security

You may be surprised to know that the London-based airport enforces a ‘two-bag policy’ at its security point to avoid delays

With summer on the horizon, many Brits are preparing for sunny vacations overseas. However, before heading to Heathrow Airport, familiarising yourself with its current policies and regulations is essential.

Carrying flammable substances or toxic items is a clear no-go when flying from any airport. However, what may be less known is Heathrow’s baggage limit for travellers at its security checkpoints.

You may be surprised to know that the London-based airport enforces a ‘two-bag policy’ at its security point to avoid delays. This means only two hand baggage items can be taken through the control area.

“To avoid delays, Heathrow operates a two-bag policy at airport security,” advice at the airport’s site reads. “Handbags and laptop bags count as a piece of hand baggage.”

READ MORE: Love Island’s Cara De La Hoyde-Massey urges fans to get a key health check

As part of this rule, any item larger than 56cm x 45cm x 25cm (22in x 18in x 10in) must be checked in as hold luggage. In turn, passengers are more likely to keep their security tray usage to a minimum, limiting delays for others.

Besides this, it’s also important to consider the dos and don’ts of what to put in this hand luggage. For instance, only specific electronic devices are permitted on flights from the UK.

While some airlines might have different restrictions, the UK Government outlines nine key items you can take in both your hand luggage and hold luggage:

• Hairdryers
• Straighteners
• Travel iron
• Electric shaver
• Most cameras
• Mobile phones
• Laptops
• Tablet devices
• MP3 players

It is essential for passengers using e-cigarettes to carry them in their hand luggage rather than in their hold luggage. When passing through security checks, placing electronic devices in a designated tray allows staff to see and verify that no prohibited items are hidden.

Heathrow Airport’s advice also adds: “Please ensure your electronic devices are charged. If they don’t switch on, you may not be allowed to take them onto the aircraft. Charging points are available throughout the airport.”

On the flipside, most UK airports – including Heathrow – require liquids to fit inside a single transparent plastic bag when passing through security. Each liquid container must hold a maximum of 100ml, and the plastic bag must be approximately 20cm x 20cm.

The Government’s website clarifies that all items should fit ‘comfortably inside the bag’ so that it can be sealed. To avoid complications, do not attempt to seal it by tying a knot at the top, as it will not be accepted.

READ MORE: Look around Amanda Holden family thatched cottage with ‘sweeping’ gardens which is up for sale

Below is the UK Government’s complete list of items categorised as hand luggage liquids:

• Liquid or semi-liquid foods, for example, soup, jam, honey and syrups
• Any other solutions and items of similar consistency
• Sprays, including shaving foam, hairspray and spray deodorants
• Contact lens solution
• Pastes, including toothpaste
• Gels, including hair and shower gel
• All drinks, including water
• Cosmetics and toiletries, including creams, lotions, oils, perfumes, mascara and lip gloss

Solid products like deodorant sticks, soap bars, wet wipes, and lip balms are usually considered non-liquids. Therefore, they typically don’t require storage in the bag.

Guidance from Heathrow Airport adds: “Only limited quantities of liquids may be carried through airport security into the departure lounge. This includes bottled drinks, suntan lotion, fragrances, cosmetics, toiletries and all frozen liquids.

“…Liquids in containers over 100ml will not be permitted through security – please pack them in your hold baggage instead.”

WASHINGTON, June 12 (UPI) — Taiwan may be an island of just over 23 million people, but what happens there could ripple across the global economy. The small democratic nation produces the vast majority of the world’s most advanced semiconductors — chips that are used in everything from smartphones and electric cars to defense systems and spacecraft.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. “produces roughly 90% of the most sophisticated computer chips, and the loss of that would be devastating,” said Steven David, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “We can’t get around without it.”

For Taiwan, this manufacturing dominance isn’t just economic — it’s strategic. Analysts call it the island’s “silicon shield.” The world relies heavily on Taiwan’s chips, which deters China from launching a military attack and pushes allies like the United States to come to Taiwan’s defense.

The geopolitical stakes around Taiwan’s semiconductor dominance have soared as China escalates military pressure, through increased fighter jet incursions, large-scale naval drills and explicit threats of reunification.

U.S. lawmakers from both parties have increasingly voiced concern that a Chinese invasion could upend global chip supply chains and empower Beijing with outsized economic leverage.

“It [would be] monumentally stupid to try to keep something as fragile as chips production going during the time of war,” said Kitsch Liao, associate director of the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub.

The United States has taken steps to address this vulnerability. In 2022, former President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act, allocating $280 billion to support domestic semiconductor manufacturing and research, including subsidies for Taiwan Semiconductor to build a plant in Phoenix.

In March, President Donald Trump announced a new $100 billion deal with the company to dramatically expand its manufacturing presence in the United States.

“America is building plants with Taiwanese investment and cooperation in Arizona and elsewhere, but it would still be devastating,” David said, referring to the potential impact of a Chinese attack on chip production.

Taiwan’s government has had to carefully balance cooperation with the United States against growing fears at home that shifting too much chip production abroad could weaken its security.

Taiwan’s two main political parties, the Kuomintang, or KMT, and the Democratic Progressive Party, or DPP, have debated the best approach to cross-strait relations.

While the KMT supports closer ties with China, the DPP, which currently holds the presidency under Lai Ching-te, has leaned toward reinforcing Taiwan’s democratic independence and diversifying trade, actions that could increase already mounting pressure from China.

“If China does successfully invade Taiwan and takes over the TSMC plant, it won’t be able to use the plant the way Taiwan does,” David said. “But it would deny its use to others, and that would be devastating to the world economy. Several percentages of world GDP would drop as a result.”

Analysts worry that even the threat of invasion could destabilize markets. Blockades or gray zone tactics by Beijing, short of all-out war, could still limit Taiwan Semiconductors’ ability to export.

“Any erosion in Taiwan’s ability to trade with the rest of the world would have a significant impact on the global economy,” said Jack Burnham, a research analyst at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“It would disrupt the flow of semiconductors to a variety of different industries that are incredibly valuable to the United States, its allies and partners, and the global community.”

Taiwan has long been one of the most contentious issues in United States-China relations. After the Chinese Civil War, the Nationalist government fled to Taiwan in 1949, and the Chinese Communist Party established the People’s Republic of China on the mainland. Since then, Beijing has claimed Taiwan as an inalienable part of its territory.

In 1979, the United States. ended formal diplomatic recognition of Taipei in favor of Beijing, but passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which commits the United States to help Taiwan maintain a “sufficient self-defense capability.”

The United States, though, has remained deliberately vague about whether it would come to Taiwan’s defense in the event of a Chinese invasion — a policy known as strategic ambiguity.

But as threats of an invasion increased, this stance continued to be tested. In a speech in Singapore last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth vowed that “devastating consequences” could result should China seek to “conquer” Taiwan, warning that an invasion could be “imminent.”

Beyond semiconductor and chips manufacturing, Taiwan remains a core interest in the Indo-Pacific region. The island sits at the heart of the “first island chain,” a line of U.S.-aligned territories stretching from Japan to the Philippines.

If China were to take over Taiwan, experts warned it could use the island as a launchpad to project power deep into the Pacific, posing a direct challenge to U.S. interests.

“Should China be successful [in a reunification scenario], it would have a significant impact on the lives of everyday Americans — both in their wallets and in the political situation they find themselves in,” Burnham said.

“What’s at stake when it comes to Taiwan is the free flow of trade, a significant part of the American economy, and the health and stability of the United States’ key allies and partners in the region.”

A warrant has been issued for the arrest of former NFL superstar Antonio Brown stemming from an altercation outside a celebrity kickboxing event last month in Miami.

Brown is charged with the first-degree felony of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm. A judge from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County signed the warrant Wednesday.

The warrant, which has been viewed by The Times, states that once Brown is arrested, he will be held on a $10,000 bond before being released and under house arrest before a trial.

Just before midnight on May 16, the warrant states, Miami police were dispatched to a location on NE 67th St. in the Little Haiti neighborhood in response to a report of gunshots being fired in the area.

Brown had already been detained by off-duty Florida Highway Patrol officers serving as security for the amateur boxing event held in the area. One of those officers stated that “several patrons from the event identified Mr. Brown as the shooter and informed him that Mr. Brown was armed,” the warrant states.

After being patted down and deemed to be unarmed at that point, Brown was released “due to the absence of identified victims at the time.”

A Miami police review of surveillance camera footage revealed that an altercation between Brown and another man took place before the shooting. The footage showed Brown striking the man with a closed fist, and a fight that involved additional individuals ensued, the warrant states.

Security broke up the fight, according to the warrant, but Brown “appears to retrieve a black firearm from the right hip area” of one of the security staff members and ran with the gun out of the parking area in the direction that the man he was fighting with had gone.

The warrant states that “cell phone video obtained from social media” shows Brown advancing toward the other man with the gun in hand and captures “two shots which occur as Mr. Brown is within several feet” of the other man, who can be seen “ducking after the first shot is heard.”

In a May 21 interview with a police detective, the alleged victim identified Brown in the surveillance video and said they had known each other since 2022, the warrant states. He also indicated he possibly had been grazed in the neck by one of the bullets, was in fear for his life during the incident and went to a hospital afterward to treat his injuries.

Brown appeared to address the alleged incident in a May 17 post on X.

“I was jumped by multiple individuals who tried to steal my jewelry and cause physical harm to me,” Brown wrote. “Contrary to some video circulating, Police temporarily detained me until they received my side of the story and then released me. I WENT HOME THAT NIGHT AND WAS NOT ARRESTED. I will be talking to my legal council and attorneys on pressing charges on the individuals that jumped me.”

Brown posted on X several times on Friday, with none of those posts mentioning the arrest warrant. One seemed to indicate he’s not in the U.S. at the moment — it features a video of a grinning Brown riding a bike with the hashtag #lovefromthemiddleeast.

A seven-time Pro Bowl receiver, Brown played nine of his 12 NFL seasons with the Pittsburgh Steelers and won a Super Bowl with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers following the 2020 season. He made a bizarre, shirtless exit from the field during a regular-season game Jan. 2, 2022, and has not played since.

He has a history of legal troubles. In 2019, Brown was sued by a former trainer who said he sexually assaulted her multiple times. Brown denied the allegations. The lawsuit was settled out of court in 2021.

In 2020, Brown pleaded no contest to burglary and battery charges connected to an altercation with a moving company. He was ordered to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, attend an anger management program and undergo psychological and psychiatric evaluation.

Brown was suspended for eight games in 2020 for multiple violations of the NFL’s personal conduct policy.

Also, in October 2023, the former star wide receiver was arrested for failing to pay child support.

There are a few things that people facing airport security will want to ditch when planning their outfit

Millions of people will pass through airports across the UK this summer for long-awaited breaks in sunnier places. But, people heading abroad can make one part of the travel process simpler by choosing to leave some items at home.

TikTok user and frequent flyer Melanie (@comehangout_melanie) said that there are four items that might “cause you to get held up by security.” When getting to the plane can often seem to take hours, people will want to avoid making these wardrobe mistakes that could extend the process even further.

The first, and most obvious one, is not to wear anything metallic, if possible. It’s a standard part of airport security around the world for travellers to pass through a metal detector. If it detects any sort of metal object, staff will pull you aside and complete extra safety checks.

These sensitive devices are designed to be triggered by hazardous items, but can just as easily flag something innocent you’ve forgotten to remove, like jewellery, hairpins or loose coins in your pocket. Melanie added that it can be “a pain”, so if it can be avoided, it’ll speed up the whole process.

Melanie also advises against wearing specific shoes if they are hard to take on and off. She explained: “Most airport security, not all, will make you take your shoes off. There is nowhere to sit to take them off or to put them back on. If people are in a rush, you are gonna have a very annoyed line of people behind you if you’re taking a long time to get your shoes off.”

In some UK airports, you may be asked to remove your shoes at security, particularly if the metal detector is triggered. This is a standard security procedure to ensure the safety of passengers and staff.

Certain clothes might be comfy for a long flight, but Melanie claimed there are some you should leave at home – or at least keep in your suitcase. They might cause issues with security checks or attract unwanted attention.

She said: “Don’t wear clothing with a lot of pockets or details on it—that includes cargo pants. There are a lot of zippers on those, which could be an issue, but if you actually store things in all of those pockets, it can be difficult to remember to take them all out. If you are in line and having to dig through all of your different pockets to clear them all out, that’s a no-no!”

Baggy clothes —such as “pants, shirts and even flowy dresses”—were also highlighted as something to avoid. Melaine claimed that these outfit options were “far more likely to lead to a pat down” than more fitted clothing, suggesting that baggy items might be used for “hiding things underneath them.”

What to expect at airport security in the UK

Several steps need to happen before airport staff can let you head off on holiday. According to the GOV.UK website, the safety checks include having your boarding pass ready for inspection—your passport is not required at security.

If you are taking liquids in your hand luggage, containers must hold no more than 100ml. Passengers should put appropriate-sized liquids into a clear resealable plastic bag which holds no more than 1 litre and measures about 20cm x 20cm.

Take the plastic bag out of your hand luggage while queuing, ready to put it in the security tray. Remember that liquids may include items such as make-up, toiletries and hand sanitisers.

Empty your pockets, take off your coat, watch, and belt, and remove other metal items when you near the front of the queue so you’re ready to put them in the trays. You may be asked to remove your shoes, other clothing items, or jewellery before going through the security archway or scanner. Electrical items such as mobile phones, tablets, laptops, and hair straighteners should be removed from hand luggage to go through X-ray machines separately.

Australia says the plan to deliver nuclear submarines remains unchanged, despite opposition to the pact from a top Trump official.

Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles said he is “very confident” that the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom will continue to move forward despite news that the Pentagon is reviewing the 2021 deal between the three nations.

News of the review was first reported on Thursday as US defence officials said re-assessing the pact was necessary to ensure that the military deal, agreed to with much fanfare under former US President Joe Biden, was in line with US President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda.

The pact includes a deal worth hundreds of billions of dollars to provide Australia with closely-guarded nuclear propulsion technology. Only five other countries besides the US can build nuclear submarines: the UK, China, Russia, France and India.

“The meetings that we’ve had with the United States have been very positive in respect of AUKUS,” Defence Minister Marles told the ABC network.

A review of the deal is “something that it’s perfectly natural for an incoming administration to do … It’s exactly what we did”, Marles said.

“There is a plan here. We are sticking to it, and we’re going to deliver it,” he said.

Under the terms of the AUKUS deal, Australia and the UK will work with the US to design nuclear-class submarines ready for delivery to Australia in the 2040s, according to the US Naval Institute.

The three countries are already close military allies and share intelligence, but AUKUS focuses on key strategic areas, such as countering the rise of China and its expansion into the Pacific.

Due to the long lead time in building the submarines under the AUKUS deal, Australia also agreed to buy up to three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines during the 2030s. The US and UK also plan to start the rotational deployment of their submarines out of Australia in 2027.

But some Trump administration officials, such as Pentagon policy adviser Elbridge Colby, say the submarine deal puts foreign governments ahead of US national security.

“My concern is why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it?” Colby said last year.

Other officials, including US Representative Joe Courtney from Connecticut – a US state which has an industry focused on building submarines for the US Navy – say the deal is in the “best interest of all three AUKUS nations, as well as the Indo-Pacific region as a whole”.

“To abandon AUKUS – which is already well under way – would cause lasting harm to our nation’s standing with close allies and certainly be met with great rejoicing in Beijing,” Courtney said.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is expected to discuss the deal when he meets Trump next week during a meeting of the G7 leaders in Canada.

Earlier this year, Australia made a $500m payment towards AUKUS and plans to spend $2bn this year to speed up the production process in the US of the Virginia-class submarines.

The UK, like Australia, has downplayed concerns that the Trump administration could renege on the pact.

A UK official told the Reuters news agency that the deal is “one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades” that will also produce “jobs and economic growth in communities across all three nations”.

“It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the UK did last year,” the official said.

June 7 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data.

On Friday, the Court’s six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population.

In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions.

In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: “We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.”

The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander’s decision.

The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans.

They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

“This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,” the groups said in a statement. “This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE’s affiliates to steal Americans’ private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public’s most sensitive data as this case moves forward.”

Social Security Works posted on X: “No one in history — no commissioner, no president, no one — has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have.”

White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that “the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law.”

Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the “Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court’s intervention. In essence, the ‘urgency’ underlying the government’s stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.”

She concluded her dissent by writing: “The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process.”

Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs “from cradle to grave.”

“While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have ‘God-level’ access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more,” Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”

Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers.

DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency.

“These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government’s records to much-needed scrutiny,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion.

The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents’ names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare.

SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The plaintiffs wrote: “The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure — and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it.”

Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that”The Supreme Court’s ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries.”

On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take.

Musk called Social Security “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28.

The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers’ payroll tax payments to people who are already retired.

The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.

The United States Supreme Court has sided with the administration of President Donald Trump in two cases about government records — and who should have access to them.

On Friday, the six-member conservative majority overturned a lower court’s ruling that limited the kinds of data that Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could access through the Social Security Administration (SSA).

In a separate case, the majority also decided that DOGE was not required to turn over records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a government transparency law.

In both cases, the Supreme Court’s three left-leaning justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan — opposed the majority’s decision.

DOGE has been at the forefront of Trump’s campaign to reimagine the federal government and cut down on bureaucratic “bloat”.

Unveiled on November 13, just eight days after Trump’s re-election, DOGE was designed to “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies”.

At first, it was unclear how DOGE would interact with the executive branch: whether it would be an advisory panel, a new department or a nongovernmental entity.

But on January 20, when Trump was sworn in for his second term, he announced that the existing US Digital Service — a technology initiative founded by former President Barack Obama — would be reorganised to create DOGE.

The government efficiency panel has since led a wide-scale overhaul of the federal government, implementing mass layoffs and seeking to shutter entities like the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

It also advertised cost-savings it had achieved or alleged fraud it had uncovered, though many of those claims have been contradicted or questioned by journalists and experts.

In addition, DOGE’s sweeping changes to the federal government made it the subject of criticism and concern, particularly as it sought greater access to sensitive data and systems.

Up until last week, DOGE was led by Elon Musk, a billionaire and tech entrepreneur who had been a prominent backer of Trump’s re-election bid. Musk and Trump, however, have had a public rupture following the end of the billionaire’s tenure as a “special government employee” in the White House.

That falling-out has left DOGE’s future uncertain.

Accessing Social Security data

One of DOGE’s controversial initiatives has been its push to access Social Security data, in the name of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse.

Early in Trump’s second term, both the president and Musk repeated misleading claims that Social Security payments were being made to millions of people listed as 150 years old or older. But fact-checkers quickly refuted that allegation.

Instead, they pointed out that the Social Security Administration has implemented a code to automatically stop payments to anyone listed as alive and more than 115 years old.

They also pointed out that the COBOL programming language flags incomplete entries in the Social Security system with birthdates set back 150 years, possibly prompting the Trump administration’s confusion. Less than 1 percent of Social Security payments are made erroneously, according to a 2024 inspector general report.

Still, Trump officials criticised the Social Security Administration, with Musk dubbing it “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” and calling for its elimination.

In March, US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander blocked DOGE from having unfettered access to Social Security data, citing the sensitive nature of such information.

Social Security numbers, for instance, are key to verifying a person’s identity in the US, and the release of such numbers could endanger individual privacy.

Lipton Hollander ruled that DOGE had “never identified or articulated even a single reason for which the DOGE Team needs unlimited access to SSA’s entire record systems”. She questioned why DOGE had not sought a “more tailored” approach.

“Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud,” she wrote in her ruling. “Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.”

The judge’s ruling, however, did allow DOGE to view anonymised data, without personally identifying information.

The Trump administration, nevertheless, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that Judge Lipton Hollander had exceeded her authority in blocking DOGE’s access.

The Supreme Court granted its emergency petition on Friday, lifting Lipton Hollander’s temporary restrictions on the data in an unsigned decision.

But Justice Brown Jackson issued a blistering dissent (PDF), suggesting that the Supreme Court was willing to break norms to assist a presidency that was unwilling to let legal challenges play out in lower courts.

“Once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them,” Brown Jackson wrote.

She argued that the Trump administration had not established that any “irreparable harm” would occur if DOGE were temporarily blocked from accessing Social Security data.

But by granting the Trump administration’s emergency petition, she said the court was “jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process”.

Is DOGE subject to transparency laws?

The second Supreme Court decision on Friday concerned whether DOGE itself had to surrender documents under federal transparency laws.

The question was raised as part of a lawsuit brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog group.

It argued that DOGE’s sweeping powers suggested it should be subject to laws like FOIA, just like any other executive agency. But CREW also alleged that the ambiguity surrounding DOGE’s structures had kept it insulated from outside probes.

“While publicly available information indicates that DOGE is subject to FOIA, the lack of clarity on DOGE’s authority leaves that an open question,” CREW said in a statement.

The watchdog group sought to compel DOGE to provide information about its inner workings.

While a US district judge had sided with CREW’s request for records in April, the Supreme Court on Friday paused that lower court’s decision (PDF). It sent the case back to a court of appeals for further consideration, with instructions that the April order be narrowed.

“Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity’s ability to persuade,” the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled.

It also said that the courts needed to exercise “deference and restraint” regarding “internal” executive communications.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Friday for the DOGE team that had been led by Elon Musk to examine Social Security records that include personal information on most Americans.

Acting by a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an appeal from President Trump’s lawyers and lifted a court order that had barred a team of DOGE employees from freely examining Social Security records.

“We conclude that, under the present circumstances,” the Social Security Administration, or SSA, “may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,” the court said in an unsigned order.

In a second order, the justices blocked the disclosure of DOGE operations as agency records that could be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The court’s three liberals — Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — dissented in both cases.

“Today, the court grants ‘emergency’ relief that allows the Social Security Administration (SSA) to hand DOGE staffers the highly sensitive data of millions of Americans,” Jackson wrote. “The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now — before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE’s access is lawful.”

The legal fight turned on the unusual status of the newly created Department of Governmental Efficiency. This was a not true department, but the name given to the team of aggressive outside advisors led by Musk.

Were the DOGE team members presidential advisors or outsiders who should not be given access to personal data?

While Social Security employees are entrusted with the records containing personal information, it was disputed whether the 11 DOGE team members could be trusted with same material.

Musk had said the goal was to find evidence of fraud or misuse of government funds.

He and DOGE were sued by labor unions who said the outside analysts were sifting through records with personal information that was protected by the privacy laws. Unless checked, the DOGE team could create highly personal computer profiles of every person, they said.

A federal judge in Maryland agreed and issued an order restricting the work of DOGE.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, an Obama appointee, barred DOGE staffers from having access to the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. But her order did not restrict the Social Security staff or DOGE employees from using data that did not identify people or sensitive personal information.

In late April, the divided 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to set aside the judge’s order by a 9-6 vote.

Judge Robert King said the “government has sought to accord the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) immediate and unfettered access to all records of the Social Security Administration (‘SSA’) — records that include the highly sensitive personal information of essentially everyone in our country.”

But Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court and said a judge should not “second guess” how the administration manages the government.

He said the district judge had “enjoined particular agency employees — the 11 members of the Social Security Administration (SSA) DOGE team — from accessing data that other agency employees can unquestionably access, and that the SSA DOGE team will use for purposes that are unquestionably lawful. … The Executive Branch, not district courts, sets government employees’ job responsibilities.”

Sauer said the DOGE team was seeking to modernize SSA systems and identify improper payments, for instance by reviewing swaths of records and flagging unusual payment patterns or other signs of fraud.

The DOGE employees “are subject to the same strict confidentiality standards as other SSA employees,” he said. Moreover, the plaintiffs “make no allegation that the SSA DOGE team’s access will increase the risk of public disclosure.”

He said checking the personal data is crucial.

“For instance, a birth date of 1900 can be telltale evidence that an individual is probably deceased and should not still receive Social Security payments, while 15 names using the same Social Security number may also point to a problem,” he said.

WASHINGTON — A former Homeland Security official during President Trump’s first administration who authored an anonymous op-ed sharply critical of the president is calling on independent government watchdogs to investigate after Trump ordered the department to look into his government service.

Miles Taylor, once chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, warned in an interview with the Associated Press of the far-reaching implications of Trump’s April 9 memorandum, “Addressing Risks Associated with an Egregious Leaker and Disseminator of Falsehoods,” when it comes to suppressing criticism of the president. That memo accused Taylor of concocting stories to sell his book and directed the secretary of Homeland Security and other government agencies to look into Taylor and strip him of any security clearances.

Taylor sent a letter via email to inspectors general at the departments of Justice and Homeland Security on Tuesday.

Coming on the same April day that Trump also ordered an investigation into Chris Krebs, a former top cybersecurity official, the dual memoranda illustrated how Trump has sought to use the powers of the presidency against his adversaries. Speaking to the AP, Taylor said the order targeting him sets a “scary precedent” and that’s why he decided to call on the inspectors general to investigate.

“I didn’t commit any crime, and that’s what’s extraordinary about this. I can’t think of any case where someone knows they’re being investigated but has absolutely no idea what crime they allegedly committed. And it’s because I didn’t,” Taylor said. He called it a “really, really, really scary precedent to have set is that the president of the United States can now sign an order investigating any private citizen he wants, any critic, any foe, anyone.”

Trump has targeted adversaries since he took office

Since taking office again in January, Trump has stripped security clearances from a number of his opponents. But Trump’s order for an investigation into Taylor, as well as Krebs, marked an escalation of his campaign of retribution in his second term.

Trump fired Krebs, who directed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, in November 2020 after Krebs disputed the Republican president’s unsubstantiated claims of voting fraud and vouched for the integrity of the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

Taylor left the first Trump administration in 2019. In the anonymous New York Times op-ed published in 2018, he described himself as part of a secret “resistance” to counter Trump’s “misguided impulses.” The op-ed’s publication touched off a leak investigation in Trump’s first White House.

Taylor later published a book by the same name as the op-ed and then another book under his own name called “Blowback,” which warned about Trump’s return to office.

After signing the memorandum April 9, Trump said Taylor was likely “guilty of treason.”

The letter by Taylor’s lawyer to the inspectors general calls Trump’s actions “unprecedented in American history.”

“The Memorandum does not identify any specific wrongdoing. Rather, it flagrantly targets Mr. Taylor for one reason alone: He dared to speak out to criticize the President,” the letter reads.

Taylor’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said the request to the inspectors general was an attempt to “get the administration to do the right thing.” Lowell said that depending on the outcome of their complaint, they’ll explore other options including a possible lawsuit. Lowell, a veteran Washington lawyer, announced earlier this year that he was opening his own legal practice and would represent targets of Trump’s retribution.

Violation of First Amendment rights alleged

In the letter, Lowell calls on the inspectors general to do their jobs of “addressing and preventing abuses of power.”

The letter says Trump’s April 9 memo appears to violate Taylor’s First Amendment rights by going after Taylor for his criticism of the president, calling it a “textbook definition of political retribution and vindictive prosecution.” And, according to the letter, Trump’s memo also appears to violate Taylor’s Fifth Amendment due process rights.

The letter highlights Taylor’s “honorable and exemplary” work service including receiving the Distinguished Service Medal upon leaving the department, and it details the toll that the April 9 memorandum has taken on Taylor’s personal life. His family has been threatened and harassed, and former colleagues lost their government jobs because of their connection with him, according to the letter.

Taylor told the AP that since the order, there’s been an “implosion in our lives.” He said he started a fund to pay for legal fees, has had to step away from work and his wife has gone back to work to help pay the family’s bills. Their home’s location was published on the internet in a doxxing.

Taylor said that by filing these complaints with the inspectors general, he’s anticipating that the pressure on him and his family will increase. He said they spent the last few weeks debating what to do after the April 9 memorandum and decided to fight back.

“The alternative is staying silent, cowering and capitulating and sending the message that, yes, there’s no consequences for this president and this administration in abusing their powers in ways that my legal team believes and a lot of legal scholars tell me is unconstitutional and illegal,” Taylor said.

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

Airport security rules can be confusing for many travellers with liquid restrictions in place at many flight hubs – but there is one common food item that is banned

Airport shops are hitting passengers in the pocket by charging up to a staggering 48 per cent more for snacks and drinks compared to high street prices. In a move away from complimentary in-flight refreshments, British Airways is one of the airlines now asking customers to splash out on food during short-haul journeys with their paid-for menu options.

But be advised, packing certain common food items might land you in hot water at security checks, potentially leading to a search or even confiscation of your beloved nibbles. Whilst some UK airports have started updating their security measures, the liquid restrictions linger stubbornly across numerous global terminals.

READ MORE: Doctor tells Brit dad to ‘carry on’ as he loses two stone in two months with one change

The official guidance on the UK Government’s website currently states: “If you do take liquids in your hand luggage containers must hold no more than 100ml.

“Containers must be in a single, transparent, resealable plastic bag, which holds no more than a litre and measures approximately 20cm x 20cm and contents must fit comfortably inside the bag so it can be sealed.”

Beware, traveller: while it’s widely known that water and beverages are part of the liquid restrictions, many are unaware that certain foods, including hummus, also qualify under this category due to their consistency, reports the Express.

It’s not just the popular chickpea spread either; other favourites like guacamole and salsa are similarly subjected to these stringent security stipulations.

A travel guru from Ski Vertigo has issued a warning to holidaymakers: “Certain food items, especially those that are liquid or gel-like, such as peanut butter, jam, or yoghurt, are subject to the liquids rule.

“Solid foods generally pass through security without issues, but any food that can be spread, squirted, or poured may be confiscated if it exceeds the allowed liquid limits. Food items can also trigger additional screening if they appear suspicious on the X-ray.”

Despite some UK airports adopting cutting-edge CT scanners that could see the end of the current liquid restrictions, many still lag behind in this tech upgrade.

Even if you’re flying out from a UK airport equipped with these new scanners, remember that numerous international airports continue to enforce the traditional liquid regulations.

A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “Passengers should continue to check security requirements with their departure airport before travelling.”

So, for now, it’s wise for travellers to stick to the established liquid guidelines until further notice, as there’s no confirmed date for when the rules will be universally relaxed.

Within the context of an enduring relationship dating back to May 1975, the establishment of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) as a regional bloc with an aspiration of transforming the elongated region along the Atlantic coast and stretching across the Sahel-Savanna bordering the Maghreb. ECOWAS sets out its broad operations incorporating politics, economy, security, social, and culture. The long-term goal is ensuring regional economic sovereignty and political unity among its twelve countries of West Africa.

Today, ECOWAS’s 50 years of its existence represent its marked achievement. It has lagged with issues of fostering strategic solidarity and commitments to its expected goals of sustainable economic transformation. As the regional bloc marked its 50th anniversary in May 2025, ECOWAS had a few achievements to show to the public but faced remarkable and daunting challenges, and these have raised questions about its future.  

On the stage of its aggrandizement, on May 26, ECOWAS officially launched activities commemorating its 50th anniversary in Praia, the capital city of Cabo Verde. The ceremony brought together high-level dignitaries, including the Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Cabo Verde, Miryan Vieira; the Acting Resident Representative of the ECOWAS Commission in Cabo Verde and Executive Director of ECREEE, Francis Sempore; the Director of the Multinational Maritime Coordination Centre for Zone G; members of the diplomatic corps; representatives of various municipalities; and ECOWAS officials in Cabo Verde.

Francis Sempore emphasized the importance of the golden jubilee, noting that “this 50th anniversary is a remarkable milestone — a time not only for celebration but also for reflection. As we mark five decades of regional cooperation and solidarity, we must redouble efforts to strengthen integration and foster collaboration for a brighter, united future in West Africa.”

Miryan Vieira commended ECOWAS for its continued presence and impact in Cabo Verde. Referring to the promotion of sustainable energy, she underlined the immense growth potential of the ECOWAS region and further called for a “people-centered approach” to regional integration that prioritizes human development and inclusivity.

The final launch was preceded by a press conference at the ECOWAS Representation in Praia. It is most important to remember here that ECOWAS’s golden jubilee commemorations aimed to deepen citizens’ connection to the regional vision, promote shared values, and inspire the next generation of West Africans to contribute to a more integrated and prosperous community.

Despite its excellent aspirations and objectives, regional security has been one of the main obstacles in the region. ECOWAS has seemingly been losing its decades-old credibility primarily due to its approach in ensuring regional peace and stability. The overarching combined narratives starkly pointed to this as its major weakness. The ultimate failure to comprehend the neocolonial goals of foreign powers has created deep cracks in ECOWAS.

According to our monitoring, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, on 29 January 2025, declared withdrawal from the bloc. The three French-speaking West African countries, currently governed by military juntas, have formed the Alliance of Sahel States, citing sovereignty concerns and dissatisfaction with ECOWAS’s responses to political and security developments. As the Sahel region continues to grapple with instability and conflict, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger sought other alternatives, and foreign powers are competing to explore and control the abundant mineral resources of these countries in West Africa.

The regional bloc still looks for mechanisms to resolve the security crisis. It has persistently come under fierce criticism; it slackens on its primary responsibilities. Some experts have called for staff changes, attributing them to deep inefficiency. In fact, its reputation has been at stake, and most probably, it needs new dynamic faces at the Secretariat in Abuja, Nigeria.

On May 16th, the African Union Peace and Security Council (AU PSC) and the ECOWAS Mediation and Security Council (MSC) held their second joint consultative meeting at the AU Headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, which served as a strategic platform to strengthen cooperation on governance, peace, and security within the frameworks of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), the African Governance Architecture (AGA), and the AU’s Master Roadmap to Silence the Guns by 2030.

Opening the session, Ambassador Harold Bundu Saffa, Chair of the AU PSC for May 2025, welcomed the symbolic significance of holding the meeting and called for a deeper AU–ECOWAS cooperation built on mutual trust and joint responses to emerging challenges such as climate-related security risks, digital conflicts, and youth-led peace initiatives.

In his remarks, Ambassador Musa Sani Nuhu, Chair of the ECOWAS MSC, stressed the urgent need to intensify regional cooperation amid rising insecurity across the continent. He cited threats such as unconstitutional changes of government, terrorism, transnational organized crime, and humanitarian crises. “Africa stands at a defining moment in its history,” he stated. “It is vital that we engage in open and constructive dialogue to identify synergies and build a strong, united response to the challenges we all face.”

For his part, Ambassador Abdel-Fatau Musah, ECOWAS Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security, emphasized the need for inclusive and responsive governance, as well as stronger regional solidarity. “History will not remember our communiqués, but the peace we built, the lives we protected, and the future we dared to imagine together,” he said. Musah, however, advocated for the full involvement of youth and women in peace processes and urged Member States to make subsidiarity a practical foundation for trust and cooperation.

In his keynote address, Ambassador Bankole Adeoye, AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security, highlighted the importance of long-term institutional partnerships and regular consultations to secure regional peace and foster economic integration. “The AU PSC and ECOWAS MSC must work hand-in-hand on peace and security issues in West Africa,” he stated, commending ECOWAS’s leadership and achievements over its 50-year history, especially in conflict prevention and peace support operations.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the African Union and ECOWAS reaffirmed their strong commitment to strengthening their partnership in addressing the continent’s peace and security challenges through preventive diplomacy, mediation, and joint peace support operations, guided by the principles of subsidiarity, complementarity, and comparative advantage. Nevertheless, there is hope, most probably in the near future, to overcome these existing development roadblocks and make way for practical strategic development, as the countries in the region have both abundant human and natural resources under the umbrella of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

May 29 (UPI) — Israel unveiled plans Thursday for the most significant expansion of its presence in the occupied West Bank in years after approving 22 new Jewish settlements.

The scheme gives legal recognition to the 22 settlements, which already exist but are unofficial, said Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz and Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

Katz said the step would “prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel,” but the Palestinian Authority and at least one anti-war group in Israel condemned the move.

Palestinian presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh called the Israeli government’s approval of the new settlements in the occupied West Bank, including in East Jerusalem, a “dangerous escalation” that was an affront to international legitimacy and international law, including at least one U.N. Security Council Resolution.

He also called on Washington to intervene to halt “Israeli tampering” with what he said had implications for the entire region.

The Peace Now protest movement said the move would “dramatically reshape the West Bank and entrench the occupation even further.”

Israel’s some 160 settlements on disputed land it has occupied for almost six decades since the 1967 Six-Day War with its Arab neighbors are illegal under international law. But Israel argues it has a legal claim on the grounds that the West Bank is fundamental to its security and for religious and historic reasons dating back to the Balfour Declaration and beyond.

Calling the settlement approvals “a historic decision,” Smotrich dismissed criticism of the move, saying Israel was not seizing foreign lands but reclaiming “the inheritance of our fathers.”

“This is a great day for settlement and an important day for the State of Israel. Through hard work and tenacious leadership, we have succeeded in creating a profound strategic change, returning the State of Israel to a path of construction, Zionism, and vision,” he wrote in a post on X.

“Settlement in the land of our ancestors is the protective wall of the State of Israel — today we have taken a huge step to strengthen it. The next step – sovereignty!” said Smotrich.

Katz and Smotrich’s statements came hours after the governments of Ireland, Norway, Slovenia and Spain issued a joint communique reaffirming their commitment to the implementation of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Only a “viable, contiguous Palestinian State, with internationally recognized borders, comprised of Gaza and the West Bank and with East Jerusalem as its capital, can fully satisfy the legitimate national aspirations and the needs of peace and security” of both peoples, read the dispatch issued after the representatives of the four nations met Wednesday.

May 27 (UPI) — A sharp drop in crime in El Salvador has made President Nayib Bukele one of Latin America’s most prominent leaders. As violence increases across the region, his security gains are drawing interest from local leaders looking to form a regional political movement, tapping into public frustration over crime and insecurity.

The so-called “Bukelista movement” began to take shape earlier this year during a meeting in Colombia that included participants from Chile and Guatemala. The group established a regional agenda to promote the model across Latin America. Among those attending was Colombian attorney Andrés Guzmán Caballero, who was appointed in 2023 by Bukele as El Salvador’s presidential commissioner for human rights and freedom of expression.

In Colombia, “Bukelismo” became an officially registered political party in April after receiving recognition from the National Electoral Council. “Bukelistas Colombia” is now active in 24 of the country’s 33 departments and plans to field candidates for the Senate and presidency in the next elections, according to Mauricio Morris, a political marketing expert and leader of the movement in Colombia.

Similar Bukelista movements and parties have formed in Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Honduras and Guatemala. The goal is to be active in 12 countries by the end of the year, Morris said.

The Bukelista movement was officially launched in Chile last weekend, with support from a group of local and regional officials. Guzmán Caballero attended the event, despite resigning from his Salvadoran government post just days earlier. At the launch, he presented Bukele’s security strategy and said the “Bukele model” could be replicated in other countries, citing similar crime problems across the region.

Speaking about El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT — the high-security mega-prison that recently received suspected gang members and other criminal detainees from the Trump administration — Guzmán Caballero said El Salvador’s approach goes beyond incarceration. The model also aims to combat corruption and support wide-reaching social development programs, he said.

During his visit to Chile, Guzmán Caballero also held a private meeting with Evelyn Matthei, the center-right presidential candidate currently leading in national polls.

Bukele’s administration has drawn global attention for both its results and controversies. El Salvador, once one of the most violent countries in the world, now reports one of the lowest homicide rates in Latin America. The shift has occurred under a state of emergency declared in 2022, which has led to the arrest of more than 85,000 people — many without warrants or access to legal counsel. Human rights groups including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented reports of torture, enforced disappearances and deaths in police custody.

In 2015, as a civil war was raging in South Sudan, the United Nations Security Council imposed the first set of sanctions on the country, including asset freezes and travel bans on various senior officials. Three years later, after a ceasefire agreement was repeatedly violated, the UNSC mustered the votes to impose a full arms embargo. Fragile peace eventually settled in, but the embargo was kept in place and was extended every year.

The review of the embargo is now coming up on May 29 and there is a push from African members of the UNSC – Sierra Leone, Somalia and Algeria – to lift it. On March 18, the African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) publicly called for this measure to end.

But lifting the embargo on South Sudan at this moment would be a mistake. Violence has come back to plague the country, killing at least 180 people between March and mid-April, amid deepening divisions between President Salva Kiir and First Vice President Riek Machar, who has been placed under house arrest.

Allowing more weapons to enter the country would only escalate the dire situation. This would not be in the interest of neighbouring countries and the African Union as a whole.

Under the AU’s development plan, Agenda 2063, the continent set itself an ambitious goal of “Silencing the Guns” by 2020, later extended to 2030. With this, the AU wants to “end all wars and violent conflicts and promote dialogue-based mechanisms for conflict prevention and resolution”.

Yet, the AUPSC’s call for lifting the embargo on South Sudan does not fall in line with these goals. The justification for this stance is that free access to more weapons can enable the unification of government and opposition forces and reform the security sector.

But this logic ignores the growing fractures in South Sudan amid the renewed tensions between Kiir and Machar. Placing more guns in the hands of warring parties involved in serious human rights violations and crimes under international law would only make the situation worse.

South Sudan’s security and defence forces have attacked the very people they are tasked to protect: Civilians. The South Sudanese army, National Security Service and armed opposition forces have been implicated in war crimes and human rights violations for well more than a decade, including by the AU’s Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan and the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan.

Indeed, around the time the AUPSC called for the lifting of the arms embargo, South Sudan’s government reportedly used improvised incendiary weapons in aerial attacks, killing at least 58 people and injuring others, including children.

To be sure, the existence of the arms embargo is not enough – its enforcement is key. That is already faltering after in early March, Uganda sent troops and military equipment to South Sudan without providing notification or receiving special exemption from the UNSC Sanctions Committee. This is a clear violation of the embargo.

South Sudan’s Mi-24 helicopters also seem to be on the move, despite the government’s fleet reportedly being non-functional and grounded since the arms embargo was imposed in 2018. This suggests spare parts have been sourced in violation of the embargo.

On May 4, Doctors Without Borders, known by its French initials MSF, reported that two helicopter gunships had bombed its medical facility in Old Fangak the day before and fired at the town, killing seven and injuring 20 others. Deliberate attacks on a medical facility performing its humanitarian function violate international humanitarian law and would constitute a war crime.  This is yet another indication of why the UNSC must renew the arms embargo and strengthen its enforcement.

If properly implemented and enforced, a renewed UNSC arms embargo would not obstruct security sector reform. Instead, it would block the disorderly and destabilising accumulation of arms in South Sudan, which is spurring the current conflict and contributing to violations against civilians.

If the AU is serious about silencing the guns, it should back the strict controls prohibiting arms transfers to South Sudan, and the African states in the UNSC should vote to renew the arms embargo.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

May 24 (UPI) — Dozens of employees were reportedly relieved from their positions with the National Security Council, with an eye towards downsizing the agency’s workforce.

Over 100 staffers received a memo earlier this week from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, informing them they were being put on administrative leave, CNN reported, citing two official sources.

The NSC staff members were not given any warning before being placed on leave, the Washington Post reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

The decision was made by President Donald Trump after it was suggested by Rubio, The Post reported. Rubio also serves as a interim national security advisor to the president.

Trump fired his previous national security advisor Mike Waltz earlier this month, tabbing Rubio as an interim replacement. Waltz was later nominated to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Since taking the second role, Rubio has favored reducing NSC staffing levels, Politico reported, with a plan of reducing the total workforce from around 350 people to a figure closer to 150.

“The right-sizing of the NSC is in line with its original purpose and the president’s vision,” Rubio said in a statement to Axios.

“The NSC will now be better positioned to collaborate with agencies.”

A White House official told Axios the NSC staff cuts were aimed at combating the “Deep State” within the agency. Another official told Axios it is Trump’s wish to keep Rubio as interim national security advisor “as long as possible.”

Early last month, the Trump administration fired a number of senior NSC advisors. The move came shortly after the president met with far-right podcaster Laura Loomer, although it’s unclear if the moves were related.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is ordering a major overhaul of the National Security Council that will shrink its size, lead to the ouster of some political appointees and return many career government employees back to their home agencies, according to two U.S. officials and another person familiar with the reorganization.

The number of staff at the NSC is expected to be significantly reduced, according to the officials, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive personnel matter.

The shake-up is just the latest shoe to drop at the NSC, which is being dramatically remade after the ouster early this month of Trump’s national security advisor, Mike Waltz, who had hewed to traditional Republican foreign policy on some issues.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been serving as national security advisor since the departure of Waltz, who was nominated to serve as Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations.

The move is expected to elevate the importance of the State Department and Pentagon in advising Trump on important foreign policy moves.

The NSC, created during the Truman administration to counter the emerging Soviet threat after the end of World War II, is an arm of the White House tasked with advising and assisting the president on national security and foreign policy and coordinating among various government agencies.

Trump was frustrated in his first term by political appointees and other advisors who he thought got in the way of his agenda.

There were roughly 395 people working at the NSC, including about 180 support staff, according to one official. About 90 to 95 of those being ousted are policy or subject-matter experts seconded from other government agencies. They will be given an opportunity to return to their home agencies if they want.

Many of the political appointees will also be given positions elsewhere in the administration, the official said.

The NSC has been in a state of tumult during the early going of Trump’s second term in the White House.

Waltz was ousted weeks after Trump fired several NSC officials, a day after the influential far-right activist Laura Loomer raised concerns to him about staff loyalty. Loomer has in the past spread 9/11 conspiracy theories and promoted QAnon, an apocalyptic and convoluted conspiracy theory, and took credit for the ouster of the NSC officials who she said were disloyal.

And the White House, days into the administration, sidelined about 160 NSC aides, sending them home while the administration reviewed staffing and tried to align it with Trump’s agenda. The aides were career government employees, commonly referred to as detailees.

This latest shake-up amounts to a “liquidation” of NSC staffing, with career government detailees on assignment to the NSC being sent back to their home agencies and several political appointees being pushed out of their positions, according to the person familiar with the decision.

A White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity confirmed that the overhaul, first reported by Axios, was underway. Andy Baker, the national security advisor to Vice President JD Vance, and Robert Gabriel, an assistant to the president for policy, will serve as deputy national security advisors, according to the White House official.

Waltz, during his short tenure heading the NSC, came under searing criticism in March after revelations that he added journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to a private text chain on an encrypted messaging app that was used to discuss planning for a sensitive military operation against Houthi militants in Yemen.

Waltz has taken responsibility for building the text chain but has said he does not know how Goldberg ended up being included.

Loomer had encouraged Trump to purge aides who she believes are insufficiently loyal to the president’s “America first” agenda.

She also complained to sympathetic administration officials that Waltz was too reliant on “neocons” — shorthand for the more hawkish neoconservatives within the Republican Party — as well as what she perceived as “not-MAGA-enough” types, the person said.

It wasn’t just Loomer who viewed Waltz suspiciously. He was viewed with a measure of skepticism by some Trump loyalists who saw the former Army Green Beret and three-term congressman as too tied to Washington’s foreign policy establishment.

On Russia, Waltz shared Trump’s concerns about the high price tag of extensive U.S. military aid to Ukraine. But he also advocated for further diplomatically isolating Russian President Vladimir Putin — a position that was out of step with Trump, who has viewed the Russian leader with tolerance and admiration.

Waltz’s more hawkish rhetoric on Iran and China, including U.S. policy toward Taiwan, seemed increasingly out of step with Trump, who has favored military restraint and diplomacy toward some traditional adversaries — though not toward certain allies, such as his belligerent rhetoric about taking over Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal.

Associated Press writers Lee and Madhani reported from Washington and Kim from Fishkill, N.Y.

Genaro Garcia Luna, formerly a high-ranking government official, is serving a 38-year sentence for accepting bribes.

A Florida court has ordered Mexico’s former head of public security to pay more than $748m to his home country for his alleged involvement in government corruption.

Thursday’s ruling brought to a close a civil case first filed in September 2021 by the Mexican government.

The case centred on Genaro Garcia Luna, who served as Mexico’s security chief from 2006 to 2012. Garcia Luna is currently serving more than 38 years in a United States prison for allegedly accepting millions of dollars in bribes from the Sinaloa cartel.

The Mexican government alleges that Garcia Luna also stole millions in taxpayer funds, and it has pledged to seek restitution, namely by filing a legal complaint in Miami, Florida, where it says some of the illegal activity took place.

On Thursday, Judge Lisa Walsh in Miami-Dade County not only required Garcia Luna to pay millions, but she also ordered his wife, Linda Cristina Pereyra, to pay $1.7bn. Altogether, the total neared $2.4bn.

In its initial 2021 complaint, the Mexican government – led at the time by former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador – accused Garcia Luna, his wife and their co-defendants of having “concealed funds stolen from the government” and smuggling the money to places like Barbados and the US.

“Under the direction of the Defendant GARCIA LUNA, the funds unlawfully taken from the government of MEXICO were used to build a money-laundering empire,” the complaint wrote.

It alleged those funds were used to finance “lavish lifestyles” for Garcia Luna and his co-conspirators, including real estate holdings, bank accounts and vintage cars, among them Mustangs from the 1960s and ’70s.

Separately, Garcia Luna faced criminal charges for corruption, with US authorities accusing him of pocketing millions while in office for working on behalf of the Sinaloa cartel.

Through his work with Mexico’s federal police and as its security chief, US prosecutors say Garcia Luna accessed information that he later used to tip off the Sinaloa cartel, letting them know about investigations and the movements of rival criminal groups.

Garcia Luna was also accused of helping the cartel move its shipments of cocaine to destinations like the US, sometimes using Mexico’s federal police as bodyguards – and even allowing cartel members to wear official uniforms.

In exchange, prosecutors say the cartel left money for him in hiding places, one of which was a French restaurant across the street from the US embassy in Mexico City. Some bundles of cash – offered in $100 bills – totalled up to $10,000.

After leaving office in 2012, Garcia Luna moved to the US. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. His defence lawyers have described him as a successful businessman living in Florida.

But in February 2023, a federal jury in Brooklyn, New York, convicted Garcia Luna on drug-related charges, including international cocaine conspiracy and conspiracy to import cocaine. The following year, in October, he was sentenced to decades in prison.

The Mexican government, however, alleged in its civil lawsuit that Garcia Luna also led a “government-contracting scheme” that included bid-tampering and striking dubious deals as a form of money laundering.

Those contracts included deals for surveillance and communications equipment. The Associated Press news agency reported that one such contract was falsified, and others were inflated.

Garcia Luna is the highest-level Mexican government official to be convicted in the US.

A roughly 11-mile stretch of Pacific Coast Highway is set to reopen Friday ahead of Memorial Day weekend, reconnecting Malibu to the Westside after months of closures.

But less than 48 hours before the planned reopening, the state said Wednesday that it remains “in the dark” regarding the city of Los Angeles’ plans for providing security to the fire-ravaged Pacific Palisades area just off the highway.

Bass spokesperson Zach Seidl countered that the mayor did, in fact, have a plan to keep the area secure and closed to non-residents.

“As PCH is reopened, we will have a strict security plan in place, as we have for months,” Seidl said Wednesday afternoon. He did not immediately respond when asked whether he had shared the city’s plan with the state.

The leader of the state’s emergency services agency sent a sharply worded letter earlier Wednesday to a senior official in Mayor Karen Bass’ administration, chiding the city for not answering questions despite weeks of outreach from the state.

As of Wednesday morning, the mayor’s office had yet to provide the state with a plan for how it plans to provide security to the Palisades as part of the reopening, or whether it plans to establish new security checkpoints on arterial streets into the community, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Times.

Seidl said Wednesday afternoon that the city would put new checkpoints in place, though he did not provide specifics.

The affluent coastal enclave has remained closed to the public since the devastating January wildfire, months after other fire-damaged neighborhoods reopened. But with the California National Guard set to leave at the end of the month, officials must decide how to move forward. There seems to be a consensus among both state and local officials that the neighborhood should remain closed to the public, though the logistics of that decision remain an open question.

Checkpoints currently block public access at major ingress points to the community. But the reopening of PCH would necessitate several new checkpoints.

“Over the last few weeks, Cal OES has reached out to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and City staff and officials – including as recently as yesterday – offering technical and financial resources to support the City as it develops a security plan,” Nancy Ward, who leads the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, wrote in the letter, saying the state would also provide financial support for federal reimbursement-eligible security costs.

“Despite this outreach, we remain in the dark regarding the City’s plans and have heard that the City may request a multi-week delay of the reopening of PCH – despite the incredibly hard work by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Caltrans, and many others to facilitate the reopening for Memorial Day,” Ward wrote.

Seidl said the city was not requesting a delay to the reopening.

The letter was sent from Ward to deputy mayor for public safety Robert Clark, Bass’ top aide overseeing police and fire issues.

Though she stopped short of directly criticizing Bass, Traci Park — the Los Angeles city council member who represents the Palisades — also expressed frustration with the process and lack of clarity.

“For months, Councilmember Park sounded the alarm on safety and called for a formalized plan from departments and consultants through the LA Recovery Committee, which she chairs. None have been forthcoming,” Park spokesperson Pete Brown said.

Concerned about the lack of movement, Park submitted her own proposal to the governor for Palisades safety as the highway reopens, Brown said.

The governor’s office had reached out to Park with concerns about the situation, according to someone familiar with the issue who was not authorized to speak publicly.

In late January, Bass briefly announced plans to reopen the Palisades to the public before reversing course less than 30 hours later after widespread outcry from community members who said the checkpoints should remain in place.

Newsom previously announced last month that the highway would reopen by the end of May, though he did not provide a specific date. His office declined to comment on the letter.

The soon-to-reopen section of highway, which spans from Chautauqua Boulevard just north of Santa Monica to Sweetwater Canyon Drive in Malibu will operate two lanes of traffic in both directions, according to a CalTrans document.

Skai Jackson says Deondre Burgin, the father of her 3-month-old son, has been abusing her since last spring, including suggesting that she drink bleach while she was expecting in order to terminate her pregnancy.

Jackson was granted a temporary restraining order against him Monday, according to court documents. The actor, her son and her dog Otis are covered by the order.

The former Disney Channel star, 23, detailed a litany of alleged abuses by Burgin, 21, in her request filed Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Most of them are from 2024, but the inciting event behind the filing appears to have been an alleged attack on Mother’s Day of this year. Jackson said in her filing that Burgin attacked her on May 11 while she was carrying son Kasai.

“He grabbed me by the hair, slammed my head on the back seat window of my car and hit me in the face while holding my son,” the “Jessie” and “Bunk’d” actor wrote in her filing. “Deondre caused me to have a bloody nose. I don’t feel safe with my son being around him due to his violent history. He also said ‘F’ my child.”

Last June, Burgin took Jackson’s phone so he could check her messages because a man had texted her, the filing says. Jackson said he then broke her iPhone and choked her against a kitchen counter.

“He demanded that I drink bleach to kill our unborn child,” Jackson wrote about the June incident. “He then walked me to the car with a knife in his hand telling me to get in the driver seat and if I called out for help he would stab me in the stomach. He then called his friend … telling him he was about to kill me. He then told me to drive to the doctor to get an abortion. When I tried to he asked me was I crazy and why would I want to kill our child.”

Jackson said she had video documentation from July when he allegedly punched through the door of an upstairs bathroom she had locked herself in for safety and choked her until she couldn’t breathe. Jackson said that in 2024, there was a six-month period where he choked her or slammed her head into a wall about once a week, destroyed a television and punched holes in her walls.

Jackson said Burgin threatened her with a handgun and also has a rifle and a switchblade, the filing says. The “Dragons: Rescue Riders” voice actor said he threatened in September 2024 to have a member of his family come kill her and her mother.

In October, Burgin allegedly threatened to kill her after she asked him to go to therapy, the documents said.

He stands 6-foot-4 to Jackson’s reported 5-foot-2, according to her application. She asked the court to stop him and his family from posting anything about her on social media, saying that he had threatened to post revenge porn.

The two have brushed up against authorities in the past because of alleged violence between them.

“The Man in the White Van” actor was arrested at Universal Studios Hollywood last August after she and Burgin were detained by security on suspicion of domestic assault. She was arrested by sheriff’s deputies after security footage showed she had pushed Burgin twice. However, the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office didn’t pursue the case.

At the time, Jackson allegedly told authorities that she and Burgin were happily engaged and expecting a baby together.

A permanent restraining order will be considered at a June 9 hearing. The Times was unable to contact Burgin for comment. A representative for Skai Jackson did not respond immediately to The Times’ request for comment.

Former Times staff writer Nardine Saad contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — Christine Farro has cut back on the presents she sends her grandchildren on their birthdays, and she’s put off taking two cats and a dog for their shots. All her clothes come from thrift stores and most of her vegetables come from her garden. At 73, she has cut her costs as much as she can to live on a tight budget.

But it’s about to get far tighter.

As the Trump administration resumes collections on defaulted student loans, a surprising population has been caught in the crosshairs: hundreds of thousands of older Americans whose decades-old debts now put them at risk of having their Social Security checks garnished.

“I worked ridiculous hours. I worked weekends and nights. But I could never pay it off,” says Farro, a retired child welfare worker in Santa Ynez, Calif.

Like millions of debtors with federal student loans, Farro had her payments and interest paused by the government five years ago when the pandemic thrust many into financial hardship. That grace period ended in 2023 and, earlier this month, the Department of Education said it would restart “involuntary collections” by garnishing paychecks, tax refunds and Social Security retirement and disability benefits. Farro previously had her Social Security garnished and expects it to restart.

Farro’s loans date back 40 years. She was a single mother when she got a bachelor’s degree in developmental psychology and when she discovered she couldn’t earn enough to pay off her loans, she went back to school and got a master’s degree. Her salary never caught up. Things only got worse.

Around 2008, when she consolidated her loans, she was paying $1,000 a month, but years of missed payments and piled-on interest meant she was barely putting a dent in a bill that had ballooned to $250,000. When she sought help to resolve her debt, she says the loan company had just one suggestion.

“They said, ‘Move to a cheaper state,’” says Farro, who rents a 400-square-foot casita from a friend. “I realized I was living in a different reality than they were.”

Student loan debt among older people has grown at a staggering rate, in part due to rising tuitions that have forced more people to borrow greater sums. People 60 and older hold an estimated $125 billion in student loans, according to the National Consumer Law Center, a six-fold increase from 20 years ago.

That has led Social Security beneficiaries who have had their payments garnished to balloon by 3,000% — from approximately 6,200 beneficiaries to 192,300 — between 2001 and 2019, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This year, an estimated 452,000 people aged 62 and older had student loans in default and are likely to experience the Department of Education’s renewed forced collections, according to the January report from CFPB.

Debbie McIntyre, a 62-year-old adult education teacher in Georgetown, Ky., is among them. She dreams of retiring and writing more historical fiction, and of boarding a plane for the first time since high school. But her husband has been out of work on disability for two decades and they’ve used credit cards to get by on his meager benefits and her paycheck. Their rent will be hiked $300 when their lease renews. McIntyre doesn’t know what to do if her paycheck is garnished.

She floats the idea of bankruptcy, but that won’t automatically clear her loans, which are held to a different standard than other debt. She figures if she picks up extra jobs babysitting or tutoring, she could put $50 toward her loans here and there. But she sees no real solution.

“I don’t know what more I can do,” says McIntyre, who is too afraid to check what her loan balance is. “I’ll never get out of this hole.”

Braxton Brewington of the Debt Collective debtors union says it’s striking how many older people dial into the organization’s calls and attend its protests. Many of them, he says, should have had their debts canceled but fell victim to a system “riddled with flaws and illegalities and flukes.” Many whose educations have left them in late-life debt have, in fact, paid back the principal on their loans, sometimes several times over, but still owe more due to interest and fees.

For those who are subject to garnishment, Brewington says, the results can be devastating.

“We hear from people who skip meals. We know people who dilute their medication or cut their pills in half. People take drastic measures like pulling all their savings out or dissolving their 401ks,” he says. “We know folks that have been driven into homelessness.”

Collections on defaulted loans may have restarted no matter who was president, though the Biden administration had sought to limit the amount of income that could be garnished. Federal law protects just $750 of Social Security benefits from garnishment, an amount that would put a debtor far below the poverty line.

“We’re basically providing people with federal benefits with one hand and taking them away with another,” says Sarah Sattelmeyer of the New America think tank.

Linda Hilton, a 76-year-old retired office worker from Apache Junction, Ariz., went through garnishment before COVID and says she will survive it again. But flights to see her children, occasional meals at a restaurant and other pleasures of retired life may disappear.

“It’s going to mean restrictions,” says Hilton. “There won’t be any travel. There won’t be any frills.”

Some debtors have already received notice about collections. Many more are living in fear. President Trump has signed an executive order calling for the Department of Education’s dismantling and, for those seeking answers about their loans, mass layoffs have complicated getting calls answered.

While Education Secretary Linda McMahon says restarting collections is a necessary step for debtors “both for the sake of their own financial health and our nation’s economic outlook,” even some of Trump’s most fervent supporters are questioning a move that will make their lives harder.

Randall Countryman, 55, of Bonita, Calif., says a Biden administration proposal to forgive some student debt didn’t strike him as fair, but he’s not sure Trump’s approach is either. He supported Trump but wishes the government made case-by-case decisions on debtors. Countryman thinks Americans don’t realize how many older people are affected by policies on student loans, often thought to be the turf of the young, and how difficult it can be for them to repay.

“What’s a young person’s problem today,” he says, “is an old person’s problem tomorrow.”

Countryman started working on a degree while in prison, then continued it at the University of Phoenix when he was released. He started growing nervous as he racked up loan debt and never finished his degree. He’s worked a host of different jobs, but finding work has often been complicated by his criminal record.

He lives off his wife’s Social Security check and the kindness of his mother-in-law. He doesn’t know how they’d get by if the government demands repayment.

“I kind of wish I never went to school in the first place,” he says.

Sedensky writes for the Associated Press.