Report

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.

The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.

“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”

Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.

The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.

The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.

“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.

“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”

The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.

“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”

The Sino-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder has emerged as a surprise candidate for Saudi Arabia’s next fighter jet, according to a recent report. While a mutual defense pact signed with Pakistan would help open the door to the transfer of JF-17s to Saudi Arabia, the fighter faces very strong competition. Furthermore, it isn’t clear if the Saudis even would want a light fighter like this at all, especially considering it could cause a rift with the U.S. at a critical time. In the past months, the kingdom has been offered the U.S.-made F-35, as you can read about here, and has been linked with several other multirole fighters.

According to a report today from Reuters, talks are now underway between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, with a view to the kingdom obtaining an undisclosed number of JF-17s. These would be paid for by converting some of the billions of dollars of Saudi loans taken out by Islamabad, a sign of the deepening relationship between the two countries, including at a military level. The report cites two different Pakistani sources, one of whom says the talks are limited to the JF-17, while the other claims that the jets are the “primary option,” but that different military equipment could also be made available.

Reportedly, the deal would be worth $4 billion in terms of offsetting the loan, while Saudi Arabia would also spend $2 billion on top of that.

This week, Pakistan’s Air Chief Zaheer Ahmed Baber Sidhu was in Saudi Arabia to discuss what the Pakistani military described as “bilateral defense cooperation, the regional security environment, and future avenues of collaboration” with his Saudi counterpart, Lieutenant General Turki bin Bander bin Abdulaziz.

The JF-17 was developed jointly by China’s Chengdu and the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), and the first prototype took to the air in 2003. The aircraft is powered by a single Russian-designed RD-93 turbofan engine, an improved version of the RD-33 that is found in the twin-engined MiG-29 Fulcrum.

The Thunder has been steadily improved since the first series-built JF-17s began to come off the PAC line at its Kamra facility in 2008. After the first 50 JF-17s were delivered to Pakistan, production switched to the enhanced JF-17 Block 2 version, with improved avionics, strengthened wing roots for additional stores carriage, and an in-flight refueling probe, among other changes.

The latest Block 3 version of the jet has an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, as well as an improved fly-by-wire flight-control system, infrared search and track system, helmet-mounted display, and a larger holographic wide-angle head-up display for the pilot.

Pakistan Air Force JF-17 participates in Virtual Air Tattoo 2021

In terms of performance and specifications, the Block 2 version has a maximum takeoff weight of a little over 27,000 pounds, a maximum speed of Mach 1.6, and an unrefueled range of 840 miles. It can carry 3,300 pounds of stores carried on seven external hardpoints. This puts it broadly in the same class as the Saab Gripen C/D.

The unclassified version of an annual Pentagon report to Congress on China’s military stated that, as of May 2024, the JF-17 had been sold to Azerbaijan, Burma, and Nigeria — as well as Pakistan. The report also says that, as of 2024, negotiations were underway regarding a possible JF-17 transfer to Iraq.

That same story stressed heavily the growing presence of the JF-17, as well as other Chinese-made fighters, on the export market, as you can read more about here.

Last month, Pakistan reportedly struck a weapons deal worth more than $4 billion with the Libyan National Army, which is also said to include JF-17. Additionally, Pakistan has held talks with Bangladesh on the possible sale of the same jets.

As for Saudi Arabia, the claimed interest in the JF-17 comes after it signed a mutual defense pact with Pakistan last September. This is the latest development in a long-running security partnership between the two nations, which has seen extensive provision of defense equipment to the kingdom, as well as training.

“The agreement states that any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both,” the office of the Pakistani prime minister said in a statement about the pact. This raised questions of whether the Pakistani nuclear umbrella might even be extended to protect Saudi Arabia, too.

For its part, Saudi Arabia has regularly provided Pakistan with economic support. In 2018, Riyadh agreed on a support package for its ally that included a loan worth $6 billion. Since then, it has allowed Islamabad to defer payments.

Were it to happen, a deal involving JF-17s and potentially other arms could help balance the books between the countries.

While the JF-17 is less advanced than other fighters that Saudi Arabia has been looking at buying, most notably the F-35, the Thunder’s status has been enhanced by claims of its performance during Pakistan’s clashes with India last year. Pakistan has long pitched the JF-17 as a cheaper and more sustainable fighter option, but now it is combat-proven too, although the results of its performance against the Indian Air Force are hard to verify.

Last month, it became clear that the Trump administration intended to sell up to 48 F-35s to Saudi Arabia, which marked a significant policy shift. Previously, Washington had been unwilling to export these jets to Arab states in the region, for fear of upsetting the strategic balance in relation to Israel — also an F-35 operator.

As we noted at the time:

Even without the F-35, the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) operates an extremely modern and advanced fleet of fighters. It received 84 of the new-build F-15SA, which was the most advanced variant of the Strike Eagle family available until the appearance of the Qatari F-15QA and the U.S. Air Force’s F-15EX Eagle II. Meanwhile, the 68-strong fleet of earlier F-15S aircraft has been upgraded locally to a similar standard, known as F-15SR (for Saudi Retrofit).

The RSAF also received 72 Eurofighter Typhoons. Older, but still capable, are around 80 British-supplied Panavia Tornado IDS swing-wing strike aircraft, which continue in service in the strike role.

Other fighters have been linked with a sale to Saudi Arabia, as it seeks to further boost its fighter fleet.

For a long time, more Typhoons were seen as the most likely option, but a potential deal has been frustrated by Germany — which has a stake in Eurofighter via the German arm of Airbus — which has consistently blocked further sales of the jets to Saudi Arabia, citing human rights concerns.

Saudi Arabia also entered talks to buy 54 Dassault Rafale multirole fighters, as we reported back in 2023.

More recently, Boeing confirmed that it was offering the F-15EX Eagle II to Saudi Arabia.

The JF-17 is far less capable than these options, but it is not irrelevant, especially in its Block 3 version with AESA radar and Chinese-made PL-15 air-to-air missiles.

At the same time, the Thunder would be a far less expensive option and could be acquired in greater numbers, creating a high-low force mix.

Still, the idea that Saudi Arabia would actually be interested in Pakistan’s proposal seems remote due to multiple factors.

Whether the JF-17 could be operated alongside the F-35 is highly questionable, on the grounds that its sensitive technologies might be exposed to Chinese intelligence. On the other hand, even without the JF-17, Saudi Arabia has long been a customer of Chinese-made defense equipment, including drones and ballistic missiles. But these are not fighter platforms with sensors that can give away critical capabilities, as well as weapon systems that need highly integrated tactics across a force in order to be effective. The very idea that a deal like this could even threaten the long-awaited acquisition of the F-35 seems to disqualify it on its face.

There is also the question of why Saudi Arabia would even want this aircraft when they have access to far more capable fighters that accommodate the weapons and networks their force already uses? A high-low mix may hold some relevance, but we have seen no indication that Saudi Arabia believes this to be the case.

It also comes at a time of extremely close ties between the kingdom and the U.S., with the Trump administration seeing Saudi Arabia as a top ally and economic partner. Risking that for a cheap fighter aircraft seems remote.

At the same time, Islamabad sees arms sales, including to non-traditional clients, as critical to helping address its economic troubles.

“Our aircraft have been tested, and we are receiving so many orders that Pakistan may not need the International Monetary Fund in six months,” Pakistani Minister of Defense Khawaja Asif recently told local media.

However, as has been the case in earlier Saudi procurements, the most important dimension in selecting a new fighter may well be the political one.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Jan. 8 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s Ministry of Unification said Thursday it will publicly livestream work reports by two affiliated organizations for the first time.

The ministry said the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Support Association and the Inter-Korean Hana Foundation will deliver their reports Wednesday at the inter-Korean talks headquarters conference room. The event will be streamed on the ministry’s UniTV channel.

A ministry official told reporters the live broadcast of an affiliated agency work report is unprecedented, adding that government ministries are now moving toward livestreaming work reports more broadly. The official said the ministry has received such reports when needed but they have not previously been made public.

President Lee Jae-myung received the first livestreamed work report last month. On Wednesday, senior presidential secretary for public relations and communication Lee Kyu-yeon said livestreamed policy briefings would be expanded to all 47 government ministries.

Lee said the government plans to livestream events led by the prime minister and ministries, major policy issues and matters of public interest. When ministries request live broadcasts on KTV, KTV will make them available to the public through television and YouTube channels. The Ministry of Unification is expected to use its own broadcast staff.

Lee said expanding live policy broadcasts is expected to improve transparency in government affairs and strengthen policy credibility.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre said Wednesday that anyone who says he has thrown in the towel on his battle with Parkinson’s disease is spreading fake news.

“Thank you everyone for your prayers and concerns, but contrary to reports, I have not given up hope in my battle with Parkinson’s!” the 56-year-old Super Bowl champion wrote on X. “Not sure where this came from — but just like I never gave up on the gridiron — not going to start now. I pray there will be a cure one day and I appreciate you all.”

Favre also told TMZ on Wednesday: “I have absolutely not given up and I am fighting till the end. Yes I have progressed a little faster than I would have hoped at this point but I’m extremely thankful and blessed!!!”

The former Packers/Jets/Vikings quarterback revealed his Parkinson’s diagnosis last year but hadn’t gone into much detail about it until last week’s episode of his “4th and Favre” podcast.

On the podcast, Favre sounds like he’s trying to be realistic about his condition while also remaining hopeful.

“As you well know, there’s no cure,” Favre said. “I hear from time to time, ‘Well, they’re five years away from a cure.’ You know, I hope that that’s the case. I really do. But I’m not holding my breath.”

He mentioned Michael J. Fox and Muhammad Ali as people who “have really set the bar high on Parkinson’s and treatments and things of that nature.”

“And I’m sure that when they were diagnosed, they thought, ‘Well, they’ll have a cure in five years. I’ll be fine,’” Favre said. “Well, that’s not the case. So, I’m optimistic, but again, I’m not holding my breath.”

Favre’s comments on Wednesday may have been in response to a recent online article that seemed to interpret his podcast remarks in a different way than he intended.

Also on the podcast, Favre said he’s in the early stages of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease, which is the most common type of the disorder. He said his major symptoms are “rigidity and stiffness,” which is worst in the morning before he takes his medication and has particularly affected his right side.

Favre added that he occasionally experiences shaking but has not had any memory loss issues.

“All in all, I’m pretty good,” he said. “I would say I’ve progressed maybe a little. … If you dropped a dime on the floor in front of me and I reached down with my right hand, I may for five minutes try to pick up that dime and eventually just grab it with my left hand. Initially when I would take the medicine, my dexterity in my right hand was pretty smooth. But that’s not the case anymore.

“So that’s one of the reasons I think I may have progressed a little bit. Hopefully not. Maybe it’s I’m looking into something more than it really is, but all in all, again I’m very blessed and thankful.”

Months after the devastating Palisades fire, the head of the Los Angeles Fire Commission inquired about the Fire Department’s long-awaited after-action report.

Interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva said that a “working draft” had been sent to Mayor Karen Bass’ office, Genethia Hudley Hayes told The Times on Tuesday.

In the conversation, which took place in mid-August or later, Villanueva said that the mayor’s office had asked for “refinements,” but he did not say what they were, according to Hudley Hayes.

Hudley Hayes, who was appointed by Bass in June 2023 to serve on the five-member commission that provides civilian oversight of the LAFD, said that in her long career in civic roles, she had learned that words like “refinements” could mean troubling changes to a government report, made for the purpose of hiding facts.

Earlier Tuesday, Fire Chief Jaime Moore, responding to the findings of a Times investigation, acknowledged that the after-action report had been edited to soften criticism of the LAFD leadership’s handling of the Palisades fire.

The Times had previously reported that Hudley Hayes was concerned enough about possible edits that she sought advice from a deputy city attorney.

But Hudley Hayes’ remarks Tuesday were her first public statements that her concerns stemmed from what she understood to be the mayor’s office’s possible intent to influence the report, which was supposed to lay out what went wrong in fighting the Palisades fire and how to prevent the mistakes from happening again.

Hudley Hayes said that after reviewing an early draft of the after-action report, as well as the final document released by the LAFD on Oct. 8, she was satisfied that “material findings” were not altered.

But her account raises questions about the mayor’s role in revisions to the report that, as Moore conceded Tuesday, downplayed the city’s failures in preparing for and responding to the fire, which killed 12 people and leveled much of the Palisades and surrounding areas.

On Tuesday, Bass’ office did not immediately explain what the refinements were. A spokesperson previously said that the office did not demand changes to the drafts and only asked the LAFD to confirm the accuracy of items such as how the weather and the department’s budget factored into the disaster.

“The report was written and edited by the Fire Department,” the spokesperson, Clara Karger, said in an email last month. “We did not red-line, review every page or review every draft of the report.”

The Times obtained and analyzed seven drafts of the report and identified deletions and revisions. The most significant changes in the various iterations of the report involved the LAFD’s deployment decisions before the fire, as the wind warnings became increasingly dire.

In one instance, LAFD officials removed language saying that the decision not to fully staff up and pre-deploy all available crews and engines ahead of the extreme wind forecast “did not align” with the department’s policy and procedures during red flag days. Instead, the final report said that the number of engine companies rolled out ahead of the fire “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

Moore, who replaced Villanueva in November, admitted that the report was watered down to shield top brass from scrutiny.

“It is now clear that multiple drafts were edited to soften language and reduce explicit criticism of department leadership in that final report,” Moore said at a Fire Commission meeting Tuesday. “This editing occurred prior to my appointment as fire chief. And I can assure you that nothing of this sort will ever again happen while I am fire chief.”

The LAFD did not respond to a query about who ordered the changes to the report. Villanueva also did not respond Tuesday to requests for comment.

Hudley Hayes said she reached out to Villanueva around Aug. 21, when The Times published a story quoting a colleague on the Fire Commission, Sharon Delugach, expressing a desire to see the after-action report.

“It occurred to me then that she was correct. We hadn’t seen one — it was taking a long time,” Hudley Hayes said. “That’s the point I called interim Chief Villanueva.”

Meanwhile, the author of the report, Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, had emailed a PDF of his report to Villanueva in early August, asking the chief to select a couple of people to provide edits so he could make the changes in his Word document.

The following week, Cook emailed the chief his final draft.

“Thank you for all your hard work,” Villanueva responded. “I’ll let you know how we’re going to move forward.”

Over the next two months, the report went through a series of edits — behind closed doors and without Cook’s involvement, as The Times disclosed last month.

On Oct. 8, the same day the report was released, Cook emailed Villanueva, declining to endorse the public version because of changes that altered his findings and made the report “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

“Having reviewed the revised version submitted by your office, I must respectfully decline to endorse it in its current form,” Cook wrote in the email obtained by The Times. “The document has undergone substantial modifications and contains significant deletions of information that, in some instances, alter the conclusions originally presented.”

A July email thread reviewed by The Times shows that the LAFD formed a “crisis management workgroup” to deal with concerns about how the after-action report would be received.

“The primary goal of this workgroup is to collaboratively manage communications for any critical public relations issue that may arise. The immediate and most pressing crisis is the Palisades After Action Report,” LAFD Assistant Chief Kairi Brown wrote in an email to eight other people.

“With significant interest from media, politicians, and the community, it is crucial that we present a unified response to anticipated questions and concerns,” Brown wrote. “By doing so, we can ensure our messaging is clear and consistent, allowing us to create our own narrative rather than reactive responses.”

Hudley Hayes, who previously served on the L.A. Unified school board, said she did not think “there was any critical material removed” from the final report.

She said she noticed only small differences, such as “mistakes” being changed to “challenges,” and the removal of firefighters’ names.

She added that she does not know who ordered the changes disclosed by The Times — and despite her oversight role, is “not particularly” interested in finding out.

“Our job is to take the report that we have in front of us. Our job is to make sure those recommendations that came to us from a public report are taken care of,” she said. “You’re asking me political questions.”

Pringle is a former Times staff writer.

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday released a report after its own investigation into FireAid, the charity founded by Clippers executives that raised $100 million for wildfire relief efforts in Los Angeles last January.

The investigation — led by Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) under committee chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — began in August when Kiley “sent a letter to FireAid requesting a detailed breakdown of all non-profits that received money from FireAid.” Kiley expressed concern that the money had gone toward local nonprofits rather than as more direct aid to affected residents.

FireAid promptly released a comprehensive document detailing its fundraising and grant dispersals. After reaching out to every named nonprofit in the document, The Times reported that the groups who successfully applied for grants were quickly given money to spend in their areas of expertise, as outlined in FireAid’s public mission statements. A review conducted by an outside law firm confirmed the same.

The new Republican-led committee report is skeptical of the nonprofit work done under FireAid’s auspices — but cites relatively few examples of groups deviating from FireAid’s stated goals.

Representatives for FireAid did not immediately respond to request for comment on the report.

Out of hundreds of nonprofits given millions in FireAid funds, “In total, the Committee found six organizations that allocated FireAid grants towards labor, salaries, or other related costs,” the report said.

The committee singled out several local nonprofits, focused on relief and development for minorities and marginalized groups, for criticism. It named several long-established organizations like the NAACP Pasadena, My Tribe Rise, Black Music Action Coalition, CA Native Vote Project and Community Organized Relief Efforts (CORE), whose activities related to fire relief they found “unclear,” without providing specific claims of misusing FireAid funds.

The report — while heavily citing Fox News, Breitbart and New York Post stories — claims that “FireAid prioritized and awarded grants to illegal aliens.” Yet its lone example for this is a grant that went to CORE, citing its mission for aiding crisis response within “underserved communities,” one of which is “undocumented migrants” facing “high risk of housing instability, economic hardship, exploitation, and homelessness.”

The report said that $500,000 was used by the California Charter Schools Assn., Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, LA Disaster Relief Navigator, Community Clinic Assn. of Los Angeles County and LA Conservation Corps “towards labor, salaries, or other related costs,” which the committee said went against FireAid’s stated goals.

Yet the examples they cite as suspicious include NLSLA using its FireAid grant to pay salaries to attorneys providing free legal aid to fire victims, the Community Clinic of Los Angeles “expanding training in mental health and trauma care” through grants to smaller local health centers, and the L.A. Regional Food bank allocating its funds to “mobilize resources to fight hunger.”

The report singled out one group, Altadena Talks Foundation, from Team Rubicon relief worker Toni Raines. Altadena Talks Foundation received a $100,00 grant from FireAid, yet the report said Altadena Talks’ work on a local news podcast, among other efforts, “remains unclear” as it relates to fire relief.

The report’s claims that “instead of helping fire victims, donations made to FireAid helped to fund causes and projects completely unrelated to fire recovery, including voter participation for Native Americans, illegal aliens, podcast shows, and fungus planting” sound incendiary. Yet the evidence it cites generally shows a range of established local nonprofits addressing community-specific concerns in a fast-moving disaster, with some small amounts of money possibly going toward salaries or overhead, or groups whose missions the committee viewed skeptically.

FireAid still plans to distribute an additional round of $25 million in grants this year.

Los Angeles Fire Chief Jaime Moore admitted Tuesday that his department’s after-action report on the Palisades fire was watered down to shield top brass from scrutiny.

Moore’s admission comes more than two weeks after The Times found that the report was edited to downplay the failures of city and Los Angeles Fire Department leaders in preparing for and fighting the Jan. 7, 2025, fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes.

“It is now clear that multiple drafts were edited to soften language and reduce explicit criticism of department leadership in that final report,” Moore said Tuesday during remarks before the city’s Board of Fire Commissioners. “This editing occurred prior to my appointment as fire chief. And I can assure you that nothing of this sort will ever again happen while I am fire chief.”

Moore, who was appointed fire chief in November, did not say who was responsible for the changes to the report.

The report’s author, LAFD Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, declined to endorse it because of substantial deletions that altered his findings. Cook said in an Oct. 8 email to then-interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva and other LAFD officials that the edited version was “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

Mayor Karen Bass’ office has said that the LAFD wrote and edited the report, and that the mayor did not demand changes.

On Tuesday, Clara Karger, a spokesperson for Bass said: “Mayor Bass fully respects and supports what the Chief said today, and she looks forward to seeing his leadership make the change that is needed within the department. Chief Moore is a courageous leader with strong integrity who continues to show his deep commitment to the people of Los Angeles and to the brave firefighters who serve our city every day.”

Villanueva did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Moore’s remarks, on the eve of the first anniversary of the Palisades fire, were the strongest admission yet of missteps by LAFD leaders. They amounted to an about-face for a chief who in November critiqued the media following a Times report that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to roll up their hoses and leave the area of a New Year’s Day fire even though they had complained that the ground was still smoldering. That fire, the Lachman fire, later reignited into the Palisades fire.

“This is about learning and not assigning blame,” said Fire Commissioner Sharon Delugach, who praised the chief for his comments.

The most significant changes, The Times found in its analysis of seven drafts of the report, involved top LAFD officials’ decision not to fully staff up and pre-deploy available firefighters ahead of the ferocious winds.

An initial draft said the decision “did not align” with policy, while the final version said the number of companies pre-deployed “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

A section on “failures” was renamed “primary challenges,” and an item saying that crews and leaders had violated national guidelines on how to avoid firefighter deaths and injuries was scratched.

Another passage that was deleted said that some crews waited more than an hour for an assignment on Jan. 7, 2025.

The department made other changes that seemed intended to make the report seem less negative. In one draft, there was a suggestion to change the cover image from a photo of palm trees on fire to a more “positive” image, such as “firefighters on the frontline.” The final report displays the LAFD seal on its cover.

A July email thread reviewed by The Times shows concern over how the after-action report would be received, with the LAFD forming a “crisis management workgroup.”

“The primary goal of this workgroup is to collaboratively manage communications for any critical public relations issue that may arise. The immediate and most pressing crisis is the Palisades After Action Report,” LAFD Assistant Chief Kairi Brown wrote in an email to eight other people.

“With significant interest from media, politicians, and the community, it is crucial that we present a unified response to anticipated questions and concerns,” Brown wrote. “By doing so, we can ensure our messaging is clear and consistent, allowing us to create our own narrative rather than reactive responses.”

Maryam Zar, a Palisades resident who runs the Palisades Recovery Coalition, said that “when news came out that this report had been doctored to save face, it didn’t take much for [Palisades residents] to believe that was true.”

It was easy for Moore to admit the faults of previous LAFD administrations, she said.

“He’s not going to take any heat. It wasn’t him,” she said. “He’s not the fire chief who really should have stood up and said, ‘I didn’t do what I should have.’”

The after-action report has been widely criticized for failing to examine the New Year’s Day fire that later reignited into the Palisades fire. Bass has ordered the LAFD to commission an independent investigation into its missteps in putting out the earlier fire.

On Tuesday, Moore said the city failed to adequately ensure that the New Year’s Day fire was fully snuffed out.

He said that LAFD officials “genuinely believed the fire was fully extinguished.”

“That was based on the information, conditions, and procedures in place at that moment. That belief guided the operational decision-making that was made,” he said. “However, the outcome has made it incredibly clear that our mop-up and verification process needed to be stronger.”

“We have to own that, and I do,” he added.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump is planning to meet with executives from US oil companies later this week to discuss boosting Venezuelan oil production after US forces abducted its leader, Nicolas Maduro, the Reuters news agency has reported, citing unnamed sources.

The meetings are crucial to the administration’s hopes of getting top US oil companies back into the South American nation after its government, nearly two decades ago, took control of US-led energy operations there, the Reuters news agency report said on Monday.

The three biggest US oil companies – Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron – have not yet had any conversations with the Trump administration about Maduro’s ouster, according to four oil industry executives familiar with the matter, contradicting Trump’s statements over the weekend that he had already held meetings with “all” the US oil companies, both before and since Maduro was abducted.

“Nobody in those three companies has had conversations with the White House about operating in Venezuela, pre-removal or post-removal, to this point,” one of the sources said on Monday.

The upcoming meetings will be crucial to the administration’s hopes to boost crude oil production and exports from Venezuela, a former OPEC nation that sits atop the world’s largest reserves, and whose crude oil can be refined by specially designed US refineries. Achieving that goal will require years of work and billions of dollars of investment, analysts say.

It is unclear what executives will be attending the upcoming meetings, and whether oil companies will be attending individually or collectively.

The White House did not comment on the meetings, but said it believed the US oil industry was ready to flood into Venezuela.

“All of our oil companies are ready and willing to make big investments in Venezuela that will rebuild their oil infrastructure, which was destroyed by the illegitimate Maduro regime,” said White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers.

Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Reuters.

One oil industry executive told Reuters the companies would be reluctant to talk about potential Venezuela operations in group settings with the White House, citing antitrust concerns that limit collective discussions among competitors about investment plans, timing and production levels.

Political risks, low oil prices

US forces on Saturday conducted a raid on Venezuela’s capital, arresting Maduro in the dead of night and sending him back to the US to face narcoterrorism charges.

Hours after Maduro’s abduction, Trump said he expects the biggest US oil companies to spend billions of dollars boosting Venezuela’s oil production, after it dropped to about a third of its peak over the past two decades due to underinvestment and sanctions.

But those plans will be hindered by a lack of infrastructure, along with deep uncertainty over the country’s political future, legal framework and long-term US policy, according to industry analysts.

“While the Trump administration has suggested large US oil companies will go into Venezuela and spend billions to fix infrastructure, we believe political and other risks, along with current relatively low oil prices, could prevent this from happening anytime soon,” wrote Neal Dingmann of William Blair in a note.

Material change to Venezuelan production will take a lot of time and millions of dollars of infrastructure improvement, he said.

And any investment in Venezuelan infrastructure right now would take place in a weakened global energy market. Crude prices in the US are down by 20 percent compared with last year. The price for a barrel of benchmark US crude has not been above $70 since June, and has not touched $80 per barrel since June of 2024.

A barrel of oil cost more than $130 in the leadup to the US housing crisis in 2008.

Chevron is the only US major currently operating in Venezuela’s oil fields.

Exxon and ConocoPhillips, meanwhile, had storied histories in the country before their projects were nationalised nearly two decades ago by former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Conoco has been seeking billions of dollars in restitution for the takeover of three oil projects in Venezuela under Chavez. Exxon was involved in lengthy arbitration cases against Venezuela after it exited the country in 2007.

Chevron, which exports about 150,000 barrels per day of crude from Venezuela to the US Gulf Coast, meanwhile, has had to carefully manoeuvre with the Trump administration in an effort to maintain its presence in the country in recent years.

A US embargo on Venezuelan oil remained in full effect, Trump has said.

The S&P 500 energy index rose to its highest since March 2025, with heavyweights Exxon Mobil rising by 2.2 percent and Chevron jumping by 5.1 percent.

Last year, women made up just 13% of directors working on the top 250 films.

That level represents a 3-percentage-point decline from 2024, when women led 16% of the top-grossing movies, according to a San Diego State University study released Thursday.

The troubling tabulation comes as Hollywood seeks to turn the page from a gut-punching year that included the Los Angeles wildfires, ongoing declines of local film and television production and the deaths of beloved filmmakers.

“Hamnet,” directed by Chloé Zhao; “Freakier Friday,” helmed by Nisha Ganatra; and “I Know What You Did Last Summer,” led by Jennifer Kaytin Robinson, were among the few notable exceptions.

The university’s Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film and its founder Martha M. Lauzen have tracked employment of women in behind-the-scenes decision-making jobs for nearly three decades. Roles included in the study are: directors, writers, executive producers, producers, editors and cinematographers. Data from more than 3,500 credits on top-grossing films were used to compile the report.

Lauzen launched her effort in 1998, assuming that pointing out the imbalance would cause doors to swing open for women in Hollywood. But despite countless calls for action, and a high-profile but short-lived federal investigation, the picture has stayed largely the same.

“The numbers are remarkably stable,” Lauzen said in an interview. “They’ve been remarkably stable for more than a quarter of a century.”

Overall, women made up 23% of all directors, writers, producers, executive producers, editors and directors of photography on the 250 top-grossing films in 2025, according to Lauzen’s report: “The Celluloid Ceiling: Employment of Behind-the-Scenes Women on Top Grossing U.S. Films.” In 2024 and 2020, the percentage was the same.

Her study found that, in 2025, women constituted 28% of film producers and 23% of the executive producers.

Among the ranks of screenwriters, only 20% were women.

Women also made up 20% of editors, matching the level in 1998, when Lauzen began her study.

“There’s been absolutely no change,” she said.

Among cinematographers, women occupied just 7% of those influential roles on the 250 top-grossing films.

The cinematographer serves as the director of photography, greatly shaping the look and the feel of a film. Last year marked a stark decline from 2024, when women constituted 12% of cinematographers.

There has been movement in the number of female directors since 1998. That year, only 7% of the top-grossing films were directed by women. Last year’s total represented a 6 percentage-point improvement.

Lauzen’s most recent report comes a decade after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission began looking at alleged gender discrimination in Hollywood. But the 2015 review, which was sparked by a request from the American Civil Liberties Union, failed to get traction. A little more than a year later, President Obama left office and President Trump ushered in a sea change in attitudes.

Hollywood employment also has become more unstable in recent years because of a pullback in production by the major studios during the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by the 2023 writers’ and actors’ strikes.

Despite years of industry leaders vocalizing a need for greater diversity in executive suites and decision-making roles, and the chronic inequity remaining a punchline for award show jokes, the climate has changed.

Trump returned to office less than a year ago and immediately called for the end of diversity and inclusion programs.

Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, abolished diversity programs within his agency and launched investigations into Walt Disney Co.’s and Comcast’s internal hiring programs. Carr wants to end programs he sees as disadvantaging white people.

Paramount, led by tech scion David Ellison, agreed to dismantle all diversity and inclusion programs at the company, which includes CBS and Comedy Central, as a condition for winning FCC approval for the Ellison family’s takeover of Paramount. That merger was finalized in August.

Lauzen said she’s unsure what her future studies may find.

Corporate consolidation has added to the uncertainty.

Warner Bros., a signature Hollywood studio for more than a century, is on the auction block.

Last month, Warner Bros. Discovery’s board agreed to sell the film and television studios, HBO and HBO Max to Netflix in an $82.7-billion deal. However, the Ellisons’ Paramount is contesting Warner’s choice and has launched a hostile takeover bid, asking investors to tender their Warner shares to Paramount.

“Consolidation now hangs over the film industry like a guillotine, with job losses likely and the future of the theatrical movie-going experience in question,” Lauzen wrote in her report.

“Add the current political war on diversity, and women in the film industry now find themselves in uncharted territory,” Lauzen wrote. “Hollywood has never needed permission to exclude or diminish women, but the industry now has it.”

NEW YORK — By nearly any measure, 2025 has been a rough year for anyone concerned about freedom of the press.

It’s likely to be the deadliest year on record for journalists and media workers. The number of assaults on reporters in the U.S. nearly equals the last three years combined. The president of the United States berates many who ask him questions, calling one woman “piggy.” And the ranks of those doing the job continues to thin.

It’s hard to think of a darker time for journalists. So say many, including Timothy Richardson, a former Washington Post reporter and now program director for journalism and disinformation at PEN America. “It’s safe to say this assault on the press over the past year has probably been the most aggressive that we’ve seen in modern times.”

Tracking killings and assaults against journalists

Worldwide, the 126 media industry people killed in 2025 by early December matched the number of deaths in all of 2024, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, and last year was a record-setter. Israel’s bombing of Gaza accounted for 85 of those deaths, 82 of them Palestinians.

“It’s extremely concerning,” said Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of the Committee to Protect Journalists. “Unfortunately, it’s not just, of course, about the sheer numbers of journalists and media workers killed, it’s also about the failure to obtain justice or get accountability for those killings.

“What we know from decades of doing this work is that impunity breeds impunity,” she said. “So a failure to tackle journalists’ killings creates an environment where those killings continue.”

The committee estimates there are at least 323 journalists imprisoned worldwide.

None of those killed this year were from the United States. But the work on American soil has still been dangerous. There have been 170 reports of assaults on journalists in the United States this year, 160 of them at the hands of law enforcement, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. Many of those reports came from coverage of immigration enforcement efforts.

It’s impossible to look past the influence of Trump, who frequently seethes with anger at the press while simultaneously interacting with journalists more than any president in memory — frequently answering their cell phone calls.

“Trump has always attacked the press,” Richardson said. “But during the second term, he’s turned that into government action to restrict and punish and intimidate journalists.”

Journalists learn quickly they have a fight on their hands

The Associated Press learned that quickly, when Trump limited the outlet’s access to cover him after it refused to follow his lead to rename the Gulf of Mexico. It launched a court fight that has remained unresolved. Trump has also extracted settlements from ABC and CBS News in lawsuits over stories that displeased him, and is suing the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

Long angry about a perceived bias against conservatives on PBS and NPR newscasts, Trump and his allies in Congress successfully cut funding for public broadcasting as a whole. The president has also moved to shut down government-run organizations that beam news to all parts of the world.

“The U.S. is a major investor in media development, in independent media outlets in countries that have little or no independent media, or as a source of information for people in countries where there is no free media,” Ginsberg said. “The evisceration of Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America is another blow to press freedom globally.”

Others in his administration take Trump’s lead, like when his press office chose the day after Thanksgiving to launch a web portal to complain about outlets or journalists being unfair.

“It’s part of this overall strategy that we’re seeing from certain governments, notably the United States, to paint all journalists who don’t simply [repeat] the narrative put out by the government as fake news, as dubious, as dodgy, as criminal,” Ginsberg said.

Trump’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has portrayed journalists as dark figures skulking around Pentagon halls to uncover classified secrets as his rationale for enacting restrictive rules for coverage.

That’s led to the most notable example of journalists fighting back: most mainstream news outlets gave up their credentials to work in the Pentagon rather than agree to these rules, and are still breaking stories while working off-site. The New York Times has sued to overturn the rules. The newspaper also publicly defends itself when attacked by the president, such as when he complained about its coverage of his health.

Despite the more organized effort against the press, the public has taken little notice. The Pew Research Center said that 36% of Americans reported earlier this year hearing a lot about the Trump administration’s relationship with the press, compared to 72% who said that at the same point in his first term.

Pew’s polling shows that trust in news organizations has declined over the last decade, and journalists are likely to elicit little sympathy when their work becomes harder.

“Really, the harm falls on the public with so much of this because the public depends on this independent reporting to understand and scrutinize the decisions that are being made by the most powerful office in the world,” Richardson said.

Some reasons for optimism

The news industry as a whole is more than two decades in to a retrenchment caused largely by a collapse in the advertising market, and every year brings more reports of journalists laid off as a result. One of the year’s most sobering statistics came in a report by the organizations Muck Rack and Rebuild Local News: in 2002, there were 40 journalists for every 100,000 people in the United States; by this year, it was down to a little more than eight.

Asked if they could find reasons for optimism, both Ginsberg and Richardson pointed to the rise of some independent local news organizations, shoots of growth in a barren landscape, such as the Baltimore Banner, Charlottesville Tomorrow in Virginia and Outlier Media in Michigan.

As much as they are derided in Trump’s America, reporters at mainstream media outlets are still working hard and able to set the nation’s agenda with their reporting, noted influential Axios CEO Jim VandeHei in a recent column.

As he told the AP: “Over time, people will hopefully come to their senses and say, ‘Hey, the media like anything else is imperfect but, man, it’s a nice thing to have a free press.’”

Bauder writes for the Associated Press.

Democrats are starting the new year on a high.

A series of 2025 victories, in red and blue states alike, was marked by a striking improvement over the party’s 2024 showing. That over-performance, to use the political term of art, means candidates — including even some who lost — received a significantly higher percentage of the vote than presidential candidate Kamala Harris managed.

That’s a strong signal ahead of the midterm election, suggesting Democratic partisans are energized, a key ingredient in any successful campaign, and the party is winning support among independents and perhaps even a few disaffected Republicans.

If history is a guide and the uneven economy a portent, Democrats will very likely seize control of the House in November, picking up at least the three seats needed to erase the GOP’s bare majority. The Senate looks to be a longer — though not impossible — reach, given the Republican lean of the states being contested.

In short, Democrats are in much better shape than all the black crepe and existential ideations suggested a year ago.

Yes, the party suffered a soul-crushing defeat in the presidential race. But 2024 was never the disaster some made it out to be. Democrats gained two House seats and held their own in most contests apart from the fight for the Senate, where several Republican states reverted to form and ousted the chamber’s few remaining Democratic holdouts.

Still, Democrats being Democrats, all is not happiness and light in the party of Jefferson, Jackson, Clinton and Obama.

Campaigning to become the party’s chairman, Ken Martin last winter promised to conduct a thorough review of the 2024 election and to make its findings public, as a step toward redressing Democrats’ mistakes and bolstering the party going forward.

”What we need to do right now is really start to get a handle around what happened,” he told reporters before his election.

Now Martin has decided to bury that autopsy report.

“Here’s our North Star: Does this help us win?” he said in a mid-December statement announcing his turnabout and the study’s unceremonious interment. “If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission.”

There is certainly no shortage of 2024 election analyses for the asking. The sifting of rubble, pointing of fingers and laying of blame began an eye blink after Donald Trump was declared the winner.

There are prescriptions from the moderate and progressive wings of the party — suggesting, naturally, that Democrats absolutely must move their direction to stand any chance of ever winning again. There are diagnoses from a welter of 2028 presidential hopefuls, declared and undeclared, offering themselves as both seer and Democratic savior.

The report Martin commissioned was, however, supposed to be the definitive word from the party, offering both a clear-eyed look back and a clarion way forward.

“We know that we lost ground with Latino voters,” he said in those searching days before he became party chairman. “We know we lost ground with women and younger voters and, of course, working-class voters. We don’t know the how and why yet.”

As part of the investigation, more than 300 Democrats were interviewed in each of the 50 states. But there was good reason to doubt the integrity of the report, even before Martin pulled out his shovel and started digging.

According to the New York Times and others, there was no plan to examine President Biden’s headstrong decision to seek reelection despite his advanced age and no intention to second-guess any of the strategic decisions Harris made in her hurry-up campaign.

Which is like setting out to solve a murder by ignoring the weapon used and skipping past the cause of death.

Curious, indeed.

Still, there was predictable outrage when Martin went back on his promise.

“This is a very bad decision that reeks of the caution and complacency that brought us to this moment,” Dan Pfeiffer, an alumnus of the Obama White House, posted on social media.

“The people who volunteered, donated and voted deserve to know what went wrong,” Jamal Simmons, a former Harris vice presidential advisor, told the Hill newspaper. “The DNC should tell them.”

In 2013, Republicans commissioned a similar after-action assessment following Mitt Romney’s loss to President Obama. It was scathing in its blunt-force commentary.

The 98-page report said a smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid party was turning off voters with stale policies that had changed little in decades and was unhelpfully projecting an image that alienated minorities and young voters.

Among its recommendation, the postmortem called on the party to develop “a more welcoming brand of conservatism” and suggested an extensive set of “inclusion” proposals for minority groups, including Latinos, Asians and African Americans. (DEI, anyone?)

“Unless changes are made,” the report concluded, “it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win another presidential election in the near future.”

Trump, of course, won the White House three years later doing precisely none of what the report recommended.

Which suggests the Democratic autopsy, buried or otherwise, is not likely to matter a whole lot when voters go to the polls. (It’s the affordability, stupid.)

That said, Martin should have released the appraisal and not just because of the time and effort invested. There was already Democratic hostility toward the chairman, particularly among donors unhappy with his leadership and performance, and his entombing of the autopsy report won’t help.

Martin gave his word, and breaking it is a needless distraction and blemish on the party.

Besides, a bit of thoughtful self-reflection is never a bad thing. It’s hard to look forward when you’ve got your head stuck in the sand.

New England Patriots wide receiver Stefon Diggs was charged with felony strangulation or suffocation and misdemeanor assault and battery at a court hearing Tuesday. The alleged victim in the Dec. 2 incident was his private chef, according to a report taken by police in Dedham, Mass.

Through his attorney, Diggs has denied the allegations. The name of the woman was redacted from the police report.

The chef reported the incident Dec. 16, telling police that she and Diggs had a dispute over pay after he told her via text that her services weren’t needed the week of Nov. 7 and she replied that she should be paid for the week.

The woman told police that Diggs entered her unlocked bedroom in his house and “smacked her across the face.” She tried to push him away and he “tried to choke her using the crook of his elbow around her neck.”

She said that she had trouble breathing and felt like she could have blacked out. “As she tried to pry his arm away, he tightened his grip,” she told police.

The woman told police she had redness on her upper chest area after the incident occurred but did not take photos. She returned to Diggs’ house Dec. 9 to retrieve personal belongings and he instructed her to speak with his assistant about getting paid, she told police. The assistant told her Diggs had requested she sign a non-disclosure agreement, but she refused.

Diggs’ girlfriend is rapper Cardi B, who gave birth to their son in November. Cardi B, born Belcalis Almánzar, is not mentioned by name in the police report, although the woman told police Dec. 20 that a few days earlier “she received a voice mail and text messages from a female that she believed to be Diggs girlfriend. Based on these messages, [the alleged victim] believed that Diggs somehow knew the police were contacted. The messages stated something to the effect of ‘You don’t need to do all this. It’s not that big of a deal.’”

The woman, who had worked as Diggs’ private chef since July, initially did not want the police to file charges against the two-time All-Pro receiver but changed her mind Dec. 23.

Diggs’ lawyer David Meier said in a statement that his client “categorically denies these allegations. They are unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and were never investigated — because they did not occur.

“The timing and motivation for making the allegations is crystal clear: they are the direct result of an employee-employer financial dispute that was not resolved to the employee’s satisfaction. Stefon looks forward to establishing the truth in a court of law.”

Meier also said Diggs has made a financial offer to the woman, telling the judge at the hearing Tuesday, “As we speak, they’re working to come to an agreement on that.”

According to the police report, Diggs did not return calls from investigators and the criminal complaint was “based on [the alleged victim’s] statement.”

Diggs, 32, has been one of the NFL’s top receivers since beginning his career with the Minnesota Vikings in 2015. He ranks fifth among active players with 939 career receptions, including 82 this season for 970 yards.

This is his first season with the Patriots, who have clinched the AFC East title and will begin the playoffs with a wild card home game the weekend of Jan. 10. Diggs is in the first year of a three-year, $69-million contract.

“We support Stefon,” the Patriots said in a statement. “We will continue to gather information and will cooperate fully with the appropriate authorities and the NFL as necessary. Out of respect for all parties involved, and given that this is an ongoing legal matter, we will have no further comment at this time.”

Diggs’ arraignment is scheduled for Jan. 23. Meier asked the judge Tuesday that the proceeding be delayed until March but no ruling was made.

A shootout ensues after police raid a home in northwestern Yalova province, local media reports say.

Seven Turkish police officers have been wounded in a shootout during an operation against alleged ISIL (ISIS) fighters, local media report.

Broadcaster TRT Haber reported that police carried out a raid at a home in Yalova province’s Elmalik village, located south of Istanbul, when fire was exchanged on Sunday.

The officers were not seriously injured, the broadcaster reported. It was not immediately clear whether any suspects were wounded or arrested.

Special forces from nearby Bursa province joined the operation to provide support, including enacting ongoing security measures in the area.

Locals and vehicles were not allowed into the area surrounding the targeted home, the broadcaster said, while the Yalova governorate also suspended classes at five nearby schools.

On Thursday, Turkish authorities said they had conducted raids on 124 locations and apprehended 115 ISIL suspects.

Police had received intelligence that operatives were “planning attacks in Turkiye against non-Muslims in particular” during the holiday period, the Istanbul chief prosecutor’s office said.

The United States military also carried out extensive strikes against ISIL in neighbouring central and northeastern Syria earlier this month, hitting more than 70 targets. The strikes came a week after two US soldiers and an interpreter were killed in an attack in the Syrian city of Palmyra.

Turkiye, which shares a border with Syria, has expanded its efforts against ISIL in recent years. Turkish authorities say some ISIL operatives relocated to the country in 2019 after the group was vanquished in the parts of Iraq and Syria it then controlled.

Previous raids in March had led to the capture of nearly 300 suspected ISIL members across 47 provinces over two weeks.

Between 2013 and 2023, authorities arrested more than 19,000 people for suspected affiliations with the group, according to the Turkish presidency.

Dec. 27 (Asia Today) — China’s push to become a major aircraft carrier power, which gained momentum after it commissioned its first carrier in 2012, could expand into a fleet of nine carriers by 2035, according to a new U.S. Defense Department report.

China had no aircraft carriers before it commissioned the Liaoning in September 2012 after purchasing the unfinished former Soviet carrier Varyag from Ukraine in 1998 and refitting it for 14 years, according to Beijing-based sources familiar with military developments.

China later commissioned the Shandong in December 2019, its first domestically built carrier, and recently added a third carrier, the Fujian, which U.S. officials described as China’s first indigenously designed flat-deck carrier.

Foreign media reports have said China plans to operate six aircraft carriers by 2035, including two nuclear-powered ships, a target that some analysts consider plausible given the pace of its buildup since 2012.

However, the U.S. Defense Department’s annual report on China’s military power, released Tuesday, said “the PLAN aims to produce six aircraft carriers by 2035 for a total of nine,” raising the possibility that China’s carrier force could approach U.S. levels within a decade.

Chinese media have reported that China’s fourth aircraft carrier could enter service in 2027 and may be nuclear-powered with a displacement of about 120,000 tons, as Beijing continues to expand its blue-water capabilities.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

UK plans to boost ranks of armed forces by offering young people paid military experience amid growing Russian threats.

Teenagers in the United Kingdom will be offered paid “gap years” with the armed forces under a new “whole of society” approach to national defence that aims to increase recruitment among young people, according to reports.

The London-based i Paper reported on Friday that the UK’s Ministry of Defence hopes the scheme will broaden the appeal of military careers for British youth as tensions with Russia rise across Europe.

The scheme will initially be open to about 150 applicants aged 18 to 25 in early 2026, with ministers aiming to eventually expand the programme to more than 1,000 young people annually, depending on demand, according to British radio LBC.

With fears of threats from Russia growing amid Moscow’s war on Ukraine, European countries have looked to national service for young people as a means to boost their ranks, with France, Germany and Belgium announcing schemes this year.

Recruits to the UK scheme will not be deployed on active military operations and while pay has not been confirmed, the UK’s LBC news organisation reported that it is expected to match basic recruit salaries, typically about 26,000 pounds, or $35,000.

Under the programme, army recruits would complete 13 weeks of basic training as part of a two-year placement. The navy scheme would last one year while the Royal Air Force (RAF) is still considering options, according to reports.

UK Defence Secretary John Healey told the i Paper: “This is a new era for Defence, and that means opening up new opportunities for young people.”

News of the programme follows remarks earlier this month from the UK’s Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Richard Knighton, who said Britain’s “sons and daughters” should be “ready to fight” and defend the country amid Russian aggression, the Press Association reports.

Knighton said that while a direct Russian attack on the UK is unlikely, hybrid threats are intensifying.

He referenced a recent incident involving a Russian spy ship suspected of mapping undersea cables near UK waters.

“Every day the UK is subject to an onslaught of cyber-attacks from Russia and we know that Russian agents are seeking to conduct sabotage and have killed on our shores”, Knighton said, warning that Russia’s military had become a “hard power [which] is growing quickly”.

The UK government announced earlier this year that defence and security spending will rise to 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement summoned Afghans residing in the U.S. to present their documents during the holiday season, marking the latest effort by the Trump administration to crack down on migrants from the Asian nation.

ICE is seeking appointments for a “scheduled report check-in,” with one requesting such a meeting on Christmas Day and another asking for one on New Year’s Day, according to copies of letters sent to different people seen by Bloomberg News. Other notices were for check-ins around the holidays on Dec. 27 and Dec. 30.

The immigration agency has arrested migrants who appear at its offices in response to such formal requests, including those attending interviews for their green cards. Recipients of the letters had previously gained legal protection and were deemed “Afghan allies” as part of a program started by former President Joe Biden in August 2021 to protect those who fled to the U.S. after the American military’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s subsequent takeover of the war-torn country.

“ICE is using federal and religious holidays to detain Afghans when access to legal counsel, courts, and advocates is at its lowest,” Shawn VanDiver, founder of the nonprofit group AfghanEvac that supports Afghans who assisted the U.S. war effort, said in a statement criticizing the call-ins and their timing. “This is not routine administrative scheduling.”

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, however, called the check-ins “routine” and “long-standing” without elaborating on how many letters were sent out. The spokesperson added that ICE continues its standard operations during the holidays.

Christmas and New Year’s Day are federal holidays when most government offices are closed.

The call-ins follow substantial changes to the U.S. immigration policy under President Donald Trump targeting Afghans in the wake of the November shooting of two National Guard troops by Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who worked with U.S. forces and the CIA in Afghanistan before arriving in the US in 2021. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that Lakanwal, who has been charged with murder, came to the U.S. through the Biden program known as Operation Allies Welcome.

Since the November shooting, the Trump administration has announced it will re-review the cases of all refugees resettled under the Biden administration and freeze their green card applications, and will consider among “significant negative factors” a country’s inclusion on the president’s vast travel ban.

In another blow to Afghans, the administration’s refugee cap for fiscal year 2026 was vastly lowered to 7,500 from 125,000. The presidential determination indicated it will favor White South Afrikaners and did not mention Afghans.

The administration also removed an exemption for Afghan nationals with Special Immigration Visas — which offers those who provided services to the US government or military in Afghanistan — when it expanded its entry ban list to nationals of more than 30 countries from 19 previously. Afghan nationals were already on the entry ban list prior to the expansion.

The State Department earlier this year shuttered the office that helped resettle Afghan refugees who assisted the American war effort. An effort on Capitol Hill to compel the administration to restart the operations failed to make it into the defense policy bill that Trump signed this month.

With assistance from Alicia A. Caldwell. Lowenkron writes for Bloomberg.

Talks held between Foreign Minister Asaad Hassan Al-Shaibani, Defence Minister Murhaf Abu Qasra and the Russian president.

Syria’s foreign and defence ministers met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow and held discussions on expanding “strategic cooperation in the military industries sector”, Syrian state media has reported.

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) ⁠said that Putin’s meeting on Tuesday with Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs Asaad Hassan Al-Shaibani and Minister of Defence Murhaf Abu Qasra ‌focused on political, economic and military issues of “mutual interest”, but that “particular emphasis” was on defence.

According to SANA, Putin and the Syrian ministers discussed a range of defence-related matters, including developing military cooperation to strengthen the Syrian army’s capabilities and ‌modernising its equipment, transferring expertise and cooperation in research and development.

“During the meeting, both sides reviewed ways to advance military and technical partnership in a manner that strengthens the defensive capabilities of the Syrian Arab Army and keeps pace with modern developments in military industries,” SANA reported.

The two sides also discussed political and economic issues, including the “importance of continued political and diplomatic coordination between Damascus and Moscow in international forums”, according to the news agency.

On the economic front, the talks addressed expanding Syrian-Russian cooperation, including in reconstruction projects, infrastructure development and investment in Syria.

Putin also reaffirmed Russian “steadfast support” for Syria and its territorial integrity, while renewing “Moscow’s condemnation of repeated Israeli violations of Syrian territory, describing them as a direct threat to regional security and stability”.

The ministers’ visit to Moscow is the latest by Syria’s new authorities since the removal from power last December of the country’s longtime ruler and Moscow’s former ally in Damascus, Bashar al-Assad.

Russia was a key supporter of al-Assad during Syria’s nearly 14-year civil war, providing vital military aid that kept the Assad regime in power, including Russian air support that rained air strikes on rebel-held areas.

Despite al-Assad and his family fleeing to Russia after the toppling of his regime, Moscow is eager to build good relations with the new government in Damascus.

Moscow, in particular, is hoping to secure agreements to continue operating the Khmeimim airbase and the Tartous naval base on Syria’s Mediterranean coast, where Russian forces continue to be present.

In October, Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, visited Russia, where he said his government ‍would honour all the past deals struck between Damascus and Moscow, a pledge that suggested that the two Russian military bases were secure in the post-Assad period.

Putin said ‍at the time of al-Sharaa’s visit ⁠that Moscow was ready to do all it could to act on what he called the “many interesting and useful beginnings” discussed by the two sides on renewing relations.

Russian ‌state media on Tuesday quoted the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, as saying that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov would also hold talks with ‍his Syrian counterpart, Al-Shaibani, during the Syrian delegation’s visit.

During a visit to Moscow in July, Al-Shaibani said his country wanted Russia “by our side”.

“The current period is full of various challenges and threats, but it is also an opportunity to build a united and strong Syria. And, of course, we are interested in having Russia by our side on this path,” Al-Shaibani told Lavrov at the time.

The author of the Los Angeles Fire Department’s after-action report on the Palisades fire declined to endorse it because of substantial deletions that altered his findings, calling the edited version “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook emailed then-interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva and other LAFD officials with the subject line “Palisades AARR Non-Endorsement,” about an hour after the highly anticipated report was made public Oct. 8.

“Having reviewed the revised version submitted by your office, I must respectfully decline to endorse it in its current form,” Cook wrote in the email obtained by The Times. “The document has undergone substantial modifications and contains significant deletions of information that, in some instances, alter the conclusions originally presented.”

Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook complained to former interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva about deletions and revisions in the Palisades fire after-action report.

(L.A. City Mayor’s Office)

He continued, “While I fully understand the need to address potential liability concerns and to modify certain sections in consultation with the City Attorney to mitigate litigation risks, the current version appears highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards. I strongly urge you to reconsider publishing the report as it stands.”

In the email, Cook also raised concerns that the LAFD’s final report would be at odds with a report on the January wildfires commissioned by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, which has yet to be released.

“I am concerned that substantial disparities may exist between the two reports,” Cook wrote.

Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said in a statement Tuesday, “The Governor commissioned an independent review by the world’s leading fire safety experts to ensure the public receives a complete, accurate, and unvarnished accounting of the events leading up to the Palisades fire and how responding agencies carried out their response.”

Cook — who emails show provided a final draft of the after-action report to Villanueva in August — has declined to comment. Attempts to reach Villanueva were unsuccessful.

The LAFD has refused to answer questions from The Times about the deletions and revisions. Mayor Karen Bass’ office said the LAFD wrote and edited the report, and that the mayor did not demand changes.

On Sunday, The Times reported that Cook was upset about the changes to the report. The previous day, The Times had disclosed the watering down of the after-action report after analyzing seven drafts obtained through a public records request. The most significant changes involved the LAFD’s failure to order firefighters to stay on duty for an additional shift and to fully pre-deploy engines in high-risk areas before the Jan. 7 fire, as the wind warnings became increasingly dire. It’s unclear who exactly directed the revisions.

Cook’s Oct. 8 email laying out his concerns in stark language adds to the growing evidence that city and LAFD officials attempted to burnish the LAFD’s image in a report that should have been an honest assessment of the department’s failings in preparing for and fighting the fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes. The goal of such a report is to prevent similar mistakes.

Cook’s email reached Bass’ office in mid-November, according to Bass spokesperson Clara Karger.

Karger said last week that “the Mayor has inquired with Chief Moore about the concerns,” referring to Jaime Moore, who became LAFD chief last month.

The Times submitted a public records request last month for all of the mayor’s emails about the after-action report, a request that the city has not yet fulfilled. Bass’ office provided Cook’s email to The Times on Tuesday.

The city had withheld Cook’s email from its response to a separate records request filed by an unknown party in October. Almost 180 of Cook’s emails were posted on the city’s records portal on Dec. 9, but the one that expressed his concerns about the report was missing. That email was only posted on the portal Tuesday, after The Times asked about it.

The LAFD did not respond to a Times query about why the email was not released with Cook’s other emails. Bass’s office also did not respond to a query about Cook’s concerns and the fact that they were withheld from the public.

Gene Cameron, who lived in the Palisades for 50 years before his home burned down in the Jan. 7 fire, was disturbed by the LAFD’s revisions, which he said amounted to a cover up.

“I appreciate his bravery to stand up against these unprofessional immoral edits,” he said of Cook, adding that the point of the report is not to assign blame, but to prevent future mistakes. “It’s just to establish a set of rules, procedures and guidelines so that this doesn’t happen again.”

City Councilmember Traci Park, whose district includes the Palisades, said in a statement Tuesday that the city can’t fix systemic failures or rebuild public trust without full transparency.

“I’ve said from the beginning that LAFD should not be investigating itself. After a disaster of this magnitude, the public deserves a full, unfiltered accounting of what went wrong and why — and my independent after-action report will provide exactly that,” she said, referring to a report she requested that the City Council approved and funded earlier this year, though it hasn’t been completed.

Genethia Hudley Hayes, president of the Board of Fire Commissioners, did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment. She previously told The Times that she heard rumors that the author of the report was unhappy, but that she did not look into the matter.

A July email thread reviewed by The Times shows concern over how the after-action report would be received, with the LAFD forming a “crisis management workgroup.”

“The primary goal of this workgroup is to collaboratively manage communications for any critical public relations issue that may arise. The immediate and most pressing crisis is the Palisades After Action Report,” LAFD Asst. Chief Kairi Brown wrote in an email to eight other people.

“With significant interest from media, politicians, and the community, it is crucial that we present a unified response to anticipated questions and concerns,” Brown wrote. “By doing so, we can ensure our messaging is clear and consistent, allowing us to create our own narrative rather than reactive responses.”

Cook was not included on that email thread. It’s unclear how much of a role, if any, that group had on the revisions.

The after-action report has been widely criticized for failing to examine a New Year’s Day fire that later reignited into the Palisades fire. Bass has ordered the LAFD to commission an independent investigation into its missteps in putting out the earlier fire.

One edit to the after-action report involved language stating that the decision to not fully staff up and pre-deploy all available crews and engines ahead of the extreme wind forecast “did not align” with the department’s policy and procedures during red flag days.

The final report did not include that language, saying instead that the number of engine companies rolled out ahead of the fire “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

A section on “failures” was renamed “primary challenges,” and an item saying that crews and leaders had violated national guidelines on how to avoid firefighter deaths and injuries was scratched.

Another passage that was deleted said that some crews waited more than an hour for an assignment the day of the fire.

Two drafts contain notes typed in the margins with suggestions that seemed intended to soften the report’s effect and make the Fire Department look good. One note proposed replacing the image on the cover page — which showed palm trees on fire against an orange sky — with a “positive” one, such as “firefighters on the frontline.” The final report’s cover displays the LAFD seal.

The final version listed only 42 items in the section on recommendations and lessons learned, while the first version reviewed by The Times listed 74.

COPENHAGEN — The leaders of Denmark and Greenland insisted Monday that the United States won’t take over Greenland and demanded respect for their territorial integrity after President Trump ‍announced the appointment of a ‌special envoy to the semiautonomous territory.

Trump’s announcement on Sunday that Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry would be the envoy prompted a new flare-up of tensions over Washington’s interest in the vast territory of Denmark, a NATO ally. Denmark’s foreign minister told Danish broadcasters that he would summon the U.S. ambassador to his ministry.

”We have said it before. Now, we say it again. National borders and the sovereignty of states are rooted in international law,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and her Greenlandic counterpart, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said in a joint statement. “They are fundamental principles. You cannot annex another country. Not even with an argument about international security.”

“Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders and the U.S. shall not take over Greenland,” they added in the statement emailed by Frederiksen’s office. “We expect respect for our joint territorial integrity.”

Trump called repeatedly during his presidential transition and the early months of his second term for U.S. jurisdiction over Greenland, and has not ruled out military force to take control of the mineral-rich, strategically located Arctic island. In March, Vice President JD Vance visited a remote U.S. military base in Greenland and accused Denmark of under-investing there.

The issue gradually drifted out of the headlines, but in August, Danish officials summoned the top U.S. diplomat in Copenhagen following a report that at least three people with connections to Trump had carried out covert influence operations in Greenland.

On Sunday, Trump announced Landry’s appointment, saying on social media that “Jeff understands how essential Greenland is to our National Security, and will strongly advance our Country’s Interests for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Allies, and indeed, the World.”

Landry wrote in a post on social media that “it’s an honor to serve you in this volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the U.S.”

Danish broadcasters TV2 and DR reported that in comments from the Faroe Islands on Monday, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said he summoned the U.S. ambassador in Copenhagen, Kenneth Howery, to his ministry.

Greenland’s prime minister wrote in a separate statement that Greenland had again woken up to a new announcement from the U.S. president, and that “it may sound significant. But it changes nothing for us here at home.”

Nielsen noted that Greenland has its own democracy and said that “we are happy to cooperate with other countries, including the United States, but this must always take place with respect for us and for our values and wishes.”

Earlier this month, the Danish Defense Intelligence Service said in an annual report that the U.S. is using its economic power to “assert its will” and threaten military force against friend and foe alike.

Denmark is a member of the European Union as well as NATO.

Anouar El Anouni, a spokesperson for the EU’s executive Commission, told reporters in Brussels on Monday that it wasn’t for him to comment on U.S. decisions. But he underlined the bloc’s position that “preserving the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark, its sovereignty and the inviolability of its borders is essential for the European Union.”

Moulson writes for the Associated Press.

Authorities have shuttered drug factories that were cash pipeline for former ruler Bashar al-Assad, UN report.

Syria’s government has cracked down on the Captagon industry, which boomed under former longtime leader Bashar al-Assad, according to a United Nations report.

Since al-Assad’s ouster a year ago, Syria’s new authorities have dismantled a network of factories and storage sites, a research brief published on Monday by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said.

For more than a decade, Syria produced most of the world’s Captagon, a highly addictive, amphetamine-like pill, bringing in billions of dollars for al-Assad’s government.

However, interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa has carried out a clampdown as he tries to legitimise his government and strengthen diplomatic ties globally.

Overall, 15 industrial-level laboratories and 13 storage sites have been shuttered, according to the UNODC report. The agency said the action has “drastically changed” the Captagon market across the region.

Syria’s role in the drug trade had previously drawn scrutiny from numerous Gulf states, where the pill is popular, including Saudi Arabia. It also helped to prompt Western sanctions.

‘Political will and international cooperation’

For years, the Captagon trade provided billions of dollars in profit for networks and individuals aligned with the former government “either within the leadership of the regime’s security apparatus, Syria’s commercial sector and business elite, and/or family members of Bashar al-Assad”, according to Caroline Rose, an expert on Syrian drug trafficking at the New Lines Institute think tank.

Maher al-Assad, Bashar’s brother and former commander of the army’s elite Fourth Division, was identified as a key player, profiting from protecting shipments through Latakia, a former al-Assad stronghold.

Despite the current Syrian government’s targeting of the industry, large seizures of the drug across the region suggest that significant stockpiles of the pills originating from Syria remain in circulation, the report noted.

Smaller-scale production is also likely continuing inside Syria and in neighbouring countries, the UNODC added, with Gulf countries still the top buyers of the drug.

The UN agency said the disruption of the Middle East’s Captagon industry shows that with “political will and international cooperation … even highly complex drug markets can be destabilised within a relatively short period of time”.

However, it warned that the shift risks pushing regional consumers towards new synthetic substances, like methamphetamine, which has recently grown in popularity.

“Without addressing the underlying demand for ‘Captagon,’ trafficking and use are likely to shift toward other substances, such as methamphetamine, with new routes and actors emerging to fill the gap,” it said.

The author of the Los Angeles Fire Department’s after-action report on the Palisades fire was upset about changes made to the report, without his involvement, that downplayed the failures of city and LAFD leaders in preparing for and fighting the disastrous Jan. 7 fire, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

The author’s complaints reached Mayor Karen Bass’ office in mid-November, after the LAFD had publicly released the report, said Clara Karger, a spokesperson for Bass.

“The Mayor has inquired with Chief Moore about the concerns,” Karger said last week, referring to LAFD Chief Jaime Moore.

The sources, who requested anonymity to protect their relationships with the LAFD and city officials, said the report by Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook was intended to be a final draft. Cook declined to comment.

The Times posted an article Saturday that analyzed seven drafts of the after-action report, obtained through a public records request. The most significant changes involved the LAFD’s deployment decisions before the fire, as the wind warnings became increasingly dire.

In one instance, LAFD officials removed language saying that the decision to not fully staff up and pre-deploy all available crews and engines ahead of the extreme wind forecast “did not align” with the department’s policy and procedures during red flag days.

Instead, the final report said that the number of engine companies rolled out ahead of the fire “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

The deletions and revisions have drawn criticism from some who questioned the LAFD’s ability to acknowledge its mistakes before and during the blaze — and to avoid repeating them in the future.

In the months since the fire, residents who lost their homes have expressed outrage over unanswered questions and contradictory information about how top LAFD officials prepared for the dangerous weather forecast and how they handled a smaller New Year’s Day blaze, called the Lachman fire, which rekindled into the massive Palisades fire six days later.

On Saturday, after the report by The Times was published online, City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez issued a statement about the toning down of the after-action report.

“Today’s reporting makes clear that accountability is optional when after-action reports are conducted in-house with oversight by political appointees,” Rodriguez said. “If these reports are purposefully watered down to cover up failures, it leaves Angelenos, firefighters, and city officials without a full understanding of what happened and what needs to change. After-action reports must be independent to ensure honest assessments in order to avoid repeating disastrous errors and to protect our communities in the future.”

Former interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva, who oversaw the completion of the report before it was made public in October, did not respond to requests for comment.

Karger, the Bass spokesperson, said this month that the report “was written and edited by the Fire Department.” Bass’ office did not demand changes to the drafts and asked the LAFD to confirm only the accuracy of items such as how the weather and the department’s budget factored into the disaster, Karger said in an email.

The LAFD has refused to answer questions about the revisions and Cook’s concerns, citing an ongoing federal court case. Federal prosecutors have charged a former Palisades resident with setting the Lachman fire.

David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said it’s “disingenuous” of LAFD officials to cite the investigation as a reason they can’t respond to The Times’ inquiries.

“There’s nothing about the existence of a federal investigation that prohibits them from commenting,” Loy said. “They just choose not to comment.”

Three of the seven drafts of the after-action report obtained by The Times are marked with dates: Two versions are dated Aug. 25, and there is a draft from Oct. 6, two days before the LAFD released the final report to the public.

Some drafts of the after-action report described an on-duty LAFD captain calling Fire Station 23 in the Palisades on Jan. 7 to report that “the Lachman fire started up again,” indicating the captain’s belief that the Palisades fire was caused by a reignition of the earlier blaze.

The reference was deleted in one draft, then restored in the public version, which contains only a brief mention of the Lachman fire. Some have said that the after-action report’s failure to thoroughly examine the Lachman fire reignition was designed to shield LAFD leadership and the Bass administration from criticism and accountability.

Weeks after the report’s release, The Times reported that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to roll up their hoses and leave the burn area on Jan. 2, even though they had complained that the ground was still smoldering and rocks remained hot to the touch. Another battalion chief assigned to the LAFD’s risk management section knew about the complaints for months, but the department kept that information out of the after-action report.

After The Times’ report, Bass asked Villanueva to “thoroughly investigate” the LAFD’s missteps in putting out the Lachman fire.

Moore, an LAFD veteran who became chief last month, has been tasked with commissioning the independent investigation that Bass requested.

Several key items were wholly deleted from the after-action report. The final version listed only 42 items in the section on recommendations and lessons learned, while the first version reviewed by The Times listed 74.

A section on “failures” was renamed “primary challenges,” and an item saying that crews and leaders had violated national guidelines on how to avoid firefighter deaths and injuries was scratched.

Another passage that was deleted said that some crews waited more than an hour for an assignment the day of the fire.

Two drafts contain notes typed in the margins with suggestions that seemed intended to soften the report’s effect and burnish the Fire Department’s image. One note proposed replacing the image on the cover page — which showed palm trees on fire against an orange sky — with a “positive” one, such as “firefighters on the frontline.” The final report’s cover displays the LAFD seal.

In addition to the mayor’s office, Cook’s concerns made their way to the president of the Board of Fire Commissioners, which provides civilian oversight for the LAFD. Genethia Hudley Hayes, president of the board, told The Times that she heard rumors that the author of the report was unhappy, but that she did not seriously look into the matter.

“If I had to worry about every rumor that comes out of LAFD, I would spend my entire day, Monday through Friday, chasing down rumors,” she said.

She said she raised concerns with Villanueva and the city attorney’s office over the possibility that “material findings” were or would be changed.

“I did not feel like they were lying about anything,” she said. “I didn’t feel like they were trying to cover up anything.”

Pringle is a former Times staff writer.