Tokyo had an “open stance” on dialogue with China after Beijing said that Chinese Premier Li Qiang had no plans to meet Takaichi on the sidelines of this weekend’s G20 summit in South Africa.

Kihara made the comments as Japan’s top official for Asia Pacific affairs, Masaaki Kanai, met his Chinese counterpart, Liu Jinsong, in Beijing on Tuesday in a bid to calm tensions between the sides.

China considers self-ruled Taiwan part of its territory and has pledged to “reunify” the island with the Chinese mainland, by force if necessary.

Japan views China’s stance on Taiwan with concern due to the island’s close proximity to Japanese territory and its location in waters that carry large volumes of trade.

China insists that countries, in order to have diplomatic ties with Beijing, must not officially recognise Taiwan. Most countries follow China’s demand, but many maintain economic and semiofficial diplomatic ties with Taipei.