Power

July 3 (Asia Today) — Japan has become an increasingly affordable destination for foreign visitors, but the weaker yen has sharply reduced the ability of Japanese households and businesses to buy goods and services from abroad.

The yen’s real effective exchange rate, a broad measure of its inflation-adjusted value against the currencies of Japan’s trading partners, fell to 65.93 in May, The Yomiuri Shimbun reported Friday.

That was less than half the 141.77 recorded in December 1986, when the nominal dollar-yen exchange rate was near levels recently seen in foreign-exchange markets.

The comparison indicates that even when the dollar-yen rate appears similar to its level 40 years ago, the yen’s actual external purchasing power is substantially weaker.

The real effective exchange rate is not based on the yen’s value against one currency, such as the U.S. dollar.

The index combines exchange rates with multiple trading partners, gives each currency a weight based largely on trade and adjusts for differences in inflation. The Bank for International Settlements and the Bank of Japan publish the data with 2020 set at 100.

A lower figure indicates that the yen has weakened after inflation and trade relationships are taken into account.

The Yomiuri illustrated the difference using the price of a pizza.

Even when the nominal exchange rate is similar to the rate in the 1980s, prices in the United States have risen much more than prices in Japan over the past four decades. A Japanese consumer carrying the same amount of yen can therefore buy far less in the United States today.

The distinction helps explain why the current period of yen weakness differs from the weak-yen environment of the 1980s.

Japan’s long period of low inflation contributed to the decline.

After the collapse of the country’s asset-price bubble, consumer prices and wages remained stagnant for much of the period beginning in the 1990s. Prices continued to increase in the United States, Europe and many other economies.

The Bank of Japan’s large-scale monetary easing, introduced in 2013 to end deflation, also placed downward pressure on the yen’s nominal value.

The combination of low domestic inflation and nominal depreciation accelerated the decline in the currency’s real effective value.

Cheap Japan, expensive world

The weak yen has made hotels, restaurants, clothing and consumer products in Japan appear less expensive to South Korean travelers and other foreign visitors.

For South Koreans, the effects of yen depreciation are often most visible through lower travel costs in Tokyo, Osaka and other Japanese destinations.

Foreign visitors’ spending has supported department stores, convenience stores, drugstores, restaurants and regional tourism businesses across Japan.

The same trend can create competition for South Korean tourism destinations and retailers as consumers choose between spending money domestically and traveling to Japan.

The weaker yen has the opposite effect on Japanese households.

Japan imports much of its energy, food and industrial raw materials. A weaker currency raises the yen-denominated cost of those imports, increasing pressure on household budgets and companies that cannot fully pass their higher costs on to customers.

The prolonged decline of the currency has become a policy concern as Japanese consumers face higher prices for fuel, food and other imported goods.

Japanese companies experience both advantages and disadvantages from the exchange rate.

Manufacturers must pay more for imported energy, raw materials and components. Exporters, however, can convert overseas earnings into more yen and may be able to offer more competitive prices abroad.

The price advantage can affect South Korean companies competing with Japanese manufacturers in automobiles, machinery, materials and components.

South Korean exporters doing business in Japan may face a different challenge.

As the purchasing power of Japanese consumers and businesses declines, Japanese buyers may become more sensitive to the prices of imported South Korean products and services.

Japanese importers could seek lower contract prices while consumers turn toward less expensive alternatives.

The Japanese market may therefore remain large in nominal terms while becoming increasingly price-sensitive for foreign suppliers.

The real effective exchange rate does not directly measure every household’s standard of living. It does, however, show how the yen’s value has changed after accounting for trade patterns and differences in inflation.

Its decline suggests that the effects of yen weakness extend beyond making Japan a less expensive place for tourists.

The trend is changing Japanese households’ consumption power, companies’ purchasing structures and the competitive environment facing businesses in South Korea and Japan.

For South Korea, the weak yen offers the immediate benefit of less expensive travel to Japan.

It can also contribute to an outflow of domestic consumer spending, stronger price competition from Japanese exporters and greater resistance to foreign product prices inside Japan.

Japan has become cheaper for South Korean visitors, but much of the world has become more expensive for Japanese consumers.

That widening gap is likely to remain an important factor shaping tourism, consumption and export competition between the two countries.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260703010001239

Until not so long ago Latin America had been considered a quiet region, located far from the world’s superpower main strategic confrontations, with sporadic but crucial moments that helped to shape the international order as we know it today. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the clearest example: it became the starting point for a series of agreements and treaties on nuclear and strategic security, involving both the US and the Soviet Union at first, and later extending to other actors of the international community, from Europe, Asia and Latin America, which became the first region free from nuclear weapons after the signing of the Treaty of Tlatelolco in 1967, 5 years after the crisis. After this episode, the region’s relevance seemed to fade, and Latin American countries appeared condemned to a destiny of surfing between weak political cohesion internally and relatively stable economies, even as most of its governments remained closely aligned with Washington on foreign policy matters.

It was precisely during this period of perceived irrelevance that China began building its presence in the region, very gradually and over the course of a little more than two decades. Washington largely ignored this process, even as it became clear that the Asian giant was becoming the largest trading partner for several South American countries, such as Peru and Brazil, and in many cases also the main investor in their economies. This neglect was not born of ignorance: it reflected, instead, a confidence that local governments would remain compliant regardless of who was investing in them. President Trump’s first term illustrates this well. Despite isolated clashes with the governments of Mexico and Venezuela, these episodes looked minor when compared to the “tariff wars” waged against the EU and China. In fact, the only time Trump ever set foot in the region during his entire first term was in November 2018 when he attended the G20 Forum in Buenos Aires. Significantly, there was a planned short visit in Colombia after this event, but I was cancelled. This was widely read at the time as a confirmation that Latin America remained a low priority for Washington’s foreign policy agenda, more due to the expectable compliance of local governments than ignorance of the importance of the region as a resource base capable of fueling US power projection in other regions.

It was only during Trump’s second term that American foreign policy has shifted towards the Western Hemisphere, attributing strategic importance to the region and setting the objective to maintain a near-absolute dominant presence, involving both economic and military dimensions, as is stated in the latest National Security Strategy of 2025.

By the time this shift was formalized, China’s footprint in the region was already deep and country-specific. In Brazil, China had been the largest trading partner since 2009; bilateral trade hit a record $171 billion in 2025, with China accounting for 27.2% of Brazil’s total foreign trade, besides, EV plants and a still planned bi-oceanic railway linking Brazil to Peru’s Pacific coast were being negotiated as part of the Chinese investment strategy in both countries. In Argentina, China became the primary supplier of mobile network infrastructure, part of a broader Chinese push into Latin American 5G and data-center markets. And in Peru, China invested around $1.3 billion in the strategic port of Chancay, a deepwater facility that entered full operation stage in November 2024, and set a new phase for trade between China and South America, bypassing the traditional deepwater ports located in the US, like the ports of Oakland and Stockton. Reinforcing this, China pledged in May 2025, at the CELAC forum ministerial meeting in Beijing, to ramp up its regional engagement even further. These were not isolated transactions but a structural presence, one that the 2025 National Security Strategy now identifies strictly as the rival foothold it intends to dislodge.

Now, within this context in 2026 the declared shift of interests proved it wasn’t merely rhetorical. The year started with the launching of Operation Resolve, when a group of American special military forces conducted a military raid and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in Caracas, transporting them to New York to face narcoterrorism charges. Trump declared that the US was now “in charge” of Venezuela until a transition takes place. This meant in practice that the US would hold control over the country’s oil exports, which during the first four months after Maduro’s capture were estimated at $8 billion, but the data on how much oil has been sold, the revenue from it and the use given to those funds remains secret. The main importers of Venezuelan oil during this period were the United States (43 percent), India (26 percent, part of the strategy to reduce Indian import of Russian oil), and Spain (8 percent). This episode, condemned by critics as a return to the old days of imperialism, set the tone for the rest of the year: a hemisphere where Washington would use military force, tariffs, and other mechanics for pressuring countries to sign economic deals where American core interests prevail.

An example of this is the new and controversial Trade and Investment agreement signed by the United States and Argentina in February of this year. According to the text, Argentina shall adapt the regulatory framework to implement US trade standards and prioritize American direct investment in the country, while the counterpart shall “try to review its tariffs” and “consider supporting investment financing”. Milei’s government has justified this as the price for ideological loyalty and continued financial support after the $20 billion credit line that helped to stabilize the local currency (peso) last year.

On the other hand, Brazil took the opposite path: rather than just seeking accommodation to this policy, the government of Lula da Silva accelerated diversification, finalizing the long-delayed EU-Mercosur agreement in January, deepening trade with China and signing a memorandum of understanding with aims for further strategic partnership with Russia. Notably, the US has implemented another mechanism of pressure here, condemning the imprisonment of former president Jair Bolsonaro and holding a meeting with his son Flavio Bolsonaro, who will participate in the presidential elections this October. This gives clear signs of indirect support for this far-right candidate, following the regional trend with Milei in Argentina and Keiko Fujimori in Peru.

Peru, meanwhile, illustrates a third pattern and an interesting case, because alignment here is imposed less by negotiation than by sheer state fragility. Amid a presidency turning over for the ninth time in a decade, the US State Department warned in February that China’s control over the Chancay megaport threatens Peru’s sovereignty, following a Peruvian court ruling that exempted the port from national oversight. Peru’s case pictures a scenario where both counterparts keep pushing for concessions and more privileges. Under the government of José María Balcázar, the ninth president in 10 years, the country has been involved in the controversial purchase of 12 F-16 jetfighters with a cost of around $3.5 billion. On April he postponed the official ceremony where this deal was supposed to be signed arguing that it would have to be the responsibility of a new president, the decision was met with pushback, both internally, with declarations from the Ministry of Defense and in the US Embassy, with ambassador Bernardo Navarro declaring “If you deal with the U.S. in bad faith and undermine U.S. interests, rest assured, I, on behalf of [President] Trump and his administration, will use every available tool to protect and promote the prosperity and security of the United States and our region.” After this, with both internal and diplomatic pressure, the deal was signed on the 17th of April.

Taken together, these cases suggest the current US approach to Latin America is not fueled by a single ideological logic, but by transactional calculations that value compliance and heavily punishes resistance, exploiting weaknesses here and there and aiming to these policy goal indifferently to whether the country in question is led by a right, left or ideologically undefined government. What seems quite clear is that the decades of quietness in Latin America have ended, not necessarily because the region has changed, many of the deep challenges for development are still present, but because the rivalry that once defined the Cuban Missile Crisis has returned, this time fought over trade tariffs, infrastructure and technology access rather than missiles.

NEW YORK — A skyscraper-scaling daredevil told police that he and his girlfriend climbed the Empire State Building’s antenna and unfurled a banner about love and peace because he wanted to “do something special” for their engagement, prosecutors said Thursday at the couple’s arraignment on felony reckless endangerment, burglary and other charges.

The couple, who go by Angela Nikolau and Ivan Beerkus, said little as they left court, though Beerkus responded to a journalist’s question about the stunt by saying, “We believe in love.”

Authorities said the two — who were the subject of the 2024 Netflix documentary “Skywalkers: A Love Story ” about their “rooftopping” exploits and budding romance — created not only a spectacle but also a danger by ascending the famed skyscraper’s broadcast antenna Wednesday.

After reaching the top, 1,454 feet above Midtown Manhattan, the climbers displayed a black banner reading, “When the power of love beats the love of power the world knows peace,” news helicopter video showed.

Then they collected the banner and descended to a slightly lower ledge, where an apparently successful marriage proposal unfolded. Nikolau posted images of the escapade on her social media accounts, including a photo that modeled an engagement-style ring above a bird’s-eye view of Manhattan.

Police waited about half an hour for the antenna to be powered down before Emergency Services Unit officers started ascending and eventually intercepted the climbers on their way down, according to the court complaint, which noted the danger to officers who climbed about 1,250 feet above the ground. The court document identified the two by their formal names, Angelina Nikolau and Ivan Kuznetsov.

“Skywalkers: A Love Story” follows Beerkus, now 32, and Nikolau, 33, as they make often unauthorized ascents of tall structures, sometimes posing as construction workers to sneak in.

The court complaint said police found a broken lock on a security door on the Empire State Building’s restricted-access 104th floor, which provides access to the antenna. The highest public floor is the 102nd, where there’s an observation deck. Going higher requires a key card, according to the court complaint.

The Empire State Building’s management has called the climb “unauthorized” but hasn’t answered questions about what interactions, if any, the daredevils had with security workers. Visitors to the skyscraper are screened and told not to bring large packages, sports equipment, costumes or masks, among other items.

Beerkus and Nikolau were released without bail, in accordance with New York laws that restrict when monetary bail can be set. Their attorney, Jason Krinsky, said outside court that once prosecutors provide evidence, he and his clients would assess it and determine next steps.

“What a way to propose — something you can only dream of,” Krinsky said. “So you’ve got to, you know, give him some credit for that.”

Other daredevils have climbed the antenna and other parts of the Empire State Building. Those ascents have largely been unauthorized, but actor and musician Jared Leto was allowed to climb up to the base of the antenna from the 86th floor in 2023 to promote a tour.

Peltz writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. led a fractured Supreme Court this year that both expanded a president’s power to run the government and dealt major defeats to President Trump.

In Trump’s second year back in the White House, Roberts and the court punctured his claim to have power with no limits.

The justices struck down his worldwide tariffs, ruling these import taxes are a matter for Congress, not the president.

They also threw out his executive order that would end the principle of birthright citizenship. The Constitution wrote this promise into law, Roberts said, and the president may not change it.

The court also ruled in December that the president did not have the power to put National Guard troops on the streets of Chicago.

The three decisions came over fierce dissents from conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. and with Neil M. Gorsuch in two of them.

The three liberal justices dissented angrily when the court ruled the administration may end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians.

They did the same when the court ruled the president may replace the top appointees of semi-independent agencies.

But they joined Roberts in a 5-4 ruling that affirmed the independence of the Federal Reserve and blocked Trump’s move to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook.

Trump has won on most immigration fronts because Roberts and the conservatives believe Congress put the enforcement power in the hands of the administration. They point to the law authorizing temporary protection which says there shall be “no judicial review” of the decision to end the protection.

Roberts is a solid conservative who also tries to keep the court on a middle course. It’s an approach that rarely wins plaudits from the right and almost never from the left.

This year the chief justice prevailed with different coalitions.

This week, the court ruled by a 5-4 vote against the Republican National Committee and upheld state laws that allow for counting late-arriving mail ballots. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Barrett also joined the chief justice in the rulings on tariffs and birthright citizenship.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. speaks to the Georgetown Law School graduating class in 2025.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

This week, the court also limited the power of police to use cellphone data to look for crime suspects. This too came on a 5-4 vote when Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined Roberts and the three liberals.

Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus, who has been a friend of Roberts’ since their time in law school, said the chief justice “is clearly working very hard” to put together majorities.

“It is not easy to formally preside over a court in which five of its members (Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch on the right and Justices Sotomayor and Jackson on the left) deride the kind of efforts at moderation that is the chief’s preferred signature and harshly condemn him when he strays from their own views.”

Washington attorney Roman Martinez, a former clerk for Roberts, said the court is “clearly right of center” but the decision on tariffs was the most important of the year.

“It is a huge deal for the court to say ‘no’ to the president on his major policy initiative,” he said.

Stanford law professor Michael McConnell agreed. “It’s hard to claim the court is in Trump’s pocket when he lost the major cases,” he said.

Trump responded to the tariff defeat by calling the justices in the majority a “disgrace to our nation” and “disloyal to the Constitution.”

They “sicken me,” he said of Justices Barrett and Gorsuch, his two appointees who joined Roberts in the 6-3 majority.

Trump went to the court in April to hear his top attorney defend his executive order on birthright citizenship. He left after an hour of mostly skeptical questions.

On the term’s last day, Roberts issued a clear and eloquent 26-page opinion setting out America’s history of according citizenship to children who were born in this country, without regard to their parents.

This view came from England “and crossed the Atlantic with the colonists — and was adopted with little fanfare after the Revolution,” he wrote. “Nothing is better settled,” Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1830.

But it was unsettled by the fight over slavery.

“In the odious decision of Dred Scott v. Sandford, this Court imposed the Southern States’ beliefs onto the Nation” and decreed Blacks could not become citizens, Roberts wrote.

Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass were among the many who condemned the court’s decision, he said.

“It took more than a decade — and the addition of names such as Antietam, Gettysburg, and Chancellorsville to our national canon — but Douglass’s vision of ‘our common humanity’ would be fulfilled,” he wrote.

The Reconstruction Congress wrote this rule into the 14th Amendment and said “All persons born” here are citizens by birth.

The principle of birthright citizenship had been upheld by the Supreme Court in 1898, the chief justice wrote, and it had gone unchallenged until Trump returned to the White House last year.

But Thomas filed a 91-page dissent arguing that immigrants must be “domiciled” here before their children may become citizens.

Alito filed a separate 39-page opinion branding the Roberts opinion a “serious mistake.”

On that note, the court adjourned for its summer recess.

“Imagine the scenario; one of our Havoc hypersonic missiles loaded on an F-15EX Eagle with a mission profile locked-in and ready to go. This new missile is designed for low-cost and high-effect – it’s very difficult for an adversary to track in flight,” explains Chris Spagnoletti, chief executive officer of Ursa Major, as he discusses the company’s expanding hypersonics activities. Part of a company strategy to help overcome critical Department of War munitions shortages, Ursa Major’s Havoc was unveiled in early 2026. With a unique 3D-printed propulsion system, Havoc has been envisioned as a hypersonic missile that aims to re-write the rulebook for these types of weapons.

Ursa Major’s ambitious vision comes at a time of something of a renaissance in U.S. aerospace development and defense manufacturing, with newer firms establishing major positions within a rapidly evolving marketplace. These fresh takes on cutting-edge defense technologies also come as the United States celebrates its 250th birthday and looks back on a history of unlikely up-starts changing the world with new ideas and ways of doing business. It’s in this same spirit that Ursa Major looks to stake its claim.

The firm is evolving from a propulsion provider into a prime contractor and integrator with a keen focus on hypersonics and solving a need for affordable high-speed missiles at scale for the U.S. and its allies. In recent operations, the U.S. has fired a vast number of standoff air-to-ground weapons including more than 850 Tomahawks cruise missiles in the recent war with Iran and hundreds of high-end interceptors, stressing a system that’s been constrained by prolonged replenishment timelines. 

Spagnoletti says he strongly believes that hypersonic missiles are “the most important and pressing issue within critical munitions, with solid rocket motors coming close behind.” The company’s approach to design and production in both of these areas means Spagnoletti sees Ursa Major as being “well positioned to solve” these pressing requirements for the U.S. military.

“We are innovating on manufacturability and on new munition systems,” he continues. “It’s all under the umbrella of scalable munitions. Ursa Major’s founders really focused on developing very complicated propulsion systems, but with a strong propensity on design for manufacturability – essentially developing very high performing rocket engines as low-cost and as reliably as possible.”

Ursa Major has produced hundreds of engines and motors and accumulated more than 135,000 seconds of hotfire test time in under a decade. From its very beginnings the company has innovated through advanced manufacturing techniques that have evolved to leverage AI-enabled 3D-printing, specifically metal printing. “We’re looking at the problem set, and the landscape here is about how we can help the United States catch up as quickly as possible. We don’t just want a “me too” product, because we find there’s a lot of that in this space. This is about finding real answers to the desperate need to replenish our critical munitions fast,” says Spagnoletti.

Solid rocket motors in high demand

Having started out with liquid rocket engines, Ursa Major increasingly saw a burgeoning requirement for solid rocket motors (SRMs) for munitions, which Spagnoletti says have remained tied to traditional manufacturing approaches. Ursa Major says its approach to SRM manufacturing is designed to complement and strengthen the broader defense industrial base by providing flexible manufacturing capacity, common architectures, and modernized production methods.

Ursa Major’s manufacturing approach fundamentally changes how SRMs are designed and built using additive manufacturing, modular tooling, and software-backed production cells. This enables rapid switching between SRM variants without expensive retooling, which reduces production timelines and increases flexibility. 

In addition, Ursa Major’s highly-loaded grain technology increases motor performance and range without increasing motor size. By leveraging common architectures and using a limited set of qualified propellants, it says it can reduce qualification timelines and simplify production across multiple variants. The company’s energetics (solid propellent grain) strategy aims to expand domestic propellant capacity and reduce dependence on fragile supply chains, while using reliable mix, cast, and cure processes.

“Both in the liquid rocket engine side, and in solid rocket motors, the approach from the outset is deeply embedded in our culture; how we design, how we build, how we scale,” says Nick Doucette, co-founder and vice president of strategic operations for Ursa Major. “We came at the manufacturing problems from a completely different direction. We started out building liquid rocket engines, which were – to a degree – supporting the launch industry. That approach allowed us to develop new platforms that use new types of fuels or higher performance rates and lower costs.”

“From the start it helped support a growing launch industry, but very quickly it started to find its way into the hypersonics community as our engines, products, and performance points really started to solve some interesting problems. As we leaned heavily into the hypersonics needs, we realized that the early Ursa Major approach in manufacturing and the types of tech that we’re using are really solving some of the actual problems, and that led to our solid rocket motor programs.”

When building solid rocket motors, the inert part of the manufacturing leverages additive manufacturing heavily – Ursa Major avoids fixed tooling. “For example, after we qualify a motor, say a specific diameter booster, and then the government comes back to us and says that the adversaries have adapted. Now they want slightly different thrust, or maybe get additional range. We’ve already thought about that, our manufacturing line doesn’t need to change. We can use the same manufacturing line and adapt it,” explains Spagnoletti.

“We kept the energetics formulation essentially the same – it’s tried and true and it has been munition-tested for years – but we looked at the problem from the manufacturability of the entirety of the system. From a contracting point of view, this gives the government a lot more flexibility and to be as agile as the adversary. This has been happening on the development side for the past three years, working with several primes and the U.S. Navy. They’re inherently leveraging our ability to turn things fast, and now that’s translating into contracts for us.”

“The Navy really understood our approach to manufacturing,” adds Doucette. “They challenged us to apply our approach with liquid rockets to the solid rocket motor industry. To look at the problems and peel back the onion on solid rocket motors. What we found is that the choke point actually lies the metallic components that make what we call the inert tube section, that then gets packed with the energetics. The energetics are difficult for sure, but what actually chokes the supply chain is the 36-plus months to make the metallic tube structures. To compound the problem, all these production lines of the last 30, 40, 50 years are designed around one platform. Can you imagine an automotive company that has a huge expensive factory but only ever makes one car model! I mean, it would economically go out of business.”

“We have demonstrated that, by looking at the steps to make a solid rocket motor, be it metal printing the end domes or how we do the internal features and make the actual case to how we in some cases load the highly-loaded grain to get more performance, we can do all of it on the same production line for any motor between two inches and 22 inches in diameter. The same equipment, the same people, the same factory footprint. If we want to scale, we just copy paste the factory. If the demand signal changes in a year – which if recent conflicts give us any indication they probably will – that factory can switch over to a different munition. We just stop making one size and tool up for the new size in a matter of months.”

Ursa Major’s primary 93-acre corporate headquarters is located in Berthoud, about an hour north of Denver, Colorado. Here the company has the facilities to test its liquid rocket engines on site and it also designs, develops, and manufactures here. “Our main building is really split in half,” explains Spagnoletti. “On one side we have liquid rocket engine manufacturing and development to power hypersonics, and on the other behind a steel rolling door are the solid rocket motor development and low-rate production as part of our replenishment of critical munitions.”

“At the Colorado site, we’re actually grinding, mixing, casting, curing thousands of pounds of energetics per year for our solid rocket motors, with a lot of automation built-in to not only protect the people but also to make the process more consistent. We have another site for our high volume solid rocket motor production – it needs a lot of space – and we are targeting to manufacture hundreds of thousands of pounds of energetics for use in various shapes and sizes by the middle of 2027.”

The company has expanded with more than 400 acres for SRM production in Galeton, Colorado.

Solid rocket motors of all sizes

Nick Doucette already sees the solid rocket motor work evolving. “We will eventually boost-power our Havoc system with our solid rocket motors. Remember, we got into SRMs due to seeing the critical munition needs, with an open door for manufacturing innovation and a problem we want to help solve. So we’ve built a manufacturing approach and we are now building a multitude of different size classes for different customers.”

The smallest SRM that Ursa Major is actively working on is for the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System, or APKWS, from BAE Systems. “This currently uses a very dated motor and there’s been a lot of need in the industry to essentially innovate on that motor,” explains Doucette. “So we’ve been working extensively with both BAE Systems and the U.S. Air Force on that particular platform, especially with highly loaded grain, and we see a very promising future there.”

Doucette explains that Ursa Major has already made several hundred 2.75-inch motors for testing and development. This will be an extended range version of the motor, packing a significantly larger amount of energetic material into the same size rocket casing.

In 2024, Ursa Major won a contract with the Naval Energetics Systems and Technologies (NEST) program to develop and test a new design to apply its SRM manufacturing processes to the Mk104 dual-thrust rocket motor that powers the U.S. Navy Standard Missile 2 (SM-2), used for surface-to-air defense, and the SM-6 anti-air, land, and sea missile.

Trusted solid rocket motor providers are in limited supply, and the versatility of Ursa Major’s production process opens up a raft of potential opportunities, particularly in the missile defense space. The 10-14-inch range is what Doucette calls a “sweet spot” for interceptor missiles.

Asked about air-to-air missiles, Doucette says: “of course, we’re looking at it. There’s been a lot of conversations around how Ursa Major would approach the problem, but we have a lot going on already, so we’re making sure we don’t try to swallow the whole critical munitions list at once.”

“Most of these larger hypersonic weapons are all boosted,” adds Doucette. “These have a booster in the back end, and we have additionally completed internal work to develop that 22-inch diameter SRM capability. So now we can do anything from 2-inch to 22-inch on that same production line using our common modular manufacturing approach.”

Unleashing Havoc

Ursa Major’s parallel efforts in hypersonics brings the story full circle. Alongside the solid rocket motors business, hypersonic missiles have become a critical part of the company’s efforts, as Nick Doucette picks up the story. 

“There’s two specific products that Ursa Major makes in the hypersonics realm right now. The first is an engine that’s liquid oxygen-powered with rocket fuel. We call it Hadley, and we’ve had that for the better part of a decade. Hadley powers the Stratolaunch hypersonic Talon A testbed, for example. We don’t make the vehicle, we just provide the engine and support services, and Hadley has flown 10 times now.”

“The challenge with Hadley is that it uses cryogenic liquid oxygen, which presents a whole suite of issues from a tactical perspective. A military user can’t sit and wait for the propellant to get cold, like you do with liquid oxygen. We needed to make a similar engine, slightly lower thrust, a little smaller, but essentially in the same packaging, make it storable and most importantly, make it tactical, so that you can drop it from a plane or shoot it vertically from a ship. So we switched from liquid oxygen to hydrogen peroxide.”

“The catch there was that the only way we were able to do that in the right packaging, tightness, and density, was to use 3D-printing. Fast-forward through six years of insane additive development and the Draper engine became a reality. It simply would not have been possible without massive advances in the additive world because of the complexity of what we’re doing geometrically. It’s a really challenging thing to do.”

Draper is a 4,000-pound-thrust engine that is powered by hydrogen peroxide and rocket fuel. Its use of non-cryogenic storable propellants enables long-duration storage, rapid deployment, and operational flexibility in real-world conditions. Its massive potential drove Ursa Major to search for a suitable hypersonic vehicle design to match it with.

“We strongly believed that Draper introduced a differentiating threat vector for any adversary,” Doucette continues. “China has had boost-glide hypersonics for a decade. Other hypersonic designs use a scramjet, which are costly and complex. Draper opened up hypersonic performance, where you have a wide range of trajectories and adaptability as well as other really creative mechanisms that, to be honest, the adversaries don’t have. I mean it’s wildly different, which we see as being a very valuable asset to the national security arsenal.

“The concept of using a liquid rocket engine for a hypersonic weapon is absolutely game changing. Draper can be throttled – unlike solid rocket motors that use a pre-mixed propellant and oxidizer that cannot be controlled once ignited – plus it’s designed to be more safely stored than other liquid rocket engines, providing the tactical storage capabilities that are typical of a solid rocket motor.”

Doucette says that Ursa Major looked to find a partner for the vehicle itself, but concluded that none were suitable, particularly when it came to moving fast. The decision was made to go it alone in-house with an air vehicle. The result is Havoc, which is designed like other hypersonic programs to fly in excess of mach 5, and intended to be launched in a variety of ways; as a single-stage from an aircraft or ground-launched with added booster stages. It’s also designed to run out at circa $3-million apiece. “We entered a rapid campaign in partnership with the Air Force Research Laboratory and we went from concept to flight-ready in about six months,” Doucette says.

Hypersonic missiles currently in testing with the USAF include the AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), which is a boost-glide hypersonic system, with rocket boost and an unpowered glide vehicle inside. The Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile, or HACM, also features rocket boosters, but with an air-breathing scramjet second stage vehicle. Both are limited to operations in the Earth’s atmosphere – whereas Havoc can operate either in or above the atmosphere.

“With regard to propulsion in aerospace defense, there’s three main types; air-breathing, solid powered, and liquid powered,” Doucette explains. “In the world of hypersonics, specifically, we’re talking about fast-moving, somewhat unpredictable, missile systems that are moving at over five times the speed of sound. You have the same propulsion methods, but liquid fuel has never really been introduced.”

“The air-breathing hypersonic weapons are typically scramjets and ramjets, which the U.S. has been developing for a very long time. They’re expensive and exquisite, but very long range.

“China has something in the order of 600-700 operational boost-glide systems in its arsenal right now. This is not new to them. They’ve been practicing, watching, and rehearsing.” Doucette warns that the U.S. fielding a boost-glide or scramjet hypersonic weapon may not really change the dynamic, which is why Ursa Major’s argument for its liquid-powered weapon is so strong.

“The novelty of being liquid-powered is that it carries its own oxidizer and fuel, which means it can go anywhere – in the atmosphere, out of the atmosphere, high, low. A solid rocket can technically do the same thing, but the big difference with the liquid system is that it can turn on and off an infinite number of times. A solid is going where it’s going, but a liquid could be on one trajectory and a split second later turn it off, then instantaneously head on a different trajectory because you can maneuver it from a powered vector perspective. Draper is also fully throttleable down to 10% all the way up to 100%.”

There are currently no competing systems that have the ability to bridge the gap between running in atmosphere and out of atmosphere with such a degree of throttle control. Ursa Major is currently the only company with a hypersonic vehicle and experience in the liquid-powered hypersonic realm. It has twice ground-launched from a rail what it calls “Havoc Block 0” in partnership with the Air Force Research Laboratory, under its Affordable Rapid Missile Demonstrator (ARMD) program. These demonstrator flights have been designed as multi-domain tests. “The great thing about Havoc is that we can alter the wings, add our solid rocket motor boost system, and it means we can ground launch, VLS [vertical launch system] launch, or air-launch,” Doucette says.

“Havoc provides something the Department of War has not previously seen,” adds Chris Spagnoletti. “Having a mid- and long-range tactical weapon that can deep throttle, turn on and off at will, is agnostic to atmosphere, rapidly change vector, accelerate and de-celerate, skim the sea, fly outside the atmosphere – this really opens up the aperture of what a munition can do. This is very tough for conventional systems to figure out what it’s intending to do.”

Rapidly scaling production

Spagnoletti says Ursa Major’s hypersonic program can scale quickly because of the company’s additive manufacturing and AI-driven manufacturing processes. Draper’s liquid propellant also has additional advantages when it comes to production. “We can drain the fuel, bring them into a facility, and that now-inert system doesn’t need massive keep-out distances,” explains Spagnoletti. “So, say in a 100,000 square foot building, we can produce 500 full-up missile systems per year inert, then fuel them right before we ship them or at the operational location.”

“Some companies are advocating for things like multi-year contracts, and that really matters to them because they’re setting up rigid long-term production lines. We’ve flipped that on its head where if a customer decides in say five years they want this weapon to look different, we have a common modular approach that we can swap things out. Most of the aerospace systems I’ve worked on in my career have long five or 10-year windows. Design, build, qualify – they don’t want to make hardware changes because it’s going to take ages and cost a lot of money to modify and qualify those systems. They’re inherently resistant to change, not because they don’t want to help and adapt, but because the system allows a massive amount of inertia, production lines have rigid tooling and processes, they can’t adapt. What’s different about Ursa Major is, again, that we design for manufacturability and leverage advanced manufacturing.’

Ursa Major Additive Manufacturing

In addition to its Colorado facilities mentioned earlier, Ursa Major also has a plant in Youngstown, Ohio, which is a center of excellence for 3D-printing, they then ship to Berthoud for final assembly and test. A lot of parts and components are manufactured in house, including valves, tanks, pressurization systems, avionics, but it does have dependency on some external suppliers where appropriate. “We have some really strong partnerships where we can’t bring things in-house. We’re such experts in additive manufacturing that we know when not to do it.”

“Importantly, we are not reducing costs by using the cheapest parts. In my 36 years in the aerospace industry, when it comes to building a critical munition, I know the devil’s in the details – it has to work every time and there’s only so cheap you can go before you start to sacrifice reliability. Some of our competitors are trying to achieve a lower cost hypersonic system, which is great, but those are typically salvo weapons where you just launch a lot of them. The Havoc missile system is more of a strategic asset.”

Ursa Major is making significant moves in the U.S. military’s missile stockpile recapitalization effort. It has opened up versatile methods of producing solid rocket motors, and it has demonstrated the functionality of Havoc with the Air Force Research Laboratory, including the concept of operations with the liquid rocket. Spagnoletti points out that the U.S. used to use liquid rockets prior to the advent of solid rocket motors. Use of additive manufacturing and 3D-printing is always in the conversation too, it’s how this company can scale its innovations fast.

The next major milestone it’s driving towards is a follow-on demonstration phase for Havoc – a boosted, full hypersonic flight. “We’re pushing for that in 2027,” says Spagnoletti.

As America marks its 250th year, the dream of a hypersonic missile with a 3D-printed engine that can be delivered in large quantities at an affordable price could materialize into another significant landmark in the story of American defense innovation. At least that’s Ursa Major’s goal, and it appears to look more promising by the day.

The just-approved state budget strips authority from the elected state superintendent of public instruction, transferring power in January to an appointee of the governor, dramatically changing the oversight and management of a public school system serving more than 6 million students from preschool through 12th grade.

The change was pushed through by Gov. Gavin Newsom at the urging of academics and education reformers who have long criticized how the state’s $149 billion public education system is governed.

In essence, the change consolidates increased power within the governor’s office — streamlining and largely replacing a diffuse system in which the state superintendent has significant influence, but no direct control over budget and policy.

Supporters hail the move as bringing accountability and coherence — through the governor — to all the departments and agenices involved in education.

“The approval of education governance reform, over a century in the making, is a monumental victory for California’s students that finally establishes a sensible system to best support them,” said Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, an Oakland-based research and advocacy organization. “We commend Governor Newsom for his leadership in making this much needed change a reality.”

Critics called the change an unjustified, undemocratic side-stepping of the state constitution and the will of voters.

“California’s constitutional architecture deliberately established an independent schools chief to ensure that public education answers directly to the voters,” wrote a labor coalition that included the two largest statewide teacher unions. “Replacing an elected constitutional officer with a partisan bureaucrat serving strictly at the pleasure of the executive branch breaks that model, permanently muting the public voice when democratic transparency matters most.”

The critics noted that voters have defeated every attempt to eliminate the elected state superintendent.

The latest effort bypasses the ballot box by keeping the elected position, but stripping most of its powers. The bill did not go through the typically lengthy legislative process; it was instead folded as a trailer bill into the state budget.

School district management groups, such as the one representing county superintendents, were more supportive of the changes.

Diffuse authority and accountability

Authority over education has long been distributed among different officeholders.

The Legislature passes laws related to education. The governor chooses which to sign. The governor also proposes what to pay for in education through his budget plan. The Legislature can amend the plan and has the responsibility to approve it.

The elected state superintendent runs the state Department of Education and serves as the administrative lead for the state Board of Education, whose members have been appointed by the governor to four-year terms. The superintendent does not have a vote on the board and must follow board authority in some areas but not others.

The board approves state education policy and curriculum.

“The current state system of support and accountability for local districts is uneven,” resulting in “islands of high quality surrounded by deserts where nothing much has improved,” said former State Board of Education President Michael Kirst, an emeritus Stanford professor of education. Instruction across the entire state was “unlikely to improve” under the status quo, he said.

How the office will change

All of the state superintendent’s authority will transfer to the education commissioner, who will be named by the governor and then approved by the state Senate.

That means the next governor will gain direct control or control through appointees over developing and spending the education budget — including state and federal grants — and developing education policies.

Under the old system, the state superintendent has overseen grants while also interpreting state education law and making sure schools complied.

The new law sets out the superintendent’s role instead as the “independently elected nonpartisan voice for the public interest in the governance of the state’s educational systems.” This role includes reporting to the Legislature “on the condition of education based on statewide engagement and travel to identify significant trends, challenges, and emerging issues.”

Critics worry that amounts to a whole lot of nothing.

That may be literally the case initially, as the new law gives governor’s new education commissioner until Oct. 1, 2027 to propose further reforms including “the future role and staffing” of the elected superintendent.

Until then, the new law provides for the superintendent to have several deputies and a skeleton clerical staff.

The superintendent also becomes one of 11 members of the state Board of Education and one of 19 members of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.

Change opposed by candidates for the office

The overhaul occurs as two candidates vie to become the elected superintendent in November. Both have strongly opposed the change.

The race pits Republican Sonja Shaw, who finished first in the primary, against Democrat Richard Barrera.

Shaw, who decried the change as a “blatant power grab” that “silences voters,” said she had a game plan for how she intended to use the previous powers of the office if elected.

Sonja Shaw candidate for state superintendent

(Photo courtesy of Sonja Shaw)

“An outsider serving as state superintendent who refuses to simply defer to Sacramento could use the office’s authority over grants, contracts, federal programs, accountability systems, fiscal standards, parent resources, and administrative functions to prioritize results over ideology,” Shaw said.

“In practice, that could mean focusing resources on proven reading and math instruction, increasing transparency, fostering increased parental involvement, protecting fairness and safety for girls in sports,” she said.

If elected, Barrera said he hopes to work immediately to fill in the blanks with a meaningful role for the superintendent and to bring in important education voices that he said have been left out so far.

Richard Barrera, a candidate for state schools superintendent

(Sam Hodgson/The San Diego Union-Tribune)

“The whole purpose of this restructuring is bringing people into alignment, with the focus on goals for student learning, and I’d say we have a long way to go,” Barrera said.

Both candidates said there was potential grounds for a legal challenge to the rewritten duties.

California Teachers Assn. President David Goldberg also was among the opposing voices.

“There’s always tons of issues going on for a governor, and education issues are likely to be put on the back burner.” State voters, he added, “have really wanted an independent voice around public education,” someone willing at times to stand up to the governor.

Supporters of the change counter that the governor — who has to answer to a broad base of interests — would be less susceptible to education special-interest groups, including teacher unions.

The central tenets of the new framework are based on a December 2025 report from Policy Analysis for California Education, a nonpartisan center that brings together researchers from Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Davis and USC.

Grid operators warn the US heatwave could send electricity demand near record levels before the Fourth of July holiday.

Power grid operators in the United States are warning that a dangerous heatwave could put more strain on an electric grid already under pressure from surging energy consumption.

A stretch of extreme heat is expected to intensify across much of the central and eastern parts of the country this week, peaking from Tuesday through Thursday.

That heatwave is likely to continue through one of the busiest travel weekends of the year, as millions of Americans prepare for Fourth of July celebrations on Saturday.

Temperatures this week are forecasted to climb above 38 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit) from Boston to Washington, DC, pushing up demand for air conditioning.

The heatwave coincides with two major events on the US calendar. Saturday’s holiday marks the 250th anniversary of the US’s independence, and millions are expected to gather for barbecues, parades and fireworks.

The extreme temperatures also come as the FIFA World Cup has reached the knockout stage, with many host cities, including New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Washington, expected to feel the heat.

Humidity could push the heat index as high as 46 degrees Celsius (114 Fahrenheit) in some places, while overnight temperatures will offer little respite.

The US’s largest regional grid operator, PMJ Interconnection, is forecasting record summer electrical demand of 166.3 gigawatts for Thursday evening, surpassing the previous summer peak set two decades ago, in 2006.

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), the state’s grid operator, is also expecting electricity demand to approach record highs, while the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which covers 15 states in the Midwest and South, could also see its peak demand record challenged.

Authorities at MISO say they will rely on PMJ for support in covering consumer needs.

In a May report, PMJ’s executives warned of a “fundamental mismatch between how fast demand is growing and how quickly new supply can be built and connected to the grid”.

New power plants, they said, now take twice as long to build and cost twice as much as they did a decade ago.

Meanwhile, there has been increasing pressure on electrical grids from new technology like data centres and electric vehicles.

In May, PMJ said hyperscale data centres were “adding load at an unprecedented pace”.

Experts say the artificial intelligence (AI) boom is colliding with climate change, with tools like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude being processed in vast, energy-hungry data centres.

The most energy-intensive are the hyperscale facilities that require between 100 and 300 megawatts of electricity, enough to power hundreds of thousands of homes.

Many of those are concentrated in northern Virginia, which sits within PJM’s service territory and is widely described as the world’s largest data centre hub.

Researchers have also identified what they call a “data heat island effect”, finding that land surface temperatures around AI data centres rise by an average of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), with some locations seeing increases of up to 9 degrees Celsius (16.2 degrees Fahrenheit).

The National Weather Service in the US warns that long periods of extreme heat create significant stress on the body.

It has urged people to limit outdoor activity, stay hydrated and keep close to air conditioning or cooling centres.

A 2024 report from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that 21,518 deaths in the United States from 1999 to 2023 were heat-related.

The highest number came in the final year of the report’s analysis, 2023. That year, 2,325 people died from causes attributed to high temperatures.

Kara Swisher is everywhere.

She’s filling in for Joy Behar on ABC’s “The View.” Appearing alongside Meryl Streep in “The Devil Wears Prada 2.” Starring in a CNN documentary. Preparing a national tour. And churning out four podcasts most weeks featuring long-form interviews and commentary.

It’s a ubiquity born of more than three decades chronicling the technology industry with a professed indifference to power that vaulted her into a rare echelon of journalism celebrity.

She harnessed that reputation to persuade rivals Steve Jobs and Bill Gates to appear onstage together and make Mark Zuckerberg so uncomfortable under questioning that he broke out into a sweat. She had Elon Musk’s cellphone number — the two aren’t currently speaking — and often texts tech and business leaders.

She’s betting the influence that made her a Silicon Valley force will translate into politics as podcasts supplant traditional media as a destination for candidates seeking attention.

During President Donald Trump’s second Republican term, potential Democratic presidential candidates ranging from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris to onetime Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel have appeared on Swisher’s shows. She expects that roster to grow.

“We get called by all the presidential candidates,” the 63-year-old Swisher said in an interview at her home in a leafy corner of Washington, where her trademark high self-regard was on display. “We’re going to get to all of them.”

Swisher is hardly the only podcaster talking politics. Conservatives like Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson and some liberals like the former Barack Obama aides who host “Pod Save America” have larger audiences. They’re all dwarfed by Joe Rogan.

But Swisher, who has evolved from a traditional print journalist to business owner and podcast host, has few rivals who can match her technology expertise and connect those observations to the broader political debate.

“When I first went on her podcast when I just got into Congress in 2017, she was very well respected in tech circles,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, the California Democrat whose district includes Silicon Valley. “But now she’s emerged as a larger cultural force, especially at a time where there’s such anger at the tech billionaires and tech arrogance.”

Interviews that produce revealing moments

When she’s not on the road, Swisher typically records from a basement studio in the Washington home she shares with her wife and children and a cat named Lovely. The conversations on her interview podcast “On with Kara Swisher” are often referenced later on “Pivot,” which she co-hosts with entrepreneur Scott Galloway.

They frequently produce revealing moments, as when Newsom filled in for Galloway on “Pivot.” Swisher derided him for being too easy on Steve Bannon when the longtime Trump aide appeared on Newsom’s own podcast.

“You had an opportunity to engage,” Swisher pressed. “Why not engage?”

Swisher pushed Buttigieg on why he took so long to say President Joe Biden, a fellow Democrat, shouldn’t have sought reelection. Buttigieg said he wasn’t consulted.

“Sure, but you have eyes,” Swisher responded.

In an interview, Newsom said Swisher calls him out.

“She’ll send me missives unsolicited,” he said. “She’s usually right, and it drives me crazy.”

Even Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a rare Republican to go on her show, said it was a worthwhile experience despite being pressed on whether his willingness to speak out against the Trump White House emerged only after he opted against reelection.

“If you’re a politician, you should be able to walk up anywhere and hold your own,” Tillis said, adding, “You may end up having an opportunity, like in my experience, to give a completely different perspective.”

‘Pivot’ was initially focused on tech and business

Shaping the political conversation wasn’t the objective when “Pivot” launched in 2018. Galloway, who hosts his own “Prof G” and “Raging Moderates” podcasts, recalled the idea for “Pivot” was to focus on the intersection of technology and business.

“Show me a big business or tech story, and I’m going to show you a political overlay,” Galloway said.

The expansion converges with a sense of urgency among Democrats to be more aggressive on digital platforms, where audiences are increasingly concentrated.

“The single most important quality that every candidate needs to have is the ability to talk and the ability to talk anywhere,” said Teddy Goff, the co-founder of Precision Strategies and the digital director for Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign.

Democrats are still stung by Rogan’s nearly three-hour Trump interview in the final weeks of the 2024 campaign. Rogan who doesn’t consider himself a journalist, has said Harris’ campaign didn’t agree to his terms. Harris has described being spurned by Rogan.

The podcasts add up to influence and financial success.

Galloway said “Pivot,” which is effectively a joint venture between himself, Swisher and Vox Media, will be a $15 million to $20 million business this year, with a staff of just five.

“Podcasts are the NBA,” Galloway said. “There’s a small amount of people making a lot of money.”

A goal to be popular ‘among the entire populace’

While Swisher largely hosts Democrats, she hopes to soon bring on additional Republicans and said she texted Steve Hilton’s wife, a former Google executive, in hopes of booking him shortly after he advanced in California’s governor’s race.

“What we’re going for is to be popular among the entire populace,” she said. “So that people who don’t feel they want to be in a constant state of anger, whether it’s on the left or the right, can have a place to go.”

But her barbed comments about Trump and other Republicans could complicate that goal. Swisher describes her work as “reported analysis.”

“We don’t shy away from our faults,” Swisher said. “We don’t shy away from our biases. You know, we don’t shy away from things that most people try to.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Trump new power to fire the heads of most independent agencies created by Congress — but not the Federal Reserve.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. announced two opinions, one of which bolstered the president’s power as the chief executive and a second which said this authority did not extend to the Federal Reserve board.

The first was a 6-3 decision that had the support of five conservatives, while the second had a 5-4 majority that included the three liberals.

Roberts, a former White House lawyer, has long been skeptical of independent agencies whose officials may wield regulatory power in conflict with the views of the president.

Since the 1880s, however, Congress has at times created independent agencies led by a bipartisan board of experts. In 1935, a unanimous Supreme Court had upheld these multi-member boards and commissions.

But Roberts and the court overturned that precedent and declared it conflicts with the executive power of the president.

“Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one President,” he wrote. “To discharg[e] the duties of his trust, the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. … Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

The decision upholds Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member Federal Trade Commission.

The Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee to the Federal Trade Commission.

(Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg / Getty Images)

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the ruling “distorts the structure of government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary, total executive control. The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before. It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him.”

Under what has been dubbed the “unitary executive” theory, the court’s conservatives believe the president’s executive power in Article II of the Constitution overrides Congress’power in Article I to write the laws and structure the government.

The departments and agencies of the federal government exist only because Congress created them by law.

But in the second opinion, the court blocked Trump’s bid to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, an appointee of President Biden.

Roberts said the central bank dates back to the nation’s founding, and Congress created the Federal Reserve Board in line with “our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”

Trump tried to fire Lisa Cook in a social media post, he said.

But “the Federal Reserve’s Governors do not serve at the President’s pleasure — they instead serve staggered 14-year terms, and may be removed only ‘for cause’,” he wrote.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast a crucial vote to support the Fed’s independence. He said he joined the majority because it “confirms the longstanding historical practice and understanding that the Federal Reserve is an independent agency whose Governors enjoy for-cause removal protection consistent with Article II of the Constitution.”

The court did not finally decide on Cook’s case, except to say she deserved due process of law. She could not be fired without a hearing and evidence, the court said.

The setback for independent agencies came as no surprise, however.

Even prior to Trump’s election, Roberts has insisted agency officials must be accountable and under the control of the president.

Last year, the justices blocked lower court rulings that would have reinstated agency officials who were fired by Trump.

For most of American history, however, it had been understood that Congress had the power to structure the government and to create semi-independent agencies to carry out specific tasks like regulating railroad rates or the money supply.

These agencies and commissions were led by a bipartisan board of experts who were appointed with a fixed term. They could be fired only for cause, not because of a political disagreement with the president.

The Supreme Court upheld these multi-member commissions in 1935 on the grounds their work was more legislative and judicial than simply enforcing the law.

But the court’s current conservative majority has contended these commissions and boards wield executive authority and are therefore, subject to direct control by the president.

In creating such bodies, Congress often was responding to the problems of a new era.

The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to regulate railroad rates. The FTC, the focus of the court case, was created in 1914 to investigate corporate monopolies.

The year before, the Federal Reserve Board was established to supervise banks, prevent panics and regulate the money supply.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market and the National Labor Relations Board to resolve labor disputes.

Decades later, Congress focused on safety. The National Transportation Safety Board was created to investigate aviation accidents, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigates products that may pose a danger. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission protects the public from nuclear hazards.

Typically, Congress gave the appointees, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, a fixed term and said they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Slaughter was first appointed by Trump to a Democratic seat and was reappointed by Biden in 2023 for a seven-year term.

MANCHESTER, England — Andy Burnham, likely the next U.K. prime minister, pledged Monday to give away a chunk of his power by handing greater autonomy to local leaders in a “circuit-breaker” for the sclerotic British state.

The former mayor of Greater Manchester also said he would move part of the prime minister’s office from London’s 10 Downing St. to northwest England as part of “the biggest rebalancing of power our country has seen.”

“Growth cannot be ordered from the top down. Instead, it can only be nurtured from the bottom up,” Burnham said in a speech aimed at bringing voters, Labour Party colleagues and financial markets up to speed with his economic vision.

Burnham is the strong favorite to replace Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who announced his resignation last week.

“If councils can’t fix potholes, what chance do they have of bringing forward major regeneration schemes to get growth going?” Burnham said. He set out a 10-year plan to get “good growth in every postcode,” in a country where wealth and power are concentrated in London and the south of England.

He said he would reverse almost two decades of low growth since the 2008 financial crisis through an approach dubbed “Manchesterism” — harnessing private and public money to invest in areas like transport, housing and infrastructure. He also pledged to create new industrial jobs and better educational opportunities, and to reform the U.K.’s inefficient and expensive privatized water and energy utilities.

Moving the new ‘No. 10 North’ to Manchester

During the speech at the People’s History Museum in the city where he spent nine years as mayor, Burnham said a new government office in Manchester – dubbed “No. 10 North” — would oversee regional development and become “the nerve center of a rewired Britain,” tasked with equalizing living standards across the country. Regional mayors would get more power over housing, welfare and education as part of his planned reforms.

Burnham’s rousing speech was short on specifics about where the government would find more money, and he didn’t take questions from journalists.

Burnham won praise for his role in revitalizing and regenerating Manchester, but he has not served in a U.K. government for almost two decades, and may struggle to replicate “Manchesterism” on a U.K.-wide scale.

The Institute for Public Policy Research, a left-leaning think tank, said Burnham is right to focus on “rebalancing Britain.”

“The U.K.’s concentration of power and opportunity in Westminster has held back growth, productivity and living standards for too long,” said IPPR Executive Director Harry Quilter-Pinner. “The real test now is delivery.”

Matthew Flinders, a politics professor at the University of Sheffield, said replicating Burnham’s Manchester approach on a national level would require “a fundamental shift” in the way politics is done in Britain.

“And at the heart of that would be moving from a very traditional, elitist, centralized model of politics toward something that is in many ways far more European, far more based on power-sharing in order to develop long-term policymaking capacity,” he said.

Burnham is likely to inherit Starmer’s challenges

Burnham will be aware that Starmer also announced a 10-year mission — the equivalent of two full terms in government —- to transform Britain soon after he was elected in a landslide in July 2024. Starmer is leaving after two years in office marred by missteps and judgment errors that eroded his standing with his party and the public.

Burnham won a special election for a seat in Parliament on June 18 and was sworn in as a lawmaker on June 22, the same day Starmer announced that he will resign as soon as a successor is chosen.

Burnham is so far the only contender in the Labour Party leadership contest. If no one challenges him, he will become prime minister by July 20.

While Burnham is considered more charismatic than the stolid Starmer, he will face many of the same political and economic challenges, including a sluggish economy, tattered public services and a cost-of-living squeeze. He will also be constrained by the platform the center-left Labour Party was elected on in 2024, with its pledges not to increase taxes on working people.

And like other NATO countries, the U.K. is under pressure to dramatically increase defense spending to counter a more aggressive Russia and less reliable United States.

The government’s long-awaited defense investment plan — which sparked the resignation of Defense Secretary John Healey on June 11 — is expected to be published before a NATO summit in Turkey on July 7 and 8. Starmer’s successor will be expected to stick to the commitments in the plan.

“Andy Burnham’s big idea is to shuffle power between politicians,” said opposition Conservative Party Chairman Kevin Hollinrake. “Not fix the welfare system. Not cut the taxes strangling working families and British business. Not fund the defense our country desperately needs.”

Grant and Lawless write for the Associated Press. Lawless reported from London. AP writer Brian Melley contributed to this report.

The 250th anniversary of America’s liberation from a king kicked off with a campaign-style rally on the National Mall by President Trump, whose face already stares down from banners fluttering from federal buildings across the nation’s capital.

The images illustrate how the president has dominated daily life since returning to power, evoking more the style of a monarch than the leader of the world’s oldest democracy. But more than anything, it is how he has wielded that power that has led to comparisons of an imperial reign.

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has nominated one of his personal lawyers to serve as attorney general, ordered the Department of Justice to pursue his political enemies, deployed the U.S. Marines to the nation’s second largest city and leveraged the presidency to enrich himself and his family.

He has demanded that comedians who mock him be fired, has slapped his name on the Kennedy Center, has pushed to seize control of elections, has filed lawsuits against news organizations whose coverage he disliked and has sued his own government seeking $10 billion in taxpayer money.

Trump also is the only convicted felon to hold the presidency, and a separate felony indictment over his attempts to keep himself in power after losing the 2020 election was dismissed only after he was reelected four years later despite those facts.

With the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding approaching, Trump’s own celebrations have overshadowed the bipartisan, congressionally authorized commission that was supposed to coordinate events commemorating the moment. He plans to return to the National Mall on July Fourth for what he calls a “Trump rally.”

The president’s actions have led to comparisons with King George III, the British monarch whose rule inspired the American Revolution. It is a parallel Trump rejects.

“I’m not a king,” he told CBS’ “60 Minutes” earlier this year. “If I was a king, I wouldn’t be dealing with you.”

A different view of the presidency

There is a long American political traditional of opponents reviling presidents as kings. But Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University historian, said the label fits differently on Trump.

“It’s more about how he imagines who is he and what the presidency is,” Zelizer said. “We’re celebrating founding principles, and that was a driving issue — fears of how a centralized power can be corrupted. And here we are again.”

When King Charles III visited Trump this year, the official White House X account posted an image of the two men with the caption “Two Kings.” At the start of his second term, Trump declared he had ended a New York City transportation program and posted: “LONG LIVE THE KING.” The posts also seemed to indicate a willingness to leverage the label and the reaction it provokes in his critics.

The main resistance movement in Trump’s second term has adopted the slogan “No Kings.” Ezra Levin of the group Indivisible said activists were thinking ahead to 2026 and the America 250 celebration when they chose the label.

“It looks like the same kind of tyranny we were rebelling against 250 years ago, the type of domination of Americans by a secret police force that’s murdering people in the streets like in Minneapolis this year and in Boston in 1770,” Levin said, referring to demonstrations against the administration’s immigration crackdown that led to the fatal shootings of two protesters this year by federal officers.

When asked for comment, the White House referred to Trump’s statements about his use of executive power. The president has weighed in multiple times defending his maximalist approach.

During his first term, he referred to Article II of the Constitution when he told participants in a youth summit, “I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” while declaring that it “gives me all of these rights at a level nobody has ever seen before.” He told the New York Times in an interview this year that the only check on his global power was “my own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

Yet he also has said that portrayals of his approach as authoritarian were wrong: “I’m not a dictator,” he told reporters last year. In response to a question about whether he was concentrating power in the presidency, Trump told Time in an interview last year, “I don’t think so. I think I’m using it properly, and I’m also using it as per my election.”

Supreme Court has sided with him

With a deferential, Republican-controlled Congress, courts have become the last check on Trump. The president has harshly criticized judges who have ruled against him, and his administration has sometimes defied their orders.

Yet his quest to expand presidential power has been aided by the conservative majority — including three of his appointees — on the U.S. Supreme Court, which has sided with Trump numerous times after lower court rulings hampered him.

In the middle of his 2024 campaign, the high court ruled that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution. The decision derailed multiple investigations stemming from Trump’s first term, including the one focused on his attempts to overturn his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

Trump has argued the courts cannot constrain the president on key issues, including his claims that he has the ability to fire members of independent agencies. The most notorious example was in 2024, when a judge asked during the immunity case whether a president could be prosecuted for ordering the assassination of a political rival. Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, answered with a “qualified yes.”

Sauer is now solicitor general, the administration official who oversees arguments before the high court. He has continued to insist that courts cannot review presidential acts.

“Once the president has made a determination … at that point, there’s no work for the reviewing court to do,” Sauer said during Supreme Court arguments in a case over whether Trump could fire Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor.

But the Supreme Court has allowed Cook to remain on the board while it considers the case. The majority also slapped down his global tariffs, finding that only Congress had the authority to impose them.

Such rulings demonstrate that presidential power does have its limits, according to John Yoo, a conservative law professor at UC Berkeley who served in the George W. Bush administration.

“The presidency today, even when colored by President Trump’s worst excesses, is not a monarchy,” he said.

Direct financial enrichment

Trump was the richest man to ever become president. During his first term, he was criticized for owning properties where foreign dignitaries and others hoping to curry his favor spent lavishly. The conflicts of interest have escalated in his second term.

Trump launched cryptocurrencies before and after returning to office. By conservative estimates, one has pulled in $320 million this year alone, while another sold $550 million worth of tokens. A third received a $2-billion investment from a foreign wealth fund.

Trump took a new step earlier this year, filing a private $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS for the leak of his tax returns during his first term. His Department of Justice directed the IRS to settle the litigation to create a $1.776-billion fund to pay damages to people who claimed the federal government unfairly prosecuted them.

The administration pulled back the settlement amid an outcry from congressional Democrats and some Republicans. But Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer for Trump who is now acting attorney general, said at least one provision remains — a ban on the IRS auditing Trump.

Zelizer said Trump’s financial entanglements might be the most monarchical part of his administration.

“We have not seen a person who has a business operation of this scale and scope benefiting directly from the decisions he makes,” Zelizer said.

Targeting political rivals

The Justice Department’s role in the IRS lawsuit is one example of how Trump has decreed that executive branch employees should act as agents of his will.

In breaching what is supposed to be a firewall between the White House and Justice Department, Trump has demanded that federal prosecutors target his foes. In one social media post last year, he called out by name Pam Bondi, who was attorney general at the time, in pushing her to prosecute several of his political opponents: “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” Trump wrote.

Indictments followed shortly after, including against former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James. The charges against both eventually were dismissed, but the department under Blanche filed new charges against Comey.

The pursuit is not limited to Trump enemies of the past.

For his 80th birthday this month, the president hosted a fight held by UFC — a company he invested in — on the White House lawn. The event was broadcast on a network owned by the son of one of the president’s major donors. The spectacle drew a rebuke from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a persistent critic and potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender.

“The White House was built to serve the American people. Tonight it was used to promote a company the President owns stock in, sell subscriptions, promote corporate sponsors, push Trump crypto, and enrich the President and his family,” Newsom wrote on X. “The founders warned us about kings enriching themselves from public office.”

Days later, Newsom disclosed that Trump’s Department of Justice was investigating him and his wife.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Lindsay Whitehurst and Fatima Hussein contributed to this report.

When Morocco reached the semi-finals of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, the achievement immediately transcended the boundaries of sport. It was the first time an African and Arab national team had reached that stage of the tournament. Yet what drew the greatest attention from international observers was not simply the result itself, but the way it confirmed changes that had already been unfolding elsewhere.

Football rarely exists in isolation. The fortunes of a national team often reflect deeper developments in governance, investment, youth development, and a country’s capacity to pursue long-term objectives. Morocco’s World Cup campaign brought into focus the broader transformation of a nation whose international profile has steadily expanded through diplomacy, infrastructure development, strategic investment, and regional cooperation.

That distinction matters. The World Cup did not create a new geopolitical reality for Morocco; it revealed one that had already taken shape. For several weeks, hundreds of millions of viewers encountered a Morocco that differed from the image long associated with the Kingdom. To many, Morocco had primarily been known as a tourist destination, a close European partner, or a North African state. Qatar 2022 introduced another image: a country capable of competing with football’s traditional powers, rallying a global diaspora, and projecting ambitions that extend well beyond its immediate neighborhood.

The scale of that exposure helps explain why the tournament proved so consequential. The 2022 FIFA World Cup reached an estimated audience of more than five billion people across television and digital platforms, giving Morocco a level of global visibility that few international events could ever provide.

This evolution reflects broader changes in the international system. Throughout much of the twentieth century, a state’s influence was measured primarily through military capabilities, economic strength, and diplomatic reach. While these pillars remain essential, they cannot fully explain how a country’s international image is shaped. In an era shaped by digital communication and instantaneous information flows, the ability to capture global attention, generate narratives, and engage international audiences has become another source of influence.

Football occupies a unique position within that landscape. No other sport crosses cultural, linguistic, and geographic boundaries with comparable ease. A World Cup captures the attention of governments, businesses, media organizations, and public opinion all at once. For several weeks, it places a country under a level of global scrutiny that no public diplomacy campaign could realistically achieve.

Morocco benefited from that exposure in remarkable fashion. Victories over Belgium, Spain, and Portugal naturally attracted worldwide attention. Yet the significance of Morocco’s campaign also lay in what it revealed about the Kingdom’s distinctive position at the intersection of multiple geopolitical spaces. Throughout the tournament, the Atlas Lions received support far beyond their domestic fan base. Celebrations unfolded across cities in Africa, the Arab world, and Europe. Those scenes illustrated something analysts had long observed but rarely witnessed so vividly: Morocco simultaneously belongs to several geopolitical spheres.

The team’s appeal was not built on sporting success alone. It also rested on a moral and ethical capital that substantially strengthened its international standing. Across much of the Global South, Morocco came to embody the possibility that a nation operating outside football’s traditional centers of power could challenge the established hierarchy without abandoning values deeply rooted in its own identity. Images of players embracing their mothers after victories, the importance given to family, and the respect shown toward opponents throughout the tournament resonated in ways that athletic performance alone rarely achieves.

Competitiveness, humility, and attachment to deeply held values combined to create a powerful sense of identification. That helps explain why Morocco inspired support far beyond its own borders.

Looking back, the 2022 World Cup stands out as a genuine turning point. It did not, by itself, redefine Morocco’s place in the world. What it did accomplish was introducing much of international public opinion to a modern Morocco—confident in its identity, proud of its history, and already engaged in a far-reaching process of transformation.

When Performance Becomes an International Language

Morocco’s 1–1 draw with Brazil at the 2026 FIFA World Cup lends itself to a reading that reaches well beyond football. For decades, African national teams were largely viewed through the prism of isolated upsets against the sport’s established powers. Morocco now appears to have moved beyond that perception. Consistent results over several years have established the image of a team capable of competing regularly with the world’s elite.

This evolution reflects a broader pattern often found in international affairs. A country’s status rarely changes because of a single success. It changes when success ceases to be viewed as exceptional. The result against Brazil therefore says less about an unexpected sporting achievement than about Morocco’s growing place within world football’s established hierarchy.

The real shift is not that Morocco earned a result against Brazil. It is that such a result has become part of normal expectations.

The Foundations of Influence

Morocco’s growing stature on the football field is also the product of sustained investment in talent development. The Mohammed VI Football Academy has become one of the clearest expressions of that long-term strategy. With some of Africa’s most advanced training facilities, an integrated sports medicine center, and highly qualified coaching staff, the academy has helped build a generation of players capable of competing in the world’s leading leagues. The objective has never been limited to short-term success. It has been to establish the conditions for Moroccan football to remain competitive over time.

The success of this development model now extends well beyond the senior national team. Morocco won its first FIFA U-20 World Cup by defeating Argentina 2–0 in the final of the 2025 tournament in Chile. This dynamic illustrates the depth of the country’s football structure and suggests that recent achievements are part of a broader trajectory rather than an isolated cycle. The ability to produce successive generations of highly competitive players has become one of the defining features of Moroccan football.

Few countries possess the ability to inspire such diverse audiences. Morocco’s history, geography, and human ties connect it simultaneously to Africa, Europe, the Arab world, the Mediterranean basin, and, increasingly, the Atlantic community. Football has made that distinctive position visible in a way that few other instruments could.

A broader picture also emerges. Morocco’s achievements on the pitch have encouraged many foreign observers to look beyond football and discover a country they previously understood only in part. Behind the national team stands a state investing heavily in modern infrastructure, expanding its international partnerships, and strengthening its role across Africa while deepening its engagement throughout the Mediterranean.

Football has become one of the clearest expressions of that broader trajectory. It has drawn international attention to developments that were already reshaping the country.

It likewise strengthens one of Morocco’s most effective sources of soft power. Without replacing diplomacy, economic policy, or cultural outreach, football helps shape how the Kingdom is perceived abroad. Sporting success, world-class infrastructure, the organization of international competitions, and the presence of Moroccan players in Europe’s leading clubs all enhance the country’s visibility among audiences that may have little direct interest in political or economic affairs. Football has therefore become another instrument through which Morocco projects influence beyond its borders.

In today’s international environment, influence is measured not only by the ability to deter, but also by the capacity to inspire, attract, and unite. A successful national team can sometimes do more to strengthen a country’s international standing than demonstrations of hard power that no one hopes to witness.

Football, however, does not operate in a strategic vacuum. Its impact forms part of a broader national trajectory in which diplomacy, economic policy, institutional reform, and international partnerships reinforce one another.

Morocco’s return to the African Union in 2017, the expansion of its economic engagement across Sub-Saharan Africa, the implementation of major strategic infrastructure projects, and the consolidation of its diplomatic position on several regional issues all reflect a broader transformation whose significance extends far beyond sport.

The same pattern is evident in Morocco’s ability to organize major sporting events. The Africa Cup of Nations confirmed the results of years of investment in stadiums, transportation networks, and supporting infrastructure. Tournament management, logistical coordination, hospitality, and operational efficiency demonstrated capabilities already visible in other sectors of national development. The experience further strengthened Morocco’s credibility within international sporting institutions while reinforcing its reputation as a country capable of hosting events of global significance.

From Recognition to Projection

Against this backdrop, the decision to award the 2030 FIFA World Cup jointly to Morocco, Spain, and Portugal carries particular importance. Beyond its symbolic value, the decision reflects confidence in Morocco’s organizational capacity and in the institutional ecosystem that has been developed over many years.

In addition, the tournament carries a broader civilizational meaning. Its Moroccan, Spanish, and Portuguese framework creates a new narrative connecting Africa, Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Atlantic. For Morocco, this configuration reinforces the image of a country located at the intersection of these spaces and capable of transforming geography, history, and culture into instruments of dialogue, visibility, and influence.

Hosting one of the world’s most watched events requires more than modern stadiums. It demands political stability, efficient institutions, and the ability to coordinate complex operations over an extended period.

For that reason, the 2030 World Cup represents far more than another sporting milestone.  It will serve as a large-scale test of credibility as well. For several weeks, Morocco will be observed by billions of viewers, thousands of businesses, and hundreds of official delegations. Few international events offer such an opportunity to showcase a country’s transformation before a truly global audience.

Morocco’s experience reflects another broader international trend. An increasing number of states now use major sporting events to support their integration into global political and economic networks. China’s Olympic Games, Qatar’s hosting of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, and Saudi Arabia’s expanding sports strategy all illustrate this evolution. Sport has become a platform through which countries project national ambition and shape how they are perceived abroad.

Morocco’s trajectory nevertheless stands apart. Unlike countries whose sporting influence depends primarily on financial resources, Morocco benefits from a combination of history, geography, and culture that allows it to engage multiple regions simultaneously. Few countries occupy such a position. At a time when the international system is increasingly fragmented by geopolitical rivalries, economic competition, and identity politics, that characteristic has acquired growing strategic value.

Football ultimately raises a broader question about the changing nature of power itself. For decades, influence was measured largely through military capabilities, economic resources, and demographic weight. Those factors remain fundamental, yet they cannot fully account for how countries are perceived today. The emerging international landscape increasingly rewards countries able to connect regions, facilitate exchanges, and build relationships across political, economic, and cultural divides.

From that standpoint, Morocco’s evolution may signal the emergence of what could be described as a connective power. Unlike traditional middle powers, a connective power derives its influence less from the resources it controls than from its ability to connect regions, facilitate exchanges, and create strategic interfaces between political, economic, and cultural spaces. Its comparative advantage lies not in domination, but in connectivity.

Football represents only one expression of that broader transformation. Infrastructure development, Atlantic initiatives, expanding African economic partnerships, growing human mobility, and the country’s capacity to host major international events all reinforce the same strategic trajectory. Taken together, they point toward a distinctive role for Morocco within the emerging international order.

Football, then, accompanies a much deeper national transformation. It reflects Morocco’s gradual evolution from a respected regional partner into a country whose initiatives and ambitions increasingly attract attention well beyond its immediate neighborhood. The Kingdom’s Atlantic vision, its expanding role across Africa, continuing investment in infrastructure, and ability to host major international gatherings all belong to the same strategic narrative.

The geopolitical importance of football lies precisely in its ability to make visible changes that often develop far from public attention. Sporting achievements can reveal broader shifts in economic development, diplomatic influence, and a country’s strategic positioning.

For Morocco, football has become one of the clearest mirrors of a broader national ambition. It is neither the source nor the principal driver of the Kingdom’s rise. Rather, it provides one of its most visible expressions. As Morocco strengthens its position between Africa, Europe, and the Atlantic, football continues to reflect changes that extend well beyond the sporting arena.

Behind the achievements of the Atlas Lions lies a Royal Vision that places human development at the center of national progress while pursuing a broader ambition: establishing Morocco as a connective power capable of linking Africa, Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Atlantic.

Football did not transform Morocco’s place in the world. It simply made that transformation impossible to ignore.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has issued a warning to passengers about the dangers of packing power banks in hold luggage after a surge in lithium battery incidents on UK flights

UK-based airlines have prohibited a common electrical device labelled the ‘number one safety risk to aircraft’ after footage emerged showing it erupting into flames inside a cabin. Passengers on flights are being urged not to place power banks or vapes in their checked luggage as the busy summer holiday travel season gets underway across parts of the UK.

Several carriers have begun implementing outright bans on power banks that travellers use to charge their phones and tablets amid mounting safety concerns. Generally, power banks are permitted only in hand luggage, not checked baggage, because of worries they could explode and catch fire mid-flight.

Power banks house rechargeable lithium batteries, which pack a considerable amount of energy into a compact space, and when defective can trigger fierce fires that spread rapidly.

On BBC Breakfast today, correspondent Katy Austin described it as a ‘terrifying situation’ on a recent flight. She said: “Flames broke out in the overhead baggage compartment of an Air China plane last October. The cause is thought to have been a lithium battery. They’re in loads of commonly used devices like laptops, vapes, phones, and power banks. They can store a lot of energy in a small space, but if they overheat or are defective, this video of a test in a lab shows just how quickly a fire can start.

“Last year, UK authorities were informed of 643 incidents where lithium batteries were detected packed in hold bags. That’s nearly twice the number the year before. Reports of devices overheating or malfunctioning also nearly doubled to more than 200. Most were in the cabin where crew could deal with the situation. The fear is that incidents in the hold could not be discovered until it’s too late to control.”

“It contains a lot of energy in a very small space, which is fantastic for, you know, our devices. It means we can use them for longer. But the problem with that is when things go wrong, the fires can be quite ferocious and you can’t put these fires out in the way you can with a normal fire that you might have because these fires are like self fueling.

“The advice for plane passengers is to take items like mobile phones, vapes, and power banks on board with you. Never charge power bank on a flight and turn off laptops completely if they’re going to be put in check-in bags.”

The CAA revealed that reports of passenger devices overheating or malfunctioning last year were almost double the figure from 2024. Instances of lithium battery-powered gadgets being wrongly packed in hold baggage surged by 91% during the same timeframe.

CAA director of aviation safety Giancarlo Buono said: “Pack right for a safe flight, and that means don’t put your batteries in your checked bag. Take them into the cabin with you. This simple tip will make your flight safer for you, and the other passengers you’re flying with.”

Research involving airline passengers revealed that 36% have no idea about the risks associated with packing batteries in hold luggage.

easyJet

EasyJet enforces stringent rules stipulating that all lithium-ion batteries, spare batteries and power banks must be carried in cabin hand luggage only, with a blanket ban on hold luggage due to the risk of fire. Power banks below 100Wh (approximately 27,000mAh) are permitted without prior approval; those between 100-160Wh require authorisation from the airline.

Portable electronic devices containing batteries must be transported exclusively as carry-on baggage.

Should any of these items find their way into checked baggage, steps must be taken to prevent accidental activation and to safeguard the devices from harm; all devices must be completely powered down (not left in sleep or hibernation mode). EasyJet imposes a limit of 15 portable electronic devices per passenger.

Portable electronic devices housing non-spillable batteries must not exceed 12V or 100Wh, and passengers are permitted to carry a maximum of 2 spare batteries. When bringing smart baggage into the cabin, travellers must be able to quickly and easily detach and remove the lithium battery/power bank, although it may remain inside the bag.

Smart baggage will not be accepted for travel if the lithium battery/power bank cannot be readily detached and removed by the passenger. If smart luggage is to be checked into the hold, the lithium battery/power bank must be removed from the smart luggage at Bag Drop and taken into the cabin.

Any exposed terminals must be protected against short circuits. The lithium battery/power bank must be detachable, so if it cannot be removed from your luggage, the bag will not be permitted on board.

For more information, click here.

Ryanair

Passengers may carry up to 15 personal electronic devices (this includes but is not limited to: smartphones, tablets, laptops, cameras, handheld game consoles, headphones, power banks). Spare lithium batteries (including power banks) must be individually protected to prevent short circuits by placing them in their original retail packaging, or by otherwise securing terminals by taping over any exposed terminals or putting each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch, and must only be transported in carry-on baggage.

Passengers are also permitted to bring up to 20 spare lithium batteries, as long as they don’t surpass 100Wh each. Spare lithium batteries, including power banks taken into the cabin, must not go beyond 100Wh and mustn’t be used to charge or power other portable electronic devices during taxi, take-off or landing.

They must not be placed in cabin baggage stored in the overhead locker. Rather, they ought to be kept in cabin baggage under the seat in front of you, or carried on your person.

Devices or batteries exceeding 100Wh are banned in both the cabin and hold, apart from electric wheelchair batteries. Spare batteries, including power banks, are not allowed in checked baggage.

For more information click here.

TUI

TUI’s regulations forbid passengers from packing loose lithium batteries, power banks, or spare batteries in checked-in luggage. These items must only be carried in hand luggage.

Power banks must generally not exceed 100Wh, and terminals must be safeguarded against short circuits. Devices shouldn’t be recharged while on board.

Dry AA(A) batteries (type Alkaline, NiMh, NiC) for small personal items such as a pocket torch or a radio are permitted, provided they’re inside the device or contained in sturdy packaging. When devices are placed in hold baggage, measures must be taken to protect the device from damage and prevent accidental activation; the device must be completely switched off (not in sleep or hibernation mode).

Spare batteries and power banks should be individually protected against short circuits by keeping them in their original packaging, with terminals covered in tape or placed in a plastic bag in hand luggage.

Airline approval is always required for medical devices. For further information, see section Baggage – Medical baggage.

TUI fly requires that all power banks must be carried in hand luggage, never in checked baggage. They must be packaged to prevent short circuits (original packaging or terminals covered with tape).

Generally, capacity is limited to 100 Watt-hours (Wh) per battery, with power banks not permitted to be used for charging devices or recharged while onboard.

• Hand Luggage Only: Due to fire risk, all lithium-powered battery packs must be in the cabin. Capacity Limits: Power banks up to 100 Wh (roughly 27,000 mAh at 3.7V) are generally permitted.
• Safety Requirements: Terminals must be protected against short circuits, such as by taping them or keeping them in individual plastic bags.
• In-flight Usage: Power banks cannot be used to charge phones or laptops during flight, nor should they be recharged using aircraft power outlets.
• Storage: Keep them in your seat pocket or under your seat, not in overhead bins

For more information click here.

BOSTON — A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston in effect converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.

Casper rejected the administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be implemented. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.

The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” she wrote.

Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after election day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.

In a statement, New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.

“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” she said.

Requests for comment sent to the White House and Department of Justice were not immediately returned.

It was the latest in a string of rulings against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. He has since signed another executive order on elections, seeking to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.

In the fall, a federal judge in Washington overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred the secretary of Defense from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.

On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he won’t do so until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.

The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens, and violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.

In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by election day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by election day.

Smyth and Casey write for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Zach Neto hit a two-run homer in the ninth inning that gave them their first lead, Denzer Guzman tied the score with a three-run home run in the eighth, and the Angels beat the Athletics 9-7 on Sunday.

Donovan Walton also homered and had three RBIs, while Nolan Schanuel and Jose Siri each added two hits to help the Angels (32-47) split the series after losing the first two games, including blowing an 11-4 lead Friday night.

Nick Kurtz hit his 19th home run, and Zac Gelof had a single and a double to extend his hit streak to 24 games for the A’s (38-40). Kurtz has 55 career homers, tied with Bob Johnson (1933-34) for the most in franchise history through the first two seasons of a career.

Five players drove in runs for the A’s. Joey Meneses had an RBI single in his Athletics debut after being called up from the minors before the game.

Chase Silseth (2-1) had two strikeouts and worked a scoreless eighth for the win. Sam Bachman pitched a 1-2-3 ninth for his first save of the season.

Guzman’s third home run in as many days, a three-run drive off Hogan Harris (3-1), tied the score at 7-7.

After Siri singled with one out in the ninth, Neto belted an 0-and-1 fastball that landed just beyond the fence in left field.

Angels starter Reid Detmers gave up five runs and walked four in six innings.

Gelof singled leading off the game, doubled in the fourth, then reached on an error in the seventh before Kurtz’s home run. His hitting streak is tied for the second-longest in franchise history since 1961.

A’s starter Jack Perkins had eight strikeouts in five innings and gave up four runs.

Up next for the Angels: LHP Sam Aldegheri (2-2, 4.50 ERA) faces the Baltimore Orioles on Monday.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation to require proposed data centers to provide estimates of their water usage last year, saying he was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements” without understanding the impact on businesses and consumers.

Opposition to the mammoth tech hubs and their massive thirst of water, power and land has only escalated throughout the state and nation ever since. In just a matter of months, Newsom again could find himself in the political crosshairs.

Several bills to regulate the facilities and increase public transparency on their impacts are progressing in the California Legislature, which could create a conundrum for a governor who has long aligned with the tech industry but also paints himself as an environmental and social justice advocate.

“I think the governor is in a fragile position,” said Megan Mullin, a public policy professor at UCLA. “Tech has been a long backer of his, but at the same time there is this growing national outcry against data centers.”

Data centers have existed for decades but are rapidly expanding due to the worldwide boom in artificial intelligence. The newer centers built to power AI are far larger than their original counterparts and require immense amounts of water and energy.

The facilities also contribute to fossil fuel emissions, with Cornell University researchers estimating last year that AI growth could add 24 to 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere annually by 2030. Fossil fuel emissions are drivers of climate change and linked to a range of health conditions, including asthma, various cancers and birth defects.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last week that the Trump administration will not set national environmental requirements or recommendations for the data center industry, leaving it to state lawmakers to determine best policies.

Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, said the nation will likely look to the Golden State for guidance.

“California’s laws will create a national model,” he said. “We’re the home of Silicon Valley and we’re just a massive state — the way we regulate data centers will set the tone.”

The political landscape around data centers has since changed since Newsom’s veto in October, said Dan Schnur, a political science professor who teaches at UC Berkeley and USC.

“No one should assume he will automatically act in the same way,” Schnur said. “Newsom is an incredibly savvy politician so he is clearly aware that voters are a lot more upset or concerned about data centers than they were a year ago.”

A Gallup poll released last month found 7 out of 10 Americans oppose data centers being built in their area.

The facilities can create thousands of jobs for construction workers and generate significant revenue for local governments due to sales and property taxes. The artificial intelligence they power is also — at least temporarily — boosting the stock market, leading to more tax dollars for California.

But residents who live near hyperscale centers have expressed outrage over a range of issues, including health impacts, spiking utility bills, constant noise, dropping water pressure and concerns about potentially losing their land through eminent domain. Meanwhile, community meetings about data centers are growing contentious, with police arresting a farmer in Oklahoma, three women in Wisconsin and a man in California.

Earlier this month, residents of Monterey Park voted overwhelmingly to ban data centers, making the San Gabriel Valley city the first in the nation to do so by public vote.

“Six months ago, politicians of both parties were falling all over each other to bring data centers into their states,” Schnur said. “Now that the public backlash has erupted, they are working just as hard to distance themselves from these projects.”

With Newsom eyeing a presidential bid in 2028, he might be reluctant to brand himself as a defender of an increasingly unpopular industry.

But Schnur said the governor likely also has concerns about angering one of his biggest backers.

“The tech community is a critical part of Newsom’s donor base, so he has to keep fundraising in mind when he makes these decisions,” Schnur said.

A spokesperson for the governor’s office declined to comment on data centers or pending legislation.

Newsom, during an interview at a Center for American Progress conference in May, said the concern that data centers may drive up electricity costs for Californians is a “legit issue,” but not the main one.

“The tech genie is not going to go back in the bottle,” Newsom said. “Just saying that you should not or cannot build a data center is not going to slow this technology down. What can be, will be. Nature of technology. And so we just have to steer it and not make the mistakes we made with social media.”

Among the measures in the Legislature are two bills from Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego). SB 886 would create a corporate tariff to cover the cost of data center-related grid upgrades. SB 887 would ban data centers from receiving ministerial exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA.

Neither bill picked up support from Republicans, but both cleared the Senate and were recently referred to the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee.

Padilla represents Imperial County, a farming community near the border of Mexico where plans for a 950,000–square–foot data center face fierce opposition from residents. The county exempted the proposal from CEQA, which requires projects to undergo an extensive state environmental review before breaking ground.

The city of Imperial sued the county earlier this year, arguing the project should not have received an exemption. The San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club joined the lawsuit last month. The county board of supervisors last week approved a 45-day moratorium on all new data centers to allow the county to evaluate proposed data center development.

Two other data center-related bills recently passed the Assembly, each picking up support from a few Republicans. They now await action from the Senate.

AB 2619 from Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) would require data center owners to provide an estimate under penalty of perjury about expected water usage and sources before applying for a business license. AB 1577 from Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) would require data center owners to submit monthly information to a state commission about water and fuel consumption.

Ben Green, an assistant public policy professor at the University of Michigan who is researching how data centers impact communities, said reporting requirements are a “bare minimum” type of regulation, making it especially noteworthy that Newsom vetoed a similar measure last year.

For comparison, several states are weighing more restrictive bills — New York recently sent legislation to the governor’s desk that would enact a one-year moratorium.

“It seems that there was a ton of lobbying pressure that he was getting,” Green said. “The tech industry doesn’t want to have any restrictions.”

Green said data centers could be a hot topic in upcoming elections, as Americans on both sides of the aisle are expressing valid concerns.

“There’s not an easy fix for getting the public on board with data centers because their critiques are grounded in reality,” he said. “This is not just some sort of reactionary NIMBY-ism or pearl clutching.”

June 19 (Asia Today) — South Korean researchers have developed an open simulation model that digitally reproduces the structure of the country’s power grid, allowing researchers to study the domestic electricity system without using classified infrastructure data.

The Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology said Friday that its Power Grid Research Center developed the GIST 2217-Bus Test System using only publicly available maps and electricity statistics.

A bus is a connection point within a power system where electricity is generated, transmitted or distributed.

The institute said the model could improve South Korea’s power grid research environment, which has largely depended on foreign test systems developed around electricity networks with different geographical and operational characteristics.

The project is part of an effort by the research center, which opened in September, to establish the foundation for a next-generation South Korean power grid research platform.

Computer simulations are needed to analyze how electricity moves through transmission networks and to ensure that power generated at plants can be delivered reliably to homes and industrial facilities.

Detailed information about South Korea’s actual power grid is not publicly available because it is considered sensitive national infrastructure data. Domestic researchers have therefore relied on foreign test systems, including models provided by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

Researchers said those models have limitations when applied to South Korea.

Many of the country’s power plants are concentrated along coastal areas, while a large share of electricity demand is centered in the Seoul metropolitan area. That structure differs significantly from the foreign grids represented in existing research models.

The GIST team constructed its model without using confidential grid data. Researchers instead combined publicly available geographical information with national electricity statistics.

The completed system contains 2,217 buses and about 3,700 transmission circuits. It represents connections among major power plants and substations across South Korea, including links between the mainland and Jeju Island.

GIST said the model produced stable calculations under conditions simulating peak electricity demand during the summer, demonstrating sufficient reliability for power system research.

The institute released the grid dataset, map and construction and analysis tools for public use. Researchers and companies can download and use the materials without obtaining separate permission.

The model could be used to study how much additional solar and wind power can be connected to the grid, responses to blackouts, grid operations during the transition to carbon neutrality and artificial intelligence-based electricity management systems.

Kim Yoon-soo, director of the Power Grid Research Center, said he hopes the model will serve as both a starting point and a shared platform for research on South Korea’s electricity system.

“We will continue updating the model as the power grid changes and incorporate the actual operating characteristics of generators and renewable energy facilities,” Kim said.

He said the center intends to develop it into a South Korean power grid platform that can be used jointly by domestic researchers and companies.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260619010006836

June 16 (UPI) — Venezuela’s government signed a memorandum of understanding with U.S.-based GE Vernova, General Electric’s energy division, and state-owned utility Corpoelec to repair, modernize and stabilize the country’s struggling national power grid.

The plan aims to restore 1,000 megawatts of generating capacity over the next 24 months and more than 5,000 MW within four to five years.

The agreement, signed Monday by Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez, comes shortly after the National Assembly approved reforms to the country’s electricity law. The changes create a new framework that allows foreign investment in the sector after 15 years of an exclusive state monopoly.

During the signing ceremony, attended by Venezuelan government officials, company representatives and U.S. Charge d’Affaires in Caracas John Barrett, Rodriguez said the project will address both hydroelectric and thermoelectric infrastructure.

“We want to move forward steadily in the recovery of the national electricity system, for the benefit of the entire country but also to facilitate conditions for all the international investments arriving in the country,” Rodriguez said during the ceremony, which was broadcast on state television.

GE Vernova technical teams spent six weeks conducting an audit of Venezuela’s electrical system. The assessment confirmed the deteriorated condition of Corpoelec’s facilities, which have contributed to electricity rationing and widespread blackouts, particularly in western states such as Zulia, the center of Venezuela’s oil industry and a major agricultural region.

“We want to move quickly so the system works as well as possible within a few months, and I believe we can do that together,” GE Vernova Chief Sustainability Officer Roger Martella said. “We already have an agreement on the technical aspects and how we can move forward rapidly. Over the next 12 months and beyond, we will strengthen the national electric system.”

According to local media reports, the Guri Hydroelectric Plant, which supplies about 70% of the country’s electricity, has suffered significant wear because of a lack of original replacement parts. New equipment will be used to stabilize and rehabilitate generating facilities at hydroelectric dams in southern Venezuela.

GE Vernova’s equipment also is expected to help restore local thermoelectric generation capacity, reducing pressure on the Guri complex and improving energy independence for central and western regions.

Transmission lines that cross the country face constant overloads and aging substations. The plan includes energy management software and upgrades to substations to improve reliability and reduce recurring power fluctuations.

The legal reforms approved this month allow concessions of up to 25 years in power generation, transmission and distribution, providing legal certainty for companies such as GE Vernova to deploy technology and services in the sector.

The legislation also establishes stricter accountability requirements for operators and creates a formal framework for renewable energy development.

In addition to increasing generating capacity and modernizing grid operations, the agreement includes a specialized training program for Venezuela’s technical workforce.

Venezuela has signed an agreement with General Electric Vernova aimed at boosting electricity generation as the country seeks to improve a power system plagued by years of outages. Officials say the deal could add 5 gigawatts of capacity over four years.

The Trump Department of Justice going after people who make the president mad or even sad is nothing new, in this dangerous age when the presidency is increasingly about placating the desires of the old man in the Oval Office.

Leticia James, James Comey, Adam Schiff. Most recently, E. Jean Carroll, who sued President Trump personally and won a huge settlement on her claim that he sexually assaulted her. Now, the Department of Justice is investigating her for potential perjury.

It would be easy to think of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s announcement Monday that the U.S. Department of Justice is now targeting his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, as just another addition to that list.

But this attack on Siebel Newsom (alleged attack, anyway — the Department of Justice has not confirmed she is a target) is something much darker in our slide into authoritarianism. While the details of what is being investigated are murky and the president hasn’t chimed in yet, it has all the appearances of the Trump administration seeking to stop a political rival who has a real shot at knocking MAGA out of the top office.

“It’s not just random or accidental that the wife of a major presidential candidate is being investigated,” Steven Levitsky, a professor of politics at Harvard University, told me Monday. “That’s the nature of selective prosecution and that is a pillar of authoritarian rule.”

Levitsky is an expert on authoritarian regimes, and how they take and keep power. His point that Newsom is a viable challenger may seem obvious — Newsom himself is already fundraising off of it. But this particular alleged investigation bears a moment of pause because it is not the regular decline of justice we have been witnessing to this moment.

“This is different,” he said. “This is forward-looking persecution.”

Until now, Levistky points out, Trump has screamed and hollered for the prosecution of those who have wronged him in the past, sometimes even the distant past. Yes, he’s disgraced the Department of Justice with the demand it function as his own personal hammer of retribution, even putting his own personal attorney, Todd Blanche, in charge when Pam Bondi wasn’t accommodating or successful enough at stomping perceived enemies and quashing the Epstein files.

But those prosecutions have largely been grievance-based, not aimed at keeping power.

Going after Siebel Newsom seems more like a forward-looking, preemptive strike targeting Newsom ahead of the 2028 election through every decent man’s Achilles’ heel, his family.

In fact, the right-wing media — which is closely tied to the whims of the White House — has been targeting Siebel Newsom for months.

In particular, Siebel Newsom has been attacked for her work as a documentary filmmaker who focuses on female empowerment and parsing how and why we have the gender norms that we do when it comes to masculinity and femininity. I’ll let you figure out how popular that is in MAGA world, where real women make sandwiches.

Conservative commentator Sean Hannity has gone after Siebel Newsom for saying she sometimes changes the gender of a book’s character from “he” to “she” when she’s reading to her children. Fox News has attacked her for daring to give her boys dolls to play with, leading some MAGA influencers to label her “psychotic” or “abusive.” Right-wing icon Megyn Kelly called her a “nutcase” for sharing the tragic story of her sister’s death when Siebel Newsom was 6.

And other media have focused on the fact that some of the films she has been involved with have been approved for use in California schools, leading to conspiracies that Newsom used his influence to force his wife’s “woke” agenda on kids, by which we are apparently talking about the liberal plagues of decency and inclusion.

Newsom’s office said that in recent weeks, relatives, friends and business associates of the family have been contacted by investigators from the FBI and IRS. Siebel Newsom also does work around online safety for children, but it seems likely that any attention would focus on these films, and related nonprofits, and the perennially popular MAGA boogeyman of schools forcing ideologies on kids. Throw in Siebel Newsom’s company making even a dollar, and the way the IRS can find problems with any tax return, and you’ve got about 10,000 hours of right-wing propaganda.

So whether the pressure to target Siebel Newsom came from the White House or not, Newsom’s announcement raises the troubling specter that this administration is getting more serious about remaining in control by kneecapping potential replacements before they grow too strong.

In his Monday video, Newsom urged Trump with mano a mano bravado to come after him as much as he wanted, but to leave his wife and family out of it. But I would not underestimate Siebel Newsom, who showed her strength when she testified against disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, laying out publicly a private, painful tale.

Siebel Newsom’s office told me she’s fine being part of any fight against Trump.

“There are clearly no boundaries to what Donald Trump will do to get his way or to challenge those who get in his way,” Siebel Newsom said in a statement.

The “governor and I will continue to speak truth to power because the American people deserve so much more.”

By coming out in advance of any official announcement of an investigation by the Department of Justice, Siebel Newsom and her husband may be able to take control of the narrative, something Trump detests.

That pushback, Levitsky said, is critical, not just for them, but more importantly for all of us. After last year, when so many institutions and individuals crumbled in the face of Trump’s power, the strength of our democracy increasingly depends on those with political capital standing up to him.

Coming out punching first does just that.

England won the World Cup of Darts for a record-extending sixth time as Luke Littler and Luke Humphries overcame the Netherlands 10-5 in Frankfurt.

The top seeds defeated Wales and Scotland earlier on Sunday to set up a tantalising best-of-19-legs final against second seeds Michael van Gerwen and Gian van Veen.

Littler and Humphries’ shock second-round exit to hosts Germany last year cast doubt over the partnership, but they averaged more than 104 and hit 15 finishes over 140+ to overpower the Dutch.

“I’m absolutely delighted – that’s the best we have played all tournament,” Littler told Sky Sports.

“That’s what we needed to do. We can’t do it every game, its hard. There have been challenges but we got the job done.

“We didn’t do anything wrong last year, we just came up against a better team. This year we had to win together, not on our own.

“I’m proud of us – we won together.”

The world’s top four players produced a tight contest early on that stayed with throw until Littler found double 10 to break just before the first interval.

England held after the break before Humphries took out 87 to break once more and establish a three-leg lead.

From that point on the Premier League champion and runner-up did not look like surrendering their lead – Littler hit tops to extend the advantage to 6-2 as England’s average crept up to 114, though Van Veen hit back with a timely maximum as the Dutch held with a 14-dart leg.

Humphries recovered from a slight wobble – his failed set-up left Littler needing and missing a bullseye to break – to hit double four to put the duo 7-3 up going into the second break.

The Dutch were handed a lifeline when Littler failed to take out 78, affording Van Veen a 64 checkout to cut the deficit before Van Gerwen showed similar composure to stick with throw.

But they knew the game was up when after hitting a remarkable 174, Van Gerwen bust on an attempted eight checkout and England broke.

That led to England needing 41 to win, and Humphries secured the world title – his second and the first of Littler’s career – with nine, 16 and double eight.

“Michael [van Gerwen] was unbelievable tonight – he is back and playing unbelievable darts,” Humphries told Sky Sports.

“We knew we needed to take our chances. You give Holland any hope and they’ll take it away from you.

“We were a bit poor against Wales but we ran with the luck we had in that game.”