protection

MEXICO CITY — The small Central American nation of Belize has signed a “safe third country” agreement with the United States, the two sides said on Monday, as the Trump administration seeks to ramp up deportations and dissuade migration north.

What the agreement entails wasn’t immediately clear, but it comes as President Trump has increasingly pressured countries in Latin America and Africa to help him carry out his immigration agenda.

The deal appears to be similar to one with Paraguay announced by the U.S. State Department in August that included a “safe third country” agreement in which asylum seekers currently in the U.S. could pursue protections in the South American nation.

In Trump’s first term, the U.S. signed several such agreements that would instead have asylum seekers request protections in other nations, like Guatemala, before proceeding north. The policy was criticized as a roundabout way to make it harder for migrants to seek asylum in the U.S. and was later rolled back by the Biden administration.

Earlier this year, Panama and Costa Rica also accepted U.S. flights of hundreds of deportees from Asian countries – without calling the deals “safe third country” agreements – and thrusting the migrants into a sort of international limbo. The U.S. has also signed agreements, such as deportation agreements, with war-torn South Sudan, Eswatini and Rwanda.

The Belize government said in a statement on Monday that it “retains an absolute veto over transfers, with restrictions on nationalities, a cap on transferees, and comprehensive security screenings.”

The government of the largely rural nation wedged between Mexico and Guatemala reiterated its “commitment to international law and humanitarian principles while ensuring strong national safeguards.” No one deemed to be a public safety threat would be allowed to enter the country, it said.

On Monday, the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs thanked Belize in a post on X, calling the agreement “an important milestone in ending illegal immigration, shutting down abuse of our nation’s asylum system, and reinforcing our shared commitment to tackling challenges in our hemisphere together.”

The decision prompted fierce criticism from politicians in Belize, who railed against the agreement, calling it a “decision of profound national consequence” announced with little government transparency. The agreement must be ratified by Belize’s Senate to take effect.

“This agreement, by its very nature, could reshape Belize’s immigration and asylum systems, impose new financial burdens on taxpayers, and raise serious questions about national sovereignty and security,” Tracy Taegar Panton, an opposition leader in Belize’s parliament, wrote on social media.

She noted fierce criticisms of human rights violations resulting from similar policies carried out by both the U.S. and Europe.

“Belize is a compassionate and law-abiding nation. We believe in humanitarian principles. But compassion must never be confused with compliance at any cost. Belize cannot and must not be used as a dumping ground for individuals other countries refuse to accept,” she wrote.

Janetsky writes for the Associated Press.

Al Jazeera Director General Sheikh Nasser bin Faisal Al Thani says ‘protecting journalists is protection of the truth.’

The Director General of Al Jazeera Media Network has stressed the importance of protecting journalists working in conflict zones and called for more solidarity between media organisations and human rights groups.

In his first public address since he was appointed director general of the Doha-based network last month, Sheikh Nasser bin Faisal Al Thani said on Wednesday that Al Jazeera has made the protection of journalists a firm priority and the network conducts training and mentorship of its journalists to ensure this.

“The press has never been a party to the conflict, but has been a tool for getting information to the people,” Sheikh Nasser told the Conference on The Protection of Journalists in Armed Conflicts, a two-day event held in Doha, Qatar.

He said it is critical to ramp up measures to safeguard journalists in war zones. “Otherwise, war crimes will remain unwritten” about.

He called for the implementation of human rights regulations and enhanced solidarity among media organisations and human rights organisations.

“Silencing free speech will not stop the truth,” Sheikh Nasser said. “Protecting journalists is protection of the truth itself.”

‘Journalists are being killed’

The first day of the conference comprised several sessions, where speakers included journalists who had reported in conflict zones, such as Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau chief Wael Dahdouh, who was wounded in an Israeli attack on Gaza in late 2023.

Dahdouh has campaigned to raise awareness of the unsafe conditions for journalists working in Gaza since Israel launched its war on the Palestinian territory on October 7, 2023.

At least 300 journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza during the two-year war, according to the Shireen Abu Akleh Observatory. This includes 10 journalists from Al Jazeera.

“Journalists are being killed and genocide is being committed against them,” Dahdouh told the conference.

Other speakers included legal experts and workers associated with nonprofit organisations that work for the safety of journalists, such as Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). A spokesperson for the International Criminal Court (ICC) also spoke at one of the sessions.

The discussions focused on attacks against journalists and the imprisonment of journalists in Gaza and around the world.

Several speakers throughout the day highlighted the importance of treating journalists like civilians. Speakers added, however, that international law provisions that lay down safeguards for civilians might not apply similarly to journalists. They pressed on the need for international laws that specifically focus on safeguarding journalists and media organisations.

“The civilian can go away from the combat field but the journalist has to stay. To assimilate the war journalist with the civilian is not right,” Omar Mekky, the regional legal coordinator for the Near and Middle East Region for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said.

Speakers also asserted the importance of countries stepping in and putting pressure on the governments that are targeting journalists.

The conference will continue for its second day on Thursday.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court bolstered the nation’s clean-water protections for oceans and beaches on Thursday, ruling that environmentalists can sue to block discharges of sewage into the ground if those pollutants flow in significant amounts from there into the ocean.

In a 6-3 ruling, the high court said the Clean Water Act forbids not only direct discharges of sewage or other pollution into the ocean or bays, but also their “functional equivalent,” if it is shown that sewage is ending up along the beaches.

The justices upheld lawsuits from four environmental groups in Hawaii that had sued over sewage that was flowing from treatment plants through the groundwater and into the ocean off Maui.

The county of Maui, with the support of the Trump administration, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Clean Water Act protected only against “direct discharges” of pollutants into waterways and not pollution from ground water.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, speaking for the court, disagreed in County of Maui vs. Hawaii Wildlife Fund. “We conclude that the statutory provisions at issue require a permit if the addition of the pollutants through groundwater is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge from the point source into navigable waters,” he said.

Time and distance are key factors, he said, in deciding whether pollution flowing through the groundwater can be attributed to a treatment facility.

His opinion did not go as far as the 9th Circuit Court, which had decided that the law’s permitting rule applies to any water pollution which is “fairly traceable” to pollution flowing into the ground. That goes too far, Breyer said, because it could extend to 650,000 wells and 20 million septic tanks nationwide, most of which are distant from a river or bay.

But the court’s rule should cover significant discharges of pollutants that flow through the groundwater to protected waters.

“This decision is a huge victory for clean water,” said David Henkin, an attorney from the environmental public interest group Earthjustice who argued the case. “The Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration’s effort to blow a big hole in the Clean Water Act’s protections for rivers, lakes and oceans.”

The high court remanded the case to the 9th Circuit to apply the new standard.

The county of Maui operates a wastewater reclamation facility on the island of Maui, Hawaii. The facility collects sewage from the surrounding area, partially treats it, and pumps the treated water through four wells hundreds of feet underground. This effluent, amounting to about 4 million gallons each day, then travels a further half mile or so, through groundwater, to the ocean. Studies found that the pollution had damaged the coral reef near a Maui beach.

The law requires obtaining a permit before discharging pollutants from a “point source” into protected waterways, like a river or bay. At issue was whether the county could be sued for failing to obtain a clean-water permit before discharging pollutants that flowed underground into the ocean. This law can be enforced through “citizen suits” and four groups — the Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation and West Maui Preservation Assn. — joined to file suit against the county of Maui.

The Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama had supported the environmentalists when the suits were before a judge in Hawaii. But the Trump administration switched sides and supported the county in its effort to limit the reach of the law.

Joining Breyer’s opinion were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

“I would hold that a permit is required only when a point source discharges pollutants directly into navigable waters,” said Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed his own 18-page dissent deriding the “functional equivalent” standard. “If the court is going to devise its own legal rules, instead of interpreting those enacted by Congress, it might at least adopt rules that can be applied with a modicum of consistency. Here, however, the court makes up a rule that provides no clear guidance and invites arbitrary and inconsistent application,” he wrote.

The ruling applies not just to oceans, but also to waterways across the country, and it could pose problems for the operators of wastewater treatment plants as well as large hog farms. A coalition of California water agencies had urged the court to reverse the 9th Circuit and rule the Clean Water Act did not extend to pollution from groundwater.

Michael Kimberly, a Washington lawyer who filed a brief on behalf of agricultural business organizations, said the court’s new rule “is amorphous and leaves much to be desired. It leaves countless responsible landowners potentially liable for discharges from ‘point sources’ to ‘navigable waters’ that aren’t actually anything of the sort. I would hope and expect an EPA and Army Corps of Engineers rule-making to elaborate the standard in more concrete terms, which the opinion expressly invites.”

Venezuelan model, influencer and businesswoman Isabella Ladera is suing her former boyfriend, Brandon De Jesus Lopez Orozco, more famously known as Colombian singer Beéle, after a private sex video shared between the two was leaked to the public.

Ladera filed her lawsuit in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court on Sept. 15, alleging invasion of privacy, sexual cyberharassment under Florida Statute §784.049, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.

In a press release issued Thursday, Ladera stated: “No one should take advantage of another’s vulnerability to make money or create content. This is not entertainment; it is a crime, and the only thing it leaves behind are scars.”

According to court documents obtained by The Times, Ladera and Beéle began a romantic relationship after connecting on Instagram in December 2023. At Beéle’s request, the couple recorded intimate videos on their personal phones. Ladera deleted her copies and urged Beéle to delete his as far back as May 2024, but he allegedly refused. The couple eventually broke up, and in June 2025, Ladera began hearing that screenshots of their videos were circulating.

The leak was confirmed Sept. 7, when one video went viral via WhatsApp and was later uploaded to social media platforms like X, exposing Ladera to public humiliation, reputational damage and harassment, according to her suit.

Celebrity sex tape scandals are nothing new to the public. The first huge and infamous one was Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson’s honeymoon video, which shocked audiences when it surfaced in 1995 and arguably helped cement the notion of private content as highly exploitable public fodder.

Later cases, like “Celebgate” — in which hackers leaked intimate content from A-list celebrities in 2014 — highlighted how vulnerable people could be online, no matter how rich or famous. Over time, these incidents prompted lawmakers to strengthen protections for victims, moving away from the informal term “revenge porn” and toward the framework better known now as image-based sexual abuse.

In May, President Trump — alongside the first lady — signed the “Take It Down Act” into law, making it a federal crime to “knowingly publish” or threaten to publish intimate images without a person’s consent, including AI-generated “deepfakes.” Websites and social media companies are required to remove such material, including duplicate content, within 48 hours after a victim makes the request.

Under Florida law, victims of nonconsensual sharing of sexually explicit material have specific rights. Florida Statute §784.049 criminalizes the distribution of sexual images without consent, allowing victims to pursue criminal charges against the offender. Additionally, victims can file civil claims for invasion of privacy, emotional distress, or negligence if the offender failed to protect or delete intimate content. Remedies may include statutory or compensatory damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

Though Florida provides these protections, they are generally more narrow than in states like California, particularly in terms of civil recourse and the ability to hold online platforms accountable.

Experts say states such as California offer more comprehensive protections for victims of IBSA. Roxanne Rimonte of C.A. Goldberg, a California-based law firm specializing in harassment cases, explained that California provides both criminal and civil remedies, making it easier for victims to hold offenders accountable.

“California is one of the states that provides a civil cause of action for victims of nonconsensual pornography, in addition to criminal statutes,” Rimonte said. “Victims have the right to pursue both legal and monetary remedies, and the law even accounts for AI-generated images or online platforms that knowingly promote illegal content.”

Rimonte also highlighted a key difference in legal frameworks: the intent requirement. While some states require proof that the offender intended to cause emotional distress — a difficult burden for victims — California focuses on intent to distribute.

“As long as someone intended to distribute or publish intimate content, that satisfies the intent element,” Rimonte said. “This makes it much more straightforward for victims to seek justice.” By comparison, Florida’s statutes can leave victims with fewer avenues, particularly for civil recourse, leaving them reliant on criminal prosecution that may be slow or inconsistent.

The public nature of Ladera’s case only amplifies the harm. Celebrities and public figures often face more severe consequences when private content is leaked, Rimonte noted.

“Unlike private individuals, celebrities tend to experience more severe harms from the wider exposure of their content,” she said. “Media outlets tend to sensationalize IBSA cases involving public figures, which re-traumatizes victims and magnifies the social and reputational consequences.”

In Ladera’s case, false narratives have circulated online suggesting she leaked the videos herself, further complicating her emotional and public ordeal.

Ladera’s lawsuit also highlights broader gaps in protections for victims nationwide. In many cases, enforcement is inconsistent, civil remedies can be expensive and time-consuming, and tech platforms often evade accountability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields websites from liability for user-generated content. Experts suggest that reforms should include clearer federal guidance, improved civil remedies and stronger requirements for platforms to act when illegal content is shared.

“Victims deserve a legal system that doesn’t re-traumatize them while seeking justice,” Rimonte said. “Focusing on the intent to distribute rather than intent to cause harm is one example of how legislation can better support survivors.”

As for Beéle, he has denied any involvement in the dissemination of the video. On Sept. 9, his legal team issued a statement asserting that he did not leak or distribute the material and is himself a victim of nonconsensual exposure. His representatives also announced that legal actions have been initiated in both Colombia and the United States to identify and prosecute those responsible for sharing the video.

Beéle has not commented personally, instead sharing the statement via his official Instagram account and urging media outlets and social media users to refrain from sharing the material.

As Ladera’s case unfolds, it underscores the continued tension between technology, privacy and accountability. While social media has made it easier for people to connect, it has also made personal content more vulnerable to exploitation. For Ladera, the legal battle is about reclaiming control over her personal life and sending a message that privacy violations have consequences.

In a statement to The Times, Ladera’s legal team underscored that her case is not just about one individual, but about a wider epidemic of digital exploitation. They noted that while Ladera is a public figure, countless women across Florida and beyond suffer similar violations of privacy at the hands of malicious actors.

The lawsuit, they emphasized, seeks not only to secure justice for Ladera — but to send a strong message that the unauthorized dissemination of intimate content will face serious legal consequences.

“Let it be absolutely clear,” said lead attorney Pierre Hachar, Jr., “that any past, present, or future acts of this nature, whether by these defendants or others, will be met with the same unwavering resolve and addressed to the fullest extent of the law.”

NEW YORK — In the days since the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, workers in a variety of industries have been fired for their comments on his death.

It’s hardly the first time workers have lost their jobs over things they say publicly — including in social media posts. In the U.S., laws can vary across states, but overall, there’s very few legal protections for employees who are punished for speech made in or out of private workplaces.

“Most people think they have a right to free speech … but that doesn’t necessarily apply in the workplace,” said Vanessa Matsis-McCready, associate general counsel and vice president of HR Services for Engage PEO. “Most employees in the private sector do not have any protections for that type of speech at work.”

Add to that the prevalence of social media, which has made it increasingly common to track employees’ conduct outside of work or for internet users to publish information about them with the intent of harming or harassing them.

Employers have leeway

Protections for workers vary from one state to the next. In New York, if an employee is participating in a weekend political protest, but not associating themselves with the organization that employs them, their employer cannot fire them for that activity when they return to work. But if that same employee is at a company event on a weekend and talks about their political viewpoints in a way that makes others feel unsafe or the target of discrimination or harassment, then they could face consequences at work, Matsis-McCready said.

Most of the U.S. defaults to “at-will” employment law — which essentially means employers can choose to hire and fire as they see fit, including over employees’ speech.

“The 1st Amendment does not apply in private workplaces to protect employees’ speech,” said Andrew Kragie, an attorney who specializes in employment and labor law at Maynard Nexsen. “It actually does protect employers’ right to make decisions about employees, based on employees’ speech.”

Kragie said there are “pockets of protection” around the U.S. under various state laws, such as statutes that forbid punishing workers for their political views. But the interpretation of how that gets enforced changes, he notes, making the waters murky.

Steven T. Collis, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin and faculty director of the school’s Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center, also points to some state laws that say employers can’t fire their workers for “legal off-duty conduct.” But there’s often an exception for conduct seen as disruptive to an employer’s business or reputation, which could be grounds to fire someone over public comments or social media posts.

“In this scenario, if somebody feels like one of their employees has done something that suggests they are glorifying or celebrating a murder, an employer might still be able to fire them even with one of those laws on the books,” Collis said.

For public employees, including school teachers, postal workers and elected officials, the process is a bit different. That’s because the 1st Amendment plays a unique role when the government is the employer, Collis explains — and the Supreme Court has ruled that if an employee is acting in a private capacity but speaking on a matter of public concern, they’re protected.

However, that has yet to stop the public sector from restricting speech in the aftermath of Kirk’s death. For instance, leaders at the Pentagon unveiled a “zero tolerance” policy for any posts or comments from troops deemed to be making light of or celebrating the killing of Kirk.

The policy, announced by the Defense Department’s top spokesman, Sean Parnell, on social media Thursday, came hours after numerous conservative military influencers and activists began forwarding posts they considered problematic to Parnell and his boss, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“It is unacceptable for military personnel and Department of War civilians to celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American,” Parnell wrote Thursday, referring to the Department of Defense by the name adopted recently by President Trump.

A surge of political debate

The ubiquity of social media is making it easier than ever to share opinions about politics and major news events as they’re unfolding. But posting on social media leaves a record, and in times of escalating political polarization, those declarations can be seen as damaging to the reputation of an individual or their employer.

“People don’t realize when they’re on social media, it is the town square,” said Amy Dufrane, chief executive of the Human Resource Certification Institute. “They’re not having a private conversation with the neighbor over the fence. They’re really broadcasting their views.”

Political debates are certainly not limited to social media and are increasingly making their way into the workplace as well.

“The gamification of the way we communicate in the workplace — Slack and Teams, chat and all these things — they’re very similar to how you might interact on Instagram or other social media, so I do think that makes it feel a little less formal and somebody might be more inclined to take a step and say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe this happened,’” Matsis-McCready said.

Many employers unprepared

In the tense, divided climate in the United States at the moment, many human resource professionals have expressed that they’re unprepared to address politically charged discussions in the workplace, according to the Human Resource Certification Institute. But those conversations are going to happen, so employers need to set policies about what is acceptable or unacceptable workplace conduct, Dufrane said.

“HR has got to really drill down and make sure that they’re super clear on their policies and practices and communicating to their employees on what are their responsibilities as an employee of the organization,” Dufrane said.

Many employers are reviewing their policies on political speech and providing training about what appropriate conduct looks like, both inside and outside the organization, she said. And the brutal nature of Kirk’s killing may have led some of them to react more strongly in the days since his death.

“Because of the violent nature of what some political discussion is now about, I think there is a real concern from employers that they want to keep the workplace safe and that they’re being extra vigilant about anything that could be viewed as a threat, which is their duty,” Matsis-McCreedy said.

Employees can also be seen as ambassadors of a company’s brand, and their political speech can dilute that brand and hurt its reputation, depending on what is being said and how it is being received. That is leading more companies to act on what employees are saying online, she said.

“Some of the individuals that had posted and their posts went viral, all of a sudden the phone lines of their employers were just nonstop calls complaining,” Matsis-McCready said.

Still, experts such as Collis don’t anticipate a significant change in how employers monitor their workers’ speech — noting that online activity has been in the spotlight for at least the last 15 years.

“Employers are already — and have been for a very long time — vetting employees based on what they’re posting on social media,” he said.

Bussewitz and Grantham-Philips write for the Associated Press. AP writer Konstantin Toropin in Washington contributed to this report.

When Kamala Harris was contemplating a run for California governor, one of her supposed considerations was the security detail that attends the state’s chief executive.

The services of a life-preserving, ego-boosting retinue of intimidating protectors — picture dark glasses, earpiece, stern visage — were cited by more than one Harris associate, past and present, as a factor in her deliberations. These were not Trumpers or Harris haters looking to impugn or embarrass the former vice president.

According to one of those associates, Harris has been accompanied nonstop by an official driver and person with a gun since 2003, when she was elected San Francisco district attorney. One could easily grow accustomed to that level of comfort and status, not to mention the pleasure of never having to personally navigate the 101 or 405 freeways at rush hour.

That is, of course, a perfectly terrible and selfish reason to run for governor, if ever it was a part of Harris’ thinking. To her credit, the reason she chose to not run was a very good one: Harris simply “didn’t feel called” to pursue the job, in the words of one political advisor.

Now, however, the matter of Harris’ personal protection has become a topic of heated discussion and debate, which is hardly surprising in an age when everything has become politicized, including “and” and “the.”

There is plenty of bad faith to go around.

Last month, President Trump abruptly revoked Harris’ Secret Service protection. The security arrangement for vice presidents typically lasts for six months after they leave office, allowing them to quietly fade into ever greater obscurity. But before vacating the White House, President Biden signed an executive order extending protection for Harris for an additional year. (Former presidents are guarded by Secret Service details for life.)

As the first female, first Black and first Asian American vice president, Harris faced, as they say in the protective-service business, an elevated threat level while serving in the post. In the 230-odd days since Harris left office, there is no reason to believe racism and misogyny, not to mention wild-eyed partisan hatred, have suddenly abated in this great land of ours.

And there remain no small number of people crazy enough to violently act on those impulses.

The president could have been gracious and extended Harris’ protection. But expecting grace out of Trump is like counting on a starving Doberman to show restraint when presented a bloody T-bone steak.

“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,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass angrily declared.

True.

Though Bass omitted the bit about six months being standard operating procedure, which would have at least offered some context. It wasn’t as though Harris was being treated differently than past vice presidents.

Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly stepped into the breach, providing Harris protection by the California Highway Patrol. Soon after, The Times’ Richard Winton broke the news that Los Angeles Police Department officers meant to be fighting crime in hard-hit areas of the city were instead providing security for Harris as a supplement to the CHP.

Not a great look. Or the best use of police resources.

Thus followed news that officers had been pulled off Harris’ security detail after internal criticism; supposedly the LAPD’s involvement had always been intended as a stopgap measure.

All well and good, until the conservative-leaning Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file officers, saw fit to issue a gratuitously snarky statement condemning the hasty arrangement. Its board of directors described Harris as “a failed presidential candidate who also happens to be a multi-millionaire, with multiple homes … who can easily afford to pay for her own security.”

As if Harris’ 2024 defeat — she lost the popular vote to Trump by a scant 1.5%, it might be noted — was somehow relevant.

To be certain, Harris and her husband, attorney Doug Emhoff, won’t miss any hot meals as they shelter in their 3,500-square-foot Brentwood home. (The one house they own.) But they’re not stupid-rich either.

One person in the private-security business told Winton that a certain household name pays him $1,000 a day for a 12-hour shift. That can quickly add up and put a noticeable dent in your back account, assuming your name isn’t Elon or Taylor or Zuckerberg or Bezos.

Setting aside partisanship — if that’s still possible — and speaking bluntly, there’s something to be said for ensuring Harris doesn’t die a violent death at the hands of some crazed assailant.

The CHP’s Dignitary Protection Section is charged with protecting all eight of California’s constitutional officers — we’re talking folks such as the insurance commissioner and state controller — as well as the first lady and other elected officials, as warranted. The statutory authority also extends to former constitutional officers, which would include Harris, who served six years as state attorney general.

Surely there’s room in California’s $321-billion budget to make sure nothing terrible happens to one of the state’s most prominent and credentialed citizens. It doesn’t have to be an open-ended, lifetime commitment to Harris’ protection, but an arrangement that could be periodically reviewed, as time passes and potential danger wanes.

Serving in elected office can be rough, especially in these incendiary times. The price shouldn’t include having to spend the rest of your life looking nervously over your shoulder.

Or draining your life savings, so you don’t have to.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending temporary legal protections that have granted more than 1 million people from Haiti and Venezuela the right to live and work in the United States.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco for the plaintiffs means 600,000 Venezuelans whose temporary protections expired in April or whose protections were about to expire Sept. 10 have status to stay and work in the United States. It also keeps protections for about 500,000 Haitians.

Chen scolded Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for revoking protections for Venezuelans and Haitians that the judge said would send them “back to conditions that are so dangerous that even the State Department advises against travel to their home countries.”

He said Noem’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, and she exceeded her authority in ending protections that were extended three times by the Biden administration.

Presidential administrations have executed the law for 35 years based on the best available information and in consultation with other agencies, “a process that involves careful study and analysis. Until now,” Chen wrote.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Temporary Protected Status is a designation that can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people in the United States, if conditions in their homelands are deemed unsafe for return due to a natural disaster, political instability or other dangerous conditions.

Millions of Venezuelans have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger. The country is mired in a prolonged crisis brought on by years of hyperinflation, political corruption, economic mismanagement and an ineffectual government.

Haiti was first designated for TPS in 2010 after a catastrophic magnitude 7.0 earthquake killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of people, and left more than 1 million homeless. Haitians face widespread hunger and gang violence.

Their designations were to expire in September but later extended until February, due to a separate court order out of New York.

Noem said that conditions in both Haiti and Venezuela had improved and that it was not in the national interest to allow migrants from the countries to stay on for what is a temporary program. Attorneys for the government have said the secretary’s clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program are not subject to judicial review.

Designations are granted for terms of six, twelve or 18 months, and extensions can be granted so long as conditions remain dire. The status prevents holders from being deported and allows them to work.

The secretary’s action in revoking TPS was not only unprecedented in the manner and speed in which it was taken but also violated the law, Chen wrote.

The case has had numerous legal twists, including an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In March, Chen temporarily paused the administration’s plans to end TPS for people from Venezuela. An estimated 350,000 Venezuelans were set to lose protections the following month.

The U.S. Supreme Court in May reversed his order while the lawsuit played out. The justices provided no rationale, which is common in emergency appeals, and did not rule on the merits of the case.

Venezuelans with expired protections were fired from jobs, separated from children, detained by officers and even deported, lawyers for TPS holders said.

The Supreme Court’s reversal does not apply to Friday’s ruling. The government is expected to seek a stay of Chen’s order as it appeals.

Last week, a three-judge appeals panel also sided with plaintiffs, saying the Republican administration did not have the authority to vacate protection extensions granted by the previous administration.

Har writes for the Associated Press.

For two years, labor organizers tried to unionize employees at a trio of celebrated California national parks, but they couldn’t reach critical mass.

Then came mass firings of National Park Service employees in February under the Trump administration. Many employees were reinstated, but litigation concerning the legality of the firings winds on. The park service has lost about a quarter of its staff since Trump reclaimed the White House, and that’s on top of a proposed $1-billion budget cut to the agency.

This summer the scales tipped. More than 97% of employees at Yosemite and Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks who cast ballots voted to unionize, with results certified last week. More than 600 staffers — including interpretive park rangers, biologists, firefighters and fee collectors — are now represented by the National Federation of Federal Employees.

Steven Gutierrez, national business representative with the National Federation of Federal Employees, said it took mass firings to “wake people up.”

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

“Culture is hard to change,” said Steven Gutierrez, a national business representative for the union. “It takes something like this administration firing people to wake people up, to say, ‘Hey, I’m vulnerable here and I need to invest in my career.’”

The unionized employees work at some of California’s most celebrated and highly visited national parks. Yosemite is famous for its awe-inspiring valley, while Sequoia and Kings Canyon are known for their giant sequoia trees.

Amid that beauty is a workforce that is frustrated and fearful. Two employees at Yosemite National Park described rock-bottom morale amid recent turmoil — and a sense that the union could provide an avenue for change. Both are union representatives and requested anonymity for fear of retaliation.

“With this administration, I think there’s a lot more people who are scared, and I think the union definitely helps towards protections that we really want,” said one employee.

National Park Service Ranger Anna Nicks walks through a grove of sequoia trees in Sequoia National Park in May 2024.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Despite staff being depleted by buyouts and a hiring freeze, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has ordered parks to remain “open and accessible.” As a result, the employee said visitors may not notice something is off.

“There’s a lot of folks doing multiple jobs and just trying to hold up the park,” she said, adding that she believes that the union will help ensure people get paid properly for the work they do and that their duties don’t shift.

The employees stressed that many workplace problems they want to see fixed — including low pay and squalid living conditions — predate Trump’s second stint in the White House. But recent developments have exacerbated the situation.

Because pay hasn’t kept pace with inflation, one employee said he’s unable to pay rent and lives out of his car for most of the year. Meanwhile, he said, those in park housing face safety threats such as hantavirus-carrying rodents that invade living spaces, caving-in roofs and unstable decks. Understaffing has plagued Yosemite for years.

“People that you see working here, they’re really at their wit’s end,” he said. “Personally speaking, it’s just a lot of work to handle. Years ago, we had twice as many people doing this work.”

Staffers are “worried about their futures,” he added.

The National Park Service did not respond to a request for comment. But in a statement to a Senate appropriations subcommittee in May, Burgum said the Trump administration remains committed to supporting the parks, while looking for ways to cut costs.

A waterfall is reflected in water in the meadow in the Yosemite Valley as the snowpack melts in April 2023.

(Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)

“Since becoming Interior Secretary, I’ve traveled to National Parks, historic sites, and wildlife refuges to learn and hear from leadership on the ground,” Burgum said. “We’re instituting changes to get more people actually working in the parks and are looking forward to what Yellowstone Superintendent Cam Sholly forecasted to be an ‘outstanding summer.’ ”

The unionization vote comes as the Trump administration seeks to strip federal employees of labor protections many have long enjoyed. On Thursday, Trump signed an executive order that directs certain federal agencies — including NASA, the National Weather Service and the Bureau of Reclamation — to end collective bargaining agreements with unions representing federal employees.

The Department of Veterans Affairs previously moved to terminate protections for more than 400,000 of its workers. The president’s overall effort on this front is being fought in court, although federal judges have so far sided with the administration.

As labor unrest mounts, Americans and foreign tourists are visiting national parks like never before. In 2024, there were a record 332 million visits to national parks, including 4 million to Yosemite. Crowds continued to stream into national parks over Labor Day weekend.

Groups that advocate for public lands say that short staffing is quietly adding to long-standing problems.

Preventative Search and Rescue Program Coordinator Anna Marini gives the Lutter family children junior guide books after they finished a hike in August 2024 in Joshua Tree National Park.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

“It’s clear staffing shortages are directly impacting park operations across the system,” the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Assn. said in a statement Wednesday.

“Parks like Joshua Tree and Yosemite are struggling with search and rescue, law enforcement and even basic medical services, while some parks have no maintenance staff at all. Seasonal roads, trails and campgrounds like those at Sequoia and Kings Canyon remain closed due to unaddressed damage.”

The union voting took place July 22 to Aug. 19, and included permanent and seasonal employees. The National Federation of Federal Employees represents workers at several other national parks, including Yellowstone and, in Ohio, Cuyahoga Valley, as well as those in the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.

A union sign hailing federal workers is displayed at Sequoia National Park.

(Steven Gutierrez)

Federal employees don’t have the right to strike, Gutierrez said, meaning that much of employees’ advocacy has to happen in Washington, D.C. He said the union can bring workers face to face with congressional leaders to explain why their jobs matter — including the tourism dollars they help generate.

Next steps will include hammering out labor contracts for Yosemite and Sequoia and Kings Canyon, which can provide job protections.

Gutierrez said he’d like to see one drafted by December but acknowledged that it can be a long process.

“If Trump puts his fingers into it, it’s going to take longer,” he said.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has revoked former Vice President Kamala Harris’ Secret Service protection that otherwise would have ended next summer, senior Trump administration officials said Friday.

Former vice presidents typically get federal government protection for six months after leaving office, while ex-presidents do so for life. But then-President Biden quietly signed a directive, at Harris’ request, that had extended protection for her beyond the traditional six months, according to another person familiar with the matter. The people insisted on anonymity to discuss a matter not made public.

Trump, a Republican, defeated Harris, a Democrat, in the presidential election last year.

His move to drop Harris’ Secret Service protection comes as the former vice president, who became the Democratic nominee last summer after a chaotic series of events that led to Biden dropping out of the contest, is about to embark on a book tour for her memoir, titled “107 Days.” The tour has 15 stops, including visits abroad to London and Toronto. The book, which refers to the historically short length of her presidential campaign, will be released Sept. 23, and the tour begins the following day.

A recent threat intelligence assessment the Secret Service conducts on those it protects, such as Harris, found no red flags or credible evidence of a threat to the former vice president, said a White House official who also insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The administration found no reason Harris’ protection should go beyond the standard six-month period for former vice presidents, the official said.

Trump’s vice president from his first term, Mike Pence, did not have extended Secret Service protection beyond the standard six months.

Still, it is not unusual for Secret Service protection to continue well beyond the statutory six-month window, particularly when former officials face credible and ongoing threats. But Trump’s decisions to revoke the protection have stood out both for timing and for targets.

During Trump’s second presidency, he repeatedly has cut off security for adversaries and figures who have fallen from favor, including his onetime national security advisor John Bolton and members of Biden’s family, including the former president’s adult children. Outgoing presidents can extend protection for those who might otherwise not be eligible; Trump did so for his family after leaving office in 2021.

The decision to strip Harris of protection is certain to raise alarms among security experts who view continuity of protection as essential in a polarized climate.

A senior Trump administration official said an executive memorandum was issued Thursday to the Department of Homeland Security ending Harris’ security detail and security services. Those had been extended from six to 18 months by the Biden administration, so they would have ended in July 2026, but now they will be terminated on Monday.

Harris lives in the Los Angeles area. The city’s Democratic mayor, Karen Bass, called Trump’s decision “another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation” and warned that it would endanger Harris. Bass said she plans to work with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a fellow Democrat, to ensure the former vice president’s safety, and she and Harris have already been in touch about the issue, according to a person with knowledge of the discussions.

While she lost to Trump last November, Harris is seen as a potential candidate for 2028, and she has already announced she will not run for California governor in 2026. Harris is also a former senator, California attorney general and San Francisco district attorney.

Last year was a particularly politically charged environment with Trump facing two assassination attempts, and the Secret Service played a crucial role in protecting the now-president. While questions remain about how the agency prepared for a July 2024 rally in Butler, Pa., 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. Trump chose one of the agents who rushed to the stage to shield him, Sean Curran, to lead the agency earlier this year.

The news of the security revocation was first reported by CNN.

Kim and Gomez Licon write for the Associated Press. Gomez Licon reported from Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

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

The Chargers were blindsided in the truest sense.

Eleven days after signing a contract extension that made him the NFL’s highest-paid offensive lineman in history, Chargers left tackle Rashawn Slater went down in training camp with a knee injury that ended his 2025 season.

It was the latest crushing blow to a franchise with a withering track record of losing key players at the most inopportune times.

“It’s like a gut punch to the solar plexus,” coach Jim Harbaugh said in the aftermath of the July 27 injury. “Takes the wind out of you.”

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Sam Farmer talks about the impact Rashawn Slater’s season-ending injury will have on the Chargers.

This is where coaching and creativity kick in. It’s musical chairs along the offensive line as the Chargers scramble to protect the blind side of franchise quarterback Justin Herbert without handcuffing their offense by committing too many resources to doing so.

The challenge is profound but not unique. Teams have navigated these choppy waters before.

“The basis of your pass [protection] basically is, you pay a ton of money to somebody that’s just going to lock down that end, the blind side,” retired NFL quarterback Matt Hasselbeck said. “The blind side. They made a whole movie about it. That’s where you spend your money.”

When quarterback Rich Gannon was preparing for an opponent, the first offensive meeting of the week was about protections. How are we going to block these guys?

“We’d start by drawing five guys on the board, our offensive line,” Gannon said. “You’re just like, ‘OK, we’re going to build an offensive line.’ And we’d start with the left tackle, right? We’d just draw a big dollar sign. That’s the guy you have to pay. That’s the guy you have to have.”

In the case of the Chargers, erase that dollar sign from the board.

“When you lose a guy like that, there’s a trickle-down effect,” Gannon said. “You have to find someone to replace him. Now, what does that mean for our protection plan?

“Very few teams have a guy that can step in without a drop-off. And you’re talking about a Pro Bowl-caliber player at left tackle, there’s usually a significant difference when the backup goes in.”

Chargers quarterback Justin Herbert, left, and offensive tackle Rashawn Slater walk off the field after a win over the New Orleans Saints in October.

(Ronald Martinez / Getty Images)

Even in this abysmal situation, there are flickers of positivity for the Chargers. First, they are moving Joe Alt from right tackle to left, where he spent his illustrious college career at Notre Dame. The Chargers used the fifth overall pick in 2024 on the 6-foot-8, 322-pound Alt, who Harbaugh says has Hall of Fame potential. Having Alt in the mix is a huge bonus for the club.

Still, switching from right to left tackle is no small feat.

“People think it’s just easy to play on the offensive line, and if you’re a right tackle you should be able to play on the left, but it’s not the same,” Hall of Fame defensive end Dwight Freeney said. “Everything is different. You have muscle memory and different repetitions that you’ve done constantly. Doing something the same way all the time. One way.

“It’s not easy to pick up, switch your feet and go to the other side. The guard positions and center are more interchangeable, but when you start messing with your tackles, especially your left tackle, that’s a problem.”

More good news for the Chargers is that swing tackle Trey Pipkins is a blocker who can play on both ends of the offensive line. He too is returning to a familiar spot, as he was a right tackle at the University of Sioux Falls.

The Chargers will be tested right away. Their first three games are against division opponents, and their third is against Denver, which led the NFL last season with an average of 3.6 sacks per game.

“You’re going to have to start the season making sure you’ve got a back over there on the left side, or a tight end in passing situations just to make sure the quarterback doesn’t get whacked,” said Mike Tice, the onetime Minnesota Vikings head coach whose specialty is coaching offensive lines. “You’ve got to have a plan going into the season. If you don’t have a plan going in, you’re truly [doomed].”

Gannon said the Chargers are especially fortunate to have Greg Roman as their offensive coordinator, because Roman showed exceptional creativity in Baltimore beefing up their front with extra linemen and fullback Patrick Ricard, nicknamed “Pancake Pat” for his ability to flatten people in his path.

“They dressed it up with the Ravens,” said Gannon, an analyst for Sirius/XM NFL Radio. “Seven offensive linemen on the field. You’d get the defense to go big, then throw it.”

Gannon sees the versatile Scott Matlock playing the Ricard role for the Chargers. Matlock, listed on the roster as a fullback, is 6-4 and 296.

“His role is going to expand,” the retired quarterback predicted. “That’s how you do it. That’s how you build in protection when you’re down a left tackle.”

And though Harbaugh described the setback as a gut punch, Hasselbeck noted there’s a thread of a silver lining.

“From the front-office part of it, this is actually not the worst timing,” he said. “Not that there are great left tackles on the street, but at least you can do something now in training camp.

“It’s not as dire as losing your star guy on Friday before Week 1, or losing him during Week 1. Also, when guys get hurt early in the year and you lose them for the season, they’re more ready to go earlier in the offseason the next year.”

Big blocker. Small consolation.

The L.A. teachers union and its allies held a rally Saturday calling on the school district to more aggressively fight for immigrant families, including by demanding that the federal government return all detained and deported students to Los Angeles.

School district officials — in both a statement and at the rally — downplayed the union’s confrontational tone and said they are united, along with various constituent groups, in supporting immigrant families.

The Saturday rally was held outside school district headquarters and included a march through downtown. It drew about 500 raucous participants, many of them wearing the bright red shirts associated with United Teachers Los Angeles, which represents about 38,000 teachers, counselors, social workers, nurses and librarians.

“Education not deportation,” they chanted.

And: “Say it loud! Say it clear! Immigrants are welcome here!”

Speakers at the rally included rising senior Vanessa Guerrero, who attends the nearby Miguel Contreras Learning Complex. She spoke about a classmate who was seized and deported.

“She was going to be a senior this year,” Vanessa said. “She’s known for coming to school every day, working hard, and she was an honors student. She did contribute to the community of the school. And was a great person.”

Her classmate and the girl’s mother were seized when they attended an immigration appointment, said Vanessa and others.

“Honestly, everybody is terrified,” Vanessa said.

The union called for a directly confrontational approach with the Trump administration — including involvement in litigation to protect immigrant rights. The school system is not currently involved in litigation with the Trump administration, officials said, although district leaders have strongly criticized its actions.

Specific union demands include establishing a two-block perimeter around schools where immigration agents would not be allowed.

It’s not clear that district officials or staff would have jurisdiction beyond school grounds.

Kindergarten teacher Esther Calderon joins hundreds of other educators in a Saturday rally calling for better protections and support for immigrant students and families.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

The union also called for a “formal campaign” that would work with families to update emergency cards and add additional trusted adults to the list of a family’s contacts, in case, for example, a student’s parents are detained.

L.A. schools Supt. Alberto Carvalho has said outreach for this purpose is ongoing.

The union also is calling for counselors to be paid to return to work prior to the first day of school to make sure families affected or potentially affected by immigration enforcement are willing and prepared to have their children return to school.

It’s not clear how many students or family members of students have been taken into custody or deported. The school district does not collect information on immigration status. A few cases have become high profile and widely reported on. In other instances, however, both district policy and privacy protections limit what the school system discloses.

Union leaders said they also want the district to provide food and personal care items “to undocumented families who are sheltering in place in their homes,” as well as provide a virtual learning option for students “who are afraid to attend school in person because of immigration raids.”

And they called for the district to develop a “pathway” for students who have been deported to earn their LAUSD diplomas through virtual completion of all required high school units, and to be a “leader” in providing legal support for all those affected by the immigration raids — including school staff who stand up in defense of immigrants.

The superintendent’s office had no immediate response to the specific demands, but school board President Scott Schmerelson said the district would consider any steps to protect and support families.

Schmerelson attended the Saturday rally as a spectator.

“Some of these ideas seem very workable,” Schmerelson said. “The superintendent is working on the safe passageways,” he said, referring to the concept of a safety perimeter.

In their chants, union members vowed to shut the school system down if it did not meet their demands — even though their hostility was more clearly directed toward the federal government.

“This violence affects all of us,” said UTLA President Cecily Myart-Cruz. “Immigrant students are Black, they’re brown and they’re Asian. And the trauma inflicted on these communities impacts every single one of them. When a student is torn from their family or lives in fear, their classmates feel it, too.”

She added: “The mental well-being of entire classrooms is at stake. That is why we demand LAUSD join educators in publicly calling our local and state leaders for the immediate return of all students who have been deported or detained so that they can resume their education.”

In a statement in response to the union rally, the school system emphasized shared goals.

“It is clear that Los Angeles Unified and our labor partners are united in our deep commitment to protect every student, including our immigrant children,” the statement said. “Together, we will continue to take every measure necessary to ensure that all children in Los Angeles are safe, supported, and educated — rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

At his traditional back-to-school address — classes begin Aug. 13 — Carvalho saluted two principals who, along with their staff, turned away immigration agents at two elementary school campuses.

The agents — who stopped at the schools on the same morning in April — said they were doing welfare checks on particular students but provided no documentation to support this claim.

The principals turned them away.

“You became shields, protecting the innocent lives of 7-, 8-, 10-year-olds from fear they should never, ever know,” Carvalho said in his remarks. “Yes, you followed protocol, but more importantly, you followed your conscience. Because of your conviction, … an unimaginable day did not become an unthinkable tragedy.”

School district officials have touted a list of measures taken to protect students and families and characterize campuses as a safe environment from which federal immigration agents will be excluded to the fullest extent of the law.

The union is involved in contract negotiations with Los Angeles Unified, the nation’s second-largest school system. It’s standard practice for the union to rally members around its contract demands and put pressure on the school system at this stage of negotiations, but Saturday’s rally was almost entirely focused on supporting those affected by immigration sweeps targeting the L.A. area under the Trump administration.

Dakota Ditcheva says she expects social media abuse to only get worse as she continues her fighting career.

The 27-year-old is fast becoming one of the most recognisable female faces in MMA and she has more than 300,000 followers on Instagram.

Ditcheva is used to going viral for her knockouts, but as calls grow for social media platforms and governments to do more to protect users, specifically female athletes, Ditcheva says he has stopped reading comments on her posts.

“[Hate] is a given in this sport, which is so upsetting to have to accept that and be prepared for that as a sports athlete and it’s something I’ve kind of been training myself for,” Ditcheva tells BBC Sport.

“My mum is constantly making sure I’m not reading certain things and preparing me for it getting worse and me avoiding it. I’m lucky I can speak to my parents and siblings.”

Ditcheva has spoken openly in the past about the sexualisation she faces on social media and recently had a man contact her mother claiming they were in love.

“I had a certain person who started messaging my mum and saying we’d been speaking, and that I liked their post which meant that we were together and in love, and it got really obsessive,” Ditcheva says.

“It kind of freaked me out and it got really intense, the type of stuff they were typing. I was lucky I had my mum who helped me deal with that and kind of explain what these people are going to be doing.

“This is not something we’re born to understand, and born to put up with these strange occurrences all the time, we’re just normal people living normal lives and getting worried about stuff.”

Information, in the second Trump administration, is a currency of power and fear. Last week, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced sweeping subpoenas targeting physicians and medical providers who offer care for transgender youth. The aim is not to initiate prosecutions: Indeed, the legal theories upon which such prosecutions might rest are tenuous at best.

By filing these investigative demands, the government plainly hopes to chill medical providers from offering expert care. This strategy can work even if, at the end of the day, the government’s threats are hollow as a matter of law. The White House’s plainly unconstitutional attacks on law firms, for example, have substantially worked — even though the minority of firms to challenge the orders rapidly won relief.

Fortunately, the legal system is not powerless in the face of such overreaching: Federal district courts have the authority, and the obligation, to recognize that patient-physician dealings are akin to attorney-client and spousal discussions. Both of the latter benefit from judicially created privileges — or legal shields that individuals can invoke against the state’s probing. At a moment when not just gender medicine but also reproductive care more generally is in peril, federal courts can and should step in and shield intimately private medical data as well.

We suspect that many people believe that what they tell their doctors is already private. They’re right, but only sort of. There’s a federal law called HIPAA that limits what your doctor can do with the information. It says that your doctor can’t, for instance, sell your medical records to the newspaper. In 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services also issued a HIPAA “privacy rule” that heightened protections for reproductive healthcare information. (Last month, a federal district court in Texas declared the rule unconstitutional — so its future is uncertain.)

Even with the privacy rule, however, HIPAA hides a gaping hole: It allows disclosures “required by law.” And the law explicitly permits disclosures pursuant to subpoenas of all kinds — judicial, grand jury or administrative — including those issued by Bondi. So if the Justice Department subpoenas your intimate and sensitive healthcare information, HIPAA won’t stop that.

In previous academic work, we’ve urged Congress and state legislatures to fill this gap. Blue states have acted to curtail cooperation with other states — but there’s a limit to what states can do when the federal government demands information.

Yet there remains one entity that can, and should, act immediately to shield reproductive healthcare information: the same federal district courts that have been at the forefront of pushing back on the Trump administration’s many illegal and constitutional actions. We think federal courts should extend existing “privileges,” as evidentiary shields are called, to encompass both records of gender-affirming and transgender medical care, and also records of reproductive care more generally.

A privilege not only bars protected information from being admitted into evidence at trial, but also blocks subpoenas, warrants and other court orders.

Federal district courts have a general power to create privileges, and they often do so when people already have a reasonable expectation that their conversations will not be disclosed. Most people have heard of the attorney-client privilege, which means that you can confide in your lawyer without worrying that what you say will end up being used in court. But privileges can apply to all sorts of other information as well: what you tell your spouse, what you tell your spiritual advisor and even highway safety data that your state reports to the feds in exchange for funding. Existing court-created privileges protect not only attorney-client but also executive-branch communications.

Federal courts should recognize a privilege for doctor-patient communications in gender and reproductive medicine. They could do so if one of the physicians subpoenaed recently goes to court. The protection they seek is simply an extension of widely recognized legal principles and expectations of privacy. Federal courts already have recognized a privilege for patient communications with psychotherapists, and many state courts also offer privilege protections for broader doctor-patient communications.

Importantly, it is the job of federal district courts to craft evidence-related rules. After all, these are the judges who are closest to litigants and the mechanics of evidence protection. District courts don’t need to wait around for the Supreme Court to act on this, because the Federal Rules of Evidence left privileges to common law development in the district courts. And under the well-established balancing test that lower federal courts should follow when they create new privileges, we think our proposed privilege is an easy case: It serves a public purpose and protects what should be recognized as a valued interest of “transcendent importance” — privacy for our most intimate medical care.

The case for recognizing the privilege in respect to the recent subpoenas is especially strong: The attorney general is seeking to chill physicians from providing advice that is protected by the 1st Amendment and care that is guaranteed by federal statutes. Such subpoenas are directly at odds with the rule of law.

Today, it is trans kids; tomorrow, it will be people seeking an abortion or contraception. We should not have to wait for the federal government to go this far before our privacy gets the shield that it deserves.

Aziz Huq and Rebecca Wexler are professors of law at the University of Chicago Law School and Columbia Law School, respectively.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is ending the temporary status for nearly 80,000 Hondurans and Nicaraguans that has allowed them to live and work in the U.S. for a quarter of a century after a devastating hurricane hit Central America, according to federal government notices — a move that comes as the White House pushes to make more immigrants in the U.S. eligible for deportation.

The notices are part of a wider effort by the current administration to make good on campaign promises to carry out mass deportations of immigrants. It’s doing this by going after people in the country illegally or those who’ve committed crimes that make them eligible for deportation but also by removing protections from hundreds of thousands of people, many admitted under the Biden administration.

Temporary Protected Status is a temporary protection that can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people of various nationalities who are in the United States, which prevents them from being deported and allows them to work. The Trump administration has aggressively been seeking to remove the protection, thus making more people eligible for removal.

Administration says conditions have changed

The Department of Homeland Security said Monday in the Federal Register — in a notice set to become official on Tuesday — that Secretary Kristi Noem had reviewed the country conditions in Honduras and Nicaragua. She concluded the situations there had improved enough since the initial decision in 1999 that people currently protected by those temporary designations could return home.

The department estimated that roughly 72,000 Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans in the U.S. are covered by the status that will now expire in about two months. However, the TPS Alliance, which advocates for immigrants covered by these temporary protections, estimated that about 40,000 Hondurans would be affected because many had obtained legal residency through various immigration channels.

Temporary Protected Status for both nationalities expired Saturday. The notices said the protections will be terminated 60 days after the notices are officially published in the Federal Register.

TPS is usually granted when conditions in someone’s home country make it difficult to return. People covered by it must register with the Department of Homeland Security and then they’re protected from being deported and can work.

However, it does not grant them a pathway to citizenship and the secretary must renew it regularly, often in 18-month intervals.

When their status officially ends, Hondurans and Nicaraguans currently covered by the Temporary Protected Status can be deported and their work permits will be terminated if they can’t find another avenue to stay in the country.

Critics say ‘temporary’ became permanent

Critics say that successive administrations — especially the Biden administration — essentially rubber-stamped these renewals regardless, and people covered by what’s supposed to be a temporary status end up staying in the United States for years.

The Trump administration has already terminated TPS for about 350,000 Venezuelans, 500,000 Haitians, more than 160,000 Ukrainians, and thousands of people from Afghanistan, Nepal and Cameroon. Some of them, like Venezuelans, Haitians and Ukrainians, have pending lawsuits at federal courts.

An additional 250,000 Venezuelans are still protected under TPS until September, as well as thousands of Syrians. TPS for Ethiopians expires in December, for Yemenis and Somalians in March 2026, and for Salvadoreans in September 2026.

During the Biden administration, the number of people protected by TPS grew significantly. Nearly 1 million Venezuelans and Haitians were protected.

Jose Palma, co-coordinator at the National TPS Alliance, said the termination announced Monday will affect people who have lived in the United States for nearly three decades.

“They have established families. Investments. It is a community that …. has undergone annual background checks, that has shown … all its contributions to this country,” Palma said. “It’s cruel what’s happening.”

Litigation delayed ending the protections

Temporary protections for both countries were initially granted in 1999 following 1998’s Hurricane Mitch. The first Trump administration attempted to end the protections but they both remained in place after litigation.

Homeland Security wrote in the Federal Register notice that Honduras had “witnessed significant changes in the 26 years since Hurricane Mitch’s destruction.”

“Honduras has made significant progress recovering from the hurricane’s destruction and is now a popular tourism and real estate investment destination,” the department wrote. The department said the Honduran government in January had launched a plan called “Brother, Come Home,” which aims to help Hondurans deported from the U.S. with money and help finding a job.

Of Nicaragua, Noem wrote: “Nicaragua has made significant progress recovering from the hurricane’s destruction with the help of the international community and is now a growing tourism, ecotourism, agriculture, and renewable energy leader.”

Honduras Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Antonio García expressed disappointment at the announcement Monday.

“They argue that Honduras has foreign investment, tourism and its program ‘Honduran come home’ and that there are conditions to return,” García said. But he said it was the anti-immigrant sentiment of the Trump administration that was really behind it.

“They came to power with that and they’re getting it done for their electorate,” he said.

Francis García has lived in the United States for almost 30 years and has been a TPS beneficiary for 25. Her three adult children were born in the United States, a country she considers her own.

“I feel sad, worried and scared,” said Garcia, 48, who never went back to her country. “I am very afraid to return to Honduras. I can’t imagine it; I wouldn’t want to.”

Like Garcia, Teofilo Martinez, 57, has lived half of his life in the U.S., most of it under TPS protection. He arrived with nothing but now has his own construction company and he is also a Realtor.

“We ask that our good behavior and contributions be taken into consideration,” Martinez said. “There are no conditions in Honduras for us to return.”

Santana and Salomon write for the Associated Press. Salomon reported from Miami. Marlon González in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, contributed to this report.

July 4 (UPI) — Former daytime television talk show host Phil McGraw‘s JV Merit Street Media has filed for bankruptcy protection and sued its business partner, Trinity Broadcasting, for breach of contract, saying it destroyed his television network.

McGraw, known as Dr. Phil, hosted his talk show for 21 years before it ended after the 2022-2023 season, a program that remained on the air in syndication.

Merit Street’s lawsuit focuses on Christian television broadcaster Trinity Broadcasting Network, and claims it violated distribution agreements.

“Trinity Broadcasting Network is being sued by Merit Street Media for failing to provide clearly agreed upon national distribution and other significant foundational commitments critical to the network’s continuing success and viability,” according to a statement from MSM, Deadline.com reported. “The suit is part of a restructuring proceeding also initiated by MSM.”

TBN was founded in 1973 by televangelist Paul Crouch and his wife, Jan, and is currently operated by Matthew Crouch. In 2000, Paul Crouch was sued for $40 million by author Sylvia Fleener, who accused Paul Crouch of plagiarism in his book The Omega Code, which had an apocalyptic, end times theme.

Crouch was also accused of paying a former male employee $425,000 to keep the man quiet about a sexual relationship Crouch had with him.

Under terms of the deal, TBN was to distribute original versions of McGraw’s content at no cost in exchange for a controlling equity interest in the network, the lawsuit said.

The Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing comes just weeks after the company laid off 40 employees, the second round of job cuts which followed layoffs in Aug. 2024 that saw the company release a third of its staff.

Del Monte’s losses have piled up as consumers choose healthier or cheaper alternatives.

Del Monte Foods, the 139-year-old company best known for its canned fruits and vegetables, is filing for bankruptcy protection as consumers in the United States increasingly bypass its products for healthier or cheaper options.

Del Monte announced the bankruptcy filing late Tuesday.

Del Monte, which also owns the Contadina tomato brand, College Inn and Kitchen Basics broth brands and the Joyba bubble tea brand, has secured $912.5m in debtor-in-possession financing that will allow it to operate normally as the sale progresses.

The Walnut Creek, California-based brand has assets and liabilities ranging from $1bn to $10bn, according to a filing in a New Jersey bankruptcy court.

“After a thorough evaluation of all available options, we determined a court-supervised sale process is the most effective way to accelerate our turnaround and create a stronger and enduring Del Monte Foods,” CEO Greg Longstreet said in a statement.

The company has seen sales growth of Joyba and broth in the 2024 fiscal year, but not enough to offset weaker sales of Del Monte’s signature canned products.

“Consumer preferences have shifted away from preservative-laden canned food in favour of healthier alternatives,” Sarah Foss, global head of legal and restructuring at Debtwire, a financial consultancy, told the news agency The Associated Press.

Grocery inflation also caused consumers to seek out cheaper store brands. Last month, the consumer price index report showed a 0.3 percent increase in the price of food and 2.2 percent compared with this time last year.

Another blow is expected from US President Donald Trump’s 50 percent tariff on imported steel. This went into effect in June and will also push up the price that Del Monte and others pay for cans.

Del Monte Foods, which is owned by Singapore’s Del Monte Pacific, was also hit with a lawsuit last year by a group of lenders that objected to the company’s debt restructuring plan. The case was settled in May with a loan that increased Del Monte’s interest expenses by $4m annually, according to a company statement.

Del Monte’s stock is about even from the market open, and it is up 4.62 percent over the last five days.

With the holiday season fast approaching, most people will be busy seeking out the perfect destination. However, for chief holiday officers (CHOs), trip planning goes well beyond the simple question of “where to go?”. While everyone else is dreaming about sipping cocktails by the pool or taking in the unforgettable vistas from a popular hiking path, CHOs are the ones building the “who’s paid what?” spreadsheets, reading every single review in painstaking detail, and downloading the multitude of apps that will introduce everyone to a wealth of local experiences. Yes, they are the people who thrive on good planning. CHOs love a bit of legwork, get great satisfaction in thinking of the unthinkable, and exude the role of organiser – especially when it comes to putting together a trip to remember.

Grants have also recently been made available towards the cost of any fertility treatment, and earlier this year the WTA introduced paid maternity leave for the first time.

More than 320 players are now eligible for up to 12 months paid leave – with everyone receiving the same amount, irrespective of their ranking.

Returning to the tour after maternity leave started to become easier when the WTA changed the rules before the 2019 season.

New mothers are able to use their previous ranking to enter 12 tournaments over a three-year period from the birth of their child.

The WTA also offers access to a health team, which offers physical assessments, mental health support and guidance on a staged return to play for new mothers and pregnant players.

German Tatjana Maria, who is ranked 81st in the world, has two children and returned to the tour after both pregnancies.

The 37-year-old welcomed the action by the WTA but believes more can be done to assist mothers on tour.

“I think there is still opportunities to help the WTA players and the mums on tour,” she told BBC Radio 5 live.

“Even now having two kids on tour there are still issues. The WTA could change a little bit, whether it is [related to] hotel rooms or accreditation to make life easier.

“It is helpful to help [as they are doing] but also to help the mums on tour.”

Tennis is not the first sport to offer support to women wishing to freeze their eggs, with the American basketball league the WNBA offering up to $60,000 (£52,500) reimbursement to players for fertility treatment including egg freezing.

High-profile athletes have spoken about their decision to freeze their eggs, including England cricket captain Nat Sciver-Brunt and former England netballer Geva Mentor.