Sexual Assault

Former Dodgers pitcher Trevor Bauer will pitch for a U.S. team for the first time since 2021 when he serves as the opening day starter for the Long Island Ducks of the independent Atlantic League later this month.

Since his last MLB start, on June 28, 2021, Bauer has been accused of sexual assault by four women. He denies all the allegations and has never been charged with a crime.

After Bauer served a 194-game suspension for violating the league’s sexual assault and domestic violence policy, the Dodgers severed ties with the 2020 National League Cy Young Award winner on Jan. 6, 2023, less than two years after signing him to a three-year, $102-million contract.

Bauer has said he wants to pitch for an MLB team again but until now has only received opportunities to play professionally in Mexico and Japan.

“We are excited to welcome Trevor to Long Island,” Michael Pfaff, Ducks president and chief business officer, said in a Thursday news release announcing Bauer’s signing. “His talent and knowledge will be important additions to our ballclub, and we are happy to offer him this opportunity to showcase his talents to MLB clubs while giving fans unprecedented access to Ducks baseball.”

According to the release, “Bauer will be ‘Mic’d Up’ for all games and practices for the purposes of content creation to be featured on his and the team’s social media and streaming outlets.”

The Ducks did not immediately respond to further questions from The Times regarding Bauer’s signing.

Bauer is expected to start when the team opens the season at home April 21 against the Hagerstown Flying Boxcars.

“I’m looking forward to competing in front of U.S. fans again this season,” Bauer said in a statement released by his new team. “The Ducks have had some incredible players come through their organization, and I’m excited to be part of that tradition.”

British politician and peer Peter Mandelson tried to help convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in arranging for a visit by his “goddaughter” to 10 Downing Street at a time when Epstein was in prison for procuring a minor for prostitution, emails released by the US Department of Justice reveal.

Mandelson was serving as business secretary in the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and sitting on the House of Lords frontbench at the time. Epstein, meanwhile, was a convicted sex offender and was serving an 18-month sentence in Florida.

In an email exchange, Epstein told Glenn Dubin, a hedge fund manager whose child he called his “goddaughter”, that he would “organize a trip to Number !O, and the House of Lords with Peter Mandelson for you guys”.

On the same day, Epstein wrote directly to Mandelson saying that “the most important person to me next to you of course) is my goddaughter that will be in London on Wednesday and Thursday of next week what can we do to make it a very special trip, I would really appreciate it”.

In the exchange, Mandelson asks, “how old?, to which Epstein replied “15”, adding that she will be with her parents. “House of lords, number 10, just for ten minutes, it would mean a lot to me”, he added.

Mandelson responds: “Fine on all”. Epstein responds: “Great”.

Days later, Mandelson replied that he was “trying my best to accommodate” the request and that “we are still on the case… [and] hope something will fall into place”. Epstein subsequently forwarded Mandelson’s response to Dubin.

‘Andrew had tea with the Dubin kids’

These emails are among thousands of messages in the latest tranche of the Epstein files that mention Mandelson – a central figure in modern British politics for decades, long noted for his ability to survive repeated scandals. The exchange offers a glimpse into how Epstein appeared to leverage his relationship with Mandelson while he was in the United Kingdom’s government. In turn, Mandelson appeared willing to open doors for Epstein while he was a convicted sex offender.

Al Jazeera has contacted Downing Street for comment.

Dubin later wrote to Epstein: “Grt time in buck palace…. ….andrew was great. Thx! G”

Fifteen minutes later, Epstein wrote to convicted child sex trafficker and former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell: “andrew had tea with the dubin kids and glenn.”

The emails appear to refer to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, ex-prince and brother of Britain’s King Charles. Mountbatten-Windsor was accused by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre of sexual assault, specifically alleging he raped her on three occasions in 2001 when she was 17, as part of a sex-trafficking ring run by Epstein. These allegations led to a 2021 lawsuit for sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which was later settled out of court.

Glenn Dubin’s daughter and Epstein’s so-called goddaughter is Celina Dubin. She is the daughter of Eva Andersson-Dubin, a former girlfriend of Epstein.

Email exchanges suggest that following this visit to London, Epstein stayed in contact with Glenn Dubin’s daughter — who the sex offender called his “goddaughter”.

Calls for UK prime minister to resign

The correspondence raises questions about why Peter Mandelson – who was aware of Epstein’s conviction for procuring a minor for prostitution – was prepared to facilitate an arrangement for Epstein and an underage girl while he was a UK government minister.

At the time of the 2009 exchange, Mandelson had returned to government, serving in a senior Labour role from 2008 to 2010. After leaving office, he built a lucrative global consulting career before re-entering public life, when Prime Minister Keir Starmer appointed him ambassador to the United States in 2024.

His relationship with Epstein, who died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges, has since become a problem that will not go away for the UK government, and has even led to calls for Starmer to resign.

The release of some Epstein files by the US Department of Justice in September 2025 led to Mandelson stepping down as US ambassador. A second tranche, published on January 30, alleged that he had passed sensitive government information to Epstein on several occasions, according to the files. The claims prompted the British government to refer the matter to police for possible prosecution. Mandelson was briefly arrested in February before being released on bail, while investigations into allegations against him continue.

The political fallout, meanwhile, has since widened, forcing the resignation of two senior government aides. In an attempt to contain the crisis, the prime minister said all documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment would be made public, a move that has instead intensified scrutiny.

The initial release of what have become known as the “Mandelson files” showed that, ahead of his appointment to Washington, UK officials had explicitly warned that his long-standing ties to Epstein posed a “reputational risk” to the country.

Government documents indicate that during the vetting process in late 2024, Mandelson repeatedly denied key aspects of his relationship with Epstein, including whether he had stayed with the sex offender after his 2008 conviction. However, internal correspondence shows officials were aware of the relationship, discussed it as part of due diligence, and raised concerns with the prime minister’s chief of staff. The appointment nonetheless went ahead.

Starmer has since apologised for the decision. Further WhatsApp messages are expected to be released in the coming days, and could prompt fresh calls for Starmer’s resignation, raising questions about how much more damage the UK government can sustain.

‘Like the bad boy you are’

One of Mandelson’s first recorded interactions from the files is with Ghislaine Maxwell.

As far back as June 2002, the emails show him already in direct contact with her, stepping into a world that blurred intimacy and power.

“I love disgusting. That’s why I am wild and dangerous…” Mandelson wrote to Maxwell.

In the same exchange, the tone shifted to potential political and business advisory work in the United States, invoking contacts linked to former US Senator George Mitchell.

In the same exchange, Mandelson appears to have gate-crashed a lunch with Epstein, prompting a rebuke relayed through Maxwell: “You spoiled Jeffrey’s lunch. Pete, I have warned you about that before. Behave or you will be punished like the bad boy you are.”

At the time, Mandelson was in exile from political life. It was 2002, and he had already been forced to resign twice from government — first, after taking a loan of 373,000 pounds ($496,700) from fellow minister Geoffrey Robinson to help purchase a house, then after being accused of intervening in a passport application for the businessman Srichand Hinduja.

It was in this vacuum of political hiatus that Mandelson would cultivate his business and personal connections with Epstein.

These early messages set the pattern for what followed: Long, meandering exchanges between Mandelson and Epstein in which sexual innuendo sits alongside business.

By 2003, messages from Mandelson to Epstein were being preserved in a 50th birthday book compiled for Epstein. Several pages show photographs of the two men together, accompanied by handwritten notes in which Mandelson refers to Epstein as his “best pal”.

The book itself was gifted in 2003, but it remained out of public view until its release two decades later, in September last year.

Financial links also surface from this release of files. Bank statements from 2003 and June 2004 appear to show Epstein making several payments, worth $25,000 each, to accounts associated with Mandelson, as reported by the Financial Times.

Other emails also suggest Mandelson desired a life that domestic politics could not afford. Epstein offered Mandelson access to the seemingly limitless excess of the ultra-wealthy. “When are you going to the island at Xmas? I am having trouble getting air tickets to St Barts and was wondering about going via US, NY or Miami,” asked Mandelson in one exchange in 2005.

Epstein’s reply was characteristically transactional. “I can pay for your tickets if needed.” Whether the offer was accepted remains unclear. Another message from Maxwell to Epstein read: “Asked Mandelson how he is getting to the island – he sd I hope JE is sending the chopper…so I take it you want me to give him a ride on the plane”.

The messages suggest that Mandelson was impressed by the allure of Epstein’s island in the Caribbean – and his mansion in New York that he frequented repeatedly, according to the correspondence released by the Justice Department. Pictures that have since shown Mandelson in a dressing gown laughing with Epstein alongside Mountbatten-Windsor, who was then Prince Andrew — he was stripped of his royal titles in late 2025 because of the revelations of his close relationship with Epstein.

Another released photo shows Mandelson in his underwear speaking with an unidentified woman at what was reportedly Epstein’s residence.

In another email in 2002, Mandelson told Maxwell of a cancelled meeting in Paris and then asked her if he could “stay on for a few days to have complete peace”. It is unclear why he was seeking her permission to stay in Paris — and whether Maxwell and Epstein were covering his costs in the French capital.

Then, in 2008, Epstein was arrested on suspicion of soliciting a minor for prostitution. While many of his former contacts have said that they cut off ties with him around this time, the files reveal that Mandelson positioned himself as a kind of informal counsellor, coaching Epstein through the mounting allegations.

“You are fighting back so you need strategy,” he wrote. He pressed repeatedly for updates, for “developments”, and asked whether everything was being handled.

“Hope you are strategising,” he added, in another message.

Upon finding out about the conviction, Mandelson wrote: “I think the world of you and I feel hopeless and furious about what has happened … Your friends stay with you and love you.”

‘Special unpaid adviser’

Following Epstein’s conviction, the two did not cut off contact. The files suggest that Mandelson and Epstein were in more regular communication even as the financier was serving a prison sentence for soliciting prostitution with an underage girl.

This rate of emails again intensified in June 2009, when Mandelson was appointed first secretary of state, effectively the second most powerful figure in Gordon Brown’s government. Epstein appeared to take pride in the promotion. In one message, Epstein circulated a Guardian article about Mandelson’s new role to Maxwell and alleged sex trafficker and model scout Jean-Luc Brunel. In another email, he congratulated Epstein for his “comeback” and said his appointment made him “proud”. In another, he broadcast the news to his network of powerful associates, including senior figures at JPMorgan such as Jes Staley, writing to him: “For all intents and purposes Peter Mandelson is now deputy prime minister”.

At times, Epstein seemed to act as an intermediary between Mandelson and Staley – who, according to multiple documents in the Epstein files, is alleged to have sexually assaulted a woman, a claim he denies.

The files suggest Epstein passed messages between Mandelson and senior JPMorgan figures, facilitating introductions and discussions around financial and policy matters. Staley, for instance, asked Epstein to arrange meetings with Mandelson, which appeared to take place in December 2009, February 2010, and a call set up by Epstein in March 2010 – and another call with either Mandelson or then-Chancellor Alistair Darling in January 2010.

The tone of the correspondence oscillated between admiration and calculation. In one exchange, Epstein described Mandelson as “devious” after he lobbied a bank to underwrite a mining project backed by their mutual associate Nat Rothschild, as reported by the Guardian.

Epstein also began offering advice. He suggested Mandelson could leverage his new position, “in charge of all universities”, to establish a prize in “cyberwar artificial general intelligence”, an area in which Epstein himself held business interests. Mandelson’s reply was telling: “You can become my special unpaid adviser.”

Other messages reportedly suggest Mandelson may have tipped Epstein off about sensitive political developments, including Brown’s impending resignation in 2010 and a 500-billion-euro ($580bn) European Union bailout designed to stabilise the Greek debt crisis.

In a separate exchange, days after his appointment as first secretary of state, Mandelson forwarded Epstein a private email sent to Brown containing sensitive market information, including discussions of potential government asset sales, tax policy, and business expectations that the Conservatives would win the next election.

The forwarded “interesting note” was from Nick Butler, a special adviser, outlining “business issues” for the prime minister. Epstein, still in prison at the time, responded with policy advice of his own. The government, he wrote, should consider not only physical assets but “INTELLECTUAL assets, that are not being exploited”, effectively advising a sitting cabinet minister on economic strategy.

‘You are the only person that knows everything about me’

The weekend after this correspondence, Mandelson appeared to have stayed at Epstein’s residence. At the same time, the two continued a close personal relationship. In one exchange, Mandelson told Epstein: “Had a long dream about you last night.”

In another exchange, Epstein appeared to act as a confidant. Mandelson, writing from the Lords frontbench while seemingly engaged in parliamentary business, asked whether Epstein had spoken to a contact.

The correspondence then turned to a figure named Simone. “I am worried about Simone who is totally despairing,” Mandelson wrote. “I am not sure what else to do. Any ideas?”

Epstein advised him to travel to New York: “Yes, you should go to New York for a weekend… I have been consistent on this. Do not lose the opportunity. Coming across people you really enjoy is rare – don’t be lazy, get on a plane.”

“You are the only person who knows everything about me,” Mandelson later responded.

Weeks later, however, Epstein appeared to change his position. He wrote: “I’m rethinking the Simone issue with your new profile. I’m afraid it’s asking for serious trouble. It won’t be kept quiet. Rinalado will go ballistic. Fraught with danger.”

Financial links emerge again shortly after. It is widely reported that in September 2009, Mandelson’s husband, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, emailed Epstein requesting financial help to cover the costs of an osteopathy course, including fees, equipment and a laptop. Epstein agreed: “I will wire your loan amount immediately.”

A payment of 10,000 pounds ($13,310) followed. When da Silva sought clarification on whether the amount covered his school fees, Epstein confirmed it did. Mandelson, in turn, emailed Epstein with a note of caution: “Remind him that to avoid a gift-tax filing, it must be a loan.”

Days later, da Silva confirmed receipt of the funds: “Thank you for the money which arrived in my account this morning.”

The contact between Mandelson and Epstein did not end there. According to the files, the two remained in communication until 2016, while the UK government’s own due diligence report says the relationship continued until 2019.

In one of their final exchanges, Mandelson’s fascination with power appeared to endure. “By the way, as political practitioner, Donald is phenomenal,” he wrote, referring to US President Donald Trump. “The craft and tenacity are amazing.”

A Lahore court has ruled in favour of Pakistani singer Ali Zafar in his defamation case against fellow singer Meesha Shafi. On Tuesday, the court ordered Shafi to pay Zafar 5 million rupees ($17,900) in damages.

Zafar sued Shafi for defamation in 2018 after she accused him of sexual harassment in Pakistan’s highest-profile #MeToo case.

What has the court ruled?

The court’s ruling, which has not been released to the public but has been seen by several Pakistani media outlets, states that a 2018 social media post by Shafi and an interview she gave to a lifestyle magazine contained “false, defamatory and injurious imputations” against the plaintiff, Zafar.

The court found that her allegations of sexual harassment of a physical nature had not been proved to be true or shown to be made for the public good, and therefore constituted actionable defamation, according to Pakistan’s leading daily newspaper, Dawn.

The court added that Shafi was to be “permanently restrained from repeating, publishing, or causing to be published, directly or indirectly, the aforesaid defamatory allegations of sexual harassment of a physical nature against the plaintiff, in any form of media”.

This order will be appealed to the High Court, Nighat Dad, the lawyer who represented Shafi in court, told Al Jazeera.

As well as a member of Shafi’s legal team, Dad is the executive director of a nongovernmental, research-based advocacy organisation, the Digital Rights Foundation.

She said: “The appeal is likely to challenge the judgement on several grounds: that the trial court misread and selectively interpreted the evidence, failed to properly consider material evidence presented by Meesha, and overlooked the legal context, particularly that her sexual harassment complaint against Ali Zafar is still pending before the Supreme Court.”

What was the #MeToo case involving Shafi and Zafar?

In April 2018, Shafi, now 44, posted a statement through a series of posts on X, then called Twitter, accusing Zafar of sexually harassing her on multiple occasions.

Shafi wrote: “I have been subjected, on more than one occasion, to sexual harassment of a physical nature at the hands of a colleague from my industry: Ali Zafar.”

Shafi added that she was speaking up as an “empowered, accomplished woman who is known for speaking her mind!”

In her posts, Shafi referred to the global “#MeToo” movement by women and girls against sexual harassment and assault.

The hashtag gained worldwide prominence in 2017 when women in Hollywood and beyond began speaking out in the wake of allegations against the former American film producer and now convicted sex offender, Harvey Weinstein.

Within hours of Shafi’s post, Zafar, now 45, responded on X: “I categorically deny any and all claims of harassment lodged against me by Ms Shafi.”

He added that he intended to take the allegation to “the courts of law” and to address them legally rather than “contesting personal vendettas on social media and in turn disrespecting the movement”.

Shafi and Zafar were once known to be friends and are both prominent figures in Pakistan’s entertainment industry. Both have also made appearances in films outside Pakistan. Shafi even performed a small cameo role in 2003 in a music video for Zafar’s first album.

In April 2018, Shafi spoke about her allegations against Zafar during an interview with fashion and lifestyle magazine Instep Pakistan.

She told the magazine that she had not publicly spoken about the harassment at the time it happened because “I’m a public figure and so is he (Ali Zafar). My thought process was who I am and who he is and what that’s going to lead to. Being ready to talk was far off because it had just happened. I buried it.”

Have other women accused Zafar of inappropriate behaviour?

Yes. Several Pakistani celebrities and public figures posted in support of Shafi online after her 2018 X posts.

Additionally, other women came forward to accuse Zafar of sexual harassment.

They included makeup artist and painter Leena Ghani, who wrote in a statement on X in April 2018 that Zafar had on “several occasions” crossed the boundaries of what is considered appropriate behaviour between friends.

“Inappropriate contact, groping, sexual comments should not fall in the grey area between humour and indecency,” Ghani said.

Maham Javaid, a journalist who now works for The Washington Post, alleged in April 2018 that Zafar had tried to kiss her cousin and pull her inside a restroom in a now-deleted X post.

How has the dispute between Shafi and Zafar unfolded?

The pair have filed a slew of complaints against each other.

In June 2018, Zafar filed his one‑billion‑rupee defamation suit against Shafi. At the time, that was equivalent to more than $8m. It is now equivalent to $3.5m, due to the devaluation of the Pakistani rupee.

Shafi then filed a complaint about the alleged harassment before the Ombudsperson Punjab for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace, later in 2018.

Her complaint was rejected on the technical grounds that she and Zafar did not have an employer-employee relationship. An appeal is pending in the Supreme Court.

Zafar also filed a separate cybercrime complaint with the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in November 2018, alleging that Shafi and others were running a coordinated smear campaign against him on social media.

Based on this report, the FIA filed a First Information Report (FIR) against Shafi and eight others in September 2020 under Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA).

Those named in the complaint included Ghani, Javaid, comedian Ali Gul Pir and actor Iffat Omar, who had publicly supported Shafi and posted critical comments about Zafar online. The PECA offences they were charged under – criminal defamation provisions covering “offences against dignity” – carried a maximum penalty of three years in prison.

It is not known publicly whether the FIA cybercrime case has reached a verdict.

In September 2019, Shafi filed her own two-billion-rupee civil defamation suit against Zafar in a Lahore court, accusing him of making false allegations about her in the media. Two billion rupees was worth roughly $13m when Shafi filed the suit in 2019; due to the rupee’s steep depreciation, the same amount is now worth about $7m. That case is ongoing.

What has been the response to this week’s defamation ruling?

Actor and television host Iffat Omar, who was also named in the FIA cybercrime case and was also a witness for Shafi in Zafar’s defamation case against her, criticised the court ruling in an X post on Tuesday.

Omar wrote: “People were silenced, pressured, bought, and scared. The entire support system was broken. On top of that, we were accused of running a foreign agenda, of being paid huge amounts in dollars. I said it then, and I say it again – prove it in court. I am ready to open all my bank accounts, everything.”

Last week, Saqib Jilani, another of Shafi’s lawyers, asked the Lahore court to dismiss the defamation lawsuit, arguing that Zafar had not produced any concrete evidence to support his defamation claims.

Also last week, Shafi’s mother, the Pakistani actor Saba Hameed, who has been attending court proceedings in Pakistan while her daughter lives in Canada, told reporters: “We have been fighting this for eight years, and we are not accepting defeat in this matter.”

What happens next?

Shafi’s legal team intends to appeal the defamation ruling in favour of Zafar to the High Court. “This is far from the end of the road,” Dad told Al Jazeera.

She added that other legal actions relating to this are ongoing.

“Meesha Shafi’s original complaint of sexual harassment against Ali Zafar has been pending before the Supreme Court for several years now,” Dad explained, referring to the 2018 complaint dismissed on technical grounds by the Office of the Ombudsperson Punjab for Protection Against Harassment of Women, but which Shafi has appealed.

“Separately, Ali Zafar initiated a criminal case alleging cyber-defamation against Meesha and her witnesses, which also reached the Supreme Court and is currently stayed.”

Dad said that Shafi’s civil defamation suit against Zafar is also still pending.

Why is this significant?

“This ruling risks setting a deeply troubling precedent,” Dad said.

Currently, she said, survivors of sexual harassment face major legal, social and reputational barriers. Decisions like the Lahore court’s recent order are likely to discourage victims of sexual harassment “from speaking out at all”.

“If defamation law is interpreted in a way that punishes speech before underlying harassment claims are even adjudicated, it shifts the burden unfairly onto survivors and reinforces silence over accountability,” Dad added.

“And that is the real danger here.”

In a new report, Doctors Without Borders says sexual violence is the ‘defining feature’ of the conflict in Sudan.

Hanaan was 18 years old when she was raped by members of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group accused of committing widespread “war crimes” during nearly three years of fighting against Sudan’s army.

She was walking alongside a female friend to her makeshift home in an encampment for displaced people in South Darfur, when four men on motorbikes stopped them and asked where they were going.

“Two took each girl, and they raped us,” she told Doctors Without Borders, an international medical NGO known by its French initials MSF.

“I feel uncomfortable in my body, heavy. I don’t feel pain, apart from in my back – because they beat me, they beat me with their guns on my back,” she said.

Hanaan – not her real name – shared her testimony as part of a report released by MSF on Tuesday, which details the widespread use of sexual violence as a weapon in Sudan’s ongoing brutal civil war.

The NGO said 3,396 survivors of sexual violence sought treatment in MSF-supported health facilities across North and South Darfur between January 2024 and November 2025.

The data, presented in the report titled, There is Something I Want to Tell You…, was drawn from MSF programmes in just two of Sudan’s 18 states and reflects only a fraction of the crisis, while the true scale of the phenomenon remains unknown.

Women and girls accounted for 97 percent of survivors treated in MSF programmes. The RSF and allied militias were found to be primarily responsible for the systematic abuse.

Children among the survivors

“Sexual violence is a defining feature of this conflict – not confined to front lines, but pervasive across communities,” Ruth Kauffman, MSF emergency health manager, said in a statement.

“This war is being fought on the backs and bodies of women and girls. Displacement, collapsing community support systems, lack of access to healthcare and deep-rooted gender inequalities are allowing these abuses to continue across Sudan.”

Following the RSF’s capture of el-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, on October 26, 2025, MSF treated more than 140 survivors fleeing to Tawila. Among them, 94 percent were attacked by armed men, with many reporting assaults along escape routes.

The assaults “deliberately targeted non-Arab communities as a means of humiliation and terror, echoing previous RSF atrocities such as the dismantling of Zamzam camp”, the report said. The RSF took control of famine-hit Zamzam camp in the western Darfur region after two days of heavy shelling and gunfire in April 2025.

Survivors described attacks not only during fighting, but in everyday settings, such as fields, markets and displacement camps.

Children were also among the survivors. In South Darfur, one in five survivors was under 18, including 41 children younger than five, the organisation said.

MSF called on the United Nations, donors and humanitarian actors to urgently scale up health and protection services in Darfur and all of Sudan, and on all parties to the conflict to cease and prevent sexual violence and hold perpetrators accountable.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced Thursday that it has launched an investigation into two California women’s prisons to determine if they unconstitutionally provided housing and preferential treatment to “biological male prisoners.”

In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon — who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division — said investigators will look into “widely reported allegations of deprivation of female prisoners’ rights” at the Central California Women’s Facility in Madera County and the California Institution for Women in San Bernardino County.

The Justice Department said in a news release that there have been allegations “of sexual assaults, rape, voyeurism and a pervasive climate of sexual intimidation due to the presence of males in the women’s prison.”

Newsom’s office referred The Times to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. A spokesperson for the agency said it is “committed to providing a safe, humane, respectful and rehabilitative environment for all incarcerated people.”

The Department of Justice also notified Maine Gov. Janet Mills of an investigation into allegations that the state “has allowed a biological male inmate to remain housed with women despite complaints that the male inmate has assaulted or harassed several female inmates.”

Dhillon said in a video posted on X that the investigations are part of a new project called the “single-sex prisons initiative” to look for potential civil rights violations in which female inmates are forced “to be in the same rooms with men who are posing as women to get access to the female prisons.”

“In California there are reports of many dozen such men housed in women’s prisons which of course is exposing these women to sexual assault and other forms of violence and harassment that, if true, are extremely troubling and could violate the civil rights of these women,” Dhillon said.

In 2020, Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 132, which gives transgender, nonbinary and intersex inmates at state prisons the right to be housed at either men’s or women’s facilities. Opponents of the law sued the following year, alleging that it was unconstitutional and created an unsafe environment for women in female facilities, with some plaintiffs claiming they were assaulted.

At the time, LGBTQ+ advocates slammed the suit as baseless and damaging.

“The way they wrote [the complaint] is saying that trans women are men and they are putting men in women’s prisons, which is completely false,” Bamby Salcedo, president and chief executive of the TransLatin@ Coalition, which cosponsored SB 132, previously told The Times. “They’re making a claim that is not accurate and not respectful towards trans women specifically.”

In an interview with the Times Thursday, Salcedo said that while there may be instances in which people have abused the law, she stressed “it is the responsibility of the CDCR to protect people who are incarcerated.”

“They should be able to not just follow the law, but also to be able to screen people appropriately,” Salcedo said.

Salcedo said she was not surprised to hear about the new Justice Department investigation, calling it “an effort for this administration to continue to deny opportunities and access to trans people in our society.”

The Women’s Liberation Front, which brought the lawsuit, announced this week that a federal court had dismissed the case but that they planned to appeal. In an emailed statement, Elspeth Cypher, Women’s Liberation Front board president, called the Justice Department investigation “welcome and long overdue.”

“I hope that this investigation provides the women in prison with some hope that finally someone is listening,” Cypher said.

Under the bill enacted in 2021, 1,028 inmates housed at male prisons have requested to be moved to female facilities, according to data as of March 4. The department had granted 47 requests and denied 132. Another 140 applicants “changed their minds,” according to the department.

State officials said that 84 inmates sought to be transferred into men’s facilities from women’s prisons. Of those, seven were approved.

According to the corrections department, 2,405 inmates identify as nonbinary, intersex or transgender. Those populations are said to experience excessive violence in prison. A 2007 UC Irvine study that included interviews with 39 transgender inmates found that the rate of sexual assault is 13 times higher for transgender people, with 59% of those surveyed reporting experiencing such encounters.

The Justice Department said Thursday that its investigation was just getting underway and that it “has not reached any conclusions regarding allegations in these matters.”

“I’m very determined to ensure that no woman who’s incarcerated in the United States is subject to potential rape, sexual assault or other violations of her civil rights as a condition of incarceration to satisfy some woke ideology by the state,” Dhillon said. “If these states are violating these rights and they don’t stop, we will make them through litigation.”

Content note: This story contains details of sexual violence. 

Civil rights icon Dolores Huerta is one of several women in the United States speaking out against the sexual violence they say they endured at the hands of labour leader Cesar Chavez.

In a statement on Wednesday, Huerta said she was motivated to speak out after being contacted for an investigation by The New York Times, which revealed that children as young as age 12 were abused by Chavez.

“I am nearly 96 years old, and for the last 60 years have kept a secret because I believed that exposing the truth would hurt the farmworker movement I have spent my entire life fighting for,” Huerta wrote.

“Following the New York Times’ multi-year investigation into sexual misconduct by Cesar Chavez, I can no longer stay silent and must share my own experiences.”

Chavez, who died in 1993, co-founded the National Farm Workers Association alongside Huerta and other advocates. They rose to fame during the US civil rights movement of the 1960s, practising nonviolent protest techniques similar to those of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

Together, Chavez, Huerta and other advocates drew attention to the abuses facing vulnerable immigrant farmworkers, particularly in the Hispanic and Filipino American communities.

Some of the slogans from the movement continue to have resonance in the US political sphere.

The Spanish phrase “si, se puede” — or, in English, “yes, we can” — was adopted as the campaign slogan for President Barack Obama, while the Tagalog phrase “isang bagsak” continues to be a rallying cry for collective organising.

The fight for equality and fair labour practices that Huerta and Chavez led would be remembered as one of the defining moments of the 1960s.

But it was out of fear of denting the burgeoning civil rights movement that Huerta and other women say they stayed silent about Chavez’s abuse.

“I carried this secret for as long as I did because building the movement and securing farmworker rights was my life’s work,” Huerta said in her statement.

“I wasn’t going to let Cesar or anyone else get in the way. I channeled everything I had into advocating on behalf of millions of farmworkers and others who were suffering and deserved equal rights.”

Huerta explained that the first time she had sex with Chavez, she was “manipulated and pressured” into submitting to his advances while on a trip to San Juan Capistrano.

“I didn’t feel I could say no because he was someone that I admired, my boss and the leader of the movement I had already devoted years of my life to,” she said.

The second time, she said she was “forced, against my will”. The New York Times investigation includes a summary of what Huerta says happened: She was in a car that Chavez was driving when he parked in an isolated grape field and raped her.

Both instances resulted in pregnancies, which Huerta says she kept secret. The children were ultimately given to other families to raise.

“I had experienced abuse and sexual violence before, and I convinced myself these were incidents that I had to endure alone and in secret,” she said.

Her story was echoed by the accounts of other women featured in The New York Times investigation.

One of the interviewees, Ana Murguia, said she was 13 when a 45-year-old Chavez kissed her, took off her clothes and tried to have sex with her in his locked office.

He had known her since she was eight years old, and the abuse at his hands prompted her to attempt suicide.

Debra Rojas, meanwhile, was 12 years old when Chavez began groping her. She described being 15 when she was raped by him at a motel near Stockton, California.

A third woman, Esmeralda Lopez, said she was 19 when Chavez tried to pressure her to have sex with him while they were alone on a tour, offering to use his influence to get something named in her honour.

Lopez said she refused his advances, and her mother, a fellow activist, corroborated her account, based on conversations they had at the time.

The women explained that they grappled with whether to come forward and whether they would be believed, given Chavez’s rise to fame as a civil rights hero.

In response to the widening scandal on Wednesday, United Farm Workers — the group that emerged from the National Farm Workers Association — announced it would not participate in any events on Cesar Chavez Day, a federal commemoration that falls on the late leader’s birthday.

The group denied receiving any direct reports of abuse, but it pledged to create a pathway for reports to be submitted.

“Over the coming weeks, in partnership with experts in these kinds of processes, we are working to establish an external, confidential, independent channel for those who may have experienced harm caused by Cesar Chavez,” United Farm Workers wrote in a statement.

“These allegations have been profoundly shocking. We need some time to get this right, including to ensure robust, trauma-informed services are available to those who may need it.”

Lawmakers across the political spectrum, from Texas Governor Greg Abbott to New Mexico Representative Ben Ray Lujan, also called for Chavez’s name to be stripped from public buildings, roads and other places of honour.

Lujan called the revelations in Wednesday’s New York Times report “horrific” and a “betrayal of the values that Latino leaders have championed for generations”.

“His name should be removed from landmarks, institutions, and honors,” Lujan said of Chavez. “We cannot celebrate someone who carried out such disturbing harm.”

Huerta, meanwhile, said that, in the wake of the investigation, community advocacy was more important than ever.

“I have kept this secret long enough,” she wrote. “My silence ends here.”

The Israeli military has dropped charges against five soldiers, whose alleged sexual abuse of a Palestinian detainee was caught on camera. The video caused international outrage but also led to protests in support of the soldiers in Israel.