Politics

GREENBELT, Md. — Former Trump administration national security advisor John Bolton was charged Thursday in a federal investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press.

The investigation into Bolton, who served for more than a year in President Trump’s first administration before being fired in 2019, burst into public view in August when the FBI searched his home in Maryland and his office in Washington for classified records he may have held onto from his years in government.

The existence of the indictment was confirmed to the AP by a person familiar with the matter who could not publicly discuss the charges and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.

Agents during the August search seized multiple documents labeled “classified,” “confidential” and “secret” from Bolton’s office, according to previously unsealed court filings. Some of the seized records appeared to concern weapons of mass destruction, national “strategic communication” and the U.S. mission to the United Nations, the filings stated.

The indictment sets the stage for a closely watched court case centering on a longtime fixture in Republican foreign policy circles who became known for his hawkish views on American power and who after leaving Trump’s first government emerged as a prominent and vocal critic of the president. Though the investigation that produced the indictment began before Trump’s second term, the case will unfold against the backdrop of broader concerns that his Justice Department is being weaponized to go after his political adversaries.

It follows separate indictments over the last month accusing former FBI Director James Comey of lying to Congress and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James of committing bank fraud and making a false statement, charges they both deny. Both of those cases were filed in federal court in Virginia by a prosecutor Trump hastily installed in the position after growing frustrated that investigations into high-profile enemies had not resulted in prosecution.

The Bolton case, by contrast, was filed in Maryland by a U.S. attorney who before being elevated to the job had been a career prosecutor in the office.

Questions about Bolton’s handling of classified information date back years. He faced a lawsuit and a Justice Department investigation after leaving office related to information in a 2020 book he published, “The Room Where it Happened,” that portrayed Trump as grossly uninformed about foreign policy.

The Trump administration asserted that Bolton’s manuscript included classified information that could harm national security if exposed. Bolton’s lawyers have said he moved forward with the book after a White House National Security Council official, with whom Bolton had worked for months, said the manuscript no longer contained classified information.

A search warrant affidavit that was previously unsealed said a National Security Council official had reviewed the book manuscript and told Bolton in 2020 that it appeared to contain “significant amounts” of classified information, some at a top-secret level.

Bolton’s attorney Abbe Lowell has said that many of the documents seized in August had been approved as part of a pre-publication review for Bolton’s book. He said that many were decades old, from Bolton’s long career in the State Department, as an assistant attorney general and as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

The indictment is a dramatic moment in Bolton’s long career in government. He served in the Justice Department during President Reagan’s administration and was the State Department’s point man on arms control during George W. Bush’s presidency. Bolton was nominated by Bush to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, but the strong supporter of the Iraq war was unable to win Senate confirmation and resigned after serving 17 months as a Bush recess appointment. That allowed him to hold the job on a temporary basis without Senate confirmation.

In 2018, Bolton was appointed to serve as Trump’s third national security advisor. But his brief tenure was characterized by disputes with the president over North Korea, Iran and Ukraine.

Those rifts ultimately led to Bolton’s departure, with Trump announcing on social media in September 2019 that he had accepted Bolton’s resignation. Bolton subsequently criticized Trump’s approach to foreign policy and government in his 2020 book, including by alleging that Trump directly tied providing military aid to the country’s willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden, who was soon to be Trump’s Democratic 2020 election rival, and members of his family.

Trump responded by slamming Bolton as a “washed-up guy” and a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.” Trump also said at the time that the book contained “highly classified information” and that Bolton “did not have approval” for publishing it.

Tucker, Durkin Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. Tucker and Durkin Richer reported from Washington.

Jose Raul Mulino says the visa-removal policy is ‘not coherent’ with the ‘good relationship’ he hopes to have with the US.

Panama President Jose Raul Mulino said that someone at the United States Embassy has been threatening to cancel the visas of Panamanian officials.

His statements come as the administration of US President Donald Trump pressures Panama to limit its ties to China.

Responding to a reporter’s question at his weekly news conference, Mulino said — without offering evidence — that an official at the US Embassy is “threatening to take visas”, adding that such actions are “not coherent with the good relationship I aspire to maintain with the United States”. He did not name the official.

The US Embassy in Panama did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration has previously declined to comment on individual visa decisions.

But in September, the US Department of State said in a statement that the country was committed to countering China’s influence in Central America. It added that it would restrict visas for people who maintained relationships with China’s Communist Party or undermined democracy in the region on behalf of China.

Earlier this week, the Trump administration revoked the visas of six foreigners deemed by US officials to have made derisive comments or made light of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last month.

Similar cases have surfaced recently in the region. In April, former Costa Rica President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias said the US had cancelled his visa. In July, Vanessa Castro, vice president of Costa Rica’s Congress, said that the US Embassy told her her visa had been revoked, citing alleged contacts with the Chinese Communist Party.

Panama has become especially sensitive to the US-China tensions because of the strategically important Panama Canal.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Panama in February on his first foreign trip as the top US diplomat and called for Panama to immediately reduce China’s influence over the canal.

Panama has strongly denied Chinese influence over canal operations but has gone along with US pressure to push the Hong Kong-based company that operated ports on both ends of the canal to sell its concession to a consortium.

Mulino has said that Panama will maintain the canal’s neutrality.

“They’re free to give and take a visa to anyone they want, but not threatening that, ‘If you don’t do something, I’ll take the visa,’” Mulino said Thursday.

He noted that the underlying issue — the conflict between the US and China — “doesn’t involve Panama”.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — It figures that a billionaire would win big in Las Vegas.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker reported a gambling windfall of $1.4 million on his federal tax return this week.

The two-term Democrat, often mentioned as a 2028 presidential candidate, told reporters in Chicago on Thursday that he drew charmed hands in blackjack during a vacation with first lady MK Pritzker and friends in Sin City.

“I was incredibly lucky,” he said. “You have to be to end up ahead, frankly, going to a casino anywhere.”

Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt hotel chain, has a net worth of $3.9 billion, tied for No. 382 on the Forbes 400 list of the nation’s richest people. A campaign spokesperson said via email that Pritzker planned to donate the money to charity but did not respond when asked why he hadn’t already done so.

Pritzker, who intends to seek a third term in 2026, was under consideration as a vice presidential running mate to Kamala Harris last year. He has deflected questions about any ambition beyond the Illinois governor’s mansion. But he has used his personal wealth to fund other Democrats and related efforts, including a campaign to protect access to abortion.

His profile has gotten an additional bump this fall as he condemns President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement in Chicago and the president’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops there.

The Pritzkers reported income of $10.66 million in 2024, mostly from dividends and capital gains. They paid $1.6 million in taxes on taxable income of $5.87 million.

Pritzker is an avid card player whose charitable Chicago Poker Challenge has raised millions of dollars for the Holocaust Museum and Education Center. The Vegas windfall was a “net number” given wins and losses on one trip, he said. He declined to say what his winning hand was.

“Anybody who’s played cards in a casino, you often play for too long and lose whatever it is you won,” Pritzker said. “I was fortunate enough to have to leave before that happened.”

O’Connor writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Sophia Tareen contributed to this report from Chicago.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Thursday warned Hamas “we will have no choice but to go in and kill them” if internal bloodshed persists in Gaza.

The grim warning from Trump came after he previously downplayed the internal violence in the territory since a ceasefire and hostage deal between Israel and Hamas went into effect last week.

Trump said Tuesday that Hamas had taken out “a couple of gangs that were very bad” and had killed a number of gang members. “That didn’t bother me much, to be honest with you,” he said.

The president did not say how he would follow through on his threat posted on his Truth Social platform, and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment seeking clarity.

But Trump also made clear he had limited patience for the killings that Hamas was carrying out against rival factions inside the devastated territory.

“They will disarm, and if they don’t do so, we will disarm them, and it’ll happen quickly and perhaps violently,” Trump said.

The Hamas-run police maintained a high degree of public security after the militants seized power in Gaza 18 years ago while also cracking down on dissent. They largely melted away in recent months as Israeli forces seized large areas of Gaza and targeted Hamas security forces with airstrikes.

Powerful local families and armed gangs, including some anti-Hamas factions backed by Israel, stepped into the void. Many are accused of hijacking humanitarian aid and selling it for profit, contributing to Gaza’s starvation crisis.

The ceasefire plan introduced by Trump had called for all hostages — living and dead — to be handed over by a deadline that expired Monday. But under the deal, if that didn’t happen, Hamas was to share information about deceased hostages and try to hand them over as soon as possible.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that Israel “will not compromise” and demanded that Hamas fulfill the requirements laid out in the ceasefire deal about the return of hostages’ bodies.

Hamas’ armed wing said in a statement Wednesday that the group honored the ceasefire’s terms and handed over the remains of the hostages it had access to.

The United States announced last week that it is sending about 200 troops to Israel to help support and monitor the ceasefire deal in Gaza as part of a team that includes partner nations and nongovernmental organizations. But U.S. officials have stressed that U.S. forces would not set foot in Gaza.

Israeli officials have also been angered by the pace of the return of the remains of dead hostages the militant group had been holding in captivity. Hamas had agreed to return 28 bodies as part of the ceasefire deal in addition to 20 living hostages, who were released earlier this week.

Hamas has assured the U.S. through intermediaries that it is working to return dead hostages, according to two senior U.S. advisors. The advisors, who were not authorized to comment publicly and briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity, said they do not believe Hamas has violated the deal.

Madhani writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 16 (UPI) — U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., fell down in a Capitol hallway Thursday on his way to the Senate to vote.

McConnell, 82, announced earlier this year that he would not seek re-election when his term ends in 2026.

Two volunteers from an environmental advocacy group were questioning McConnell as he walked and he fell to the floor. He didn’t answer the question. He was quickly helped up by his aides and a security guard. He smiled and waved at the video and continued his walk.

The Senate was staging votes on Thursday related to the government shutdown, which is in its 16th day. McConnell voted after the fall, and he is expected to vote later in the day.

Retired Marine pilot Amy McGrath announced last week that she is running for McConnell’s seat in 2026.

McGrath, a moderate Democrat and former candidate for the House and the Senate from Kentucky, launched her campaign earlier this month.

Already running for the Democrats are former Secret Service Agent Logan Forsythe, former CIA officer and military veteran Joel Willett, and retired Air Force colonel and state Rep. Pam Stevensen.

For the Republicans, three people already are running: Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, businessperson Nate Morris and Rep. Andy Barr, who beat McGrath in 2018 for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats are poised for the 10th time Thursday to reject a stopgap spending bill that would reopen the government, insisting they won’t back away from demands that Congress take up healthcare benefits.

The repetition of votes on the funding bill has become a daily drumbeat in Congress, underscoring how intractable the situation has become. It has been at times the only item on the agenda for the Senate floor, while House Republicans have left Washington altogether. The standoff has lasted over two weeks, leaving hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed, even more without a guaranteed payday and Congress essentially paralyzed.

“Every day that goes by, there are more and more Americans who are getting smaller and smaller paychecks,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, adding that there have been thousands of flight delays across the country as well.

Thune, a South Dakota Republican, again and again has tried to pressure Democrats to break from their strategy of voting against the stopgap funding bill. It hasn’t worked. And while some bipartisan talks have been ongoing about potential compromises on healthcare, they haven’t produced any meaningful progress toward reopening the government. Thune has also offered to hold a later vote on extending subsidies for health plans offered under Affordable Care Act marketplaces, but said he would not “guarantee a result or an outcome.”

Democrats say they won’t budge until they get a guarantee on extending the tax credits for the health plans. They warn that millions of Americans who buy their own health insurance — such as small business owners, farmers and contractors — will see large increases when premium prices go out in the coming weeks. Looking ahead to a Nov. 1 deadline in most states, they think voters will demand that Republicans enter into serious negotiations.

“The ACA crisis is looming over everyone’s head, and yet Republicans seem ready to let people’s premiums spike,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer in a floor speech.

Still, Thune was also trying a different tack Thursday with a vote to proceed to appropriations bills — a move that could grease the Senate’s gears into some action or just deepen the divide between the two parties.

A deadline for subsidies on health plans

Democrats have rallied around their priorities on healthcare as they hold out against voting for a Republican bill that would reopen the government. Yet they also warn that the time to strike a deal to prevent large increases for many health plans is drawing short.

When they controlled Congress during the pandemic, Democrats boosted subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans. It pushed enrollment under President Obama’s signature healthcare law to new levels and drove the rate of uninsured people to a historic low. Nearly 24 million people currently get their health insurance from subsidized marketplaces, according to healthcare research nonprofit KFF.

Democrats — and some Republicans — are worried that many of those people will forgo insurance if the price rises dramatically. While the tax credits don’t expire until next year, health insurers will soon send out notices of the price increases. In most states, they go out Nov. 1.

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she has heard from “families who are absolutely panicking about their premiums that are doubling.”

“They are small business owners who are having to think about abandoning the job they love to get employer-sponsored healthcare elsewhere or just forgoing coverage altogether,” she added.

Murray also said that if many people decide to leave their health plan, it could have an effect across medical insurance because the pool of people under health plans will shrink. That could result in higher prices across the board, she said.

Some Republicans have acknowledged that the expiration of the tax credits could be a problem and floated potential compromises to address it, but there is hardly a consensus among the GOP.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) this week called the COVID-era subsidies a “boondoggle,” adding that “when you subsidize the healthcare system and you pay insurance companies more, the prices increase.”

President Trump has said he would “like to see a deal done for great healthcare,” but has not meaningfully weighed in on the debate. And Thune has insisted that Democrats first vote to reopen the government before entering any negotiations on healthcare.

If Congress were to engage in negotiations on significant changes to healthcare, it would likely take weeks, if not longer, to work out a compromise.

Votes on appropriations bills

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are setting up a vote Thursday to proceed to a bill to fund the Defense Department and several other areas of government. This would turn the Senate to Thune’s priority of working through spending bills and potentially pave the way to paying salaries for troops, though the House would eventually need to come back to Washington to vote for a final bill negotiated between the two chambers.

It could also put a crack in Democrats’ resolve. Thune said Thursday, “If they want to stop the defense bill, I don’t think it’s very good optics for them.”

It wasn’t clear whether Democrats would give the support needed to advance the bills. They discussed the idea at their luncheon Wednesday and emerged saying they wanted to review the Republican proposal and make sure it included appropriations that are priorities for them.

While the votes will not bring the Senate any closer to an immediate fix for the government shutdown, it could at least turn their attention to issues where there is some bipartisan agreement.

Still, there was a growing sense on Capitol Hill that an end to the stasis is nowhere in sight.

“So many of you have asked all of us, how will it end?” said House Speaker Johnson. “We have no idea.”

Groves and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

From the air, it looks like a city erased. Entire neighbourhoods have vanished from the map two years since Israel’s relentless bombardment of Gaza began. What were once homes, schools, hospitals, factories and power plants have been reduced to debris and dust. Thousands of Palestinians are now returning to ruins or rubble in a place that has lost the very fabric of daily life.

Economists estimate the cost of rebuilding at tens of billions of dollars – far beyond the capacity of Gaza’s shattered economy.

What is behind the $20bn lifeline to Argentina?

Plus, the European Union invests $13bn in South Africa.

CHICAGO — Federal immigration officers in the Chicago area will be required to wear body cameras, a judge said Thursday after seeing tear gas and other aggressive steps used against protesters.

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis said she was a “little startled” after seeing TV images of clashes between agents and the public during President Donald Trump’s administration’s immigration crackdown.

“I live in Chicago if folks haven’t noticed,” she said. “And I’m not blind, right?”

Community efforts to oppose U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have ramped up in the nation’s third-largest city, where neighborhood groups have assembled to monitor ICE activity and film incidents involving agents. More than 1,000 immigrants have been arrested since September.

Separately, the Trump administration has tried to deploy National Guard troops, but the strategy was halted last week by a different judge.

Ellis last week said agents in the area must wear badges, and she banned them from using certain riot control techniques against peaceful protesters and journalists.

“I’m having concerns about my order being followed,” the judge said.

“I am adding that all agents who are operating in Operation Midway Blitz are to wear body-worn cameras, and they are to be on,” Ellis said, referring to the government’s name for the crackdown.

U.S. Justice Department attorney Sean Skedzielewski laid blame with “one-sided and selectively edited media reports.” He also said it wouldn’t be possible to immediately distribute cameras.

“I understand that. I would not be expecting agents to wear body-worn cameras they do not have,” Ellis said, adding that the details could be worked out later.

She said the field director of the enforcement effort must appear in court Monday.

In 2024, Immigration and Customs Enforcement began deploying about 1,600 body cameras to agents assigned to Enforcement and Removal Operations.

At the time, officials said they would be provided to agents in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington, Buffalo, New York and Detroit. Other Homeland Security Department agencies require some agents to wear cameras. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has released body-camera video when force has been used by its agents or officers.

Fernando writes for the Associated Press.

Israel says Hamas is failing to meet commitments under Trump’s Gaza ceasefire plan, while Hamas says Israel’s destruction makes recovering captives’ bodies nearly impossible. With 11,000 Palestinians also still under rubble, Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh says tensions threaten the fragile truce.

CNN is taking another shot at launching a direct-to-consumer streaming service that will make much of the channel’s news programming available without a pay TV subscription.

The unit of Warner Bros. Discovery announced Thursday it will launch an All Access subscription tier for CNN.com available for $6.99 a month starting Oct. 28. The service will provide what the company describes as “a selection” of live programming on CNN and CNN International.

The service will also have exclusive on-demand programming and a library of titles from CNN Films and CNN Original Series.

The All Access subscription will be be offered at $69.99 annually, but will carry an introductory price of $41.99 for the first year for customers signing up by Jan. 5.

The announcement comes two years after Mark Thompson took over as chief executive of the network with a mandate to guide the channel into a digital post-cable future.

CNN launched a direct-to-consumer service in 2022 called CNN+, made up of original programming featuring its current talent line-up and new additions including Audie Cornish, Chris Wallace and Kasie Hunt. But the service was shut down nine days after launch following WBD’s takeover of the network, as new management was focused on reducing debt.

CNN has seen profits decline significantly over the last five years as cord-cutting has driven down revenues received from cable and satellite companies carrying the channel.

The cable channel also saw a significant decline in ratings after WBD took over ownership of the network and executives pushed for the network to appeal more to conservative viewers.

Thompson has made few changes to the CNN program line-up as his team has focused on its digital properties. Thompson and Alex MacCallum, executive vice president of digital products and services, were both at the New York Times when the company transformed into a successful digital subscription-based news business.

In a statement, MacCallum said the All Access launch is “an essential step in CNN’s evolution as we work to give audiences the complete CNN experience in a format that reflects how audiences engage with the news today.”

CNN introduced a paywall on its website last year, giving users unfettered access to articles and video on the site for $3.99 a month. Response to the preliminary phase was encouraging, according to people inside the network who were not authorized to comment publicly.

Cable subscribers will also get the new streaming service for free.

Fox News is currently the only major cable news channel available without a pay TV subscription. The channel is offered on Fox One, the recently launched streaming service that also offers local Fox broadcast affiliates for $19.99 a month.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is scheduled to speak with Russia’s Vladimir Putin Thursday as he considers Ukraine’s push for long-range missiles, according to a White House official who was not authorized to comment on the private call and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The call comes ahead of Trump’s meeting on Friday at the White House with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Ukrainian leader has been pressing Trump to sell Kyiv Tomahawk missiles which would allow Ukrainian forces to strike deeper into Russian territory.

Zelensky has argued such strikes would help compel Putin to take Trump’s calls for direct negotiations between the Russia and Ukraine to end the war more seriously.

With a fragile Israel-Hamas ceasefire and hostage deal holding, Trump has said he’s now turning his attention to bringing Russia’s war on Ukraine to an end and is weighing providing Kyiv long-range weaponry as he looks to prod Moscow to the negotiating table.

Ending the wars in Ukraine and Gaza was central to Trump’s 2024 reelection pitch, in which he persistently pilloried President Joe Biden for his handling of the conflicts. Yet, like his predecessor, Trump also has been stymied by Putin as he’s unsuccessfully pressed the Russian leader to hold direct talks with Zelensky to end the war that is nearing its fourth year.

But fresh off the Gaza ceasefire, Trump is showing new confidence that he can finally make headway on ending the Russian invasion. He’s also signaling that he’s ready to step up pressure on Putin if he doesn’t come to the table soon.

“Interestingly we made progress today, because of what’s happened in the Middle East,” Trump said of the Russia-Ukraine war on Wednesday evening as he welcomed supporters of his White House ballroom project to a glitzy dinner.

Earlier this week in Jerusalem, in a speech to the Knesset, Trump predicted the truce in Gaza would lay the groundwork for the U.S. to help Israel and many of its Middle East neighbors normalize relations. But Trump also made clear his top foreign policy priority now is ending the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II.

“First we have to get Russia done,” Trump said, turning to his special envoy Steve Witkoff, who has also served as his administration’s chief interlocutor with Putin. “We gotta get that one done. If you don’t mind, Steve, let’s focus on Russia first. All right?”

Trump weighs Tomahawks for Ukraine

Trump is set to host Zelensky for talks Friday, their fourth face-to-face meeting this year.

Ahead of the meeting, Trump has said he’s weighing selling Kyiv long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, which would allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory — if Putin doesn’t settle the war soon. Zelensky, who has long sought the weapons system, said it would help Ukraine put the sort of pressure on Russia needed to get Putin to engage in peace talks.

Putin has made clear that providing Ukraine with Tomahawks would cross a red line and further damage relations between Moscow and Washington.

But Trump has been undeterred.

“He’d like to have Tomahawks,” Trump said of Zelensky on Tuesday. “We have a lot of Tomahawks.”

Agreeing to sell Ukraine Tomahawks would be a splashy move, said Mark Montgomery, an analyst at the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington. But it could take years to supply and train Kyiv on the Tomahawk system.

Montgomery said Ukraine could be better served in the near term with a surge of Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) missiles and Army Tactical Missile System, known as ATACMS. The U.S. already approved the sale of up to 3,350 ERAMs to Kyiv earlier this year.

The Tomahawk, with a range of about 995 miles (1,600 kilometers), would allow Ukraine to strike far deeper in Russian territory than either the ERAM (about 285 miles, or 460 km) or ATACMS (about 186 miles, or 300 kilometers).

“To provide Tomahawks is as much a political decision as it is a military decision,” Montgomery said. “The ERAM is shorter range, but this can help them put pressure on Russia operationally, on their logistics, the command and control, and its force disbursement within several hundred kilometers of the front line. It can be very effective.”

Signs of White House interest in new Russia sanctions

Zelensky is expected to reiterate his plea to Trump to hit Russia’s economy with further sanctions, something the Republican, to date, has appeared reluctant to do.

Congress has weighed legislation that would lead to tougher sanctions on Moscow, but Trump has largely focused his attention on pressuring NATO members and other allies to cut off their purchases of Russian oil, the engine fueling Moscow’s war machine. To that end, Trump said Wednesday that India, which became one of Russia’s biggest crude buyers after the Ukraine invasion, had agreed to stop buying oil from Moscow.

Waiting for Trump’s blessing is legislation in the Senate that would impose steep tariffs on countries that purchase Russia’s oil, gas, uranium and other exports in an attempt to cripple Moscow economically.

Though the president hasn’t formally endorsed it — and Republican leaders do not plan to move forward without his support — the White House has shown, behind the scenes, more interest in the bill in recent weeks.

Administration officials have gone through the legislation in depth, offering line edits and requesting technical changes, according to two officials with knowledge of the discussions between the White House and the Senate. That has been interpreted on Capitol Hill as a sign that Trump is getting more serious about the legislation, sponsored by close ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., along with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

A White House official said the administration is working with lawmakers to make sure that “introduced bills advance the president’s foreign policy objectives and authorities.” The official, who was granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations, said any sanctions package needs to give the president “complete flexibility.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday the administration is waiting for greater buy-in from Europe, which he noted faces a bigger threat from Russian aggression than the U.S. does.

“So all I hear from the Europeans is that Putin is coming to Warsaw,” Bessent said. “There are very few things in life I’m sure about. I’m sure he’s not coming to Boston. So, we will respond … if our European partners will join us.”

Madhani and Kim write for the Associated Press. AP writers Fatima Hussein, Chris Megerian and Didi Tang contributed to this report.

There are few laws President Trump name-checks more frequently than the Insurrection Act.

A 200-year-old constellation of statutes, the act grants emergency powers to thrust active-duty soldiers into civilian police duty, something otherwise barred by federal law.

Trump and his team have threatened to invoke it almost daily for weeks — most recently on Monday, after a reporter pressed the president about his escalating efforts to dispatch federalized troops to Democrat-led cities.

“Insurrection Act — yeah, I mean, I could do that,” Trump said. “Many presidents have.”

Roughly a third of U.S. presidents have called on the statutes at some point — but history also shows the law has been used only in moments of extraordinary crisis and political upheaval.

The Insurrection Act was Abraham Lincoln’s sword against secessionists and Dwight D. Eisenhower’s shield around the Little Rock Nine, the young Black students who were the first to desegregate schools in Arkansas.

Ulysses S. Grant invoked it more than half a dozen times to thwart statehouse coups, stem race massacres and smother the Ku Klux Klan in its South Carolina cradle.

But it has just as often been wielded to crush labor strikes and strangle protest movements. The last time it was invoked, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was in elementary school and most U.S. soldiers had not yet been born.

Now, many fear Trump could call on the law to quell opposition to his agenda.

“The Democrats were fools not to amend the Insurrection Act in 2021,” said Kevin Carroll, former senior counsel in the Department of Homeland Security during Trump’s first term. “It gives the president almost untrammeled power.”

It also precludes most judicial review.

“It can’t even be challenged,” Trump boasted Monday. “I don’t have to go there yet, because I’m winning on appeal.”

If that winning streak cools, as legal experts say it soon could, some fear the Insurrection Act would be the administration’s next move.

“The Insurrection Act is very broadly worded, but there is a history of even the executive branch interpreting it narrowly,” said John C. Dehn, an associate professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

The president first floated using the Insurrection Act against protesters in the summer of 2020. But members of his Cabinet and military advisors blocked the move, as they did efforts to use the National Guard for immigration enforcement and the military to patrol the border.

“They have this real fixation on using the military domestically,” Carroll said. “It’s sinister.”

In his second term, Trump has instead relied on an obscure subsection of the U.S. code to surge federalized soldiers into blue cities, claiming it confers many of the same powers as the Insurrection Act.

Federal judges disagreed. Challenges to deployments in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., and Chicago have since clogged the appellate courts, with three West Coast cases before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and one pending in the 7th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Illinois.

The result is a growing knot of litigation that experts say will fall to the Supreme Court to unwind.

As of Wednesday, troops in Oregon and Illinois are activated but can’t be deployed. The Oregon case is further complicated by precedent from California, where federalized soldiers have patrolled the streets since June with the 9th Circuit’s blessing. That ruling is set to be reheard by the circuit on Oct. 22 and could be reversed.

Meanwhile, what California soldiers are legally allowed to do while they’re federalized is also under review, meaning even if Trump retains the authority to call up troops, he might not be able to use them.

Scholars are split over how the Supreme Court might rule on any of those issues.

“At this point, no court … has expressed any sympathy to these arguments, because they’re so weak,” said Harold Hongju Koh, a professor at Yale Law School.

Koh listed the high court’s most conservative members, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., as unlikely to push back against the president’s authority to invoke the Insurrection Act, but said even some of Trump’s appointees — Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — might be skeptical, along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

“I don’t think Thomas and Alito are going to stand up to Trump, but I’m not sure that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts can read this statute to give him [those] powers.”

The Insurrection Act sidesteps those fights almost entirely.

It “would change not only the legal state of play, but fundamentally change the facts we have on the ground, because what the military would be authorized to do would be so much broader,” said Christopher Mirasola, an assistant professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Congress created the Insurrection Act as a fail-safe in response to armed mobs attacking their neighbors and organized militias seeking to overthrow elected officials. But experts caution that the military is not trained to keep law and order, and that the country has a strong tradition against domestic deployments dating to the Revolutionary War.

“The uniformed military leadership in general does not like getting involved in the domestic law enforcement issue at all,” Carroll said. “The only similarities between police and military is that they have uniforms and guns.”

Today, the commander in chief can invoke the law in response to a call for help from state leaders, as George H.W. Bush did to quell the 1992 Rodney King uprising in L.A.

The statute can also be used to make an end-run around elected officials who refuse to enforce the law, or mobs who make it impossible — something Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy Jr. did in defense of school integration.

Still, modern presidents have generally shied from using the Insurrection Act even in circumstances with strong legal justification. George W. Bush weighed invoking the law after Hurricane Katrina created chaos in New Orleans but ultimately declined over fears it would intensify the already bitter power struggle between the state and federal government.

“There are any number of Justice Department internal opinions where attorneys general like Robert Kennedy or Nicholas Katzenbach said, ‘We cannot invoke the Insurrection Act because the courts are open,’” Koh said.

Despite its extraordinary power, Koh and other experts said the law has guardrails that may make it more difficult for the president to invoke it in the face of naked bicyclists or protesters in inflatable frog suits, whom federal forces have faced down recently in Portland.

“There are still statutory requirements that have to be met,” said Dehn, the Loyola professor. “The problem the Trump administration would have in invoking [the law] is that very practically, they are able to arrest people who break the law and prosecute people who break the law.”

That may be why Trump and his administration have yet to invoke the act.

“It reminds me of the run-up to Jan. 6,” Carroll said. “It’s a similar feeling that people have, a sense that an illegal or immoral and unwise order is about to be given.”

He and others say an invocation of the Insurrection Act would shift widespread concern about military policing of American streets into existential territory.

“If there’s a bad faith invocation of the Insurrection Act to send federal troops to go beat up anti-ICE protesters, there should be a general strike in the United States,” Carroll said. “It’s a real break-the-glass moment.”

At that point, the best defense may come from the military.

“If a really unwise and immoral order comes out … 17-year generals need to say no,” Carroll said. “They have to have the guts to put their stars on the table.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday announced a plan to offer $11 insulin pens through the state’s pharmaceutical venture.

Beginning Jan. 1, consumers can purchase a five-pack of pens for a suggested price of $55, according to the governor’s office. The packs will be available to California pharmacies for $45.

California is the first state in the nation to sell its own brand of generic prescription drugs as Newsom and other state leaders seek ways to drive down rising healthcare costs.

Insulin users without health insurance today can pay $400 for a small vial.

Newsom, in a statement Thursday, said that Californians shouldn’t “ration insulin or go into debt to stay alive.”

“California didn’t wait for the pharmaceutical industry to do the right thing — we took matters into our own hands,” Newsom said.

Officials hope the drug will lower costs across the board, not just for the consumers ultimately picking up the drug. Major drug companies have also cut prices on insulin, but critics contend those cost savings are passed on to other consumers.

Earlier this week, Newsom signed legislation, Senate Bill 40, capping insulin co-pays at $35 for the first time in California.

“This law ensures no family will be forced to choose between buying insulin and putting food on the table in California again,” the bill’s author, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), said in a statement.

Newsom, who vowed to be the “healthcare governor” during his campaign, in 2020 unveiled a proposal for California to make its own line of generic drugs.

Three years later, he announced a $50-million contract with the nonprofit generic drugmaker Civica to produce insulin under the state’s own label.

Earlier this year, the state began selling Naloxone, a medication that blocks the effects of opioids, at below market prices.

The Entry Exit System (EES) was introduced on Sunday, which involves people from third-party countries such as the UK having their fingerprints registered and photograph taken to enter the Schengen area, which consists of 29 European countries, mainly in the EU

A last-minute change has been made to the rules set up to track travellers entering the EU.

On Sunday, the long-awaited Entry/Exit System (EES) went live. It requires individuals from third-party countries such as the UK to register their fingerprints and have their photograph taken to enter the Schengen area, which is made up of 29 European countries, primarily within the EU. For most UK travellers, the EES process will be carried out at foreign airports.

However, when it comes to Eurostar services from St Pancras, border checks are carried out by French officials in the UK, rather than in Paris.

When the Mirror was shown how the system would work prior to its launch, uncertainty surrounded one part of it – the questions travellers are required to answer.

READ MORE: Direct trains to Europe from second UK station plannedREAD MORE: EasyJet launches new routes for autumn breaks with flights from £14.99

They are:

1. Do you have somewhere to stay?

2. Do you have a return ticket?

3. Do you have sufficient funds to support yourself during your stay?

4. Do you have medical insurance?

It remains unclear what the consequences are if passengers answer ‘no’ to any of those questions, or if they lie in their answers.

Now, it has been announced that passengers will not be asked those questions when travelling on the Eurostar from St Pancras.

A spokesperson for Eurostar told the Mirror: “Following constructive discussions with the French Ministry and our colleagues, we’re pleased to confirm that the questions will be technically removed from the kiosks during the initial six-month introduction phase of the new system.

“We welcome the pragmatic approach being taken by the French border authorities to help ensure a smoother experience for our customers during this transition period.”

This week Simon Lejeune, the chief safety and stations officer for the cross-Channel train operator, said that some passengers are being processed through the EES in as little as 50 seconds.

To facilitate the new demand, Eurostar has set up three areas at St Pancras, housing a total of 49 kiosks where pre-registration for EES can take place.

Mr Lejeune informed the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee that the process at the station is initially being handled solely by French border officers, and there have been “really good transaction times”.

He stated: “I was observing transaction times of 50 seconds. That’s for the full biometrics, as well as the passport check and the stamping for EES-eligible passengers.

“So quite encouraging, and that’s without the kiosks that do that pre-registration, which we’ll be introducing over the next few weeks.”

A divided Los Angeles school board has voted to shut down a popular charter school to make more space for its own program on the same Echo Park campus, pushing the boundaries of state law and school district authority over charters.

The 4-3 vote late Tuesday denied a renewal authorization for Gabriella Charter School, which means the 400-student school specializing in dance instruction, can’t operate beyond the end of the current school year.

Although county education officials could act independently to renew the charter, the L.A. school board decision still means Gabriella would be essentially evicted from the campus and the dance studios built for its use.

Board member Rocio Rivas, whose district includes the school, said the move was necessary to protect the interests of the district-operated school and the nation’s second-largest school system.

“This multiuse agreement has not worked,” Rivas said. “It meets the needs of Gabriella, but it’s not meeting the needs of the district. So as far as I’m concerned, this multiuse agreement should be nullified.”

A spokesperson for Gabriella said Wednesday morning that the school was considering its legal options.

The California Charter Schools Assn. spoke strongly in defense of Gabriella.

“This decision is a backhanded strategy to push Gabriella out of its longtime home on an LAUSD campus — a site the District itself invited Gabriella to share with a district-run school back in 2009,” said Keith Dell’Aquila, who leads advocacy work for the association in the L.A. area. “For 16 years, Gabriella has served countless students at that location with excellence and stability.”

The case highlights the resolve of school board members, aligned with the teachers union, to target a non-union charter school to further the aspirations of a district-operated campus.

Third-grade teacher Karla Balani helps with instruction at Gabriella Charter School.

(Karla Gachet/For The Times)

Why charter schools draw political controversy

Charters are privately operated public schools that compete for students. Charter supporters view their educational offerings as a way to spark innovation and provide needed public school competition — and simply to offer parents more choices.

Some supporters have also wanted a foothold to weaken the influence of teacher unions and build a bridge to more controversial school-choice strategies, including using public-school funds to pay for private school tuition.

Most charters are non-union and have typically been opposed by teacher unions.

Charters have enjoyed a degree of bipartisan support and were long able to shape California laws in their favor, but their political clout in the state has somewhat declined.

L.A. Unified oversees 235 charters, more than any school system in the country, and many of these started when school boards had little authority to reject them. About 1 in 5 L.A. public school students attend charters.

Gabriella has shared a campus with the district-operated Logan Academy for Global Ecology, which includes a dual-language program in Spanish and English. Both schools offer transitional kindergarten through eighth grade.

For the Logan community the charter has long been an unwanted detraction from their efforts. And they saw the renewal process as a chance to act because the board majority has become more strongly anti-charter.

Staff at Logan said Tuesday that they need more space to offer a full middle-school program on a campus that served only elementary grades for most of its 137-year history. The middle grades were added to help sustain the school.

Logan also has become a designated community school, which offers a wider range of support services for students and families, typically including health care, tutoring and counseling. And these services, too, require space.

“The fact that Logan Academy is a community school, is now a span school — circumstances for them have changed, and that is what we need to take into consideration,” Rivas said.

Third-graders practice dance in jazz class.

(Karla Gachet/For The Times)

State protections for charters

California law gives charter schools the right to use public-school facilities that are “reasonably equivalent” to those available to other public-school students.

The L.A. school board majority tested the limits of these state rules when it voted 4-3 in 2024 to give preferences to district-operated schools and ban outright the sharing of hundreds of campuses.

In a June 27 ruling, a judge concluded that the policy unlawfully “prioritizes District schools over charter schools and is too vague … To the maximum extent practicable, the needs of the charter school must be given the same consideration as those of the district-run schools.”

Under that ruling and others, courts have found that charters, such as Gabriella, are entitled to space for similar resources that the district would claim it for.

State law also sets up a process through which charter schools can request and share campuses. The process restarts every year and has resulted in annual uncertainty both for charters and others sharing the campuses.

School districts also have the option of reaching other sorts of agreements with charters. That is what happened at Logan, where the school district agreed to a multiyear lease. That lease has coincided with the full term of the charter renewal.

For Gabriella, the arrangement avoided the instability of having to move from place to place each year — especially because most elementary schools are not outfitted with dance studios.

Logan was specially modified to accommodate Gabriella’s unique program. A benefit to the district was that Gabriella became a feeder program to the district’s new arts-focused high school downtown.

Ending the multiyear lease for Logan was a high priority for Rivas.

“If this — the charter … is not renewed, then that pretty much severs their multiyear agreement,” Rivas said.

Students practice their dance at Gabriella Charter School.

(Karla Gachet/For The Times)

Impact of declining enrollment

Enrollment at Logan Academy has been trending downward, much like in the school system as a whole. Last year’s enrollment totaled 91 students in kindergarten through second grade. Three years earlier that comparable figure was 139 students.

In 2014, the school had 486 students. Last year the number was 362.

The charter school’s enrollment also is down — from a peak of 468 in the 2020-21 school year to 396 last year.

Official figures are not yet available for this year, but enrollment across the school system appears to be lower, per preliminary estimates.

Rivas said Tuesday that Gabriella had been an uncooperative tenant that flouted financially responsibilities and had, therefore, forfeited any inside track to renewal.

At the Tuesday meeting, it was brought up that the charter did not participate in a recent fire drill. It’s leaders have pledged to do so in the future.

More serious is a long-simmering dispute over whether the charter has paid an appropriate amount for use of the campus. As the charter renewal date approached, the charter leaders yielded and made an $800,000 payment to the school system. That issue has yet to be resolved.

One disputed issue is that the school district raised the usage fee retroactively — to cover a period of time that already had ended,

Board staff recommended a five-year renewal, saying the school had met the legally required academic performance standard. A charter school also can be denied renewal if it is fiscally unsound, but district staff concluded that, too, was not grounds for denial.

Board member Nick Melvoin, who voted to renew the charter, wanted to know the legal basis for rejecting it.

The answer from staff was that the decision could be based on the board’s citing of past financial disagreements that have not been entirely settled.

Melvoin strongly disagreed with the outcome.

“Co-locations are tough, and I have a lot of empathy and understanding for Logan,” Melvoin said. “I think that it’s really incumbent upon us, the adults who are the stewards of the children in this situation, to come to creative solutions on behalf of kids.”

“You have two K-8 schools that are pulling almost the same number of kids from that community,” he added, “and I think we owe it to them to try to work something out.”

Opposing the renewal were Rivas, Board President Scott Schmerelson, Karla Griego and Sherlett Hendy Newbill. Favoring renewal were Melvoin, Kelly Gonez and Tanya Ortiz Franklin.

Oct. 15 (UPI) — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration to halt firings of workers amid the shutdown, according to two labor unions that brought the lawsuit against the federal government.

The Trump administration on Friday announced that it has begun laying off 4,100 federal workers as the federal purse has run dry with Congress since Oct. 1, failing to pass a stopgap funding bill to keep the government open.

On Sept. 30, ahead of the shutdown and amid Trump administration threats to institute mass firings if the government shuttered, the American Federation of Government Employees, with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the layoffs.

Then on Oct. 4, the union filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.

On Wednesday, Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California sided with the unions, issuing the temporary restraining order they sought, stating that the reduction-in-force notices issued to the more than 4,000 federal employees were likely illegal, exceeded the Trump administration’s authority and were capricious.

In her order, the appointee of President Bill Clinton described Trump’s mass firings amid a government shutdown as “unprecedented.”

Illston outlined how some employees could not even find out if they had been fired because the notices were sent to government email accounts, which they may not have access to because of the shutdown.

Those who do receive the notices are then unable to prepare for their terminations because human resources staff have been furloughed, she said, adding that in one case at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, human resources staff were brought back into the office to issue the layoff notices only to then be directed to lay themselves off.

She then said, citing a social media post from the president on the second day of the shutdown, saying he had a meeting with Russell Vought, the White House budget chief, to determine which of the many “Democrat Agencies” to cut that Trump intended to make the cut as retribution over the Democrats opposing the funding measure.

“It is also far from normal for an administration to fire line-level civilian employees during a a government shutdown as a way to punish the opposing political party,” Illston wrote. “But this is precisely what President Trump has announced he is doing.”

Illston gave the administration two days to provide the court with more information on the issued notices.

“This decision affirms that these threatened mass firings are likely illegal and blocks layoff notices from going out,” Lee Saunders, president of AFSCME, said in a statement.

“Federal workers have already faced enough uncertainty from the administration’s relentless attacks on the important jobs they do to keep us safe and healthy.”

As the order was issued, Vought said that he expects thousands of federal workers to be fired in the coming days.

“Much of the reporting has been based on kind of court snapshots, which they have articulated as in the 4,000 number of people,” he said on The Charlie Kirk Show podcast. “But that’s just a snapshot, and I think it’ll get much higher. And we’re going to keep those RIFs rolling throughout the shutdown.”

Democrats said they will only support a stopgap bill that extends and restores Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, arguing that failing to do so would raise healthcare costs for some 20 million Americans.

Republicans — who control the House, Senate and the presidency — are seeking a so-called clean funding bill that includes no changes. They argue that the Democrats are fighting to provide undocumented migrants with taxpayer-funded healthcare, even though federal law does not permit them to receive Medicaid or ACA premium tax credits.

The parties continue to trade blame for the shutdown as it extends for more than two weeks, with some 750,000 federal workers furloughed.

At last month’s meeting of the California Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force in Redlands, Director Patrick Wright remembered the group’s early days: “Candidly, when I started this job, we got an earful from Southern California.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom created the task force in 2021 and at the time, Southern California’s wildfire experts told Wright that he and other state leaders “didn’t understand Southern California was different. Its vegetation is different. Its fire risk is different.”

It’s true — the coastal chaparral native to much of Southern California is entirely different from the mixed-conifer forests of the Sierra.

More than a century of humans attempting to suppress nearly every fire meant the low-intensity burns that northern forests relied on every 5 to 20 years to promote regeneration no longer came through to clear the understory. As trees and shrubs grew in, they fueled high-intensity fires that decimated both the forest and communities.

Meanwhile in Southern California, as humans settled into the wildlands, they lit more fires. Discarded cigarettes, sparking cars, poorly managed campfires, utility equipment and arsonists lit up hundreds or thousands of acres. Here, the native chaparral is adapted to fire coming every 30 to 130 years. The more frequent fires didn’t allow them to grow, make seeds and reproduce. Instead, what’s grown in places where chaparral used to be are flammable invasive grasses.

But when I first moved to Southern California and started covering the wildfires devastating our communities, I had only heard the northern version of the story.

The fire problem in Northern California is more widely understood. “Smokey the Bear, only you can prevent forest fires — everybody kind of knows, intuitively, what a forest fire is,” said Michael O’Connell, president and chief executive of the Irvine Ranch Conservancy — and one of the people who (respectfully) gave Wright an earful.

Meanwhile, ember-driven fires in Southern California are “like someone lobbing grenades from five miles away,” he said.

Experts in both NorCal and SoCal agree on how we ought to protect ourselves once a ferocious fire breaks out: Across the board, we need to harden our homes, create defensible space and ensure we’re ready to evacuate. But how to prevent devastating fires differs.

The forest thinning and careful reintroduction of intentional “good” fire in the Sierra don’t exactly translate to the Santa Monica Mountains, for example.

The problem here in the south is more vexing: How do we reduce the number of fires we spark?

One way is with groups like Orange County Fire Watch and Arson Watch in Topanga and Malibu, which go out on days when the wind is high and try to spot fires before they start. A new effort, celebrated by the task force, to reduce ignitions along SoCal roadways by clearing flammable vegetation is also underway.

But, while NorCal has a plethora of studies affirming the effectiveness of forest thinning and burning, there is little research yet on SoCal’s proposed solutions.

“We really do, now, understand what the problem is that we’re trying to deal with,” O’Connell said. “How do you get that done? That’s more complicated.”

And the vast majority of state funding is still geared toward northern fuel management solutions — not keeping fires from sparking. (The task force also still measures progress in acres treated, a largely meaningless metric for Southern California’s chaparral.)

Yet, O’Connell is hopeful. At the task force’s first meeting in SoCal — where Wright got an earful — leaders didn’t yet have a grasp of SoCal’s wildfire problem. Now, they’re letting SoCal’s land managers and researchers lead the way.

“If it weren’t for the task force, I think we would be in big trouble, frankly,” O’Connell said. The task force leaders “have not only understood [the problem] but have accepted it and run with that.”

Here’s the latest on wildfires

Federal firefighters are in their third week without pay, as the U.S government shutdown drags on. According to the U.S. Forest Service — the largest federal firefighting force in the country — fire response personnel will continue to work through the shutdown, although prevention work, including prescribed burns and forest thinning, will be limited.

In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would increase the salaries of Cal Fire firefighters to more closely match those of local fire departments. Meanwhile, efforts championed by the state to build a series of fuel breaks in the Santa Monica Mountains are underway. Some ecologists worry about the damage the fast-moving project could do to the environment; others say the state is not moving fast enough.

Last week, federal prosecutors announced the arrest of a suspect they believed intentionally started the Palisades fire on Jan. 1. The announcement has led to calls for both the Los Angeles Fire Department, responsible for putting out the Jan. 1 fire, and California State Parks, whose land the fire started on, to be held accountable.

And the latest on climate

A turning point and a tipping point: Global energy production turned a corner in the first half of the year, with renewables such as solar and wind generating more electricity than coal for the first time. And, the Earth is reaching its first climate change tipping point: Warm water coral reefs can no longer survive, according to a report published by 160 scientists.

With the 2025 state legislative session wrapped up, some important climate bills are now law. One law extends California’s cap-and-trade program — which limits how much greenhouse gas polluters can emit and enables them to trade emission allowances at auction — from 2030 to 2045. Newsom also signed a bill to make oil drilling in Kern County easier while making offshore drilling more difficult and another to push local governments to increase electrification efforts.

Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required data centers to report how much water they use. He was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements” on the centers, he wrote in a message explaining his veto, noting that “California is well positioned to support the development of this critically important digital infrastructure.”

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

For more wildfire news, follow @nohaggerty on X and @nohaggerty.bsky.social on Bluesky.

It felt like the kind of thing that must happen in Hollywood all the time: a hundred bucks to be a movie extra.

Austin Beagle, 31, and Nevada Barker, 30, said they were trying to sign up for food stamps this spring when someone offered them a background role outside a county social services office in Long Beach. They thought the gig seemed intriguing, albeit a bit unusual.

The offer came not from a casting director, but a man hawking free cellphones. The filming location was, oddly enough, a law firm in downtown Los Angeles.

Like many DTLA clients, Austin Beagle and Nevada Barker signed a retainer agreement that entitles the firm to 45% of their payout.

(Joe Garcia / For The Times)

Maybe this was how actors were recruited here, they figured. The couple had recently moved from the remote ranching town of Stinnett in the Texas panhandle, and the recruiter seemed to appreciate their Southern drawl. They hopped on a bus, excited to make $200 between them.

“They said we’d be extras,” said Beagle, who was unemployed at the time. “But when we got to the office, that’s not what it was at all.”

The couple said they arrived at the lobby of Downtown LA Law Group. A Times investigation published earlier this month found seven plaintiffs represented by the firm who claimed they received cash from recruiters to sue the county over sex abuse, which could violate state law. Two said they had never been abused and were told to manufacture their claims.

Downtown LA Law Group has denied any involvement with the recruiters who allegedly paid plaintiffs. The firm said in a statement it would never “encourage or tolerate anyone lying about being abused” and has been conducting additional screening to remove “false or exaggerated claims” from its caseload.

Four days after The Times’ investigation was published, the firm asked for a lawsuit on behalf of Carlshawn Stovall, one of the men who said he fabricated claims, to be dismissed with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be refiled.

The firm requested a second case spurred by Juan Fajardo, who said he made up a claim using the name of a family member, to be dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 9 after Fajardo says he told lawyers he wanted to drop the lawsuit.

Now, with Beagle and Barker, two more have come forward to allege they were told to invent the stories that led to their lawsuits.

Austin Beagle and Nevada Barker said they’d been in Southern California only a few months when they were flagged down outside a social services office where they were hoping to enroll in food stamps. The couple have since moved back to Stinnett, Texas.

(Joe Garcia / For The Times)

The couple said that when they arrived at DTLA’s offices in April, a man came down to the lobby with a clipboard and gave them a piece of paper to memorize before going upstairs. They assumed this was the role they’d be playing — with room to go off script.

“They told us to say that we were sexually abused and harassed by the guards in … Las P? I can’t think of the institution’s name,” said Beagle, who added he was told to say the incidents occurred around 2005.

“The worse it was the better,” he recalled being told.

On April 29, Downtown LA Law Group filed a lawsuit against the county on behalf of 63 plaintiffs, including Beagle and Barker, who claimed they were abused at Los Padrinos, L.A. County’s juvenile hall in Downey. The couple are now part of the $4-billion settlement.

Allegations of potential fraud and pay-to-sue tactics have rocked both L.A. County government and powerhouse law firms, which are scrambling to figure out how to salvage the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

Perhaps no group has been shaken more than sex abuse victims themselves, who fear allegations of false claims could derail what they hoped would be a life-changing settlement.

“I just couldn’t believe it,” said Jimmy Vigil, 45, who sued the county in December 2022 for alleged sexual abuse by a probation officer at a detention camp in Lancaster.

Vigil said he was repeatedly molested as a 14-year-old and forced to masturbate in front of other teens while the guard watched.

“It makes me feel disgusted,” said Vigil, now a mental health case manager in Ventura County. “You have absolutely no clue what I went through. You have no clue how hard I have strived in life to make it to where I am at today.”

Jimmy Vigil, now a mental health case worker in Ventura, said he was repeatedly molested as a teenager and forced to masturbate in front of other teens.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Barker and Beagle said that after memorizing the card with the basics of their story, they were taken upstairs to a room at DTLA’s office where about 20 people were waiting. Everyone seemed confused, they said.

They “were asking us ‘Hey, did y’all promise to get paid? And we said ‘Yeah, somebody told us that we’d get paid $100 if we come in,” Beagle said. “Everybody was just concerned about getting paid whatever they were promised.”

DTLA said in a statement it has “never directed, nor do we have any knowledge that anyone was ever paid, hired, or brought to the DTLA office, or was asked to memorize a script of any kind under the guise of filmmaking,”

“We are not filmmakers,” the firm said. “No one authorized on behalf of the firm has ever promised or implied movie extra work as a means of retaining clients.”

Beagle and Barker said they were called in together to a glass cubicle where a woman spent 15-20 minutes asking them questions about their story of abuse. Barker said she struggled to come up with details because “it was all made-up stuff.”

Beagle said he thought maybe the staffers in the law firm were also acting, pretending not to know this was “a fake thing.”

“Like, they were testing us all out to see if we knew how to act — just play the part,” Beagle said. “Like, this was a trial thing.”

The couple said they were befuddled at the interaction but figured they’d done enough to get their money; the receptionist told them to come back in a few hours to collect.

The firm said, in some circumstances, it provides “interest free loans to clients once they have retained our services.”

Beagle and Barker said they frittered away two hours at Pershing Square a few blocks away until around 4 p.m. It was only when they came back to the firm, they said, that it became clear there was no movie.

A man named Kevin paid them $100 each, and told them they were part of a massive settlement involving juvenile halls they’d never heard about until that afternoon. The man told them they could get $100 for each additional person they referred to go through the same process, Beagle said.

“We walked out thinking I don’t know how legit this is and we might even get f— in trouble for it,” Beagle said.

Like most sexual abuse lawsuits, the suit was filed using only plaintiffs’ initials. The Times reviewed paperwork that DTLA provided to Beagle and Barker, which they signed in order to become clients on April 21 and to opt into the L.A. County settlement on May 29.

Under the settlement, each plaintiff could be eligible for anywhere from $100,000 to $3 million. Retainer agreements for Beagle and Barker reviewed by The Times show DTLA would get 45% of their payout.

Beagle and Barker said they aren’t banking on getting any money from L.A. County. After all, they said, they grew up in Texas, more than a thousand miles away from the abuse-plagued facilities.

“We need it, but it’s not ours. It’s like finding a wallet,” Barker said. “Return it.”

A Times investigation published earlier this month found plaintiffs represented by Downtown LA Law Group who claimed they received cash from recruiters to sue L.A. County over sex abuse. Four now say they were told to make up the claims.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Among some survivors, there is a palpable fear that the fraud allegations will steamroll the settlement, overshadowing the fact that many county-run facilities were home to unchecked abuse and torpedoing their chance of receiving a life-changing sum.

The Times interviewed eight victims for this article represented by Slater Slater Schulman, ACTS LAW Firm, McNicholas & McNicholas, and Becker Law Group. Many said they were aghast at learning the worst years of their life may have become fodder for quick cash.

“It felt like a kick in the gut,” said Trinidad Pena, 52. “For somebody just to lie about it was just sickening.”

On Sept. 18, Pena said, she was eating a pancake breakfast at a homeless services center in Long Beach when she learned she had something in common with a woman sitting on the picnic bench next to her.

Both had filed lawsuits against L.A. County alleging sexual abuse at county-run facilities. Both of them were part of the county’s $4-billion settlement. But she was the only one, she believed, who had actually been abused.

The woman told her she’d been paid $20 to sue by a woman who hung around on the sidewalk outside the community center clutching a clipboard, she said.

The Times could not reach the recruiters allegedly responsible for paying plaintiffs for comment.

Trinidad Pena, who sued in 2022 over sex abuse, said she was jarred to find herself at breakfast with a woman who told her she’d been paid to sue the county.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Pena sued L.A. County in December 2022 over an alleged rape when she was 12 by a staff member at MacLaren Children’s Center, a shuttered youth shelter now infamous for predatory staff. No amount of cash is going to erase the scars from that, she says. But it would help.

Last month, Pena traded in her New Orleans shotgun apartment for the streets of Southern California, where she was raised. The move was, she said, a Hail Mary attempt to get medical treatment through the state’s public benefits for a cyst sprouting behind her right eye that made her vision wobble and her head crackle with pain.

She is currently living on $1,206 a month in and out of her van with a failing shunt in her head, which doctors implanted to treat her cyst. She eats mostly the nonperishable Trader Joe’s snacks she brought from Louisiana.

A six- or seven-figure settlement could help save her life, Pena said.

“I’m going to have myself a hell of a Charlie Sheen party and take a nosedive off a balcony at the Chateau Marmont if I do not get some sort of relief,” said Pena, who says she grew up in foster care near the legendary West Hollywood hotel.

Part of what has made the false claims so infuriating, victims say, is that L.A. County youth detention facilities were indeed home to horrific abuse decades ago.

Kizzie Jones, 47, said she’s on antidepressants as a result of a female probation officer who allegedly molested her twice a week and groomed her with bags of chips and bottles of conditioner.

Robert Williams, 41, says he has no friends — a near-total isolation he said traces back to repeated sexual assaults in the shower he suffered as a teen.

Mario Paz, 39, said a guard molested him under the guise of soothing his genitals with milk after he was pepper sprayed while naked. The abuse, he says, has left him traumatized to the point that he is unable to change his children’s Pampers.

All three of them filed lawsuits against the county alleging sexual abuse by county probation officers.

Mario Paz, 39, said his time at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall left him traumatized and damaged the relationship he has with his own children.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

“For someone to capitalize on something that they never endured or never experienced, I think it’s a travesty,” said Cornelious Thompson, a 51-year-old community health worker, who sued the county in December 2022.

When he was around 13 at Los Padrinos, Thompson says he was put on psychiatric medication that knocked him out. He woke up in his unit sore with his pants hanging by his knees, bleeding. It took him years to tell anyone.

He said he recently lost his job with a contractor for the county’s health department due to budget cuts. The county had to slash spending, in part, to pay for the $4-billion settlement.

It was “bittersweet,” he says, losing his job because the county was finally paying for what he said he endured as a teenager.

Only now, a new fear has crept in as two more people say they made up claims: Will he still be believed?

Oct. 16 (UPI) — Brown University has rejected a Department of Education proposal offering priority access to federal funds in exchange for agreeing to terms that critics say target left-leaning ideology in higher education.

On Oct. 1, the Trump administration sent nine universities a 10-part “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” that reportedly demands reforms to hiring practices and student grading and a pledge to prohibit transgender women from using women’s changing rooms.

It also requires the creation of a “vibrant marketplace of ideas,” among other changes, including a tuition freeze for five years.

Brown University President Christina Paxson rejected the offer in a letter addressed to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, writing she was “concerned that the Compact by its nature and by various provisions would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown’s governance, critically compromising our ability to fulfill our mission.”

Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has targeted dozens of universities, particularly so-called elite institutions, with executive orders, lawsuits, reallocation of resources and threats over a range of allegations, from anti-Semitism to having diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Critics have accused Trump of trying to coerce schools under threat of stringent punishments — from losing their accreditation to paying hefty fines sometimes in excess of $1 billion — to adopt his far-right policies.

In late July, Brown reached a $50 million settlement with the federal government over 10 years to unfreeze federal funding and to resolve federal allegations of violating anti-discrimination laws.

As part of the agreement, which also unfroze federal funds, Brown agreed to adhere to government requirements concerning male and female athletics, codify its commitment to ensuring a “thriving Jewish community” and maintain nondiscrimination compliance, among others.

In her letter Wednesday, Paxson said the July agreement includes several of the principles included in the compact while also affirming “the governments lack of authority to dictate our curriculum or the content of academic speech.”

“While we value our long-held and well-regarded partnership with the federal government, Brown is respectfully declining to join the Compact,” she said. “We remain committed to the July agreement and its preservation of Brown’s core values in ways that the Compact — in any form — fundamentally would not.”

Brown’s rejection comes days after MIT similarly declined to join the compact.

“America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence. In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences,” MIT President Sally Kornbluth wrote in a letter to the Department of Education on Friday.

“Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.”

Conservatives and the Trump administration have alleged that university are founts of left-wing indoctrination that exclude right-leaning thought. However, critics have described the Trump administration’s attempt to address these concerns as government overreach and a violation of free speech rights.

“The White House’s new Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education raises red flags,” the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said in a statement earlier this month.

“As Fire has long argued, campus reform is necessary. But overreaching government coercion that tries to end-run around the First Amendment to impose an official orthodoxy is unacceptable.”

“A government that can reward colleges and universities for speech it favors today can punish them for speech it dislikes tomorrow,” FIRE continued. “That’s not reform. That’s government-funded orthodoxy.”

Meanwhile, Trump over the weekend suggested that more universities would be invited to join the compact, saying in an online statement that “those Institutions that want to quickly return to the Pursuit of Truth and Achievement, they are invited to enter into the forward looking Agreement with the Federal Government to help bring about the Golden Age of Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”

In the statement, he railed against universities, saying “much of Higher Education has lost its way, and is now corrupting our Youth and Society with WOKE, SOCIALIST and ANTI_AMERICAN Ideology that serves as justification for discriminatory practices by Universities that are Unconstitutional and Unlawful”

The recent downward spiral in Afghanistan-Pakistan relations would have been hard to imagine when Pakistani military and civilian leaders welcomed the Taliban’s return to power in Kabul in August 2021.

A Taliban government, Islamabad believed, would be friendly to Pakistan and would become a bulwark against any security threats to the country. After all, Pakistan’s military and intelligence services had for more than two decades supported the Afghan Taliban movement.

Between 2001 and 2021, this meant a contradictory foreign policy. On the one hand, by supporting the United States’ military intervention in Afghanistan, Pakistan recognised the US-backed governments that ruled the country. At the same time, Pakistan covertly tolerated – and even enabled – the resurgence of the Taliban inside Pakistani territory, which also included co-habitation with other Pakistani militant groups.

Yet, that relationship has now collapsed as Pakistani airforce struck targets in Kabul for the first time ever this week.

An apparent disconnect in their mutual expectations, and disrespect for each other’s capabilities, makes it harder for them to resurrect what they once had.

What is at stake for both countries?

The Pakistani security establishment, comprised of the army and the country’s powerful military intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), is responsible for devising and driving the nation’s Afghan policy.

Historically, the army has also exercised significant power over the civilian administrations, even when Pakistan has not been under military rule.

Pakistan has faced a surge of unprecedented attacks against its security forces since 2021, coinciding with the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan. More than 2,400 deaths were recorded for the first three quarters of 2025, towering over last year’s figure of approximately 2,500 people killed in attacks across Pakistan.

Pakistan has blamed a majority of attacks on the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the so-called Pakistan Taliban, whose leaders are now based in Afghanistan. TTP members hail largely from the tribal areas of Pakistan, along the Afghan border.

Pakistan had hoped that TTP leaders would leave Afghanistan once the Pakistan-friendly Taliban government was established in Kabul. Some TTP fighters reportedly did return home, but this did not translate into a decline in violence. The TTP demands a localised implementation of Islamic law and the reinstatement of the former semi-autonomous status of tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

For Pakistan, confronting a deadly and persistent uprising at home has become a national security crisis. Pakistan is, meanwhile, also reeling from several other intersecting crises: a stunted economy, geopolitical tensions with archrival India – marked by the recent conflict in May – as well as a growing domestic political discontent, and natural disasters.

Taliban leaders in Afghanistan insist that the TTP is a domestic challenge for Pakistan to address. In 2022, shortly after forming an interim administration, the Taliban government mediated talks between TTP leaders and the Pakistani army in Kabul. After initial indications of progress, underpinned by a temporary ceasefire, the talks collapsed.

For the Taliban government, which is heavily sanctioned and isolated from international financial institutions, the realities of ruling a vastly underdeveloped and economically poor country are stark. Over four years since taking power, Russia is the only country that has formally recognised the Taliban administration, though a growing number of countries – China, India and Iran among them – have, in effect, acknowledged the group as Afghanistan’s rulers and are hosting their diplomatic representatives.

Afghans are suffering from the near-collapse of the economy, and public sector institutions – such as health and education services – are on the brink of a complete breakdown. Faced with severe food insecurity and humanitarian challenges, common Afghans suffer as United Nations-led aid agencies face funding cuts. A prolonged conflict with Pakistan is likely to further deepen these challenges.

Can both sides return to their past friendship?

Both sides appear, at the moment, to be digging their heels in. Though they have agreed to temporary ceasefires, neither side wants to look weak by admitting it needs to back down.

Official Pakistani government statements now refer to the Taliban government – whose return to power in Kabul was once celebrated – as a “regime”, calling for a more “inclusive” administration in Afghanistan. They warn of continuing attacks within Afghan territories if the Taliban fail to act against the TTP.

To be sure, Pakistan possesses a substantially more powerful military, technologically advanced weaponry, and considerable geopolitical leverage against the Taliban government. There is also a renewed sense of self-confidence as Pakistan considers it successfully fought the recent war with India in May 2025, including by downing multiple Indian jets.

Since the 1980s, it has hosted millions of Afghan refugees, a generation of whom were educated and have built livelihoods in Pakistani cities. This, according to Pakistani leaders and some public opinion, should mean that Afghans must bear goodwill towards Pakistan. Forcing out Afghan refugees will be a key leverage Pakistan would want to use against the Taliban government.

Fundamentally, Pakistani leaders view their country as a serious and powerful entity with strong global alliances – one that any Afghan government, especially one led by a group supported by Pakistan, should respect and cooperate with.

The Taliban, on the other hand, view themselves as victorious, battle-hardened fighters who waged a long and successful war against foreign occupation by a global superpower. Hence, a potential conflict imposed by a neighbour would be a lesser mission.

Taliban spokesmen are pushing back against Pakistani officials’ recent narrative, underlining the significance of the ongoing information war on both sides. They have alleged, for instance, that Pakistan’s tribal border areas shelter ISIS/ISIL fighters with tacit backing from elements of the Pakistani army.

Nonetheless, as a landlocked country, Afghanistan is heavily dependent on trade routes via Pakistan, which remain shut due to ongoing tensions, resulting in major losses for traders on both sides. The Taliban government lacks air defence systems, radars or modern weaponry to counter any further incursions by Pakistani drones and jets.

The path to de-escalation

The Pakistani army continues to frame its fight against TTP as part of the wider confrontation with India. It has alleged, without evidence, that the armed group is backed by New Delhi. Pakistan also expects the Taliban to disown and distance themselves from the TTP and instead align themselves with Islamabad.

However, the TTP and Taliban share long-term camaraderie, ideological compatibility and social bonds that go beyond stringent organisational peculiarities. For the Taliban, a conflict with the TTP could also risk creating space for minacious actors such as the ISIL-Khorasan armed group.

And while Pakistan is stronger militarily, the Taliban have their own tools that could hurt Islamabad.

What if the Taliban’s Kandahar-based supreme leader, Mullah Haibatullah Akhunzada, were to issue a fatwa for jihad against Pakistan’s security establishment? The TTP leadership had already pledged allegiance to Akhunzada in 2021. But the Taliban’s top leader is also held in high religious regard by a large segment of Pakistani religious school students and religious leaders, and a call against Islamabad from Akhunzada could lead to serious internal security challenges for Pakistan.

Islamist political groups in Pakistan would also not support an all-out war with the Taliban. Meanwhile, any sustained Pakistani attacks against Afghanistan will likely bolster domestic support for the incumbent Taliban administration, even when there is palpable resentment among Afghans against the Taliban.

To prevent further escalation and seek meaningful political dialogue, there is an urgent need for a trusted mediation actor capable of sustainable engagement. This role is best suited for Middle Eastern and Muslim nations trusted by both sides, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

There is evidence that this is a fruitful pathway. Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi confirmed in a news conference in New Delhi last week that the Taliban ceased retaliatory attacks against Pakistan after Qatar and Saudi Arabia mediated.

But first, there needs to be a real desire for peace from the leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Even as Afghan and Pakistani officials hurl warnings at each other, and their forces engage in repeated bouts of cross-border fire, both countries are acutely aware that war will cost them heavily.

However, this does not mean that relations will return to the erstwhile bilateral warmth anytime soon or that miscalculations cannot happen.

Geography and history bind Afghans and Pakistanis into interdependence, which needs to be capitalised upon.

Governments need to stop hoping in vain for the success of failed approaches that have been tried for decades. Afghan leaders must work at developing amicability with Pakistan. Pakistani leaders need to reciprocate by conceiving a wholesome foreign policy towards Afghanistan, which is not coloured by rivalry with India.

The world does not need yet another war in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. It can never bear better dividends than peace.