power

South Korea is setting its sights on joining the ranks of the world’s top four defence powers by 2030, with President Lee Jae Myung announcing a major funding boost for weapons and aerospace research at the country’s largest-ever arms fair on Monday.

Speaking at the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition (ADEX) 2025, President Lee unveiled plans for a “larger-than-expected budget” dedicated to defence innovation, including next-generation weapons, unmanned systems, and AI-driven combat technology.

South Korea, currently ranked 10th globally in arms sales according to SIPRI data, has rapidly emerged as a major weapons exporter, fueled by rising global demand following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“Becoming one of the top four powerhouses in the defence industry is by no means an impossible dream,” Lee declared, outlining a strategy centered on self-reliance and technological sovereignty.

Technological Focus: Building Independence

Lee emphasized that Seoul’s path to military dominance will hinge on indigenous innovation from advanced semiconductors to locally developed materials and components critical for modern warfare systems.

“We will establish technological sovereignty by focusing investment on technologies, parts, and materials that must be secured independently,” Lee said, signaling a drive to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers and strengthen Korea’s high-tech defence ecosystem.

Why It Matters

South Korea’s defence surge represents a new phase in global power dynamics, as traditional arms leaders like the U.S., Russia, and China face rising competition from technologically agile exporters. The move also underscores Seoul’s bid to leverage its world-class electronics and shipbuilding expertise for military dominance.

With defence exports surging from howitzers and missiles to warships and ammunition South Korea is fast becoming a preferred arms supplier for nations seeking reliable alternatives amid supply disruptions from traditional powers.

Government: Pledging billions in R&D and industry subsidies through 2030.

Korean Defence Firms (Hanwha, LIG Nex1, Hyundai Rotem): Showcasing AI-enhanced and unmanned weapons at ADEX to attract new export clients.

Overseas Buyers: Poland, Australia, and the UAE remain top partners, signaling Seoul’s growing footprint in both European and Middle Eastern markets.

Industry Analysts: See the move as a turning point that could push South Korea past traditional mid-tier arms exporters like France and the U.K. in global rankings.

What’s Next

South Korea plans to use the ADEX 2025 platform to announce new export deals and joint ventures aimed at expanding its defence technology abroad. The government is expected to release its 2030 Defence Industry Roadmap early next year, detailing specific spending targets and export goals.

If successful, Seoul’s ascent could redefine Asia’s military-industrial balance transforming the country from a security consumer into one of the world’s dominant arms producers.

With information from Reuters.

NuScale Power (SMR -8.95%) stock has had a breakout year. Shares are up more than 170% since the start of 2025. It hasn’t been a smooth ride for shareholders, though. NuScale stock has plunged about 40% twice just since January.

This week was another turbulent period for the stock. As of late Thursday, NuScale Power shares are 15% off this week’s highs, yet still up by 24.2% since last Friday’s close, according to data provided by S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Image source: Getty Images.

NuScale Power’s Trump tailwind

NuScale has been a big beneficiary of what it calls “multi-billion dollar federal support.” Several executive orders signed by President Trump earlier this year have boosted the nuclear power sector. Even prior to the current Trump administration, bipartisan passage of the ADVANCE (Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy) Act of 2024 has helped streamline approvals by the National Regulatory Commission for faster deployment of nuclear power projects.

This week another federal department spurred investors to jump into NuScale Power stock. The U.S. Army announced the launch of the Janus Program. The initiative is meant to fast-track the installation of commercially owned and operated small nuclear reactors to provide energy to domestic military installations.

Investors should be wary of jumping into NuScale stock after this week’s surge, though. While it has just begun generating revenue from a Romanian power project, investors have pushed its enterprise value to over $6.5 billion. Consider that revenue for the second quarter was just $8.1 million. Investors who believe in the future of modular nuclear reactors should still consider it a speculative investment.

Oct. 15 (UPI) — The Japanese Diet is scheduled to vote on the nation’s next prime minister on Tuesday, which has political parties angling to gain support for their preferred candidates.

Sanae Takaichi is the president of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and is its choice to become Japan’s next prime minister, but opposition parties might block her path, according to NHK World.

The LDP has asked the opposition Japan Innovation Party to join its political coalition and support Takaichi’s candidacy to replace outgoing Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba.

The JIP would replace the Komeito party, which last week announced its withdrawal from the ruling coalition.

LDP members hold 196 of 465 seats in Japan’s House of Representatives and 100 of 248 seats in the House of Councillors [sic], which is the most of any political party.

While it holds more seats in the Japanese Diet than any other political party, it does not control of majority and seeks additional support to solidify Takaichi’s candidacy.

The opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan also seeks support from the JIP and the Democratic Party for the People to promote a viable candidate capable of winning the Diet’s vote over Takaichi.

Despite the opposition to her candidacy to become prime minister, Takaichi told supporters she “will never give up” in her quest to win the election, which typically goes to the leader of the ruling party, China Daily reported.

The leaders of Japan’s various political parties have several meetings scheduled on Wednesday to potentially build support coalitions that could result in Takaichi or other candidates to replace Ishiba as Japan’s prime minister.

DPFP leader Yuichiro Tamaki is among those who might derail Takaichi’s effort to become prime minister.

If Takaichi should become Japan’s next prime minister, she would be the nation’s first woman to hold the position, according to CNBC.

MELBOURNE, Australia — Australia’s highest court on Wednesday rejected U.S. conservative commentator Candace Owens ’ bid to overturn an Australian government decision barring her from visiting the country.

Three High Court judges unanimously rejected Owens’ challenge to Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke’s decision in 2024 to refuse her a visa on character grounds.

Owens had planned to begin a speaking tour in Australia last November and also visit neighboring New Zealand.

Burke used his powers under the Migration Act last October to refuse her a visa because she failed the so-called “character test,” court documents said.

Burke found there was a risk Owens would “incite discord in the Australian community” and that refusing her a visa was in the national interest.

Burke found that as a political commentator, author and activist, Owens was “known for her controversial and conspiratorial views.”

She had made “extremist and inflammatory comments towards Muslim, Black, Jewish and LGBTQIA+ communities which generate controversy and hatred,” Burke said in court documents.

Owens’ lawyers had argued the Migrant Act was unconstitutional because it infringed upon Australia’s implied freedom of political communications.

Australia doesn’t have an equivalent of the U.S. First Amendment that states a right to free speech. But because Australia is a democracy, the High Court has decided that the constitution implies free speech limited to governmental and political matters.

Owens’ lawyers had argued that if the Migration Act was constitutional, then Burke had misconstrued his powers under that law in refusing her a visa.

The judges rejected both arguments and ordered Owens to pay the government’s court costs.

Burke described the ruling as a “win for social cohesion.”

“Inciting discord might be the way some people make money, but it’s not welcome in Australia,” Burke said in statement.

Owens’ spokeswoman told The Associated Press on Wednesday Owens would comment on the court decision later on social media.

Burke had told the court that while Owens already had an ability to incite discord through her 18 million followers across social media platforms, her presence in Australia would amplify that potential.

He noted that when Australia’s terrorism threat level was elevated from “possible” to “probable” last year, the national domestic spy agency reported an “increase in extremism.”

Australia has long used a wide discretion under the character test to refuse foreigners temporary visas.

Burke stripped Ye, the U.S. rapper formerly known as Kanye West, of an Australian visa after he released his single “Heil Hitler” in May this year.

Ye had been traveling for years to Australia, where his wife of three years, Bianca Censori, was born.

Burke’s decision to ban Owens prompted neighboring New Zealand to refuse her a visa in November on the grounds that she had been rejected by Australia.

But a New Zealand immigration official overturned that refusal in December, citing “the importance of free speech.”

Owens’ spokeswoman on Wednesday had no information about plans to visit New Zealand.

McGuirk writes for the Associated Press.

As Californians start voting on Democrats’ effort to boost their ranks in Congress, former President Barack Obama warned that democracy is in peril as he urged voters to support Proposition 50 in a television ad that started airing Tuesday.

“California, the whole nation is counting on you,” Obama says in the 30-second ad, which the main pro-Proposition 50 campaign began broadcasting Tuesday across the state. The spot is part of a multimillion-dollar ad buy promoting the congressional redistricting ballot measure through the Nov. 4 election.

Proposition 50 was spearheaded by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democratic leaders this summer after President Trump urged GOP-led states, notably Texas, to redraw their congressional districts to boost the number of Republicans elected to the House in next year’s midterm election, in an effort to continue enacting his agenda during his final years in office.

“Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to rig the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years,” Obama says in the ad, which includes footage of ICE raids. “With Prop. 50, you can stop Republicans in their tracks. Prop. 50 puts our elections back on a level playing field, preserves independent redistricting over the long term, and lets the people decide. Return your ballot today.”

Congressional districts were long drawn in smoke-filled chambers by partisans focused on protecting their parties’ power and incumbents. But good-government groups and elected officials, notably former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have fought to take the drawing of congressional boundaries out of the hands of politicians to end gerrymandering and create more competitive districts.

Obama, long a supporter of ending gerrymandering, had already endorsed the ballot measure.

In California, these districts have been drawn by an independent commission created by voters in 2010, which is why state Democrats have to go to the ballot box to seek a mid-decade partisan redistricting that could improve their party’s chances in five of the state’s 52 congressional districts.

The ad featuring Obama, who spoke Monday on comedian Marc Maron’s final podcast about Trump’s policies testing the nation’s values, appears on Californians’ televisions after mail ballots were sent to the state’s 23 million registered voters last week.

The proposition’s prospects are uncertain — it’s about an obscure topic that few Californians know about, and off-year elections traditionally have low voter turnout. Still, more than $150 million has been contributed to the three main committees supporting and opposing the proposition, in addition to millions more funding other efforts.

Obama is not the only famous person to appear in ads about Proposition 50.

In September, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of the independent redistricting commission while in office and has campaigned for similar reforms across the nation since then, was featured in ads opposing the November ballot measure.

He described Proposition 50 as favoring entrenched politicians instead of voters.

“That’s what they want to do, is take us backwards. This is why it is important for you to vote no on Proposition 50,” the Hollywood celebrity and former governor says in the ad, which was filmed last month when he spoke to USC students. “The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people.’ … Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”

Madagascar’s presidency says “an attempt to seize power illegally and by force” is under way, a day after soldiers from an elite military unit joined a youth-led protest against the government.

“In view of the extreme gravity of this situation, the President of the Republic … strongly condemns this attempt at destabilization and calls upon all forces of the nation to unite in defence of constitutional order and national sovereignty,” President Andry Rajoelina’s office said in a statement on Sunday.

The statement did not identify who was behind what it identified as an attempted coup, but members of the elite CAPSAT military unit, which once installed Rajoelina in power, said it has taken over control of the armed forces after three weeks of deadly Gen Z protests.

“From now on, all orders of the Malagasy army – whether land, air or [naval] – will originate from CAPSAT headquarters,” officers from CAPSAT’s administrative and technical contingent said in a video message on Saturday.

It was not clear whether other units of the army would follow the order.

In the face of snowballing protests, Rajoelina faces the gravest political crisis of his rule of the African nation.

So what’s happening in Madagascar? Is this the end for Rajoelina? And what do the Gen Z protesters want?

What’s the latest?

The protests by a group calling itself Gen Z Madagascar have spilled onto the streets for a third week. Saturday witnessed one of the largest protests since the unrest began last month over a range of issues, including a cost of living crisis and corruption.

Addressing crowds of protesters from an armoured vehicle, Colonel Michael Randrianirina of the CAPSAT unit, said on Saturday: “Do we call this a coup? I don’t know yet.”

The CAPSAT officers said they had named General Demosthene Pikulas as the head of the army, a post that has been vacant since its former occupant was appointed minister of the armed forces last week, the AFP news agency reported. However, it was not clear if the posting could be considered official.

There was no immediate response from other units or the existing military command.

On Saturday, a group of soldiers clashed with gendarmes at a barracks before driving into the city to join the Gen Z protesters calling for Rajoelina to step down.

Why are antigovernment protests happening in Madagascar?

On September 25, young protesters started demonstrations against water and electricity shortages, inspired by a wave of Gen Z-led protest movements in countries including Kenya, Indonesia, Morocco, Nepal and Bangladesh.

They soon escalated and snowballed into calling for the end of Rajoelina’s rule, dismantling the Senate and ending privileges for business owners perceived to be close to the president. They also want Rajoelina to apologise for the violence, in which at least 22 people have been killed and more than 100 injured, according to the United Nations.

Madagascar – an island nation off the east coast of Africa with a population of more than 31 million people, 80 percent of whom are affected by severe poverty – has a history of political crises. Several leaders have been forced out in uprisings since it gained independence from France in 1960.

The Gen Z protesters are demanding “radical change to build a free, egalitarian and united society”.

Among the issues they aim to address are systemic corruption, embezzlement of public funds, nepotism, failures in access to basic services and education, and a vibrant democracy.

Rajoelina, 51, first rose to prominence in 2009 after leading protests against the government as the mayor of the capital, Antananarivo, which resulted in a military-backed overthrow of President Marc Ravalomanana.

A military council took power and handed it over to Rajoelina as transitional leader. Later, in 2018, he was elected as president and then again in 2023 when the vote was boycotted by opposition parties.

What’s Gen Z Madagascar?

Gen Z Madagascar’s logo is a pirate skull and crossbones. The image from the Japanese comic series One Piece has become central to the global wave of Gen Z protests and is worn by generally black-clothed demonstrators in Madagascar.

From Kenya to Nepal, this image from the series, which follows the adventures of a young pirate and his crew against an authoritarian government, has come to symbolise the Gen Z movements.

In Madagascar, the image has been personalised by adding a traditional Madagascan hat on the skull.

The group has its own website, a presence on social media platforms and a GoFundMe page to raise money. Their website header reads: “Political movement of young people, by young people, for Madagascar”.

“They didn’t want to hear us in the streets,” the website says. “Today, thanks to digital technology and the voice of Generation Z, we will make our voices heard at the table of power on the opposition side. To put an end to 16 years of inaction, let’s demand transparency, accountability and deep reforms.”

Responding to Rajoelina’s offer for talks, the protesters said in a statement: “We do not reach out to a regime that every day crushes those who stand up for justice. This government talks about dialogue but rules with weapons.”

The Madagascan protesters are being compared to youth-led protest movements in Bangladesh, Nepal and Kenya, which have forced political change. In Nepal, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli was forced to resign after mass protests last month while Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was forced to flee to neighbouring India after a student-led uprising in August 2024.

Across the world, Gen Z, or people below 30, are leading a new wave of protests. Unlike traditional movements, these demonstrations are often organised online, using platforms like TikTok and Discord to spread messages, plan actions and connect with other young people.

From Africa to Asia and Latin America, Gen Z protesters are demonstrating against corruption, economic hardships, climate inaction and social inequality, calling for an overhaul of the system.

What has the government said?

Prime Minister Ruphin Fortunat Zafisambo, speaking on the state-run TVM channel late on Saturday, said the government was “fully ready to listen and engage in dialogue with all factions – youth, unions or the military”.

Zafisambo was appointed by Rajoelina after he dissolved the previous government last week in response to the protests. However, the move failed to assuage public anger.

The army’s chief of staff, General Jocelyn Rakotoson, later made a statement broadcast on local media urging citizens to “assist the security forces in restoring order through dialogue”.

Oct. 12 (UPI) — Thousands of people in New Jersey are without power Sunday as a strong nor’easter sweeps across the region with heavy, flood-producing rains that are forecast to last into Monday morning.

Along with major coastal flooding in the region, forecasters are warning residents of the potential for wind gusts of up to 60 mph.

The state’s Jersey Shore area is a particular concern and could experience major flooding, forecasters say.

The storm system’s damaging winds will strengthen as it approaches New York, and a “High Wind Warning” has been issued for eastern Long Island and the Jersey Shore from today into Monday.

In New Jersey, forecasters say rising water could bring heavy flooding in areas along the Delaware River waterfront, Camden and Gloucester County lowlands, the Atlantic City area and in communities along Delaware Bay.

Weather forecasters warn that residents in the region could see more downed trees and wind gusts that could lead to more power outages. New York City could see wind gusts of up to 50 mph later Sunday, as well.

Philadelphia could experience moderate to major flooding in tidal zones, especially during high tides Sunday night, forecasters said.

Meanwhile, Atlantic marine conditions are forecast to be severe, with gale to storm-force winds, rough seas, and dangerous surf and rip currents along beaches.

A storm called a nor’easter is a weather system that churns along the East Coast of the United States with winds that typically come from the northeast. These storms may occur at any time of year but are most frequent and most destructive between September and April.

AFP via Getty Images

AFP via Getty Images

EPA / Shutterstock

More on Madagascar’s crisis:

Getty Images/BBC

Oct. 10 (UPI) — The Trump administration has canceled the proposed Esmeralda 7 Solar Project in Nevada that would have been among the world’s largest solar power facilities.

Officials with the Bureau of Land Management on Thursday announced an environmental impact review of the proposed renewable energy facility has been canceled, which in turn cancels the project, Politico reported.

The canceled project would have built seven solar power-generation projects within the Esmeralda site that would have occupied 118,000 acres of land in Nevada’s Esmeralda County and about 30 miles west of Tonopah and 270 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The project would have generated up to 6.2 gigawatts of energy over its service life, which is enough energy to power up to 2 million homes, according to Heatmap.

The proposed solar power project generally enjoyed smooth sailing through the Biden administration and would have included the NextEra Energy utility firm and Invenergy among its developers, The New York Times reported.

Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, in August expressed his concerns that the solar power project was being delayed or canceled unnecessarily in a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

Lombardo said the project’s completion would help Nevada to better support the nation’s energy needs for mining projects and data centers, according to The New York Times.

President Donald Trump previously criticized solar- and wind-power projects as insufficient and costly compared to natural gas and coal power-generation facilities.

Since Trump took office in January, the Interior Department has added new review requirements for wind and solar projects, which have slowed their development and have stopped some from moving forward.

The Interior Department also has begun investigating bird deaths and other impacts on wildlife and plant life by large solar and wind projects.

While the Esmeralda 7 project appears to be canceled, another Nevada solar power project called Dodge Flat II is still in progress, according to the BLM.

Federal prosecutors sued Southern California Edison, saying its equipment ignited the 2019 Saddle Ridge fire, which burned nearly 9,000 acres and damaged or destroyed more than 100 homes in the San Fernando Valley.

The complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Tuesday claims that Edison was negligent in designing, constructing and maintaining its high-voltage transmission line that runs through Sylmar. Equipment on the line is now suspected of causing both the 2019 fire as well as the Hurst fire on Jan. 7.

Edison has acknowledged that its equipment may have ignited the Jan. 7 fire, but it has been arguing for years in a separate lawsuit brought by Saddle Ridge fire victims that its equipment did not start the 2019 fire.

Lawyers for the victims say they have evidence showing the transmission line is not properly grounded, leading to two wildfires in six years. Edison’s lawyers call those claims an “exotic ignition theory” that is wrong.

In the new lawsuit, the federal government is seeking to recover costs for the damage the 2019 fire caused to 800 acres of national forest, including for the destruction of wildlife and habitats. The lawsuit also requests reimbursement for the federal government’s costs of fighting the fire.

“The ignition of the Saddleridge Fire by SCE’s power and transmission lines and equipment is prima facie evidence of SCE’s negligence,” states the complaint, which was filed by acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli.

“The United States has made a demand on SCE for payment of the costs and damages incurred by the United States to suppress the Saddleridge Fire and to undertake emergency rehabilitation efforts,” the complaint said. “SCE has not paid any part of the sum.”

David Eisenhauer, an Edison spokesman, said the company was reviewing the federal government’s lawsuit and “will respond through the legal process.”

“Our hearts are with the people and communities that were affected,” he said.

The 2019 wildfire tore through parts of Sylmar, Granada Hills and Porter Ranch, killing at least one person.

The fire ignited under a transmission tower just three minutes after a steel part known as a y-clevis broke on another tower more than two miles away, according to two government investigations into the fire. The equipment failure on that tower caused a fault and surge in power.

In the ongoing lawsuit by victims of the 2019 fire, the plaintiffs argue that the power surge traveled along the transmission lines, causing some of the towers miles away to become so hot that they ignited the dry vegetation underneath one of them. Government investigators also found evidence of burning at the base of a second tower nearby, according to their reports.

The lawyers for the victims say the same problem — that some towers are not properly grounded — caused the Hurst fire on the night of Jan. 7.

“The evidence will show that five separate fires ignited at five separate SCE transmission tower bases in the same exact manner as the fire that started the Saddle Ridge fire,” the lawyers wrote in a court filing this summer.

In that filing, the lawyers included parts of a deposition they took of an L.A. Fire Department captain who said he believed that Edison was “deceptive” for not informing the department that its equipment failed just minutes before the 2019 blaze ignited, and for having an employee offer to buy key surveillance video from that night from a business next to one of its towers.

Edison has denied its employee offered to buy the video. A spokeswoman said the utility did not tell the fire department that its equipment failed because it happened at a tower miles away from where the fire ignited.

Residents who witnessed both fires told The Times they saw fires burning under transmission towers on the evening of the 2019 fire and the night of Jan. 7.

Roberto Delgado and his wife, Ninoschka Perez, can see the towers from their Sylmar home. They told The Times they saw a fire on Jan. 7 under the same tower where investigators say the 2019 fire started.

The family had to quickly flee in the case of each fire.

“We were traumatized,” Delgado said. “If I could move my family away from here I would.”

The Jan. 7 fire burned through 799 acres and required thousands of people to evacuate. Firefighters extinguished the blaze before it destroyed any homes.

WASHINGTON — It has been four months since Elon Musk, President Trump’s bureaucratic demolition man, abandoned Washington in a flurry of recriminations and chaos.

But the Trump administration’s crusade to dismantle much of the federal government never ended. It’s merely under new management: the less colorful but more methodical Russell Vought, director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget.

Vought has become the backroom architect of Trump’s aggressive strategy — slashing the federal workforce, freezing billions in congressionally approved spending in actions his critics often call illegal.

Now Vought has proposed using the current government shutdown as an opportunity to fire thousands of bureaucrats permanently instead of merely furloughing them temporarily. If any do return to work, he has suggested that the government need not give them back pay — contrary to a law Trump signed in 2019.

Those threats may prove merely to be pressure tactics as Trump tries to persuade Democrats to accept spending cuts on Medicaid, Obamacare and other programs.

But the shutdown battle is the current phase of a much larger one. Vought’s long-term goals, he says, are to “bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will” and “deconstruct the administrative state.”

He’s still only partway done.

“I’d estimate that Vought has implemented maybe 10% or 15% of his program,” said Donald F. Kettl, former dean of the public policy school at the University of Maryland. “There may be as much as 90% to go. If this were a baseball game, we’d be in the top of the second inning.”

Along the way, Vought (pronounced “vote”) has chipped relentlessly at Congress’ ability to control the use of federal funds, massively expanding the power of the president.

“He has waged the most serious attack on separation of powers in American history,” said Elaine Kamarck, an expert on federal management at the Brookings Institution.

He’s done that mainly by using OMB, the White House office that oversees spending, to control the day-to-day purse strings of federal agencies — and deliberately keeping Congress in the dark along the way.

“If Congress has given us authority that is too broad, then we’re going to use that authority aggressively,” Vought said last month.

Federal judges have ruled some of the administration’s actions illegal, but they have allowed others to stand. Vought’s proposal to use the shutdown to fire thousands of bureaucrats hasn’t been tested in court.

Vought developed his aggressive approach during two decades as a conservative budget expert, culminating in his appointment as director of OMB in Trump’s first term.

In 2019, he stretched the limits of presidential power by helping Trump get around a congressional ban on funding for a border wall, by declaring an emergency and transferring military funds. He froze congressionally mandated aid for Ukraine, the action that led to Trump’s first impeachment.

Even so, Vought complained that Trump had been needlessly restrained by cautious first-term aides.

“The lawyers come in and say, ‘It’s not legal. You can’t do that,’” he said in 2023. “I don’t want President Trump having to lose a moment of time having fights in the Oval Office over whether something is legal.”

Vought is a proponent of the “unitary executive” theory, the argument that the president should have unfettered control over every tentacle of the executive branch, including independent agencies such as the Federal Reserve.

When Congress designates money for federal programs, he has argued, “It’s a ceiling. It is not a floor. It’s not the notion that you have to spend every dollar.”

Most legal experts disagree; a 1974 law prohibits the president from unilaterally withholding money Congress has appropriated.

Vought told conservative activists in 2023 that if Trump returned to power, he would deliberately seek to inflict “trauma” on federal employees.

“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work.”

When Vought returned to OMB for Trump’s second term, he appeared to be in Musk’s shadow. But once the flamboyant Tesla chief executive flamed out, the OMB director got to work to make DOGE’s work the foundation for lasting changes.

He extended many of DOGE’s funding cuts by slowing down OMB’s approval of disbursements — turning them into de facto freezes.

He helped persuade Republicans in Congress to cancel $9 billion in previously approved foreign aid and public broadcasting support, a process known as “rescission.”

To cancel an additional $4.9 billion, he revived a rarely used gambit called a “pocket rescission,” freezing the funds until they expired.

Along the way, he quietly stopped providing Congress with information on spending, leaving legislators in the dark on whether programs were being axed.

DOGE and OMB eliminated jobs so quickly that the federal government stopped publishing its ongoing tally of federal employees. (Any number would only be approximate; some layoffs are tied up in court, and thousands of employees who opted for voluntary retirement are technically still on the payroll.)

The result was a significant erosion of Congress’ “power of the purse,” which has historically included not only approving money but also monitoring how it was spent.

Even some Republican members of Congress seethed. “They would like a blank check … and I don’t think that’s appropriate,” said former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

But the GOP majorities in both the House and Senate, pleased to see spending cut by any means, let Vought have his way. Even McConnell voted to approve the $9-billion rescission request.

Vought’s newest innovation, the mid-shutdown layoffs, would be another big step toward reducing Congress’ role.

“The result would be a dramatic, instantaneous shift in the separation of powers,” Kettl said. “The Trump team could kill programs unilaterally without the inconvenience of going to Congress.”

Some of the consequences could be catastrophic, Kettl and other scholars warned. Kamarck calls them “time bombs.”

“One or more of these decisions is going to blow up in Trump’s face,” she said.

“FEMA won’t be capable of reacting to the next hurricane. The National Weather Service won’t have the forecasters it needs to analyze the data from weather balloons.”

Even before the government shutdown, she noted, the FAA was grappling with a shortage of air traffic controllers. This week the FAA slowed takeoffs at several airports in response to growing shortages, including at air traffic control centers in Atlanta, Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth.

In theory, a future Congress could undo many of Vought’s actions, especially if Democrats win control of the House or, less likely, the Senate.

But rebuilding agencies that have been radically shrunken would take much longer than cutting them down, the scholars said.

“Much of this will be difficult to reverse when Democrats come back into fashion,” Kamarck said.

Indeed, that’s part of Vought’s plan.

“We want to make sure that the bureaucracy can’t reconstitute itself later in future administrations,” he said in April in a podcast with Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist who was slain on Sept. 10.

He’s pleased with the progress he’s made, he told reporters in July.

“We’re having fun,” he said.

A couple of years ago, things looked dire for Plug Power (PLUG 3.42%) stock. It was plunging in value and it even issued a going concern warning, which means that the business was concerned about its finances and that there were significant doubts about its ability to continue operating.

The company says that risk no longer exists. And not only are its financials stronger, but the energy stock has also been red hot of late. This year, share prices of the hydrogen company are up an incredible 95%. In just the past six months, its stock price has more than tripled in value.

Has this once-risky stock become a good, safe option for investors?

Image source: Getty Images.

Why is there so much hype around Plug Power?

Energy has been a big investing theme this year, largely due to artificial intelligence (AI) and the need to power up large data centers. Plug Power has positioned itself as one of the leading companies in offering clean energy solutions with hydrogen fuel cells. Many investors likely see the zero-emission energy options that Plug Power offers as one of several potential solutions to rising energy needs in AI.

The more that tech companies invest in AI data centers, the greater the need may be for energy in the future. And it’s that potential growth that has many investors willing to look past Plug Power’s lack of profitability and shortcomings today — but doing so could be a perilous mistake.

Plug Power’s financials remain problematic

Plug Power may have removed the near-term going concern warning last year, but I have doubts about the company’s ability to survive in the long run. This is, after all, still a massive, cash-burning business. In the past six months, it has incurred net losses totaling $425.6 million, which was more than the revenue it generated over that time frame ($307.6 million). The business’s cost of sales was even higher at $435 million, resulting in negative margins and a loss before even factoring in overhead and other operating expenses.

It also burned through $297 million in cash over the course of its day-to-day operating activities during the past two quarters. Without a path to profitability or positive cash flow in the foreseeable future, there is plenty of risk for dilution and frequent share offerings in the stock’s future.

I’d stay away from Plug Power stock

Investing in hydrogen energy is a long-term play, and it’s one that’s full of risks. While hydrogen can play an important role in addressing the world’s global energy needs, not everyone is convinced that it will be the case. Some critics point to the inefficiency and high costs that come with hydrogen energy production. And there are alternative energy sources that may be cleaner and better options in the long run.

It’s easy to get swept up in the AI-driver energy hype, and that’s what may be happening with Plug Power. But that doesn’t mean this is a safe stock to invest in. For a while, this stock was going nowhere but down; it declined by more than 50% in each of the past three years. Then, the energy stock craze took off, and so did Plug Power’s valuation.

While it may look like a cheap stock to own given its massive decline in recent years and the fact that it’s trading at just 4 times its trailing revenue, this is still a highly risky investment to hold in your portfolio. Until and unless its fundamentals drastically improve, you’re likely better off avoiding Plug Power as this is a speculative stock to own, with plenty of downside risk.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appears poised to recognize President Trump’s authority to send soldiers to Portland, Ore., with members of the court signaling receptiveness to an expansive new read of the president’s power to put boots on the ground in American cities.

A three-judge panel from the appellate court — including two members appointed by Trump during his first term — heard oral arguments Thursday after Oregon challenged the legality of the president’s order to deploy hundreds of soldiers to Portland. The administration claims the city has become lawless; Oregon officials argue Trump is manufacturing a crisis to justify calling in the National Guard.

While the court has not issued a decision, a ruling in Trump’s favor would mark a sharp rightward turn for the once-liberal circuit — and probably set up a Supreme Court showdown over why and how the U.S. military can be used domestically.

“I’m sort of trying to figure out how a district court of any nature is supposed to get in and question whether the president’s assessment of ‘executing the laws’ is right or wrong,” said Judge Ryan D. Nelson of Idaho Falls, Idaho, one of the two Trump appointees hearing the arguments.

“That’s an internal decision making, and whether there’s a ton of protests or low protests, they can still have an impact on his ability to execute the laws,” he said.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland, another Trump appointee, previously called the president’s justification for federalizing Oregon troops “simply untethered to the facts” in her temporary restraining on Oct. 4.

The facts about the situation on the ground in Portland were not in dispute at the hearing on Thursday. The city has remained mostly calm in recent months, with protesters occasionally engaging in brief skirmishes with authorities stationed outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building.

Instead, Nelson and Judge Bridget S. Bade of Phoenix, whom Trump once floated as a possible Supreme Court nominee, questioned how much the facts mattered.

“The president gets to direct his resources as he deems fit, and it seems a little counterintuitive to me that the city of Portland can come and say, ‘No you need to do it differently,’” Nelson said.

He also appeared to endorse the Department of Justice’s claim that “penalizing” the president for waiting until protests had calmed to deploy soldiers to quell them created a perverse incentive to act first and ask questions later.

“It just seems like such a tortured reading of the statute,” the judge said. He then referenced the first battle of the U.S. Civil War in 1861, saying, “I’m not sure even President Lincoln would be able to bring in forces when he did, because if he didn’t do it immediately after Fort Sumter, [Oregon’s] argument would be, ‘Oh, things are OK now.’”

Trump’s efforts to use troops to quell protests and support federal immigration operations have led to a growing tangle of legal challenges. The Portland deployment was halted by Immergut, who blocked Trump from federalizing Oregon troops. (A ruling from the same case issued the next day prevents already federalized troops from being deployed.)

In June, a different 9th Circuit panel also made up of two Trump appointees ruled that the president had broad — though not “unreviewable” — discretion to determine whether facts on the ground met the threshold for military response in Los Angeles. Thousands of federalized National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines were deployed over the summer amid widespread protests over immigration enforcement.

The June decision set precedent for how any future deployment in the circuit’s vast territory can be reviewed. It also sparked outrage, both among those who oppose armed soldiers patrolling American streets and those who support them.

Opponents argue repeated domestic deployments shred America’s social fabric and trample protest rights protected by the 1st Amendment. With soldiers called into action so far in Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago, many charge the administration is using the military for political purposes.

“The military should not be acting as a domestic police force in this country except in the most extreme circumstances,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. “That set of circumstances is not present right now anywhere in the country, so this is an abuse of power — and a very dangerous one because of the precedent it sets.”

Supporters say the president has sole authority to determine the facts on the ground and if they warrant military intervention. They argue any check by the judicial branch is an illegal power grab, aimed at thwarting response to a legitimate and growing “invasion from within.”

“What they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles — they’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them out one by one,” Trump said in an address to military top brass last week. “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”

The 9th Circuit agreed to rehear the Los Angeles case with an 11-member “en banc” panel in Pasadena on Oct. 22, signaling a schism among Trump’s own judges over the boundaries of the president’s power.

Still, Trump’s authority to call soldiers into American cities is only the first piece in a larger legal puzzle spread before the 9th Circuit, experts said.

What federalized troops are allowed to do once deployed is the subject of another court decision now under review. That case could determine whether soldiers are barred from assisting immigration raids, controlling crowds of protesters or any other form of civilian law enforcement.

Trump officials have maintained the president can wield the military as he sees fit — and that cities such as Portland and L.A. would be in danger if soldiers can’t come to the rescue.

“These are violent people, and if at any point we let down our guard, there is a serious risk of ongoing violence,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said. “The president is entitled to say enough is enough and bring in the National Guard.”

No one goes to Cannes expecting to be frightened by a film about a long-dead British writer. Unless, of course, that writer is George Orwell.

When Raoul Peck’s documentary “Orwell: 2+2=5” premiered at the festival in May, the crowd reacted with the startled tension of a horror screening — gasps, murmurs, a few cries — before finally breaking into thunderous applause.

What they saw on screen felt both familiar and terrifyingly current. Peck builds the film entirely from Orwell’s words, delivered in a low, steady burn by actor Damian Lewis (“Billions”), repositioning the dying author of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” in his final tubercular days on the Scottish Isle of Jura, into today’s world. His vision of power, propaganda and language as a weapon meets a barrage of torn-from-the-news imagery: refugees adrift on boats, authoritarian leaders twisting the truth, AI hallucinations blurring what’s left of reality. The film, to be released nationwide on Friday by Neon, plays less like a documentary than a séance in which Orwell’s ghost watches his own warnings play out: urgent, relentless, immersive as a nightmare.

Peck says the Cannes reception didn’t surprise him.

“I knew it would touch a nerve,” Peck, 72, says over Zoom from New York. His calm, French-accented voice — he’s based in Paris but travels frequently — carries the quiet fatigue of someone who’s spent decades watching history repeat itself. “It’s not just a problem of the U.S. — it’s everywhere. We have all sorts of bullies and there’s no reliable sheriff in town. Even the most powerful institutions are on shaky ground. I knew the film would either break people or energize them. If you’re a normal citizen, a normal human being, you must ask yourself questions when you come out of it.”

There are no talking heads in Peck’s film, no experts spelling out the relevance of an author who died in 1950. Instead, he draws from the writer’s letters and diaries, as well as the longer-form works like the barnyard political allegory “Animal Farm” and the dystopian novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” He also weaves in fragments from past screen adaptations of Orwell’s titles, including the 1954 animated “Animal Farm” and Michael Radford’s stark, desaturated adaptation of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” starring John Hurt, cross-cutting them with current images of drone wars, surveillance and algorithmic control.

A scene from the documentary “Orwell: 2+2=5.”

(Velvet Film)

“Raoul has been unbelievably thorough,” says narrator Lewis via Zoom from his home in London, where he regularly rides his bike past one of Orwell’s former residences. “The film is dense in the best way, thick with ideas and images. You come out of it feeling like you’ve been through something important.”

Lewis, who delivers Orwell’s words with a steely intensity that builds toward alarm, says his warnings have only grown more urgent.

“I read recently that about 37% of countries in the world are now categorized as not free,” he adds. “That’s getting dangerously close to half the planet. What Raoul’s film captures — and what Orwell saw so clearly — is how authoritarian ideas don’t arrive overnight. They creep up on us, little by little, as words like ‘democracy’ get redefined to mean whatever those in power want them to mean.”

Peck’s filmmaking has long blurred the line between art and activism. Born in Haiti, he fled with his family from François Duvalier’s dictatorship in 1961 and grew up in what was then the Republic of the Congo (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), where his father worked for the United Nations. After studying engineering and economics in Berlin, he returned home to serve as Haiti’s minister of culture in the 1990s. His breakthrough, the Oscar-nominated 2016 film “I Am Not Your Negro,” channeled James Baldwin’s words to examine race and power in America and the country’s uneasy reckoning with its past. He continued that exploration in HBO’s “Exterminate All the Brutes” (2021), tracing the myths of empire and white supremacy that shape the modern world.

“If I can’t mix politics and art, I probably wouldn’t make a project,” Peck says. “That’s what Orwell himself said — ‘Animal Farm’ was the first time he was really trying to link politics with art. And that’s what I’ve been trying to do all my life as a filmmaker.”

Few writers have been more quoted — or misquoted — than Orwell. Decades after coining ideas such as Newspeak (state-controlled language) and doublethink (the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at once), he’s been claimed by every side: Fear-mongering politicians cite him, pundits weaponize him, partisans wield “Orwellian” as shorthand for whatever offends them most. Even President Trump recently praised Orwell in the same breath as Shakespeare and Dickens at a state banquet at Windsor Castle.

Asked what Orwell would make of that, Peck gives a small, mirthless laugh.

“He would probably faintly smile,” he says. “Because that’s exactly what he wrote about — how thought corrupts language and language corrupts thought. We’re living doublespeak now in an exponential way, the bully using the words of justice and peace while bombing people at the same moment. It’s so absurd. That’s why I feel so close to him. Coming from Haiti, I learned very early that what politicians were saying never matched my reality.”

George Orwell, author of “1984” and “Animal Farm,” whose warnings about power and language echo through the timely documentary “Orwell: 2+2=5.”

(Associated Press)

Peck came to the project warily. “Honestly, I wasn’t sure I wanted to touch Orwell,” he admits. “Where I come from, Orwell had been turned into a kind of Cold War mascot.” Raised under Mobutu Sese Seko’s U.S.-backed regime in what became Zaire and later educated in America and Europe, he was keenly aware of how Orwell’s legacy had been co-opted, from the CIA’s funding of the 1954 animated “Animal Farm” to the deployment of his books as Cold War propaganda.

“That was not something that interested me,” Peck says. “I grew up deconstructing everything I was getting from the West, including Hollywood movies.”

Then came a call from his friend, Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker and producer Alex Gibney (“Taxi to the Dark Side”), who was involved with a project that had secured the rights to Orwell’s complete body of work and wanted Peck to direct it.

“How could I say no?” he recalls. “For a filmmaker like me, who loves to dig deep into someone’s mind and work, it was an incredible gift.”

What Peck found wasn’t a prophet or a symbol but a man full of contradictions: a writer wrestling with class, illness and empire, trying to fuse politics and art before his own time ran out. That realization deepened when he came across a photograph of Orwell as a baby in the arms of his Burmese nanny, a white child of the British Empire cradled by the colonized woman charged with his care. Born into what he called the “lower-upper-middle class,” Orwell gradually recognized his own complicity in the system he opposed and came to despise his role as a kind of middle manager in the machinery of oppression.

“His own biography — born in India, sent to Burma as a young soldier, doing what he did there and being ashamed of it — drew him closer to my own experience,” Peck says. “We were from the same world. We saw the same things.”

To embody Orwell, Peck turned to Lewis, also known for “Band of Brothers” and “Homeland.”

“I knew I was telling a story, not making a traditional documentary,” Peck says. “So I needed a great British actor, someone with real stage experience. I knew Damian could bring the presence I wanted — to be Orwell, not imitate him. That was the main direction I gave him: to work from the interior.”

“If we don’t bring rules around AI very rapidly, we won’t be able to put the paste back in the tube,” says filmmaker Raoul Peck. “AI is an instrument and should stay an instrument. That means we’re using it. It’s not using us.”

(Justin Jun Lee / For The Times)

Lewis, who had previously voiced Orwell for the international Talking Statues project — an app that lets passersby scan a QR code to hear historical figures “speak” — approached the feature-length performance with similar restraint.

“His language, the rhythm of his prose, dictates the rhythm of delivery,” he says. “Raoul was very clear that it should sound intimate and conversational, not overly formal. That’s what we tried to aim for — something direct, specific, detailed and personal.”

Much of “Orwell: 2+2=5” unfolds like a fever dream, Orwell’s words colliding with scenes from the present, including bombed-out streets in Gaza and Ukraine. “There were too many conflicts to include,” Peck says. “So I had to find the connections — what repeats, how bodies are treated, how power behaves.”

In one of the film’s most charged moments, Peck turns Orwell’s warning about political language into a montage of modern euphemisms: “peacekeeping operations,” “collateral damage,” “illegals” — and then, pointedly, “antisemitism 2024.” He knows the inclusion is provocative but says that’s the point: to show how words can be twisted or emptied of meaning, including in debates over Israel’s war in Gaza.

“Every word is precise,” Peck says. “I don’t say the Jews, I don’t say Israel, I say the Israeli administration. But even then, there’s a reflex — you can’t touch this.”

At Cannes, that moment drew applause. One of Peck’s closest friends — a Jewish writer who, he notes, agrees with him on nearly everything politically — told him later that while she was deeply moved by the film, she’d felt a jolt of fear as the audience clapped.

“We talked about it,” Peck says. “In France today, you can’t touch that term. And for me, that’s the beginning of the end — when you can’t speak your mind.”

He recalls being in New York after 9/11, unable to voice unease about the flag-waving and rush to war. “I cried like everybody else,” he says. “But when, after five days, you’re asked to wave a flag, that’s using your humanity for war. The point is the same — to shut down conversation.”

Peck carries Orwell’s warning into the digital present. The writer’s words play against AI-generated images and voices, echoes of the future he once imagined.

“He wrote about it without knowing it would be called AI,” Peck says. “He said someday you’d be able to write whole books and newspapers with artificial intelligence — exactly what’s happening now.”

For Peck, the technology is the next front in the battle over truth and power. In his film, every AI-generated sound, image and piece of music is clearly labeled with onscreen text.

“There should be transparency about that,” he says. “If we don’t bring rules around AI very rapidly, we won’t be able to put the paste back in the tube. Profit is the only guideline right now — nobody’s controlling its impact, not on energy, not on children, not on schools. AI is an instrument and should stay an instrument. That means we’re using it. It’s not using us.”

Even as “Orwell: 2+2=5” reaches theaters, Peck is already working on two new documentaries, including one about the 2021 assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse.

“It’s an incredible geopolitical mess,” he says. “Every day I discover more. I need to go back to fiction for a while — documentaries are exhausting. But I can’t complain. I wish everyone could be as passionate about their work as I am.”

For all its darkness, Peck insists on leaving a sliver of light. He points to Orwell’s line in “Nineteen Eighty-Four”: “If there is hope, it lies in the proles.”

“The civil society is always the one who saved the day — the civilians, the students, the churches, the alliances,” he says. “Like the civil rights movement. Blacks, Jews, whites, churches, everybody sat down around the table and decided to have a strategy. And unfortunately, that’s the only thing we have. It’s long and it’s hard, but that door is still open. It’s us, individually and collectively, who have to make that choice.”

What keeps him going, he says, isn’t optimism so much as duty.

“If I lived completely engulfed in my own bubble, I’d probably be desperate,” he says. “What keeps me grounded is that I still have friends in Congo. I still work with Haiti every day. I talk with journalists who risk their lives in Gaza. So I can’t afford to look at those people and say, ‘I’m tired.’ They’re still doing the work.”

He pauses, his voice tightening. “People laugh at the latest stupidity from the president, as if it’s funny,” he says. “But that’s a dictatorship coming. He’s attacking every institution — newspapers, academia, justice, business. It’s the same playbook. They change the laws first, because most people would rather obey the law than say ‘No, two plus two equals four.’ That’s what authoritarian leaders count on.”

He sits quietly for a moment. “People are waiting for miracles,” he says finally. “But there are no miracles.”

Oct. 6 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to address a number of cases concerning executive power — specifically on elections, tariffs and President Donald Trump‘s ability to fire the employees of independent agencies — as begins a new term Monday in Washington, D.C.

The decisions the high court makes in the coming months are expected to say just how aggressively Trump can wield his presidential power without interference from lower-court judges. With a conservative 6-3 majority, three of whom were handpicked by the president, the Supreme Court’s next rulings could majorly affect the president’s current policy efforts.

Among this term’s cases:

— The Supreme Court will consider whether Trump has the ability to fire the employees of certain independent government agencies. This case stems from Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in September.

This will essentially revisit the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States, which upheld the FTC’s protections from removal under President Franklin Roosevelt as constitutional.

— The high court will also decide whether Trump exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs without congressional approval.

James Sample, a Hofstra Law professor and ABC News contributor, described the case as “staggeringly important.”

“If you think of a tariff as a tax, this is one of the biggest tax hikes in American history, and it didn’t go through Congress at all.

— Birthright citizenship is also on the docket this term. Two days into his second term, Trump signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship for anyone who doesn’t have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. Lower courts have so far blocked this order.

— In Louisiana vs. Callais, the high court will decide whether the state legislature’s efforts to redistrict violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

— The Supreme Court will also hear a legal challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQIA+ youths. A Christian therapist has argued that the ban is a restriction on her First Amendment rights, while opponents say the law is simply a restriction on treatment.

According to NPR News, the Supreme Court has set a record by granting 20 of Trump’s requests to block lower court orders that went against him. The court ruled against him three times in the same eight-month span.

SEOUL, Oct. 6 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un visited the country’s first 5,000-ton destroyer and called for bolstering naval power to “punish” threats to national sovereignty, state-run media reported Monday.

Kim visited the Choe Hyon destroyer on Sunday with high-ranking party and government officials as part of his tour of a military hardware exhibition, the official Korean Central News Agency reported.

Pyongyang launched the Choe Hyon at the Nampo Shipyard in April. The vessel is armed with a wide range of weapons, including nuclear-capable cruise missiles, according to North Korean reports.

Kim called the destroyer the “remarkable latest success” of the North’s warship-building industry and a symbol of the “rapidly developing naval forces of the DPRK,” KCNA reported.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the official name of North Korea.

The North Korean leader added that the country’s naval power “should be exercised in the vast ocean to thoroughly deter or counter and punish the enemy’s provocations for the sovereignty of the state and its security interests.”

The de facto maritime border in the Yellow Sea, known as the Northern Limit Line, has long been a source of tension between the two Koreas. North Korea does not officially recognize the NLL, which was drawn unilaterally by the U.S.-led United Nations Command after the Korean War.

The boundary area has been the location for a handful of naval skirmishes in the decades after the 1950-53 war, including the North’s 2010 torpedo attack on a South Korean warship that left 46 dead.

In January 2024, Kim called the line “illegal” and warned that even the slightest violation of the North’s territory would be considered a “war provocation.”

He later repeated the threats, saying the boundary was a “ghost … without any ground in the light of international law or legal justification.”

More recently, South Korea’s military fired warning shots after a North Korean merchant vessel crossed the border on Sep. 25.

Pyongyang unveiled a second 5,000-ton warship in May, named the Kang Kon, but the vessel suffered an accident at its launch ceremony that left it listing on its side.

Kim, who was in attendance at the launch, called the mishap a “criminal act” and warned of serious consequences for those found responsible. At least four officials were arrested in the aftermath.

The Kang Kon was repaired and relaunched in June, although analysts have questioned whether it is fully operational.

The North has vowed to build another 5,000-ton destroyer by October 2026.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday that he intends to seek a court order in an attempt to stop President Trump’s deployment of California National Guard troops to Oregon.

Calling the president’s action a “breathtaking abuse of power,” Newsom said in a statement that 300 California National Guard personnel were being deployed to Portland, Ore., a city the president has called “war-ravaged.”

“They are on their way there now,” Newsom said of the National Guard. “This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power.”

Trump’s move came a day after a federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the federalization of Oregon’s National Guard.

The president, who mobilized the California National Guard amid immigration protests earlier this year, has pursued the use of the military to fight crime in cities including Chicago and Washington, D.C., sparking outrage among Democratic officials in those cities. Local leaders, including those in Portland, have said the actions are unnecessary and without legal justification.

“The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words — ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents,” Newsom said.

In June, Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a federal lawsuit over Trump’s mobilization of the state’s National Guard during immigration protests in Los Angeles. California officials are expected to file the court order over Sunday’s deployment using that existing lawsuit.

Newsom has ratcheted up his rhetoric about Trump in recent days: On Friday, the governor lashed out at universities that may sign the president’s higher education compact, which demands rightward campus policy shifts in exchange for priority federal funding.

“I need to put pressure on this moment and pressure test where we are in U.S. history, not just California history,” Newsom said. “…This is it. We are losing this country.”

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices like to talk about the Constitution’s separation of powers and how it limits the exercise of official authority.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts and his conservative colleagues have given no sign so far they will check President Trump’s one-man governance by executive order.

To the contrary, the conservative justices have repeatedly ruled for Trump on fast-track appeals and overturned federal judges who said the president had exceeded his authority.

The court’s new term opens on Monday, and the justices will begin hearing arguments.

But those regularly scheduled cases have been overshadowed by Trump’s relentless drive to remake the government, to punish his political enemies, including universities, law firms, TV networks and prominent Democrats, and to send troops to patrol U.S. cities.

The overriding question has become: Are there any legal limits on the president’s power? The Supreme Court itself has raised the doubts.

A year ago, as Trump ran to reclaim the White House, the justices blocked a felony criminal indictment against him related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, mob attack on the Capitol as Congress met to certify Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election, for which Trump was impeached.

Led by Roberts, the court ruled for Trump and declared for the first time that presidents were immune from being prosecuted for their official actions in the White House.

Not surprisingly, Trump saw this as a “BIG WIN” and proof there is no legal check on his power.

This year, Trump’s lawyers have confidently gone to Supreme Court with emergency appeals when lower-court judges have stood in their way. With few exceptions, they have won, often over dissents from the court’s three liberal Democrats.

Many court scholars say they are disappointed but not surprised by the court’s response so far to Trump’s aggressive use of executive power.

The Supreme Court “has been a rubber stamp approving Trump’s actions,” said UC Berkeley law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “I hope very much that the court will be a check on Trump. There isn’t any other. But so far, it has not played that role.”

Roberts “had been seen as a Republican but not a Trump Republican. But he doesn’t seem interested or willing to put any limits on him,” said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. “Maybe they think they’re saving their credibility for when it really counts.”

Acting on his own, Trump moved quickly to reshape the federal government. He ordered cuts in spending and staffing at federal agencies and fired inspectors general and officials of independent agencies who had fixed terms set by Congress. He stepped up arrests and deportations of immigrants who are here illegally.

But the court’s decisions on those fronts are in keeping with the long-standing views of the conservatives on the bench.

Long before Trump ran for office, Roberts had argued that the Constitution gives the president broad executive authority to control federal agencies, including the power to fire officials who disagree with him.

The court’s conservatives also think the president has the authority to enforce — or not enforce — immigration laws.

That’s also why many legal experts think the year ahead will provide a better test of the Supreme Court and Trump’s challenge to the constitutional order.

“Overall, my reaction is that it’s too soon to tell,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and a former clerk for Roberts. “In the next year, we will likely see decisions about tariffs, birthright citizenship, alien enemies and perhaps more, and we’ll know a lot more.”

In early September, Trump administration lawyers rushed the tariffs case to the Supreme Court because they believed it was better to lose sooner rather than later.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government could face up to a $1-trillion problem if the court delayed a decision until next summer and then ruled the tariffs were illegal.

“Unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he told the court.

The Constitution says tariffs, taxes and raising revenue are matters for Congress to decide. Through most of American history, tariffs funded much of the federal government. That began to change after 1913 when the 16th Amendment was adopted to authorize “taxes on incomes.”

Trump has said he would like to return to an earlier era when import taxes funded the government.

“I always say ‘tariffs’ is the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary,” he said at a rally after his inauguration in January. “Because tariffs are going to make us rich as hell. It’s going to bring our country’s businesses back that left us.”

While he could have gone to the Republican-controlled Congress to get approval, he imposed several rounds of large and worldwide tariffs acting on his own.

Several small businesses sued and described the tariffs as “the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”

As for legal justification, the president’s lawyers pointed to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. It authorizes the president to “deal with any unusual or extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”

The law did not mention tariffs, taxes or duties but said the president could “regulate” the “importation” of products.

Trump administration lawyers argue that the “power to ‘regulate importation’ plainly encompasses the power to impose tariffs.” They also say the court should defer to the president because tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security.

They said the president invoked the tariffs not to raise revenue but to “rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl and other lethal drugs across our borders.”

In response to lawsuits from small businesses and several states, judges who handle international trade cases ruled the tariffs were illegal. However, they agreed to keep them in place to allow for appeals.

Their opinion relied in part on recent Supreme Court’s decisions which struck down potentially far-reaching regulations from Democratic presidents on climate change, student loan debt and COVID-19 vaccine requirements. In each of the decisions, Roberts said Congress had not clearly authorized the disputed regulations.

Citing that principle, the federal circuit court said it “seems unlikely that Congress intended to … grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

Trump said that decision, if allowed to stand, “could literally destroy the United States of America.” The court agreed to hear arguments in the tariffs case on Nov. 5.

A victory for Trump would be “viewed as a dramatic expansion of presidential power,” said Washington attorney Stephanie Connor, who works on tariff cases. Trump and future presidents could sidestep Congress to impose tariffs simply by citing an emergency, she said.

But the decision itself may have a limited impact because the administration has announced new tariffs last week that were based on other national security laws.

Last month, Trump administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court to rule during the upcoming term on the birthright citizenship promised by the 14th Amendment of 1868.

They did not seek a fast-track ruling, however. Instead, they said the court should grant review and hear arguments on the regular schedule early next year. If so, a decision would be handed down by late June.

The amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

And in the past, both Congress and the Supreme Court have agreed that rule applies broadly to all children who are born here, except if their parents are foreign ambassadors or diplomats who are not subject to U.S. laws.

But Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said that interpretation is mistaken. He said the post-Civil War amendment was “adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to the children of illegal aliens, birth tourists and temporary visitors.”

Judges in three regions of the country have rejected Trump’s limits on the citizenship rule and blocked it from taking effect nationwide while the litigation continues.

TENS of thousands are without power as Storm Amy’s 90mph gusts and torrential rain lash Britain leaving one dead.

The first named storm of the season has swept into the country with yellow weather warnings covering the whole of Britain on Saturday.

11

11

11

11

11

Irish Police confirmed on Friday that a man in his 40s had died following a “weather related incident”.

While 234,000 homes were also left without power across the island of Ireland as Storm Amy brings widespread disruption.

The highest wind speeds so far have been recorded in the Hebrides Islands, Scotland, at 96mph with 92mph gusts recorded in Co Londonderry in Northern Ireland, say the Met Office.

An amber wind warning has been issued for the north of Scotland until 9pm on Saturday with yellow warnings covering the whole of Scotland, the north of England and north Wales until the end of the day.

A yellow wind warning will run until 7pm for the rest of England and Wales.

Additionally, yellow warnings for rain are in place in north and west Scotland until midnight and in Northern Ireland until noon.

Travel chaos has also been sparked across the country with road closures and disruption to public transport.

Train operator, Avanti West Coast, warned of “short notice changes” on Saturday and “strongly recommended” customers making journeys north of Preston to check updates before travelling.

In Scotland, ScotRail suspended services on Friday night and anticipated the disruption would extend in Saturday and possibly Sunday.

Network Rail Scotland route director Ross Moran said more than 60 incidents of flooding, fallen trees and debris on the tracks were reported across the network in the first two hours of the storm.

“Storm Amy has hit parts of the country much harder and more quickly than expected,” he said.

National Rail is carrying out safety checks for obstructions on the line and damage to infrastructure, warning of possible disruptions throughout the UK on Saturday.

Elsewhere, CalMac Ferries also said it expect many services to be disrupted on Saturday into Sunday with many routes already cancelled.

11

11

11

The iconic Severn Bridge between Gloucestershire and Wales was also forced to close overnight due to strong winds.

While parts of the A19 Tees Viaduct, the A66 in Cumbria and the A628 near Manchester were all closed to high-sided vehicles.

Traffic Scotland has also reported a long list of road closures with Forth Road Bridge closed in both directions.

The Skye Bridge, Queensferry Crossing and Clackmannshire Bridge were also closed to high-sided vehicles.

They also reported a number of road closures due to falling debris and overnight flooding including the M9 eastbound near Stirling.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency had 30 flood warnings in place on Saturday with the Environment Agency issuing six in the north of England one in north Wales from Natural Resources Wales.

Belfast International Airport said it was expecting delays on Saturday and advised passengers to check with their airlines.

All eight of London’s royal parks, including Hyde Park and Richmond Park, will also be closed on Saturday due to the strong winds.

In a statement on its website, the Royal Parks said: “Due to severe wind gusts caused by Storm Amy, all of the royal parks, plus Brompton Cemetery and Victoria Tower Gardens will be closed on Saturday October 4.

“This closure includes all park roads and cycleways, cafes and kiosks, parks sports venues, the Serpentine lido and boating lake, and the royal parks shop.”

“The safety of visitors and staff is our top priority,” the Royal Parks added.

“We’re sorry for any inconvenience that these closures may cause.”

It said opening times on Sunday will be delayed because of safety inspections.

The Met Office said wind and rain was expected to ease throughout the evening for much of the country, but severe gales are forecast to continue in north east Scotland with a yellow warning for wind in place from midnight until 9am on Sunday.

Sunday is expected to turn dry and less windy with sunny spells for most areas, but outbreaks of rain developing in the north west.

11

11

11

GIRLS are aloud and making us proud!

OK, no more nostalgia about 1990s ‘Girl Power,’ but the times they are a-changing and then some.

3

3

The Red Roses blossomed last weekend as the England women’s rugby team won the World Cup in front of a record 82,000 Twickenham full-house.

That came hot on the heels of our Lionesses’ back-to-back European Championships successes and proves that women’s sport is here to stay.

Rewind two or three decades and women, when mentioned in the same breath as football, was something approaching a dirty word. Just look at the history books.

In 1921 there were over 150 women’s football clubs playing games in front of 40,000-plus gates.

So what did the FA do? They banned it, saying it was “unsuitable for females.”

It only took nearly five decades for the FA to change their minds and growth in the women’s game in the 70s and 80s was slow.

In fact, the national team had to wait until 1998 to have its first full time coach, Hope Powell.

The 2012 London Olympics handed the women’s game a massive boost. TeamGB were watched by over 70,000 at Wembley against Brazil and footie for females was finally freed.

SUN VEGAS WELCOME OFFER: GET £50 BONUS WHEN YOU JOIN

Last year, an FA study revealed a 56 percent rise in the number of women and girls playing football in the previous four years.

The number of registered female football clubs has more than doubled in the last seven years and just look at crowds in the WSL.

Seven seasons ago the highest gate at any game was 2,648 for Chelsea against Manchester City. Last season it was nearly 57,000 for the North London derby.

A new sponsorship deal with Barclays is worth £15million a year and WSL clubs’ revenues soared 34 percent in 2023-24 alone. So from the grassroots all the way up, women’s football is on the up.

Thankfully, that kind of progress is being repeated in other sports and not just rugby, where there has been significant growth in recent years to the tune of a 60 percent rise in registered players since 2017.

What about cricket? Our girls took a pasting against the Aussies, but the World Cup is upon us with England aiming for a fifth title.

3

In other sports, women do us proud. From netball’s Jade Clarke to tennis star Emma Raducanu, to athlete Keely Hodgkinson and world champion boxer Lauren Price… the list is long and shows just how women are flourishing.

Having said that, I was stunned to read that middle-distance runner Georgia Hunter Bell still worked full-time in tech sales just a few months before winning a bronze at last year’s Paris Olympics.

I cannot imagine a male elite athlete doing the same.

Georgia won silver at the World Championships last month and hopefully being a 24-7 athlete will help her go one better next time.

I’m obviously aware of the lack of female representation in the corridors of power within football and other sports, but I hope that is slowly changing.

Both the FA and PL chairs are women — Debbie Hewitt and Alison Brittain — and are doing a fine job.

Right now, though, I’d rather concentrate on the progress that has been made in a relatively short time.

The WSL is in rude health and will get bigger and better, underlining the fact that we, as a nation, are leading the way in the men’s and women’s game.

We should celebrate that because ‘girls just wanna have fun’.