restrictions

Turkey renewed its push for greater defence cooperation within NATO on Wednesday as President Tayyip Erdogan urged alliance members to remove restrictions that limit defence-industrial collaboration among allies. Ankara has long argued that political disagreements should not prevent NATO members from working together on defence projects, particularly as Europe seeks to strengthen its military capabilities in response to growing security threats.

The appeal comes as NATO leaders gather in Ankara for a summit focused on increasing defence spending, expanding military production and reinforcing the alliance amid continued tensions with Russia and instability in the Middle East.

Erdogan calls for equal defence cooperation

Addressing NATO leaders at the opening of the summit, Erdogan said restrictions on defence cooperation between allies should be removed.

“Restrictions among allies on defence cooperation, especially in the defence industry, must be lifted,” he said.

He warned that excluding NATO members that are outside the European Union from European defence initiatives could create unnecessary divisions.

“At a time when a model of cooperation based on common sense and reason is possible, excluding allies that are not members of the (European) Union would lead to artificial divisions in Europe,” Erdogan said.

Turkey seeks greater role in European defence

Turkey has repeatedly sought participation in European defence initiatives, including the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) funding programme, which aims to strengthen the continent’s defence industry.

Despite possessing NATO’s second-largest military and becoming a major producer and exporter of defence equipment, Ankara has largely remained outside several Europe-led security projects because of political disputes with some EU member states.

Turkish officials argue that NATO allies should cooperate more closely regardless of EU membership.

Trump signals possible policy shift

Erdogan’s appeal came a day after U.S. President Donald Trump indicated Washington could ease some longstanding tensions with Ankara.

During a meeting with Erdogan on Tuesday, Trump said he intended to lift U.S. sanctions imposed on Turkey and would decide whether to allow Ankara back into the F-35 fighter jet programme.

Turkey was removed from the programme after purchasing Russia’s S-400 air defence system in 2019, a move that triggered U.S. sanctions and strained relations between the two NATO allies.

Any decision to reverse those measures is expected to face opposition in the U.S. Congress.

Turkey pledges higher defence spending

Erdogan said Turkey remains on track to meet NATO’s target of spending 5% of gross domestic product on defence by 2030.

He announced that Ankara had allocated an additional $24 billion to its Steel Dome integrated air defence project, which is intended to strengthen both Turkey’s national security and NATO’s collective air and missile defence capabilities.

The Turkish president also called on alliance members to assume greater responsibility for Europe’s security while preserving NATO unity.

Future outlook

Turkey is expected to continue pressing for full participation in European defence initiatives as NATO members expand military spending and industrial cooperation. Whether European governments are prepared to ease political objections remains uncertain, while any U.S. decision on sanctions relief or Turkey’s return to the F-35 programme is likely to face congressional scrutiny. The outcome could shape Ankara’s role in NATO’s evolving defence architecture in the coming years.

With information from Reuters.

President Donald Trump has sought to limit mail-in voting and has ordered his administration to impose limits on the practice.

A federal judge in the United States has blocked proposed restrictions on mail-in voting that were championed by President Donald Trump.

On Wednesday in Washington, DC, District Judge Emmet Sullivan sided with the NAACP, a civil rights organisation, in its case against the US Postal Service (USPS).

Sullivan found that the restrictions would likely violate a 2021 settlement requiring expedited handling for mail-in ballots.

He therefore granted the NAACP’s motion to enforce compliance with the settlement, dealing another setback to the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the US voting landscape.

“NAACP has plausibly suggested — and the Postal Service has not disputed — that the Proposed Rule is already having a ‘real impact on present day affairs’,” Sullivan wrote in his ruling.

The case revolves around a rule the Postal Service put forward in May that would require states to provide lists of absentee and mail-in voters. Ballots that do not conform to the list would be returned.

The proposed rule would also require a new envelope design for mail-in ballots, governing logos and barcode placements. Failure to comply would result in the Postal Service refusing to deliver the ballots.

The NAACP argued that the proposal would run afoul of a 2021 legal settlement that forces Postal Service officials to take “extraordinary measures” to ensure timely delivery of ballot mail.

The settlement “stipulated that the Postal Service agreed ‘to prioritize monitoring and timely delivery of election mail’”, Sullivan wrote in Wednesday’s ruling.

The decision comes less than five months before the November 3 midterm elections, which will decide whether Trump’s Republican Party retains control over both chambers of Congress.

Trump has expressed fears that he may be subject to a third impeachment if Democrats flip the legislature.

He has also spread unfounded theories that US elections are vulnerable to “vote rigging”, pointing to commonplace election tools like mail-in voting and electronic voting machines.

Elections are administered by state and local election officials, as established in the US Constitution. But the Postal Service’s proposed rule came as the result of efforts under the Trump administration to impose new limits on voting.

In March, Trump issued an executive order called “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”. In it, he directed the Department of Justice to take action against states that “fail to comply” with certain standards for mail-in ballots.

He also accused states that accepted absentee or mail-in ballots after Election Day of violating the law.

But in another blow to Trump, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a state law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted even if they were received after Election Day, so long as they were postmarked on or before that date. The president’s executive order has also been blocked by lower courts.

Civil rights advocates applauded the court’s Wednesday decision and warned against Trump’s efforts to limit mail-in voting.

“The court today correctly recognized that USPS’s plan to create roadblocks to mail-in voting was inconsistent with its commitment to timely deliver election mail,” said Allison Zieve, director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, which argued on behalf of the NAACP.

“USPS’s plan was unwise, unlawful, and a threat to the millions of voters who rely on mailed ballots to participate in our democracy.”

Sam Spital, the associate director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund, which also argued for the NAACP, called the Postal Service’s proposed plan “a blatant attempt” to disenfranchise voters who rely on mailed ballots.

“Today’s decision recognizes that USPS cannot disregard its legal obligation to timely deliver mail-in ballots to all voters,” Spital said.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

AI firm says it will begin restoring access to Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 after removal of export controls.

The United States government has lifted its restrictions on foreign access to Anthropic’s most powerful AI models, the company has announced.

Anthropic said late on Tuesday that it would begin restoring access to Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 from tomorrow after the US Department of Commerce notified the company that it had removed its export controls.

“We’re grateful to our users for their patience, and to everyone who worked with us on redeploying the models,” Anthropic said in a statement posted on X.

Anthropic’s announcement came shortly after US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that his department had been coordinating with the company on the approval of its frontier models.

“Over the past two weeks, we have worked closely with Anthropic to analyze and approve Fable 5 to ensure alignment across the US Government and strengthen America’s leadership in AI,” Lutnick said in a post on X.

Anthropic abruptly shut off Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 last month after US President Donald Trump’s administration ordered the company to restrict all foreign nationals, including company employees, from accessing the models.

On Friday, the San Francisco-based company said that it had been granted approval to provide the models to US organisations that “operate and defend critical infrastructure”, and that it was working with the government to restore general access for the public.

More to follow…

We’ve all got used to packing tiny shampoos and shower gels into our hand luggage when we fly, but new technology means some major airports are scrapping the 100ml rule making going through security so much easier

It’s hard to believe that the airline liquid rules have been in place for nearly two decades. Since a terror plot was foiled in 2006, air passengers in the UK have been limited to taking containers of under 100ml on planes, and made to keep them in a clear, resealable 20cm x 20cm plastic bag.

Over the years, technology has improved, meaning restrictions have slowly been eased. In many airports, you no longer need to use a clear plastic bag for your liquids and can simply leave them in your hand luggage. However, in the majority of airports, the 100ml rule still stands all these years later.

A small number of airports have now scrapped the 100ml rule – allowing Brits to fly out with liquids in containers of up to two litres in volume. This means most standard-sized bottles of water, creams, gels, sprays, and aerosols can be taken through as hand luggage.

Whatever the allowed liquid size at your departure airport, holidaymakers should make sure they avoid using metal or double-walled bottles, such as a Thermos flask, when they carry liquids on board, as the scanners cannot penetrate the insulated layers.

Another thing travellers should keep in mind is that the rules at their return airport might be different. The vast majority of European airports still enforce the 100ml rule. So while you may be able to take a big bottle of suncream in your hand luggage going out, you may need to put it in your checked luggage coming back.

The GOV.UK website has a list of items considered liquids. Many travellers still get caught out by the 100ml rule as they don’t realise items such as semi-liquid foods such as soup, jam, honey, or syrups need to be within the restricted size.

Nut butters and soft cheeses also come under the category of liquids. In the USA, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) use a rule that: if you can spill it, spread it, spray it, pump it, or pour it, it counts as a liquid. While this isn’t an official rule in the UK, it’s a good way to determine whether an item you’re taking onboard is going to need to follow liquid size rules.

Liquid rules at airports can be updated with little notice, so always check your departure airport’s official website before you fly.

Full list of airports still enforcing the 100ml rule

• Manchester Airport (MAN)
• London Stansted (STN)
• London Luton (LTN)
• Glasgow Airport (GLA)
• Glasgow Prestwick Airport (PIK)
• Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LPL)
• Newcastle International Airport (NCL)
• Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA)
• East Midlands Airport (EMA)
• London City Airport (LCY)
• Aberdeen International Airport (ABZ)
• Jersey Airport (JER)
• Cardiff International Airport (CWL)
• Southampton Airport (SOU)
• Inverness Airport (INV)
• Cornwall Airport Newquay (NQY)

Full list of airports that have scrapped 100ml rule

• London Heathrow (LHR)
• London Gatwick (LGW)
• Edinburgh Airport (EDI)
• Birmingham Airport (BHX)
• Bristol Airport (BRS)
• Belfast International Airport (BFS)
• George Best Belfast City Airport (BHD)
• Bournemouth Airport (BOH)

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

The United States will not ease the travel restrictions on the Iranian team for their World Cup matches in Los Angeles and Seattle despite the ⁠team saying they would lodge a complaint with FIFA, the cohost nation’s top tournament official has confirmed.

The US will continue to assess the Iran squad’s travel arrangements, but for now the original plan remains in place, Andrew Giuliani, executive director of the White House Task Force for the tournament, told the Reuters news agency on Saturday.

Iran are unhappy at restrictions that mean they can only travel to venues within 24 hours of their ⁠fixtures and must depart back to their training base in Tijuana, Mexico, directly after each game, with coach Amir Ghalenoei suggesting his side were “the most oppressed team in the whole World Cup”.

The Iranian delegation left the US hours after the full-time whistle at their first World Cup match against New Zealand last week.

The Group G match ended at about 8pm local time (03:00 GMT), and Iran returned to their base camp in Mexico within a few hours, prompting criticism of the US handling of their visas as the team did not get a day to recover at their hotel.

Ghalenoei said the team had expected to spend the night in California to maximise the normal recovery process after their opening game.

The US faced further pushback as Iran winger Mehdi Torabi’s entry visa expired after the first game. Team officials confirmed Tuesday afternoon that they had secured him a new, multiple-entry visa allowing him to travel into the US for future matches.

“This issue has been resolved,” the US Department of State said.

The same travel protocol will be in place for Iran’s fixture against Belgium on Sunday.

The Iranian team was due to arrive in Los Angeles on Saturday evening, about 24 hours before kickoff time for their match.

‘Situation is dynamic’

Giuliani, however, says the situation is fluid and they will discuss what measures will be in place for Iran’s third game against Egypt in Seattle on Friday.

“The ‌situation is dynamic,” Giuliani said in Houston. “We have a plan right now. Tomorrow afternoon [after the match against Belgium], they will take the 27-minute flight back to Tijuana.

“We will see how it goes for match two, and then there will be discussions the day after in terms of what it looks like for match three in Seattle.”

Giuliani defended the measures in place and said the pre-tournament change in training bases for the side from Tucson to Tijuana had shortened Iran’s travel time.

“The shift from Tucson to Tijuana, I think, was good for everybody involved. Certainly it reduces their travel time to Los ⁠Angeles too,” he said.

“Their flight is an hour shorter than it would be from Tucson. And we’re ⁠happy with the way that things went for match one in Los Angeles.

“I would just point to the fact that all players have received visas. All the coaches have received visas. There are some team officials that have not received visas, and that’s because we’ve seen some derogatory information on them, and this ⁠is the balance that we talk about.”

Giuliani said the goal has always been to protect the interests of the US and the international visitors at the World Cup.

“We want ⁠to make sure we have this incredible soccer tournament, where people are welcome ⁠and enjoy the World Cup, while also making sure that we are not just protecting American citizens, but we’re also protecting all those international visitors that are coming here,” he said.

He revealed that no threats to the tournament had been identified, but that officials remain vigilant.

“What I can tell you is our intelligence community has ‌tripled down on this since the beginning of this year,” he said. “We’re in discussions every hour on it. But there have been no credible threats at this moment.”

Giuliani has been pleased with the opening 10 days of the World Cup.

“Things are going as planned,” ‌he ‌said. “It’s been fantastic to see the great play on the pitch, that seems to be the majority of the conversation, which has been fantastic.”

India’s Muslims celebrated Eid al-Adha with mass prayers and gatherings nationwide. Celebrations remained largely peaceful under tight security amid growing anti-Muslim tensions over restrictions on public Eid prayers.

May 21 (UPI) — Americans traveling back to the United States who have recently been in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda or South Sudan will be required to enter the country through Washington, D.C.

Citizens and lawful permanent residents who have been in any of the countries in the last 21 days will be required to fly to Washington Dulles International Airport for enhanced health screenings before continuing on to their final destination, the U.S. Department of State announced.

The announcement follows an Air France flight bound for the United States on Wednesday afternoon being redirected to Montreal Trudeau International Airport after a passenger on board was determined to be from the DRC.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Monday already had blocked non-U.S. passport holders from entering the United States if they had been to any of the three African nations in the last 21 days.

An American doctor, one of several exposed in the DRC, was also confirmed to be infected with the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola on Tuesday and flown to Germany for treatment.

“The Dulles requirement applies to all passengers, including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, who were present in those countries,” the State Department said in a travel advisory.

“Please be prepared for flight changes or cancellations,” the department said.

World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a press conference that there have 51 confirmed cases of Ebola among the three countries, with nearly 600 suspected cases and 139 suspected deaths.

Tedros said the scale of the epidemic is “much larger” in the DRC, and that there have been deaths reported among health care workers, which suggests health care-associated transmission.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that the doctor whose case was confirmed this week, with officials flying him to Germany because of their previous experience in handling Ebola cases.

Although contacts linked to the doctor also have been moved to Germany and Czechia for observation, there have been no additional cases in Americans, the CDC said.

The US has banned non-Americans who have visited DR Congo, Uganda or South Sudan in the last 21 days from entry.

The United States will ensure that the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s (DRC) football team can enter the country to play in the World Cup, making an exemption to an Ebola-related entry ban, according to a senior Department of State official.

“We expect the DRC team to be able to attend the World Cup,” the official said on condition of anonymity.

The US has banned non-Americans who have been in the DRC, Uganda or South Sudan in the previous 21 days from visiting the country due to a deadly outbreak of Ebola.

The US official said the DRC team, the only one among the three countries to have qualified for football’s premier event, had already been training in Europe, so they may not have been subject to the ban in any case.

But if they had, in fact, been in the DRC over the last 21 days, they would be subject to the sort of strict screening required for returning US citizens.

“We’re working to get them into the same protocol for testing in isolation that American citizens returning and permanent residents would be,” the official said.

The official said the exemption would not apply to everyday fans from the DRC looking to come to cheer on the team.

The DRC begin their World Cup campaign in Texas against Portugal on June 17.

WASHINGTON — A new Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy requires members of Congress to seek advanced approval in order to speak with detainees during oversight inspections at detention facilities.

It’s the latest twist in a months-long effort by ICE to restrict such visits by lawmakers, which have skyrocketed amid the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign.

California Reps. Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano) and Sara Jacobs (D-San Diego) learned about the new policy when they made a surprise visit on Monday to the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego.

ICE allowed them to enter, Levin said, but when the members asked to speak with detainees, local personnel handed them a memo outlining the new policy — dated the same day and signed by acting ICE Director Todd Lyons.

In it, Lyons calls the visits disruptive and resource-intensive because they pull staff away from law enforcement duties. Lawmakers sometimes request to speak with a particular kind of detainee — for example, people held longer than 90 days — and Lyons said meeting such requests takes up too much time.

“This is an unsustainable burden for ICE employees and a hindrance to ICE operations given the exceptional growth in congressional visits,” he wrote.

Moving forward, members must identify detainees by name at least two business days in advance of a visit and provide a signed consent form from each detainee.

The Department of Homeland Security and ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Levin said the new policy effectively defeats the purpose of unannounced oversight visits.

“I think it’s a deliberate effort to make sure we don’t hear from people in ICE custody,” he said.

Democratic House members sued the Trump administration last July after they were repeatedly denied access to immigrant detention facilities in California and across the country.

Under federal law, funds appropriated by Congress cannot be used to prevent a member of Congress from entering or inspecting a detention facility operated by or for Homeland Security.

Monday’s unannounced visit was Levin’s first to the Otay Mesa facility since a federal judge in February blocked a previous Trump administration policy requiring members of Congress to give seven days notice before visiting ICE detention centers.

The administration appealed, and on Friday an appellate court in Washington denied the administration’s request to restore the seven-day policy while the case proceeds, saying the government hadn’t provided enough evidence that the visits are harmful.

That win for the lawmakers could be short-lived — the panel of judges who denied the administration’s request also wrote in their order that the members of Congress “have no standing to maintain this lawsuit, so the government is very likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal.”

In the memo on ICE’s new policy, Lyons noted that in the 10 fiscal years before 2025, ICE facilitated roughly 45 congressional visits to detention centers each year.

After Trump took office, the agency facilitated more than 150 visits in fiscal year 2025. As of May 11, ICE had facilitated about 200 congressional visits since the start of this fiscal year.

Levin said the increased visits by himself and other members have become necessary because Homeland Security has slashed the vast majority of staff at the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, as well as the Office of the Immigrant Detention Ombudsman.

“The volume Lyons is citing is a direct consequence of his own department dismantling all the alternatives,” Levin said. “They gutted the internal oversight and then complained that the external oversight is too active, then issued a memo to restrict it. All of that only makes sense if the goal is no oversight.”

During previous visits, Levin said he would ask for detainees who met specific criteria, such as those held in a unit of the detention center that was the source of complaints to his office. Those detainees would write their names on a sheet of paper if they were interested in speaking with him.

Barred from speaking with detainees, Levin inspected what he could at Otay Mesa on Monday. Levin said he drank the facility’s water (it tasted like regular tap water) and tried the food — chili, salad, corn, chips and cake that won’t “win any culinary awards, but it was fine.”

At one point, Levin said he saw a detainee using a tablet and asked how it works. An employee interjected and reminded him of the new policy, he said.

Observation is a necessary part of any inspection, Levin said, but you don’t really know what’s going on without talking to people in a way that’s unplanned.

The facility held 1,008 ICE detainees — 864 men and 144 women, as well as others in U.S. Marshals Service custody, Levin said. Nearly a third of the detainees were from Mexico, with smaller numbers from Guatemala, China and other countries. On average, they had been detained 130 days.

Levin said he sent the ICE memo to Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), who is the main plaintiff in the lawsuit over the oversight visits, and lawyers in the case are now reviewing its legality.

Eighteen people have died so far this year in immigrant detention facilities, leaving 2026 on track to be the agency’s deadliest year in more than two decades. Last year, 32 people died in detention facilities.

Since Trump returned to the White House, reports from detention centers have highlighted issues of overcrowding, insufficient medical care and widespread use of force.

JET fuel restrictions could hit airlines on a global scale, a major airline owner has warned.

International Airlines Group (IAG), who owns British Airways, Iberia and Aer Lingus, initially said that most of its airlines will unaffected this summer.

However, they warned that if the crisis continues, shortages will result in restrictions across the globe.

They said: “If the current conflict continues to restrict flows of both crude oil and jet fuel from the Middle East, there is the potential for supplies of jet fuel to be restricted on a global basis.

“We are engaging with governments in each of our home markets as well as with the EU to ensure that the industry is getting the support it needs to navigate this situation.”

IAG has said they expect their profit to be lower than anticipated. It also expects spend more than £1.72billion extra on fuel costs that previously predicted.

Read more on flight crisis

FINAL CALL

All of the airlines that have been forced to close this year

FUEL FEAR

All the airlines that have cancelled flights amid jet fuel shortage holiday fears

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz since March has resulted in fears of fuel shortages, and caused airlines to start hiking prices.

Some airlines, such as Lufthansa, Scandinavian Airlines and Cathay Pacific, have already reduced their flights scheduled for the upcoming months in an attempt to avoid cancellations caused by shortages.

Other airlines like Air France and Virgin Atlantic have already increased the cost of flights.

Despite the warnings, UK airlines have said they are not expecting to be affected by cancellations this summer.

Tour operators including Jet2 and TUI have said they are operating a full schedule as planned.

And IAG said that 70 per cent of the company has hedged fuel for the rest of 2026.

Here are all the airlines that have cancelled flights due to the jet fuel crisis.

In the ancient days of 2022, when the Supreme Court sledgehammered abortion rights with the Dobbs decision, the (Republican) party line was that the issue had returned to where it belonged: the states.

Fast forward to 2026 and it would now seem that the antiabortion crowd, faced with the aggressive pro-choice response of states such as California and lethargy on the part of the Trump administration to do more toward implementing a national ban, is no longer satisfied with that outcome.

They are now out to stomp on California, and a handful of other reproductive health sanctuaries, to ensure that what happens inside our borders fits their ideology.

“It’s strategic, it’s targeted,” Mini Timmaraju, president and chief executive of Reproductive Freedom for All, told me. “Even if you’re in a ‘blue state,’ you’re not safe.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide next week whether to take up the abortion issue again, in a case that could end medication-only procedures as we know them.

That would force women into a less-safe regimen with a lower success rate that would almost certainly lead to more complications — and therefore more controversy. Even in California, which would not be spared by what the court could do, and whose policies are central to the case.

Let’s break it down.

Union members, immigrant rights supporters and anti-Israel demonstrators participate in a May Day rally and march in Washington, D.C., on Friday.

(Robyn Stevens Brody / Sipa USA via Associated Press)

Rogue California

After the Dobbs decision, 11 states passed near-total bans on abortions.

Six other states put early time limits on the procedures, and others passed bans in the second trimester, leaving women in much of the South and the Great Plains with no access to in-person care for hundreds or even thousands of miles.

In many of those places, those bans include making it illegal to receive abortion-inducing medications in the mail from states such as California. But that’s a hard law to enforce unless you go around opening lady-mail.

In recent years, the number of U.S. abortions arranged through telehealth and mailed medication has skyrocketed to more than a quarter of all procedures, though the often illegal nature of this route probably means the number is higher but underreported.

To protect the doctors and providers who are prescribing and sending these medications, California and other states have passed numerous laws to make it easier and safer — from allowing the prescriber to remain anonymous to shield laws that ensure those providers can’t be penalized or extradited to other states for prosecution, though some states are trying.

Earlier this year, Louisiana (a state with a full ban) tried to extradite a California doctor with no luck. Gov. Gavin Newsom gleefully denied that request, promising to “never be complicit with Trump’s war on women.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, speaks during the annual March For Life at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23.

(Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Rogue Louisiana

In the Supreme Court case, Louisiana is thinking bigger — and expressing antiabortionists’ frustration with the Trump administration. The state is suing Trump’s Food and Drug Administration because it allows mifepristone, one of two medications used in abortions, to be prescribed via telehealth.

“Patients and these states with bans and extreme restrictions have relied on providers in blue states, abortion access states, to really help provide care,” Timmaraju said. “And this is a way to stop that.”

Antiabortion groups had hoped (and pushed) Trump to simply have the FDA remove its approvals of mifepristone, but Trump ain’t that dumb. Despite all his promises on the campaign trail, the administration would prefer to kick the can instead of the hornet’s nest on this one, especially before the midterms — since most Americans support abortion rights. So the FDA has said it’s “studying” mifepristone, which could take awhile.

Louisiana is claiming it had to spend $90,000 in taxpayer money to help two women who sought medical treatment after medication abortions (though it has not said they received the medication in the mail).

That’s a real harm, it argues, and gives them standing to sue the FDA to stop mifepristone from being prescribed by telehealth at all, claiming the FDA hasn’t done its due diligence to ensure that’s safe and it makes them really sad that they can’t stop women from ordering it.

The FDA has remained “completely silent on this point because the Trump administration doesn’t want to get involved,” said Mary Ziegler, a UC Davis law professor and expert on reproductive law.

“It’s totally one of the signs that the antiabortion movement is in an open rebellion, and is using the federal courts to express that because the political branches have been pretty non-responsive,” she said.

The Contemplation of Justice statue is seen outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Monday in Washington.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

The Supreme Court lifted a stay Monday imposed by the 5th Circuit that stopped mifepristone from being tele-prescribed. So it’s available until at least May 11.

After that, who knows. It’s up to a court that has proven it’s no friend to reproductive rights.

It’s an issue with real consequence for Trump. If the court takes the case, the midterms must contend with abortion. If they don’t, the pressure on Trump to do so sometime intensifies. But its also an issue with real consequence for Californians.

Consequences in California

In California, there are 22 counties without an abortion clinic, Ziegler points out. In the far north of the state, women without access to telehealth abortions would be little better off than those in Louisiana if mifepristone by mail is stopped.

Instead, women would probably be forced to use the second medication, misoprostol, alone. This single-drug regimen has a lower effectiveness rate than the combined drugs, meaning more women will have to seek out secondary care — often in places where even in-person care is hard to come by. That could lead to more real harm, and therefore more high-profile cases of botched abortions to fuel a further ban on misoprostol.

Steve Hilton takes an interview after the California gubernatorial debate at Skirball Cultural Center on Wednesday.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

And then there’s the fact that Newsom won’t be governor for much longer, and it will be up to the next chief executive to protect in-state providers from extradition. The top Republican contender, Steve Hilton, has previously said he would allow Louisiana to grab our California doctor if he were in charge.

Those kinds of threats have a chilling effect, both Ziegler and Timmaraju said. If enough providers are scared of the consequences of providing telehealth — or any — abortions, a ban becomes self-imposed.

Even in California.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Immigration crackdown souring Orange County’s view of Trump, poll finds
The deep dive: ‘How the Fight Over Israel Is Playing Out Inside MAGA
The L.A. Times Special: Who won the California governor debate on CNN? Here’s what our columnists say

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

International Olympic Committee urges sporting bodies to let Belarusian athletes compete again without vetting as neutrals.

Athletes from Belarus should once again compete with their full national identity and not be vetted for neutral status, the International Olympic Committee has said.

Though the advice to sports governing bodies does not yet apply also to Russia, it seemed to point towards being closer to ending Russia’s isolation in Olympic circles during its war on Ukraine.

One barrier to Russia’s return is an ongoing World Anti-Doping Agency investigation into recent reports implicating Russian anti-doping agency official Veronika Loginova.

The IOC said its executive board noted “with concern the recent information” being looked at by WADA, without naming Loginova.

Athletes from Russia and Belarus had to be approved as neutrals who did not support the war for individual events at the 2024 Paris Olympics and February’s Milano Cortina Winter Olympics. A total of 32 athletes from the two countries competed in Paris, to win five medals combined, including one gold in trampoline by an athlete from Belarus.

“The IOC reaffirms that athletes’ participation in international competition should not be limited by the actions of their governments, including involvement in a war or conflict,” the Olympic body said on Thursday.

The IOC noted the qualification period for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics “starts this summer.”

The Russian Olympic Committee has been suspended by the IOC since October 2023 for incorporating regional sports bodies in illegally occupied eastern Ukraine.

“Whilst the ROC has held constructive exchanges with the IOC on its suspension,” the IOC said, “it remains suspended while the IOC Legal Affairs Commission continues to review the matter.”