retreats

Government forces have seized a strategic town in eastern Syria, part of an ongoing offensive against Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) east of the Euphrates River.

The rapid army operation on Sunday follows battles earlier this month between Damascus and the United States-backed SDF, which led to deadly clashes and the government taking control of three neighbourhoods in Aleppo city from the group.

Sunday’s advance into Tabqa, in Raqqa province, is seen as critical because of a nearby dam that regulates the southward flow of water into areas held by the SDF.

The government and the SDF have exchanged accusations of violating a March agreement intended to reintegrate northeastern Syria and Kurdish-led forces into the structures of the Syrian state.

The SDF controls large swathes of northeastern Syria and has for years been Washington’s key ally in combating the ISIL (ISIS) group. Over that period, the US has developed strong ties with the SDF and has tried to ease tensions between the two sides.

The US had urged calm after this month’s clashes in Aleppo killed 23 people and displaced tens of thousands. After the fighting subsided, SDF leader Mazloum Abdi (also known as Mazloum Kobani) said on Friday that the group would withdraw its forces from areas east of the Euphrates following an announcement by Syrian official al-Sharaa on measures to strengthen Kurdish rights in Syria.

Tabqa is the latest in a series of mostly Arab-majority areas captured by government forces in Raqqa province. It remains unclear how far into the Kurdish heartland the Syrian military intends to advance.

Meanwhile, the Syrian government has accused the SDF of executing prisoners in Tabqa before withdrawing.

The SDF has denied the allegation, saying it transferred detainees out of the prison and accusing government forces of firing on the facility.

The United Kingdom-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights war monitor reported that government forces have taken control of more than a dozen villages and towns in the eastern Deir Az Zor countryside following the SDF withdrawal.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration will withdraw from dozens of international organizations, including the U.N.’s population agency and the U.N. treaty that establishes international climate negotiations, as the U.S. further retreats from global cooperation.

President Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order suspending U.S. support for 66 organizations, agencies and commissions following his instructions for his administration to review participation in and funding for all international organizations, including those affiliated with the United Nations, according to a White House statement on social media.

Most of the targets are U.N.-related agencies, commissions and advisory panels that focus on climate, labor and other issues that the Trump administration has categorized as catering to diversity and “woke” initiatives, according to a partial list obtained by The Associated Press.

“The Trump Administration has found these institutions to be redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity,” the State Department said in a statement.

Trump’s decision to withdraw from organizations that foster cooperation among nations to address global challenges comes as his administration has launched military efforts or issued threats that have rattled allies and adversaries alike, including capturing autocratic Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and indicating an intention to take over Greenland.

This is the latest U.S. withdrawal from global agencies

The administration previously suspended support from agencies like the World Health Organization, the U.N. for Palestinian refugees known as UNRWA, the U.N. Human Rights Council and the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO as it has taken a larger, a-la-carte approach to paying its dues to the world body, picking which operations and agencies they believe align with Trump’s agenda and those which no longer serve U.S. interests.

“I think what we’re seeing is the crystallization of the U.S. approach to multilateralism, which is ‘my way or the highway,’” said Daniel Forti, head of U.N. affairs at the International Crisis Group. “It’s a very clear vision of wanting international cooperation on Washington’s own terms.”

It has marked a major shift from how previous administrations — both Republican and Democratic — have dealt with the U.N., and it has forced the world body, already undergoing its own internal reckoning, to respond with a series of staffing and program cuts.

Many independent nongovernmental agencies — some that work with the United Nations — have cited many project closures because of the U.S. administration’s decision last year to slash foreign assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID.

Despite the massive shift, the U.S. officials, including Trump himself, say they have seen the potential of the U.N. and want to instead focus taxpayer money on expanding American influence in many of the standard-setting U.N. initiatives where there is competition with China, like the International Telecommunications Union, the International Maritime Organization and the International Labor Organization.

The global organizations from which the U.S. is departing

The withdrawal from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, is the latest effort by Trump and his allies to distance the U.S. from international organizations focused on climate and addressing climate change.

UNFCC, the 1992 agreement between 198 countries to financially support climate change activities in developing countries, is the underlying treaty for the landmark Paris climate agreement. Trump — who calls climate change a hoax — withdrew from that agreement soon after reclaiming the White House.

Mainstream scientists say climate change is behind increasing instances of deadly and costly extreme weather, including flooding, droughts, wildfires, intense rainfall events and dangerous heat.

The U.S. withdrawal could hinder global efforts to curb greenhouse gases because it “gives other nations the excuse to delay their own actions and commitments,” said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson, who chairs the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tracks countries’ carbon dioxide emissions.

It also will be difficult to achieve meaningful progress on climate change without cooperation from the U.S., one of the world’s largest emitters and economies, experts said.

The U.N.’s population agency, which provides sexual and reproductive health across the world, has long been a lightning rod for Republican opposition and Trump himself cut funding for the agency during his first term in office. He and other GOP officials have accused the agency of participating in “coercive abortion practices” in countries like China.

When President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, he restored funding for the agency. A State Department review conducted the following year found no evidence to support these claims.

Other organizations and agencies that the U.S. will quit include the Carbon Free Energy Compact, the United Nations University, the International Cotton Advisory Committee, the International Tropical Timber Organization, the Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation, the Pan-American Institute for Geography and History, the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies and the International Lead and Zinc Study Group.

The State Department said additional reviews are ongoing.

Lee and Amiri write for the Associated Press. Amiri reported from the United Nations. AP writer Tammy Webber reported from Fenton, Mich.

SACRAMENTO — The Trump administration backed off its effort to block a court order returning control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles to California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

In a brief filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers said they no longer oppose lifting a partial administrative stay and formally withdrew their request to keep the troops under federal control while the appeal proceeds.

The move follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week in Trump v. Illinois, which cast new doubt on the administration’s legal theory for using the National Guard in domestic law enforcement operations. Tuesday’s filing with the appeals court does not concede the merits of California’s case brought by Newsom, but it removes a major procedural obstacle to enforcing the lower court’s ruling.

In the filing, federal lawyers said they “do not oppose lifting of the partial administrative stay and hereby respectfully withdraw their motion for a stay pending appeal.”

“This admission by Trump and his occult cabinet members means this illegal intimidation tactic will finally come to an end,” Newsom wrote on X, adding that he is looking forward to the 9th Circuit making an official ruling that would return the California National Guard to state service.

The decision could mark a turning point in a contentious legal fight over Trump’s use of state National Guard troops, which the president said was necessary to quell unrest over immigration enforcement. Justice Department lawyers had argued in court that once federalized, Guard troops could remain under the president’s command indefinitely and that courts had no authority to review their deployment.

Court records show roughly 300 California troops remain under federal control, including 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of earlier this month. In mid-December, video reviewed by The Times showed dozens of troops under Trump’s command quietly leaving the Roybal Federal Building downtown in the middle of the night following an appellate court’s order to decamp. That facility had been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that the president had illegally seized control of California’s National Guard during protests over immigration enforcement. Breyer ordered that command of the remaining federalized troops be returned to Newsom, rejecting the administration’s argument that once federalized, Guard units could remain under presidential control indefinitely. He warned that such a theory would upend the constitutional balance between state and federal power.

The Los Angeles case is part of a broader, high-stakes legal battle over the president’s authority to deploy armed forces inside U.S. cities. Similar disputes involving Guard deployments in Oregon and Illinois are moving through the courts, with several judges, including conservative appointees, expressing skepticism about claims that such decisions are beyond judicial review.

Members of Congress have also begun scrutinizing the deployments, raising concerns about civil liberties and the growing use of military forces in civilian settings.