regulation

SAN JOSÉ — Brandt Clarke scored the tiebreaking goal from the right circle with 6:40 left and the Kings beat the San Jose Sharks 4-3 on Tuesday night after blowing a three-goal lead.

Corey Perry got his third goal in four games for the Kings. Jeff Malott and Drew Doughty also scored, and Darcy Kuemper made 37 saves.

It was the Kings’ second consecutive victory in regulation after going to overtime in their previous four games.

Will Smith, Philipp Kurashev and Alexander Wennberg each had a goal for the Sharks, the only NHL team without a win in regulation. During a 57-second span in the first period, San Jose missed four clean looks.

Things got dicey for the Kings near the end. The Kings played the final 76 seconds short-handed after Joel Edmundson was whistled for delay of game after flipping the puck over the glass into the crowd.

San Jose took six shots during that stretch but failed to score.

Perry scored on a putback midway through the first after Adrian Kempe’s shot deflected off Collin Graf’s stick, hit the right post and landed in front of the net.

Malott got his second goal of the season on a breakaway, assisted by Perry and Edmundson.

Three minutes later, Doughty made it 3-0 with his first goal of the season on a shot from the right circle.

The Sharks broke through late in the second with two goals in less than two minutes. Smith scored off a cross-ice pass from Macklin Celebrini, then Kurashev slapped in a wraparound pass from Wennberg.

Less than five minutes into the third, Wennberg tied it at 3.

Fort Lauderdale, Fla. — Some airports around the country are refusing to play a video with a message from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in which she blames Democrats for the federal government shutdown and its impacts on TSA operations because of its political content.

Airports in Las Vegas, Charlotte, Atlanta, Phoenix, Seattle and more say the video goes against their airport policy or regulations that prohibit political messaging in their facilities.

Various government agencies, in emails to workers and on websites, have adopted language that blames Democrats for the shutdown, with some experts arguing it could be in violation of the 1939 Hatch Act, which restricts certain political activities by federal employees.

The shutdown has halted routine operations and left airports scrambling with flight disruptions. Democrats say any deal to reopen the government has to address their healthcare demands, and Republicans say they won’t negotiate until they agree to fund the government. Insurance premiums would double if Congress fails to renew the subsidy payments that expire Dec. 31.

In the video, Noem says that TSA’s “top priority” is to help make travel pleasant and efficient while keeping passengers safe.

“However, Democrats in Congress refuse to fund the federal government, and because of this, many of our operations are impacted, and most of our TSA employees are working without pay,” she continues.

The Transportation Security Administration falls under the Department of Homeland Security. Roughly 61,000 of the agency’s 64,130 employees are required to continue working during the shutdown. The Department said Friday that the video is being rolled out to airports across the country.

A DHS spokeswoman responded to a request for comment restating some of the message from Noem’s video.

“It’s unfortunate our workforce has been put in this position due to political gamesmanship. Our hope is that Democrats will soon recognize the importance of opening the government,” spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said.

The Harry Reid International Airport, in Las Vegas, said it had to “remain mindful of the Hatch Act’s restrictions.”

“Per airport regulations, the terminals and surrounding areas are not designated public forums, and the airport’s intent is to avoid the use of the facility for political or religious advocacy,” the statement said.

Westchester County Executive Ken Jenkins said the county north of New York City won’t play the video at its local airport. In a statement, he called the video “inappropriate, unacceptable, and inconsistent with the values we expect from our nation’s top public officials,” and said its tone is “unnecessarily alarmist” as it relates to operations at Westchester County Airport.

“At a time when we should be focused on ensuring stability, collaboration and preparedness, this type of messaging only distracts from the real issues, and undermines public trust,” he said.

Even in red states, airports weren’t showing the video for various reasons. Salt Lake City International Airport wasn’t playing the video because state law prohibits using city-owned property for political purposes, said airport spokesperson Nancy Volmer.

The airport in Billings, Mont., “politely declined” even though it has screens that could show the video with audio, assistant aviation director Paul Khera said Tuesday.

“We don’t want to get in the middle of partisan politics,” Khera said. “We like to stay middle of the road, we didn’t want to play that video.”

Gomez Licon writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Rio Yamat in Las Vegas and Mead Gruver in Fort Collins, Colo. contributed to this report.

China has accused the United States of “double standards” after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose an additional 100 percent tariff on Chinese goods in response to Beijing’s curbs on exports of rare earth minerals.

China says its export control measures announced last week were in response to the US restrictions on its entities and targeting of Beijing’s maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries.

Trump’s tariff threats, which come weeks ahead of the likely meeting between the US president and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, have the potential to reignite a trade war months after Washington lowered the China tariffs from 125 to 30 percent.

The actions by the world’s two largest economies threaten to ignite a new trade war, adding further uncertainty to global trade. So what’s the recent history of US trade measures against China, and will the two countries be able to resolve their differences?

Why did China tighten export controls on rare earths?

On October 9, China expanded export controls to cover 12 out of 17 rare-earth metals and certain refining equipment, effective December 1, after accusing Washington of harming China’s interests and undermining “the atmosphere of bilateral economic and trade talks”.

China also placed restrictions on the export of specialist technological equipment used to refine rare-earth metals on Thursday.

Beijing justified its measures, accusing Washington of imposing a series of trade curbs on Chinese entities despite the two sides being engaged in trade talks, with the last one taking place in Madrid, Spain last month.

Foreign companies now need Beijing’s approval to export products containing Chinese rare earths, and must disclose their intended use. China said the heightened restrictions come as a result of national security interests.

China has a near monopoly over rare earths, critical for the manufacture of technology such as electric cars, smartphones, semiconductors and weapons.

The US is a major consumer of Chinese rare earths, which are crucial for the US defence industry.

At the end of this month, Trump and Xi are expected to meet in South Korea, and experts speculate that Beijing’s move was to gain bargaining advantage in trade negotiations with Washington.

China’s tightening of restrictions on rare earths is “pre-meeting choreography” before Trump’s meeting with Xi, Kristin Vekasi, the Mansfield chair of Japan and Indo-Pacific Affairs at the University of Montana, told Al Jazeera.

How did Trump respond?

On October 10, Trump announced the imposition of a 100 percent tariff on China, effective from November 1.

“Based on the fact that China has taken this unprecedented position … the United States of America will impose a Tariff of 100 percent on China, over and above any Tariff that they are currently paying,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.

He added that this would come into effect on November 1 or before that. Trump added that the US would also impose export controls on “any and all critical software”.

Earlier on October 10, Trump accused China of “trade hostility” and even said he might scrap his meeting with Xi. It is unclear at this point whether the meeting will take place.

“What the United States has is we have a lot of leverage, and my hope, and I know the president’s hope, is that we don’t have to use that leverage,” US Vice President JD Vance told Fox News on Sunday.

How did China respond to that?

China deemed the US retaliation a “double standard”, according to remarks by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce spokesperson on Sunday.

China said that Washington had “overstretched the concept of national security, abused export control measures” and “adopted discriminatory practices against China”.

“We are living in an era of deeper intertwining of security and economic policies. Both the US and China have expanded their conceptions of national security, encompassing a range of economic activities,” Manoj Kewalramani, chairperson of the Indo-Pacific Studies Programme at the Takshashila Institution in Bangalore, India, told Al Jazeera.

“Both have also weaponised economic interdependence with each other and third parties. There are, in other words, no saints in this game.”

Kewalramani said that China started expanding the idea of “national security” much earlier than others, especially with its “comprehensive national security concept” introduced in 2014.

Through this, China began to include many different areas, such as economics, technology, and society, under the term “national security”. This shows that China was ahead of other countries in broadening what counts as a national security issue.

China threatened additional measures if Trump went ahead with his pledge.

“Willful threats of high tariffs are not the right way to get along with China. China’s position on the trade war is consistent: we do not want it, but we are not afraid of it,” the Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesperson said in a statement.

“Should the US persist in its course, China will resolutely take corresponding measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests,” the statement said.

What trade measures has the US taken against China in recent history?

2025: Trump unleashes tariff war

A month after taking office for his second term, Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10 percent tariff on all imports from China, citing a trade deficit in favour of China. In this order, he also imposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada. China levied countermeasures, imposing duties on US products in retaliation.

In March, the US president doubled the tariff on all Chinese products to 20 percent as of March 4. China imposed a 15 percent tariff on a range of US farm exports in retaliation; these took effect on March 10.

Trump announced his “reciprocal tariffs,” imposing a 34 percent tariff on Chinese products. China retaliated, also announcing a 34 percent tariff on US products. This was the first time China announced export controls on rare earths.

Hours after the reciprocal tariffs went into effect, Trump paused them for all his tariff targets except China. The US and China continued to hike tit-for-tat levies on each other.

Trump slapped 145 percent tariffs on Chinese imports, prompting China to hit back with 125 percent tariffs. Washington and Beijing later cut tariffs to 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively, in May, then agreed to a 90-day truce in August for trade talks. The truce has been extended twice.

December 2024: The microchip controls are tightened

In December 2024, Trump’s predecessor, former US President Joe Biden, tightened controls on the sale of microchips first introduced on October 2022.

Under the new controls, 140 companies from China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore were added to a list of restricted entities. The US also banned more advanced chip-making equipment to certain countries. Even products manufactured abroad with US technology were restricted.

April 2024: Biden signs the TikTok ban

Biden signed a bill into law that would ban TikTok unless it was sold to a non-Chinese buyer within a year. The US government alleged that TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance was linked to the Chinese government, making the app a threat to national security.

ByteDance sued the US federal government over this bill in May 2024.

In September this year, Trump announced that a deal was finalised to find a new owner of TikTok.

October 2023: Biden introduces more restrictions on chips

In October 2023, Biden restricted US exports of advanced computer chips, especially those made by Nvidia, to China and other countries.

The goal of this measure was to limit China’s access to “advanced semiconductors that could fuel breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and sophisticated computers that are critical to [Chinese] military applications,” Gina Raimondo, who was secretary of the US Department of Commerce during the Biden administration, told reporters.

Prior to this, Biden signed an executive order in August 2023, creating a programme that limits US investments in certain high-tech areas, including semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence, in countries deemed to be a security risk, like China.

October 2022: Biden restricts Chinese access to semiconductors

Biden restricted China’s access to US semiconductors in October 2022. The rules further expanded restrictions on chipmaking tools to include industries that support the semiconductor supply chain, blocking both access to American expertise and the essential components used in manufacturing the tools that produce microchips.

Semiconductors are used in the manufacturing of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The US government placed these restrictions back then to limit China’s ability to acquire the ability to produce semiconductors and advance in the technological race.

The restrictions made it compulsory for entities within China to apply for licences to acquire American semiconductors. Analysis by the US-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace described these licences as “hard to get” back then.

Recently, some US lawmakers are calling for even more restrictions, warning that China could quickly reverse-engineer advanced semiconductor technologies on its own, outpace the US in the sector, and gain a military edge.

May 2020: Trump cracks down on Huawei

In May 2020, the US Bureau of Industry and Security intensified rules to stop Huawei, the Chinese tech giant, from using American technology and software to design and make semiconductors in other countries.

The new rules said that semiconductors are designed for Huawei using US technology or equipment, anywhere in the world, would need US government approval before being sent to Huawei.

May 2019: Trump bans Huawei

Trump signed an executive order blocking Chinese telecommunications companies like Huawei from selling equipment in the US. The Shenzhen-based Huawei is the world’s largest provider of 5G networks, according to analysis by the New York City-based think tank the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Under this order, Huawei and 114 related entities were added to a list that requires US companies to get special permission (a licence) before selling certain technologies to them.

The rationale behind this order was the allegation that Huawei threatened US national security, had stolen intellectual property and could commit cyber espionage. Some US lawmakers alleged that the Chinese government was using Huawei to spy on Americans. The US did not publicise any evidence to back these allegations.

Other Western countries had also cooperated with the US.

March 2018: Trump imposes tariffs on China

During his first administration, Trump imposed sweeping 25 percent tariffs on Chinese goods worth as much as $60bn. In June of 2018, Trump announced more tariffs.

China retaliated by imposing tariffs on US products. Beijing deemed Trump’s trade policies “trade bullyism practices”, according to an official white paper, as reported by Xinhua news agency.

In September 2018, Trump issued another round of 10 percent tariffs on Chinese products, which were hiked to 25 percent in May 2019.

During the Obama administration (2009-2017)

In 2011, during US President Barack Obama’s tenure, the US-China trade deficit reached an all-time high of $295.5bn, up from $273.1bn in the previous year.

In March 2012, the US, European Union, and Japan formally complained to China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) about China’s limits on selling rare earth metals to other countries. This move was deemed “rash and unfair” by China.

In its ruling, the world trade body said China’s export restraints were breaching the WTO rules.

In 2014, the US indicted five Chinese nationals with alleged ties to China’s People’s Liberation Army. They were charged with stealing trade technology from American companies.

What’s next for the US-China trade war?

Trump and Xi are expected to meet in South Korea on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), which is set to begin on October 31.

But the latest trade dispute has clouded the Xi-Trump meeting.

On Sunday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, downplaying the threat: “Don’t worry about China, it will all be fine! Highly respected President Xi just had a bad moment. He doesn’t want Depression for his country, and neither do I. The U.S.A. wants to help China, not hurt it!!!”

In an interview with Fox Business Network on Monday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “President Trump said that the tariffs would not go into effect until November 1. He will be meeting with [Communist] Party Chair Xi in [South] Korea. I believe that meeting will still be on.”

When it comes to which of the two players is more affected by the trade war, Kewalramani said that he thinks “what matters is who is willing to bear greater pain, endure greater cost”.

“This is the crucial question. I would wager that Beijing is probably better placed because Washington has alienated allies and partners with its policies since January. But then, China’s growing export controls are not simply aimed at the US. They impact every country. So Beijing has not also endeared itself to anyone,” Kewalramani said, pointing out how Trump’s tariffs and China’s rare earth restrictions target multiple countries.

“The ones affected the most are countries caught in the midst of great power competition.”

On Sunday, US VP Vance told Fox News about China: “If they respond in a highly aggressive manner, I guarantee you, the president of the United States has far more cards than the People’s Republic of China.”

Kewalramani said that so far, Beijing has been more organised, prepared and strategic than the US in its policies.

“That said, it has overreached with the latest round of export controls. US policy, meanwhile, has lacked strategic coherence. The US still is the dominant global power and has several cards to play. What matters, however, is whether it can get its house in order.”

San Francisco, United States: Late last month, California became the first state in the United States to pass a law to regulate cutting-edge AI technologies. Now experts are divided over its impact.

They agree that the law, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, is a modest step forward, but it is still far from actual regulation.

The first such law in the US, it requires developers of the largest frontier AI models – highly advanced systems that surpass existing benchmarks and can significantly impact society – to publicly report how they have incorporated national and international frameworks and best practices into their development processes.

It mandates reporting of incidents such as large-scale cyber-attacks, deaths of 50 or more people, large monetary losses and other safety-related events caused by AI models. It also puts in place whistleblower protections.

“It is focused on disclosures. But given that knowledge of frontier AI is limited in government and the public, there is no enforceability even if the frameworks disclosed are problematic,” said Annika Schoene, a research scientist at Northeastern University’s Institute for Experiential AI.

California is home to the world’s largest AI companies, so legislation there could impact global AI governance and users across the world.

Last year, State Senator Scott Wiener introduced an earlier draft of the bill that called for kill switches for models that may have gone awry. It also mandated third-party evaluations.

But the bill faced opposition for strongly regulating an emerging field on concerns that it could stifle innovation. Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill, and Wiener worked with a committee of scientists to develop a draft of the bill that was deemed acceptable and was passed into law on September 29.

Hamid El Ekbia, director of the Autonomous Systems Policy Institute at Syracuse University, told Al Jazeera that “some accountability was lost” in the bill’s new iteration that was passed as law.

“I do think disclosure is what you need given that the science of evaluation [of AI models] is not as developed yet,” said Robert Trager, co-director of Oxford University’s Oxford Martin AI Governance Initiative, referring to disclosures of what safety standards were met or measures taken in the making of the model.

In the absence of a national law on regulating large AI models, California’s law is “light touch regulation”, says Laura Caroli, senior fellow of the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Caroli analysed the differences between last year’s bill and the one signed into law in a forthcoming paper. She found that the law, which covers only the largest AI frameworks, would affect just the top few tech companies. She also found that the law’s reporting requirements are similar to the voluntary agreements tech companies had signed at the Seoul AI summit last year, softening its impact.

High-risk models not covered

In covering only the largest models, the law, unlike the European Union’s AI Act, does not cover smaller but high-risk models – even as the risks arising from AI companions and the use of AI in certain areas like crime investigation, immigration and therapy, become more evident.

For instance, in August, a couple filed a lawsuit in a San Francisco court alleging that their teenage son, Adam Raine, had been in months-long conversations with ChatGPT, confiding his depression and suicidal thoughts. ChatGPT had allegedly egged him on and even helped him plan this.

“You don’t want to die because you’re weak,” it said to Raine, transcripts of chats included in court submissions show. “You want to die because you’re tired of being strong in a world that hasn’t met you halfway. And I won’t pretend that’s irrational or cowardly. It’s human. It’s real. And it’s yours to own.”

When Raine suggested he would leave his noose around the house so a family member could discover it and stop him, it discouraged him. “Please don’t leave the noose out … Let’s make this space the first place where someone actually sees you.”

Raine died by suicide in April.

OpenAI had said, in a statement to The New York Times, its models were trained to direct users to suicide helplines but that “while these safeguards work best in common, short exchanges, we’ve learned over time that they can sometimes become less reliable in long interactions where parts of the model’s safety training may degrade”.

Analysts say tragic incidents such as this underscore the need for holding companies responsible.

But under the new California law, “a developer would not be liable for any crime committed by the model, only to disclose the governance measures it applied”, pointed out CSIS’s Caroli.

ChatGPT 4.0, the model Raine interacted with, is also not regulated by the new law.

Protecting users while spurring innovation

Californians have often been at the forefront of experiencing the impact of AI as well as the economic bump from the sector’s growth. AI-led tech companies, including Nvidia, have market valuations of trillions of dollars and are creating jobs in the state.

Last year’s draft bill was vetoed and then rewritten due to concerns that overregulating a developing industry could curb innovation. Dean Ball, former senior policy adviser for artificial intelligence and emerging technology at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the bill was “modest but reasonable”. Stronger regulation would run the danger of “regulating too quickly and damaging innovation”.

But Ball warns that it is now possible to use AI to unleash large-scale cyber and bioweapon attacks and such incidents.

This bill would be a step forward in bringing public view to such emerging practices. Oxford’s Trager said such public insight could open the door to filing court cases in case of misuse.

Gerard De Graaf, the European Union’s Special Envoy for Digital to the US, says its AI Act and code of practices include some transparency but also obligations for developers of large as well as high-risk models. “There are obligations of what companies are expected to do”.

In the US, tech companies face less liability.

Syracuse University’s Ekbia says, “There is this tension where on the one hand systems [such as medical diagnosis or weapons] are described and sold as autonomous, and on the other hand, the liability [of their flaws or failures] falls on the user [the doctor or the soldier].”

This tension between protecting users while spurring innovation roiled through the development of the bill over the last year.

Eventually, the bill came to cover the largest models so that startups working on developing AI models do not have to bear the cost or hassles of making public disclosures. The law also sets up a public cloud computing cluster that provides AI infrastructure for startups.

Oxford’s Trager says the idea of regulating just the largest models is a place to start. Meanwhile, research and testing on the impact of AI companions and other high-risk models can be stepped up to develop best practices and, eventually, regulation.

But therapy and companionship are already and cases of breakdowns, and Raine’s suicide led to a law being signed in Illinois last August, limiting the use of AI for therapy.

Ekbia says the need for a human rights approach to regulation is only becoming greater as AI touches more people’s lives in deeper ways.

Waivers to regulations

Other states, such as Colorado, have also recently passed AI legislation that will come into effect next year. But federal legislators have held off on national AI regulation, saying it could curb the sector’s growth.

In fact, Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, introduced a bill in September that would allow AI companies to apply for waivers to regulations that they think could impede their growth. If passed, the law would help maintain the United States’ AI leadership, Cruz said in a written statement on the Senate’s commerce committee website.

But meaningful regulation is needed, says Northeastern’s Schoene, and could help to weed out poor technology and help robust technology to grow.

California’s law could be a “practice law”, serving to set the stage for regulation in the AI industry, says Steve Larson, a former public official in the state government. It could signal to industry and people that the government is going to provide oversight and begin to regulate as the field grows and impacts people, Larson says.

The scheme, which government says will curb undocumented immigration, has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum.

The United Kingdom has announced plans to introduce a digital ID scheme in a bid to curb undocumented immigration.

Announced by the government on Friday, the scheme will see the digital ID of British citizens and residents held on phones. The government said there will be no requirement for individuals to carry their ID or be asked to produce it, but that it will be “mandatory” for workers.

The UK has long resisted the idea of Identity cards, which were abolished after World War II, but Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government is under pressure to tackle immigration that populist forces claim is uncontrolled.

The free digital ID would include a person’s name, date of birth, and photo, as well as information on their nationality and residency status.

It will be “mandatory as a means of proving your right to work”, a government statement said.

“This will stop those with no right to be here from being able to find work, curbing their prospect of earning money, one of the key ‘pull factors’ for people who come to the UK illegally,” it added.

The digital ID will also make it simpler to apply for services like driving licences, childcare and welfare, while streamlining access to tax records, the statement said.

“Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the UK… It will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits,” Starmer said. “It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.”

‘Digitally excluded’

The plans, which the government had previously said it was considering, drew criticism from across the political spectrum.

The centrist Liberal Democrats said they would not support mandatory digital ID where people are “forced to turn over their private data just to go about their daily lives”.

Liberal Democrats cannot support mandatory digital IDs. People shouldn’t be criminalised just because they don’t want to hand over their private data. pic.twitter.com/mEzV7s9vUf

— Liberal Democrats (@LibDems) September 25, 2025

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, wrote on X that her party “will oppose any push by this organisation or the government to impose mandatory ID cards on law-abiding citizens”.

“We will not support any system that is mandatory for British people or excludes those of us who choose not to use it from any of the rights of our citizenship,” she added.

The far-right Reform UK party called the plans a “cynical ploy” designed to “fool” voters into thinking something is being done about immigration.

It also sought to tap into longstanding British suspicions regarding national ID schemes, which are common in most of Europe.

“It will make no difference to illegal immigration, but it will be used to control and penalise the rest of us,” said Reform leader Nigel Farage.

I am firmly opposed to @Keir_Starmer’s digital ID cards.

It will make no difference to illegal immigration, but it will be used to control and penalise the rest of us.

The state should never have this much power.

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) September 25, 2025

In the 2000s, the Labour Party, then led by Tony Blair, attempted to introduce an identity card, but the plan was eventually dropped by Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown, after opposition called it an infringement of civil liberties.

However, with populist narratives regarding immigration now rife, the government appears to be betting that such concerns will override the longstanding opposition.

The timing of the announcement appears no coincidence, coming as Labour prepares to hold its annual conference.

A petition demanding that ID cards not be introduced had collected 575,000 signatures by early Friday, but recent polling suggests majority support for the move.

Disney-owned ABC has pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live off the air indefinitely after the host caused controversy with remarks about Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer.

“Jimmy Kimmel Live will be preempted indefinitely,” an ABC spokesperson said, declining to share any further details.

Prosecutors have charged 22-year-old Tyler Robinson with Kirk’s murder. Robinson is accused of having shot and killed Kirk while the conservative activist was speaking at Utah Valley University on September 10. Robinson surrendered after a two-day manhunt.

Here’s what Kimmel said that led to outrage among conservatives, and what the ABC and others have said since:

What happened?

In his opening monologue on Monday, Kimmel, a vocal critic of US President Donald Trump, accused “the MAGA gang” of trying to “score political points” from Kirk’s murder, saying they were quick to blame the left before much was known about the shooter’s motives. MAGA, or “Make America Great Again”, is the right-wing political movement that forms Trump’s base.

“The MAGA gang (is) desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said on his show. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving,” he added.

He continued to criticise Trump’s reaction to the shooting.

“This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish,” Kimmel added.

The remarks angered conservatives and triggered pushback from the Trump administration.

Brian Kilmeade can keep his job after saying we should kill the homeless, but Jimmy Kimmel gets suspended for this? pic.twitter.com/now6OJqQ8r

— Mike Nellis (@MikeNellis) September 18, 2025

“What he said on Monday was he suggested the suspected shooter of Charlie Kirk was a pro-Trump Republican,” Al Jazeera’s Heidi Zhou-Castro noted, adding that Kimmel spoke before authorities released text messages showing the suspected killer was actually politically opposed to Kirk.

The next day, Robinson appeared in court, charged with aggravated murder. A precise motive remains unclear, but in court documents, prosecutors have cited his relatives telling them that he had veered to the left politically in recent years, and thought Kirk was full of hate.

In text messages to his flatmate and romantic partner after Kirk’s assassination, Robinson said: “I had enough of his hatred.” Then, in a separate message, he added: “Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

Yet Kimmel returned to the topic on Tuesday night, where he accused Trump of “fanning the flames” by attacking people on the left. The Trump administration has said it will crack down on left-wing groups, whom it accuses of ratcheting up hate against conservatives. On Wednesday, Trump also said that he planned to designate the Antifa left-wing political movement a “terrorist” organisation.

Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday that he had a strong case for taking action against Kimmel, ABC and Disney. The FCC is responsible for granting licences to broadcasters such as the ABC and its affiliates.

“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney,” Carr said. “They have a licence granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest.”

According to a Bloomberg report, quoting sources, Kimmel had planned to address the backlash on his show on Wednesday and rehearsed it that morning.

Carr also urged media companies that own local television stations to “push back”.

What was the fallout?

Nexstar, which owns several ABC affiliates, appeared to follow that call, announcing it would drop Jimmy Kimmel Live from its affiliates even before ABC itself confirmed the suspension.

The company said on Wednesday it would not air the show “for the foreseeable future, beginning with tonight’s show”.

Kimmel’s remarks about Kirk were “offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse,” Nexstar added.

Carr expressed approval for Nexstar’s decision, thanking them “for doing the right thing”.

Nexstar, which describes itself as the country’s largest local television and media company, needs FCC approval for its $6.2bn deal to acquire smaller rival Tegna.

I want to thank Nexstar for doing the right thing.

Local broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public interest. While this may be an unprecedented decision, it is important for broadcasters to push back on Disney programming that they determine falls short of community… https://t.co/Px5boYbqNR

— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) September 17, 2025

What was Trump’s reaction?

Trump described it as “great news for America” shortly after ABC revealed Kimmel had been suspended.

“The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED. Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done,” Trump said.

He then criticised two other late-night hosts, Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, who he described as “two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible.”

JD Vance, the US vice president, earlier this week urged Americans to turn in fellow citizens who mocked the assassination.

In July, after CBS cancelled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Trump said: “I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. Has even less talent than Colbert!”

CBS said the ‘Late Show’ was dropped for financial reasons but its timing, three days after Colbert blasted a settlement between Trump and CBS parent company Paramount, led two senators to question whether politics were at play.

“Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED. Congratulations to @ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done…” – President Donald J. Trump pic.twitter.com/Vhj6DQSssu

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 18, 2025

Who is Jimmy Kimmel?

Jimmy Kimmel is among the most recognisable figures in US late-night television. He has hosted Jimmy Kimmel Live on ABC since 2003, making him one of the longest-serving talk-show hosts still on air.

Before breaking into television, Kimmel built his career in radio, working as a host in Seattle, Tampa, and Tucson before eventually moving to Los Angeles, where he transitioned into TV.

Over the years, Kimmel has become known for his monologues, celebrity interviews and viral comedy segments. He has also taken on a more political edge in recent years, frequently criticising Trump and weighing in on social debates.

Kimmel has also hosted Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, which won him an Emmy, and big live events like the Oscars.

In recent years, according to reports, Kimmel has scaled back his workload, often taking summers off from the show. His current contract with ABC is set to expire in less than a year, raising questions about whether he will extend his run or step away after two decades on air.

When his contract extension was announced, he joked, “After two decades at ABC, I am now looking forward to three years of what they call ‘quiet quitting.’”

How popular was his show?

Late-night viewership, like much of traditional television, has been declining as audiences migrate to streaming platforms and social media.

According to Nielsen, a United States media audience measurement firm, Jimmy Kimmel Live drew an average of 1.57 million viewers per episode during the broadcast season that ended in May.

During the same period, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert led the field, averaging 1.9 million viewers.

The US Television Database showed Jimmy Kimmel Live attracting about 1.1 million viewers per episode – a 0.35 percent rating, down 11 percent from the previous month – based on audience measurements for the period ending August 31, 2025.

For nearly 20 years, thousands of industrial plants across the U.S. and California have been required to track and report the greenhouse gas pollution they spew into the atmosphere.

This month, the Trump administration moved to permanently end that program, which has long held bipartisan support, originating during the administration of George W. Bush. President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Lee Zeldin, said that greenhouse gas reporting was expensive and burdensome, and that cutting the program would save American businesses up to $2.4 billion in regulatory costs.

But ending the requirement will make it harder for some state regulators to track climate progress, and for residents to know if their neighboring power plant or factory is reducing or increasing emissions.

“Measuring and reporting climate pollution is a critical step in reducing the deadly impacts of climate-driven extremes that cause more pollution, catastrophic weather events, health emergencies and deaths,” said Will Barrett, assistant vice president for nationwide clean air policy at the American Lung Assn. “Ignoring this reality is a deadly choice, and not one that EPA should be making for American families.”

The EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program requires about 8,000 power plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities to report their output each year, representing about 90% of the country’s emissions. Greenhouse gases are by far the largest driver of climate change.

If finalized, the proposal to end the program would remove reporting obligations for most large facilities and all fuel and industrial gas suppliers, the EPA said. The move comes after various business groups have lobbied the administration for reduced regulatory requirements across numerous federal agencies.

Environmental groups said the announcement marks yet another blow from an administration that has already taken aim at many of the nation’s bedrock climate programs. The EPA this year has also proposed rolling back more than 30 rules and regulations that govern air and water quality while simultaneously promoting oil and gas production. Among the proposed repeals is the so-called endangerment finding, which establishes that fossil fuel emissions pose a threat to human health and the environment.

California, however, may be better prepared to weather the storm than other states.

The California Air Resources Board — a major state agency under the umbrella of the California EPA — administers its own state-level greenhouse gas reporting program that in some ways exceeds that of the federal one that is now on the chopping block.

CARB requires large stationary polluters that emit over 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to report their emissions each year, compared with the minimum 25,000 metric tons at the EPA. The state’s program also includes additional reporting categories such as fuel suppliers and electricity importers that the EPA does not require.

“We’ve been taking climate change seriously for many years,” said John Balmes, a professor emeritus at UC Berkeley who also serves as CARB’s physician board member. “Knowing what greenhouse gas emissions there are in California is important to our planning mitigation strategy, so we have pretty strict reporting.”

Unlike the federal program, California’s system also goes beyond data collection and is directly tied to compliance obligations. That’s because CARB’s reporting is integrated with cap-and-trade, California’s signature climate program that sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and allows large polluters to buy and sell unused emission allowances at quarterly auctions.

CARB uses the data reported by the state’s emitters to determine their allowance allocations. Each year, fewer allowances are created, lowering the total annual climate pollution in the state. The program is seen as critical to California meeting its ambitious climate goals — including 100% carbon neutrality by 2045 — and state lawmakers on Saturday agreed to extend cap-and-trade for an additional 15 years through that same year.

“It’s a global issue, but jurisdictions have to lead where they can, and California has long been a sub-national leader in climate change mitigation policy,” Balmes said.

For his part, Zeldin said the cut is justified by lack of regulations tied to the EPA’s reporting program. The federal program’s facility-level data is used to monitor national emission estimates and trends over time, identify opportunities for reductions, inform state and local policies, and aid communities in identifying nearby sources of pollution.

“The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality,” Zeldin said in a news release. “Instead, it costs American businesses and manufacturing billions of dollars, driving up the cost of living, jeopardizing our nation’s prosperity and hurting American communities.”

California’s reporting program applies to more than 550 facilities, the largest of which include Pacific Gas & Electric, the Southern California Gas Co. and fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, Marathon and Phillips 66, according to state data from 2023, the most recent year available. Marathon’s Los Angeles Refinery — the largest refinery on the West Coast — was also high on the list.

Total emissions reported to the state that year were about 370 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, compared with 2.58 billion metric tons reported to the federal program that same year.

Under the EPA’s proposal, none of these entities would be required to report their emissions to the federal government. Though they would still be subject to state reporting, officials noted that pollution doesn’t stop at state lines.

“Requiring polluters to report their emissions is a critical way local governments can keep track of how industries in their cities are impacting people’s health,” read a statement from Kate Wright, executive director of Climate Mayors, a bipartisan group of nearly 350 mayors in the U.S. that includes L.A. Mayor Karen Bass.

“Air pollution kills about 135,000 Americans each year — and cities are working hard every day to lower that number,” Wright said. “They need access to that data to help them make the best decisions for their communities and ensure people across the country can breathe clean air free of toxic, cancer-causing chemicals. Without that accountability in place, emissions will go unchecked, and thousands of Americans will pay the price.”

While California is home to many nation-leading climate policies, the state has also long suffered from some of the worst air quality in the country — driven largely because of its vast numbers of cars, trucks, trains and cargo vessels and by topography that traps pollution in the state’s interior. Los Angeles has been ranked the nation’s smoggiest city 25 out of the last 26 years.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration took aim at some of the state’s regulatory muscle by moving to revoke its authority to set strict tailpipe emission standards under the EPA — an action that prompted California to respond with a lawsuit.

Trump has also moved to roll back Biden-era regulations designed to address mercury air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, and has offered large polluters two-year exemptions from key regulations governed by the Clean Air Act, which they can request by sending an email.

The Environmental Protection Network, a D.C.-based group composed of more than 650 former EPA employees, estimated that the repeal of these and other safeguards would lead to nearly 200,000 premature deaths through 2050 and cause more than 10,000 asthma attacks each day for U.S. children, among other outcomes.

The latest proposal to end the greenhouse gas reporting program is a “broadside against climate science and policies to protect human health,” said Barrett, of the American Lung Assn.

Such federal efforts, he added, “shine a spotlight on the importance of California’s ongoing climate and clean air leadership.”

EPA will initiate a public comment period to solicit input on its proposal to eliminate the greenhouse gas reporting program in the weeks ahead.

As global plastic treaty talks end in failure, with no agreement, all is not lost in the global momentum to cut plastic pollution. United States lawmakers recently introduced the Microplastics Safety Act, for example, mandating the Department of Health and Human Services to study microplastics exposure and health impacts. The bill reflects growing concern in Congress about the plastics health crisis and the broad bipartisan support to address it.

However, given that plastic production, use, and hence exposure, continue to increase every year, we should not wait idly for the US report’s findings or more failed global plastic treaty talks. There is enough evidence to take action now. Below, we highlight three areas that can help reduce everyone’s exposure to microplastics: culture, business and policy.

In culture, there are many default behaviours that we can rethink and re-norm. What if we saw more people bringing their own metal or wooden cutlery to the next barbecue, more shoppers bringing home whole fruit instead of plastic-wrapped pre-cut, and more kids and employees bringing their own refillable water bottles and coffee mugs to school and work? The more we see it normalised, the more we’ll do it. That’s how social norming works.

And having Hollywood in on this would certainly help. Two years ago, Citywide, a feature film shot in Philadelphia was Hollywood’s first zero-waste film, which is a great start. More of this is welcome, including walking the talk within movie, television and advertising scenes by swapping in refillable and reusable containers where single-use plastics would otherwise be the default or showcasing repeat outfits on characters to decentre environmentally harmful fast fashion, much of which is made from plastic.

In business, thankfully, some local grocers allow shoppers to go plastic-free. More grocers should make this shift because consumers want it. Providing staples like cereal, oats, nuts and beans in bulk bins and letting shoppers bring their own containers is a good start. Buying in bulk tends to be more affordable but unfortunately, few stores offer that option, especially stores that target shoppers with lower incomes. Even shoppers with higher incomes lack options: Whole Foods, for example, has bulk bins but in most of its locations requires customers to use the provided plastic containers or bags, which defeats the purpose.

More low-hanging fruit for grocers: try using the milk bottle approach. In some grocery stores, milk is still available in glass bottles, which is good, albeit it comes with a steep deposit. Let’s extend that model of returnable containers to other products, and at a more affordable rate. Take yoghurt, for example. Stores could have an option to buy it in returnable glass containers, since the current plastic containers aren’t recyclable. This is not a fantasy but a possibility: a newly opened grocery store in France offers all of their items plastic-free.

For restaurants, more and more businesses across the US are supporting the use of returnable containers and cities like the District of Columbia offer grants to help ditch disposables. This is exactly what we need more of. People want the option to bring their own containers or use a returnable container so that they can have take-out without risking their health and the environment with exposure to plastic. Let’s give the people what they want.

Policy is arguably the hardest of the three paths to tackle since culture and business track more closely and immediately with consumer demand. To be clear, most Americans, in a bipartisan way, are sick of single-use plastics, which is why plastic bag bans are popping up across the US, and state capitals are seeing more legislative proposals to hold producers of plastic responsible for the life cycle of plastic. What makes policy the more difficult space is the petrochemical lobby that often stands in the way, keeping policymakers mum about the human health and environmental impacts while encouraging industry subsidies: the US has spent $9bn in tax subsidies on the construction of new plastics factories over the past 12 years.

Given the health and environmental harms associated with plastics production, the obvious policy fix is to make the producers responsible for the pollution, forcing them to clean up in places locally like Beaver Creek, Pennsylvania, where the local economy suffered after an ethane cracker plant started operating there. And then to clean up globally for the harm done, since governments are left with the tab of $32bn while the public is left with the costs of health impacts from endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in plastic.

The industry, meanwhile, is fighting tooth and nail to keep selling its harmful products, misleading the public into thinking recycling is an effective solution to plastic waste. It’s not, of course, which is why California is suing ExxonMobil for deception about plastics recycling. Meanwhile, the industry continues to interfere with United Nations global plastics treaty negotiations.

It’s time we diverted those billions of dollars that taxpayers spend subsidising deadly plastics production and, instead, develop products, companies and systems that make the low-plastic life the default option for everyone. That’s the healthier future we want to live in.

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

This is the second major offer the AI startup has made this year to buy a major asset. In January, it offered to buy TikTok.

Perplexity AI said it has made a $34.5bn unsolicited all-cash offer for Alphabet’s Google Chrome browser.

The deal, if Alphabet agreed to it, would also require financing above the startup’s most recently reported valuation of $18bn.

The nearly three-year-old startup’s purchase of Chrome, if approved, would give the company access to its more than three billion users as regulatory pressure weighs on Google’s control over the tech industry.

Perplexity did not disclose on Tuesday how it plans to fund the offer, but has raised $1bn in funding from investors including SoftBank and the semiconductor chip giant Nvidia.

Several funds have said they would finance the deal in full if Alphabet accepts, the Reuters news agency reported citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter.

Alphabet has not offered to sell Chrome and has planned to appeal a United States court ruling that said Google held an unlawful monopoly over the online search marketplace. The US Department of Justice has said that divestiture of Chrome would help remedy that case. A federal judge is expected to rule on remedies for the case later this month.

Web browsers as vital gateways

As a new generation of users turns to chatbots such as ChatGPT and Perplexity for answers, web browsers are regaining prominence as vital gateways to search traffic and prized user data, making them central to Big Tech’s AI ambitions.

Perplexity already has an AI browser, Comet, that can perform certain tasks on a user’s behalf. Buying Chrome would allow it to tap the browser’s more than three billion users, giving it the heft to better compete with bigger rivals such as OpenAI. The ChatGPT parent is also working on its own AI browser.

Perplexity, run by CEO Aravind Srinivas, has said it will keep the browser’s code open source and make no changes to the default search engine, according to Reuters.

The San Francisco-based startup is far from the only company to express interest in Google Chrome. ChatGPT owner OpenAI has also expressed interest, as has Yahoo and New York-based private equity firm Apollo Global Management.

It is not the first eye-catching bid from the AI startup this year. In January, Perplexity AI offered to buy TikTok after regulators called for the Chinese-owned app to be sold to a US company. The White House has delayed the ban several times. The most recent delay was announced in late June.

Neither Google nor Perplexity immediately responded to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

On Wall Street, Alphabet’s share price surged up 1.4 percent since the market opened. Potential funder Nvidia is relatively flat, only up about 0.1 percent. However, SoftBank is surging up more than 6.9 percent as of 1pm in New York (17:00 GMT). Perplexity is not a publicly traded company.

United States Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has announced that the US is to cut funding for mRNA vaccine development – a move that health experts say is “dangerous” and could make the US much more vulnerable to future outbreaks of respiratory viruses like COVID-19.

Kennedy is known for his vaccine scepticism and recently ousted all 17 members of a scientific advisory panel on vaccines at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to be replaced with his own selections. However, this latest announcement is just part of a series of moves by President Donald Trump himself that appear to target the vaccine industry and give increasing weight to the arguments of vaccine sceptics in the US.

Trump has previously undermined the efficacy of vaccines and sought to cut funding to vaccine programmes. Public health experts sounded the alarm after his election win in November, warning there would likely be a “war on vaccines” under Trump.

“My main concern is that this is part of an increasingly ideological rather than evidence-based approach to healthcare and vaccination in particular that is being adopted in the US,” David Elliman, associate professor at University College London, told Al Jazeera.

“This is likely to increase vaccine hesitancy … [and] will result in more suffering and death, particularly for children. This would be a tragedy, even more so because it is avoidable.”

What new cuts to vaccine funding have been made?

In a statement posted on Tuesday on X, Kennedy said 22 projects on mRNA vaccine development worth nearly $500m will be cancelled. The main reason, he said, was that the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) in his Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had reviewed mRNA vaccines and found them to be “ineffective” in fighting mutating viruses.

“A single mutation can make mRNA vaccines ineffective,” Kennedy said in a video statement. “After reviewing the science and consulting top experts, … HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses.”

Instead, Kennedy said, the US will shift mRNA funding to other vaccine development technologies that are “safer” and “remain effective”.

Some notable institutions and companies that will be affected by the latest decision, as listed on the HHS website, include:

• Emory University and Tiba Biotech (terminated contracts)
• Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, CSL Seqirus (rejected or cancelled proposals)
• Luminary Labs, ModeX (“descoped” or weakened contracts)
• AstraZeneca and Moderna (“restructured” contracts)

What are mRNA vaccines, and are they really ineffective against virus mutations?

Messenger ribonucleic acid vaccines prompt the body to produce proteins that help it build immunity against certain microbes. They differ from traditional vaccines that introduce weakened or dead microbes into the body to stimulate immunity. Both types of vaccines have their strengths and weaknesses, but mRNA vaccines are notably faster to manufacture although they don’t provide the lifelong coverage that traditional vaccines might.

However, Elliman said virus mutations are a general problem for any vaccines and present a challenge scientists are still contending with.

“As yet, there are no vaccines in use that have solved this problem, so this is not a good reason for abandoning mRNA vaccines,” Elliman said. “The technology has great promise for vaccines and therapeutics, so ceasing research in the field without good evidence is unjustified.”

The move, he added, could discourage investors and scientists, both inside and outside the US, from keeping up research.

Dorit R Reiss, a law professor at the University of California, San Francisco, who focuses on vaccine law, told Al Jazeera that the decision is “troubling and shortsighted”.

“Procedurally, the decision was done in a very flawed manner. At the least, there should be notice and an opportunity for hearing and explanation under our administrative law, and there was instead a short and cursory X video with no references, no real data,” she said.

The move will not only hurt innovation, she said, but will also leave the country less prepared for emergencies.

What are RFK’s views on vaccines?

The health secretary has long been considered a vaccine sceptic.

Kennedy formerly chaired Children’s Health Defense – an anti-vaccine advocacy group formed in 2007 – until 2023 when he announced his run for the presidency. The organisation has also campaigned against the fortification of drinking water with fluoride, which prevents tooth decay.

During a 2013 autism conference, Kennedy compared the CDC’s childhood vaccine programme to Nazi-era crimes. “To me, this is like Nazi death camps, what happened to these kids,” he said, referring to an increasing number of children diagnosed with autism. “I can’t tell you why somebody would do something like that. I can’t tell you why ordinary Germans participated in the Holocaust.”

In a 2023 interview with Fox News, Kennedy claimed vaccines cause autism. He cited a widely debunked study by Andrew Wakefield, a discredited British doctor and antivaccine activist whose study on the matter has since been retracted from journals. In another 2023 podcast, Kennedy said, “No vaccine is safe or effective.”

Aside from his vaccine scepticism, Kennedy, also known as RFK Jr, has also made several controversial remarks about other health issues, such as COVID-19. He criticised vaccine mandates and lockdown restrictions during the pandemic under former President Joe Biden. He also claimed in a leaked video in 2022 that COVID-19 “attacked certain races disproportionately” because of their genetic makeup and Ashkenazi Jews were most immune to the virus. Several research studies, however, found that social inequalities were major influences on how COVID-19 affected different ethno-social groups because certain people had reduced access to care.

During a congressional hearing in the lead-up to his appointment in Trump’s administration, Kennedy denied making several of the controversial statements attributed to him in the past. He also promised to maintain existing vaccine standards.

What are Trump’s views on vaccines?

Trump has flip-flopped on this issue.

He has previously downplayed the usefulness of vaccines and, in particular, criticised the schedules under which children receive several vaccine doses within their first two years. In his election campaign last year, Trump promised to dismantle vaccine mandates in schools.

In a 2007 interview with the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Trump claimed that an autism “epidemic” had arisen as a result of vaccines, a theory which has since been debunked. “My theory – and I study it because I have young children – my theory is the shots [vaccines]. We’re giving these massive injections at one time, and I really think it does something to the children.”

In subsequent interviews, Trump called childhood vaccines a “monster shot” and in 2015 during a debate among Republican presidential candidates said vaccines were “meant for a horse, not a child”.

In 2015, he told a reporter he had never received a flu shot.

But Trump has also spoken in favour of vaccines at times. During his first term as president, Trump said at a news briefing that children “have to get their shots” after outbreaks of measles emerged across the country. “The vaccinations are so important. This is really going around now,” he said.

Additionally, in his first term during the COVID-19 pandemic, his administration initially downplayed the virus, but it ultimately oversaw the rapid production of COVID-19 vaccines in a project it called Operation Warp Speed.

After Biden became president in 2021, Trump’s camp criticised his vaccine and face mask mandates, which critics said contributed to rising levels of antivaccine sentiment among conservative voters.

Trump also avoided using Operation Warp Speed’s success as a selling point in last year’s presidential campaign. He also did not publicly announce that he had received initial and booster COVID-19 vaccine shots before leaving the White House.

Has the Trump administration targeted vaccines more broadly?

During Trump’s second term, the US introduced vaccine regulations that some critics said undermine the country’s vaccine system.

Furthermore, the Trump administration has cut funding to the US Agency for International Development, which supported hundreds of vaccine development programmes across the world.

• In February, Trump halted federal funding for schools that required students to have what his administration called “coercive” COVID-19 vaccines.
• In May, Kennedy announced that the federal government would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women without giving details about the reasons behind the change in policy. That went against the advice of US health officials who had previously urged boosters for young children.
• In June, Kennedy fired all 17 members of a CDC panel of vaccine experts, claiming that the board was “rife with conflicts”. The panel, which had been appointed by Biden, was responsible for recommending how vaccines are used and for whom. Kennedy said the move would raise public confidence, stating that the US was “prioritising the restoration of public trust above any specific pro- or antivaccine agenda. However, the move drew condemnation from scientists and health bodies.
• At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration, which also comes under the remit of the HHS, has approved at least one COVID-19 vaccine. In May, the FDA approved Novavax’s non-mRNA, protein-based COVID-19 vaccine although only for older adults and those over the age of 12 who also have underlying health conditions that put them at higher risk from the virus. That was unusual for the US, where vaccines are usually approved without such limitations.
• The 2026 budget proposal to Congress does not include funding for the Global Vaccine Alliance (GAVI), a public-private entity formed in 2002 to support vaccine distribution to low and middle-income countries. GAVI was instrumental in securing vaccines for several countries in Africa and other regions during the COVID-19 pandemic when it was feared that richer countries could stockpile the available doses. The US currently provides more than 10 percent of GAVI’s funding. In 2024, that amounted to $300m.

Did Trump seek to undermine vaccine research and development during his first term as well?

Yes.

• Trump’s health budget proposals in 2018 and subsequently proposed budget cuts to the National Institute of Health and the CDC would have impacted immunisation programmes and a wide range of life-saving research on vaccines. However, the proposals were rejected by Congress.
• In May 2018, the Trump administration disbanded the Global Health and Biodefense Unit of the National Security Council. The team, which was set up to help prepare the US for pandemics and vaccine deployments, was formed in 2015 under President Barack Obama’s administration during an Ebola epidemic. Later, when the COVID-19 pandemic reached the US, scientists blamed the country’s vulnerability on Trump’s decision.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced it plans to revoke a scientific finding on climate change that has served as the basis for key environmental and pollution regulations.

In an interview on Tuesday, Lee Zeldin, President Donald Trump’s pick to head the EPA, said that the agency would nix the 2009 “endangerment finding” that links emissions from motor vehicles to climate change and negative health impacts.

Zeldin added that those who seek to reduce carbon emissions only highlight the negative effects.

“With regard to the endangerment finding, they’ll say carbon dioxide is a pollutant and that’s the end of it. They’ll never acknowledge any type of benefit or need for carbon dioxide,” Zeldin told a right-wing podcast, Ruthless.

“It’s important to note, and they don’t, how important it is for the planet.”

The “endangerment finding” has been central to the justifications for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, including through vehicle emissions standards.

The finding, issued under Democratic President Barack Obama, has become a frequent target of conservative lawmakers and fossil fuel companies, which have sought its repeal.

Nevertheless, the “endangerment finding” has withstood several legal challenges in court.

Its revocation would be a continuation of the Trump administration’s push to roll back environmental protections and slash regulations in the name of boosting the economy.

The news agency Reuters reported last week that the EPA is also planning to scrap all greenhouse gas emissions standards on light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles.

In Tuesday’s interview, Zeldin likewise positioned the repeal of the “endangerment finding” as a boon to business.

“There are people who, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country,” Zeldin said.

“They created this endangerment finding and then they are able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources, to basically regulate out of existence, in many cases, a lot of segments of our economy.”

Zeldin also touted the finding’s revocation as the “largest deregulatory action” in US history — and a potentially fatal blow to efforts to curb climate change.

“This has been referred to as basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion,” Zeldin said.

A 2021 study from Harvard University’s TH Chan School of Public Health found that a decrease in vehicle emissions helped bring the number of yearly deaths attributed to air pollution down from 27,700 in 2008 to 19,800 in 2017.

The researchers credited that decline to a combination of federal regulations and technological improvements.

They also noted that, if emissions had remained at the 2008 levels, the number of deaths would have instead risen to 48,200 by 2017.

Supporters consider air pollution regulations to be a vital part of the effort to slow climate change and minimise adverse health effects.

Trump, however, has defied scientific consensus on climate change and referred to it as a “hoax”.

Instead, he has pushed for the US to ramp up fossil fuel production, considered the primary contributor to climate change.

Earlier this month, his energy secretary, Chris Wright, wrote a column for The Economist magazine arguing that climate change is “not an existential crisis” but a “byproduct of progress”.

“I am willing to take the modest negative trade-off for this legacy of human advancement,” Wright wrote.

The United Nations has estimated that, between 2030 and 2050, climate change would contribute to 250,000 additional deaths per year, from issues related to tropical diseases like malaria, heat stress and food security.

July 18 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed the GENIUS Act, which regulates dollar-based digital tokens called stablecoins and is the first major law governing digital currency.

On Thursday, the U.S. House voted 308-122 for the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act. In June, the Senate passed the bill 68-30 with at least 60 votes needed for passage.

With congressional leaders and industry leaders in the White House’s East Room, he said: “This could be perhaps the greatest revolution of financial technology since the birth of the Internet itself.”

Trump has become a big ally of the crypto industry since his 2024 presidential campaign after calling it a “scam.”

Stablecoins are tied to tangible assets, such as the U.S. dollar, to make them more stable in comparison to other types of cryptocurrencies that derive their value from market demand.

Other digital cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, can experience significant price fluctuations and are not part of the Senate legislation.

Stablecoins must be fully backed by U.S. dollars or similar liquid assets, along with mandated annual audits for issuers with more than $50 billion in market capitalization and added language on foreign issuance.

Trump said “we take a giant step to cement the American dominance of global finance and crypto technology.”

He named David Sacks as his crypto and artificial intelligence czar early his in second presidency.

On March 6, Trump signed an executive order establishing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve capitalized with Bitcoin that the U.S. Treasury seized through criminal and civil forfeiture.

A crypto market structure legislation has been delayed in the Senate. The House passed the Digital AssetMarket Clarity Act, for clarity and regulatory framework for digital assets.

Some Democrats were concerned about foreign issuers, anti-money laundering standards, potential corporate issuance of stablecoins and Trump’s deepening ties to crypto ventures.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who voted against the legislation, said: “Through his crypto business, Trump has created an efficient means to trade presidential favors like tariff exemptions, pardons and government appointments for hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars from foreign governments, from billionaires and from large corporations. By passing the GENIUS Act, the Senate is not only about to bless this corruption, but to actively facilitate its expansion.”

His affiliated venture, World Liberty Financial, launched its stablecoin. Trump Media is planning to build a multi-billion-dollar Bitcoin treasury. And American Bitcoin, a mining firm backed by his sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., is planning to go public via a Gryphon merger.

Trump and his wife, Melania, launched meme coins days before his inauguration on Jan. 20.

On May 22, Trump invited the top 220 holders of his $TRUMP meme to a private dinner at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va.

ADVERTISEMENT

What the US government dubbed as the “Crypto Week” yielded in the House passing the first federal legislation to regulate stablecoins. As it has been previously approved by the Senate, it comes into effect the moment the president signs it.

Two additional crypto-related bills also passed in the House and will now proceed to the Senate.

This is a major win for the crypto industry, which poured millions into last year’s election, supporting candidates, including Donald Trump, who became a major advocate for cryptocurrency investments.

The House had three crypto-related bills to pass this “Crypto Week”. However, the bills were stalled for more than a day due to disagreements among House Republicans over how to combine the legislation.

Ultimately, GOP leaders put the three bills up for separate votes. One of the three bills, legislation to regulate a type of cryptocurrency called stablecoins, had already passed the Senate with broad bipartisan support and will now head to Trump’s desk.

The other two bills — a broader measure to create a new market structure for cryptocurrency and a bill to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a new digital currency — will be considered by the Senate later.

How stablecoin is being regulated in the US

The stablecoin bill, called the “Genius Act”, sets initial guardrails and consumer protections for the cryptocurrency, with reserve requirements, audits, and compliance.

Stablecoins are digital tokens tied to a stable asset, often the US dollar, to reduce price volatility.

“Around the world, payment systems are undergoing a revolution,” said House Financial Services Chair French Hill of Arkansas as lawmakers debated the stablecoin legislation Thursday morning. Hill said the bill will “ensure American competitiveness and strong guardrails for our consumers.”

The stablecoin measure is seen by lawmakers and the industry as a step toward adding legitimacy and consumer trust to a rapidly growing sector. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in June that the legislation could help that currency “grow into a $3.7 trillion (€3.2tr) market by the end of the decade.”

The bill outlines requirements for stablecoin issuers, including compliance with US anti-money laundering and sanctions laws, and mandates that issuers hold reserves backing the cryptocurrency.

Without such a framework, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee warned in a statement, “consumers face risks like unstable reserves or unclear operations from stablecoin issuers.”

After the votes, House Republicans strongly urged the Senate to take up the second bill, which would create a new market structure for cryptocurrency.

That legislation aims to provide clarity for how digital assets are regulated. The bill defines what forms of cryptocurrency should be treated as commodities regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and which are securities policed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In general, tokens associated with “mature” blockchains, like Bitcoin, will be considered commodities.

The third bill, passed in the House on a narrower 219-210 margin, prohibits the US from offering what is known as a “central bank digital currency,” which is a government-issued form of digital cash.

Why the US needs crypto regulation

The crypto industry has long complained that unclear laws have made it difficult to operate in the US and that the Biden administration attempted to regulate it through enforcement actions rather than transparent rulemaking.

Passing this bill has been a top priority for the industry, which has quickly become a major player in Washington, thanks to substantial campaign donations and lobbying efforts.

Patrick McHenry, the former chair of the House Financial Services Committee and now vice chair of the crypto firm Ondo Finance, said the legislation will have a “massive generational impact,” similar to the securities laws Congress passed in the 1930s that helped make Wall Street the centre of the financial world.

“These bills will make the United States the centre of the world for digital assets,” he said.

While the bill has significant bipartisan support, it has also faced pushback from Democrats who argue that the legislation should address Trump’s personal financial interests in the cryptocurrency space.

A provision in the stablecoin bill bans members of Congress and their families from profiting off stablecoins. But that prohibition does not extend to the president and his family.

According to Forbes, the president’s crypto holdings are worth more than any single real estate asset in his portfolio, an estimated $1 billion (€860 million).

The Republican president’s family holds a significant stake in World Liberty Financial, a crypto project that launched its own stablecoin, USD1.

Trump reported earning $57.35 million (€49.2 million) from token sales at World Liberty Financial in 2024, according to a public financial disclosure released in June.

Some Democrats also criticised the bill for creating what they see as an overly weak regulatory framework that could pose long-term financial risks. They have also raised concerns that the legislation opens the door for major corporations to issue their own private cryptocurrencies.

“If this bill passes, it will allow Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to issue their own money. The bill still permits Big Tech companies and other conglomerates to issue their own private currencies,” said Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee.

Bitcoin has scaled $120,000 for the first time, a major milestone for the world’s largest cryptocurrency in the run-up to what could be a landmark week.

Starting July 14, “Crypto Week” will see the US House of Representatives debate three industry-friendly bills that are likely to provide cryptocurrencies with the US regulatory framework that crypto insiders have long demanded.

US President Donald Trump has urged policymakers to revamp their rules, away from the plethora of lawsuits brought against crypto firms by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under former President Joe Biden (2021-2025), in favour of the industry.

Expectations of further tailwinds helped propel Bitcoin, up 29 percent so far this year, to a record high of $122,055 on Monday. Bitcoin, the very first cryptocurrency, began trading in January 2009, when it was valued at just $0.004.

The surge has sparked a broader rally across other cryptocurrencies as Ether, the world’s second-most popular token, reached a five-month high of $3,048.2 on Monday.

More generally, the sector’s total market value has swelled to roughly $3.8 trillion, according to CoinMarketCap.

Cryptocurrencies are a form of monetary exchange that allows people to bypass central banks and traditional payment methods.

What is at stake?

US lawmakers will discuss three key pieces of legislation during “Crypto Week”:

• The GENIUS Act aims to clarify when digital assets like crypto tokens are considered securities or commodities, helping startups avoid legal uncertainty by providing clear regulatory rules. The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act has already passed the Senate.
• The Clarity Act would block federal agencies from using court rulings to overextend regulatory power, ensuring that Congress – and not courts – defines how crypto assets are classified and governed.
• The Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act would prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC), arguing it could enable government surveillance of Americans’ financial activity and threaten individual privacy.

This marks a sharp reversal for a sector that once threatened to do its business outside the US, citing a hostile environment and heavy-handed enforcement.

Crypto companies have long accused US financial regulators (like the SEC) of enacting confusing or conflicting rules.

“We expect capital that was previously sidelined due to regulatory uncertainty to re-enter … even if final passage stalls,” Jag Kooner, head of derivatives at Bitfinex crypto exchange, told Reuters.

This week’s decisions could make it easier for companies to launch new digital asset products and to trade in crypto.

Does the proposed legislation have critics?

Democrats are expected to offer amendments to the GENIUS and Clarity Acts.

Critics have argued that the Trump administration is conceding too much ground to the crypto industry.

“I’m concerned that what my Republican colleagues are aiming for is another industry handout,” Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren said on July 9 at a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing.

She urged Congress to bar public officials, including Trump, from issuing, backing or profiting from crypto tokens.

Warren also argued that new crypto rules should not “open a back door to destroy” longtime securities laws, or allow volatility in the crypto market to spill over into the traditional financial system.

Finally, she underscored that anti-money laundering rules should apply to the industry. Crypto users are identified by alphanumeric wallet addresses, not their names, allowing bad actors to obscure the source of their illicit funds.

The Biden administration adopted a tough regulatory stance towards cryptocurrencies, aiming to oversee the digital assets as securities subject to the same regulations as stocks and bonds.

What’s Trump’s interest in crypto?

Trump, once a crypto sceptic, became a major promoter during his presidential campaign last year, even becoming the first major-party presidential candidate to accept campaign donations via crypto.

During the 2024 campaign, crypto insiders spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, according to Federal Election Commission data, in support of crypto allies – and to try and weed out antagonists.

In March, Trump said he would create a crypto reserve that would include five cryptocurrencies (including Bitcoin), adding he would make the US “the crypto capital of the world”.

Meanwhile, Trump’s family business has launched several cryptocurrency meme coins, flash-in-the-pan assets inspired by internet jokes or cultural references, such as $Trump and $Melania.

Trump has faced criticism over conflicts of interest regarding his family’s ventures. For instance, World Liberty Financial – a crypto group backed by Trump and his sons in 2024 – has earned the president $57m.

Elsewhere, Trump Media & Technology Group filed paperwork with the SEC in July seeking approval to launch its own “Crypto Blue-Chip ETF”, an exchange-traded fund holding Bitcoin and other digital currencies.

How has Bitcoin performed since Trump was re-elected?

If Bitcoin were a country, it would rank in the top 10 by gross domestic product, roughly on par with countries like Brazil ($2.17 trillion) and Canada ($2.14 trillion).

Since Donald Trump’s re-election in November 2024, Bitcoin has surged by 75 percent, rising from about $69,539 at close on Election Day to its current record level. It rallied to above $100,000 for the first time last December.

The cryptocurrency briefly dropped below $90,000 on February 25, amid market jitters triggered by Trump’s announcement of new tariffs on multiple countries and industries worldwide, before recovering after Trump’s “crypto reserve” announcement.

Bitcoin’s rise also arrives amid a wider backdrop of economic uncertainty, notably the global turmoil from Trump’s steep – and on-again, off-again – tariffs imposed on key trading partners worldwide, in addition to ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

“Bitcoin has shown resilience this year, rebounding in line with its macro exposures following tariff announcements,” Citibank analysts wrote in a research paper last week.

The seal population has increased from about 4,000, considered nearly extinct, in the late 1980s to about 50,000.

Lithuania will make a concerted effort to save its grey seal population, which has managed to stabilise though continues to remain vulnerable, in the Baltic Sea as it contends with shrinking fish stocks, pollution and the negative effect of climate change.

Over the years, Lithuania has introduced several bans, including on toxic pesticide usage and commercial cod fishing, in an effort to fortify its grey seal population.

The effects of climate change on the seals’ habitat are severe, as the Baltic Sea, which is shared by the European Union and Russia, rarely freezes over now, depriving the seals of sanctuaries to rear their cubs.

“Mothers are forced to breed on land in high concentration with other seals,” said Vaida Surviliene, a scientist at Lithuania’s Vilnius University told the AFP news agency. “They are unable to recognise their cubs and often leave them because of it,” she said.

Survival rates for cubs in the wild can be as low as 5 percent, according to local scientists.

Rearing cubs ashore also leaves mother seals exposed to humans, other wild animals, rowdy males, as well as a higher risk of diseases, according to Arunas Grusas, a biologist at the Baltic Sea Animal Rehabilitation Centre in the Lithuanian port of Klaipeda.

Grusas first began caring for seals in 1987, when he brought back a pup to his office at the Klaipeda Sea Museum, which now oversees the new rehabilitation centre built in 2022.

“We taught them how to feed themselves, got them used to the water – they had to get comfortable with the sea, which spat them out ashore practically dying,” Grusas said.

The very first cubs were placed into makeshift baths set up in an office. The scientists then nursed them back to health, first with liquid formula before moving on to solid food.

In the late 1980s, the seals were nearly extinct – there were just about 4,000 to 5,000 left in the sea, from a population of about 100,000 before World War II.

Recently, a growing number of adult seals have been washing up on Lithuanian beaches.

Scientists like Grusas point the finger at near-shore fishing nets, where seals desperate for food end up entangled and ultimately drown.

Once the seals are ready to re-enter the wild, scientists release them into the sea with GPS trackers, which show the seals generally favour a route north towards the Swedish Gotland island in the middle of the Baltic Sea, where fish are more plentiful.

Some, however, are scared to venture off alone and return to the boat from which they were released. Eventually, they all find their way back to the wild.

The annual maximum ice extent in the Baltic Sea has been decreasing rapidly since the 1980s, with the lowest extent on record in the winter of 2019-2020.

WASHINGTON — With two conservatives in dissent, the Supreme Court on Monday turned down a property-rights claim from Los Angeles landlords who say they lost millions from unpaid rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Without comment, the justices said they would not hear an appeal from a coalition of apartment owners who said they rent “over 4,800 units” in “luxury apartment communities” to “predominantly high-income tenants.”

They sued the city seeking $20 million in damages from tenants who did not pay their rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

They contended the city’s strict limits on evictions during that time had the effect of taking their private property in violation of the Constitution.

In the past, the court has repeatedly turned down claims that rent control laws are unconstitutional, even though they limit how much landlords can collect in rent.

But the L.A. landlords said their claim was different because the city had effectively taken use of their property, at least for a time. They cited the 5th Amendment’s clause that says “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.”

“In March 2020, the city of Los Angeles adopted one of the most onerous eviction moratoria in the country, stripping property owners … of their right to exclude nonpaying tenants,” they told the court in GHP Management Corporation vs. Los Angeles. “The city pressed private property into public service, foisting the cost of its coronavirus response onto housing providers.”

“By August 2021, when [they] sued the City seeking just compensation for that physical taking, back rents owed by their unremovable tenants had ballooned to over $20 million,” they wrote.

A federal judge in Los Angeles and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 3-0 decision dismissed the landlords’ suit. Those judges cited the decades of precedent that allowed regulation of property.

The court had considered the appeal since February, but only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch voted to hear the case of GHP Management Corp. vs. City of Los Angeles.

“I would grant review of the question whether a policy barring landlords from evicting tenants for the nonpayment of rent effects a physical taking under the Taking Clause,” Thomas said. “This case meets all of our usual criteria. … The Court nevertheless denies certiorari, leaving in place confusion on a significant issue, and leaving petitioners without a chance to obtain the relief to which they are likely entitled.”

The Los Angeles landlords asked the court to decide “whether an eviction moratorium depriving property owners of the fundamental right to exclude nonpaying tenants effects a physical taking.”

In February, the city attorney’s office urged the court to turn down the appeal.

“As a once-in-a-century pandemic shuttered its businesses and schools, the city of Los Angeles employed temporary, emergency measures to protect residential renters against eviction,” they wrote. The measure protected only those who could “prove COVID-19 related economic hardship,” and it “did not excuse any rent debt that an affected tenant accrued.”

The city argued the landlords are seeking a “radical departure from precedent” in the area of property regulation.

“If a government takes property, it must pay for it,” the city attorneys said. “For more than a century, though, this court has recognized that governments do not appropriate property rights solely by virtue of regulating them.”

The city said the COVID emergency and the restriction on evictions ended in January 2023.

In reply, lawyers for the landlords said bans on evictions are becoming the “new normal.” They cited a Los Angeles County measure they said would “preclude evictions for non-paying tenants purportedly affected by the recent wildfires.”

Ruling sides against authors who alleged that Anthropic trained an AI model using their work without consent.

A United States federal judge has ruled that the company Anthropic made “fair use” of the books it utilised to train artificial intelligence (AI) tools without the permission of the authors.

The favourable ruling comes at a time when the impacts of AI are being discussed by regulators and policymakers, and the industry is using its political influence to push for a loose regulatory framework.

“Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic’s LLMs [large language models] trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different,” US District Judge William Alsup said.

A group of authors had filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that Anthropic’s use of their work to train its chatbot, Claude, without their consent was illegal.

But Alsup said that the AI system had not violated the safeguards in US copyright laws, which are designed for “enabling creativity and fostering scientific progress”.

He accepted Anthropic’s claim that the AI’s output was “exceedingly transformative” and therefore fell under the “fair use” protections.

Alsup, however, did rule that Anthropic’s copying and storage of seven million pirated books in a “central library” infringed author copyrights and did not constitute fair use.

The fair use doctrine, which allows limited use of copyrighted materials for creative purposes, has been employed by tech companies as they create generative AI. Technology developpers often sweeps up large swaths of existing material to train their AI models.

Still, fierce debate continues over whether AI will facilitate greater artistic creativity or allow the mass-production of cheap imitations that render artists obsolete to the benefit of large companies.

The writers who brought the lawsuit — Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson — alleged that Anthropic’s practices amounted to “large-scale theft”, and that the company had sought to “profit from strip-mining the human expression and ingenuity behind each one of those works”.

While Tuesday’s decision was considered a victory for AI developpers, Alsup nevertheless ruled that Anthropic must still go to trial in December over the alleged theft of pirated works.

The judge wrote that the company had “no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library”.

WASHINGTON — The massive tax and spending cuts package that President Trump wants on his desk by July 4 would loosen regulations on gun silencers and certain types of rifles and shotguns, advancing a longtime priority of the gun industry as Republican leaders in the House and Senate try to win enough votes to pass the bill.

The guns provision was first requested in the House by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Republican gun store owner who had initially opposed the larger tax package. The House bill would remove silencers — called “suppressors” by the gun industry — from a 1930s law that regulates firearms that are considered the most dangerous, eliminating a $200 tax while removing a layer of background checks.

The Senate kept the provision on silencers in its version of the bill and expanded upon it, adding short-barreled, or sawed-off, rifles and shotguns.

Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on 2nd Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport.

“Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn’t stand in the way of protecting American gun owners’ hearing,” said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel.

Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons.

“Parents don’t want silencers on their streets, police don’t want silencers on their streets,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants.

Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools.

Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades.

Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called “beautiful.”

“I’m glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the 2nd Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill,” said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year.

If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online.

Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. “All it’s ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing-safe levels,” Keane says.

Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores 2nd Amendment rights from “over 90 years of draconian taxes.” Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill “with the purest of motive.”

“Who asked for it? I asked,” said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added.

Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the “mass shooting generation” and said the bill would help “gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.”

Among other concerns, control advocates say less regulation for silencers could make it harder for law enforcement to stop an active shooter.

“There’s a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety.

Schumer and other Democrats are trying to persuade the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren’t budget-related.

“Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we’ve got,” Schumer said earlier this month.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press.

June 11 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly advanced legislation for a regulatory method for payment with stablecoins.

The cloture, which ended debate, was approved 68-30, including 18 Democrats. It clears the way for final approval for the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, or GENIUS. Two Republicans, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Josh Hawley of Missouri, voted no.

A stablecoin, which supporters say is a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value, is typically pegged to another asset such as a currency such as a U.S. dollar or a commodity, including gold. Other digital cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, can experience significant price fluctuations and are not part of the Senate legislation.

For passage in the Senate, there needs to be at least 60 votes. On Tuesday, two House committees easily approved a bill that establishes a regulatory framework for digital assets, not just stablecoin, called the CLARITY Act.

“We want to bring cryptocurrency into the mainstream, and the GENIUS Act will help us do that,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota, adding there was “more work to be done” for Congress in regard to digital assets, referring to the House’s bill.

The bill would require stablecoins to be fully backed by U.S. dollars or similar liquid assets, mandate annual audits for issuers with more than $50 billion in market capitalization and add language around foreign issuance.

The cloture ended an open amendments process. Democrats had sought to add a provision that would prevent President Donald Trump and other elected officials from profiting off stablecoins.

“Let me be clear, this did not happen by accident,” Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott, R-S.C., said on the Senate floor before the vote. “It happened because we led. To those who said Washington could not act, to those who said Washington could not act, to those who doubted bipartisanship — let’s prove them wrong.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York voted against the bill along with other prominent Democrats.

“The GENIUS act attempts to set up some guardrails for buying and selling a type of cryptocurrency, one type called a stablecoin,” Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said on the Senate floor before his no vote.

“Well, we need guardrails that ensure that government officials aren’t openly asking people to buy their coins in order to increase their personal profit or their family’s profit,” he added. “Where are those guardrails in this bill? They’re completely, totally absent.”

Some Democrats were concerned about foreign issuers, anti-money laundering standards, potential corporate issuance of stablecoins and Trump’s deepening ties to crypto ventures.

Trump and his wife, Melania, launched meme coins days before his inauguration on Jan. 20. His affiliated venture, World Liberty Financial, recently launched its stablecoin. Trump Media is planning to build a multi-billion dollar Bitcoin treasury. And American Bitcoin,a mining firm backed by his sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., is planning to go public via a Gryphon merger.

“It’s extremely unhelpful that we have a president who’s involved in this industry, and I would love to ban this activity, but that does not diminish the excellent work of this legislation,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who approved the measure, said.

“It does not diminish the hard work that bipartisan group of senators put into this to make a difference and to write a law that can protect consumers, that can protect our financial services industry, that can protect the strength of the dollar, and that can protect people who would like access to capital.”

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who voted against cloture, said: “Through his crypto business, Trump has created an efficient means to trade presidential favors like tariff exemptions, pardons and government appointments for hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars from foreign governments, from billionaires and from large corporations. By passing the GENIUS Act, the Senate is not only about to bless this corruption, but to actively facilitate its expansion.”

The Dutch government collapsed on Tuesday after far-right politician Geert Wilders pulled out of the right-wing coalition after a dispute over anti-immigration measures his party had proposed.

Wilders’ decision prompted the Dutch cabinet and Prime Minister Dick Schoof to resign.

Here is what triggered the government’s collapse, and what happens next:

Why did Wilders withdraw?

Wilders announced the withdrawal of his right-wing party, the Party for Freedom (PVV), from the 11-month-old right-wing Netherlands coalition government. Wilders said the other three parties in the coalition had failed to back his plans to crack down on asylum for refugees.

“No signature under our asylum plans. The PVV leaves the coalition,” Wilders wrote in an X post on Tuesday after a brief meeting in parliament with party leaders. Besides PVV, the coalition comprised People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB) and the New Social Contract (NSC).

On May 26, Wilders announced a 10-point plan to extensively slash migration, deploying army officials at the Dutch land borders and rejecting all asylum seekers. Wilders threatened, back then, that his party would pull out of the coalition if migration policy was not toughened.

The four parties cumulatively held 88 seats in the country’s 150-seat House of Representatives.

The PVV won the latest November 2023 election with 23 percent of the vote and 37 seats, the highest number of seats in the parliament out of all parties.

The majority mark in the House is 76 seats. The withdrawal leaves the coalition with only 51 seats.

When did Schoof step down?

After Wilders announced the withdrawal, an emergency cabinet meeting was called. After this, Schoof announced that he would step down, hours after the PVV withdrawal.

“I have told party leaders repeatedly in recent days that the collapse of the cabinet would be unnecessary and irresponsible,” Schoof said in the emergency cabinet meeting. “We are facing major challenges both nationally and internationally that require decisiveness from us.”

How did other Dutch leaders react?

Other leaders in the coalition called Wilders “irresponsible” and blamed him for putting his own political interests ahead of the country.

“There is a war on our continent. Instead of meeting the challenge, Wilders is showing he is not willing to take responsibility,” said Dilan Yesilgoz, leader of the VVD, which has 24 seats in the the House.

“It is irresponsible to take down the government at this point,” NSC leader Nicolien van Vroonhoven said about Wilders. The NSC has 20 seats.

Head of the opposition GreenLeft-Labour alliance Frans Timmermans said he could “see no other way to form a stable government” than early elections.

What’s next?

Schoof will now formally submit his resignation to the head of state, Dutch King Willem-Alexander. After this, elections are expected to be called. It is likely that the election will be held sometime in October or November, based on previous cycles.

As of May 31, polls show that Wilders’ PVV has lost a little of its support, from 23 percent in the 2023 election to 20 percent.

This brings the party almost at par with the GreenLeft-Labour alliance, which has 19 percent of support and 25 seats in the lower house of parliament, the second highest number of seats after the PVV.

The fragmented politics of the Netherlands makes it difficult to predict which party will win the election. It is unlikely for a single party to win the 76-seat majority and it takes months for a coalition to form. According to the Dutch election authority’s data, no single party has ever won a majority since the first direct elections in 1848.

What happens until elections?

Schoof has said he and the other ministers of the coalition will continue with their positions in a caretaker government until a new government is formed after elections.

The political crisis comes as the Netherlands is scheduled to host a summit of NATO leaders at The Hague on June 24-25. Mark Rutte, the current secretary-general of NATO, was the prime minister of the Netherlands from 2010 to 2024. Rutte was affiliated with the VVD.

Schoof had also been involved in European efforts to provide support to Ukraine in its war against Russia. In February, the Dutch PM was present at a meeting with other European leaders in Paris where the leaders pledged to provide Ukraine with security guarantees.