sending

The Trump administration is sending federal agents to San Francisco following weeks of threats from the president to deploy the National Guard to the Bay Area.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom released a statement on X confirming and criticizing the agents’ upcoming arrival. He called deployment a “page right out of the dictator’s handbook” intended to create the conditions of unrest necessary to then send in the National Guard.

“He sends out masked men, he sends out Border Patrol, he sends out ICE, he creates anxiety and fear in the community so that he can lay claim to solving that by sending in the [National] Guard,” said Newsom. “This is no different than the arsonist putting out the fire.”

Around 100 federal agents, including members of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, are en route to the U.S. Coast Guard’s Alameda base, according to reporting from the San Francisco Chronicle. The Coast Guard and DHS did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

Trump has suggested for weeks that San Francisco is next on his list for National Guard deployment, after the administration sent troops to Los Angeles and Chicago and is battling in court to send them to Portland, Ore.

On Sunday, Trump told Fox News, “We’re going to San Francisco and we’ll make it great. It’ll be great again.”

Trump has suggested that the role of the National Guard in San Francisco would be to address crime rates. However, the National Guard is generally not allowed to perform domestic law enforcement duties when federalized by the president.

In September, he said that cities with Democratic political leadership such as San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles “are very unsafe places and we are going to straighten them out.”

Trump said he told Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training for our military, our national guard.”

Newsom urged Californians to remain peaceful in the face of the arrival of federal agents.

“President Trump and [White House Deputy Chief of Staff] Stephen Miller’s authoritarian playbook is coming for another of our cities, and violence and vandalism are exactly what they’re looking for to invoke chaos,” said Newsom on X.

The sending of federal agents to San Francisco comes as the Trump administration continues to crack down on immigration across the nation in an attempt to carry out what the president has proclaimed is the largest deportation effort in U.S. history.

Mouin Rabbani from the Center For Conflict & Humanitarian Studies talks about the violence in Gaza since the ceasefire began and how he believes it’s being fuelled by Israel.

Officials accuse Trump of ‘unlawful and unconstitutional’ use of National Guard in latest effort to stop deployment.

Illinois has become the latest state to launch legal action in hopes of blocking United States President Donald Trump from deploying the National Guard.

The lawsuit filed on Monday by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and the city of Chicago officials came just hours after a federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked Trump from sending the National Guard to the state’s largest city, Portland.

Trump has sought to expand the use of the US military during his second term, including to aid in domestic immigration and law enforcement. That has come amid a wider effort to portray Democratic-run cities as violence-ridden and lawless.

In a post on X, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker decried Trump’s latest plan, which would involve federalising 300 of the state’s National Guard troops and deploying another 400 from Texas, as “unlawful and unconstitutional”.

Attorney General Raoul said US citizens “should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly for the reason that their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor “.

Since taking office in January, Trump has already deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles in the state of California and the federal district of Washington, DC, and has floated sending troops to at least eight other major cities.

In September, a federal judge ruled the Trump administration ” wilfully ” broke federal law by deploying guard troops to Los Angeles amid protests over immigration raids.

In the Oregon case, Judge Karin Immergut temporarily blocked Trump’s plan to deploy 200 National Guard troops from neighbouring California, saying anti-immigration enforcement protests there “did not pose a danger of rebellion”.

Karin also chided the Trump administration for appearing to disregard an order she had issued just a day earlier.

“Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order?” she said on Sunday. “Why is this appropriate?”

Under US law, the US military cannot be used for domestic law enforcement unless the president deems the situation an insurrection and invokes the insurrection act. However, the National Guard can be used in a support capacity for federal law enforcement agents in some instances.

Despite the legal setbacks, Trump has remained defiant.

Speaking to US military commanders last week, Trump referred to “civil disturbances” as the “enemy within”. He further vowed to straighten out US cities “one by one”.

In one particularly remarkable statement, Trump said: “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military”.

Beyond the National Guard, the Trump administration has surged federal law enforcement and immigration agents to cities across the country.

In Chicago, protesters have frequently rallied near an immigration facility outside of the city, where they arrested 13 people on Friday.

On Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security said that federal agents shot a woman in Chicago’s southwest.

A department statement said the shooting happened after Border Patrol agents patrolling the area “were rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars”. The woman, who survived the shooting, was taken into federal custody soon afterwards .

CHICAGO — Illinois and Chicago filed a lawsuit Monday aiming to stop President Trump’s administration from sending hundreds of National Guard troops to the city, just as troops prepared to deploy and hours after a federal judge blocked troops from being sent to Portland, Oregon.

The quickly unfolding developments come as the administration portrays the Democrat-led cities as war-ravaged and lawless and amid Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration. Officials in both cities have disputed the president’s characterizations, saying military intervention isn’t needed and it’s federal involvement that’s inflaming the situation.

The legal challenge comes after Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker said some 300 of the state’s guard troops were to be federalized and deployed to the nation’s third-largest city, along with 400 others from Texas.

The lawsuit alleges that “these advances in President Trump’s long-declared ‘War’ on Chicago and Illinois are unlawful and dangerous.”

“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the lawsuit says.

Pritzker said the potential deployment amounted to “Trump’s invasion” and called on Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to block it. Abbott pushed back and said the crackdown was needed to protect federal workers who are in the city as part of the president’s increased immigration enforcement.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson confirmed in a weekend statement that Trump authorized using Illinois National Guard members, citing what she called “ongoing violent riots and lawlessness” that local leaders have not quelled.

In Chicago, the sight of armed Border Patrol agents making arrests near famous landmarks amplified concerns from residents already uneasy after an immigration crackdown that began last month. Agents have targeted immigrant-heavy and largely Latino areas.

Protesters have frequently rallied near an immigration facility outside the city, and federal officials reported the arrests of 13 protesters on Friday near the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing facility in Broadview.

The Department of Homeland Security acknowledged that federal agents shot a woman Saturday morning on the southwest side of Chicago. A department statement said it happened after Border Patrol agents patrolling the area “were rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars.”

No law enforcement officers were seriously injured, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said.

In Portland, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut granted a temporary restraining order sought by Oregon and California to block the deployment of guard troops from those states to the city.

There has been a sustained and low-level protest outside the Portland ICE facility, but it’s been less disruptive than the downtown clashes of 2020 when demonstrations erupted after George Floyd’s killing.

Immergut, a first-term Trump appointee, seemed incredulous that the president moved to send National Guard troops to Oregon from neighboring California and then from Texas on Sunday.

“Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order?” she said. “Why is this appropriate?”

Local officials have suggested that many of the president’s claims and social media posts about Portland appear to rely on images from 2020. Under a new mayor, the city has reduced crime, and downtown has seen fewer homeless encampments and increased foot traffic.

Most violent crime around the U.S. has actually declined in recent years, including in Portland, where a recent report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association found that homicides from January through June decreased by 51% this year compared to the same period in 2024.

Since the start of his second term, Trump has sent or talked about sending troops to 10 cities, including Baltimore; Memphis, Tennessee; the District of Columbia; New Orleans; and the California cities of Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

A federal judge in September said the administration “willfully” broke federal law by deploying guard troops to Los Angeles over protests about immigration raids.

Press writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 5 (UPI) — The Justice Department has appealed a ruling by a lower court judge blocking the mobilization of 200 National Guard troops to Portland.

A judge on Saturday ordered the Trump administration to stop its mobilization of the soldiers to protect the ICE building and officers in the city. There have been nightly protests since the troops were ordered to patrol.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will rule on the case.

Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsome called the Trump administration’s move to send National Guard troops to Portland an abuse of law and power.

“The Trump administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words – ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents.

Hundreds of protestors marched at the Portland Immigration and Customs Enforcement office Saturday, the latest in a series of demonstrations in the city since the Trump administration announced it would deploy the troops.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., criticized President Donald Trump in a social media post referring to the court’s order to block the deployment that said Trump’s “determination is simply untethered from the facts.”

A White House spokesperson said that Trump “exercised his authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement.”

The deployment would mark the latest escalation of Donald Trump’s use of federal intervention in Democrat-led cities, which the US president describes as rife with crime.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that US President Donald Trump is sending 300 California National Guard members to Oregon, after a judge temporarily blocked his administration from deploying that state’s guard to Portland, Oregon.

Newsom, a Democrat, called the deployment on Sunday “a breathtaking abuse of the law and power” and pledged to fight the move in court.

He said these troops were “federalized” and put under the president’s control months ago over his objections, in response to unrest in Los Angeles.

“The commander-in-chief is using the US military as a political weapon against American citizens,” Newsom said in the statement. “We will take this fight to court, but the public cannot stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct by the president of the United States.”

There was no official announcement from Washington, just as was the case when the governor of Illinois made a similar announcement on Saturday about troops in his state being activated.

A Trump-appointed federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s plan to deploy the Oregon National Guard in Portland to protect federal property amid protests on Saturday, after Trump called the city “war-ravaged”.

US District Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by Trump during the president’s first term, said the relatively small protests the city has seen did not justify the use of federalised forces and that allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.

“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. She later said: “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.”

Growing federal intervention

The deployment of national guards to Portland, Oregon would mark the latest escalation of Trump’s use of federal intervention in Democrat-led cities, which he describes as being rife with crime.

Since the start of his second term, Trump has sent or talked about sending troops to 10 cities, including Baltimore, Maryland; Memphis, Tennessee; the District of Columbia; New Orleans, Louisiana; and the California cities of Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Trump deployed guard soldiers and active-duty Marines in Los Angeles during the summer over the objections of Newsom, who sued and won a temporary block after a federal judge found the president’s use of the guard was likely unlawful.

National Guard troops patrolling the streets of Washington, DC, in August started carrying firearms and were authorised to use force “as a last resort”.

On Saturday, Trump authorised the deployment of 300 Illinois National Guard troops to protect federal officers and assets in Chicago.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson confirmed that the president authorised using the Illinois National Guard members, citing what she called “ongoing violent riots and lawlessness” that local leaders have not quelled.

Trump has characterised both Portland and Chicago as cities rife with crime and unrest, calling the former a “war zone” and suggesting apocalyptic force was needed to quell problems in the latter.

Despite Trump’s claims, crime in some of the biggest US cities has actually decreased recently, with New Orleans seeing a particularly steep drop in 2025 that has it on pace for the lowest number of killings in over five decades.

United States President Donald Trump has reaffirmed his commitment to sending the National Guard to Chicago, Illinois, as he continues to portray Democrat-run cities as overrun by crime.

Tuesday’s remarks were some of Trump’s most direct statements on the subject so far.

In an Oval Office appearance to announce the relocation of the US Space Command headquarters, Trump was asked about the possibility of a troop deployment to Chicago, the country’s third-largest city by population.

Though he initially launched into a screed decrying crime in the city, he quickly confirmed his plans.

“We’re going in. I didn’t say when, but we’re going in,” Trump said.

“ If the governor of Illinois would call me up. I would love to do it. Now, we’re going to do it anyway. We have the right to do it because I have an obligation to protect this country.”

But the threat of military force was not the only reason Tuesday’s news conference made headlines.

Here are four key takeaways from Trump’s Oval Office appearance.

Trump teases Chicago military deployment

Trump was defiant in his Tuesday afternoon appearance, which came shortly after a federal court in San Francisco ruled that his troop deployment to Los Angeles earlier this year was illegal.

Instead, he defended his decision to use soldiers for his crime crackdown, arguing it was necessary to deal with some suspects.

“Frankly, they were born to be criminals,” Trump said. “And they’re tough and mean, and they’ll cut your throat, and they won’t even think about it the next day. They won’t even remember that they did it. And we’re not going to have those people.”

He also pointed to his deployment of troops in Washington, DC, as a model for his crime initiatives throughout the country.

“ I’m very proud of Washington,” he said. “It serves as a template. And we’re going to do it elsewhere.”

Experts, however, point out that the federal government has greater powers to deploy troops in Washington, the country’s capital, than in other parts of the country.

But the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement, except in rare occasions with state cooperation.

Trump is expected to face another legal challenge under that law should he deploy troops to Chicago, as he has repeatedly threatened.

Tensions have been ratcheting upwards between city officials and the Trump administration since August.

On Sunday, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said that the Trump administration would increase the presence of federal agents to support immigration enforcement in the city.

Also over the weekend, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson announced that Chicago police will not collaborate with any National Guard troops or federal agents.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, meanwhile, said on Tuesday that military “staging that has already begun started yesterday, and continues into today” in and around the Chicago area. Pritzker, a Democrat, has opposed such efforts and warned the city to brace for a situation like what Los Angeles experienced in June.

Still, Trump indicated that a troop deployment to Chicago would only be the start of a wide-reaching crackdown.

“ Chicago is a hellhole right now. Baltimore is a hellhole right now. Parts of Los Angeles are terrible if we didn’t put out the fires – I mean, the other fires, the bullet fires,” Trump said

Moving US Space Command

The focus of the Oval Office event, however, was to tout Trump’s decision to move the headquarters of the US Space Command from Colorado to Huntsville, Alabama.

Space Command falls under the Department of Defense and is tasked with overseeing military operations beyond Earth’s atmosphere.

Critics pointed out that the move appeared designed to play to Trump’s Republican base, as Alabama is a right-wing stronghold compared with the more left-leaning Colorado.

Trump, however, said the move was in the strategic interest of the US. He also emphasised that it would create 30,000 jobs in the state and “billions and billions” of dollars of investment, despite concerns over logistical issues.

Supporters have noted that Huntsville is already home to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and a major hub for defence contractors, earning it the nickname “Rocket City”.

Tuesday’s announcement reverses a 2023 decision by then-President Joe Biden to keep Space Command in Colorado, where it had been located since its founding 1985, until it was mothballed in 2002.

Trump re-established the command during his first term in 2019, with about 1,700 personnel currently working at its headquarters in Colorado Springs.

In his remarks from the Oval Office, though, Trump was blatant in his disdain for the state, which he lost in both the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections.

He repeatedly told reporters that Colorado’s policy of providing mail-in ballots to all voters fuelled the decision to move the command.

“When a state is for mail-in voting, that means they want dishonest elections,” Trump said. “So that played a big factor.”

Trump has falsely claimed that mail-in ballots lead to election malfeasance. In his remarks, he noted he had won Alabama by a wide margin in the 2024 race, joking about how that might have affected Space Command’s relocation.

“ I only won it by about 47 points,” he said to chuckles. “I don’t think that influenced my decision, though, right?”

In a statement, Colorado Governor Jared Polis said the move “undermines national security, wastes millions of taxpayer dollars, and disrupts the lives of military families”.

Speculation over health

Tuesday’s news conference was Trump’s first public appearance in days, an absence that stoked speculation over the 79-year-old president’s health.

When asked about the rumours, Trump, 79, batted them away.

“I didn’t do any [news conferences] for two days and they said, ‘There must be something wrong with him,’” Trump said.

“Biden wouldn’t do them for months, you wouldn’t see him, and nobody ever said there was ever anything wrong with him, and we know he wasn’t in the greatest of shape.”

Trump spent part of the recent Labor Day weekend playing at his Trump National Golf Course in Virginia, a fact he pointed to when confronted with questions about his health.

“I was very active over the weekend,” he added.

Media reports estimated it was Trump’s 66th visit to a golf course since he began his second term in January.

Trump is expected to be the oldest president in US history by the time he leaves office: Should he successfully complete his second term, he will be 82, edging out the current record holder, Biden, by several months.

But Biden’s seeming frailty in his final months in office has raised scrutiny about what health conditions Trump might face as he approaches a similar age.

An attack on a Venezuelan boat?

One of the surprises that emerged from Tuesday’s meandering news conference was the announcement that the US may have attacked a boat in the Caribbean Sea.

“We just – over the last few minutes – literally shot out a boat, a drug-carrying boat,” Trump said. “A lot of drugs in that boat. And you’ll be seeing that, and you’ll be reading about that. It just happened moments ago.”

The president identified the vessel as departing from Venezuela, whose government Trump has repeatedly accused of directing drug-trafficking operations, though he has provided no proof for that assertion.

Shortly after the news conference, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed on the social media platform X that the military had “conducted a lethal strike in the southern Caribbean against a drug vessel which had departed from Venezuela and was being operated by a designated narco-terrorist organisation”.

He did not provide further details.

Since returning to office for a second term, Trump has returned to his policy of maximum pressure against the government of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, recently raising the reward for his arrest to $50m.

Trump has also claimed that immigration into the US was the result of a criminal “invasion” that Maduro masterminded.

A US intelligence report declassified in May, however, failed to find proof of any such cooperation between Maduro and gangs like Tren de Aragua.

Still, earlier this year, the Trump administration designated Latin American gangs like Tren de Aragua as “foreign terrorist organisations”. The move represented a break in convention in Washington, which has a separate designation for foreign criminal enterprises.

In August, it was reported that Trump secretly signed an order authorising military action against cartels and other criminal networks, spurring concern of US intervention abroad.

Maduro has long accused Trump of interfering in his domestic politics, and Tuesday’s announcement has further piqued tensions.

HARLINGEN, Texas — A U.S. judge at least temporarily blocked the government Sunday from deporting a group of Guatemalan children who had crossed the border without their families, after their lawyers said the youngsters were loaded onto planes overnight in violation of laws affording protections for migrant kids.

Attorneys for 10 Guatemalan children, ages 10 to 17, said in court papers filed late Saturday that there were reports that planes were set to take off within hours for the Central American country. But a federal judge in Washington said those children couldn’t be deported for at least 14 days, and after a hastily scheduled hearing Sunday, she emphasized that they needed to be taken off the planes and back to the Office of Refugee Resettlement facilities while the legal process plays out.

“I do not want there to be any ambiguity,” said Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, who said her ruling applies broadly to Guatemalan minors who arrived in the U.S. without their parents or guardians.

Government lawyers, meanwhile, maintained that the children weren’t being deported but rather reunited at the request of their parents or guardians — a claim that the children’s lawyers dispute, at least in some cases.

Similar emergency requests were filed in other parts of the country as well. Attorneys in Arizona and Illinois asked federal judges there to block deportations of unaccompanied minors, underscoring how the fight over the government’s efforts has quickly spread.

Immigrant advocates react

The episode has raised alarms among immigrant advocates, who say it may represent a violation of federal laws designed to protect children who arrive without their parents. While the deportations are on hold for now, the case underscores the high-stakes clash between the government’s immigration enforcement efforts and the legal safeguards that Congress created for some of the most vulnerable migrants.

At the border-area airport, the scene Sunday morning was unmistakably active. Buses carrying migrants pulled onto the tarmac as clusters of federal agents moved quickly between the vehicles and waiting aircraft. Police cars circled the perimeter, and officers and security guards pushed reporters back from the chain-link fences that line the field. On the runway, planes sat with engines idling, ground crews making final preparations as if departures could come at any moment — all as the courtroom battle played out hundreds of miles away in Washington.

Shaina Aber of Acacia Center for Justice, an immigrant legal defense group, said it was notified Saturday evening that an official list had been drafted with the names of Guatemalan children whom the U.S. administration would attempt to send back to their home country. Advocates learned that the flights would leave from the Texas cities of Harlingen and El Paso, Aber said.

She said she’d heard that federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials “were still taking the children,” having not gotten any guidance about the court order.

The Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Sunday.

Plans to remove nearly 700 Guatemalan children

The Trump administration is planning to remove nearly 700 Guatemalan children who came to the U.S. unaccompanied, according to a letter sent Friday by Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon. The Guatemalan government has said it is ready to take them in.

It is another step in the Trump administration’s sweeping immigration enforcement efforts, which include plans to send a surge of officers to Chicago for an immigration crackdown, ramping up deportations and ending protections for people who have had permission to live and work in the United States.

Lawyers for the Guatemalan children said the U.S. government doesn’t have the authority to remove the youngsters and is depriving them of due process by preventing them from pursuing asylum claims or immigration relief. Many have active cases in immigration courts, according to the attorneys’ court filing in Washington.

Although the children are supposed to be in the care and custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the government is “illegally transferring them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody to put them on flights to Guatemala, where they may face abuse, neglect, persecution, or torture,” argues the filing by attorneys with the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights and the National Immigration Law Center.

An attorney with another advocacy group, the National Center for Youth Law, said the organization started hearing a few weeks ago from legal service providers that agents from Homeland Security Investigations — ICE’s investigative arm — were interviewing children, particularly from Guatemala, in Office of Refugee Resettlement facilities.

The agents asked the children about their relatives in Guatemala, said the attorney, Becky Wolozin.

Then on Friday, advocates across the country began getting word that their young clients’ immigration court hearings were being canceled, Wolozin said.

Migrant children traveling without their parents or guardians are handed over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement when they are encountered by officials along the U.S.-Mexico border. Once in the U.S., the children often live in government-supervised shelters or with foster care families until they can be released to a sponsor — usually a family member — living in the country.

The minors can request asylum, juvenile immigration status or visas for victims of sexual exploitation.

Due to their age and often traumatic experiences getting to the U.S., their treatment is one of the most sensitive issues in immigration. Advocacy groups already have sued to ask courts to halt new Trump administration vetting procedures for unaccompanied children, saying the changes are keeping families separated longer and are inhumane.

Guatemala willing to receive the unaccompanied minors

Guatemalan Foreign Affairs Minister Carlos Martínez said Friday that the government has told the U.S. it is willing to receive hundreds of Guatemalan minors who arrived in the U.S. unaccompanied and are being held in government facilities.

Guatemala is particularly concerned about minors who could pass age limits for the children’s facilities and be sent to adult detention centers, he said.

President Bernardo Arévalo has said that his government has a moral and legal obligation to advocate for the children. His comments came days after U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited Guatemala.

Gonzalez and Santana write for the Associated Press and reported from Harlingen and Washington, respectively. AP writers Jennifer Peltz in New York and Corey Williams in Detroit contributed to this report.

A fight over taxes consumers pay for cannabis products has prompted a standoff between unusual adversaries: child-care advocates and the legal weed industry.

On July 1, California’s cannabis excise tax increased from 15% to 19% as part of a political deal struck in 2022 to help stabilize the fledgling legal market. But the industry now says the increase is untenable as it faces a sharp decline in revenue and unfair competition from the growing illicit market.

An industry-sponsored bill moving through the Legislature — and already passed by the Assembly — would eliminate the tax increase and lower the rate back to 15% for the next six years. This would reduce by $180 million annually the tax revenue that the state contributes toward law enforcement, child care, services for at-risk youth and environmental cleanup.

The losses include about $81 million annually that would have specifically funded additional subsidized child-care slots for about 8,000 children from low-income families.

“They are choosing the cannabis industry over children and youth,” said Mary Ignatius, executive director of Parent Voices California, which represents parents receiving state subsidies to help pay for child care.

Child care faces setbacks

The tension over taxes for legal weed versus child care — both industries in crisis — highlights the inherent pitfalls of funding important social services with “sin taxes,” whether it’s alcohol, weed or tobacco — funding that experts say is often unstable and unsustainable.

Engage with our community-funded journalism as we delve into child care, transitional kindergarten, health and other issues affecting children from birth through age 5.

The measure’s next stop is the Senate. All bills in the Legislature must be passed by Sept. 12, and the governor must sign them by Oct. 12.

“We can both support the legal cannabis industry and protect child care. If the measure reaches the governor’s desk and is signed into law, we will work with the Legislature to ensure there are no cuts to child care due to this policy change,” said Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom.

But it’s unclear where money to backfill the losses would come from, as the state grapples with declining finances and federal funding cuts.

The money from cannabis taxes represents a fraction of California’s $7-billion annual child care budget. But as federal cuts to social services for low-income families, including Head Start, continue, any potential loss creates a sense of panic among child care advocates who say California ought to be shoring up revenue options right now — not reducing them.

“Every single dollar needs to remain in the programs that are serving our children and families. What may seem like a small amount to some is everything for advocates who are fighting for it,” said Ignatius.

The past decade has been a time of progress for child care advocates, as the state rebuilt a child care industry decimated by cuts during the Great Recession. California has more than doubled spending on child care since the recession low, added about 150,000 new subsidized child care slots, eliminated the fees paid by families, increased pay for child care workers and added a new public school grade level for 4-year-olds.

But despite these efforts to bolster the market, California’s child care industry still suffers from low pay for workers, unaffordable costs for families, and a shortage of spaces for infants and toddlers.

The waiting list for subsidized child care slots is still so long that some parents have taken to calling it the “no hope list,” said Ignatius. Those who join the list know they could wait years before a spot opens up, and by that time their child may already be in kindergarten or beyond.

Jim Keddy, who serves on an advisory committee to help determine what programs the tax will finance, opposes the proposed reduction.

“If you don’t work to promote and hold on to a funding stream for children, someone eventually takes it from you,” said Keddy, who is also executive director of Youth Forward, a youth advocacy organization.

The cannabis industry, however, argues that while the causes the tax supports may be worthwhile, market conditions are so abysmal that it cannot weather an increase.

Legal cannabis industry struggles to remain afloat

“It is sad that the cannabis industry is being pit against social programs, childhood programs and educational programs,” said Jerred Kiloh, president of United Cannabis Business Assn. and owner of the Higher Path dispensary in Sherman Oaks. “The reality is, if our legal industry keeps declining, then so does their tax revenue.”

In 2022, when the cannabis industry agreed to increase the excise tax, quarterly cannabis sales were at their peak. The agreement offered the new industry temporary relief by eliminating the cultivation tax passed by voters under Proposition 64, the 2016 initiative that legalized cannabis. In exchange, state regulators would be able to increase the excise tax after three years to make the change revenue neutral.

But since then, sales have plunged to their lowest levels in five years, due in part to the growing illicit market that is siphoning off sales from legal dispensaries.

In L.A., Kiloh said that between state and local taxes, his legal dispensary customers end up paying 47% in taxes on their purchase. But if they shopped instead at any of the thousands of stores in L.A. selling cannabis products without a license, they could avoid state and local cannabis taxes entirely.

“A 30% increase in an excise tax that is already egregious is just kind of the breaking point for a lot of consumers,” said Kiloh.

Even before the excise tax hike went into effect, just 40% of the cannabis consumed in California was obtained from the legal market, according to the California Department of Cannabis Control.

The measure to drop the excise tax, AB564, received widespread support from Assembly members, including stalwart supporters of early childhood education like Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters), chair of the Legislative Women’s Caucus.

“Revenues from legal sales of cannabis are already dropping and if we keep raising the tax they’ll drop even more. That penalizes cannabis businesses who are doing the right thing and working within the legal market. And, it makes illegal sales from cartels and criminals more competitive,” she said in a statement. “We need to fund our kids’ education through the State General Fund, but if we want to supplement education and youth programs, cannabis tax dollars will only exist if we steady the legal market and go after those illegal operators.”

How reliable are sin taxes?

Lucy Dadayan, a researcher who studies sin taxes at the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, D.C., said the California predicament reflects a larger problem with sin taxes.

If a sin tax is successful and consumption drops — as it has with tobacco — “the tax base shrinks. And in the case of cannabis, there’s the added wrinkle that a high tax rate can push consumers back into the illicit market, which also reduces revenue,” she said.

This is not the first time services for the state’s youngest children have been affected by reductions in a sin tax.

In 1998, California voters slapped cigarettes with a hefty surcharge to pressure smokers to give up their habit. The state used the money to fund “First 5” organizations in every county, which are dedicated to improving the health and well-being of young children and their families. But the less people smoked over time, the less money was available for early childhood programs, and the First 5 system now finds itself confronting an existential crisis as it faces a rapidly declining revenue source.

Meanwhile, the critical social services like child care that come to depend on sin taxes tend to get more and more expensive, creating a “mismatch” in the tax structure versus the need, said Dadayan.

“In the short term, these taxes can raise a lot of money and help build public support for legalization or regulation. But in the long term, they can leave important programs vulnerable because of shifting consumption patterns,” she said.

This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

A NEW phone uses AI to stop children filming and sending nude content.

The HarmBlock+ tech in Vodafone’s latest handset also prevents them seeing and saving sexual images.

1

A study by the firm found one in five secondary pupils had felt pressured into sharing explicit pictures of themselves.

And of those who had, 63 per cent had them forwarded without consent.

Four in ten teachers reported explicit image-sharing as a growing problem.

Vodafone and Finnish firm HMD’s Fuse handset uses the AI developed by UK-based SafeToNet.

It is embedded into the operating system, including camera, so is impossible to bypass.

Creator Richard Pursey said: “Harmblock analyses what the camera sees, including live streams, every fraction of a second.

“If it detects sexual content it instantly blocks the recording.

“HarmBlock also analyses what’s being rendered to the screen. If harmful sexual content is about to appear, it’s blocked.

“It means children can’t be tricked into filming sexual acts, can’t stumble upon pornography nor be blackmailed.

“It’s ground-breaking.”

Dutch defence minister announces details of support for Poland as Polish authorities accuse Russia of ‘provocation’ after drone crash.

Dutch Defence Minister Ruben Brekelmans has said his country is sending 300 troops and Patriot air defence missile systems to Poland to “defend NATO territory, protect supply to Ukraine, and deter Russian aggression”.

The Netherlands’ announcement on Wednesday came as Polish officials said that an object that fell in a cornfield in Poland’s east on Tuesday night may have been a Russian version of the Shahed drone.

The explosion from the drone broke windows in several houses in the village of Osiny, near Poland’s border with Ukraine, but no injuries were reported, according to an official cited by Poland’s state news agency PAP.

Brekelmans told Dutch public broadcaster NOS on Wednesday that the military support to Poland came alongside other countries providing similar assistance to the NATO-member country, which borders Ukraine.

Brekelmans emphasised that the Patriot systems would be operating in Poland, and the accompanying 300 troops did not mean the Netherlands was putting troops on the ground in Ukraine.

Germany deployed five Eurofighter combat aircraft to Poland earlier this month, according to a German air force spokesman cited by Germany’s DPA news agency. The Kyiv Independent news outlet reported the fighter jets were deployed ahead of joint Russian-Belarusian military drills.

Germany also sent five Eurofighter jets and an estimated 270 soldiers to Romania, DPA reported on Wednesday.

Two of the Eurofighter jets in Romania were mobilised for the first time on Tuesday night, in response to Russian air strikes near Ukraine’s border with Romania, DPA said.

The jets, which took off from a Romanian military airbase, returned without incident, DPA added.

Polish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz accused Russia of “provocation”, noting the drone incident within Poland’s borders on Tuesday came “at a special moment, when there are ongoing discussions about peace” in Ukraine, Polskie Radio reported.

Several European leaders accompanied Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the White House on Monday, where one of the main topics of discussion was European countries providing post-war security guarantees to Ukraine as part of discussions around ending the Russia-Ukraine war.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned on Wednesday that attempting to implement security issues relating to Ukraine without Moscow’s involvement was a “road to nowhere”.

“We cannot agree with the fact that now it is proposed to resolve questions of security, collective security, without the Russian Federation. This will not work,” Lavrov said.

United States President Donald Trump has announced that he is temporarily taking control of the Washington, DC, police department, while deploying 800 National Guard troops to the city.

Trump said his actions are needed to “rescue” the US capital from a surge in crime.

While violent crime spiked in Washington, DC, in 2023, data shows it has been falling quickly since then.

Here is what we know:

What has Trump announced?

During a 78-minute news conference, Trump announced that the federal government would take control of the District of Columbia (DC) Metropolitan Police Department to address surging crime.

“I’m announcing a historic action to rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse,” Trump said during the conference in which he was joined by US Attorney General Pam Bondi, who will oversee the city’s police force while it is under federal control.

“This is Liberation Day in DC, and we’re going to take our capital back. We’re taking it back,” Trump said.

“Under the authorities vested in me as the President of the United States, I’m officially invoking section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act… and placing the DC Metropolitan and Police Department under direct federal control,” he said.

He also announced the deployment of the National Guard.

“I’m deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order and public safety in Washington, DC, and they’re going to be allowed to do their job properly,” he said.

Trump also said that he intends to remove the capital’s homeless population, but did not provide details on how the plan would be carried out.

What is the Home Rule Act of 1973?

The Home Rule Act of 1973 is a US federal law that gave Washington, DC, a significant degree of self-government for the first time.

Washington, DC, is the seat of the federal government and the only US city that is not part of the 50 states. As a result, it has no voting representation in Congress.

For about a century, up until 1973, the city was run by three presidentially appointed commissioners. That was until then-President Richard Nixon signed the Home Rule Act, enabling district residents to elect a mayor and city council.

But the Home Rule Act also says the president can take control of the city’s police force if “special conditions of an emergency nature exist”.

This is something Trump threatened to do in 2020, amid nationwide protests over the killing of George Floyd. The city’s police can be used for “federal purposes”.

The president can use the DC police force for 48 hours, or up to 30 days if he notifies Congress.

Trump said he plans to keep the federal takeover of the force going past the first 48 hours, and will officially inform the appropriate parties.

The mayor of Washington, DC, Muriel Bowser, is adamant that the city still has control: “Let me be clear. Chief Pamela Smith is the chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and its 3,100 members work under her direction.”

“Nothing about our organisational chart has changed,” Bowser said. “And nothing in the executive order would indicate otherwise.”

According to a report by the news outlet Politico, federal law enforcement officers will be tasked with protecting federal buildings and national monuments.

What do we know about the National Guard deployment?

According to a statement from the US Army, “between 100-200 soldiers will be supporting law enforcement at any given time”.

“Their duties will include an array of tasks from administrative, logistics and physical presence in support of law enforcement,” the army said.

The National Guard will operate under Title 32 status, meaning they remain under local control but are funded by the federal government. In this status, they are not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars US service members from engaging in law enforcement activities.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the Guard would begin flowing into DC this week.

According to a report by CNN, deployed troops are not expected to openly carry rifles as they patrol the streets. Instead, they will probably keep their weapons nearby, for example, in their trucks, so they can access them if necessary for self-defence, the official said.

Hegseth said the Pentagon was “prepared to bring in other National Guard units – other specialised units”, but did not offer any further details.

When asked whether the military would assist with clearing homeless people from the city, Hegseth said that the soldiers would assist local law enforcement.

“Our job is to stand alongside law enforcement,” he said.

Why is Trump taking these measures?

In the executive order, Trump states that rising violence in the capital has become an emergency.

The “rising violence in the capital now urgently endangers public servants, citizens, and tourists, disrupts safe and secure transportation and the proper functioning of the Federal Government”, the order states.

“The magnitude of the violent crime crisis places the District of Columbia among the most violent jurisdictions in the United States.”

It also says that the attorney general shall regularly update the president “on the status of the special conditions of an emergency nature that exist in the District of Columbia”.

MAKE D.C. SAFE AGAIN 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/xJRIcgy4ld

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 11, 2025

According to reports, the move seems to have been triggered by an assault involving Edward Coristine, a former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer and protege of Elon Musk, who previously led DOGE. Police say 10 teenagers attacked the 19-year-old and his partner early on August 3. Two 15-year-olds were later arrested and charged.

“If DC doesn’t get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run,” Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, days after the attack, with an image showing a shirtless Coristine with what appeared to be blood spattered on his face, body and trousers.

“Perhaps it should have been done a long time ago, then this incredible young man, and so many others, would not have had to go through the horrors of Violent Crime,” Trump added.

Is DC truly facing a crime emergency?

The mayor of Washington, DC, Bowser, questioned the effectiveness of deploying the National Guard to enforce local laws, saying that more funding for prosecutors would make a more meaningful difference.

At a news conference on Monday, the mayor said that Trump’s perception of the city was “shaped by his COVID-view experience during his first term”.

“It is true that those were more challenging times related to some issues. It is also true that we experienced a crime spike post-COVID, but we worked quickly to put laws in place and tactics that got violent offenders off our streets, and gave our police officers more tools,” she said.

According to Bowser, violent crime is now at a 30-year low in Washington, DC.

Washington, DC’s crime numbers have been questioned after authorities began investigating claims that some figures were changed to make the situation look better.

But Bowser has stood by the data and said that Trump’s picture of DC as lawless is wrong.

In January, the Department of Justice reported that violent crime in the nation’s capital fell 35 percent from 2023 to 2024.

Official crime statistics from the DC Metropolitan Police Department show that violent offences declined between 2023 and 2024, and preliminary 2025 data indicate the trend is continuing.

The data for this year shows that homicides have fallen by 12 percent, and assaults with dangerous weapons by 20 percent.

The FBI, however, reported that nationwide violent crime also fell, by an estimated 4.5 percent in 2024, compared with 2023.

US envoy Keith Kellogg will travel to Kyiv early next week, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The United States is once again delivering military supplies to Ukraine and will also be sending its special envoy, Keith Kellogg, to Kyiv next week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said.

In his nightly address on Friday evening, Ukraine’s leader said that US aid shipments had been restored, following the Pentagon’s decision to briefly halt the delivery of certain weapons to Kyiv.

“We have received political signals at the highest level – good signals – including from the United States, from our European friends,” he said.

Zelenskyy added that his country was working with its allies “on new supplies, increased weapons production in Ukraine and better support for our army”.

“Next week, we will continue working with the US side on a military level, including between our military and General Kellogg,” he said.

At the start of July, the Trump administration paused shipments of weapons to Ukraine, including air defence missiles, over fears that its own stockpiles were dwindling.

The halt coincided with a spike in Russia’s aerial bombardment of Ukraine, with Moscow’s military firing 728 drones and 13 missiles against it on Wednesday, the largest daily total in more than three years of war.

The US military aid pause also came as Ukraine suffered its highest number of monthly civilian casualties in the entire war. In June, 232 people were killed and 1,343 injured, according to the human rights mission in Ukraine.

After announcing earlier this week that the US would resume shipments to Kyiv, US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that his country was sending weapons to NATO, which could then be sent on to Ukraine by its member states.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed on Friday that European nations could give some of their military supplies to Kyiv and order replacements from the US.

“It’s a lot faster to move something, for example, from Germany to Ukraine than it is to order it from a [US] factory and get it there,” Rubio said during a visit to Malaysia.

Meanwhile, on the front line, the Russian military struck Ukraine’s southern port city of Odesa on Friday morning, injuring at least eight people, according to Ukrainian local officials.

Overnight Russian attacks on eastern Ukraine also injured nine and forced the evacuation of a maternity centre in Kharkiv, President Zelenskyy said.

Drone attacks, shelling

Meanwhile, Russian officials noted that Ukrainian drone and shelling attacks had killed three people in the Russian regions of Belgorod, Lipetsk and Tula on Friday.

The Ukrainian military said on Telegram that it had targeted a Russian fighter aircraft plant in the Moscow region and a missile production facility in the Tula region on Friday.

Both drone attacks caused explosions and fires, Ukraine added.

The US’s decision to resume aid deliveries to Ukraine comes as Trump has signalled a growing impatience with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Amid an apparent thaw in relations, Rubio met his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in Malaysia on Friday. “We are talking, and that is a start,” Rubio said.

Lavrov later travelled to North Korea to hold talks. Pyongyang has been an important backer of Moscow, sending thousands of troops to Russia to help it in its war against Ukraine.

Israel is sending a negotiating team to Qatar for talks on a Gaza ceasefire proposal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has confirmed.

In a statement late on Saturday, Netanyahu’s office said the Israeli leader had instructed negotiators “to accept the invitation for close talks”.

But the statement said that “the changes Hamas is requesting to make to the Qatari proposal were delivered to us last night and are unacceptable to Israel”. It did not elaborate on what changes were being requested.

Hamas said on Friday that it had given a “positive” response to a United States-brokered proposal that would involve a 60-day truce in Gaza, renewing hopes of a possible end to Israel’s deadly assault on the Palestinian enclave.

More to come…

The United States Senate has passed a sweeping tax bill championed by President Donald Trump, sending the controversial legislation to the House of Representatives for what could be a final vote.

Lawmakers passed the bill by a 51-to-50 vote in the Republican controlled-chamber on Tuesday, after Vice President JD Vance broke the tie.

The successful vote ended what was a marathon 27 hours of debate in the upper chamber. Three Republicans joined with Democrats to vote against the bill, which would enshrine many of Trump’s signature policies, including his 2017 tax cuts, reductions for social safety net programmes, and increased spending on border enforcement and deportations.

Critics on both sides of the aisle have taken aim at the estimated $3.3 trillion the bill would add to the national debt.

Others have blasted reductions to programmes like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They argue that the bill takes support away from low-income families to finance tax cuts that will primarily help the wealthy.

Trump, however, has pressed for the bill to be passed by July 4, the country’s Independence Day. The legislation — informally known as the One Big Beautiful Bill — now heads back to the House of Representatives for a Wednesday vote on the updated version.

The president found out about the Senate’s passage in the midst of a news conference in south Florida, where he was touting his crackdown on immigration.

Despite tight odds in the House of Representatives, Trump struck an optimistic tone about the upcoming vote.

“ I think it’s going to go very nicely in the House,” Trump said. “Actually, I think it will be easier in the House than it was in the Senate.”

The president also downplayed one of the most controversial provisions in the bill: cuts to Medicaid, a government health insurance programme for low-income families. About 11.8 million people are anticipated to lose their health coverage in the coming years if the bill becomes law.

“I’m saying it’s going to be a very much smaller number than that, and that number will be all waste, fraud and abuse,” Trump said.

Criticisms in the Senate

Trump was not the only Republican to be celebrating the passage of the omnibus bill. In the Senate, leading Republican John Thune touted the bill as a victory for American workers.

“It’s been a long road to get to today,” Thune said from the Senate floor. “Now we’re here, permanently extending tax relief for hard-working Americans.”

But not all Republicans were as enthused about the bill. Three party members — Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine — all voted against its passage. And even a critical vote in favour, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, appeared to express regret in the aftermath.

“Do I like this bill? No,” she told a reporter for NBC News. “I know, that in many parts of the country, there are Americans who are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don’t like that.”

She later took to social media to criticise the haste of its passage. “Let’s not kid ourselves. This has been an awful process – a frantic rush to meet an artificial deadline that has tested every limit of this institution.”

Meanwhile, the top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, said that Republicans had “betrayed the American people and covered the Senate in utter shame”.

“In one fell swoop, Republicans passed the biggest tax break for billionaires ever seen, paid for by ripping away healthcare from millions of people,” said Schumer.

Still, Schumer announced one symbolic victory on Tuesday, writing on the social media platform X that Trump’s name for the legislation — “One Big Beautiful Bill” — had been struck from its official title.

Republicans currently hold a trifecta in US government, with control of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House, giving Democrats reduced power in legislating.

But the Republicans have narrow majorities in Congress, leading to uncertainty about the bill’s fate. In the Senate, they hold 53 of the chamber’s 100 seats. In the House, where the bill heads now, they have a majority of 220 representatives to the Democrats’ 212.

‘Not fiscal responsibility’

The bill is therefore likely to face a razor-thin margin in the House. An early version that passed on May 22 did so with just one Republican vote to spare.

The House Freedom Caucus, a group of hardline conservatives, has continued to baulk at the bill’s high price tag and could push for deeper spending cuts in the coming days.

“The Senate’s version adds $651 billion to the deficit — and that’s before interest costs, which nearly double the total,” the caucus wrote in a statement on Monday.

“That’s not fiscal responsibility. It’s not what we agreed to.”

Billionaire Elon Musk, whose endorsement and funding helped propel Trump to victory in the 2024 presidential election, has also been a vocal opponent of the bill.

“What’s the point of a debt ceiling if we keep raising it?” Musk asked on social media on Tuesday. “All I’m asking is that we don’t bankrupt America.”

Musk has threatened to fund primary challenges against Republicans who support the bill and even floated on Monday launching a new political party in the US.

Trump, however, has brushed aside Musk’s criticism as a reaction to the elimination of tax credits for electric vehicles: The billionaire owns one of the most prominent manufacturers, Tesla.

The president also threatened to use the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — which Musk helped to found — to strip the billionaire’s companies of their subsidies.

“DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,” Trump said as he travelled to Florida.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera correspondent Alan Fisher said that public support has been slipping as a clearer picture of the bill has emerged.

“The longer this has been talked about and the more details that become public, the fewer Americans support him,” Fisher said.

Several recent polls have shown a majority of Americans oppose the bill. A survey last week from Quinnipiac University, for example, found just 29 percent of respondents were in favour of the legislation, while 55 percent were against it.

Increase to national debt

All told, the legislation in its current form would make permanent Trump’s 2017 cuts to business and personal income taxes, which are set to expire by the end of the year.

It would also give new tax breaks for income earned through tips and overtime, a policy promise Trump made during his 2024 campaign.

At the same time, the bill would provide tens of billions of dollars for Trump’s immigration crackdown, including funding to extend barriers and increase technology along the southern border. The bill would also pay for more immigration agents and build the government’s capacity to quickly detain and deport people.

Beyond cuts to electric vehicle tax breaks, the bill also guts several of former President Joe Biden’s incentives for wind and solar energy.

Faced with criticism about the knock-on effects for low-income families, Republicans have countered that the new restrictions to Medicaid and SNAP — formerly known as food stamps — would help put the programmes on a more sustainable path.

Many Republicans have also rejected the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment that the legislation would add $3.3 trillion to the country’s already $36.2 trillion debt.

Nonpartisan analysts, meanwhile, have said the increase in debt has the potential to slow economic growth, raise borrowing costs and crowd out other government spending in the years ahead.

The billionaire’s Mars mission claim comes despite SpaceX experiencing several failed test launches over recent months.

Elon Musk has said that he believes there is a 50 percent chance that his Mars spacecraft will make its first uncrewed voyage to the red planet at the end of 2026, just two days after the latest test-flight setback for his SpaceX firm.

Musk presented a detailed Starship development timeline in a video posted online by his Los Angeles area-based rocket company on Thursday.

The South African-born billionaire and SpaceX owner said his latest timeline for reaching Mars depended on whether the craft can complete several challenging technical feats during testing, specifically a post-launch refuelling manoeuvre in Earth’s orbit.

In a video on social media platform X, which he also owns, Musk said his Starbase industrial complex and rocket launch facility in Texas was the “gateway to Mars”.

“It is where we are going to develop the technology necessary to take humanity and civilisation and life as we know it to another planet for the first time in the four and a half billion year history of Earth,” he said.

The end of 2026 is when a slim window opens offering the closest trip between Earth and Mars, as the planets align around the sun once every two years. This shorter distance would take seven to nine months to transit by spacecraft.

The first flight to Mars would carry a simulated crew consisting of Tesla-built humanoid Optimus robots. Human crews would then follow in the second or third landings.

In the video, Musk said he believed there was a 50-50 chance SpaceX would meet the 2026 deadline for the first mission. He added that if Starship was not ready by that time, SpaceX would wait another two years before trying again.

Musk’s announcement comes just a day after he confirmed his departure from the administration of United States President Donald Trump, following a tumultuous few months in which his various businesses – including SpaceX and electric car maker Tesla – have come under growing strain.

Musk’s unofficial role leading Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has placed him in the crosshairs, as he has faced intense criticism for overseeing what has been decried as haphazard cuts to government programmes.

Faced with plunging stock prices and shareholder concern – most notably at Tesla – Musk said this week he would scale back his government role to focus on his private ventures.

Missed deadlines

In 2016, Musk said he wanted to send an uncrewed SpaceX vehicle to Mars as early as 2018, while he was targeting 2024 to launch the first crewed mission there.

But the mercurial entrepreneur’s ambitions for interplanetary exploration have been beset by repeated setbacks over recent years.

Most recently, on Tuesday, Musk was due to deliver a live webcast from the company’s Starbase in Texas following a ninth test flight of Starship that evening.

But the speech was cancelled without notice after Starship spun out of control and disintegrated about 30 minutes after launch, roughly halfway through its flight path, failing to achieve some of its most important test goals.

The mega-rocket re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere earlier than planned on Wednesday after a fuel leak triggered uncontrollable spinning in space, according to the Reuters news agency.

Posting on X after the failed flight, Musk said the test produced a lot of “good data to review” as he promised a faster launch “cadence” for the next several attempts.

There was also a failed launch in January – when the craft blew up moments after liftoff, raining debris over parts of the Caribbean and forcing commercial jetliners to change course – as well as in March.

Musk, who has spent billions of dollars on Starship’s development, says the initiative is part of SpaceX’s plan to colonise Mars.

The firm is also working with US government agency NASA to return humans to the Moon in 2027 onboard Starship, more than half a century since astronauts last walked on the lunar surface in 1972.

These efforts are a stepping stone towards launching NASA astronauts to Mars sometime in the 2030s.