poor

“It’s a sobering one, we knew Stormers were going to be a good side, and we needed to be at our very best to be able to compete. We weren’t that.

“That’s what happens when you’re up against the bigger teams, the best teams – if you’re not at maximum, it’s going to be a difficult night.”

Peel is concerned by an ever-growing injury list, with Tristan Davies and Max Douglas the latest casualties.

“The injury side of things is tough at the minute. We lost two locks again [against Stormers], the only two locks who were fit, so we’ll just have to see where we are when we travel to South Africa on Tuesday,” said Peel.

“I’m unclear at the minute as to the extent but Tristan has an HIA (head injury assessment) and Max Douglas looks like he’s hurt a rib. He’s in quite a bit of pain in the changing room.”

“It will be a tough couple of days for the medics I’m sure.”

Peel did not rule out more short-term signings, after bringing in lock Steve Cummins on loan from Dragons to cover the absences of Jake Ball, Sam Lousi, Jac Price and Will Evans.

Oct. 9 (UPI) — Pope Leo XIV on Thursday released his first major document, calling on Christians and others not to become indifferent to hunger and extreme poverty across the world.

The pope’s first apostolic exhortation, called Dilexi te, builds on the final text published by Leo’s predecessor Pope Francis, which highlighted the “close connection” between love for God and love for the poor, according to the Vatican.

“With this document, signed on Oct. 4, the feast of Saint Francis of Assis, Pope Leo situates himself firmly on the path laid out by his predecessors, including Saint John XXIII, with his appeal … to wealthier countries not to remain indifferent to nations oppressed by hunger and extreme poverty,” the Vatican said in a news release.

Titled “I Have Loved You,” Leo wrote that Francis had started preparing the document and he had finished it, saying that he is “happy to make the document my own — adding some reflections,” The New York Times reported.

In the document, Leo noted the existence of moral, spiritual and cultural poverty, in addition to the poverty of poorer people and nations lacking the material means of subsistence and calls the world’s commitment to the poor “insufficient.”

Leo wrote that the modern world continues to measure poverty using outdated criteria that “do not correspond to present-day realities,” which the “dictatorship of an economy that kills” has exponentially grown the gap between the rich and poor.

Noting that a “throwaway culture” tolerates indifference toward the poor, Leo called for a change in mentality for people to move away from the “illusion of happiness derived from a comfortable life … centered on the accumulation of wealth and social success at all costs, even at the expense of others.”

“The poor are not there by chance or by blind and cruel fate,” Leo wrote. “Nor, for most of them, is poverty a choice. Yet, there are those who still presume to make this claim, thus revealing their own blindness and cruelty.”

Jet2 CEO Steve Heapy has criticised the Spanish left-wing government for allegedly attracting rich travellers to the country, saying it goes against its ‘socialist utopia’

An airline chief has slammed Spain’s government, accusing it of courting hypocrisy by supposedly targeting wealthy tourists to visit the country.

Jet2 CEO Steve Heapy believes this contradicts the nation’s ‘socialist utopia’ principles. Speaking at the Association of British Travel Agents’ annual conference – taking place on the Spanish island of Mallorca – he branded tourism officials’ desire for affluent holidaymakers as “absolutely disgraceful”.

Mr Heapy addressed the government’s campaign “Think you know Spain? Think again”, which the airline boss has argued is calling for a different, richer type of tourist to visit the country.

“When you boil down what they’ve said, ‘we want a different type of customer’. They basically want rich people, which doesn’t fit given Spain is supposed to be a socialist utopia,” the Jet2 boss said.

READ MORE: Airline to remove bag sizer at gate in major boarding shakeupREAD MORE: I’m a travel expert and these are the items you’ll always regret bringing on holiday

“I don’t think it’s very fair. I don’t think holidays should be something for the rich and privileged. I think holidays should be something for everyone. And if a prerequisite to going on holidays is being rich, I think that’s absolutely disgraceful.”, reports the Express.

The promotional material comes after widespread demonstrations against tourism across Spain, with protesters telling visitors to “go home” and even dousing them with water pistols. Earlier this year, Mr Heapy revealed Jet2 “had people ringing the call centre and going into travel agents, asking questions like ‘is Spain safe’, ‘are we still welcome in the resort’.”

He noted this is “becoming a big issue, unfortunately, and perception becomes truth.”

The Spanish government is using adverts to encourage tourists to enjoy slower, more sustainable holidays, showcasing attractions such as wineries, luxury medieval castle hotels, surf camps, truffle tasting, and “gastronomic experiences with seasonal produce”.

The campaign’s website states: “There is another way to travel. Calmer, more aware, more personal. In Spain you will want to stop in every village and landscape to discover its culture and connect with the environment.”

Mr Heapy admitted that several of Spain’s top tourist hotspots are grappling with issues stemming from poor tourism management. He largely blamed this on unregulated short-term rentals, especially through platforms like Airbnb.

He proposed that hosts operating without the correct licences or tax registration should face hefty fines – up to €250,000 (around £217,000) – and potential prison time if fines remain unpaid. Jet2, Britain’s biggest package-holiday airline, transported nearly 18 million passengers last year, according to The Telegraph.

In recent years, more destinations and their tourism boards have spoken of wanting ‘high-value tourists’. The term has emerged in response to mass tourism and the problems that it can cause for local populations.

High volumes of holidaymakers on cheap package holidays can put strain on public services and push up house prices, while not adding as much to the local economy as some would like.

Shifting a destination’s tourism model from one that attracts mass-market visitors to a smaller group of richer travellers is not easy, however, as perceptions of a place tend to stick, and facilities take time and money to improve.

The Spanish Tourism Board declined to comment.

BBC Sport’s chief football news reporter Simon Stone:

Even when they are being subjected to the kind of criticism they are getting at the moment, West Ham’s ownership tend not to go in for knee-jerk reactions when it comes to dealing with managers.

Chairman David Sullivan is more likely to give someone a game or two extra rather than act when there is still a possibility the situation might be pulled round.

Clearly though, heavy home defeats by two of the club’s fiercest rivals and slipping into the bottom three is not a good look, especially when Potter’s appointment last season failed to trigger the improvement hoped for.

If there is a slight positive as far as Potter is concerned, it comes from knowing we are still incredibly early into the new season.

Julen Lopetegui collected only five points from his first six Premier League games in charge last season and it was January before he was sacked. In 2022-23, West Ham collected five points from seven games with David Moyes in charge.

The secondary point is that West Ham made four signings between 29 August and the transfer deadline closing two days later. Given there was an international break in between, how much time has Potter had to work with his new-look squad?

Next week, unbeaten Crystal Palace visit London Stadium for a game where huge demonstrations against the ownership are planned. If that game doesn’t go well, a tense atmosphere could turn toxic.

After that it’s a trip to Merseyside and a meeting with Moyes’ improving Everton before a trip to Arsenal, where West Ham have won on their past two visits, including under Potter in February.

That feels a more obvious time to reassess, even if many West Ham fans feel getting rid of the manager is only the start of the change they really want.

IF you’re wondering where your money’s going each month, it might not be big bills or bad luck to blame but small, repeated mistakes that add up fast.

From letting your savings sit in low-interest accounts, to underestimating the real cost of long mortgage terms, financial experts warn that common habits could be quietly emptying your bank accounts.

2

2

We asked money experts and behavioural scientists to reveal the biggest habits that are holding people back.

1. Not knowing what’s coming in and going out

It’s hard to feel in control of your money when you don’t know where it’s actually going.

Many people assume they have a rough idea, but the reality is that forgotten subscriptions, auto-renewing services and small daily purchases quickly add up.

Without visibility, your budget can slowly unravel, and by the time you realise, you’ve slipped into the red.

Vix Leyton, consumer expert at Thinkmoney, says the fix starts with routine: “Take time to know what your outgoings are and what is coming in.

“Some apps, like Thinkmoney, offer a snapshot of what you’re spending, and can even ringfence bill money for you so you don’t accidentally end up facing penalties and late fees.”

Even a five-minute weekly check-in can help avoid nasty surprises and highlight where cutbacks are needed.

2. Living without a savings buffer

It’s hard to save money – but not having a buffer can leave you exposed to high credit when you need cash quickly.

Whether it’s a broken boiler, a car that won’t start or a sudden cut in hours at work, not having a cushion means falling back on credit cards or payday loans just to stay afloat.

The result is a constant feeling of stress, and a budget that can be thrown off by the smallest shock.

Thomas Mathar, behavioural researcher and host of The Money:Mindshift Podcast, says a little slack goes a long way.

He said: “Even a modest buffer, like one month’s rent, can give you the breathing space to make better decisions and avoid high-cost debt.

“It’s not just about the numbers, it’s about having mental and financial slack when life throws you a curveball.”

3. Letting debt pile up month after month

More and more people have credit card debt, which means it can be easy to think it’s business as usual, especially when the minimum payments are low.

But ultimately, you’re paying interest to the bank instead of putting that money toward your own goals. Over time, that can add up to hundreds or even thousands of pounds in lost savings.

“Too many people accept credit card debt as a normal state of affairs. It’s not,” says Mathar.

“Paying down high-interest debt quickly is one of the most powerful things you can do for your long-term well being. It’s buying yourself back freedom, and peace of mind.”

If you’re juggling multiple debts, focus on the most expensive ones first and look into 0% balance transfer options if your credit score allows.

4. Having psychological armour to support you

In the age of side hustles and flashy online success stories, it’s tempting to ditch steady work for riskier pursuits.

But without a reliable income it’s hard to build long-term security.

Inconsistent earnings often mean falling behind on bills, using credit to bridge the gap, and struggling to plan ahead.

Mathar warns that it’s important to have some sort of regular income, even if you’re pursuing other hustles on the side.

He says: “A steady income isn’t just about covering bills, it’s psychological armour.

“When you’re living month-to-month or under-earning compared to your potential, the stress compounds.

“You don’t need to chase big money, but you do need income that’s ‘good enough’ to support a resilient, happy life.”

5. Leaving savings in a dead-end account

You might feel good about putting money aside, but if it’s sitting in an easy-access account earning barely any interest, your savings are losing value in real terms.

With inflation still high, the cost of leaving cash in low-yield accounts is higher than many realise.

Adam French, head of news at Moneyfactscompare.co.uk, says this mistake is all too common.

Adam said: “The likes of HSBC, Lloyds Bank, Santander, NatWest and Barclays all have easy access accounts paying around 1.1 to 1.2 per cent interest, far below the typical returns savers could expect, which is currently 3.51 per cent.”

The top performing options can pay even more, and shopping around and switching accounts only takes a few minutes online.

6. Not making the most of your ISA allowance

More savers than ever are being hit with tax bills they could have avoided.

Frozen tax thresholds mean that even modest savers can end up over the personal savings allowance, paying tax on any interest they earn.

That means, if you’re not using your ISA allowance, you’re potentially giving money away for free.

French explains: “Saving and investing are some of the best ways to build wealth over time.

“But it’s important that savers are aware of their tax liability on any profits they make – which can add up over the course of a few years.

Plenty of savers can avoid this tax bill by making use their yearly ISA allowances.

You can save or invest up to £20,000 a year tax-free, and every pound sheltered from tax is a pound that keeps working for you.

7. Only saving for retirement, and nothing else

Putting money into a pension is smart, but it shouldn’t be your only savings plan.

Many people now take career breaks, retrain, care for relatives or start businesses, and those transitions need funding too.

Mathar says ignoring this reality can leave people exposed.

“We don’t live three-stage lives anymore – education, work, retirement… A ‘transition fund’ – even just a few months’ salary – makes those big life pivots possible without financial panic.”

8. Being too harsh on yourself when things go wrong

Money mistakes happen. But too often, people fall into a cycle of guilt and avoidance, especially if they’re already struggling.

That mindset can stop you from facing your finances or reaching out for help, which only makes things worse in the long run.

Mathar believes the solution starts with self-empathy. “Here’s the truth: we’re all a bit messed up when it comes to money.

Our brains are wired for short-term wins, not long-term planning.

The goal isn’t to be perfect with money; it’s to build enough slack, mental and financial, so that one mistake or setback doesn’t knock you flat.”

9. Not overpaying your mortgage when you could

With mortgage rates still high and household budgets under pressure, many borrowers are choosing longer terms to keep monthly payments manageable.

But unless you’re also making overpayments, that strategy can come at a serious long-term cost.

French says small changes now can lead to huge savings later: “Overpaying by £200 per month on that same £250,000 40-year mortgage could shave almost 13 years off the mortgage term, saving them around £123,000 in interest payments.

“This is all without being tied to having to consistently make higher payments every single month – boosting the flexibility of their budget and their financial resilience.”

Most lenders allow up to 10 per cent overpayment each year.

Even £50 a month can help you become mortgage-free sooner and pay far less in interest overall.

It is of course very early to suggest that a relegation battle beckons for West Ham this season, but there’s no doubt it is a significant concern for many of their supporters right now.

With one goal scored and eight conceded, they are currently showing that worrying combination of struggling to score and letting in plenty, which does not bode well for aspirations of avoiding a season of struggle.

Up next is a trip to Nottingham Forest, before successive London derbies against Tottenham and Crystal Palace – all three tricky games in which West Ham will need to show considerable improvement from what they have so far.

Former Tottenham midfielder Jamie Redknapp said on Sky Sports: “If I’m Sunderland, Burnley, Leeds, I’m looking at West Ham and thinking, ‘they’re the ones, they’re the weakest team in the Premier League we’re going to catch’.

“That squad isn’t good enough. They haven’t got enough good players. That midfield just couldn’t get near, they didn’t have the legs to get around. They need to get someone with real legs.”

New faces can revitalise a squad low on confidence, but Potter did not suggest there will be many incomings before the transfer window closes on 1 September.

“I think it would be a bit obtuse of me to speak about signings when clearly we have to improve and do better with what we have,” he admitted.

“We need to do more than we are as a group and as always we will look to strengthen while the window is open.”

Potter knows he is under pressure, and how these next few weeks pan out – both in terms of results on the pitch and business in the transfer market – will have a big say on his future.

“You’re under pressure all the time in these jobs, in this situation, that’s how it is,” he added.

“I know the territory, I know what comes with poor results and I accept my responsibility.”

The UK has plenty of beautiful beaches up and down the country, but some are dirtier than others

When it comes to heading to the seaside you want crystal clear waters, pristine sand and naturally, zero rubbish. Whilst Britain boasts numerous stunning coastal spots across the nation, occasionally they can be marred with, well, debris.

Research has found the UK’s most polluted beaches, listing them according to the worst contamination levels. This is according to retailer Cartridge Save, which identified the top 10.

The study examined water purity by analysing concentrations of E. coli bacteria and intestinal enterococci, as well as TripAdvisor guest feedback for each spot.

The coastal areas were assessed using a “water cleanliness score” from zero to 10, with 10 indicating the finest state, reports the Express.

10. Lowestoft

E. Coli – 45

Int. Enterococci – 12

Least ‘excellent’ ratings – 3

Water cleanliness score – 7.45

Lowestoft in Suffolk makes the top 10 muckiest beaches in the UK with a score of 7.45 out of 10. Despite ranking 45th for E.coli, it’s 12th for intestinal enterococci and third for the fewest ‘Excellent’ ratings.

9. Lancing, Beach Green

E. Coli – 25

Int. Enterococci – 7

Least ‘excellent’ ratings – 26

Water cleanliness score – 7.29

Lancing Beach Green in Lancing is next at ninth place with a score of 7.29. It ranks 25th for E.coli and 7th for intestinal enterococci.

8. Seascale

E. Coli – 5

Int. Enterococci – 11

Least ‘excellent’ ratings – 29

Water cleanliness score – 7.28

Seascale in Cumbria lands in eighth place with a score of 7.28 out of 10, ranking 5th for E. coli and 11th for intestinal enterococci.

7. Three Shells Beach

E. Coli – 13

Int. Enterococci – 20

Least ‘excellent’ ratings – 2

Water cleanliness score – 7.22

Three Shells Beach in Southend-on-Sea comes in seventh with a score of 7.22 out of 10. Despite ranking 20th for intestinal enterococci and 13th for E.coli, the beach has received only 9.38 percent positive reviews from visitors, placing it in the second-worst spot in this category.

This underscores the need for continuous improvements to boost the overall tourist experience.

6. Brighton Beach

E. Coli – 14

Int. Enterococci – 6

Least ‘excellent’ ratings – 17

Water cleanliness score – 6.92

Brighton Beach, despite being one of the UK’s most renowned and bustling beaches all year round, takes the sixth spot with a score of 6.92 out of 10. It struggles with high levels of intestinal enterococci bacteria (ranking sixth) and E.coli (ranking 14th), showing that even popular spots can have significant cleanliness issues.

5. Littlestone

E. Coli – 4

Int. Enterococci – 5

Least ‘excellent’ ratings – 21

Water cleanliness score – 6.51

Littlestone Beach in Littlestone rounds out the top five with a score of 6.51 out of 10. With it ranking fourth for E.coli levels and fifth for intestinal enterococci, it’s best to give this beach a miss.

4. Hunstanon (Old Hunstanton)

E. Coli – 6

Int. Enterococci – 4

Least ‘excellent’ ratings – 44

Water cleanliness score – 6.34

Old Hunstanton had the fourth-highest levels of intestinal enterococci and the sixth-highest levels of E. coli, giving it a water cleanliness score of 6.34 and placing it fourth on the list.

3. Fraisthorpe

E. Coli – 3

Int. Enterococci – 2

Least ‘excellent’ ratings – 30

Water cleanliness score – 3.83

Fraisthorpe Beach in Fraisthorpe and Old Hunstanton Beach in Hunstanton rank third and fourth respectively, with scores of 3.83/10 and 6.34/10. Fraisthorpe recorded the second-highest levels of intestinal enterococci and the third-highest levels of E.coli.

2. Southend Westcliff Bay

E. Coli – 2

Int. Enterococci – 3

Least ‘excellent’ ratings – 34

Water cleanliness score – 2.16

Southend Westcliff Bay in Southend-on-Sea is not far behind, scoring a mere 2.76 out of 10 for water cleanliness. This beach recorded the highest levels of intestinal enterococci and the second-highest levels of E.coli. Moreover, only 40% of online reviews rated the beach as excellent.

1. Haverigg

E.Coli – 1

Int. Enterococci – 3

Least ‘excellent’ ratings – 34

Water cleanliness score – 2.16

Haverigg Beach, located in Haverigg, Cumbria, has been named the dirtiest beach in the UK, with a disappointing water cleanliness score of just 2.16 out of 10.

Haverigg Beach had the highest levels of E. coli of any UK beach analysed and ranked third for levels of intestinal enterococci.

Despite these concerning results, many visitors have left positive reviews, recounting enjoyable experiences at the beach.

Everton manager David Moyes says he’s disappointed by the crucial video assistant referee decision that gave Leeds a 1-0 win, insisting James Tarkowski did everything he could to avoid conceding a late penalty.

WATCH: Match of the Day highlights: Leeds 1-0 Everton

Available to UK users only.

“A budget is a moral document,” as numerous human rights activists have said over the decades. If that is true, then the so‑called “One Big, Beautiful Bill” represents a grotesque example of the immorality of US leadership in 2025.

It is a budget that slashes Medicare and Medicaid by $930bn over the next decade and could leave as many as 17 million without healthcare insurance. The cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – a food aid scheme for Americans living in deep poverty – will render about 1 million vulnerable people ineligible for the basic human right of not starving. The US social welfare system – one that President Franklin D Roosevelt and Congress introduced with the Social Security Act of 1935 and President Lyndon B Johnson extended with Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 – is on its way to an emergency room.

This is one of the steepest rollbacks of social welfare programmes in the US since their inception in 1935. Many will attribute it to Project 2025. But the disdain for social welfare in the US has always been present – because the US cannot be the US without millions of Americans who must work on the cheap, so that a select few can hoard wealth and power, and mega-corporations can hoard resources.

That the US has had a mediocre and begrudging social welfare system for the past 90 years is nothing short of a miracle. While much of the Western world and other major empires either established or modernised their social welfare systems in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the US persisted with limited government intervention for citizens. Only radicals within the US labour movement typically advocated a national social welfare policy. Until the Great Depression of the 1930s, only individual states – not the federal government – provided limited economic relief to unemployed people or their families.

US Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins played a critical role in persuading Roosevelt to pursue what would become the Social Security Act of 1935. Once enacted, this provided the elderly, the unemployed, disabled workers, and single mothers with federal assistance for the first time. But both of the bill’s champions were aware that there would be opposition to the federal government assuming responsibility for providing benefits to Americans, even with unemployment at 25 percent.

Leading business tycoons such as Ford Motor Company founder Henry Ford expressed their disdain for federal social welfare. “No government can guarantee security. It can only tax production, distribution, and service and gradually crush the poor to pay taxes,” Ford said. Alf Landon, a millionaire oilman who served as Republican governor of Kansas and ran against Roosevelt in 1936, also opposed the Social Security Act, on the grounds that the tax burden would further impoverish workers. “I am not exaggerating the folly of this legislation. The saving it forces on our workers is a cruel hoax,” Landon stated in a 1936 speech, also fearing that the federal government would eventually dip into Social Security funds to pay for other projects.

Even when Congress enacted the Social Security Act in August 1935, the compromises made served to racialise, feminise, and further limit social welfare provision. The bill excluded agricultural workers like sharecroppers (two‑thirds white and one‑third African American, who were overrepresented in this work), domestic workers (in which Black women were overrepresented), nonprofit and government workers, and some waiters and waitresses from welfare benefits. It took amendments in the 1950s to rectify some of the racial, gender, and class discrimination embedded in the original legislation.

Johnson’s War on Poverty in 1964-65 prompted resistance and helped catalyse a new conservative movement. Johnson sought to add Medicare and Medicaid to the Social Security regime, provide food assistance via programmes such as Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and SNAP (originally Food Stamps), and expand Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Republican and future US President George HW Bush ran unsuccessfully for Senate in Texas in 1964 against a pro‑Medicare Democrat, calling Johnson’s plan “socialised medicine” – a Cold War‑era slur equating it with communism. Racial segregationist Strom Thurmond remarked of social welfare programmes, in general – and Johnson’s Medicare and Medicaid plans, specifically – “You had [the poor] back in the days of Jesus Christ, you have got some now, and you will have some in the future,” a pitiful excuse for refusing to reduce poverty or extend federal assistance.

The entire conservative pushback against what Republicans termed “entitlements” grew from the expansion of the welfare state under Johnson. So much so that when Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, “his administration slashed Medicaid expenditures by more than 18 percent and cut the overall Department of Health and Human Services budget by 25 percent”. Those and other austerity measures in the 1980s resulted in one million fewer children eligible for free or reduced‑price school lunches, 600,000 fewer people on Medicaid, and one million fewer accessing SNAP – according to one study.

I can speak to the effect of such cuts directly. As a teenage recipient of AFDC and SNAP during the Reagan years – the second eldest of six children (four under the age of five in 1984) in the New York City area – I can say that the $16,000 in annual state and federal assistance between 1983 and 1987 felt like a cruel joke. It barely covered housing, offered minimal healthcare via underfunded public clinics, and still left us without food for a week every month. If this is what they call “entitlements”, then I was clearly entitled to almost nothing.

In the past 30 years, leaders who opposed the federal social welfare apparatus have celebrated their victories with disturbing heartlessness. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole declared gleefully in 1995 that he “was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare… because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965”. During his 2008 presidential campaign, the late Republican senator John McCain proposed $1.3 trillion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, along with a huge “overhaul” of Social Security to balance the federal budget. Fiscal conservative Grover Norquist infamously said he wanted to “get it [social‑welfare programmes] down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub”. US Speaker Mike Johnson claimed last week that Trump’s budget would usher in “a new golden age”. Budget priorities that ultimately harm those in poverty, restrict access to healthcare, and force people to work for food aid or medical care are nothing short of monstrous.

Ninety years – and 44 years of tax breaks later – the greed and callousness of conservatives and the far right have precipitated yet another round of tax cuts favouring the uber wealthy and mega-corporations. It is only a matter of time before those whose grandparents once benefitted from Social Security and New Deal‑era welfare will seek to gut what remains of America’s Swiss‑cheese safety net.

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

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s decision to hike tariffs once again on some of America’s largest trading partners rattled markets on Monday, dashing hopes on Wall Street that the White House would cut any significant trade deals, as it had promised, by the middle of this week.

In a series of letters sent to foreign leaders, and promptly posted by the president to his social media platform, Trump said the new rates amount to the cost of doing business with “the extraordinary Economy of the United States, The Number One Market in the World, by far.” Under the new policy, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and Kazakhstan will face 25% import duties starting Aug. 1, while goods from Laos and Myanmar will face a 40% tariff, according to the letters.

South Africa’s president also received a letter, stating goods from the country imported to the United States would face duties of 30%.

Markets recoiled at the news, with the Dow Jones industrial average dropping 1.4%, the Nasdaq falling 1.2% and the Standard & Poor’s 500 sinking 1.2%.

The move essentially returns U.S. tariff rates on those countries to those Trump first announced on April 2, on what he called Liberation Day, but that he ultimately abandoned over widespread Wall Street panic that began spooking the bond market.

Trump hit pause on the crisis by announcing a 90-day suspension of the higher tariff rates, a period set to expire Wednesday. But the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said Monday that Trump would extend the deadline to the end of the month.

Several senior officials in the Trump administration had promised a slew of trade deals would follow the April episode — “we’re going to run 90 deals in 90 days,” said Peter Navarro, the president’s top trade advisor. Yet the administration has failed to secure a single detailed trade deal, instead announcing three frameworks of understanding with the United Kingdom, China and Vietnam.

“The president is taking a very deliberate approach to correcting this wrong of many decades, of many past presidents — I think he should be commended for the time and the effort that he’s putting into this,” Leavitt told reporters at a press briefing.

“The fact that he has announced a framework with China, a trade deal with the U.K., a trade deal with Vietnam and many others to come in just six months is truly historic, and it’s a testament to this president and his trade team,” she added.

In his letters to foreign leaders, Trump warned that any effort by their governments to retaliate would be met with escalation.

“If for any reason you decide to raise your Tariffs, then, whatever the number you choose to raise them by, will be added onto the 25% that we charge,” he wrote.

Leavitt said more letters would be sent in the coming days. She also stated that additional trade deals could be announced soon. “We are close,” she said.

Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, told CNBC in an interview that his inbox was “full last night with a lot of new offers” for trade deals ahead of the now-defunct Wednesday deadline.

“We’ve had a lot of people change their tune in terms of negotiations,” Bessent said. “So it’s going to be a busy couple of days.”

The stock market reaction to Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs, which hiked rates on countries all around the world, was an historic rout, eviscerating trillions of dollars in value, with the Standard & Poor’s index bleeding 12% in just four days.

Markets recovered within weeks, after Trump reversed course, with the S&P hitting a record high on July 3.

Joypurhat/Dhaka, Bangladesh, and New Delhi/Kolkata, India – Under the mild afternoon sun, 45-year-old Safiruddin sits outside his incomplete brick-walled house in Baiguni village of Kalai Upazila in Bangladesh, nursing a dull ache in his side.

In the summer of 2024, he sold his kidney in India for 3.5 lakh taka ($2,900), hoping to lift his family out of poverty and build a house for his three children – two daughters, aged five and seven, and an older 10-year-old son. That money is long gone, the house remains unfinished, and the pain in his body is a constant reminder of the price he paid.

He now toils as a daily labourer in a cold storage facility, as his health deteriorates – the constant pain and fatigue make it hard for him to carry out even routine tasks.

“I gave my kidney so my family could have a better life. I did everything for my wife and children,” he said.

At the time, it didn’t seem like a dangerous choice. The brokers who approached him made it sound simple – an opportunity rather than a risk. He was sceptical initially, but desperation eventually won over his doubts.

The brokers took him to India on a medical visa, with all arrangements – flights, documents, and hospital formalities – handled entirely by them. Once in India, although he travelled on his original Bangladeshi passport, other documents, such as certificates falsely showing a familial relationship with the intended recipient of his kidney, were forged.

His identity was altered, and his kidney was transplanted into an unknown recipient whom he had never met. “I don’t know who got my kidney. They [the brokers] didn’t tell me anything,” Safiruddin said.

By law, organ donations in India are only permitted between close relatives or with special government approval, but traffickers manipulate everything – family trees, hospital records, even DNA tests – to bypass regulations.

“Typically, the seller’s name is changed, and a notary certificate – stamped by a lawyer – is produced to falsely establish a familial relationship with the recipient. Forged national IDs support the claim, making it appear as though the donor is a relative, such as a sister, daughter, or another family member, donating an organ out of compassion,” said Monir Moniruzzaman, a Michigan State University professor and a member of the World Health Organization’s Task Force on Organ Transplantation, who is researching organ trafficking in South Asia.

Safiruddin’s story isn’t unique. Kidney donations are so common in his village of Baiguni, that locals know the community of less than 6,000 people as the “village of one kidney”. The Kalai Upazila region that Baiguni belongs to is the hotspot for the kidney trade industry: A 2023 study published in the British Medical Journal Global Health publication estimated one in 35 adults in the region has sold a kidney.

Kalai Upazila is one of Bangladesh’s poorest regions. Most donors are men in their early 30s lured by the promise of quick money. According to the study, 83 percent of those surveyed cited poverty as the main reason for selling a kidney, while others pointed to loan repayments, drug addiction or gambling.

Safiruddin said that the brokers – who had taken his passport – never returned it. He didn’t even get the medicines he had been prescribed after the surgery. “They [the brokers] took everything.”

Brokers often confiscate passports and medical prescriptions after the surgery, erasing any trail of the transplant and leaving donors without proof of the procedure or access to follow-up care.

The kidneys are sold to wealthy recipients in Bangladesh or India, many of whom seek to bypass long wait times and the strict regulations of legal transplants. In India, for example, only about 13,600 kidney transplants were performed in 2023 – compared with an estimated 200,000 patients who develop end-stage kidney disease annually.

Al Jazeera spoke with more than a dozen kidney donors in Bangladesh, all of whom shared similar stories of being driven to sell their kidneys due to financial hardship. The trade is driven by a simple yet brutal equation: Poverty creates the supply, while long wait times, a massive shortage of legal donors, the willingness of wealthy patients to pay for quick transplants and a weak enforcement system ensure that the demand never ceases.

The cost of desperation

Josna Begum, 45, a widow from Binai village in Kalai Upazila, was struggling to raise her two daughters, 18 and 20 years old, after her husband died in 2012. She moved to Dhaka to work in a garment factory, where she met and married another man named Belal.

After their marriage, both Belal and Josna were lured by a broker into selling their kidneys in India in 2019.

“It was a mistake,” Josna said. She explained that the brokers first promised her five lakh taka (about $4,100), then raised the offer to seven lakh (around $5,700) to convince her. “But after the operation, all I got was three lakh [$2,500].”

Josna said she and Belal were taken to Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences in Kolkata, the capital of India’s West Bengal state, where they underwent surgery. “We were taken by a bus through the Benapole border into India, where we were housed in a rented apartment near the hospital.”

To secure the transplant, the brokers fabricated documents claiming that she and the recipient were blood relatives. Like Safiruddin, she doesn’t know who received her kidney.

Despite repeated attempts, officials at Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences have not responded to Al Jazeera’s request to comment on the case. Kolkata police have previously accused other brokers of facilitating illegal kidney transplants at the same hospital in 2017.

Josna said her passport and identification documents were handled entirely by the brokers. “I was OK with them taking away the prescriptions. But I asked for my passport. They never gave it back,” she said.

She stayed in India for nearly two months before returning to Bangladesh – escorted by the brokers who had her passport, and still held out the promise of paying her what they had committed to.

The brokers had also promised support for her family and even jobs for her children, but after the initial payment and a few token payments on Eid, they cut off contact.

Soon after he was paid – also three lakh taka ($2,500) – for his transplant, Belal abandoned Josna, later marrying another woman. “My life was ruined,” she said.

Josna now suffers from chronic pain and struggles to afford medicines. “I can’t do any heavy work,” she said. “I have to survive, but I need medicine all the time.”

‘In front of this gang’s gun’

In some cases, victims have become perpetrators of the kidney scam, too.

Mohammad Sajal (name changed), was once a businessman in Dhaka selling household items like pressure cookers, plastic containers and blenders through Evaly, a flashy e-commerce platform that promised big returns. But when Evaly collapsed following a 2021 scam, so did his savings – and his livelihood.

Drowning in debt and under immense pressure to repay what he owed, he sold his kidney in 2022 at Venkateshwar Hospital in Delhi. But the promised 10 lakh taka ($8,200) never materialised. He received only 3.5 lakh taka ($2,900).

“They [the brokers] cheated me,” Sajal said. Venkateshwar Hospital has not responded to repeated requests from Al Jazeera for comment on the case.

There was only one way he could earn what he had thought he would get for his kidney, Sajal concluded at the time: by joining the brokers to dupe others. For months, he worked as a broker, arranging kidney transplants for several Bangladeshi donors in Indian hospitals. But after a financial dispute with his handlers, he left the trade, fearing for his life.

“I am now in front of this gang’s gun,” he said. The network he left behind operates with impunity, he said, stretching from Bangladeshi hospitals to the Indian medical system. “Everyone from the doctors to recipients to the brokers on both sides of borders are involved,” he said.

Now, Sajal works as a ride-share driver in Dhaka, trying to escape the past. But the scars, both physical and emotional, remain. “No one willingly gives a kidney out of hobby or desire,” he said. “It is a simple calculation: desperation leads to this.”

Acknowledging the cross-border kidney trafficking trade, Bangladesh police say they are cracking down on those involved. Assistant Inspector General Enamul Haque Sagor of Bangladesh Police said that, in addition to uniformed officers, undercover investigators have been deployed to track organ trafficking networks and gather intelligence.

“This issue is under our watch, and we are taking action as required,” he said.

Sagor said that police have arrested multiple individuals linked to organ trafficking syndicates, including brokers. “Many people get drawn into kidney sales through these networks, and we are working to catch them,” he added.

Across the border, Indian law enforcement agencies, too, have cracked down on some medical professionals accused of involvement in kidney trafficking. In July 2024, the Delhi Police arrested Dr Vijaya Rajakumari, a 50-year-old kidney transplant surgeon associated with a Delhi hospital. Investigations revealed that between 2021 and 2023, Dr Rajakumari performed approximately 15 transplant surgeries on Bangladeshi patients at a private hospital, Indian officials said.

But experts say that these arrests are too sporadic to seriously dent the business model that underpins the kidney trade.

And experts say Indian authorities face competing pressures – upholding the law, but also promoting medical tourism, a sector that was worth $7.6bn in 2024. “Instead of enforcing ethical standards, the focus is on the economic advantages of the industry, allowing illegal transplants to continue,” said Moniruzzaman.

‘More transplants mean more revenue’

In India, the Transplantation of Human Organs Act (THOA) of 1994 regulates organ donations, permitting kidney transplants primarily between close relatives such as parents, siblings, children and spouses to prevent commercial exploitation. When the donor is not a near relative, the case must receive approval from a government-appointed body known as an authorisation committee to ensure the donation is altruistic and not financially motivated.

However, brokers involved in kidney trafficking circumvent these regulations by forging documents to establish fictitious familial relationships between donors and recipients. These fraudulent documents are then submitted to authorisation committees, which – far too often, say experts – approve the transplants.

Experts say the foundation of this illicit system lies in the ease with which brokers manipulate legal loopholes. “They fabricate national IDs and notary certificates to create fictitious family ties between donors and recipients. These papers can be made quickly and cheaply,” said Moniruzzaman.

With these falsified identities, transplants are performed under the pretence of legal donations between relatives.

In Dhaka, Shah Muhammad Tanvir Monsur, director general (consular) at Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that the country’s government officials had no role in the document fraud, and that they “duly followed” all legal procedures. He also denied any exchange of information between India and Bangladesh on cracking down on cross-border kidney trafficking.

Over in India, Amit Goel, deputy commissioner of police in Delhi, who has investigated several cases of kidney trafficking in the city, including that of Rajakumari, the doctor, said that hospital authorities often struggle to detect forged documents, allowing illegal transplants to proceed.

“In the cases I investigated, I found that the authorisation board approved those cases because they couldn’t identify the fake documents,” he said.

But Moniruzzaman pointed out that Indian hospitals also have a financial incentive to overlook discrepancies in documents.

“Hospitals turn a blind eye because organ donation [in general] is legal,” Moniruzzaman said. “More transplants mean more revenue. Even when cases of fraud surface, hospitals deny responsibility, insisting that documentation appears legitimate. This pattern allows the trade to continue unchecked,” he added.

Mizanur Rahman, a broker who operates across multiple districts in Bangladesh, said that traffickers often target individual doctors or members of hospital review committees, offering bribes to facilitate these transplants.​ “Usually, brokers in Bangladesh are in touch with their counterparts in India who set up these doctors for them,” Rahman told Al Jazeera. “These doctors often take a major chunk of the money involved.”

Dr Anil Kumar, director of the National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (NOTTO) – India’s central body overseeing organ donation and transplant coordination – declined to comment on allegations of systemic discrepancies that have enabled rising cases of organ trafficking.

However, a former top official from NOTTO pointed out that hospitals often are up against not just brokers and seemingly willing donors with what appear to be legitimate documents, but also wealthier recipients. “If the hospital board is not convinced, recipients often take the matter to higher authorities or challenge the decision in court. So they [hospitals] also want to avoid legal hassles and proceed with transplants,” this official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, organ trafficking networks continue to adapt their strategies. When police or official scrutiny increases in one location, the trade simply moves elsewhere. “There is no single fixed hospital; the locations keep changing,” Moniruzzaman said. “When police conduct a raid, the hospital stops performing transplants.

“Brokers and their network – Bangladeshi and Indian brokers working together – coordinate to select new hospitals at different times.”

Porous borders and the fallout

For brokers and hospitals that are involved, there is big money at stake. Recipients often pay between $22,000 and $26,000 for a kidney.

But donors get only a tiny fraction of this money. “The donors get three to five lakh taka [$2,500 to $4,000] usually,” said Mizanur Rahman, the broker. “The rest of the money is shared with brokers, officials who forge documents, and doctors if they are involved. Some money is also spent on donors while they live in India.”

In some cases, the deception runs even deeper: traffickers lure Bangladeshi nationals with promises of well-paying jobs in India, only to coerce them into kidney donations.

Victims, often desperate for work, are taken to hospitals under false pretences, where they undergo surgery without fully understanding the consequences. In September last year, for instance, a network of traffickers in India held many Bangladeshi job seekers captive, either forced or deceived them into organ transplants, and abandoned them with minimal compensation. Last year, police in Bangladesh arrested three traffickers in Dhaka who smuggled at least 10 people to New Delhi under the guise of employment, only to have them forced into kidney transplants.

“Some people knowingly sell their kidneys due to extreme poverty, but a significant number are deceived,” said Shariful Hasan, associate director of the Migration Programme at BRAC, formerly the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, one of the world’s largest nongovernmental development organisations. “A rich patient in India needs a kidney, a middleman either finds a poor Bangladeshi donor or lures someone in the name of employment, and the cycle continues.”

Vasundhara Raghavan, CEO of the Kidney Warriors Foundation, a support group in India for patients with kidney diseases, said that a shortage of legal donors was a “major challenge” that drove the demand for trafficked organs.

“Desperate patients turn to illicit means, fuelling a system that preys on the poor.”

She acknowledged that India’s legal framework was aimed at preventing organ transplants from turning into an exploitative industry. But in reality, she said, the law had only pushed organ trade underground.

“If organ trade cannot be entirely eliminated, a more systematic and regulated approach should be considered. This could involve ensuring that donors undergo mandatory health screenings, receive postoperative medical support for a fixed period, and are provided with financial security for their future wellbeing,” Raghavan said.

Back in Kalai Upazila, Safiruddin nowadays spends most of his time at home, his movements slower, his strength visibly diminished. “I am not able to work properly,” he said.

He says there are nights when he lies awake, thinking of the promises the brokers made, and the dreams they shattered. He doesn’t know when, and if, he will be able to complete the construction of his house. He thought the surgery would bring his family a pot of cash to build a future. Instead, his children have been left with an ailing father – and he with a sense of betrayal that Safiruddin can’t shake off. “They took my kidney and vanished,” he said.

Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from Journalists for Transparency.

June 12 (UPI) — The House-passed budget reconciliation bill promoted by the Trump administration would benefit higher earners at the expense of lower-income Americans, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

The CBO’s findings said between 2026 and 2034, after-tax federal benefits “would decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the middle and top of the income distribution,” the report said.

“If you are a hardworking American that is struggling to take care of your family, you are going to love this legislation,” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said during an interview on Fox News last week.

But the CBO report indicates that the top 10% of earners would receive the highest tax cuts.

The CBO analysis shows that households earning up to $107,000 yearly will see an average tax cut of $1,200 annually through 2034. People making up to $138,000 annually will see a $1,750 tax cut; those earning up to $178,000 will see a $2,400 yearly benefit; those bringing in $242,000 will see a $3,650 benefit; and households earning up to $682,000 a year can expect an annual $13,500 tax benefit.

A recent analysis by the Joint Taxation Committee reflected the results of the CBO report and also suggested that lower income Americans would benefit less from the legislation than higher earners.

The budget bill, which has seen staunch opposition from Democrats, faith leaders and social service advocates, faces a tough road in the Senate, where even some members of the GOP have expressed concern about the depth of the cuts, especially to Medicaid services and SNAP benefits, which would fall most squarely on the most vulnerable Americans.

Academics and scientists have also been critical of proposed reductions in research funding in the budget bill while adding trillions of dollars to the national debt.

England sealed a comprehensive one-day international series clean sweep over West Indies with a nine-wicket thrashing in a rain-affected encounter at Taunton.

Set a target of just 106 in a match reduced to 21 overs per side, England cruised to victory in 10.5 overs with captain Nat Sciver-Brunt finishing unbeaten on 57 from 33 balls.

Sophia Dunkley made 26 at the top of the order as England rejigged their batting line-up, while Alice Capsey finished unbeaten on 20 in another one-sided affair.

West Indies, who were again without star all-rounder Hayley Matthews because of a shoulder injury, had slipped to 4-3 inside the first four overs after England chose to bowl first under gloomy skies.

Stand-in captain Shemaine Campbelle and opener Qiana Joseph gradually rebuilt with a partnership of 39 before heavy rain led to a five-hour delay after 12.3 overs had been bowled.

Campbelle fell to Charlie Dean from the first ball after the resumption as the tourists slumped further to 58-6, but they smacked 31 from the last two overs to post 106-8.

Leg-spinner Sarah Glenn was the pick of England’s bowlers with 3-21, while seamer Em Arlott took 2-15.

England also won the preceding T20 series 3-0, and their summer continues with three T20s and three ODIs against India, starting at Trent Bridge on 28 June.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Dick Cheney on Monday fired Air Force Chief of Staff Michael J. Dugan, saying that the four-star general displayed “poor judgment at a very sensitive time” by revealing possible targets of air strikes in Iraq in the event of war.

President Bush and Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concurred in the dismissal, which came in a 10-minute meeting with Dugan in Cheney’s Pentagon office early Monday.

Dugan was fired for comments published in The Times and Washington Post on Sunday, in which he said that–if war comes–the U.S. military intends to conduct a massive air campaign against Iraq, specifically targeting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, his family and his palace guard.

“Given the extreme delicacy and sensitivity of the current situation, it’s incumbent upon senior officials to be discreet and tactful in their public statements, and I found those qualities lacking” in Dugan’s remarks, Cheney said in a news conference Monday.

The defense secretary said Dugan’s comments put at risk the lives of the more than 150,000 U.S. troops in the region and jeopardized the five-week-old Persian Gulf operation by revealing classified details of U.S. war planning.

Cheney said he will nominate Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, currently commander of Pacific Air Forces, to be the next chief of staff.

As for Dugan, who had been in the post only since July, Cheney said: “He will be retired.”

The only other member of the Joint Chiefs to have been fired was Adm. Louis E. Denfeld, sacked in October, 1949, by President Harry S. Truman. Denfeld, ironically, had irritated the President and his fellow chiefs for raising questions about the value of air power in modern warfare.

Cheney cited a number of critical sins that Dugan committed in the interviews with three journalists conducted over several hours aboard his aircraft on a trip to Saudi Arabia last week.

“We never talk about future operations, such as the selection of specific targets for potential air strikes. We never talk about the targeting of specific individuals who are officials of other governments. Taking such action might be a violation of the standing presidential executive order” banning assassinations, Cheney said.

He also chastised Dugan for underestimating Iraqi military capabilities, for revealing classified information about the size and disposition of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia and for demeaning the role of the other U.S. military services by citing air power as the “only option” available for defeating the 1-million-member Iraqi army.

Cheney also was disturbed with Dugan for “treating (U.S.) casualties cavalierly,” an aide said. He apparently was referring to a comment from a senior Dugan aide on the trip who called the expected loss of American lives in such a military operation a “manageable risk.”

Powell reportedly was furious when he saw the Post story on Sunday morning and called Cheney at home at 7 a.m. to point it out. Cheney then sought The Times’ version to see if Dugan’s remarks were accurately reported. The two articles were similar, and the quotations in common were exactly the same. Cheney was “very upset,” but did not make up his mind to fire Dugan until Sunday night, a knowledgeable defense official said.

An aide to Cheney said the defense secretary believes Dugan’s comments “showed egregious judgment” and could not be tolerated. “He became the self-appointed spokesman for (Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who is directing the U.S. operation in Saudi Arabia) and the chiefs. He revealed classified information. He talked about operational plans that are fundamentally not his choice. He raised sensitive matters of diplomacy relating to other nations. He set a poor standard of military leadership, that a military commander would not take seriously the people we’re up against,” this official said.

“Based on all these things, the secretary just lost confidence in him,” the aide said.

Powell contacted Dugan in Florida and asked if he had been accurately quoted. Dugan assured him that he had been. Powell told him to report to Cheney’s office at 8 a.m. Monday but did not tell the Air Force chief that the decision had been made to dismiss him.

Dugan did not know when he entered Cheney’s Pentagon office that he was about to be fired, an Air Force official said.

In his news conference, Cheney did not dispute the truth of any of Dugan’s assertions, which included a statement that the Joint Chiefs have concluded that the United States would never have sufficient ground forces in Saudi Arabia to drive Iraqi troops out of Kuwait and would therefore be dependent on air power to sway any potential battle.

Dugan also revealed for the first time that the United States has deployed 420 combat aircraft to the Arabian Peninsula–nearly as much striking power as the fleet dedicated to defending Europe against the Soviet Union. Previous estimates of air power in the Persian Gulf region were about half that.

The Air Force chief also disclosed for the first time that the United States had recently purchased advanced Israeli cruise missiles and deployed them aboard B-52 bombers stationed within striking distance of Baghdad. In addition, he said that the Pentagon has consulted with Israeli intelligence agencies to determine the best targets in Iraq.

The most troubling matter, senior Pentagon officials said, was Dugan’s discussion of the possible targeting of Hussein, his family, his inner circle and even his mistress. Cheney suggested that such action “might” violate Executive Order 12333, issued in December, 1981, which specifically prohibits assassinations.

“I think it’s inappropriate . . . for U.S. officials to talk about targeting specific foreign individuals,” Cheney said in the news conference. “I think it is potentially a violation of the standing presidential Executive Order.”

However, the ban on assassinations was modified last year to allow for the killing of senior enemy military commanders as part of a “decapitation” strategy. Hussein is commander in chief of Iraqi military forces–as Bush is commander of all U.S. forces–and thus would be a legal target for military action, Pentagon officials said Monday.

But it clearly would violate U.S. law and policy to target Hussein’s wife, his children or his girlfriend, officials noted.

Cheney, pressed on a variety of Dugan’s assertions, said he could not confirm or deny them without violating the security considerations for which he dismissed Dugan.

The defense secretary also noted that Dugan is “not even in the chain of command,” which runs from Bush to Cheney to Powell to Schwarzkopf, commander of the U.S. Central Command, which covers the Middle East.

Under the current military structure, the members of the Joint Chiefs are advisers to the chairman and provide forces, equipment and support to theater commanders, known inside the Pentagon as the “war-fighting CINCs” or regional commanders in chief.

Cheney praised Dugan’s record of 32 years of Air Force service and said that he regretted firing him. “But under the circumstances, I felt it was necessary,” the secretary said. Dugan’s comments, Cheney noted, “did not in my mind reveal an adequate understanding of the situation and what is expected of him as chief of staff of the Air Force and as a member of the Joint Chiefs.”

The abrupt dismissal undoubtedly will reverberate throughout the Pentagon and the entire U.S. military, which has not enjoyed good relations with the press for two generations.

“You won’t be talking to any generals any time soon,” one senior Army officer told a reporter Monday.

Cheney denied that he was sending a message to military officers to avoid reporters. But he said that he expected his subordinates “to exercise discretion in what they say. . . . That sort of wide-ranging speculation about those matters that were discussed in the interviews that were granted by the general is what I felt was inappropriate.”

Air Force Secretary Donald B. Rice, who had recommended Dugan for the job and who concurred in Cheney’s decision to relieve him, said in a prepared statement: “I regret the circumstances that made it necessary for Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney to take this action. Gen. Dugan is a superb officer. His leadership and innovation will be missed by every man and woman in the Air Force.”

Dugan, 53, jumped over a number of senior Air Force officers when he was chosen for the chief of staff job earlier this year. He is a fighter and attack plane pilot with more than 4,500 flying hours and 300 combat missions in Vietnam.

A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., Dugan rose rapidly through the Air Force, serving chiefly in fighter squadron commands. His last post before becoming chief of staff in July was as commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe.

His last Washington assignment was in 1988 and early 1989, when he served as deputy Air Force chief of staff for plans and operations.

Among his decorations are the Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters, Purple Heart, Distinguished Flying Cross, Air Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm.

Dugan has six children, three of them Air Force officers. When the articles appeared Sunday, he was in Florida attending a ceremony for his son Michael’s graduation from F-16 pilot training school.

Sen. John S. McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Navy bomber pilot who was shot down and taken prisoner in Vietnam, said the American system of civilian control of the military dictated Cheney’s firing of Dugan. “I think that clearly Cheney has the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to discipline anyone who violated policy,” he said.

McCain said he was especially troubled by Dugan’s comment that in any bombing campaign “the cutting edge would be in downtown Baghdad. This wouldn’t be a Vietnam-style operation, nibbling around the edges. . . . The way to hurt you is at home, not out in the woods somewhere.”

McCain said he did not think the American public would accept that tactic, even if it were justifiable on purely military grounds.

“His comments are at best not cognizant of the sensitivity of those remarks and the reaction that would be fueled by them,” McCain said. “It’s too bad, because I’m sure the guy was highly qualified for the job. But it comes down to the fact that the civilian leaders have a right to choose whom they want.”

Sens. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement that they believe Dugan’s firing to be justified.

“The recent public statements attributed to Gen. Dugan were inappropriate,” they said.

THOSE WHO WENT TOO FAR The following is a list of some U.S. military leaders who have been cashiered or disciplined for their comments. GEN. MICHAEL J. DUGAN, Air Force chief of staff

Fired on Sept. 17, 1990

By: Defense Secretary Dick Cheney

For: Publicly discussing possible targets of U.S. air strikes in Iraq if President Bush ordered use of military force against Saddam Hussein.

MAJ. GEN. JOHN K. SINGLAUB, U.S. chief of staff in South Korea

Fired May 21, 1977

By: President Jimmy Carter

For: Publicly opposing Carter’s plan to withdraw U.S. ground forces from Korea. He contended that the move would lead to war.

GEN. DOUGLAS MacARTHUR, Commander, U.S. , U.N. forces in Korean War

Fired on April 11, 1951

By: President Harry S. Truman

For: Making public his disagreement with Truman over methods to win the war, including his desire to bomb supply centers in Manchuria.

ADM. LOUIS E. DENFELD, Chief of naval operations

Fired in October, 1949

By: President Harry S. Truman

For: Speaking out on Capitol Hill against Navy budget cuts and questioning the value of air power.

GEN. WINFIELD SCOTT, General in chief, U.S. Army

Suspended for a year in 1810

By: Court-martial

For: Calling his superior officer, Gen. James Wilkinson, as great a traitor as Aaron Burr.

(Southland Edition) THOSE WHO WENT TOO FAR . . . OR NOT FAR ENOUGH

The following is a list of some U.S. military leaders who have been cashiered or disciplined for their actions or comments. ADM. HUSBAND E. KIMMEL Commander in chief, Pacific Fleet

Retired in 1942 after being accused of dereliction of duty

By: Naval board of inquiry

For: Poor state of readiness of naval forces; poor response to Japan attack on Pearl Harbor.

GEN. JOSEPH HOOKER Commander, Union Army

Relieved of command in April, 1863

By: President Abraham Lincoln

For: Indecisiveness at the battle of Chancellorsville which allowed Confederates to mount surprise attack.

GEN. AMBROSE E. BURNSIDE Commander, Army of the Potomac

Relieved of command in December, 1862.

By: President Lincoln

For: Ordering his forces on Dec. 13, 1862, to make suicidal assault on entrenched

Confederate positions in Fredericksburg, Va., and sustaining 12,600 casualties.

GEN. GEORGE B. McCLELLAN Commander, Union Army

Fired on Nov. 7, 1862

By: President Lincoln

For: Procrastination and failure to capitalize on military opportunities, including allowing Confederates to hold the line at the Battle of Antietam on Sept. 17.

BRIG. GEN. JOHN POPE Union Army

Fired on Sept. 5, 1862

By: President Abraham Lincoln

For: Leading Union forces to defeat at the Second Bull Run battle in August.

DUGAN WAS WARNED: Cheney aides told the general to steer clear of the press. A10

WHITE HOUSE CONCERN: Officials are said to feel the military was too candid. A12

Professional Game Match Officials Limited made a “poor management decision” in appointing Thomas Bramall to officiate Aston Villa’s defeat by Manchester United, says former referees’ boss Keith Hackett.

Villa have complained to referees’ body PGMOL about Bramall after he made a “big mistake” in their 2-0 defeat at Manchester United on Sunday that contributed to them missing out on the Champions League.

Bramall blew for a foul when Morgan Rogers nudged the ball away from United goalkeeper Altay Bayindir before the Villa midfielder put the ball in the net.

Bramall thought Bayindir had two hands on the ball, though television footage suggested otherwise, and because he stopped play before the ball crossed the line, the video assistant referee (VAR) could not intervene.

Villa’s complaint is that “one of the most inexperienced referees in the Premier League” was appointed to such an important match.

Bramall, 35, first refereed in the Premier League in August 2022 and his games this season have largely been in either the top flight or the second tier, with 11 in the Premier League and 12 in the Championship.

Of the 10 referees appointed for Sunday’s final round of the Premier League, Bramall has officiated the second-fewest top-flight matches this season, above Lewis Smith, who took charge of his seventh game in Bournemouth’s win over Leicester.

In a response to a Talksport video on X of former Villa striker Gabby Agbonlahor criticising Bramall’s performance, Hackett said PGMOL “do not learn”.

The former Premier League referee added: “Our top referee Michael Oliver was operating VAR on a game. What a poor management decision.”

Hackett, who was chief of PGMOL under its former name Professional Game Match Officials Board, also told Football Insider he “would have expected one of our top officials to have been appointed” to the Manchester United-Aston Villa match.

He added he was “surprised and disappointed” that Oliver was appointed VAR for Tottenham’s defeat by Brighton and it was “difficult to understand” why he was not picked to referee “a big game” in Sunday’s final round.

Oliver has refereed 26 Premier League matches this season, behind only Anthony Taylor – who was in charge of Chelsea’s win at Nottingham Forest – on 31.

NEW YORK — Shohei Ohtani provided the Dodgers some temporary reprieve on Sunday.

Before the game, he faced hitters for the first time since undergoing Tommy John revision surgery in 2023, drawing a large crowd in the visitor’s dugout at Citi Field as he touched 97 mph with his fastball and struck out two batters in five at-bats.

Four and a half hours later, the two-way star dazzled with his bat, as well, belting a second-deck leadoff blast in the first inning against Mets ace and fellow Japanese star Kodai Senga to tie the major league lead with 18 home runs on the season.

“I thought that infused some life into us,” manager Dave Roberts said.

Alas, it wouldn’t last, the Dodgers instead going quiet the rest of the night in a 3-1 rubber-match loss to the New York Mets.

They were doomed by bad defense early, the Mets scoring three early runs with the help of two Dodgers errors. They were frustrated by wasted opportunities at the plate later, hitting into three double plays for a second consecutive game.

It sent the team to a series defeat in the weekend’s rematch of last year’s National League Championship Series. It also dropped them to 3-6 in their last nine games and 9-11 in their last 20.

Really, outside of their 8-0 start to the season, they’ve been little better than a .500 team, going just 24-21 since then (even with another seven-game winning streak mixed in to that stretch).

And while they’re still in first place in the NL West, and trailing only the Philadelphia Phillies, Detroit Tigers and New York Yankees for the best record in baseball, they aren’t playing like a team anywhere near that distinction.

“Tonight was one of those nights that we just gave them extra outs, and they took advantage,” Roberts said.

“It’s been pretty frustrating,” echoed third baseman Max Muncy. “Just keep shooting ourselves in the foot.”

There was no bigger self-inflicted wound than the one Muncy suffered in the bottom of the first.

After two strikeouts from Landon Knack to start the inning, Juan Soto hit a sharp grounder to third that Muncy bobbled on a high hop, recovering too late to throw Soto out at first.

It was Muncy’s eighth error of the season, second-most among MLB third basemen, and first not to come on a throw.

“It’s one of those things where I’m just really not good defensively right now,” Muncy said. “Not going to shy away from it, but all I can do is keep showing up every day, working on it, trying to figure things out, trying to get better. That’s what I’ve been doing.”

On Sunday, however, there was nothing Muncy could do.

One pitch later, Pete Alonso whacked a hanging curveball from Knack for a two-run homer. The Mets (32-21) wouldn’t squander the lead the rest of the way.

“We were trying to get it down a little bit, and obviously left it up,” Knack said. “I would say he’s a little more aggressive with runners on, so was able to take advantage of it.”

As Alonso rounded the bases, Muncy stared stoicly into the distance.

“It makes you feel like the game is on your shoulders. That’s how I feel, at least,” Muncy said. “It’s a play that needs to be made, and I should have made it. It’s just a frustrating one.”

There were plenty of other moments, however, that left the Dodgers (32-21) shaking their head.

After Ohtani’s leadoff homer, their offense had the chance to add on more. Mookie Betts reached on an error. Freddie Freeman moved him to third with a double. When Will Smith followed with a fly ball to center field, it was deep enough for Betts to break for home. At least, that’s how it seemed.

Instead, Mets center fielder Tyrone Taylor delivered a strike to the plate. And after Betts was initially ruled safe on a feet-first slide, a Mets challenge got the call overturned. A chance to build some early breathing room for Knack had disappeared. And despite repeated opportunities to claw back later, the Dodgers failed to scratch anything else across the plate.

In the fourth inning, Freeman hit a leadoff single … only for Smith to promptly ground into a double-play.

Later in the inning, Teoscar Hernández doubled and Muncy walked to put two aboard … only for Andy Pages to hit a deep fly ball that died at the warning track in left.

In the fifth, the Dodgers generated their best chance against Senga … only for the right-hander to induce a two-out grounder from Smith that ended the threat.

In the sixth, Muncy drew a one-out walk … only for Pages to roll into another double play, the 42nd for the Dodgers this season (fifth-most in the majors).

“I think that the tale is we’ve just got to play clean baseball, have a good offensive approach, because we’re going to see some good pitching,” Roberts said, with the Dodgers in the midst of a 29-game stretch against nothing but playoff-contending teams.

“Case in point is Shohei didn’t get a fifth at-bat [tonight], because they made plays and they got a couple double plays and things like that. All that stuff matters. So that stuff that’s really highlighted when you’re playing against good ballclubs.”

The Mets scored their only other run against Knack — who delivered just the 14th six-inning start of the season for the club — in the third. With one on and one out, Mark Vientos hit a hard grounder up the middle that Betts impressively got to from shortstop. But then Betts misfired on a flip to second base, sailing the ball over teammate Tommy Edman’s head to put runners on the corner. A fielder’s choice from Soto in the next at-bat led to a run.

The 3-1 deficit proved too much for the Dodgers to surmount — ending a day that had begun with so much optimism around Ohtani’s two-way talents with a dud of a performance and frustrating series loss in Queens.

MAZDA is pulling the plug on its first and only electric car, criticised during its four-year run for its limited range and cramped cabin.

The MX-30, which made its world debut at the 2019 Tokyo Motor Show, is a subcompact crossover SUV that offered EV, plug-in hybrid, and mild hybrid variants.

4

4

4

4

But now, it’s quietly reached the end of its production lifespan.

Launched in the UK in 2021, the MX-30 was positioned against competitors such as the Kia Soul EV and Peugeot e-2008.

However, it struggled to gain traction, primarily due to its short range and limited practicality.

One of the most significant criticisms of the MX-30 – aside from its bizarre, coach-style doors – was its modest range of just 124 miles, thanks to its 35.5kWh battery.

The smaller battery size, chosen to reduce the car’s weight, certainly improved handling and lowered its CO2 emissions during production.

However, it also resulted in persistent range anxiety among drivers.

Indeed, today, rivals like the Jeep Avenger, Renault 4, and MINI Aceman offer ranges of around 250 miles, highlighting the MX-30’s shortcomings.

WHAT’S NEXT?

While the fully electric MX-30 has been axed, the plug-in hybrid version remains on sale in the UK.

This variant, equipped with a fully charged battery and a full tank of petrol, can cover more than 400 miles, according to Mazda.

What’s more, the brand is set to give electric cars another stab next year with the 6e saloon, which is poised to be in the same segment as the top-selling Tesla Model 3.

A fully electric SUV is also in the pipeline, but the decision to temporarily pluck its only pure electric vehicle in its lineup is bold – particularly in light of the UK Government’s ZEV mandate.

Under the current mandate, at least 28% of manufacturers’ new car sales must be zero-emissions vehicles by 2025, prompting many brands to prioritise EV production.

As reported by Auto Express, a Mazda spokesperson said: “Mazda will meet the requirements of the ZEV/VETS legislation through the various flexibilities within the scheme and the introduction of further BEVs.”

This comes as Sun Motors supremo Rob Gill recently got to road-test the new Mazda 3, featuring a gutsy 2.5-litre naturally aspirated petrol engine.

A COUPLE has caused controversy after sharing the very unique name they’ve chosen for their newborn son.

Morgan and boyfriend Lou welcomed their first child into the world a week ago, and decided to unveil his moniker in a video on their TikTok page.

2

2

In the clip, they admitted it was “really easy” for them to settle on a name for a little girl, and had chosen Birdie Lou for if they’d had a daughter.

“But it was really hard for us to find a boy name that was like equally as exciting,” Morgan admitted.

So, instead of going the traditional route of going through a baby name book, Morgan and Lou decided to go through their record collection, looking for one that “spoke to us the most” and “had sentimental meaning”.

“And that’s how we ended up landing on Pony Ramone Presley,” they said.

They went on to explain where the inspiration for the name had come from, as they said that on their first date, they had danced to an Orville Peck song called Pony.

“So when we saw this record, it felt right,” Morgan added.

“Beautiful name!” Lou chimed in.

The tot’s middle name was inspired by the rock band Ramones.

“When we first found out she was pregnant, we were actually heavily, heavily listening to the Ramones,” Lou said.

“So it just felt right, and it just sounds nice.”

“Welcome to the world Pony Ramone,” they wrote over the top of the video as it came to an end, with Lou holding up a onesie that had the name ‘Pony’ emblazoned on the front.

The video quickly attracted comments, with the majority coming from people who insisted they’d assigned their son to a “lifetime of bullying” by giving him that name.

“That’s so terrible I’m sorry lol,” one wrote.

“You’re naming a future adult. You’re being selfish,” another raged.

“Pony???? Jesus Christ!”

“The bullying he’s going to get for his name though…” a third said.

“Parents caring more about appearing original and trendy than caring about how their name choice will affect the baby through their life is always wild to me,” someone else sighed.

“Feels selfish.”

“People choose names for their children as if they were choosing a name for a pet,” another commented.

“Oh my gosh that poor boy when he starts school,” someone else said, while another called him “that poor kid”.

“I swear some people just name their children anything these days,” someone else wrote.

“Might as well name mine Chair, Zebra, Door knob, and butter dish!”

“That’s a baby, not a puppy,” another said.

However, there were those in the comments section who approved of the baby’s unusual name.

“Stay true to your uniqueness guys, that little man is going to live a blessed life,” one wrote.

“I’m actually so obsessed with Pony as a first name!” another admitted.

“Oh I am absolutely in love with his beautiful name,” a third commented.

It’s a baby, not a puppy

TikTok commenter

“Having a unique name is really fun! Two of the coolest parents ever!”

“Pony has the most badass parents,” someone else agreed.

“Love his name!”

“I LOVE Pony because its a reflection of your love onto your sweet baby. Don’t listen to anyone else,” another urged.

“People act like we don’t already live in a world full of Forests, Diamonds, Bartholomews, and Cinnamons,” someone else wrote.

“Pony is actually so sweet and meaningful. They actually picked a cool name instead of a normal name spelled ENTIRELY WRONG in order to be ‘unique’.”