protect

Nov. 6 (UPI) — The Trump administration has moved to end deportation protections for those from South Sudan as the United Nations warns the country is on the brink of war.

Amid President Donald Trump‘s crackdown on immigration, the Department of Homeland Security has targeted countries that have been given Temporary Protected Status, which is granted to countries facing ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters or other extraordinary conditions.

TPS enables eligible nationals from the designated countries to live and work in the United States legally, without fear of deportation.

DHS announced it was ending TPS for South Sudan on Wednesday with the filing of a Federal Register notice.

The termination will be in effect Jan. 5.

“After conferring with interagency partners, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem determined that conditions in South Sudan no longer meet the TPS statutory requirements,” DHS said in a statement, which explained the decision was based on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services review of the conditions in South Sudan and in consultation with the Department of State.

South Sudan was first designated for TPS in November 2011 amid violent post-independence instability in the country, and the designation has been repeatedly renewed since.

The Trump administration has sought to end TPS designations for a total seven countries: Afghanistan, Cameroon, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal, Venezuela and now South Sudan. Court challenges have followed, with decisions staying, at least for now, the terminations for all of the countries except for Afghanistan and Cameroon, which ended July 12 and Aug. 4, respectively.

The move to terminate TPS for South Sudan is also expected to be challenged in court.

The announcement comes a little more than a week after the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan warned the General Assembly that the African nation is experiencing escalating armed conflict and political crisis, and that international intervention is needed to halt mounting human rights violations.

A civil war erupted in South Sudan in December 2013, just two years after the country gained independence — a conflict that came to an end with a cease-fire in 2018.

Barney Afako, a member of the human rights commission in South Sudan, said Oct. 29 that the political transition spearheaded by the cease-fire agreement was “falling apart.”

“The cease-fire is not holding, political detentions have become a tool of repression, the peace agreement’s key provisions are being systematically violated and the government forces are using aerial bombardments in civilian areas,” he said.

“All indicators point to a slide back toward another deadly war.”

The DHS is urging South Sudanese in the United States under TPS to voluntarily leave the country using the U.S. Customs and Border Protection smartphone application. If they do, they can secure a complimentary plane ticket, a $1,000 “exit bonus” and potential future opportunities for legal immigration.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has begun demolition of the East Wing as he remakes the White House in his image, ignoring rules, breaking promises and taking a wrecking ball to the approval process in an echo of the strategies he deployed in Florida and New York as he built his real estate empire.

An excavator ripped off the facade and parts of the roof on Monday, exposing the stone shell below. Windows have been removed. A truck carried trees outside the White House gates and down Pennsylvania Avenue. A crowd gathered outside to witness the partial tear-down of the historic building — which Trump said just weeks ago would not be touched in his plans to build a new ballroom.

“Over the next few days, it’s going to be demolished,” Trump said at a White House dinner last week for donors to the 90,000-square-foot structure estimated to cost between $200 million and $250 million.

“Everything out there is coming down, and we’re replacing it with one of the most beautiful ballrooms that you’ve ever seen.”

He described the forthcoming structure as “four sides of beautiful glass.”

But similar to the rule-breaking tactics he used when pushing through changes to Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach and building his Trump Tower in New York, Trump’s sudden and dramatic White House overhaul has been made possible by his disdain for the rules that have protected Washington’s cohesive design. To date, he hasn’t submitted plans for review to the National Capital Planning Commission, which oversees renovation and additions to the federal buildings in the capital, including the president’s historic residence.

Not that the commission — now stacked with Trump’s allies — is complaining.

This summer, the president appointed his top aides — staff secretary Will Scharf, deputy chief of staff James Blair and Office of Management and Budget energy official Stuart Levenbach — to sit on the governing body.

Scharf, a longtime loyal Trump aide who hands him his executive orders to sign, was named chairman by the president. The appointments were so sudden that Scharf, at his first commission meeting on July 10, apologized for not connecting with any of his fellow commissioners ahead of time, noting his appointment had happened the night before.

At the commission’s next meeting, on Sept. 4, Scharf launched into a defense of Trump’s building project, arguing the commission does not have jurisdiction over demolition and site preparation work for federal property; that it just deals with construction.

“I think any assertion that this commission should have been consulted earlier than it has been, or it will be, is simply false,” he said.

The commission will just “play a role in the ballroom project when the time is appropriate for us to do so,” he said.

Not so fast, say past commissioners.

Preston Bryant, a former chairman of the commission, told the Miami Herald in an email that in his nine years on the job “the Commission always works on proposed capital projects in three stages — Conceptual, Preliminary Approval, and Final Approval. Even before conceptual, there’s early consultation.”

Trump is familiar with the process. When he and his Trump Organization were remodeling the Old Post Office Pavilion into a Trump Hotel in 2014, they had to get their plans approved by the commission, which was strict in its adherence to preserving the historical structure of the building.

His team submitted a 52-page proposal showing the design changes, drawings of the new interior and exterior, and detailed the effect the changes would have on local traffic.

But now Trump has plowed on, bulldozing any opposition.

“We’ll have the most beautiful ballroom in the country,” he said Monday at an event in the East Room of the White House, apologizing for any construction noise the guests may hear. “It just started today so that’s good luck.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Trump, in a post on Truth Social, said the new ballroom will be “completely separate from the White House itself, the East Wing is being fully modernized as part of this process, and will be more beautiful than ever when it is complete!”

As photos and videos of the destruction went viral on social media, his top administration aides took to their accounts to defend the project, pointing out that the ballroom was being paid for with private donations and noting other presidents have made changes to the White House.

Past presidents, however, consulted advisers and architects, along with groups like the White House Historical Association and the Committee for the Preservation of the White House in addition to working with the commission, which is currently closed as part of the government shutdown.

One former commissioner noted that Washington, D.C., is a carefully planned city and that the commission strives to keep to the original vision of Pierre L’Enfant, who designed the layout of the capitol.

“If you don’t have a review process you’re basically saying one individual can say what the capital looks like. Washington doesn’t look this way by accident,” the commissioner, who asked for anonymity in order to speak freely, said.

Trump’s history of flouting the rules

Brushing aside red tape has long been a Trump strategy when it comes to changes at historic properties.

In 2006, Trump added an 80-foot flagpole with a 5-feet-by-25-feet flag on the front lawn of Mar-a-Lago — without the proper permit or permission. Palm Beach restricts flagpoles to no higher than 42 feet and flags that are a maximum of 4 feet by 6 feet.

The town fined Trump $250 a day. He countered with a $250 million lawsuit, accusing Palm Beach of violating his First Amendment rights and publicly blasted local officials for fining his patriotic display.

Trump and the town government finally came to an agreement: Trump filed for a permit and was allowed an oversized pole that was 10 feet shorter than the original pole. In return he would donate $100,000 to veterans’ charities.

He also warred with Palm Beach over his original plan for Mar-a-Lago, which was to turn its 17 acres into a subdivision. With millions in upkeep and no income generated, the property was costing him a fortune.

The Palm Beach Town Council vetoed all his construction plans. Once again, Trump sued.

Another deal was made: Trump offered to drop his lawsuit if the town let him turn the estate into a lucrative private club. The council agreed but also set a series of requirements, including capping the membership price and its capacity along with a restriction that no one was to spend more than 21 nights a year at the property.

Trump, however, has hiked the membership fees and, after he left the White House in the first term, he named Mar-a-Lago his permanent residence, getting an exemption to the 21-night stay rule.

Similar actions took place when he built Trump Tower in New York.

In 1980, Trump acquired the historic Bonwit Teller building. He demolished the 1929 Art Deco building to build his namesake tower.

Before the project began, several prominent residents expressed concern about the original building’s limestone relief panels, considered prominent works of art.

Trump agreed to preserve the panels and donate them to The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

But as construction continued, Trump changed his mind and had the panels demolished with the building, saying they had little value and were “without artistic merit.”

It’s a slight still felt in some circles in New York society.

‘Pays total respect to the existing building’

Back in Washington, heads are shaking over the demolition of one-third of the White House structure.

After all, in July, Trump said the current building wouldn’t be touched.

“It won’t interfere with the current building. It won’t be. It’ll be near it but not touching it — and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of,” he said.

Now, in addition to the destruction of the wing, he may touch parts of the original White House. Trump on Monday indicated part of one of East Wing walls will come down to connect his ballroom to the residence.

“That’s a knockout panel — you knock it out,” he explained.

The East Wing was built in 1902 as a guest entrance and expanded in 1942 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It houses the offices of the first lady and her staff, the military office and the visitors office.

It’s unclear what process FDR went through. The planning commission wasn’t established until 1952. But part of the reason he had it built was to cover the underground presidential bunker which was installed for security reasons.

Trump has already made his mark on the White House. He’s added gold gilding to the Oval Office and stacked its walls with portraits. He’s moved around presidential portraits throughout the complex and added paintings of himself.

On the colonnade, which is the walkway leading from the residence to the West Wing, Trump added a photo of each American president. One exception was Joe Biden. Trump instead placed a photo of a pen, referring to his constant criticism for Biden using the auto pen for his signature during his presidency.

He paved over the Rose Garden to make it look similar to the patio at Mar-a-Lago, putting out chairs and tables with yellow umbrellas brought up from his Florida club. And he’s installed two massive flags atop large poles — one on the North Lawn and one on the South Lawn.

And there could be more changes to come.

Scharf, at his September planning commission meeting, mentioned an upcoming beautification and redesign of Pennsylvania Avenue.

He didn’t offer any details but an earlier presentation to the commission showed plans to turn the iconic avenue into a more pedestrian friendly walkway, with a national stage for events, markets and green spaces.

The Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which sits next door to the White House and houses most of the administration staff, could be in his sights. In his first term, Trump mulled adding gold leaf to the white granite building.

But, for now, Trump is working on plans to build a ceremonial arch outside of Arlington National Cemetery, on a traffic circle that sits between it and Memorial Bridge.

It would commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary next year. The president showed off design models and drawings to the ballroom donors, telling them there were three sizes to pick from and he was leaning toward the largest.

“Whichever one would look good. I happen to think the large one,” Trump said as the group laughed. “Why are you shocked?”

The drawings show an arch similar to France’s Arc de Triomphe with columns, eagles, wreaths and a gilded, winged figure.

Trump, earlier this month, had a model of it on his desk in the Oval Office when he was speaking to reporters on another matter.

The journalists noticed the piece and asked who it was for.

“Me,” he replied.

Emily Goodin writes for The Miami Herald and Tribune News Services.

The proposal, which forms part of the ‘European Drone Defence Initiative’, is one of several flagship EU projects to prepare the bloc for a potential attack from Moscow.

The European Commission is in discussions to adopt a new counter-drone initiative to protect European Union airspace from Russian violations, as it seeks to strengthen border security with its own advanced drone technology after a string of drone incursions were reported in a host of EU and NATO member countries over the past month.

The proposal, which was included in a defence policy “roadmap” presented on Thursday, will aim for the new anti-drone capabilities to reach initial capacity by the end of next year and become fully operational by the end of 2027, according to a draft of the document.

It will then be presented to EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas, European Commission Executive Vice President for Security Henna Virkkunen, and European Commissioner for Defence Andrius Kubilius.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said last month that it was time for Europe to build a “drone wall” to protect its eastern flank, hours after some 20 Russian drones reportedly entered the airspace of EU and NATO member Poland.

The concept has since morphed into a broader “European Drone Defence Initiative” including a continent-wide web of anti-drone systems in an effort to win support from EU capitals.

The drone initiative is one of several flagship EU projects aiming to prepare the bloc for a potential attack from Russia as its more than three-year-long war in Ukraine grinds on.

In the meantime, as a counterpoint, Russia’s federal security chief said on Thursday that Moscow has no doubt about NATO’s security services’ involvement in incidents with alleged Russian drones over EU territory, Russian news agency RIA Novosti cited him as saying.

Following the drone incursion into Poland, other incidents were reported at airports and military installations in several other countries further west, including Denmark, Estonia and Germany, although there has not been confirmation that the drones were sent by the Kremlin.

For its part, NATO has launched a new mission and beefed up forces on its eastern border, but it is playing catch-up as it tries to tap Ukraine’s experience and get to grips with the drone threat from Moscow.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said on Wednesday that NATO was now “testing integrated systems that will help us detect, track and neutralise aerial threats” for use on the bloc’s eastern flank.

Ukrainian officials say Russia’s incursions into other countries’ airspace are deliberate.

“Putin just keeps escalating, expanding his war, and testing the West,” Andrii Sybiha, Ukraine’s foreign minister, said last month after the drones were spotted in Poland.

Other NATO allies have also claimed the incursions were deliberate.

However, experts in drone warfare say it is still possible that the incursions were not deliberate.

Russia has denied deliberately attacking any of the European countries, instead accusing them of making false allegations to cause tensions.

While Brussels wants to have the drone project fully up and running by the end of 2027, there is scepticism from some EU countries and fears that the bloc is treading on NATO’s toes.

“We are not doubling the work that NATO is doing; actually, we are complementing each other,” said Kallas.

MEXICO CITY — Jasmín Ordóñez looks out from a wooden boat at the water as she crosses a narrow channel that connects a labyrinth of chinampas, island farms that were built by the Aztecs thousands of years ago.

“Let’s close our eyes and ask our Mother Water for permission to sail in peace,” she said as the boat moves slowly, in contrast to the frenetic traffic of Mexico City just a few miles away.

Ordóñez owns one of these island farms, first created with mud from the bottom of the lakes that once covered this area. When the boat arrives at her island, she proudly shows the corn and leafy greens she grows. Her ancestors owned chinampas, but she had to buy this one because women traditionally haven’t inherited them.

“My grandmother didn’t get any land. Back then, most was left in the hands of men,” she said. At her side, Cassandra Garduño listens attentively. She also didn’t inherit the family chinampa.

Today both are part of a small but growing group of women who have bought chinampas to cultivate sustainably in an effort to preserve an ecosystem that is increasingly threatened by urban development, mass tourism and water pollution.

Making their way in an area still dominated by men hasn’t been easy. In the chinampas of the boroughs of Xochimilco and San Gregorio Atlapulco, hardly any women work the land.

“People believe that men are the [only] ones who have the physical abilities to work them,” said Garduño. The mud stains her pale pink shirt, matching her boots. She knows her outfit gets funny looks from longtime male chinampa workers, but instead of getting upset, she finds it amusing.

After years away, she returned to San Gregorio in 2021 to dedicate herself to chinampa farming. She had gone to college and then spent long periods in Ecuador working in conservation efforts to protect manta rays and sharks. Then one day she came back to San Gregorio and was struck by the degradation of her own land: the lower water levels of the canals, the increasing pollution, the abandoned chinampas.

“That’s where I started to realize: ‘You are part of this space. And part of your responsibility is to safeguard it,’” she said.

After saving up for a year, she bought a chinampa — and was shocked to find it in such a bad state. A cleanup found pieces of armchairs, televisions and beer bottles. She worked to reopen canals that had been crammed with garbage and began planting crops. The distrust among the neighbors was palpable.

“They said: ‘Let’s see, this girl has never been down to this place, nobody knows her. And she’s already doing what she wants,’” she recalled.

But she knew much more than they thought. Garduño had learned a lot as a little girl who ran around her grandfather’s chinampa — “a paradise” of flowers. She learned that the mud from the bottom of the canals is the best fertilizer because it contains the mineral-rich ashes from the volcanoes surrounding Mexico City. She learned that planting a variety of crops keeps frost from destroying one entire crop and that the flowers attract insects, so they don’t eat the cabbage or kale.

Sharing the knowledge

“Chinampas can have up to eight rotations per year, whereas in other systems you might have two or three,” Garduño explained.

That’s why the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations recognized chinampas as one of the most productive agricultural systems on the planet. Today, her field is a melting pot of colors: the pale green of broccoli to the vivid yellow of marigolds.

Since 2016, she has been collaborating with Mexico’s National Autonomous University, advising other farmers who want to stop using agricultural chemicals and recover these traditional practices which also help preserve the ecosystem. Kneeling next to a planting bed, Garduño suggests elevating it so it won’t flood when it rains. Ordóñez takes note.

She bought this chinampa three years ago and is now seeking to obtain the “Etiqueta Chinampera,” the sustainability tag granted by the university to producers who, among other things, use mud as fertilizer instead of chemicals. With this label, their products can fetch higher prices.

Sixteen farmers have obtained the label so far, four of them women, said Diana Laura Vázquez Mendoza, of the university’s Institute of Biology, adding that the project encourages women to “take back their chinampas and produce.”

Cleaning the canals

In the chinampas supported by the university, filters made from aquatic plants are installed to clean the water and prevent the passage of carp and tilapia. Introduced in Xochimilco in the 1980s, these invasive species became predators of the most distinguished inhabitants of this ecosystem: Mexico’s salamander-like axolotl. Today, this amphibian is on the verge of extinction because of these invasive species and a combination of factors polluting the canals: the discharge of sewage from urban growth, mass tourism and agricultural chemicals in many chinampas.

“Chinampas are an artificial agro-ecosystem that was created to supply food in pre-Hispanic times to the entire population. And that endures to this day,” Mendoza said. “So the way to conserve Xochimilco is to also conserve the chinampa.”

But a walk through the area on any given Sunday makes it clear that fewer chinampas are dedicated to agriculture. Every weekend, hundreds of people come here to play soccer on chinampas converted into fields or to drink aboard the brightly painted boats known as “trajineras.” The impact of this transformation to the wetland is evident: contaminants have been found there, from heavy metals such as iron, cadmium and lead to oils, detergents and pesticides, according to a study by biologist Luis Bojórquez Castro, of the Autonomous Metropolitan University.

Most come from the treatment plants that discharge their water in Xochimilco and from the chinampas that use agrochemicals, according to Castro’s study.

Preserving what’s left of the past

“Look at the clarity of the water,” said Ordóñez as she reaches into the canal where she has installed her biofilter. She knows that taking care of the water is essential to preserving this ecosystem. This wetland is the last remnant of what was once the great Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire built on the lakes that once filled the Valley of Mexico. Although today what remains of Xochimilco represents only 3% of the original extent of those lakes, it’s still key to the stability of the city. If it were to disappear, the average temperature of the capital could rise by up to 3.6 degrees, according to biologist Luis Zambrano.

Xochimilco and San Gregorio also reduce flooding during the rainy season, provide a natural carbon dioxide reservoir and are home to hundreds of species, such as herons and the Tlaloc frog. “Look at the red-headed birds in the lagoon!” exclaimed Garduño, driving home at dusk along a dirt road after a long day at her chinampa.

For her, this is still the paradise she roamed with her grandfather. She’s convinced that women are needed to preserve chinampas and hopes that within 10 years, many more will own and take care of them.

“From the shared labor of women and men, we can do what we all want, which is conserve what we have left for as long as possible,” she said.

De Miguel writes for the Associated Press. This article is a collaboration between AP and Mongabay.

What started as musical chairs is beginning to sound like a sad trombone.

There’s only so many times you can reshuffle an offensive line before it has a ripple effect on the entire football team. The Chargers are reminded of that now as they head into Sunday’s game with the Washington Commanders hoping — as opposed to knowing — they can provide adequate protection for quarterback Justin Herbert.

After reaching a comfortable cruising altitude with victories over three consecutive AFC West foes, the team is headed for a patch of severe turbulence.

The outstanding Joe Alt, who stepped in at left tackle after Rashawn Slater’s season-ending knee injury, is nursing a high ankle sprain and will not play against Washington. Right guard Mekhi Becton is coming off a concussion and is listed as questionable. So they’re a month into the season and the offensive line is a stitched-together hodgepodge that couldn’t handle the defensive front of the New York Giants last week.

“It’s like the Cinderella story at some point,” said Duke Manyweather, widely respected offensive line expert. “You know when that clock hits midnight that carriage is going to turn into a pumpkin. You don’t have an answer. You kind of saw that against New York.”

That’s not to say the situation is hopeless. Teams have lost key offensive linemen before, and there are different ways to compensate for that. But it’s a quandary for Jim Harbaugh, maybe the biggest since taking over as coach before last season. Heading into training camp this summer, the offensive line was a strength of the team, with Slater at left tackle and Alt on the right.

The Chargers didn’t do a lot to upgrade the interior of their line, a liability in January’s playoff loss at Houston, but signing Becton was a step in the right direction. He was a solid run blocker for the Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles last season.

Chargers offensive tackle Joe Alt (76) will not play on Sunday because of a high ankle sprain. It’s unclear when he might return.

(Al Bello / Getty Images)

Becton sustained a concussion in the Week 3 win over Denver and missed the Giants game. He remained in the concussion protocol this week, and his status for Sunday’s game is unclear. He was back at practice Wednesday wearing a yellow no-contact jersey as a precaution.

Communication among the linemen is key.

“Especially with new guys, you have to speak it out for a while before you get to that point of unspoken communication,” right tackle Trey Pipkins III said. “Once you’ve played next to someone for a long time, you know what they want and what they’re going to do. Until then, it’s about over-communicating everything at the line so everybody’s on the same page.”

It’s unclear when Alt might return after the second-year player was carted off to the locker room against the Giants and watched the second half on the sideline in street clothes and a walking boot. The tackle wore that boot all week.

The Chargers are on their third left tackle in Austin Deculus, who bounced around the league and started one game in the past three seasons, second right tackle and second right guard.

Chargers offensive linemen, including Jamaree Salyer (68) and Bradley Bozeman (75), stand on the field during a win over the Denver Broncos on Sept. 21.

(Ronald Martinez / Getty Images)

“At some point you’re starting to play people you haven’t even prepared to really be in there, much less their physical talents,” said Andrew Whitworth, retired All-Pro left tackle and now an analyst for Amazon’s “Thursday Night Football.” “They’re still trying to figure out the offense, the terminology, and they’ve never played beside the guy they’re next to. The war of attrition really starts to take its toll.”

What that does is test the creativity of Harbaugh and offensive coordinator Greg Roman to devise ways to fortify the line and protect Herbert without whittling away too many offensive options. They can keep a running back in the backfield to help out with protection, for instance, or add an extra tight end for blocking. But that also handcuffs what the offense can do.

“Sure, you can chip with a back or keep an H-back in there,” Whitworth said. “But then you’ve got fewer guys in the route, you’re holding the ball longer, and now the interior linemen are under even more pressure. You can get by for a few snaps, but you can’t live there.”

In the past two games, Herbert has been pressured in 46 dropbacks, more than any quarterback in the league, according to TruMedia.

Chargers quarterback Justin Herbert is sacked during a win over the Denver Broncos on Sept. 21.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Herbert expressed confidence this week in some of the lesser-known players blocking for him.

“They’re guys that have seen big football games and guys that played in national championships and huge games like that,” he said. “Maybe it’s new to them for the NFL, but they’ve played in big football games before.”

It’s easy to get carried away with what all of this means. The Chargers are 3-1 and atop their division, and are coming off a 21-18 defeat to the previously winless Giants, whose pass rush is a strength of their team. What’s more, the Chargers had to make those line adjustments in the heat of the action, as opposed to having a week of practice to work with the reconfigured line.

The season is young. Teams have overcome these types of challenges before. The Rams had to reshuffle their line on multiple occasions last season and wound up coming close to knocking off the Eagles and advancing to the NFC championship game.

Still, the next few weeks will be illuminating for the Chargers.

“We’re going to learn about the depth of this team,” said Manyweather, founder of OL Masterminds, which trains offensive linemen of all levels.

“We’re going to learn about the coaching. And we’re probably going to learn even more about Justin Herbert and his ability to create and carry the team.”

We’ll also learn if a pumpkin can turn back into a carriage.

Times writer Benjamin Royer contributed to this report.

Oct. 2 (UPI) — Jane Fonda and other Hollywood actors, directors, writers and producers relaunched the post-World War II Committee for the First Amendment to fight back against the Trump administration’s targeting of free speech.

Originally formed in 1947 by Hollywood heavyweights Gene Kelly, Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall and others, the Committee for the First Amendment pushed back against the so-called Red Scare political repression of left-wing individuals during the 1940s and 1950s.

In a statement Wednesday, the Committee for the First Amendment said it was relaunching at a time when it sees similar political oppression emanating from the Trump administration.

“The federal government is once again engaged in a coordinated campaign to silence critics in the government, the media, the judiciary, academia and the entertainment industry,” the more than 500 entertainment professionals said in a statement.

“We refuse to stand by and let that happen. Free speech and free expression are the inalienable rights of every American of afll backgrounds and political beliefs — no matter how liberal or conservative you may be.”

President Donald Trump and his second administration have faced repeated accusations of using executive authority to suppress opposition and dissent, both within the federal government and broader civil society.

Critics point to Trump’s use of executive orders and investigations targeting political adversaries; immigration enforcement measures, including deportations and visa revocations, which a judge on Tuesday ruled was used to squelch free speech of foreign students’ support for Palestine; executive orders that restrict the rights and recognition of transgender people and directives pressuring universities to abandon inclusive policies or risk penalties.

Following last month’s fatal shooting of conservative activist and provocateur Charlie Kirk, Trump — who campaigned on promises of retribution against his political opponents — also pleaded to intensify crackdowns on what it described as left-wing political violence, worrying critics he might use it to target peaceful protesters.

By the end of the committee’s launch day on Wednesday, Fonda said they had received “hundreds and hundreds of people” in the entertainment industry have called and emailed to join them.

“What it shows me is our industry is ready to mobilize, to resist autocracy, to resist attacks on our fundamental freedoms,” Fonda said in a recorded statement published to Instagram.

“We’re artists. We’re creatives. Freedom of expression is essential to what we do. Many of our fathers and grandfathers fought wars to defend this right and we can’t just sit back and let this happen.”

The White House responded to the launch by stating that Fonda is “free to share whatever bad opinions she wants.”

“As someone who actually knows what it’s like to be censored, President Trump is a strong supporter of free speech and Democrat allegations to the contrary are so false, they’re laughable,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement.

Trump “is focused on left-wing organizations that have fueled violent riots, organized attacks against law enforcement officers, coordinated illegal doxing campaigns, arranged drop points for weapons and riot materials, incited violence all across America.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court rendered obsolete the 4th Amendment’s prohibition on suspicionless seizures by the police. When the court stayed the district court’s decision in Noem vs. Vasquez Perdomo, it green-lighted an era of policing in which people can be stopped and seized for little more than how they look, the job they work or the language they speak.

Because the decision was issued on the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket,” the justices’ reasoning is unknown. All we have is Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s solo concurrence defending law enforcement’s use of race and ethnicity as a factor in deciding whom to police, while at the same time playing down the risk that comes with every stop — prolonged detention, wanton violence, wrongful deportation and sometimes even death. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her impassioned dissent (joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson): “We should not live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.” But now, we do.

The practical effect of this decision is enormous. It strips away what little remained of the guardrails that prevented police (including agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement) from indiscriminately seizing anyone with only a flimsy pretext.

Now there is no real limit on police seizures. History teaches us that people of color will bear the brunt of this policing regime, including the millions of immigrants who are already subject to police roundups, sweeps and raids.

This decision is no surprise for those of us who study the 4th Amendment. The police have long needed very little to justify a stop, and racial profiling is not new. Yet prior to the Vasquez Perdomo order in most instances, police had to at least articulate a non-race-based reason to stop someone — even if as minor as driving with a broken taillight, not stopping at a stop sign long enough, or walking away from the police too quickly.

Now, police no longer need race-neutral person-specific suspicion (pretextual or real) to seize someone. Appearing “Latino” — itself an indeterminate descriptor because it is an ethnicity, not defined by shared physical traits — along with speaking Spanish and appearing to work a low-wage job is enough, even if you have done nothing to raise suspicion.

Some might believe that if you have nothing to hide there is no reason to fear a police stop — that if you just show police your papers or offer an explanation you can go on your way. Even if that were the case, this sort of oppressive militarized police state — where anyone can be stopped for any reason — is exactly what the 4th Amendment rejected and was meant to prevent.

Moreover, ICE agents and police are not in the business of carefully examining documents (assuming people have the right ones on them) or listening to explanations. They stop, seize and detain — citizens and noncitizens alike. If lucky, some people are released, but many are not — including citizens suspected of being in the country illegally, or individuals whose only alleged crimes are often minor (and the product of poverty) or living peacefully (often for years) in the United States without legal status. And as evidenced by plaintiffs in this case, even if eventually released, a single stop can mean harassment, violence, detention or a life permanently upended.

Even if the 4th Amendment doesn’t prevent them, can’t race-based discrimination and police violence often be addressed through civil rights lawsuits? U.S. Code Section 1983 allows individuals to sue officials who violate their rights. But the reality plays out differently. In a recent decision, this Supreme Court dramatically limited class-action lawsuits, the primary vehicle that would allow widespread relief. The court has created a world in which law enforcement can largely act with impunity under the doctrine of qualified immunity. And there is likely no recourse if a federal official such as an ICE agent violates one’s constitutional rights, as the Supreme Court has sharply limited the ability to sue federal officials for money damages even if they commit a clear constitutional wrong.

The recent decision virtually declaring that the 4th Amendment allows police to engage in express racial profiling may not be the final word on the matter. We hope it isn’t. But longstanding court doctrine had already allowed racial profiling to flourish under the guise of seemingly neutral language of “reasonable suspicion” and “consent.” By allowing a further erosion of the limits on seizures, the Court entrenches a system in which the scope of one’s constitutional rights depends upon the color of one’s skin. If the 4th Amendment is to retain meaning, it must be interpreted to constrain — not enable — the racialized policing practices that have become routine in America.

Daniel Harawa and Kate Weisburd are law professors at NYU Law School and UC Law San Francisco, respectively.

If you thought Jimmy Kimmel saved free speech, think again.

To hear President Trump tell it, no one, especially law enforcement officers, is safe from the dangers caused by opposing his policies — and he’s ready to do something about it.

“This political violence is not a series of isolated incidents and does not emerge organically,” Trump wrote in a new executive order. “A new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies — including the organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions behind them — is required.”

Of course, despite his menacing tone, I agree with Trump that politically motivated violence against law enforcement — or anyone, be it Charlie Kirk or immigrant detainees — is reprehensible and completely unacceptable.

The deadly shooting in Dallas this week, which Trump referred to in the order, is a tragedy and any political violence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the many laws on the books that protect our public servants, and the public at large.

But criticizing government overreach is not inciting violence, and calls for Democrats to stop attacking Trump’s policies are just calls to silence dissent — one more attack on free speech at a moment when it’s clear this administration is intent on demolishing opposition.

If we are serious about preventing further political violence, trust in our justice system must be a priority. And you know what’s really eroding trust? Scary masked agents on our streets who refuse to even say what agency they work for.

In recent days, about 6,700 federal workers from agencies outside of ICE have been pulled into its immigration mission, according to the non-partisan Niskanen Center.

The anxiety brought on by an unaccountable and unknowable federal force, one that is expected to grow by thousands in coming years, is what is raising the temperature in American politics far more than the words from either side, though I am not here to argue that words don’t have power.

Ending the fear that our justice system is devolving into secrecy and lawlessness will reduce tension, and the potential for violence. Want to protect officers — and our democracy?

Ban masks.

“Listen, I understand that it being a law enforcement officer is scary,” former Capitol police officer Harry Dunn told me Wednesday during a press event for the immigration organization America’s Voice.

Dunn was attacked, beaten and called racial slurs during the political violence on Jan. 6, 2021.

“Nobody ever signed up to be harassed, to be targeted. That should never happen,” he said.

But Dunn said he’d never don a mask, because it harms that public trust, that mission to serve and protect.

When officers cover their faces and demand to be nameless and faceless, “They are terrorizing … with something just as simple as a mask,” he said.

Which is why California just passed a law attempting to ban such masks, effective next year — though it will likely be challenged in court, and federal authorities have already said they will ignore it.

“We’re not North Korea, Mr. President. We’re not the Soviet Union. This is the United States of America, and I’m really proud of the state of California and our state of mind that we’re pushing back against these authoritarian tendencies and actions of this administration,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom before signing the bill.

The argument in favor of masks is that some officers are afraid to do their jobs without them, fearing they or their families will be identified and targeted. The Department of Homeland security claims that assaults on officers are up 1,000%, though it’s unclear what data produced that figure.

“Every time I’m in a room with our law enforcement officers, I’m talking to them before they go out on our streets, I’m just overwhelmed by the fact that all of these young men and women have families that they all want to go home to,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said. “(P)eople like Gavin Newsom are making it much more dangerous for them just to go do their job.”

Federal immigration authorities are not required by their agencies to wear masks. Not ski masks, not balaclavas, not even medical masks — which many officers refused to don even during the pandemic.

Like the choice to become a federal law enforcement officer, hiding their identity while doing their duty is a personal decision. Some agents aren’t masked. There is no rule to bring clarity, only leaders pushing the false narrative that protecting officers is impossible at this moment of unrest, and they must do what they see fit to protect themselves.

Which raises the question, why not help all officers feel safe enough to go unmasked, rather than allowing some to work in a fearful environment? Surely, if some officers feel safe enough to go about their duties in a regular fashion, there must be something their leaders can do to promote that sense of strength among the ranks rather than cave to the timidity of anonymity and helplessness?

“Things can be done,” Gabriel Chin told me. He’s a professor of law at UC Davis and an expert on criminal procedure.

“The nice thing about being a law enforcement officer is if somebody does something illegal to you, you have the resources to investigate and have them criminally charged,” Chin said. “But you know, this kind of thing has happened to judges and police and prosecutors, apart from ICE, for some years, unfortunately, and yet we don’t have masked judges and masked prosecutors.”

In 2020, for example, the son of New Jersey judge Esther Salas was shot and killed by a self-described men’s rights lawyer who came to her front door and had a list of other judges in his car.

Salas did not respond by demanding judges become faceless. Instead, she successfully lobbied for greater protection of all judges nationwide.

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Republican-appointee who was the first to block Trump’s executive order axing birthright citizenship, has spoken publicly, along with five other federal judges, about continuing threats facing his brethren, including both a recent “swatting” incident and a bomb threat against him and his family.

“It’s just been stunning to me how much damage has been done to the reputation of our judiciary because some political actors think that they can gain some advantage by attacking the independence of the judiciary and threatening the rule of law,” he told Reuters — an attack coming from the right.

Speaking at the same event, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island said that like many other judges, he’s been harassed with pizzas being sent to his home address — including “one in the name of Daniel Anderl,” Reuters reported. That’s the name of Salas’ murdered son.

Just this week, a Santa Monica man was arrested and charged with doxxing an ICE lawyer.

But McConnell’s face is still visible when he takes the bench, as is Coughenour’s and every other judge and prosecutor. They face those who come before them for justice, because that is what justice requires.

What ultimately keeps them — and our system — safe is our collective belief that, even if imperfect, it has rules, stated and implied.

The most basic of these is that we face each other, even if we are afraid.

Italy and Spain intervene to ensure Gaza flotilla’s safety in the Mediterranean after drones drop ‘flashbang’ explosive devices.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has said his country’s navy will join Italy in sending warships to protect the Global Sumud Flotilla, which has come under drone attack in international waters en route to deliver aid to Gaza.

Speaking to reporters in New York on Wednesday, where he is attending the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), Sanchez said international law must be respected and the citizens of 45 nations participating in the aid mission had every right to sail in the Mediterranean unharmed.

“The government of Spain demands that international law be complied with and that the right of its citizens to navigate the Mediterranean under safe conditions be respected,” he said.

“Tomorrow we will dispatch a naval vessel from Cartagena with all necessary resources in case it is necessary to assist the flotilla and carry out a rescue operation.”

On Wednesday night, activists described a wave of attacks by Israeli drones and other aircraft which targeted vessels in the small fleet in what flotilla organisers described as “an alarmingly dangerous escalation”.

Multiple boats were targeted by the low-flying drones, which dropped flashbang-type explosive devices and other “unidentified objects” on and near boats, passengers on board said. Deliberate radio jamming had also caused “widespread obstruction in communications” among the ships, they added.

As news of the drone attack emerged, the Italian navy said it would dispatch a frigate to assist in any rescue operations involving the flotilla after Defence Minister Guido Crosetto condemned the overnight attacks.

Two lawmakers from Italy’s left-wing opposition are participating in the flotilla, which is now reported to be made up of some 50 civilian boats that are loaded with aid supplies and are hoping to break Israel’s sea blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani also weighed in, noting that “Italian citizens, along with members of parliament and MEPs”, are in the flotilla, which also includes human rights activists, lawyers, journalists, and Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg.

“To ensure their safety, the foreign ministry had already notified Israeli authorities that any operation entrusted to Israeli forces must be conducted in compliance with international law and the principle of absolute caution,” the ministry said in a statement.

“Minister Tajani has asked the Italian Embassy in Tel Aviv to gather information and to reiterate its previous request to the Israeli government to guarantee the absolute protection of the personnel on board,” it said.

In a statement, the Global Sumud Flotilla said the repeated attempts by Israel to use such tactics to intimidate flotilla participants would not work, and it issued a call to UN member states attending the UNGA to place the attacks on the agenda for talks.

Thunberg, who is making her second attempt to break Israel’s maritime siege of Gaza, told the Reuters news agency on Monday that drones stalk the flotilla every night.

“This mission is about Gaza, it isn’t about us. And no risks that we could take could even come close to the risks the Palestinians are facing every day,” she said in a video call on board a ship.

Radio star Nikki Osborne was approached by a member of staff as she headed to the Qantas lounge ahead of her flight – and what followed left her feeling ‘angry and frustrated’

A woman has said she was left feeling ‘humiliated’ and ‘degraded’ after she was approached by an airline worker with concerns over her outfit.

Nikki Osborne has now opened up about the incident, which took place in Qantas’s Brisbane lounge. The 44-year-old was dressed in tailored white shorts, a pink lace bodysuit and a knitted white cardigan for a work trip to the Whitsundays, Australia, when she claims she was confronted by a lounge employee.

“A staff member hurried up to me, grabbed me by the arm and said: ‘Firstly, I’m a long-time fan of yours, but I’ll need you to button your cardigan up to cover yourself to protect the other cultures in the lounge,” Nikki, an Australian radio personality, wrote in her QWeekend column.

READ MORE: Woman books window seat on Ryanair flight and this is what happens nextREAD MORE: Plane passenger spots man with sunglasses on easyJet flight before clocking who he is

“Other cultures I thought? All I saw in the lounge were a few FIFO workers and a mum! She was very polite about it. I however was suddenly shaken with a combination of shock, embarrassment, humiliation, anger and frustration.

“It was actually hard to process that I’d been made to feel like a tart in my hometown, in front of my male colleague too.”

READ MORE: Ryanair passenger ‘stunned’ to receive ‘worst food ever’ on flight

Nikki continued: “Now, I’m a born and bred Queenslander but I’ve always made an effort to dress well and be taken seriously in my profession as a radio host, writer and stand up comedian. I’m also a mother. To have a woman suggest that my choice of dress is inappropriate really hit hard.

“I was wearing tailored white shorts, a pink bodysuit with a knitted white cardigan over the top, which I had worn at work earlier that day. Do I have cleavage? Yes. Had I covered the top of it? Yes. Was that enough? Apparently not!”

According to Nikki, the airline later reached out with assurances the incident wouldn’t happen again. But she said the follow-up phone call left her feeling even more scrutinised when staff went through her outfit item-by-item.

But her faith in Qantas was restored when a flight attendant greeted her warmly by her comic persona ‘Bush Barbie’ and treated her with complete respect. “That air steward salvaged my week,” she said.

Nikki has now said that while she’ll continue flying with Qantas, she’ll think twice about what she wears in the lounge, the Daily Mail reports.

“I’ll continue to choose what is appropriate clothing to wear and steer clear of the high moral ground of the Lounge.”

According to the Qantas website, the airline declines entry to its lounge if “some items of clothing are too casual or inappropriate”.

Among the banned list are thongs, bare feet, head-to-toe gym wear, beachwear (such as boardshorts), sleepwear (such as Ugg boots), clothing with offensive images or slogans and revealing, unclean or torn clothing.

“These guidelines are intended to create an environment everyone can enjoy, so please be mindful of your choice of clothing and footwear when visiting Qantas Clubs and Business Lounges in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney,” the website said.

READ MORE: Mum humiliated after boy tells school he isn’t sick – he’s going on ‘Jet2 plane’

Nikki is by no means the only traveller who has come under fire for their choice of attire. A woman previously said she was “shamed” on a flight after being accused of wearing an “inappropriate” and “lewd” outfit.

Maggi Thorne, 42, boarded a Southwest Airlines flight from Orlando to Nashville when she was left shocked by the reaction to her outfit choice. The seven-time American Ninja Warrior contestant says she was approached soon after boarding by a flight attendant.

The flight attendant reportedly told Maggi to cover up, writing on X, formerly Twitter: “[Southwest Airlines] attendant just shamed me in front of passengers saying my attire wasn’t appropriate”. Maggi was wearing a black cropped top and high waisted jogging bottoms to travel, meaning most of her body was covered – apart from her arms.

READ MORE: ‘We booked a flight to Nice – but ended up 495 miles away in Tunisia instead’

She added: “A tank top and high-waisted pants. Flight 1039. Is this really happening in 2023? The passengers around me were stunned as she shamed me for all to hear.”

Maggi said she told staff she was “not ok” with being told to cover up her outfit. The AWN star maintained there was nothing wrong with her outfit. She thinks the attendant was out of line for categorising her outfit as breaching Southwestern’s clothing policy of “lewd, obscene, or patently offensive” attire, she told Insider .

Maggi reportedly refused to cover up and complained to another crew member, adding: “When I told her I wasn’t okay, I don’t think she knew what to do. I’m not a confrontational person, but what happened isn’t okay and someone should say something about it.”

Southwest Airlines has since reached out to Thorne, offering her an apology and informing her that a complaint has been filed on her behalf.

Sept. 16 (UPI) — Mexico’s government will shift its trade policy next year by raising tariffs on countries without free trade agreements, including China, India and South Korea. The move is aimed at reducing competitive disadvantages in key sectors and strengthening domestic production.

The plan covers 1,463 categories of goods, from vehicles and auto parts to steel, textiles, toys and furniture. Those products currently face import duties of 0% to 35%, but under the proposal they would be subject to rates of 10% to 50%, depending on the category.

In particular, imported light vehicles — many from China — would see duties rise from the current 15% to 20% to the maximum rate of 50%.

The initiative, part of the government’s Plan Mexico 2026 economic package, drew immediate international reaction, particularly from Beijing, the most affected trading partner.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said his country “firmly opposes any form of economic pressure disguised as trade regulation.”

He said the measure “undermines its legitimate rights” and urged Mexico to act “as a responsible partner in promoting fair and open global trade.”

President Claudia Sheinbaum denied the initiative was aimed specifically at China or prompted by foreign pressure. Seeking to ease tensions, she said she will meet with officials from Beijing and Seoul to explain that the tariff increase is meant “to strengthen domestic production” and is part of the government’s Plan Mexico 2026.

“We do not want any conflict with any country,” Sheinbaum said, emphasizing that the measure is domestic economic policy, not a hostile act.

Mexico’s Economy Ministry said the tariffs would cover about 8.6% of the country’s total imports, valued at roughly $52 billion.

“This is not against any country; it’s per product. In this case, we are applying a package aimed at protecting about 19 sectors of the economy, mainly automobiles and auto parts. These increases are not discriminatory or coercive,” Economy Secretary Marcelo Ebrard told the Mexican outlet Grupo Fórmula.

“They apply to all countries with which we do not have a trade agreement, and the goal is to strengthen domestic production.”

He added that Mexico’s trade deficit with several Asian countries — particularly China and South Korea — has grown sharply.

“The pace of growth in that deficit worries us. For example, we send one dollar in exports to China and import 11. So when you see prices below cost, any Mexican manufacturer would ask why we are allowing that,” Ebrard said, defending the tariff hike as the maximum permitted under World Trade Organization rules.

The proposal was sent to Congress this week as part of the 2026 budget, and approval is considered certain since the ruling party holds majorities in both chambers. Once approved, it would take effect 30 days after publication in Mexico’s Official Gazette.

The United States and Canada, Mexico’s partners in the USMCA trade agreement, will not be affected by the tariffs because of their existing agreements.

Mexican officials said the measure has multiple goals. The government wants at least 50% of inputs classified as “strategic” to be manufactured in Mexico by 2026, reducing reliance on foreign supply. At the same time, the plan seeks to protect jobs and narrow the trade deficit.

Economy Secretary Marcelo Ebrard said the priority is to protect domestic jobs, estimating that about 320,000 positions depend directly on the sectors covered by the measure.

The measure would also help reduce Mexico’s large trade deficit with China, which exceeded $57 billion in the first half of 2025.

On the geopolitical front, the initiative comes amid pressure from the United States. Analysts say Mexico is also seeking to “appease” its main USMCA partner over concerns about China’s influence, with the move coming ahead of the next review of the regional trade agreement in 2026.

Sept. 13 (UPI) — The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO is launching a new military campaign in Poland following an incursion by Russian drones in Polish airspace earlier in the week, the military alliance confirmed in a statement.

Operation Eastern Sentry will “bolster NATO’s posture along the eastern flank” and “involve a range of Allied assets and feature both traditional capabilities and novel technologies, including elements designed to address challenges associated with drones,” the organization confirmed in a release.

Earlier in the week, Polish and Dutch fighter jets scrambled by NATO shot down more than 20 Russian drones over eastern Poland.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk later confirmed the “multiple violations of Polish airspace,” and the country invoked NATO’s Article 4, convening allied nations to respond.

NATO countries, including the United States, have since pledged their full support for Poland.

This comes after U.S. President Donald Trump questioned Thursday whether the Russian drones could have been accidental.

“It could have been a mistake. It could have been a mistake, but also I’m not happy with anything regarding that situation,” Trump told a reporter asking about the situation.

Tusk responded in a Friday social media post.

“We would also wish that the drone attack on Poland was a mistake. But it wasn’t. And we know it,” Tusk said in response to Trump’s comments.

“No, that wasn’t a mistake,” Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski added separately on X.

American officials struck a supportive tone Friday.

“The United States stands by our NATO allies in the face of these alarming airspace violations. And rest assured, we will defend every inch of NATO territory,” acting U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea said in an address to the U.N. Security Council.

The new military exercise is aimed at deterring further Russian military aggression in NATO airspace or on the ground.

“The violation of Poland’s airspace earlier this week is not an isolated incident and impacts more than just Poland. While a full assessment of the incident is ongoing, NATO is not waiting, we are acting,” NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Alexus G. Grynkewich, said in a statement issued by NATO’s Allied Command Operations.

“Eastern Sentry and this new approach will deliver even more focused and flexible deterrence and defense where and when needed to protect our people and deter against further reckless and dangerous acts like what occurred earlier this week,” he said.

Denmark, France and Germany have already committed military aircraft to the operation, with Denmark also pledging an anti-air warfare navy frigate. Meanwhile Britain has “expressed its willingness to support,” according to the NATO statement.

In January, NATO launched a similar operation aimed at deterring Russian operations to sabotage deep-sea cables in the Baltic Sea.

The Baltic Sentry program was also implemented by NATO’s Allied Command Operations and came after an undersea cable connecting Estonia and Finland was cut last December.

Reporting from Sacramento — An Assembly panel on Tuesday recommended the confirmation of Los Angeles Rep. Xavier Becerra as state attorney general after the nominee pledged to aggressively defend state policies on immigration, civil rights and the environment against potential attacks by President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration.

Before the panel’s 6-3 vote in favor of confirmation, with all Republicans opposed, Co-Chairman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) told Becerra that he expects the state will become involved in a “long and ferocious and hard-fought legal war” with the federal government.

“Now more than ever we need an attorney general who will defend our values and stand up to the next administration’s backward vision for America,” Jones-Sawyer said during the hearing, denouncing Trump’s campaign rhetoric as “xenophobic.”

Gov. Jerry Brown introduced Becerra at the two-hour hearing, warning that “there are big battles ahead” and calling his nominee an “outstanding candidate that can certainly champion the causes we believe in.”

The nomination still must be acted on by the full Assembly, which is scheduled to vote Friday, as well as the Senate. The Senate Rules Committee will hold a confirmation hearing Jan. 18.

Becerra was questioned for more than an hour by members of the Assembly Special Committee on the Office of the Attorney General. He told them he is ready to fight for the state’s values. He told the panel that as the son of hardworking immigrants, he is committed to fighting any federal policy that takes away the rights of Californians who are playing by the rules.

“As California’s chief law enforcement officer and legal advocate, I am going to be ready to deploy those values and life lessons to advance and defend the rights — big and small — of all Californians,” Becerra told the panel. “Everyone who plays by California’s rules deserves to know, ‘We’ve got your back.’ ”

The 12-term congressman said he supports the state’s policies protecting the environment and civil rights. He said he opposes racial profiling by police and the stop-and-frisk policies of other cities.

With Trump proposing mass deportations and registration of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, Becerra said, “the head winds from outside of California could threaten the basic rights of so many families like the one I grew up in.”

“At risk is the notion that anyone who, like my parents and yours, works hard and builds this country can dream to own their own home, send their kids to college, earn a dignified retirement,” he said.

Asked about threats of cuts in federal funding to sanctuary cities, Becerra said cities will not protect violent criminals.

“‘Sanctuary’ is simply saying we are not going to go out there and do the bidding of an aggressive immigration enforcement agency.”

Updates from Sacramento »

Becerra noted that federal law, on occasion, preempts state law, but he said he will be vigilant in ensuring that the state’s laws are preserved to the extent possible.

“If we have laws in place, we have every right to protect those laws,” Becerra said. “And while the federal government has preemption authority in most cases against the state for matters that are federal in nature, the federal government would have to prove that what it’s doing is federal in nature and that it isn’t violating the state’s rights to enact laws that improve the welfare of its people.

“You will find me being as aggressive as possible working with all of you to figure out ways that we can make sure there is no federal intrusion in areas that are really left to the state in the U.S. Constitution.”

Republican members called on Becerra to make fighting crime his top priority and said they had concerns about the attorney general failing to defend the rights of gun owners and religious institutions facing interference by the state government.

Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Plumas Lake) complained about religious nonprofits being told by the state they must inform clients of the availability of abortion services even if it is against their beliefs.

Becerra tried to lighten the mood in the face of deeply philosophical questions.

“You’re getting into some subjects that probably require a few beers,” Becerra said, offering to buy Gallagher a round so they could talk about weighty issues.

Some 50 people testified, with support coming from groups such as the Sierra Club, Los Angeles Police Protective League, Equality California and several labor unions. Only two people objected to the nomination, including an American Independent Party member who questioned whether Becerra had enough years serving as an attorney to be qualified.

Craig DeLuz of the Firearms Policy Coalition said his group wants a state attorney general who can protect the constitutional rights of gun owners.

“Unfortunately, based on the record, we simply do not believe that this nominee is capable of doing that,” DeLuz told the panel.

The National Rifle Assn. also opposed Becerra in a letter.

[email protected]

Follow @mcgreevy99 on Twitter

ALSO

Four former attorneys general and 38 members of Congress write to support Rep. Xavier Becerra for state AG

Political Road Map: The only thing ‘special’ about California special elections is the cost to taxpayers

Who’s in and who’s out in the race to replace Rep. Xavier Becerra in Congress

Goodwill messages continued this week’s unprecedented public display of diplomatic unity between Beijing, Pyongyang and Moscow.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un told Chinese President Xi Jinping that North Korea will support China in protecting its sovereignty, territory and development interests, as the pair met just a day after an unprecedented show of unity with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing.

The bilateral meeting between Xi and Kim on Thursday came as Russia also hailed North Korea’s role supporting its war in Ukraine, continuing the public display of close relations between Pyongyang, Beijing and Moscow after their meeting at Wednesday’s huge military parade in China’s capital to mark 80 years since the end of World War II.

In an article published on Friday by North Korea’s state-run outlet, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), Kim was quoted as saying, “No matter how the international situation changes, the feeling of friendship cannot change” between Pyongyang and Beijing.

“The DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] will as ever invariably support and encourage the stand and efforts of the Communist Party of China and the government of the People’s Republic of China to defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and development interests of the state,” Kim said after meeting with Xi, according to KCNA.

Xi also reportedly told Kim that China and North Korea are “good neighbours, good friends and good comrades” that share one destiny, and he was willing to “defend, consolidate and develop” the countries’ relations, KCNA said.

KCNA also confirmed that Kim departed Beijing on Thursday, concluding his first trip outside of North Korea since meeting with Putin in Russia in 2023.

Top-ranking Chinese Communist Party officials – including Cai Qi and Foreign Minister Wang Yi – attended a send-off ceremony for Kim, according to KCNA.

During Wednesday’s military parade in Beijing – in which the People’s Liberation Army displayed its latest generation of stealth fighters, tanks and ballistic missiles amid a highly choreographed cast of thousands – Xi hailed China’s victory 80 years ago over “Japanese aggression” in the “world anti-fascist war”.

Putin and Kim were among some 26 mostly non-Western world leaders in attendance, with the pair meeting with Xi for two and a half hours on the event’s sidelines in an unprecedented display of unity. The trio discussed “long-term” cooperation plans, according to KCNA.

Putin and Kim also met prior to the parade, with both leaders praising the deepening military partnership between Moscow and Pyongyang.

Seemingly rattled by the meeting, United States President Donald Trump addressed Xi in a post on his Truth Social platform, saying: “Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un, as you conspire against The United States of America.”

A Kremlin aide dismissed Trump’s remarks, saying “no one even had this in their thoughts”.

Following the meeting, Putin also sent Kim a congratulatory message for North Korea’s foundation day, in which he hailed Pyongyang’s support for Moscow’s military campaign in Ukraine.

“Your combat force’s heroic involvement in liberating the Kursk territories from the invaders is a distinct symbol of friendship and mutual aid between Russia and North Korea,” Putin’s message read, according to KCNA.

“I am confident that we will continue to work together to consolidate the comprehensive strategic partnership between our two countries,” Putin added.

North Korea has controversially sent thousands of soldiers to fight in Kursk – a Russian region briefly occupied by Ukraine – and also provided artillery ammunition and missiles to support Moscow in its war against Kyiv.

During their meeting in Beijing, Kim also reportedly told Putin his country would “fully support” Russia’s army as a “fraternal duty”, KCNA previously reported.

SACRAMENTO — Responding to the Trump administration’s aggressive and unceasing immigration raids in Southern California, state lawmakers this week began strengthening protections for immigrants in schools, hospitals and other areas targeted by federal agents.

The Democratic-led California Legislature is considering nearly a dozen bills aimed at shielding immigrants who are in the country illegally, including helping children of families being ripped apart in the enforcement actions.

“Californians want smart, sensible solutions and we want safe communities,” said Assemblymember Christopher Ward (D-San Diego). “They do not want peaceful neighbors ripped out of schools, ripped out of hospitals, ripped out of their workplaces.”

Earlier this week, lawmakers passed two bills focused on protecting schoolchildren.

Senate Bill 98, authored by Sen. Sasha Renée Peréz (D-Alhambra), would require school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on a K-12 or college campus.

Legislation introduced by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), AB 49, would bar immigration agents from nonpublic areas of a school unless they had a judicial warrant or court order. It also would bar school districts from providing information about pupils, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant.

A separate bill by Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley), SB 81, would bar healthcare officials from disclosing a patient’s immigration status or birthplace, or giving access to nonpublic spaces in hospitals and clinics, to immigration authorities without a search warrant or court order.

All three bills now head to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration. If signed into law, the legislation would take effect immediately.

The school-related bills, said L.A. school board member Rocio Rivas, provide “critical protections for students, parents and families, helping ensure schools remain safe spaces where every student can learn and thrive without fear.”

Federal immigration agents have recently detained several 18-year-old high school students, including Benjamin Marcelo Guerrero-Cruz, who was picked up last month while walking his dog a few days before he started his senior year at Reseda Charter High School.

Most Republican legislators voted against the bills, but Peréz’s measure received support from two Republican lawmakers, Assemblymember Juan Alanis (R-Modesto) and state Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (R-Yucaipa). Muratsuchi’s had support from six Republicans.

“No person should be able to go into a school and take possession of another person’s child without properly identifying themselves,” Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) said before voting to support the bill.

The healthcare bill follows a surge in cancellations for health appointments as immigrants stay home, fearing that if they go to a doctor or to a clinic, they could be swept up in an immigration raid.

California Nurses Assn. President Sandy Reding said that federal agents’ recent raids have disregarded “traditional safe havens” such as clinics and hospitals, and that Newsom’s approval would ensure that people who need medical treatment can “safely receive care without fear or intimidation.”

Some Republicans pushed back against the package of bills, including outspoken conservative Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), who said that the raids that Democrats are “making such hay over” were triggered by the state’s “sanctuary” law passed in 2018.

The state law DeMaio attacked, SB 54, bars local law enforcement from helping enforce federal immigration laws, including arresting someone solely for having a deportation order, and from holding someone in jail for extra time so immigration agents can pick them up.

The law, criticized by President Trump and Republicans nationwide, does not prevent police from informing federal agents that someone who is in the country illegally is about to be released from custody.

“If you wanted a more orderly process for the enforcement of federal immigration rules, you’d back down from your utter failure of SB54,” DeMaio said.

Chino Valley Unified School Board President Sonja Shaw, a Trump supporter who is running for state superintendent of public instruction, said that the bills about school safety were “political theater that create fear where none is needed.”

“Schools already require proper judicial orders before allowing immigration enforcement on campus, so these bills don’t change anything,” Shaw said. “They are gaslighting families into believing that schools are unsafe, when in reality the system already protects students.”

But Muratsuchi, who is also running for superintendent, said the goal of the legislation is to ensure that districts everywhere, “including in more conservative areas,” protect their students against immigration enforcement.

A half-dozen other immigration bills are still pending in the Legislature. Lawmakers have until next Friday to send bills to Newsom’s desk before the 2025 session is adjourned.

Those include AB 495 by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez (D-San Fernando), which would make it easier for parents to designate caregivers who are not blood relatives — including godparents and teachers — as short-term guardians for their children. An increasing number of immigrant parents have made emergency arrangements in the event they are deported.

The bill would allow nonrelatives to make decisions such as enrolling a child in school and consenting to some medical care.

Conservatives have criticized the bill as an attack on parental rights and have said that the law could be misused by estranged family members or even sexual predators — and that current guidelines for establishing family emergency plans are adequate.

Also still pending is AB 1261, by Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), which would establish a right to legal representation for unaccompanied children in federal immigration court proceedings; and SB 841 by Sen. Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), which would restrict access for immigration authorities at shelters for homeless people and survivors of rape, domestic violence and human trafficking.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles was illegal, which the sane and democracy-loving among us should applaud — though of course an appeal is coming.

During the trial, though, a concerning but little-noticed exchange popped up between lawyers for the state of California and Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who was in charge of the federalized National Guard forces in L.A. It should have been an explosive, red-flag moment highlighting the pressure our military leaders are under to shake off their oath to the Constitution in favor of fealty to Trump.

Sherman testified that he objected to National Guard involvement in a show-of-force operation in MacArthur Park, where Latino families often congregate.

That action, Sherman said, was originally slated for Father’s Day, an especially busy time at the park. Internal documents showed it was considered it a “high-risk” operation. Sherman said he feared his troops would be pushed into confrontations with civilians if Border Patrol became overwhelmed by the crowds on that June Sunday.

Gregory Bovino, in charge of the immigration efforts in L.A. for the Border Patrol, questioned Sherman’s “loyalty to the country,” Sherman testified, for just showing hesitation about the wisdom and legality of an order.

It’s the pressure that “you’re not being patriotic if you don’t blow by the law and violate it and just bend the knee and and exhibit complete fealty and loyalty to Trump,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Tuesday. And it’s a warning of what’s to come as Trump continues to press for military involvement in civilian law enforcement across the country.

For the record, Sherman has served our country for decades, earning along the way the prestigious Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star and the Meritorious Service Medal among other accolades.

The MacArthur Park operation, according to the Department of Homeland Security, was itself little more than a performative display of power “to demonstrate, through a show of presence, the capacity and freedom of maneuver of federal law enforcement within the Los Angeles,” according to agency documents presented in court. It was dubbed Operation Excalibur, in honor of the legendary sword of King Arthur that granted him divine right to rule, a point also included in court documents.

But none of that mattered. Instead, Sherman was pushed to exhibit the kind of blind loyalty to a dear leader that you’d expect to be demanded in dictatorships like those of North Korea or Hungary. Loyalty that confuses — or transforms — a duty to the Constitution with allegiance to Trump. Military experts warn that Sherman’s experience isn’t an isolated incident.

“There’s a chilling effect against pushing back or at least openly questioning any kind of orders,” Rachel E. VanLandingham, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, told me. She’s former active duty judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force who now teaches at Southwestern Law School and serves as a national security law expert.

VanLandingham sees the leadership of our armed forces under pressure “to not engage in the critical thinking, which, as commanders, they are required to do, and to instead go along to get along.” She sees Sherman’s testimony as a “telling glimpse into the wearing away” of that crucial independence.

Such a shift in allegiance would undermine any court order keeping the military out of civilian law enforcement, leaving Trump with exactly the boots on the ground power he has sought since his first term. This is not theoretical.

Through Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Trump has purged the top ranks of the military of those who aren’t loyal to him. In February, Hegseth fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Black soldier who championed diversity in the armed forces. Hegseth has also purged the head of the Pentagon’s intelligence agency, the head of the National Security Agency, the chief of Naval Operations, multiple senior female military staff and senior military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force. In August, he fired the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency after that general gave a truthful assessment of our bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites, angering Trump.

At the same time, the military is being pushed farther into civilian affairs, and not just as erstwhile cops. The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Hegseth ordered 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges.

Not to dive too deep into the convoluted immigration system, but these are civilian legal positions, another possible violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, VanLandingham points out.

And beyond that, can a military lawyer — trained and bound to follow orders — really act as an impartial judge in proceedings where the administration’s wish to deport is clearly known?

Goodbye due process, goodbye fair trial.

That “looks like martial law when you have militarized … judicial proceedings,” VanLandingham said. “How can we trust they are making unbiased decisions? You can’t.”

And even though Sherman pushed back on a full-blown military presence in MacArthur Park, that raid did happen. Federal agents marched through, about three weeks after Father’s Day, with National Guard troops remaining in their vehicles on the perimeter. It was Hegseth himself who authorized the mission.

Sherman also said on the stand that he was told there were “exceptions” to the Posse Comitatus Act — the law being debated in the trial that prevents the military from being used as civilian law enforcement — and that the president had the power to decide what those exceptions were.

“So your understanding is that while [some actions] are on the list of prohibited functions, you can do them under some circumstances?” Judge Charles Breyer asked.

“That’s the legal advice I received,” Sherman answered.

“And the president has the authority to make that decision?” Breyer asked.

“The president has the authority,” Sherman answered.

But does he?

Breyer also asked during the trial, if the president’s powers to both command troops and interpret law are so boundless, “What’s to prevent a national police force?” What, in effect, could stop Trump’s Excalibur-inspired inclinations?

For now, it’s the courts and ethical, mid-level commanders like Sherman, whose common-sense bravery and decency kept the military out of MacArthur Park.

Men and women who understand that the oaths they have sworn are to our country, not the man who would be king.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris will receive protection from the California Highway Patrol after President Donald Trump revoked her Secret Service protection, law enforcement sources said Friday.

California officials put in place a plan to provide Harris with dignitary protection after President Trump ended an arrangement that gave his opponent in last year’s election extended Secret Service security coverage.

Trump signed a memorandum on Thursday ending Harris’s protection as of Monday, according to sources not authorized to discuss the security matter.

Former vice presidents usually get Secret Service protection for six months after leaving office, while ex-presidents get protection for life. But before his term ended, then-President Joe Biden signed an order to extend Harris’s protection beyond six months to July 2026. Aides to Harris had asked Biden for the extension. Without it, her security detail would have ended last month, according to sources.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who would need to sign off on such CHP protection, would not confirm the arrangement. “Our office does not comment on security arrangements,” said Izzy Gordon, a spokeswoman for Newsom. “The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.”

The decision came after Newsom’s office and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass were in discussions Thursday evening on how best to address the situation. Harris resides in the western portion of Los Angeles.

Bass in a statement, said “This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances and more. This puts the former Vice President in danger and I look forward to working with the governor to make sure Vice President Harris is safe in Los Angeles.”

The Secret Service, CHP and LAPD don’t discuss details of dignity protection in terms of deployment, numbers, and travel teams. CNN first reported the removal of Harris’s protection detail. Sources familiar with Harris’ security arrangements would not say how long the CHP would provide protection.

The curtailing of Secret Service protection comes as Harris is about to begin a book tour for her memoir, titled “107 Days.” The tour has 15 stops, which include visits to London and Toronto. The book, title references the short length of her presidential campaign. The tour begins next month.

Harris, the first Black woman to serve as vice president was the subject of an elevated threat level — particularly when she became the Democratic presidential contender last year. The Associated Press reports, however, a recent threat intelligence assessment by the Secret Service conducted on those it protects, such as Harris, found no red flags or credible evidence of a threat to the former vice president.

During his second term, President Trump stripped Secret Service protection from several one-time allies turned critics, including his former national security adviser John Bolton, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, both of whom have been targeted by Iran. In March, he ended Secret Service protection for former President Biden’s children — Hunter and Ashley Biden — who both had been granted extended protection by their father.

Harris’ predecessor, Vice President Mike Pence, did not have extended Secret Service protection beyond the standard six months.

Harris, a former senator, state attorney general and San Francisco district attorney, announced earlier this year she won’t seek to run for California governor in 2026.

During last year’s campaign, Trump faced two assassination attempts, including the July 2024 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where a Secret Service counter sniper shot a gunman dead after he fired eight shots, killing an attendee, wounding two others and grazing Trump’s right ear.

Times Staff Writer Melody Gutierrez and the Associated Press contributed to this story

SCIENTISTS have discovered that a “punk rocker” dinosaur had metre-long spikes pointing out of its neck to protect it from predators.

The discovery came as analysis of fossils of the Spicomellus – the world’s oldest ankylosaur – was conducted by researchers, uncovering its elaborate armour.

3

3

The Spicomellus, referred to as one of the “strangest dinosaurs” to have ever lived, roamed the Earth around 165 million years ago and had bony spikes fused onto all of its ribs.

This ultra-rare feature has never been seen before in any other vertebrate species, living or extinct, according to scientists.

Ankylosaurs were a herbivorous group of dinosaurs known for their armoured, tank-like bodies and a club-shaped tail tip.

A team of palaeontologists recently discovered remains, helping to build on the original description of the animal, which was based on just one rib bone found near the town of Boulemane in Morocco, which was sold on to a researcher in 2019.

The new fossils revealed the dinosaur had spikes measuring 87 centimetres emerging from a bony collar around its neck.

These could have been even longer during the life of the Spicomellus, according to the research published in science journal Nature.

Professor Richard Butler, from the University of Birmingham and project co-lead, described the fossils as an “incredibly significant discovery.”

He said: “Spicomellus is one of the strangest dinosaurs that we’ve ever discovered.

“It’s utterly unlike any other found anywhere else in the world.

“I think it’s going to really capture the imagination of people around the world, and tell us a lot about the early evolution of the tank-like ankylosaurs.”

He also told the BBC that the dino was the “punk rocker” of its time, alluding to its spiky looks which resemble loyal punk rock fans who may don spiky hair.

Professor Susannah Maidment of Natural History Museum, London, and the University of Birmingham, who co-led the team of researchers said the “absolutely bizarre” fossils were changing how scientists believe the armoured dinosaurs evolved.

She said: “When we originally named spicomellus, there were doubts that it was an ankylosaur at all.

“Now, not only can we confirm beyond a doubt that this interpretation was correct, but Africa’s only known ankylosaur is far weirder than anyone imagined.”

She added: “Spicomellus had a diversity of plates and spikes extending from all over its body, including metre-long neck spikes, huge upwards-projecting spikes over the hips, and a whole range of long, blade-like spikes, pieces of armour made up of two long spikes, and plates down the shoulder.

“We’ve never seen anything like this in any animal before.”

Professor Maidment said that while it is likely the armour evolved initially for defence purposes, it was probably used later to attract mates and show off to rivals.

The discovery of the spicomellus species was made after Professor Maidment acquired a rib bone from a fossil dealer in Cambridge in 2019.

This comes after a new species of dog-sized dinosaurs was discovered.

The Maleriraptor kuttyi is thought to be one of the earliest killer dinosaurs in history.

The now-extinct dinosaur is believed to have lived some 220 million years ago – during the Triassic period.

The small but mighty beast could grow to a height of 3.2 feet and a length of 6.5 feet – about the size of a large-breed dog such as a Great Dane.

And the creature was one of the earliest known carnivorous dinosaurs, along with the rest of the Herrerasauria family.

Dr. Martín Ezcurra from the Argentina’s Natural Science museum said: “Herrerasaurs represent the oldest radiation of predatory dinosaurs.”

The fossilised dinosaur bones were discovered more than in Telangana, India, forty years ago.

But only now have scientists identified exactly what species these bones belonged to.

Herrerasauria fossils were previously found in South and North America.

But the new bombshell discovery has proved that the creatures roamed far more of the Earth than previously thought.

3

Worried about a stock market drop hurting your retirement savings?

As someone who’s spent years writing about personal finance, I know how scary it can be to watch investments fluctuate. It’s even worse when you’re just about to retire.

The good news is there are lots of low-risk investment options that can protect your savings while still earning a decent return. Here are four reliable choices.

1. High-yield savings accounts (HYSAs)

If you want to keep full access to your cash while still earning solid interest, a high-yield savings account is a great starting point.

Many top online banks now offer HYSAs with rates at or above 4.00% APY. Key benefits to look for include:

• FDIC insurance up to $250,000 per account
• No monthly fees
• Little or no minimum balance requirements

Because of their flexibility, HYSAs are ideal for immediate cash needs. Whether it’s an emergency fund or short-term savings, your money can stay liquid while still earning a competitive rate.

Ready to earn more on your savings? Check out our favorite high-yield savings accounts available today.

2. Certificates of deposit (CDs)

CDs offer steady, predictable returns, allowing you to deposit money for a set amount of time in exchange for a guaranteed interest rate. That’s especially valuable if you want to protect your savings from market swings.

Many CDs’ rates are also hovering in the 4.00% range, meaning you can guarantee a strong return by locking up your money.

One smart way to keep your money accessible while still earning high rates is to set up a CD ladder. For example, you could open CDs that mature in 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

This way, part of your money becomes available every few months while the other CDs keep earning. Then you can either use the earnings as needed or reinvest them to keep the ladder going.

Explore all of our favorite CDs and build a smarter savings strategy today.

3. Treasury bills (T-bills)

Treasury bills (T-bills) are another strong choice if you’re willing to lock in cash for a short period. These are short-term debt obligations offered by the U.S. government, with terms ranging from four weeks to a full year.

Right now, T-bills are offering yields around 4.00%. Retirees like them them because:

• They’re fully backed by the U.S. government
• The interest isn’t subject to state or local income taxes
• You can buy them in increments as little as $100

You can buy T-bills through a brokerage firm for a small fee, or directly from TreasuryDirect.gov.

Finally, a fixed annuity works similarly to a long-term CD, but often offers higher guaranteed returns — currently around 5% to 6% annually.

Like CDs, you deposit a lump sum, earn a fixed interest rate, and then receive payment — the difference being that your payments can be dispersed over time, instead of given in one lump sum. This turns your investment into a stream of income.

Deferred annuities let your money grow before payouts start, while immediate annuities provide income right away. When considering a fixed annuity, check for a death benefit so your heirs can receive any remaining funds if you pass away before the money is fully paid out.

Using a mix of HYSAs, CDs, T-bills, and fixed annuities can diversify your savings and protect it from market drops. They all provide a nice balance of safety, accessibility, and value, giving you the confidence you need to comfortably enter retirement.