restrictions

U.S. abortion opponents are increasingly frustrated with the lack of action by President Trump’s administration to stem the flow of abortion pills prescribed online that they view as undermining state abortion bans.

A court ruling this week in a lawsuit the Louisiana attorney general brought against Trump’s Food and Drug Administration cast a spotlight on the simmering tension. The judge said the state has a strong case while declining to block telehealth prescriptions to the pill mifepristone for now.

Anti-abortion groups are pushing the FDA to move faster with a review that they hope will result in restrictions on the abortion pill, including blocking its prescribing via telehealth platforms. The administration says the work takes time.

The groups have focused mostly on the health agency and not the Republican president whose three U.S. Supreme Court appointees were instrumental in the 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed the state bans in the first place. But the administration’s requests in the Louisiana lawsuit and similar ones elsewhere to delay rulings until it finishes a review have sparked anger for some activists.

“The stall tactics are beyond frustrating,” Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for Students for Life of America, said in an interview. Hamrick said the administration could also block the pills from being mailed by changing its interpretation of a 19th century law and enforcing it.

A judge opened the door to pushing the administration

U.S. District Judge David Joseph, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, gave a mixed ruling Tuesday in a case brought by Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill and a woman who says her boyfriend coerced her into taking mifepristone to end a pregnancy.

Their overall aim is to roll back FDA rules that have made the pills more accessible. Murrill, like officials in other states that have filed similar lawsuits, contends that the availability of the pills via online providers takes the teeth out of the bans in the 13 states that bar abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with limited exceptions.

Surveys of abortion providers have suggested that its availability through telehealth is a reason the number of abortions in the U.S. has not dropped since the overturn of Roe. While state abortion bans include prohibitions on abortion using the pills, some Democratic-controlled states have adopted laws that seek to protect medical providers who prescribe them over telehealth and mail the pills to states with bans. Those so-called shield laws are being tested through civil and criminal cases.

In the Louisiana case, Joseph declined to grant Murrill’s request to block telehealth prescriptions to the pills while the case moves through the courts. But he said he could do that eventually and the plaintiffs in the case are likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments because the state has demonstrated it’s suffered “irreparable harm.”

He also ordered the FDA to report to him within six months on the status of its review of the drug.

On Wednesday, Murrill filed a notice that she’s taking the case to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of forcing faster action.

The politics aren’t simple

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, an influential conservative voice who is also a former Louisiana lawmaker, applauded Murrill’s step.

He said people he meets are often shocked to learn that the number of abortions has not dropped since the 2022 Supreme Court ruling.

“Bewilderment sets in,” he said. “We’re already seeing an enthusiasm gap between the parties. What the Republicans do not need is a dampening of enthusiasm in their base.”

He’s hoping the administration will restrict abortion pills rather than risk losing support from conservative, anti-abortion voters in November’s midterm elections.

Other groups are being more cautions.

Madison LaClare, director of federal government affairs at National Right to Life, said her group trusts the administration to review mifepristone. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, avoided harsh words for the president: “The Trump-Vance administration has an important opportunity right now to prioritize women’s safety,” she said in a statement.

Still, recent electoral results suggest that voters seeking to keep abortion available have the political momentum. Since Roe was overturned, abortion has been on the ballot directly in 17 states. Voters have sided with the abortion-rights side in 14 of those questions.

“There seems to be an emerging consensus in the country that people don’t want to ban abortion,” said Rachel Rebouche, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who studies abortion.

The FDA says it’s working on it

In a statement Wednesday in response to questions from the Associated Press, the FDA said it’s reviewing the safety of mifepristone, “including the collection of robust and timely data, evaluation of data integrity, and implementation of the analyses, validation, and peer-review.”

After that, the agency said, it will decide whether to make changes to the rules about how the drug can be prescribed.

It said this kind of study can take a year or more to complete by academics but the agency is trying to move faster than that. A spokesperson did not answer questions about when the work began.

Mifepristone has been a political priority for anti-abortion activists and their allies in Congress since Trump returned to office last year. In his January 2025 confirmation hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was repeatedly asked about the drug by Republican lawmakers and said the president had requested a safety review.

Frustration over signs that the FDA isn’t prioritizing curbing abortions flared last fall when the FDA approved an additional generic version of mifepristone.

The drug is most often used for abortion in combination with another drug, misoprostol.

Mifepristone was approved in 2000 as a safe and effective way to end early pregnancies.

Because of rare cases of excessive bleeding, the FDA initially imposed strict limits on who could prescribe and distribute the pill — only specially certified physicians and only after an in-person appointment where the person would receive the pill.

Both those requirements were dropped during the COVID years. At the time, FDA officials said that after more than 20 years of monitoring mifepristone use, and reviewing dozens of studies involving thousands of women, it was clear that women could safely use the pill without direct supervision.

Mulvihill and Perrone write for the Associated Press.

March 24 (UPI) — The Department of Defense has announced new restrictions on reporters, including removing their office space from the Pentagon, after a judge last week struck down a Trump administration policy that threatened journalists’ credentials for obtaining unauthorized information.

Under the new policy announced Monday, reporters will be required to work from new office space outside the Pentagon but in an annex facility on its grounds. It also requires credentialed journalists to be escorted by Department of Defense personnel at all times within the Pentagon.

The announcement comes after the Defense Department announced a new policy in October that required all journalists with access to the Pentagon to sign a form acknowledging they could have their credentials revoked for collecting unauthorized information. Most Pentagon reporters declined and surrendered their credentials.

The New York Times then sued the administration of President Donald Trump. On Saturday, a federal court judge ruled in the paper’s favor, stating the policy was unconstitutional and ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the credentials of seven journalists with The Times.

The Pentagon intends to appeal the decisions, and in the interim announced the new policy shuttering the Correspondents’ Corridor and mandating journalist escorts, which Sean Parnell, assistant to the Defense secretary, said in a statement was in compliance with the court’s order.

“The Department always complies with court orders but disagrees with the decision and is pursuing an appeal,” he said.

A spokesperson with The Times quickly repsonded to the new policy, saying “We will be going back to court.”

“The new policy does not comply with the judge’s order,” Charlie Stadtlander, the Times spokesperson, said in a statement.

“It continues to impose unconstitutional restrictions on the press.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly taken actions that critics say are aimed at influencing its media coverage, including the October memorandum, restricting access to outlets over editorial decisions and seizing control of the White House press pool.

Journalists and free speech organizations were quick to crticize the policy, with the National Press Club calling the closure of the Correspondents’ Corridor an effort to undermine independent reporting of the Pentagon while it is fighting a war with Iran.

“At a time when the United States is engaged in active military conflict, the public depends on journalists being able to observe, report and ask questions freely,” NPC President Mark Schoeff said in a statement.

“Independent reporting on the U.S. military is not optional. It is essential to accountability, transparency and public trust. Any policy that curtails that access should concern everyone who values a free and informed society.”

The Pentagon Press Association said it was consulting with its legal counsel, according to a statement obtained by Axios.

“Press freedom is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and an informed public is vital to democracy,” the organization said.

“At such a critical time, we ask why the Pentagon is choosing to restrict vital press freedoms that help inform all Americans.”

Gaza City – In front of a toy stall in Gaza City’s central al-Rimal market, Rania al-Saudi stands with her two young daughters, looking bewildered at the unusually high prices of toys.

Al-Saudi had promised her daughters she would buy them two dolls to celebrate Eid, but the exorbitant toy prices mean she simply can’t afford them.

Her elder daughter, six-year-old Razan, didn’t understand her mother’s worried expressions as Rania asked the vendor for the price of each toy. With every price, Rania gasped and said, “Oh my God, it’s so expensive… this used to be much cheaper.”

Faced with her daughter’s insistence, Rania pleaded with the vendor to lower the prices, but he apologised, saying he could not because getting hold of toys to sell was incredibly difficult, considering Israeli restrictions on importing items into Gaza.

Rania was not alone. Other parents and children repeatedly came to the vendor’s stall to ask about toys, but not one of them made a purchase. In Gaza’s current war-driven economic crisis, the prices are simply unaffordable.

Rania, 43, is originally from Shujayea in eastern Gaza, but has been displaced by the war to the west of the city. She told Al Jazeera that she came looking for toys in an attempt to put smiles on her daughters’ faces before the holiday, but her wish was not fulfilled.

“The prices are extremely high, and the vendors tell us that toys have not entered Gaza since the start of the war. But what did our children do to deserve this?”

Rania recalled the many toys her daughters had in their home before it was destroyed, and how she used to make sure they had toys for every occasion and every holiday.

“Eid holidays are for children’s joy, and children are happy with toys and entertainment. But our children are deprived of everything.”

While speaking to Al Jazeera, Rania tried to calm her daughter Lulwa, who had begun to cry after realising from her mother’s words that she would not get the doll she wanted.

“This doll used to cost no more than 15 shekels ($5) before the war; now it costs 60 shekels ($20),” she said to Al Jazeera, frustrated. “This is something I cannot afford. Everything is expensive and overpriced.”

Rania’s voice grew heavier as she explained that she was unable to even buy new Eid clothes for her daughters – a tradition across the Muslim world – due to the high prices.

“My daughters will not be happy this Eid. I wanted to compensate by getting them dolls, but even that is impossible.”

Toys have been in short supply during the war, which began in October 2023, with bombing and displacement meaning that most children either had their toys destroyed, lost, or left behind. Rania says that her children have been bored, and have had to develop their own ways of playing.

“All the children in the camp face the same situation, so they spend their time playing simple street games like hopscotch, hide-and-seek, or drawing in the sand,” she said.

“But my daughters always wished for a doll. I once tried to make one for them, but they didn’t like it.”

Rising prices and market impact

Toy sellers say they are not to blame for the high prices.

Anwar al-Huwaity has been in the business for 20 years. He told Al Jazeera that his stall is still operating despite Israel’s devastation of Gaza, but that business has become extremely difficult.

“Before the war, toys were widely available,” Anwar said. “Today, we go from one trader to another, searching. Sometimes we find toys with someone who had them stored, but they sell it at a very high price, up to three times its normal price.”

He added that most toys that now reach Gaza do not enter through official crossings, but in limited quantities via unofficial routes, making them very difficult to obtain.

The cost of bringing toys into Gaza has become extremely high. Anwar said some middlemen demand up to 12,000 shekels ($3,870) for a small shipment, and if it is confiscated or destroyed, the loss falls entirely on the trader.

“We buy merchandise at high prices, so we have to sell it at high prices as well,” Anwar said apologetically.

Anwar said that toys were now up to 300 percent more expensive compared to pre-war prices. The holiday season, the main income generator for toy sellers, used to bring in between $6,500 and $10,000, he explained. Now, he’d be lucky to sell $1,000 of stock – and most of that is bulk sales to other traders, rather than regular customers.

Anwar may be a businessman, but he shared that the hardest part of his job was seeing children ask for toys that their parents cannot afford.

“Many parents can’t buy toys due to the economic situation. People are barely able to secure food,” he said.

Anwar’s job has gone from providing children joy, to seeing them disappointed.

“I have started hating my workday because I know the prices are exorbitant, and when the children and families see the toys, they get upset, especially during the holidays.”

“People come to buy toys and beg me to lower the price,” he said. “They say, ‘This child is an orphan, that child is an orphan … his parents were killed in the war’. It feels like all children in Gaza have become orphans.”

Restrictions on recreational goods during the Gaza war

Since the outbreak of the war on Gaza in October 2023, trade has been heavily restricted due to the closure of commercial crossings by Israel, especially Karem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom), the main entry point for goods into Gaza from Israel.

Israel imposed a total blockade on Gaza in 2023, and again for several months in 2025, leading to the declaration of a famine in northern Gaza.

Conditions have improved since a “ceasefire” was declared in October, but Israel is continuing regular strikes – and continuing to heavily restrict the entry of non-essential commercial goods, including toys and recreational materials.

Although no official law or declaration explicitly bans toys from entering Gaza, administrative and security restrictions, combined with the prioritisation of humanitarian goods, have effectively made entry of these items almost impossible.

The United Nations has noted that restrictions on commercial goods, including toys, have affected the availability of both essential and non-essential goods in Gaza.

Near Anwar’s toy stall is another run by Ahmed Ziara. The 24-year-old has been selling toys for several years, but the war has forced him to periodically stop trading.

“Before the war, I worked in major toy exhibitions,” Ahmed explained. “Now toys rarely enter, and we often have to smuggle them, sometimes hidden inside clothes or other goods.”

Ahmed confirmed that most of the toys he acquires are old stock already in Gaza, sold at high prices due to scarcity.

He mentioned that popular Eid holiday toys, which were once inexpensive, now cost triple or even quadruple their previous prices: a small toy car that sold for 40 shekels ($13) last year now costs 150 shekels ($48), a small ball that once cost 3 shekels ($1) is now 30 shekels ($10), building blocks are nearly unavailable, and dolls cost more than 70 shekels ($22.50).

“Buying from traders is hard, and selling is hard due to the economic situation,” Ahmed told Al Jazeera.

“Sometimes I have to sell below the expected price just to clear stock, but most of the time we must raise prices due to high costs and difficulty obtaining toys.”

“If conditions improve and toys are allowed in normally, prices will return to normal, and children and families will be able to enjoy the holiday as before,” he said.

“This work is not easy,” he added, contemplating. “Sometimes I sit alone and tell myself what I am doing is unfair because prices are extremely high. But despite everything, we love to bring joy to children, even for a short time.”

Meta, YouTube and Snapchat are already under scrutiny for risks they pose for young people. Now they are facing another hurdle in their home state.

California lawmakers are considering legislation to restrict social media use for teens and children under 16 years old. Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and others introduced a bipartisan bill that would bar social media platforms from allowing users under 16 years old from creating or maintaining accounts.

The legislation comes amid mounting concerns about how social networks impact the mental health of young people. Anxiety among parents and lawmakers has heightened as platforms and AI chatbots become more intertwined with people’s daily life.

Last month, tech executives, including Meta’s chief executive and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, testified in a landmark trial in Los Angeles over a lawsuit that alleges social media is addictive and harms children.

The trial centers on whether tech companies such as Instagram, which is owned by Meta, and YouTube can be held liable for allegedly promoting a harmful product and addicting users to their platforms.

California has passed legislation before aimed at making social media platforms and chatbots safer but faced pushback from tech industry groups that have sued to stop new laws from taking effect. Tech companies are have responded by releasing more parental controls and restrictions for young users.

Other countries have been moving forward with restrictions on social media. Last year, Australia barred children under 16 years old from having social media accounts.

TechNet, whose members include Meta and Google, said in a statement that it hasn’t taken a position on the California bill but doesn’t believe a ban will effectively achieve the Legislature’s goal’s.

“We support balanced, evidence-based solutions that strengthen protections for young people, equip parents with meaningful tools, and ensure accountability across platforms. Our companies have made significant investments in teen safety and parental controls, and we remain committed to building on that progress,” said Robert Boykin, TechNet Executive Director for California and the Southwest in a statement.

The use of social media by young people has divided tech executives.

Pinterest Chief Executive Bill Ready wrote in an op-ed in TIME published on Friday that governments should follow Australia’s lead and ban social media for kids under 16 years old if tech companies don’t prioritize safety.

“Social media, as it’s configured today, is not safe for young people under 16,” he said.”Instead, it’s been designed to maximize view time, keeping kids glued to a screen with little regard for their well-being.”

Lowenthal’s bill cited social media’s dangers such as “exposure to harmful content, compulsive use patterns, exploitation, and adverse impacts on mental health and well-being.”

“Existing age-based restrictions that rely primarily on user self-attestation have proven ineffective and place an unreasonable burden on children and families rather than on the entities that design, operate, and profit from social media platforms,” the bill states.

A spokesman for Lowenthal didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.