reform

Zia Yusuf, a self-described ‘British Muslim patriot’, leaves a party accused of fuelling Islamophobia after 11 months.

The Muslim chairman of the United Kingdom’s radical right-wing Reform UK party has quit after denouncing a call from within party ranks to ban the burqa as “dumb”.

“I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office,” Zia Yusuf announced on X on Thursday, hours after hitting out at Reform UK lawmaker Sarah Pochin for asking Prime Minister Keir Starmer whether his government would consider banning the burqa.

Pochin won her seat in a by-election last month that saw the anti-immigration party, some of whose members have been accused of Islamophobia, make significant gains in a political landscape traditionally dominated by the governing Labour Party and the opposition Conservatives.

The new lawmaker had urged Labour’s Starmer during her debut appearance at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday if he would consider the move “in the interests of public safety”, according to the BBC.

“I do think it’s dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn’t do,” Yusuf said on X amid an ensuing flare-up over whether banning the burqa should be party policy.

Yusuf, a former banker and self-described “proud British Muslim patriot”, became Reform UK chairman after last year’s general election, having jumped ship from the Conservative Party.

Reform UK, led by Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage, won four parliamentary seats in a breakthrough result last year, going on to gain a fifth parliamentary seat, its first mayoralty and a number of council seats in local elections last month.

It currently leads national opinion polls, ahead of the Labour Party.

Farage said on X that Yusuf was “a huge factor in our success on May 1st and is an enormously talented person”.

Divisions in the party’s upper ranks have been made public before.

In March, Reform referred one of its lawmakers, Rupert Lowe, to police over a number of allegations, including threats of physical violence against Yusuf.

Prosecutors later said they would not bring charges against Lowe, who was suspended by the party.

REFORM was plunged into a chaotic civil war last night after its chairman Zia Yusuf announced he’s quitting the party.

Mr Yusuf announced on social media that after 11 months in the job “I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time”.

3

3

Insiders said that the chairman had felt “shafted” into running the party’s DOGE efficiency unit, aimed at slashing waste in local authorities.

He also earlier on Thursday clashed with Reform’s newest MP, Sarah Pochin, over the idea of a burqa ban.

Mr Yusuf said: “Eleven months ago I became Chairman of Reform.

“I’ve worked full time as a volunteer to take the party from 14 to 30 per cent, quadrupled its membership and delivered historic electoral results.

“I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office.”

Mr Yusuf was seen as a rising star in the party and close ally of Nigel Farage.

While not an MP, the entrepreneur fronted several of the parties press conferences.

He worked as chairman in a voluntary capacity.

Cracks in Mr Yusuf’s relationship with the wider Reform party started show months ago – but a major row over banning face coverings brought simmering tensions to boiling point.

Responding to Ms Pochin’s demand for a burqa ban, Mr Yusuf blasted: “Nothing to do with me.

“I do think it’s dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something party itself wouldn’t do.”

The comment contradicted strong statements in favour of a ban from Deputy Leader Richard Tice and whip Lee Anderson.

Reform is riding high in the polls but behind the scenes, it’s been no stranger to bloodletting.

Earlier this year, a brutal row saw MP Rupert Lowe suspended after Mr Yusuf reported him to police for alleged threats and bullying – claims later dropped by prosecutors.

Mr Lowe denied everything, accused party bosses of smearing him with “vexatious” claims, and said Mr Farage had stabbed him in the back for daring to push internal reforms.

Ben Habib, former deputy leader, backed him and blasted Mr Yusuf’s handling of the row, accusing Mr Farage of running Reform like a dictatorship.

The chairman’s resignation is just the latest bust-up in a long line of power struggles under Mr Farage’s watch, echoing the UKIP years when infighting over Islam, immigration and leadership led to splinter groups and walkouts.

This comes after Farage earlier this week blasted “net stupid zero” for obliterating the UK’s oil industry, ahead of a showdown Scottish by-election on tomorrow.

The Reform chief drew battle lines against the SNP as he warned Scotland is “literally de-industrialising before our eyes”.

In Aberdeen Mr Farage slammed the nats, led by First Minister John Swinney, for sacrificing an entire industry and thousands of jobs at the alter of green diktats.

He claimed neighbouring Norway is “laughing” as it watches ministers import Scandinavian fossil fuels while dismantling local industry.

Against the shouts of protesters, at a posh fish and chips restaurant the Reform leader said: “We can con ourselves as much as we like.

“There will be more coal burned this year than ever before in the history of human kind. The same applies to oil and gas.

“Even the most adren proponent of net zero has to accept the world will still be using oil and gas up until 2050 and beyond. 

“And yet we’ve decided to sacrifice this industry as a consensus around Net Zero has emerged.”

Mr Farage added that the fight to save oil and gas is “almost the next Brexit“.

He said: “Believe me, the scales are falling from the eyes of the public when it comes to Net Zero.

“They realise we are putting upon ourselves a massive cost, let alone the opportunity cost of what we’re missing…

“When we closed down refineries.. and steelworks… all we’re doing is exporting the emissions of CO2 with the goods then being shipped back to us.

“The public are waking up to this.”

It comes ahead of a Hoylrood by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse on Thursday, described by Reform Deputy Leader Richard Tice as an “absolute cat fight” with the SNP and Labour.

Mr Farage acknowledged it would be an “earthquake” level shock if Reform’s candidate wins the seat.

But activists have reported being surprised at levels of support on the doorstep.

Mr Farage insisted the Reform “can replicate success in Scotland”.

3

More to follow… For the latest news on this story keep checking back at The Sun Online

Thesun.co.uk is your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures and must-see video.

Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/thesun and follow us from our main Twitter account at @TheSun.

On a recent morning inside San Quentin prison, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman and more than a dozen other prosecutors crowded into a high-ceilinged meeting hall surrounded by killers, rapists and other serious offenders.

Name the crime, one of these guys has probably done it.

“It’s not every day that you’re in a room of 100 people, most of whom have committed murder, extremely violent crimes, and been convicted of it,” Hochman later said.

Many of these men, in their casual blue uniforms, were serving long sentences with little chance of getting out, like Marlon Arturo Melendez, an L.A. native who is now in for murder.

Melendez sat in a “sharing circle,” close enough to Hochman that their knees could touch, no bars between them. They chatted about the decrease in gang violence in the decades since Melendez was first incarcerated more than 20 years ago, and Melendez said he found Hochman “interesting.”

Inside San Quentin, this kind of interaction between inmates and guests isn’t unusual. For decades, the prison by the Bay has been doing incarceration differently, cobbling together a system that focuses on accountability and rehabilitation.

Like the other men in the room, Melendez takes responsibility for the harm he caused, and every day works to be a better man. When he introduces himself, he names his victims — an acknowledgment that what he did can’t be undone but also an acknowledgment that he doesn’t have to remain the same man who pulled the trigger.

Whether or not Melendez or any of these men ever walk free, what was once California’s most notorious lockup is now a place that offers them the chance to change and provides the most elusive of emotions for prisoners — hope.

Creating that culture is a theory and practice of imprisonment that Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to make the standard across the state.

He’s dubbed it the California Model, but as I’ve written about before, it’s common practice in other countries (and even in a few places in the United States). It’s based on a simple truth about incarceration: Most people who go into prison come out again. Public safety demands that they behave differently when they do.

“We are either paying to keep them here or we are paying if they come back out and harm somebody,” said Brooke Jenkins, the district attorney of San Francisco, who has visited San Quentin regularly for years.

Jenkins was the organizer of this unusual day that brought district attorneys from around the state inside of San Quentin to gain a better understanding of how the California Model works, and why even tough-on-crime district attorneys should support transforming our prisons.

As California does an about-face away from a decade of progressive criminal justice advances with new crackdowns such as those promised by the recently passed Proposition 36 (which is expected to increase the state inmate population), it is also continuing to move ahead with the controversial plan to remake prison culture, both for inmates and guards, by centering on rehabilitation over punishment.

Despite a tough economic year that is requiring the state to slash spending, Newsom has kept intact more than $200 million from the prior budget to revamp San Quentin so that its outdated facilities can support more than just locking up folks in cells.

Some of that construction, already happening on the grounds, is expected to be completed next year. It will make San Quentin the most visible example of the California Model. But changes in how inmates and guards interact and what rehabilitation opportunities are available are already underway at prisons across the state.

It is an overdue and profound transformation that has the potential to not only improve public safety and save money in the long run, but to fundamentally reshape what incarceration means across the country.

Jenkins’ push to help more prosecutors understand and value this metamorphosis might be crucial to helping the public support it as well — especially for those D.A.s whose constituents are just fine with a system that locks up men to suffer for their (often atrocious) crimes. Or even those Californians, such as many in San Francisco and Los Angeles, who are just fed up with the perception that California is soft on criminals.

“It’s not about moderate or progressive, but I think all of us that are moderates have to admit that there are reforms that still need to happen,” Jenkins told me as we walked through the prison yard. She took office after the successful recall of her progressive predecessor, Chesa Boudin, and a rightward shift in San Francisco on crime policy.

Still, she is vocal about the need for second chances. For her, prison reform is about more than the California Model, but a broader lens that includes the perspectives of incarcerated people, and their insights on what they need to make rehabilitation work.

“It really grounds you in your obligation to make sure that the culture in the [district attorney’s] office is fair,” she said.

For Hochman, a former federal prosecutor and defense lawyer who resoundingly ousted progressive George Gascón last year, rehabilitation makes sense. He likes to paraphrase a Fyodor Dostoevsky quote, “The degree of civilization in a society is revealed by entering its prisons.”

“In my perfect world, the education system, the family system, the community, would have done all this work on the front end such that these people wouldn’t have been in position to commit crimes in the first place,” he said. But when that fails, it’s up to the criminal justice system to help people fix themselves.

Despite being perceived as a tough-on-crime D.A. (he prefers “fair on crime”) he’s so committed to that goal of rehabilitation that he is determined to push for a new Men’s Central Jail in Los Angeles County — an expensive (billions) and unpopular idea that he says is long overdue but critical to public safety.

“Los Angeles County is absolutely failing because our prisons and jails are woefully inadequate,” he said.

He’s quick to add that rehabilitation isn’t for everyone. Some just aren’t ready for it. Some don’t care. The inmates of San Quentin agree with him. They are often fiercely vocal about who gets transferred to the prison, knowing that its success relies on having incarcerated people who want to change — one rogue inmate at San Quentin could ruin it for all of them.

“It has to be a choice. You have to understand that for yourself,” Oscar Acosta told me. Now 32, he’s a “CDC baby,” as he puts it — referring to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation — and has been behind bars since he was 18. He credits San Quentin with helping him accept responsibility for his crimes and see a path forward.

When the California Model works, as the district attorneys saw, it’s obvious what its value is. Men who once were nothing but dangerous have the option to live different lives, with different values. Even if they remain incarcerated.

“After having been considered the worst of the worst, today I am a new man,” Melendez told me. “I hope (the district attorneys) were able to see real change in those who sat with them and be persuaded that rehabilitation over punishment is more fruitful and that justice seasoned with restoration is better for all.”

Melendez and the other incarcerated men at San Quentin aspire for us to see them as more than their worst actions. And they take heart that even prosecutors like Jenkins and Hochman, who put them behind bars, sometimes with triple-digit sentences, do see that the past does not always determine the future, and that investing in their change is an investment in safer communities.

May 30 (UPI) — Nearly 100 million Mexicans are set to take part in an unprecedented election on June 1 that will reshape the country’s judiciary.

Voters will elect 881 judicial officials, including Supreme Court justices, electoral magistrates, district judges and circuit court magistrates, under a sweeping reform originally pushed by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and backed by current President Claudia Sheinbaum.

Initially presented in 2014 as a step toward democratizing justice and combating corruption, the reform has drawn mounting criticism from legal experts, academics and civil society organizations. Many warn it could erode judicial independence, increase political interference, and weaken the rule of law.

An analysis by Stanford Law School’s Rule of Law Impact Lab and the Mexican Bar Association warns that electing judges by popular vote compromises their independence and impartiality by aligning judicial decisions with public opinion rather than strictly with the law.

It also highlights the risk that judicial rulings will be influenced by judicial election campaign donors.

Academics, legal experts and civil society organizations have raised concerns about the complexity of the electoral process, highlighting several key issues.

First, the proposed reform has been criticized for a lack of clear criteria to assess candidates’ qualifications.

Candidates are only required to hold a law degree, have at least five years of professional experience, no criminal record, and a good reputation. Candidates are also asked to submit a legal essay and letters of recommendation.

Studies show that the selected candidates have, on average, 20 fewer years of experience than the judges they are replacing under the reform. Many of the candidates also come from outside the judiciary and lack the training and background needed to carry out judicial duties effectively.

Second, voters in Mexico have received limited information despite the complexity of the process, which includes six ballots and more than 7,000 candidates competing for 2,600 local and federal judicial seats.

The Judicial Electoral Observatory, or OEJ, has warned that voters are not receiving adequate information, compromising electoral fairness. One factor is that the National Electoral Institute, or INE, received 52% less funding than it requested, limiting its ability to provide outreach and education.

The OEJ also criticized the ballot design and inconsistent selection standards across the evaluation committees, saying these issues undermine the legitimacy of the process and make it difficult for voters to make informed choices.

Third, the judicial reform has raised serious concerns about the influence of political actors and power groups in the process. The complexity of the changes and the short, eight-month timeline to organize the election may have created openings for political parties to assert control in parts of the country.

Organizations including México Evalúa, the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics, or CIDE, and the National Autonomous University of Mexico, or UNAM, have warned that the system could allow political, economic or criminal interests to infiltrate the judiciary, especially in regions where organized crime is strong.

Many of the candidates have ties to the ruling party, said Luis F. Fernández, executive director of Practica: Laboratorio para la Democracia, in an interview with CNN en Español.

“We’ve identified others linked to the country’s 10 wealthiest businessmen, and more than 15 candidates connected to drug trafficking,” he said.

The popular election of judges is rare internationally and, where it exists, is usually limited to local or mid-level courts.

In most democratic countries, judges are appointed by technical committees, the judiciary or the executive branch with legislative approval. The goal is to preserve judicial independence and prevent politicization.

Mexico’s proposed model — a direct, large-scale, nationwide election of judges at all levels, including the Supreme Court — is unprecedented.

Reform UK has said it will fully reinstate winter fuel payments to pensioners and scrap the two-child benefit cap, if the party gets into government.

The commitments – to be unveiled at a press conference next week – come after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faced pressure from Labour MPs to change his approach to both policies.

By the time of the next general election there may be no need to reverse either policy.

Sir Keir has already announced plans to ease cuts to winter fuel payments – without saying when or how.

And ministers say he has privately indicated he would like if possible to find a way to scrap the two-child benefit cap – although a formal decision may be many months away.

The intervention by Nigel Farage – first reported in the Sunday Telegraph – will highlight and magnify the increasingly awkward divisions over policy within Labour.

Reform UK said they would pay for their new polices by cutting net zero projects and scrapping hotels for asylum seekers.

A source told the paper it was “already outflanking Labour” on both issues.

Downing Street has been contacted for comment.

More than 10 million pensioners lost out on winter fuel payments, worth up to £300, when the pension top-up became restricted to only people receiving pension credit last year.

But Sir Keir has announced plans to ease the cuts in a U-turn following mounting political pressure in recent weeks.

The prime minster said the policy would be changed at the autumn Budget, adding ministers would only “make decisions we can afford”. He did not lay out exactly what this would entail.

The winter fuel payment is a lump sum of £200 a year for households with a pensioner under 80, or £300 for households with a pensioner over 80.

On the two-child benefit cap, the Observer reported Sir Keir had privately backed plans to scrap it.

The paper’s report that the PM was asking the Treasury to find ways to pay for it came alongside growing unrest and threats of rebellion among backbench Labour MPs.

The policy – which prevents most families from claiming means-tested benefits for any third or additional children born after April 2017 – was introduced in 2017 by the then-Conservative government and is estimated to affect 1.5 million families.

But the government’s child poverty strategy, which had been due for publication in the spring, has been delayed as it is still being worked on and measures including scrapping the cap are being considered.

Labour MPs have long been calling for it to be axed, with seven of them suspended from the parliamentary party for voting against the government on an amendment to do so.

Four were readmitted in February but the remainder continue to sit as independent MPs.

Pressure to remove the limit has remained on the government from senior Labour figures, including former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said it was “condemning children to poverty”.

The resurgence of conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo has drawn renewed international attention following M23’s swift capture of Goma and Bukavu in late January 2025. In response, global actors have called for an immediate ceasefire and direct negotiations. Notably, Qatar and the United States have stepped forward as emerging mediators. This new momentum offers a rare opportunity to revisit the shortcomings of past mediation efforts – particularly failures in disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR), wealth-sharing, and regional consensus. Any new diplomatic initiative must prioritise these elements to forge a durable settlement and lasting regional stability.

To achieve a sustainable and enduring peace in eastern DRC, it is essential to address the root causes of the conflict. The region’s vast deposits of natural resources – especially rare earth minerals – have attracted international, regional and local actors competing for control, fuelling instability. Compounding this is the Congolese central government’s limited capacity to govern the eastern provinces, enabling the proliferation of armed groups with diverse allegiances. Ethnic tensions further exacerbate the crisis, particularly since the 1994 Rwandan genocide, after which the arrival of Hutu refugees and the formation of hostile militias heightened insecurity and cross-border conflict.

While regional dynamics, including Rwandan involvement, are undeniably significant, attributing the conflict solely to Rwanda risks oversimplification. Such narratives obscure the DRC’s longstanding structural inequalities, particularly the marginalisation of Congolese Tutsi communities. A durable peace must engage with these internal dynamics by ensuring the meaningful inclusion of Congolese Tutsi in the national political framework and addressing their grievances through equitable and just mechanisms.

Despite repeated international engagement, past mediation efforts in eastern DRC – from the Pretoria Agreement to the 2009 peace accords – have consistently failed to deliver lasting peace. These initiatives were undermined by structural weaknesses that eroded both their credibility and effectiveness.

A central flaw has been the absence of credible enforcement mechanisms. Most agreements relied on voluntary compliance and lacked robust, impartial monitoring frameworks capable of verifying implementation or deterring violations. Where monitoring mechanisms existed, they were often under-resourced, poorly coordinated, or perceived as biased. The international community’s inconsistent attention and limited political will to exert sustained pressure further undermined these efforts. In the absence of meaningful accountability, armed groups and political elites repeatedly violated agreements without consequence, fuelling a cycle of impunity and renewed violence.

Equally problematic has been the exclusionary nature of the peace processes. Negotiations were often dominated by political and military elites, sidelining civil society, grassroots communities, and particularly women – actors essential for building sustainable peace. Without broad-based participation, the accords failed to reflect the realities on the ground or earn the trust of local populations.

Moreover, these efforts largely ignored the root causes of the conflict, such as land disputes, ethnic marginalisation, governance failures and competition over natural resources. By prioritising short-term ceasefires and elite power-sharing arrangements, mediators overlooked the deeper structural issues that drive instability.

DDR programs – vital to breaking the conflict cycle – have also been inadequately designed and poorly executed. Many former combatants were left without viable livelihoods, creating fertile ground for re-recruitment into armed groups and further violence.

Crucially, these flaws were compounded by a lack of political will within the Congolese government. Successive administrations have, at times, instrumentalised peace talks to consolidate power rather than to advance genuine reform, undermining implementation and eroding public confidence.

More recent efforts, such as the Luanda and Nairobi processes, aimed to revive political dialogue and de-escalate tensions. However, they too have struggled to gain legitimacy. Critics argue that both initiatives were top-down, narrowly political and failed to include the voices of those most affected by the conflict. Civil society actors and marginalised communities perceived these dialogues as superficial and disconnected from local realities.

These processes also fell short in addressing the underlying drivers of violence – displacement, land ownership disputes, poor governance and the reintegration of ex-combatants. Without credible mechanisms for local participation or structural reform, the Luanda and Nairobi processes came to be seen more as diplomatic performances than genuine pathways to peace.

Taken together, these recurring shortcomings explain why international mediation efforts in DRC have largely failed. For any new initiative – including those led by Qatar and the United States – to succeed, it must move beyond these limitations and embrace a more inclusive, accountable and locally rooted approach.

The latest round of international facilitation – led by the United States and Qatar, alongside African-led efforts by the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) under Togolese President Faure Gnassingbe – offers renewed potential for meaningful progress. However, success will depend on whether these efforts can overcome the systemic failures that have plagued previous mediation attempts.

To chart a more effective and durable path to peace, Qatari and American engagement should be guided by three core principles drawn from past experience:

First, prioritise inclusive participation. Previous peace processes were largely elite-driven, involving governments and armed groups while excluding civil society, women and affected communities. This lack of inclusivity weakened legitimacy and failed to address the grievances of those most impacted by violence. A credible mediation process must include these actors to build a broad-based coalition for peace and ensure that negotiated outcomes reflect the lived realities of eastern DRC communities.

Second, address the root causes of the conflict – not just its symptoms. Earlier efforts focused narrowly on ceasefires and power-sharing, without tackling the structural drivers of instability. Effective mediation must engage with unresolved land disputes, ethnic marginalization, governance failures and the socioeconomic reintegration of former combatants. Without addressing these underlying issues, any agreement will be fragile and short-lived.

Third, establish credible enforcement and accountability mechanisms. One of the most persistent weaknesses of past agreements has been the absence of strong implementation tools. Agreements often lacked independent monitoring bodies, clear benchmarks and consequences for violations. The international community, including Qatar and the United States, must commit to sustained diplomatic pressure and support mechanisms that can ensure compliance and respond decisively to breaches. Without this, the risk of relapse into violence remains high.

By adopting these principles, current mediation efforts stand a greater chance of breaking the cycle of failed peace initiatives and laying the groundwork for a more just and lasting resolution in eastern DRC.

The crisis has once again reached a critical juncture. The involvement of new actors such as Qatar and the United States, working alongside African regional mechanisms, presents a rare opportunity to reset the approach to peacebuilding. By learning from past failures and committing to an inclusive, root cause oriented, and enforceable mediation framework, these efforts can move beyond temporary fixes and lay the foundation for a durable peace – one that finally addresses the aspirations and grievances of the Congolese people.

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

The administration of President Donald Trump has begun the process of ending the federal government’s involvement in reforming local police departments, a civil rights effort that gained steam after the deaths of unarmed Black people like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

On Wednesday, the United States Department of Justice announced it would cancel two proposed settlements that would have seen the cities of Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, agree to federal oversight of their police departments.

Generally, those settlements — called consent decrees — involve a series of steps and goals that the two parties negotiate and that a federal court helps enforce.

In addition, the Justice Department said it would withdraw reports on six other local police departments which found patterns of discrimination and excessive violence.

The Trump administration framed the announcement as part of its efforts to transfer greater responsibility towards individual cities and states — and away from the federal government.

“It’s our view at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division under the Trump administration that federal micromanagement of local police should be a rare exception, and not the norm,” said Harmeet Dhillon, an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said.

She argued that such federal oversight was a waste of taxpayer funds.

“There is a lack of accountability. There is a lack of local control. And there is an industry here that is, I think, ripping off the taxpayers and making citizens less safe,” Dhillon said.

But civil rights leaders and police reform advocates reacted with outrage over the news, which arrived just days before the fifth anniversary of Floyd’s murder.

Reverend Al Sharpton was among the leaders who called for police departments to take meaningful action after a viral video captured Floyd’s final moments. On May 25, 2020, a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, leaned his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes, causing him to asphyxiate and die.

“This move isn’t just a policy reversal,” Sharpton said. “It’s a moral retreat that sends a chilling message that accountability is optional when it comes to Black and Brown victims.”

He warned that the Trump administration’s move sent a signal to police departments that they were “above scrutiny”.

The year of Floyd’s murder was also marked by a number of other high-profile deaths, including Taylor’s.

The 26-year-old medical worker was in bed late at night on March 13, 2020, when police used a battering ram to break into her apartment. Her boyfriend feared they were being attacked and fired his gun once. The police responded with a volley of bullets, killing Taylor, who was struck six times.

Her death and others stirred a period of nationwide unrest in the US, with millions of people protesting in the streets as part of social justice movements like Black Lives Matter. It is thought that the 2020 “racial reckoning” was one of the biggest mass demonstrations in US history.

Those protests unfolded in the waning months of Trump’s first term, and when Democrat Joe Biden succeeded him as president in 2021, the Justice Department embarked on a series of 12 investigations looking into allegations of police overreach and excessive violence on the local level.

Those investigations were called “pattern-or-practice” probes, designed to look into whether incidents of police brutality were one-offs or part of a larger trend in a given police department.

Floyd’s murder took place in Minneapolis and Taylor’s in Louisville — the two cities where the Trump Justice Department decided to drop its settlements on Wednesday. In both cities, under Biden, the Justice Department had found patterns of discriminatory policing.

“Police officers must often make split-second decisions and risk their lives to keep their communities safe,” the report on Minneapolis reads.

But, it adds, the local police department “used dangerous techniques and weapons against people who committed at most a petty offence and sometimes no offense at all”.

Other police departments scrutinised during this period included ones in Phoenix, Arizona; Memphis, Tennessee; Trenton, New Jersey; Mount Vernon, New York; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and the Louisiana State Police.

Dhillon, who now runs the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, positioned the retractions of those Biden-era findings as a policy pivot. She also condemned the consent decrees as an overused tool and indicated she would look into rescinding some agreements that were already in place.

That process would likely involve a judge’s approval, however.

And while some community advocates have expressed concerns that consent decrees could place a burden on already over-stretched law enforcement departments, others disagree with the Justice Department’s latest move, arguing that a retreat could strip resources and momentum from police reform.

At the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD), Chief Paul Humphrey said the commitment to better policing went beyond any settlement. He indicated he would look for an independent monitor to oversee reforms.

“It’s not about these words on this paper,” he said. “It’s about the work that the men and women of LMPD, the men and women of metro government and the community will do together in order to make us a safer, better place.”

And in Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey doubled down, saying he could keep pushing forward with the police reform plan his city had agreed to.

“We will comply with every sentence of every paragraph of the 169-page consent decree that we signed this year,” he said at a news conference.

“We will make sure that we are moving forward with every sentence of every paragraph of both the settlement around the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, as well as the consent decree.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday threw his support behind two bills that would streamline housing development in urban areas, saying it was “time to get serious” about cutting red tape to address the housing crisis.

Newsom said his revised state budget proposal, which he announced at a news conference Wednesday, also will include provisions that clear the way for more new housing by reforming the state’s landmark California Environmental Quality Act and clearing other impediments.

The governor praised Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) for sponsoring bills designed to ease the permitting process for infill projects, or building in urban areas that already have development.

Newsom’s housing proposal looks to force permit deadlines on the Coastal Commission, allow housing development projects over $100 million to use CEQA streamlining usually available to smaller projects, and create a fund, paid for by developers, to finance affordable housing near public transit.

CEQA has long been used by opponents to impede or delay construction, often locking developers into years-long court battles. The law is so vague that it allows “essentially anyone who can hire a lawyer” to challenge developments, Wiener said in a statement.

“It’s time to accelerate urban infill. It’s time to exempt them from CEQA, it’s time to focus on judicial streamlining. It’s time to get serious about this issue. Period, full stop,” Newsom said during the morning budget news conference. “… This is the biggest opportunity to do something big and bold, and the only impediment is us. So we own this, and we have to own the response.”

Assembly Bill 609, proposed by Wicks, who serves as the Assembly Appropriations Committee chair, would create a sweeping exemption for housing projects that meet local building standards, especially in areas that have already been approved for additional development and reviewed for potential environmental impacts.

“It’s time to refine CEQA for the modern age, and I’m proud to work with the Governor to make these long-overdue changes a reality,” Wicks said in a statement.

Senate Bill 607, authored by Wiener, who serves as chair of the Senate Housing Committee, focuses the environmental review process and clarifies CEQA exemptions for urban infill housing projects.

“By clearing away outdated procedural hurdles, we can address California’s outrageous cost of living, grow California’s economy, and help the government solve the most pressing problems facing our state. We look forward to working with Governor Newsom and our legislative colleagues to advance these two important bills and to secure an affordable and abundant future for California,” Wiener said in a statement.

Both bills are pending before the appropriations committees in the Assembly and Senate, respectively.