seeks

Aug. 7 (UPI) — Former CNN anchor Don Lemon is seeking to have a federal indictment against him in Minnesota, arguing that he is being illegally targeted for vindictive prosecution.

According to Lemon’s attorneys, U.S. President Donald Trump‘s anger towards the journalist “is well documented, stretching back over a decade.”

The attorneys argued in court filings that Lemon was charged by the U.S. Justice Department “as punishment for his First Amended protected reporting on protests related to Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota.”

Lemon is one of several journalists facing charges — along with a number of protestors — for violating the FACE Act, which bars interfering or intimidating people as they exercise their constitutional rights to practice religion. He has pleaded not guilty.

Federal prosecutors have alleged Lemon and another independent reporter took part in a “takeover-style attack” of Cities Church in St. Paul. Lemon live-streamed anti-ICE protestors entering the charge on Jan. 18. He said during his live-stream as well as afterwards that he entered the church to report on the protest.

In the court filing, Lemon’s lawyers cited public remarks by Trump, as well as current and former Justice Department officials, that were aimed at Lemon ahead of his indictment in late January.

The Justice Department first tried to file a criminal complaint against Lemon, but a magistrate judge ruled against it, citing a lack of probable cause.

The Justice Department then sought intervention from the chief judge and the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals but was rejected. Prosecutors then secured an indictment from a grand jury. Lemon was arrested in Los Angeles on Jan. 30 to cover the Grammy Awards. He has said he sought to turn himself in but never heard back from the Justice Department.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s activation of a long-dormant court to seek an Afghan woman’s deportation violates her constitutional rights, a defense lawyer argued Thursday at a hearing for the first case to be heard in the obscure court since its creation 30 years ago.

Attorney Matthew Farley urged the chief judge of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court to dismiss the case against Nazira Haji Zada and immediately release his client. Judge Joan Ericksen denied Farley’s requests but said Zada’s lawyers can renew them as the case proceeds in the nation’s capital.

“This entire scheme is in violation of due process and unconstitutional,” said Farley, an assistant federal public defender.

The court, established in 1996, had never received a petition until this month, when the Justice Department filed an application seeking Zada’s removal. The court has a specific authority to conduct deportation proceedings for individuals whom the Department of Justice classifies as “alien terrorists.”

FBI agents arrested her Tuesday at her Fort Worth home. She is not charged with any crimes.

An FBI memo dated July 15 said it “developed information” that she is an Islamic State supporter who had her children pledge their loyalty to the terrorist group. The memo says she “supported” a plot by relatives to carry out an ISIS-inspired attack in the United States.

Court filings identify her as the mother and mother-in-law of two Afghan men who were convicted in Oklahoma for their roles in the 2024 election day plot. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, was sentenced in November to 15 years in prison and court records show he previously agreed to be removed from the U.S. after his release.

Kunzelman and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskymet Tuesday ahead of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s funeral, with the two leaders discussing ways for Ukraine to produce its own powerful weapons and “other ideas that could help” in its ongoing war against Russia.

The sit-down in the Oval Office, which was closed to the media, followed a consequential meeting at the NATO summit earlier this month in Ankara, Turkey, where Trump announced that the U.S. will give Ukraine a license to make Patriot defense systems — a long-running request from Kyiv to counter Russian missile attacks.

In a post on social media after the meeting, Zelenskythanked Trump for the “good meeting” and the Republican administration’s efforts to aid Kyiv in the long-running war, which began more than four years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine.

“The President and I discussed licenses for Patriot interceptor production and several other ideas that could help,” said Zelensky, who also noted that he offered condolences to Trump for the death of Graham, a close ally. “We also spoke about diplomacy — it’s important that the diplomatic process be reinvigorated.”

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment on the meeting.

Trump welcomed Zelenskyto the White House as the Ukrainian leader traveled to Washington to honor Graham, whose final act as a public official was visiting Kyiv and securing an agreement on a package of sanctions that seek to punish countries that purchase Russian oil, gas and other exports.

In a Fox News Channel interview on Tuesday, Trump recalled Graham’s hawkishness and said the Republican South Carolina senator’s support for Ukraine never wavered. Trump said Graham had suggested it was time to make a deal with Iran but had no similar suggestion for the Russia-Ukraine war.

“Ukraine, he’s very militant about,” Trump said on “Fox & Friends.” “I mean, Lindsey liked war, to be honest with you.”

“It’s looking good for Ukraine, right?” Loomer said during an interview with The Associated Press. “Going into this meeting next week at the Oval Office is looking pretty good.”

Kim writes for the Associated Press.

Trump says the US remains ‘locked and loaded’ while pursuing talks with Iran, as Tehran reports strikes on US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan.

Published on
24/07/2026 – 15:03 GMT+2

The European Commission said on Friday it would engage with the US to de-escalate tensions after the EU executive fined Google on Thursday over its dominance in the EU’s digital market, sparking an angry reaction from Washington.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the EU’s fine jeopardised dialogue between the two sides of the Atlantic on digital regulation, as well as the trade deal that the US and EU struck last year after tough negotiations.

The Trump administration has persistently railed against the EU’s digital rules, accusing Brussels of imposing non-tariff barriers on US companies and disproportionately targeting American Big Tech.

However, the Commission’s chief spokesperson, Paula Pinho, said on Friday that the US had left the door open for talks.

“There’s a call for dialogue which we fully embrace,” she said, adding that Brussels would engage while making sure to preserve the EU’s regulatory “autonomy”.

‘The EU undermines dialogue’

Earlier this week, 25 US lawmakers wrote to US President Donald Trump calling for a US investigation into EU trade practices in advance of the anticipated fine against Google.

The fine was duly announced on Thursday, penalising the tech giant to the tune of €890 million under the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which Washington has relentlessly criticised over the past year, along with the Digital Services Act – an EU regulation targeting illegal content on large online platforms.

“We are trying to resolve our concerns with the EU’s Digital Markets Act and other actions through responsible, constructive dialogue,” Greer said in a statement after the fine was announced. “The EU’s recent actions undermine these efforts and pose a real risk to the continuation of transatlantic stability with respect to trade,” he added.

German Socialist MEP Bernd Lange, the European Parliament’s trade chief, told Euronews that he feared further escalation in transatlantic relations and expected additional action from the US.

The EU lawmaker was at the forefront of the negotiations to implement the EU-US agreement struck in July 2025 by Trump and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen after weeks of trade disputes. Yet despite the deal, EU officials still consider transatlantic relations volatile.

On Thursday, the White House announced a new tariff regime targeting its trading partners, including the EU, over forced labour allegations. While insisting it has stringent rules to combat products made with forced labour, Brussels chose not to retaliate, arguing that the new tariffs respected the 15 percent cap on EU goods set out in the trade deal.

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie‘s youngest daughter, Vivienne, is seeking to drop “Pitt” from her name, according to People.

The 18-year-old filed a petition in Los Angeles County Superior Court to remove her father’s surname from her legal name, Vivienne Marcheline Jolie-Pitt. The reason for her request was listed as “personal.”

The request is a common theme among the Jolie-Pitt siblings since the couple’s marriage was formally dissolved in 2019 and divorce became finalized in 2024 after a long legal battle.

In August 2024, the court granted Shiloh’s request to drop the surname. Zahara and Maddox have both asked for the same, but their petitions are pending hearings.

Before her request, Vivienne had already informally dropped the last name. In May 2024, the youngest of six was credited as “Vivienne Jolie” on the Playbill for “The Outsiders,” a play she co-produced with her mom.

The couple wed on Aug. 14, 2014, nine years after they met while filming their movie “Mr. and Mrs. Smith.” Jolie filed for divorce in September 2016 after the couple allegedly had a physical altercation aboard a private plane, which also involved several of their children.

The Los Angeles County’s Department of Children and Family Services and the FBI investigated the alleged physical altercation between Pitt and his son Maddox. No charges were filed against Pitt.

The court has scheduled a hearing for Vivienne’s request for Nov. 2.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration urged Congress on Tuesday to approve roughly $70 billion in emergency defense funding to sustain U.S. military capabilities amid its escalating war against Iran, warning that without it the Pentagon could face “critical shortfalls” disrupting its readiness.

The request comes as the United States and Iran have traded strikes for 10 consecutive days in a renewed conflict, deepening concerns in Washington over an expanding war that could inflame the global economy and trap the president in a quagmire.

The collapse of a ceasefire agreement and the sudden resumption of war have raised alarms within the Pentagon over its ability to protect U.S. forces and assets in the Middle East over a prolonged conflict, with defensive munitions in dangerously short supply, two Defense Department officials told The Times.

Yet the administration is facing bipartisan skepticism from lawmakers over the continuation of a war unpopular with a vast majority of Americans, over which they have had little oversight, and that in recent days has led to deaths of U.S. soldiers.

Those tensions became clear as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee to make their case for the tens of billions of dollars and offer their first in-depth public remarks about the war since May.

Hegseth told senators the United States is at a “moment where we cannot afford inaction,” while Caine argued the funding request is coming to Congress “while time is still on our side.”

“It is critical that we stay ahead of our adversaries and we must have the funds before we are out of time,” Caine said.

Hegseth said the war is now expected to cost Americans $37.5 billion, up from a $29-billion estimate from early May. The war, initially projected by President Trump to last four to five weeks, is now entering its fifth month.

With no end in sight, senators from both parties signaled frustrations with the administration’s plans.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said Democrats will not support more funding for the war.

“This administration’s refusal to explain what it is doing, or how this war is protecting Americans, its refusal to seek authorization from Congress, and its expectations that Americans will just pay for it all without any explanation or transparency is disrespectful,” she said.

Republican lawmakers also confronted Hegseth and Caine on several fronts.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told the Pentagon leaders that lawmakers “need some proper answers and some straight talk” about the administration’s plans to ensure Iran does not choke traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Asked whether Iran would impose tolls on merchant vessels passing through the vital waterway, Caine said it was a “hypothetical” scenario — a response Kennedy rejected.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also put pressure on Hegseth, as she asked him whether the administration was still taking the position that it needed no authorization from Congress to continue hostilities against Iran.

“Senator, I know there’s a long-standing legal debate on this particular topic, but we certainly at the department share the position with the White House that we have all the necessary authorities at this moment,” Hegseth said.

Murkowski’s remarks come just weeks after Republicans joined Democrats in both the House and Senate in voting to reassert Congress’ constitutional role over the war, underscoring the simmering tensions over Trump’s decision to sideline Congress in the matter.

Hours before the hearing, Trump downplayed concerns over the war’s effect on the midterm elections and further threats in the war, as Houthis, the Iran-backed militia in Yemen, declared a maritime blockade Monday on Saudi Arabia.

“So far, it hasn’t happened. It might happen but we take care of things, if something like that happens,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

Trump maintained that Iranian leaders are “desperately” trying to reach a deal to end the war but said he has no interest in meeting with them until he is convinced the talks will be “meaningful.”

“If we left right now, it would take Iran 20 to 25 years to rebuild. We are not finished at all,” Trump said. “We are not leaving right now.”

A protester interrupts Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as he testifies at Tuesday’s hearing.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

Asked if he thought Iran was trying to have an effect on the midterm elections by threatening the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said, “probably.”

“It won’t have any impact on me,” he said. “The election, I can’t think about that having to do with this.”

An agreement reached in June between the United States and Iran proposed an end to a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports and to U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports in exchange for Tehran allowing unfettered commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. But the agreement fell apart, with Iran firing on commercial vessels and pursuing a toll system for transit that had not existed before the war started.

The deal was supposed to set up a structure for more detailed negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, a prime target of the U.S. campaign launched in February in partnership with Israel.

Much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was degraded in a U.S. strike conducted last year that targeted three major facilities. But the fissile material required to build nuclear weapons remains in the country, under the watch of U.S. satellite surveillance. Iran has vowed to continue pursuing civilian nuclear work.

“How about these people? They’re in this because of nuclear weapons, and they’re trying to possibly reconstitute a site? We’ll hit that site. Any site where they’re even thinking about nuclear — we’ll be hitting it very, very powerfully,” Trump said.

As the war expands, there’s been heightened concern about the infrastructure that civilians in neighboring countries rely on for water and power.

Iranian officials said U.S. strikes hit the Bunji desalination plant on Iran’s southeastern coast, leaving 20 villages — where some 10,000 people reside — without water, according to reports from Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim.

Meanwhile, the Kuwaiti government said its power plants and desalination plants were struck by Iran on Monday — the fourth consecutive day of attacks on a key source of drinking water for the small desert nation.

The attacks spurred the Kuwaiti government over the weekend to launch an ad campaign calling on residents to reduce their water and power usage, especially during peak hours between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m.

A concerted campaign targeting desalination plants would be devastating both for Iran and the Persian Gulf nations it has peppered with drones and missiles since the start of the war.

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia are among the world’s eight most water-stressed countries. Israel ranks 9th, while Iran is 14th, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Water Resources Institute.

All of them suffer from “absolute water scarcity,” according to metrics used by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture organization.

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

South Korea’s proposed cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is aimed at enhancing their own respective contributions to global peace and stability, Seoul’s foreign ministry said Tuesday, in its first response to recent concerns by Russia over what it described as growing military cooperation between Seoul and NATO.

“Cooperation between South Korea and NATO is aimed at strengthening each side’s capabilities across various sectors, including defense industry, new technologies and cybersecurity, so as to reinforce each side’s role and contribution to international peace and stability,” the ministry told Yonhap News Agency in a written statement.

“In addition, our government continues to hold necessary communication with the Russian side to stably manage South Korea-Russia relations and protect our people and companies,” it added.

Russia’s foreign ministry has expressed displeasure over Seoul’s deepening military cooperation with NATO, according to Russia’s Tass news agency.

“The Russian side expressed serious concern over Seoul’s growing drift toward NATO, as demonstrated, among other things, by the Republic of Korea’s practical steps to deepen military and military-technical cooperation with NATO, the consequences of which pose a threat to Russia’s security,” the ministry said in a statement Thursday.

Moscow further argued that Seoul’s growing cooperation with NATO made it a “de facto participant in NATO’s qualitative and quantitative rearmament process, as the alliance has openly declared its preparations for war with Russia.”

The Russian statement came after South Korean President Lee Jae Myung attended the NATO summit in Ankara earlier this month as one of the alliance’s four Asia-Pacific partners, marking his first appearance at NATO’s annual top-level gathering.

At a NATO summit defense industry forum, Lee proposed elevating South Korea-NATO defense cooperation to a “Korea-NATO Defense Industry Partnership 2.0″ to expand cooperation beyond weapons system transactions to joint research, production and operation in the defense sector.

“Our government is pushing for cooperation with various countries and international organizations, including NATO, under its principle of pursuing practical diplomacy centered on national interests,” the foreign ministry said.

Still, it added, “The country will continue to closely work with the international community while closely monitoring the related developments, as the prolonged Russia-Ukraine war and the military cooperation between North Korea and Russia are issues that have a negative effect on international peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and the region.”

Pyongyang and Moscow have repeatedly and publicly reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening their bilateral cooperation since signing a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty two years ago.

North Korea has also sent around 15,000 combat troops and conventional weapons to Russia to support Moscow’s war against Ukraine, Seoul’s spy agency has said.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

WASHINGTON — President Trump appeared poised to question the security of U.S. elections with a planned prime-time speech Thursday night, eliciting fears from Democrats and voting rights advocates that he is planning yet another play for federal control over voting in November’s midterms.

The exact reason for the speech has not been disclosed by the White House, with Trump only characterizing it to reporters this week as “really, really big news.” He confirmed it would have to do with “free and fair elections.”

The Washington Post reported, citing sources, that Trump planned to argue that there are vulnerabilities in the nation’s election infrastructure and claim that China had accessed U.S. voter data. The White House declined to confirm any such details Wednesday.

The announcement of the speech set off concerns among the president’s political opponents, as well as elections experts and voting rights advocates, that Trump could again escalate claims that the nation’s voting system is vulnerable to domestic fraud and foreign attacks.

He has previously said that Republicans should “nationalize” election administration, a job that falls to the states under the Constitution, and has pressured his party to tighten federal voting rules.

“We don’t know anything about what he might say … or what he might try to do with his very limited powers, as the president, over elections,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research. “I expect we’re going to hear a lot of rehashed and debunked claims.”

The president could potentially use new claims to argue that the nation is facing an emergency in upcoming elections that necessitates further federal intervention into voting, Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, which has oversight of elections, said in an interview with The Times.

“This is going to be the rationale for declaring a national emergency,” Morelle said. “It’s transparent that he is creating the emergency and he’s creating the evidence out of whole cloth to suggest there is an emergency.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees federal elections, told The Times on Wednesday that Trump was using a known playbook to “[sow] doubt about the outcome before a single vote has been cast.”

“All signs show that tomorrow’s speech will be more of the same: debunked conspiracy theories offered up not because they’re true, but because chaos and doubt are the only cards he has left to play,” Padilla said.

The speech, which Trump announced on social media Monday, comes four months ahead of midterm elections that will determine whether his party retains legislative control in Washington.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt dismissed news reports about what Trump might say in the 6 p.m. PDT speech as speculation, and said “nobody knows yet what President Trump will ultimately say.”

The address also comes as Trump’s ceasefire with Iran has fallen apart, renewing expectations for increased gas prices, and his approval rating on the economy has steadily dropped. On Tuesday, it also became public that Trump had paid $5.6 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll, as ordered by a jury that in 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.

“What we’re going to be talking about Thursday is, it doesn’t get bigger,” Trump told reporters who asked Tuesday about the speech. “Because without free and fair elections you don’t have a country.”

Trump has spread baseless claims of widespread election fraud for years. But his prioritization of his claims about the voting system — even as much of the nation’s attention is on cost-of-living issues — has been on particularly clear display in recent days.

He has aggressively lobbied reluctant Republican senators to pass his voter ID legislation, refusing to sign a bipartisan housing bill over it; he fired all remaining members of the bipartisan U.S. Elections Assistance Commission; and his Justice Department said it would send election monitors to six states.

Since the midterm primaries began, Trump has also sown doubt about election security — chiefly in California, where he suggested Democrats had cheated or attempted to in the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral primaries.

Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, whose state was often at the center of Trump’s 2020 fraud claims, said the president’s speech posed a threat to voting rights.

“I expect him to use whatever he puts out there on Thursday as a pretext, either for some attempted unconstitutional use of federal power to interfere in the election,” Ossoff said Tuesday on MS Now, “or to give his proxies and loyalists in state and local jurisdictions some cover for whatever they might attempt, or to lay the groundwork for challenging the result.”

Any effort to federalize or take over elections would face serious legal obstacles, said Nahal Kazemi, a Chapman University law professor. Although Congress can pass laws regarding election administration, as it did with the Voting Rights Act, the executive branch doesn’t play a role in running elections.

“You run into essentially a brick wall that is the Constitution, which makes very plain that states run elections,” Kazemi said.

When it comes to concerns about foreign interference, experts say there is little evidence of other countries attempting to hack systems or change votes. Instead, foreign actors have largely operated via disinformation campaigns, as the U.S. determined had occurred in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

“Of the information that is available to us now, there’s no reason to be alarmed about the possibility that a foreign adversary is going to take over election systems,” said Kazemi, who has studied foreign election interference.

One of the things that helps make American elections generally secure, she said, is that they are not centralized but are run by thousands of counties. Hacking into so many voting systems would be extraordinarily difficult for a foreign adversary, she said.

Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, said California “takes elections security extremely seriously” and has one of the most secure systems in the country, subject to strict voter verification measures and intense chain of custody and auditing procedures.

Democrats have worked with elections experts in recent months on attempts to assure the public that U.S. elections are safe and secure. They have also tried to counter claims by Trump that mail ballots and voting machines are unreliable.

A slew of 2020 election reviews, including by Trump’s first administration, concluded that Trump lost and Biden won. Election experts say there is no evidence that widespread fraud determined the outcome of the election.

A judge also found that claims pushed by Trump and his attorneys that the company Dominion Voting Systems manipulated votes cast through its machines in favor of Biden were untrue.

China said on Tuesday it does not seek a “sphere of influence” in the Pacific, as Foreign Minister Wang Yi defended Beijing’s growing engagement with Pacific island nations following criticism over a recent missile test in the South Pacific.

The remarks came during talks in Beijing with Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Rick Houenipwela, as regional tensions continue to intensify amid strategic competition between China and Western allies.

China Rejects Geopolitical Motives

Wang Yi said China’s cooperation with Pacific island nations is based on mutual respect and shared development rather than geopolitical ambitions.

He stressed that Beijing’s partnerships come without political conditions and are not imposed on other countries. Wang also said Pacific island states are independent and sovereign nations that should not be treated as any country’s “backyard” or be subject to outside interference.

China reaffirmed its willingness to expand cooperation with the Solomon Islands in areas including green energy, healthcare, and climate change.

Missile Test Sparks Regional Concerns

The meeting followed China’s recent test launch of a missile carrying a dummy warhead from a nuclear powered submarine into the South Pacific.

The test drew criticism from several regional governments, including the Solomon Islands, which questioned both the timing and the message sent by the launch.

Solomon Islands Prime Minister Matthew Wale described China as “a good friend” but said the missile test was “not something a friend does,” while reaffirming his country’s commitment to strengthening ties with Australia.

The launch also coincided with the signing of a new mutual defense agreement between Fiji and Australia, highlighting growing security cooperation among Pacific nations.

Pacific Becomes Strategic Battleground

The Pacific has become an increasingly important arena for geopolitical competition as China expands its diplomatic, economic, and security engagement across the region.

Meanwhile, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, and other partners have stepped up investment, defense cooperation, and development assistance in an effort to maintain their influence among Pacific island countries.

Many Pacific governments continue to pursue a balanced foreign policy, seeking economic cooperation with multiple partners while avoiding alignment with any single major power.

Why This Matters

China’s latest comments underscore the growing diplomatic contest for influence in the Pacific, where infrastructure investment, security partnerships, and climate cooperation have become central to regional politics. The region’s strategic location and maritime significance make it increasingly important in broader competition between China and Western allies.

Future Outlook

China is expected to continue expanding economic and development cooperation with Pacific island nations, particularly in renewable energy, healthcare, and infrastructure. At the same time, Australia and its partners are likely to deepen security and development initiatives across the region. As strategic competition intensifies, Pacific governments will continue balancing relationships with competing powers while seeking investment and support that align with their national priorities.

With information from Reuters.

July 10 (Asia Today) — A special counsel team on Thursday sought a 13-year prison term for Han Hak-ja, leader of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, commonly known as the Unification Church, over allegations involving improper ties between religion and politics.

The team led by special counsel Min Joong-ki made the request during the final hearing in Han’s trial at the Seoul Central District Court. Han has been charged with violating the Political Funds Act and other offenses.

The special counsel asked the court to sentence Han to five years in prison on the political funds charge and eight years on the remaining charges.

“Han and others used vast financial resources to unlawfully and improperly use public authority in an effort to expand religious interests and influence and realize the integration of religion and politics,” the special counsel team said.

The team said the alleged crimes “directly violated the spirit of the Constitution and damaged representative democracy.”

“Han and others, as top leaders of a religious organization, privately used donations voluntarily made by believers and improperly colluded with political forces in an attempt to influence South Korea,” the team said.

The special counsel also sought prison terms for other defendants being tried with Han.

For a former chief of staff identified only by the surname Chung, the team requested four years in prison on the political funds charge and six years on the remaining charges.

For Yun Young-ho, former head of the church’s world headquarters, the team sought one year and six months in prison on the political funds charge and two years on the remaining charges. The team requested three years in prison for Yun’s wife, identified only by the surname Lee.

Han is accused of conspiring with Yun and others to deliver 100 million won, about $66,000, in political funds to People Power Party lawmaker Kweon Seong-dong in January 2022.

She is also accused of involvement in delivering gifts to former first lady Kim Keon Hee through Jeon Seong-bae, a religious figure known as Geonjin, while seeking favors related to church affairs in 2022.

Han also faces allegations that she embezzled church funds and ordered Yun to destroy evidence in October 2022 in preparation for a police investigation into allegations that she gambled overseas.

Han arrived at the court at about 9:29 a.m. wearing a black jacket and white pants and using a wheelchair. She did not answer reporters’ questions, including whether she had given gifts to Kim.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260710010003980

A new rule proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally overhaul the way federal grants are awarded and overseen — a sweeping change that one scientific society said “would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government.”

Proposed in late May, the rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over federal grants for research, education and infrastructure, and specifies that government funds can only be spent on projects “aligned with administration policies and priorities,” according to a copy of the proposed rule.

The rule would also restrict research topics, limit U.S. scientists’ ability to collaborate with colleagues in other countries and make it easier for the government to suspend or cancel grants at any time.

The changes are intended to improve “transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards” while “ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused,” according to the White House office.

But critics say that if the rule is implemented, the final sign-off for grants will no longer be in the hands of subject-matter experts within individual agencies, but in those of political appointees.

“This touches all parts of American life,” said Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, a psychiatrist who practices at the Veterans Administration and San Diego County’s psychiatric hospital.

“Control of how all of the federal grants and programs are funded will fall under a small group of highly partisan individuals who would have very few limits on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars,” said Rafla-Yuan, who also chairs the Committee to Protect Public Mental Health advocacy group. “This touches everyone’s life, even if they don’t realize it.”

OMB published the proposed rule May 29, opening a 45-day comment period that closes July 13.

Opposition to the proposed rule has mobilized multiple sectors of society. Professional groups representing cancer researchers, civil engineers, county governments, medical schools, housing agencies, city and municipal governments, nonprofits and others have publicly expressed concerns about potential consequences.

By midday Thursday, the Federal Register logged nearly 100,000 comments about the proposal, many of them expressing concern.

“I understand the need for oversight, fiscal responsibility, and accountability. That is not the issue,” wrote Jack Feldman, a neuroscientist who holds the David Geffen School of Medicine Chair in Neuroscience at UCLA. “The issue is whether scientific research is to be judged by scientific merit, or whether it can be approved, denied, or terminated according to broad political criteria that may change from one administration to the next.”

Crucially, the rule converts policies governing federal grants from “guidance” into binding regulations that all agencies would be required to follow. It would give political appointees power to override federal agencies’ merit-based reviews and mandate that a political appointee review decisions to ensure that all awards “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The elevation of political appointees in what were previously merit-based decisions has alarmed many scientists.

“The proposed rule changes would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government,” read a statement from the Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space research.

Researchers and science groups have also expressed concern about a section of the rule prohibiting the promotion of “theories of disparate-impact liability” — a legal concept that refers to policies that appear neutral but cause disproportionate harm to certain groups.

The section’s vague language and many loopholes could have a chilling effect on any research that studies the effects of a disease, policy or public health intervention on any specific group of people, Rafla-Yuan said.

As an example, he said, “if there’s a specific age range that is at higher risk for suicide, and we want to figure out, well, what’s going on with people that are aged 14 to 19 … we can’t do that under the wording in this rule.”

New restrictions on collaborations with scientists in other countries would hinder opportunities for U.S. researchers and limit innovation, said Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.

“Science is a global enterprise. Especially in biomedical and public health fields, diseases don’t care about borders or government policies,” she said.

California’s congressional delegation sent a letter Wednesday asking OMB to rescind the proposal, outlining concerns about its impact on scientific innovation, U.S. competitiveness and the fiscal stability of local governments, many of which rely on federal grants for local services.

The proposed rule grants the federal government broad powers to suspend or cancel grants for any reason, introducing “unprecedented unpredictability into local governance,” the lawmakers wrote, “leaving vital infrastructure projects unfinished and abandoning vulnerable populations who rely on these services.”

Republican Sen. Susan Collins has also asked the White House to withdraw certain parts of the letter and extend the public comment period, saying the proposed rule as written would “harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.”

July 1 (Asia Today) — South Korean Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back urged senior commanders Wednesday to complete a key military capability review and work toward proposing a target year for the transfer of wartime operational control by the end of 2026.

“A military that cannot make its own decisions cannot become a strong military,” Ahn said while presiding over a meeting of senior commanders from across the armed forces at the Defense Ministry in Seoul.

Ahn called on the military to make every effort to present what officials have described as an “X-year” for the command transfer at this year’s South Korea-U.S. Security Consultative Meeting.

“Regaining wartime operational control is a path toward building a stronger Republic of Korea and advancing the South Korea-U.S. alliance to a new level,” Ahn said.

He said the transfer would allow the South Korean military to take the lead in wartime planning, operational preparations and the execution of military operations.

Ahn made similar remarks earlier Wednesday while chairing a quarterly meeting reviewing progress on the command transfer.

“This year, we face the critical task of completing the Full Operational Capability verification and determining the timing of the OPCON transition,” Ahn said. “Let us fulfill the historic mission of regaining wartime operational control.”

The Defense Ministry aims to complete verification of the future Combined Forces Command’s Full Operational Capability at the annual Security Consultative Meeting, or SCM, scheduled for November in Washington.

The ministry then plans to recommend a target year for the transfer to the presidents of South Korea and the United States.

South Korea regained peacetime operational control of its armed forces in 1994. During wartime, designated South Korean and U.S. forces remain under the operational control of the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command, which is led by a U.S. general.

The allies have agreed that wartime command will be transferred after mutually established conditions are met rather than on a predetermined timetable.

The assessment of South Korea’s ability to lead the combined defense is divided into three stages: Initial Operational Capability, Full Operational Capability and Full Mission Capability.

The ministry said the Full Operational Capability assessment has been completed and that finishing its verification would allow the allies to begin specifying a transfer timetable.

U.S. and South Korean defense officials have repeatedly said the transition must be carried out in a stable and systematic manner under their jointly approved conditions-based plan.

Ahn also emphasized cooperation among the Army, Navy and Air Force.

He said each service must maintain its professional expertise but warned that service-specific interests should not create barriers to joint operations.

“Each service should ask itself how much time it allocates to joint training during the year,” Ahn said.

“Jointness must become part of military culture through the process of learning, training and thinking together beginning at the service academies and then be refined and developed in the field.”

The remarks came amid concern that the ministry’s plans to reform and potentially integrate elements of the military academy system could weaken the specialized education provided by each service.

Senior commanders also discussed developing a military based on artificial intelligence and advanced technology and restructuring South Korea’s armed forces by 2040.

They reviewed lessons from Russia’s war in Ukraine and recent fighting in the Middle East, including the growing battlefield use of artificial intelligence, drones and robots as relatively inexpensive and efficient weapons.

The ministry said it would begin pilot programs using newly developed artificial intelligence models during the second half of the year.

It also plans to provide private companies with a catalog of military data that could support defense technology development.

The military will expand the number of units assigned to test commercially developed drones from one to nine to support South Korea’s domestic drone industry, the ministry said.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260701010000411

WASHINGTON — Former CIA Director John Brennan sued the Trump administration on Wednesday, demanding a court order that would require officials to preserve records from investigations that he says are targeting him for “phantom criminal conduct.”

Brennan said in the lawsuit that the records would be essential for him to mount a defense on vindictive prosecution grounds in the event of an indictment brought by the administration. Such a defense, his lawyers said, would be supported by the more than 100 verbal or written statements that President Trump has made since 2017 lambasting Brennan and by the Republican president’s directives to his Department of Justice to initiate cases “without regard to factual or legal justification.”

“To fully consider those motions, the reviewing judge would need to scrutinize the motivations of the Justice Department officials who directed, oversaw, or undertook those actions to determine whether they violated Director Brennan’s rights, and specifically whether they were motivated by a desire to vindictively prosecute him as an act of retribution,” Brennan’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington.

The lawsuit names as defendants Trump and other top law enforcement officials from his administration, including acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel and the prosecutors in Florida who have been overseeing investigations related to Brennan and other perceived Trump adversaries.

The lawsuit says Brennan is facing separate investigations in Florida, including one examining whether he made a false statement to Congress related to an assessment by intelligence agencies documenting Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, in which Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton. The other investigation aims to determine whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired to undermine Trump, including during the course of the Russian interference investigation.

No charges have been brought. The Department of Justice has denied claims of weaponization.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has told senators it needs roughly $80 billion, mostly to cover the cost of the U.S. war against Iran, adding to what is already a sizable military spending boost being sought by President Trump.

Meanwhile, the Senate for the first time approved a war powers resolution Tuesday seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran, as lawmakers warily watch President Trump’s efforts to resolve a conflict that the administration launched on its own and now needs Congress to fund.

It was the 10th time the Senate has tried to stop the war, and the outcome, on a vote of 50-48, was a stunning turnaround from past efforts. Although the resolution is largely symbolic, and does not fully carry the force of law, it reflects the growing concerns from a number of Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate over the war and the deal Trump struck with Iran to end it. The House approved the resolution earlier this month.

The White House Office of Management and Budget has yet to make a formal request to Congress for more money for the war. But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill, including Monday evening. A top deputy Defense secretary told senators about the Iran funding request last week, according to two people familiar with the situation but not authorized to discuss it publicly.

The Wall Street Journal first reported on the developments.

The push for billions of dollars in Iran war funding comes at a fraught political moment. Lawmakers are not only skeptical of the deal Trump struck with Iran to bring an end to the war, but also wary of next steps. The White House has requested a remarkable $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon — a nearly 50% increase over the current fiscal year’s funding levels.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he’s expecting a supplemental spending request from the administration for the war, and when it arrives, “we’ll work through it and see where the votes are.”

“We need to make sure we’re doing everything we can to replenish, resupply a lot our munitions that have been depleted — not only just with what’s happening with Iran, but prior to that,” said Thune (R-S.D.).

Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg spoke to several senators about the proposal in calls last week and he notified congressional committees that the $80-billion request had been sent to the Office of Management and Budget. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

However, the funding package will almost certainly run into trouble from lawmakers who refuse to support Trump’s decision to go to war and are reluctant to give the Pentagon more money at a time of high costs of living for Americans at home.

“You’re spending families’ hard-earned tax dollars on a war that many strongly oppose,” Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington told Hegseth in a hearing last month.

In addition to the Iran funding, Republicans hope to secure about $1.1 trillion through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. Then, they hope to secure an additional $350 billion through a mostly party-line vote later this summer.

The amount being sought by the Pentagon is far higher than the $29-billion estimate of war costs that Hegseth gave Congress during his testimony last month. The bulk of that amount was related to replacing munitions and repairing equipment but also included operational costs to keep forces deployed. That estimate did not include the cost to repair or rebuild U.S. military sites damaged in the region.

It’s also far lower than the initial $200 billion the Pentagon floated as the costs at the start of the war. An early estimate put the cost of the first week of the war at $11.3 billion.

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a member of Democratic party leadership, said he expects the actual price tag could be much higher than the $80 billion being proposed.

Schatz said he hasn’t done any counting of Democrats about whether there is support for an Iran-focused bill, “but I haven’t found anyone who wants to do this.”

But Republican Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana said, “To me it’s less about the war, it’s more about the stockpiles.”

Banks said, “I would sell it to my state as an investment in our defense industrial base, reshoring defense production to Indiana.”

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said funding for an Iran supplemental can’t be done in isolation. It has to be done after lawmakers from both parties have agreed to a total spending amount for both defense and non-defense programs, “then the rest of this would follow pretty quickly,” Reed said.

And Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, a member of the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, said he has been working with the administration to broaden the package to include funds for disaster aid for California, Hawaii and other states hard hit by fires and weather problems, as well as agricultural aid for farmers.

“I think that’s the kind of combination that could pass,” Hoeven said.

Hegseth declined to answer questions from reporters late Monday as he strode around the Capitol.

But on the issue of the cost of the war, Hegseth responded rhetorically during a Senate hearing last month, asking, “What is the cost of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon?”

He acknowledged the president’s decision to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran “comes with cost — and we recognize that.”

Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writers Konstantin Toropin and Ben Finley contributed to this report.

June 19 (Asia Today) — South Korea is seeking to transform its defense industry into a national growth engine by integrating military procurement, weapons exports, advanced technology and industrial policy, government and industry officials said Friday.

Officials at a public-private seminar in Seoul rejected the long-standing argument that growing foreign orders could divert production capacity from the South Korean military and delay domestic weapons deliveries.

Instead, they said an analysis of about 2,000 South Korean defense companies found that exports increased factory utilization, encouraged investment in research and production facilities and eventually reduced manufacturing costs.

The findings were presented at a seminar titled “A New Leap Forward in Acquisition and the Defense Industry,” held at the Fairmont Ambassador Seoul in the city’s Yeouido financial district.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration organized the event as it marked the 20th anniversary of its establishment.

Participants included lawmakers, officials from the defense, industry, science and small-business ministries, defense company executives and academic researchers.

They called for an end to treating military procurement and defense exports as separate policy areas.

Lee Yong-cheol, minister of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, said South Korea’s annual defense exports had grown from about $250 million when the agency was established to $15.4 billion last year.

“Defense exports are no longer merely a supplement to domestic military procurement,” Lee said. “They have become a central growth engine driving the Republic of Korea as a whole.”

Lee said South Korea also needed to move beyond selling individual weapons.

He proposed combining weapons with energy systems, infrastructure, maintenance, repair and overhaul services and other forms of industrial cooperation.

“The era of selling weapons as stand-alone products is over,” Lee said. “We will transform the K-defense paradigm through cross-industry package cooperation.”

Lawmakers from South Korea’s governing and opposition parties pledged bipartisan legislative support for faster procurement and stronger financing for small and midsized defense companies.

They said a system that can take about 15 years to plan, develop and deploy a weapon is not suitable for an era in which artificial intelligence, drones and robotic systems evolve rapidly.

Participants also cited research indicating that financial instability among smaller suppliers, rather than export production, was a more important cause of delivery delays.

They called for expanded government-backed financing to prevent small manufacturers in the defense supply chain from being overwhelmed by debt and working-capital shortages.

Study links exports to stronger domestic production

South Korea’s defense industry has long debated whether large export contracts weaken or strengthen the country’s own military procurement.

Critics have warned that foreign orders could occupy production lines and delay the delivery of weapons to South Korean forces.

Supporters have argued that exports create economies of scale, preserve production capacity and lower the price paid by the South Korean military.

Research presented at Friday’s seminar supported the second view.

A team led by researchers from Myongji University analyzed data from about 2,000 South Korean defense-related companies.

The analysis found that increasing exports produced an immediate rise in factory utilization. Higher utilization was then associated with greater investment in research, development and production facilities.

Researchers said the benefits became more evident about three years after an export increase.

The analysis identified improvements in operating profit, lower production costs and greater independence in critical technologies after that period.

Repeated production also allowed factory workers and engineers to improve their skills and reduce defects, a process commonly described as a learning effect.

At the same time, producing weapons in larger quantities spread fixed development and manufacturing expenses across more units.

Researchers said those effects increased the competitiveness of South Korean products in foreign markets while potentially lowering the cost of weapons purchased by the South Korean military.

Industry experts cited South Korea’s large exports of K2 tanks and K9 self-propelled howitzers to Poland as an example.

They said the contracts increased domestic production, helped reduce unit costs and accelerated work on upgraded models.

Kim Myung-keun, an executive at Hyundai Rotem, said the company achieved economies of scale after receiving Poland’s large K2 tank order.

“Mass production lowered costs, reduced the acquisition cost for our own military and accelerated the development of upgraded models,” Kim said.

Yoon Byung-jo, an executive at SNT Motiv, said repeated production generated through large export orders also strengthened technical capabilities on factory floors.

“The learning effect accumulated by technicians during repeated production is the most powerful tool for reducing defects in critical components and increasing technological independence and localization,” Yoon said.

Lee Jung-hyun, a Myongji University professor involved in the study, said the analysis did not identify export volume as the principal cause of delayed deliveries.

“The real causes of delivery delays were companies’ debt ratios and financial soundness,” Lee said. “Exports instead improved operating profits and technological capabilities after a time lag of about three years.”

Lee said the government should strengthen the financial stability of smaller defense companies rather than restrict exports.

Officials seek to shorten 15-year procurement cycle

Government officials said South Korea’s traditional weapons acquisition process is too slow to keep pace with civilian advances in AI, drones, robots and human-machine teaming systems.

Weapons programs can take about 15 years from initial planning through development and operational deployment.

Officials said that schedule risks delivering technology that has already become outdated by the time it reaches military units.

Won Jong-dae, an assistant defense minister, said the existing system had become a national security obstacle.

“In the age of AI and drones, an acquisition process that takes 15 years is an impediment to security,” Won said.

He said the government would seek legislation tentatively called the Advanced Defense Capabilities Projects Act to shorten the process from initial requirements planning through deployment.

Kim Seong-su, a senior research and development official at the Science and Technology Ministry, said innovation in the civilian sector was advancing more quickly than military technology.

Kim called for an adaptive research and development system that would allow mature commercial technologies to be introduced into the military without passing through the full conventional development process.

The acquisition agency said it plans to expand rapid-introduction programs, particularly for drones and AI-related technologies.

The programs would allow the military to test and deploy promising civilian products more quickly while making adjustments based on operational experience.

Jeong Hwan, chief executive of infrared sensor manufacturer i3system, said smaller companies with advanced commercial technologies often cannot withstand the military’s complicated testing requirements and lengthy acquisition schedule.

He urged the government to make rapid acquisition programs more flexible and accessible to technology companies.

Financial support sought for smaller suppliers

Officials said South Korea must also strengthen small and midsized companies that produce components and materials for major weapons manufacturers.

Park Yong-soon, a senior official at the Ministry of SMEs and Startups, said the research presented Friday showed that financial weakness was a major source of supply-chain disruption.

Park said the government would shift policy toward stronger financial support for vulnerable suppliers and seek to increase the share of domestic defense revenue generated by small companies.

Smaller companies currently account for about 18% of South Korean defense industry sales. The government aims to raise the proportion to 25%.

Officials said those businesses can face severe cash-flow pressures because defense contracts require lengthy development, testing and certification before companies receive full payment.

The problem can become more serious when a small supplier must expand production rapidly to meet a major overseas order.

Park said the government must ensure that otherwise competitive companies do not collapse because they cannot obtain sufficient operating capital.

Park Dong-il, a senior official at the Industry Ministry, also warned that South Korea’s export portfolio remained concentrated in ground weapons.

More than 60% of the country’s defense exports come from land-based systems, he said.

Park said the government would work to diversify the industry into aerospace, next-generation satellites and advanced naval vessels while strengthening the domestic manufacturing and component ecosystem.

South Korea plans national security export packages

The acquisition agency said future export efforts would go beyond individual tanks, aircraft or artillery systems.

The government plans to package defense products with energy projects, transportation and industrial infrastructure, information and communications technology, maintenance services and technology transfers.

Officials described the approach as exporting an integrated security platform rather than a single weapon.

They cited Poland as a model.

South Korean arms agreements with Warsaw have included not only K2 tanks, K9 howitzers and other weapon systems but also plans for local production, technology cooperation, training and long-term maintenance.

An industry official said future transactions could involve building a partner country’s broader security and industrial system.

“The business will no longer be about exporting one tank,” the official said. “It will become a platform business that exports an entire national security system.”

Such packages can help importing countries create domestic jobs, develop supply chains and maintain weapons locally.

They can also give South Korean companies access to long-term revenue from training, spare parts, upgrades and depot-level maintenance after the initial sale.

The approach, however, requires coordination among several ministries because infrastructure, export financing and industrial cooperation extend beyond the authority of the acquisition agency.

Kim Il-dong, deputy minister of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, said procurement and exports should be viewed as two sides of the same coin.

Kim said the acquisition agency could not achieve South Korea’s defense industry goals on its own.

He called for coordinated action by the defense, science, industry and small-business ministries to develop the sector as a strategic national industry.

Seoul targets 5% share of global defense market

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration said it aims to increase South Korea’s share of the global defense market to at least 5% and establish the country as one of the world’s four largest defense exporters.

Officials said South Korea’s defense industry had already approached the global top five based on its 2025 export performance.

Future growth will depend on moving beyond the country’s current strength in tanks, armored vehicles and artillery, they said.

The government plans to support companies working in AI, space systems, drones, advanced ships and autonomous and human-machine teaming technologies.

It also wants to foster globally competitive defense startups and companies capable of reaching valuations of more than $1 billion.

Officials and industry representatives said South Korea’s defense sector had completed an initial period of quantitative growth and now needed to focus on technology, productivity and supply-chain resilience.

“The past 20 years were a period of quantitative growth in which K-defense built weapons capabilities from the ground up,” seminar participants said. “The next 20 years should be remembered as an era of qualitative growth centered on AI, space, drones and unmanned systems.”

They said military procurement and the defense industry should no longer be treated as separate areas.

Instead, both should be viewed as parts of a single strategic industry supporting South Korea’s security, technological development and economic growth.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260619010006831

PHOENIX — Arizona Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes is dismissing a sprawling criminal case that alleged President Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and others tried to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss in the state.

The decision, announced Thursday, marks the third such fake elector case filed by states to be dismissed, though the Democratic attorney general is vowing to bring it back to a grand jury in hopes of securing another indictment.

The legal maneuver is aimed at getting around a Friday deadline for starting new grand jury proceedings after Mayes lost an appeal earlier this month. The appeal was filed after defense attorneys argued successfully that the original grand jury hadn’t been shown the relevant parts of a law that governs how presidential contests are certified.

Courts have dismissed similar cases in Michigan and Georgia, and a special prosecutor dropped a federal case in late 2024 that charged Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Those cases ended after Trump defeated Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024. Cases related to the fake elector scheme remain in Nevada and Wisconsin.

The Nevada charges were dismissed in 2024 after a judge concluded Clark County, the state’s most populous county and home to Las Vegas, was the wrong venue for the case. Later that year, though, the case was refiled in Carson City, Nevada’s capital.

The Arizona case had been stalled for well over a year while Mayes pursued the appeal.

In Arizona, defense lawyers argued the law allowed for multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress in case the results were disputed. Federal law was amended in 2022 to specify that any given state could put forward only one slate of electors and that state governors are responsible for signing off.

Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes.

The state attorney general has faced steep challenges in making her case.

It was filed nearly three and a half years after the 2020 election and levels complicated conspiracy charges against the 18 defendants. A dozen dismissal requests filed by defense attorneys have slowed progress in court.

The first judge on the case recused himself in late 2024 after an email surfaced in which he told fellow judges to speak out against attacks on Harris’ campaign for the presidency. The next judge ordered the case to be sent back to a grand jury.

Of the 18 Arizona defendants, two were former Trump aides, five were lawyers working for Trump and 11 were Republicans who submitted a document falsely claiming Trump won Arizona.

Three defendants have resolved their cases, including one who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge.

The rest pleaded not guilty. Some said they signed the certificate in case Trump won court challenges and a new slate of electors was needed urgently before Congress’ Jan. 6 deadline to tally votes.

The case has factored into Arizona’s attorney general race, where both Republican challengers to Mayes have publicly said they will dismiss the charges if they were elected to the post.

Billeaud writes for The Associated Press.

Russia’s oil refineries have been heavily targeted, damaging its energy facilities and the country’s fuel crisis.

Ukrainian drones have hit a Moscow oil refinery for the second time ⁠this week while Russia fired missiles at Kyiv, as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy seeks support from the United States and Europe to reach a deal to end the war.

Russia’s Defence Ministry said on Thursday that its air defences shot down 555 Ukrainian drones over several regions overnight, with almost 200 intercepted as they were approaching the Russian capital.

Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin said several drones hit an oil refinery.

“Air defence forces continue to repel a massive attack. Several drones managed to reach the Moscow oil refinery,” Sobyanin said, adding that a shopping centre also suffered minor damage.

The attack on the oil facility is the second this week, after a drone attack on Tuesday halted operations at the refinery, according to the Reuters news agency, as widespread damage to Russian energy facilities worsens the country’s fuel crisis.

The regional governor said that in the surrounding Moscow region, a high-rise residential building, an industrial facility and a number of private houses were also damaged in the drone attack. The Sheremetyevo airport, Moscow’s busiest, suspended flights and evacuated people, as several sought shelter in the car park, the airport said in a statement.

Kyiv meanwhile came under a second Russian air attack this week, as ballistic missiles were unleashed on the Ukrainian capital, city officials said. Earlier this week, a major attack on Kyiv by Russia killed 11 people and damaged a UNESCO-listed 1,000-year-old monastery, drawing condemnation from European leaders. Russia denied striking the monastery.

The attacks come as Zelenskyy works to pressure Russia into negotiating an end to its more than four-year-long war. Zelenskyy said he had spoken to US President Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron and other leaders from G7 countries to coordinate ways to end the ⁠war.

G7 leaders pledged to strengthen Ukraine’s air defences and increase pressure on Moscow’s war economy, including by tightening sanctions on the Russian oil and gas sectors.

Trump told reporters he was “gonna do whatever I can” to end the war.

Zelenskyy said he received important commitments from the G7, including “more air defence missiles along with licenses to produce them, and a winter support package.”

“Importantly, the US is ready to provide backstop across these lines of effort,” Zelenskyy wrote on X. “It is key that everything discussed be implemented. Russia must come to learn that its war will never be normalised.”

US Department of Justice claims NAACP lawsuit threatens ‘national, economic, and energy security’.

The United States government has intervened on the side of Elon Musk’s xAI in a legal dispute over a $20bn data centre, claiming that efforts to block a related power project threaten national security.

In a court motion filed this week, the Department of Justice requested the dismissal of a lawsuit accusing xAI of illegally operating dozens of natural gas turbines erected to power the Colossus 2 data center in Memphis, Tennessee.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the largest civil rights group for African Americans, filed the lawsuit in April under the 1963 Clean Air Act, which allows citizens to seek injunctions and civil penalties against alleged polluters.

The NAACP alleges that xAI built the turbines, located in nearby Southaven, Mississippi, without obtaining the necessary permits, exposing hundreds of thousands of residents to harmful pollutants linked to “increases in asthma, respiratory diseases, heart problems, and certain cancers”.

The lawsuit notes that a “much larger share” of residents are Black compared with the US general population.

In its motion, filed in a US District Court on Monday, the Justice Department accused the NAACP of threatening “national, economic, and energy security by seeking to shut off the power supply for artificial intelligence innovation that supports the Department of War’s military operations”.

The motion also claims that the US Constitution vests the power to seek civil penalties “conclusively and preclusively” in the executive branch, including the “discretion to decide when such an enforcement action is unwarranted or inconsistent with federal enforcement priorities”.

Adam Gustafson, the top prosecutor at the Justice Department’s environment and natural resources division, said in a statement that the government would “not sit idly by while private organisations use environmental laws to undermine our national security”.

xAI, which is a subsidiary of Musk’s SpaceX, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Earthjustice, an advocacy group representing the NAACP in the lawsuit, condemned the intervention as a “massive power grab” by President Donald Trump’s administration.

“Trump’s Justice Department wants to shield Elon Musk’s data center company, xAI, from being held accountable for its illegal pollution – and it’s attempting to grab power from impacted communities, the courts, and Congress to do so,” Laura Thoms, director of enforcement for Earthjustice, said in a statement.

“There is no moral or legal precedent for this.”

Ann Carlson, a professor of environmental law at  UCLA School of Law, described the Trump administration’s argument as a “brazen attempt” to limit enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

“It’s based on a radical notion that the executive branch can dismiss lawsuits brought by citizen groups that Congress has authorised based on no rationale at all,” Carlson told Al Jazeera, adding that the Justice Department’s position would let “polluters off the hook even for blatant violations of the law.”

“This motion is also just one of many ways in which the administration is undermining efforts to protect air quality,” Carlson said.

The Trump administration has cultivated close ties with Musk, the world’s richest man, tapping the tech titan as a temporary cost-cutting tsar and using xAI’s flagship model Grok in the Pentagon’s drive to become an “AI-enabled fighting force”.

In testimony in support of Monday’s motion, Cameron Stanley, the Pentagon’s top official for AI, said that Grok had been used to launch more than 2,000 munitions at 2,000 targets within the first 96 hours of the US-Israel war on Iran.

If Grok cannot be deployed and upgraded due to “limitations in energy supply or limited reserve compute capability”, numerous tools used by the Pentagon would be “severely impacted”, Stanley said in a declaration made under oath.

Legal challenge claims US president did not seek proper approval for fighting event to be held on his 80th birthday.

A lawsuit is seeking to stop United States President Donald Trump from hosting an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) match at the White House.

The lawsuit, lodged on behalf of two Virginia residents, is the first known legal challenge to the mixed martial arts event, which is set to be hosted on June 14.

The event will take place on Trump’s 80th birthday. It is also pegged to the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which the US will commemorate on July 4 of this year.

The legal challenge filed on Saturday maintained that Trump did not receive proper authorisation to host the fight.

It argued that the event violated US National Park Service regulations prohibiting sporting events on federal parklands, that Congress did not consent to the construction of a towering arch overlooking the event space, and that no environmental review was conducted before the construction.

“This is fundamentally a private, commercial, corrupt use of our most sacred national monuments for private gain,” said Brendan Ballou, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “And that is what is motivating this lawsuit.”

In a statement to the Associated Press, the White House dismissed the lawsuit as “obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory”.

The White House maintained the UFC fight was “no different than the various other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn and properly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mall throughout the year”.

Crews have been erecting an octagon-shaped fighting cage on the South Lawn of the White House, with Trump saying the project will include a “5,000-seat arena right outside the front door of the White House”.

Attendance at the fight will be invite-only and closely monitored. The Military Times news site reported earlier this week that 1,200 service members given tickets to the event must meet certain waist-to-height ratio standards.

Public viewing areas will also be set up at the nearby Ellipse.

Trump has long been closely involved with both professional wrestling and UFC, with his casinos and event spaces hosting past events.

He regularly appeared as a version of himself in World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) events throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. His current secretary of education, Linda McMahon, is a co-founder of the WWE.

Trump has more recently embraced UFC, which is currently owned by the same company, TKO Group Holdings, as the WWE.

UFC president Dana White has been a close ally of Trump’s.

Political analysts have credited Trump’s embrace of the sport with reaching disaffected male voters in the US, particularly during his 2024 election campaign.

For thieves looking to strip Los Angeles for parts, copper has become a fast-moving currency.

The problem has become so persistent that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is now asking for its own armed police force to protect vulnerable utility equipment, street lighting and critical infrastructure, insisting that the department’s contracted and unarmed security guards aren’t cutting it.

“They lack the authority to detain or arrest suspects, intervene in crimes in progress, conduct searches, or carry firearms for enforcement purposes,” according to a May 21 report from the city agency. “Delays hinder timely intervention, reduce investigative effectiveness, and contribute to repeat victimization of LADWP facilities.”

Under DWP’s current “observe and report” security model, an officer who sees someone cutting a fence or stripping copper from a transformer has little authority apart from yelling a warning or making a 911 call, according to the department report.

The proposal asks for 20 to 50 sworn officers to start, hired over a five-year period, along with support staff. If approved, the force would give the agency’s officers the authority to carry a firearm, make arrests and investigate thefts. The plan was scheduled to be discussed Thursday by the City Council.

The push comes as citywide service requests for streetlight repairs have surged over the last several years.

L.A.’s historic streetlights outside the Bureau of Street Lighting near Virgil Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

The city logged 14,328 electronic streetlight service requests in 2018, according to data from the Bureau of Street Lighting. Requests have tripled since then, reaching an all-time high of 46,079 in 2024, the last full year of available data.

Mayor Karen Bass’ office said in March that copper thefts are a leading cause of streetlight outages. Repairs have been backlogged for months.

Prices for the metal are at an all-time high, driven by major supply disruptions in Indonesia and Chile, and soaring demand from artificial intelligence data centers and electric grid infrastructure. Thieves typically exchange the metal for cash at recycling centers, where it can fetch up to $5.30 per pound. The City Council last year approved a program offering up to $5,000 for information in metal and wire theft cases.

Theft losses alone exceed $1 million annually, according to DWP.

Establishing a new police force would require changing the city charter, meaning voters will have a say come the November midterm elections. Authorities will also need to obtain state legislative approval for the plan.

Officials said rolling out the police department would cost $9.7 million over three years, plus up to $6 million annually to pay for staffing. They maintain those costs are less than the $46 million combined DWP spends each year on private security contractors and unarmed staff security.

On Hill Street in downtown L.A., streetlights have been targeted by thieves and vandals.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

Any cost overflows would be paid for by DWP customers.

Timothy O’Connor, executive director for the Los Angeles Office of Public Accountability, a spending watchdog, said his office is not convinced that the agency could minimize long-term cost creep, or that the new force would offset enough costs to justify the program. The proposed force of a few dozen officers, he said, would be too small to get the job done.

“Theft losses at DWP are real and are increasing. However, eliminating these losses is not enough to offset the proposed costs,” he said. “Furthermore, DWP will be unable to fully eliminate theft given the diffuse nature of the DWP system.”

But O’Connor also said the department is faced with real security risks like those posed by drone attacks or terrorism threats, which he said “appear to justify the proposal at some level.”

In February, a man shot himself after he drove his car through the perimeter fence of a power substation while carrying explosives and several firearms. Dubbing the incident an attempted terrorist attack, officials said the episode could have caused catastrophic infrastructure damage.

David Levitus, executive director of the advocacy group LA Forward, said he was surprised to learn of the proposal so late in Los Angeles’ ongoing charter reform process, which his organization has monitored closely.

“The fact that this is being dumped in late May — what’s the rush?” Levitus said. “I think we really need to be wary of creating new police departments in general, but especially without a clear case and clear constraints and accountability mechanisms.”

WASHINGTON — A Justice Department indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center is part of a “top-down” campaign of retribution against President Trump’s perceived political enemies and constitutes a vindictive prosecution that must be dismissed, lawyers for the nonprofit argued Tuesday in urging a judge to toss out the case.

The Alabama-based nonprofit was indicted in April on fraud and money laundering charges that accuse it of misleading donors by paying informants inside white supremacist and other extremist organizations to obtain inside information about their activities.

Lawyers for the SPLC already argued that law enforcement agencies have long known that the nonprofit paid informants to report on the movements of hate groups. They also said acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche made a false statement at a news conference and in interviews when he said the organization had not shared with law enforcement information it learned from informants. Blanche later appeared to walk back that claim in a television interview, saying it was true that the SPLC “selectively” shared information with law enforcement over the years.

The attorneys for the center expanded on those arguments Tuesday, saying in a motion to dismiss the case that the prosecution was the “culmination of a top-down, retributive campaign” in which Trump pushed the Justice Department “to go after those individuals and groups he deemed his political enemies, including the SPLC.”

Defense says indictment fits broader retaliation campaign

The motion was filed against the backdrop of other politically charged prosecutions that have raised concerns that the Justice Department is operating as a weapon to target Trump’s opponents. It aims to draw a parallel between the SPLC indictment and the human smuggling prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, which was dismissed Friday on similar vindictive prosecution grounds by a judge who called the case an “abuse of prosecuting power.”

The SPLC has said its now-defunct program of paying informants to infiltrate hate groups was developed to glean key insights into their activities so that potential victims could be protected. An earlier federal investigation into the practice was closed without charges, but the motion paints the current Justice Department as pursuing the case with renewed — and rushed — vigor.

The department decided to pursue the indictment without interviewing any current SPLC employees and did not seek any documents from the group until after it told defense lawyers that criminal charges were coming, the defense motion states. During a meeting requested by defense lawyers who hoped to avert to indictment, Justice Department officials informed them that the decision already had been made to pursue charges, according to the motion.

“These procedural irregularities show that the charges against the SPLC were a foregone conclusion based on prosecutorial vindictiveness — driven by the White House and FBI leadership’s retribution campaign — rather than the result of a good faith examination of the evidence,” the motion states, saying the indictment was “premised on conclusory accusations but devoid of provable facts or a proper statement of the law.”

The motion also cites whistleblower accounts that accused top Justice Department officials of rushing forward with an indictment despite internal concerns about the merits of the case and the strength of the evidence.

“For weeks, we have been arguing against these false allegations levied against the SPLC — an organization that for 55 years has stood as a beacon of hope fighting white supremacy and various forms of injustice to create a multiracial democracy where we can all live and thrive,” Bryan Fair, the interim president and chief executive officer of SPLC, said in a statement. “The government can’t prosecute the SPLC as payback for its protected speech — it violates basic constitutional rights.”

The administration has painted SPLC as partisan

Founded in 1971 as a civil rights organization, the SPLC over the decades has used litigation to fight white supremacist groups. It also tracks the activities and locations of domestic extremists. But its work has made it a popular target among Republicans who see it as overly leftist and partisan.

The center, for instance, received fresh attention last year after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk because the SPLC had included a section on the group that Kirk founded and led, Turning Point USA, in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024.”

FBI Director Kash Patel announced in October that the bureau would be severing its relationship with the SPLC, saying it had turned into a “partisan smear machine,” and he accused it of defaming “mainstream Americans” with its “hate map” that documents alleged antigovernment and hate groups inside the United States.

The defense motion says “animus” from senior levels of the administration helped shape the indictment.

It cites, among other comments, a statement from Trump deriding the SPLC as “a total scam run by the Democrats,” as well as a news media interview in which Harmeet Dhillon, the Justice Department’s top civil rights official, said the indictment was “personal” to her because she had “a lot of journalist friends … and groups that I’ve represented who have been targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.