remove

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.

“The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances—even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.

“Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”

Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.

The Supreme Court has put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.

In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and non-binary persons.

Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.

The ACLU sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick who blocked the new policy from taking effect.

The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to Supreme Court last month.

They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.

“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely…{It} undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.

“Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.

A large group of former UCLA football players sent a letter to chancellor Julio Frenk earlier this month asking for besieged athletic director Martin Jarmond to be replaced “to reestablish the university’s commitment to excellence, both on and off the field.”

The 64 players, who represent multiple eras of UCLA football spanning coaches Bob Toledo to Chip Kelly and include several who went on to play in the NFL, wrote to “express deep concern with the current direction of UCLA Athletics under Martin Jarmond. Despite the resources, history, and opportunities at his disposal, Mr. Jarmond has not demonstrated the level of leadership or vision consistent with UCLA’s proud legacy. Rather than building on the foundations of greatness established by those before him, his tenure has fallen short of advancing UCLA to its rightful place among the nation’s premier programs.

“UCLA deserves an athletic director who understands that this role is not merely about administration, but about stewardship of a legacy — one rooted in excellence, historic achievement, and national leadership. Unfortunately, Mr. Jarmond has not embodied these values, nor has he positioned UCLA Athletics to rise to the standard its history demands.”

The letter went on to call for new leadership, saying it was part of a movement “bigger than any one of us. Former players have joined forces — through countless calls, texts, and meetings — to push this cause forward. We are united in our commitment to protecting the proud legacy of UCLA football and athletics.”

A UCLA spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Jarmond has come under fire since the dismissal of coach DeShaun Foster after only 15 games illuminated the athletic director’s stewardship of the football program. Jarmond’s refusal to fire Kelly before Kelly abruptly left in February 2024 to take a job as offensive coordinator at Ohio State led to the whirlwind hiring of Foster, a position coach whose deficiencies as a head coach were on full display while posting a 5-10 record that included an 0-3 start this season.

Others have since criticized Jarmond for a broad range of shortcomings, including an insufficient response to leaked donor data, lowered expectations for success involving a once-proud football program and carte blanch spending that has led to staggering athletic department deficits.

A petition seeking Jarmond’s removal or resignation garnered 1,462 signatures and a mobile billboard truck circled Westwood with messages such as “UCLA Football Deserves Better Fire AD Martin Jarmond” and “$7 Million Buyout for UCLA’s AD? Failure Never Paid So Well.”

Some have questioned why Jarmond was granted a contract extension in May 2024, at a time when UCLA was transitioning from outgoing chancellor Gene Block to Frenk. According to the terms of that extension, Jarmond would be owed roughly $7.1 million, or the full amount of a contract that runs through June 30, 2029, if he was terminated without cause.

Many appear to want him gone before then. Before each of the football team’s last two home games at the Rose Bowl, an airplane has flown over the stadium pulling a banner calling for his dismissal.

Health officials in the United States are reviewing whether to remove aluminium from some common vaccines, as part of the Trump administration’s escalating attacks on vaccines.

The Department of Health and Human Services has reduced some vaccine access. The agency scaled back COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, approved COVID-19 vaccines for fewer people and aimed to remove the preservative thimerosal from US vaccines. Experts told PolitiFact scientific research did not support its removal.

During a September 22 news conference, in which US President Donald Trump told people not to take Tylenol during pregnancy, he also mentioned another objective. “We want no aluminium in the vaccine,” he said. The administration was already in the process of removing aluminium from vaccines, he added.

About two weeks later, on October 8, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, announced a new working group focused on the childhood vaccine schedule. Its discussion topics include vaccine ingredient safety and aluminium adjuvants.

Robert Malone, an ACIP member who has opposed COVID-19 vaccines, told Axios he expected the ACIP would determine there was “a lot of evidence” of “issues” with aluminium in vaccines. The committee would likely vote to re-categorise vaccines containing aluminium adjuvants so that people would have to discuss with their doctor before getting them, Malone told Axios.

That could have far-reaching ramifications. Here’s what to know about aluminium in vaccines.

A: Small amounts of aluminium are sometimes included in vaccines as adjuvants, or substances that boost the body’s immune response to the vaccine to ensure protection from infection.

That boost means people can get fewer vaccine doses in smaller quantities.

Q: When used, how much aluminium is in a vaccine?

A: Vaccines with aluminium adjuvants usually contain less than 1mg aluminium per dose, according to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

That is a pretty abstract number. To help make it more concrete: a milligram is one-thousandth (1/1,000th) of 1g. One gram is about the weight of a raisin or a stick of gum. Imagine cutting one of those items into 1,000 equal pieces. One of the pieces would be about 1mg.

Here is another way to think about it.

People come in contact with and consume aluminium all of the time. It is one of the most abundant metal elements in the Earth’s crust, according to the US Geological Survey. It is naturally occurring in soil, air and water. Food is the main way people are exposed to aluminium. The average adult eats 7mg to 9mg of aluminium per day, according to the CDC.

A baby in its first six months might receive a total of about 4.4mg of aluminium from recommended vaccines. In the same period of time, a breastfed infant would ingest about 7mg of aluminium from breastmilk, and a formula-fed baby would ingest about 38mg from formula.

Q: How long have vaccines contained aluminium?

A: Aluminium adjuvants have been used in vaccines for more than 70 years, the CDC said.

“Aluminium is one of our oldest adjuvants; it’s been used in vaccines since the 1920s,” said Dr Peter Hotez, a Baylor College of Medicine professor and codirector of Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.

Q: How do we know it’s safe to include small amounts of aluminium in vaccines?

A: Every vaccine’s safety and efficacy are tested in animal studies and human clinical trials before the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licenses it for public use. Every vaccine containing adjuvants has been tested, and health agencies continuously monitor their safety, the CDC said.

Over several decades of use, vaccines with aluminium adjuvants have been proven safe, the FDA said.

Vaccines containing aluminium have been “given to billions of people worldwide now”, said Dr Kawsar Talaat, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

A growing body of research has also found that aluminium adjuvants do not cause aluminium toxicity or other adverse outcomes.

Q: Do aluminium adjuvants have any risks?

A: Rarely, some people have allergic reactions to aluminium in the same way they might have allergic reactions to other substances, Talaat said.

In 2022, researchers published a retrospective, observational study on more than 325,000 children that found an association between vaccine-related aluminium exposure and persistent asthma. Association is not the same as causation, meaning the study did not prove a link between aluminium in vaccines and asthma.

Experts from the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics encouraged more research on the subject because the backwards-looking observational study did not prove causation and also had limitations, including that it excluded many children who developed asthma before they turned two years old.

A 2025 study found no increased risk of asthma associated with childhood exposure to aluminium-absorbed vaccines.

Q: Which vaccines contain aluminium adjuvants?

A: At least 25 vaccines approved for use in the US have aluminium adjuvants, the CDC says. That includes vaccines that protect against HPV, hepatitis A and B and diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (whooping cough).

Q: Which vaccines do not contain aluminium adjuvants?

The CDC’s list of vaccines without adjuvants includes vaccines against COVID-19, Ebola, meningococcal, polio and rabies. Additionally, most seasonal flu shots and the vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella do not contain aluminium adjuvants.

Q: Can we remove aluminium from vaccines?

A: Not quickly. If it could be done at all, it would take years to develop, test and license new, aluminium-free vaccines. Many of the vaccines with aluminium adjuvants do not have aluminium-free formulas.

“A vaccine is licensed based on all of its ingredients and the exact manufacturing process,” Talaat said. “If you were to take an ingredient out of a vaccine, you would have to start all over with the clinical trials and the manufacturing, and it is highly possible that some of these vaccines wouldn’t work without the aluminium in there.”

Although other adjuvants exist, they are newer and often more scarce than aluminium, which is abundant.

An immediate ban on aluminium in vaccines would drastically reduce people’s ability to protect themselves and others against numerous diseases.

“I think we’d see outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Talaat said.

Q: Why do people think aluminium in vaccines is causing autism?

A: A 2011 study said vaccines with aluminium adjuvants “may be a significant” contributing factor to the rising number of autism diagnoses in kids, Nature reported.

A year later, a World Health Organization vaccine safety committee called the 2011 study “seriously flawed”. The 2011 study and another by the same authors compared vaccines’ aluminium content and autism rates in several countries, the WHO group said, but that cannot be used to establish a causal relationship.

“We studied aluminium, and have no link between aluminium and autism,” Talaat said.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Unlike eight previous attempts to remove the president, almost all legislative factions expressed support for the move.

Peru’s Congress has voted to remove President Dina Boluarte, among the world’s most unpopular leaders, in a late-night session called hours after political parties from across the spectrum called for her impeachment, as the nation fights an intensive crime wave.

Politicians voted late Thursday into Friday to debate her removal from office on grounds of “moral incapacity” and summoned her to defend herself before Congress an hour later.

The stunning turn of events came just hours after a shooting at a concert in the capital inflamed anger over crime roiling the South American nation.

Legislators had voted to accept four requests for a vote to remove Boluarte from office over what they said was her government’s inability to stem crime. They exceeded the minimum 56 votes required for each request, setting up a debate and impeachment trial in the 130-member unicameral Congress.

They then requested that Boluarte come before them on Thursday shortly before midnight to defend herself, but when she did not appear, they immediately voted to oust her. In short order, 124 lawmakers voted just past midnight to impeach Boluarte.

Unlike eight previous attempts to remove her, almost all legislative factions expressed support for the latest requests.

American Airlines has moved its bag sizers away from the boarding gate. Now, passengers are being encouraged to check whether their luggage is too big when checking in, rather than just before they enter the aircraft

American Airlines is moving its bag sizers from the boarding gate to the check-in area in a process shakeup.

The airline—the third biggest in the world by number of employees—charges passengers whose carry-on bags are too big to check in.

While the size limits will still apply, American Airlines has moved its bag sizers away from the boarding gate. Now, passengers are being encouraged to check whether their luggage is too big when checking in, rather than just before they enter the aircraft.

That should, in theory, give them more time to repack or remove items from their carry-on bags before they get to the boarding gate, when time and space can feel limited.

READ MORE: Major airline now serving free beer and wine to economy passengers on every flightREAD MORE: Travel experts reveal the best month to fly in 2026 if you want to avoid delays

In an internal memo, American Airlines team members have been directed to “use their judgment” and “err on the side of the customer” when passengers arrive at the boarding area from now on. If there is uncertainty over the size of items to be taken on board with passengers, only luggage that is “clearly oversized” should it be forcibly checked in, the new rules say.

“Team members will continue to monitor carry-on baggage in the lobby and at the gate, and oversized items will still be required to be checked in ahead of the flight,” the carrier said.

American insists that the changes are part of improvements to the boarding process that the carrier has been making since 2024. But some might argue that boarding with carry-on bags is about to become a more subjective process as a result of the rule change, making it harder for passengers to prove that their bag is within reasonable limits.

American Airlines allows passengers one “personal item” and one carry-on. The personal item should fit under the seat in front and be no bigger than 18 x 14 x 8 inches (45 cm x 35 cm x 20 cm). Meanwhile, the carry-on should be able to be placed under the seat in front or in an overhead compartment and cannot exceed 22 x 14 x 9 inches (56 cm x 36 cm x 23 cm).

It’s definitely not something you’d want to get wrong. The most expensive fee for an oversized bag with American is $200 (£150).

The news has been met with a mixed reaction by those who fly regularly.

“Honestly, I think this is an unnecessary and stupid change. The size restrictions haven’t changed, but now there’s no way to check them at the gate? And when the gate agent has to stop someone with an oversized bag, they don’t have proof to back them up?” one person wrote on the American Airlines subreddit.

“I’m sure they were used occasionally by overly-eager gate agents, but I personally have never seen the sizers used except by curious passengers sizing their own bags. There’s no reason for them not to exist; they should just (continue to) only be used when necessary.”

A defender on the new system said: “This is an awesome move. Those gate sizers were never accurate and just made people feel like rubbish.”