states

Aug. 28 (UPI) — The Justice Department is suing four more states over offering in-state tuition benefits to qualifying undocumented students, for a total of 21 lawsuits filed against so-called Dream Acts amid the Trump administration’s anti-immigration push.

The lawsuits against Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington — all Democratic-led — were individually filed Thursday, alleging their laws providing undocumented students with in-state tuition and financial assistance unconstitutionally discriminate against out-of-state U.S. citizens to whom such benefits are not offered.

“By granting illegal aliens in-state tuition, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico and Arizona are pushing citizens to the side and ignoring federal law. No more,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. said in a statement.

“Our efforts will not cease until President Trump’s promise is fulfilled: illegal aliens will not receive benefits denied to American citizens.”

The Trump administration is asking the courts to enjoin the states from enforcing their so-called Dream Acts that require colleges and universities to offer the in-state benefits to certain noncitizen students. The lawsuits argue the laws conflict with a 1996 federal statute that bars states from offering in-state tuition to people not lawfully present in the United States unless a citizen of the United States is eligible for the same benefit without regard to whether they are a resident of the school’s state.

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson said he plans to fight the lawsuit.

“Washington State won’t be bullied into changing how we provide opportunities for young people in our state,” he said in a statement.

“We’ll see them in court, and we expect to win.”

The Justice Department has been targeting these laws following an April 2025 Trump-signed executive order that directed the attorney general to identify and stop enforcement of policies that favor “aliens over any groups of American citizens,” specifically highlighting Dream Act laws.

Proponents of these laws argue that they put postsecondary education within reach of those who otherwise would never have the opportunity to attend university, while reducing high school dropout rates as well as raising student incomes and tax contributions.

Of the 21 lawsuits, five states have been enjoined from enforcing their laws, while the other lawsuits continue to be litigated.

The Iran war is settling into attrition, with no regime collapse and Gulf economies facing growing uncertainty

Analysts broadly agree the United States and Israel’s war on Iran will not see regime collapse in Tehran or a definite victory for Washington, but rather a dragged-out affair of stagnation and attrition.

The hope among the US leadership at the start of the war, which began after surprise Israeli and US attacks on February 28, was that mounting economic and military pressure on Iran would force a structural shift in Tehran. Six months on, it is clear this vision will not come about, and instead many are preparing for a protracted war and managed fallout.

Oil-dependent economies are still absorbing supply shocks after traffic in the Strait of Hormuz slowed to a trickle of pre-war levels following Iran’s attacks on shipping and a US blockade on Iranian ports.

The US military is still entrenched in a region that remains its most militarised in years. Although the war’s intensity has lessened since a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed by Washington and Tehran in June, there is no sign it will conclude, leading to continued uncertainty about the future.

Existing tensions, such as those between the Houthi rebels and Saudi Arabia in Yemen, look only set to increase as the war drags on. The influence of rival powers, such as those of India and China, remains stalled rather than stopped, with Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative having already established itself within the Middle East and North Africa. All in all, the region remains in flux where formal alliances with outside powers no longer guarantee safety.

The defence agreement between Turkiye, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recently signed in Mecca will likely be the first of many such military pacts agreed in the region.

“The war has just accelerated trends, but hasn’t really started anything that wasn’t already under way. The Gulf countries were already diversifying their economies,” Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera. “Many were already looking at broadening their defence partnerships beyond existing US security guarantees, as well as increasing their own defence capability.”

Israel, for its part, is still pursuing its regional project of “paramountcy”, HA Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute said, despite its failure to bring Iran to its knees this year.

“There is no chance of the government in Tehran falling in the next six months,” Hellyer told Al Jazeera. “If everything were to theoretically stay the same … with just increased economic pressure, that could eventually cause a ripple effect that could lead to state collapse in Iran. But we’re talking years, not months, and everything is not likely to stay the same.”

The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and strikes on regional cities have hindered Gulf states’ plans to use oil revenues as an engine to diversify their economies and build on their reputations as a safe haven to encourage investors.

Shipments of oil, derivative products and liquefied natural gas (LNG) have been repeatedly and severely disrupted since the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran in February.

Transit through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, which saw attacks on shipping by the Houthis during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, became even more hazardous in July, when the Iran-allied Houthis declared a naval blockade of Saudi Arabia.

“The price of oil has increased broadly in line with the Gulf states’ difficulties in exporting it,” John Sfakianakis, chief economist at the Gulf Research Center, told Al Jazeera. “Is this going to go for six months? Is it going to go on for longer?”

Exacerbating the Gulf states’ difficulties is that, although the price of oil has risen, so has inflation. In addition to the economic difficulties the war has created, there is also growing pressure for Gulf states to invest more in defence.

For now, the majority of the states caught in the middle will look at ways of living with the turmoil and managing the consequences.

WASHINGTON — Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton swept the Southern states in Super Tuesday’s Democratic presidential voting, including delegate-rich Texas and Florida, re-establishing himself as the front-runner for his party’s nomination.

Former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas, Clinton’s principal rival, had his chief success in his home state, which he won easily as expected. He also won the Rhode Island primary and the caucuses in Delaware.

But Tsongas did no better than second in the Southern states, including Florida, where he had made his biggest commitment of time and resources and which was generally viewed as the most significant test of the day for him and Clinton. In addition to Florida and Texas, Clinton came in first in the primaries in Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Louisiana, and he won the caucuses in Missouri.

The victories Tuesday brought Clinton 418 delegates, contrasted with 208 for Tsongas and 23 for former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. Clinton started the race with 275 delegates, twice what Tsongas had. The eventual nominee will need a minimum of 2,145 delegates.

“I must say, it is only tonight that I fully understand why they call this Super Tuesday,” Clinton told cheering supporters in Chicago, where he arrived to launch his drive for primaries next Tuesday in Illinois and Michigan. “From Florida to Texas and all states in between, people opened their hearts to Hillary (his wife) and to me.”

For his part, Tsongas put a brave face on the results. “We’re on our way to the White House,” he said at a victory rally in his hometown of Lowell, Mass. He cited a Washington Post-ABC poll published Tuesday that showed him beating President Bush by 5 percentage points in a trial heat, 3 points more than Clinton’s margin over Bush.

Brown had his best showings Tuesday in Massachusetts, Mississippi and Oklahoma, running second in those states.

“This crusade rolls forward,” Brown declared Tuesday night at a United Auto Workers union hall in Romulus, Mich., a suburb of Detroit. “Hey, governing elite, watch out.

“I think I’m a lot closer to the heart and soul of this party” than the other candidates, he claimed. “I’ve got as good a chance as anybody. But this is a campaign that builds week by week. We’ve already moved from the margin to the center.

“We’re getting Tom Harkin’s vote now.” Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin’s role in the campaign as the spokesman for traditional Democratic liberalism ended this week when he dropped out of the race.

All told, 783 delegates–more than one-third the total required for nomination–were at stake in contests waged in 11 states, from Hawaii to Rhode Island. But seven of them were in Dixie or on its borders, which gave the day its special cast and gave Clinton an advantage he fully exploited.

A television network exit poll showed Clinton taking 68% of the vote among native-born Southerners, contrasted with 19% for Tsongas and 8% for Brown.

Once again, as in the Georgia and South Carolina primaries last week, blacks made a big contribution to Clinton’s victory. He got about 80% of the black vote across the South, according to network exit polls, contrasted with 59% of the white vote.

A Times exit poll in Florida showed that voters picked change, compassion and agreement on the issues as the main reasons that influenced their choice for President. Clinton won the support of the first two of these groups soundly and split the third evenly with Tsongas.

Tsongas appeared to have been hurt by Clinton’s charges that he was prepared to tamper with cost-of-living increases for Social Security beneficiaries. About one-fourth of those interviewed in The Times poll said that issue had influenced them, and three-fifths of that group backed Clinton.

Even on this day of triumph, concern over Clinton’s controversial draft status during the Vietnam War cast a shadow. Of Southern Democratic voters polled by the networks, 20% said this issue made them think less favorably of Clinton, although one-third of these voted for him anyway.

By contrast, in Florida, the Times poll showed that Tsongas took the votes of those interested in a candidate whose ethics they do not doubt, whom they believe they can trust, who has convictions and who has values like their own.

These answers appeared to reflect not only their confidence in Tsongas, but also their misgivings about Clinton because of the draft controversy and earlier allegations that he had been unfaithful to his wife. Those charges had damaged his campaign in New Hampshire, when polls had him far in front of the field.

Clinton attempted to address this problem Tuesday night in his victory speech in Chicago.

“The people of the South heard the worst about me but they saw the best,” he said. “They know that the true measure of character in politics can never be perfection, because, if it were, no one could pass. The true measure is genuine commitment that lasts day in and day out, through failures and disappointment and defeat and setback.”

Tsongas, who was outspent and who many thought was outmaneuvered in the day’s battle, sounded a defiant note.

“There are those who believe the American people are not intelligent, that you can be Santa Claus, that you can pander and give middle-class tax cuts,” he said, sounding one of his favorite themes at his Lowell rally. “I’m going to tell you something, Bill Clinton, you’re not going to pander your way into the White House as long as I’m around.”

Brown also sounded as if he had just begun to fight.

“I will tell you that I have a better chance than my two opponents” of getting the nomination, he told ABC News interviewer Peter Jennings. “Both of them are fatally flawed. They don’t represent the majority of who the Democratic Party is. I do. That’s my background.

“It’s hard to get the message out. But as we do, the crowds are going now from the hundreds to the thousands.”

In the frantic days of campaigning that preceded Tuesday’s day of decision, the contrasting objectives of the three Democratic contenders reflected the differences in their prospects and resources.

For Clinton, the balloting presented the opportunity to take a giant step forward in the delegate race and to gain momentum for next week’s critical contests in Illinois and Michigan.

“It’s always been the case that we had more money and more organization than anybody else,” Craig Smith, Clinton’s deputy campaign manager, said on the eve of the balloting. “Our strategy has been to go in and win as many states as we can and roll up a big delegate margin.”

That is exactly what Clinton did Tuesday throughout the South.

Perhaps just as important as these tangible assets in helping Clinton was the region’s demography. It created an environment more receptive to Clinton’s economic message–centered on his call for a small tax cut for middle-class families–than Tsongas’ doctrine of relying mainly on tax incentives for business to generate growth.

“The clarity of choice between Clinton and Tsongas on economic policy works to our advantage in the South more than in states like Maryland and New Hampshire,” where Tsongas won, said David Wilhelm, Clinton’s campaign manager. “There are more middle-income voters and more working families.”

Under these circumstances, the Super Tuesday confrontation represented mainly an exercise in damage control for Tsongas. Seeking to minimize the impact of defeat, the candidate and his managers conceded the outcome well in advance.

They set their goal as finishing a “strong second” everywhere, particularly in Florida, Super Tuesday’s most competitive battleground. And they pointed to what they asserted would be more positive results elsewhere in the country next week.

“Once Super Tuesday is over, he (Clinton) has to go into the rest of the country, and we’ve done better there,” said Tsongas campaign manager Dennis Kanin, citing his candidate’s victories in New Hampshire and Maryland.

As for Brown, the self-styled candidate of protest, the balloting offered a chance to enhance the credibility his candidacy gained with victories in Colorado and Nevada. Waging his guerrilla style of political warfare from Dixie to New England, Brown sometimes seemed mainly a threat to Tsongas’ support, particularly when he appealed for the vote of environmentalists by demanding a ban on ozone-threatening products.

But Brown also sought to make inroads in Clinton’s backing among minorities, telling a rally of Latinos in El Paso, “You know you’re being ripped off, lied to, shined on.”

Here is a brief look at how the contest took shape in the biggest battlegrounds:

FLORIDA: 148 delegates.

Tsongas was drawn into making his biggest Super Tuesday commitment of time and resources here mainly because of demographics–the presence of more expatriate Northerners, more suburbanites and more upper-income voters than anywhere else in the South. Those characteristics have defined Tsongas voters in past primaries.

Recent political history also seemed encouraging. In the last two Democratic presidential campaigns, Florida has been won by non-Southern candidates who, like Tsongas, won the New Hampshire primary–former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart in 1984 and former Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis in 1988.

But as Tsongas strategists soon realized, circumstances were more favorable for Hart–who was running against another non-Southerner, former Vice President Walter F. Mondale–and for Dukakis–who had financial and organizational assets that in the 1992 contest are possessed by Clinton.

Clinton’s operation had daily polling to guide it. By contrast, conceded Rob Schroth, Tsongas’ state coordinator, “The only way I can find out what is going on is by talking to voters, to reporters and to the Clinton people.”

More important, Clinton strategists contend, Tsongas hurt his own cause. Instead of concentrating solely on his theme of economic revival, they point out, he spent much of the past few days attacking Clinton, calling the Arkansas governor “cynical and unprincipled.” He also was forced to deal with Clinton’s attacks on him for favoring a gasoline tax, for allegedly being insufficiently supportive of Israel and for supposedly being willing to tamper with Social Security cost-of-living allowances.

“He got off his message for three days and it hurt him,” said Jeff Eller, Clinton’s state coordinator. Kanin concedes that Tsongas’ shift in emphasis may have undercut his message but asserts that his candidate had no choice but to hit back at Clinton. “What Clinton was doing was attacking him all over Florida on whatever issue appealed most in that area,” Kanin said.

TEXAS: 196 delegates.

Clinton helped himself by coming to Texas early and often, as well as by capitalizing on friendships in the state that go back more than 20 years. “He’s paid a lot of attention to this state,” said George Christian, an Austin political consultant and onetime aide to former President Lyndon B. Johnson. “He’s here every time you turn around.”

Because of that, Clinton has lined up an impressive list of endorsements from elected and party officials and from leaders of key interest groups.

“He’s got the who’s who of the Mexican community and the who’s who of the black community on his side,” said George Shipley, a Democratic consultant who guided Texas Gov. Ann Richard’s campaign to victory in 1990.

One influential group, the Texas Mexican-American Democrats, not only endorsed Clinton, but also mailed out 200,000 letters to Mexican-American voters urging them to cast their ballots for the Arkansas governor.

Tsongas campaigned here for only two days, and his late-starting organization seemed to have relied at least as much on misgivings about Clinton as on Tsongas’ own virtues to get support.

Clinton “has impressive financial assets, but he has heavy personal liabilities,” said Texas Railroad Commissioner Robert Kreuger, Tsongas’ state chairman.

The personal contrast with Clinton did appear to help Tsongas win some votes. After hearing Tsongas speak at a rally at the Alamo last week, Sylvia Jiminez, a San Antonio accountant, praised his economic message but said pointedly, “Bill Clinton is too much glitz.”

SOUTHERN PRIMARIES: Clinton was helped by a big edge in endorsements from prominent Democrats in the rest of the South. Tennessee, with 68 delegates, was the only state in which Tsongas campaigned, aside from Texas and Florida. Only Brown made a significant attempt to compete in Mississippi, with 39 delegates. In Oklahoma, with 45 delegates, Tsongas failed to get on the ballot because of a technical slip-up by his staff, leaving second place to Brown.

Staff writers Cathleen Decker, David Lauter, J. Michael Kennedy and Marilyn Yaquinto contributed to this story.

RELATED STORIES, PICTURES: A12-14

Super Tuesday Vote

Here are the top finishers in Super Tuesday’s key states:

DEMOCRATS Clinton Tsongas Brown % of vote in 1. Massachusetts (primary) 11 67 14 83 2. Rhode Island (primary) 21 53 19 100 3. Delaware (caucus) 21 30 19 100 4. Florida (primary) 51 34 12 92 5. Tennessee (primary) 67 19 8 99 6. Mississippi (primary) 73 8 10 94 7. Louisiana (primary) 69 11 7 99 8. Missouri (caucus) 61 6 4 90 9. Oklahoma (primary) 70 — 17 99 10. Texas (primary) 66 19 8 78 11. Hawaii (caucus) — — — —

GOP Bush Buchanan Duke % of vote in 1. Massachusetts (primary) 66 28 2 90 2. Rhode Island (primary) 63 32 2 100 3. Delaware (caucus) — — — — 4. Florida (primary) 69 31 — 92 5. Tennessee (primary) 73 22 3 99 6. Mississippi (primary) 72 17 11 93 7. Louisiana (primary) 62 27 9 95 8. Missouri (caucus) — — — — 9. Oklahoma (primary) 70 27 3 99 10. Texas (primary) 70 24 3 76 11. Hawaii (caucus) — — — —

All numbers are percentages. Complete results, A12

Super Tuesday Roundup

Here are the latest results from Tuesday’s presidential contests. PRIMARIES Texas DEMOCRATS 78% of precincts reporting

Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 819,554 66 97 Paul E. Tsongas 230,607 19 28 Jerry Brown 93,657 8 2 REPUBLICANS 76% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 425,588 70 121 Patrick Buchanan 143,829 24 0 David Duke 15,723 3 0 Uncommitted 18,259 3 0 Florida DEMOCRATS 92% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 536,088 51 87 Paul E. Tsongas 360,339 34 58 Jerry Brown 131,267 12 3 REPUBLICANS 92% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 554,173 69 97 Patrick Buchanan 254,150 31 0 Massachusetts DEMOCRATS 83% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Paul E. Tsongas 443,150 67 88 Jerry Brown 94,483 14 6 Bill Clinton 70,480 11 0 Uncommitted 10,114 2 0 REPUBLICANS 87% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 149,247 66 26 Patrick Buchanan 63,124 28 11 David Duke 4,785 2 0 Uncommitted 8,618 4 1 Tennessee DEMOCRATS 99% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 211,488 67 56 Paul E. Tsongas 60,662 19 12 Jerry Brown 25,415 8 0 Uncommitted 12,217 4 0 REPUBLICANS 99% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 177,173 73 23 Patrick Buchanan 54,328 22 10 David Duke 7,662 3 0 Uncommitted 5,043 2 0 Louisiana DEMOCRATS 99% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 259,731 69 59 Paul E. Tsongas 41,790 11 1 Jerry Brown 24,925 7 0 REPUBLICANS 94% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 75,346 62 26 Patrick Buchanan 32,484 27 5 David Duke 10,438 9 1 Oklahoma DEMOCRATS 99% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 288,031 70 38 Jerry Brown 68,432 17 7 REPUBLICANS 98% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 147,426 70 34 Patrick Buchanan 56,234 27 0 David Duke 5,474 3 0 Mississippi DEMOCRATS 94% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 138,777 73 39 Jerry Brown 18,222 10 0 Paul E. Tsongas 15,093 8 0 Uncommitted 11,642 6 0 REPUBLICANS 92% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 104,065 72 33 Patrick Buchanan 24,320 17 0 David Duke 15,516 11 0 Rhode Island DEMOCRATS 100% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Paul E. Tsongas 26,875 53 13 Bill Clinton 10,729 21 6 Jerry Brown 9,519 19 3 Uncommitted 689 1 0 REPUBLICANS 100% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 9,911 63 10 Patrick Buchanan 5,012 32 5 David Duke 327 2 0 Uncommitted 440 3 0 CAUCUSES Missouri DEMOCRATS 90% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 306 61 34 Paul E. Tsongas 30 6 2 Jerry Brown 20 4 0 Uncommitted 143 29 30 Delaware DEMOCRATS 100% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Paul E. Tsongas 48 30 5 Bill Clinton 33 21 3 Jerry Brown 31 19 2 Uncommitted 47 30 4 Hawaii DEMOCRATS 0% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton xxx xx x Paul E. Tsongas xxx xx x Jerry Brown xxx xx x Uncommitted xxx xx x

* Republican caucuses in Missouri, Delaware and Hawaii will be held in the coming months.

A federal judge on Wednesday lifted a major obstacle to President Trump’s executive order limiting mail voting, even as Democratic state officials filed a new court challenge with the midterm elections fast approaching.

The fresh round of legal wrangling comes just two days after the Supreme Court handed down a procedural ruling in Trump’s favor, and could mean the issue lands before the high court again before the pivotal contests for control of Congress. The first mailed ballots are set to be sent out next week.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston agreed to lift an order prohibiting the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out Trump’s order for November’s elections. She wrote that she was “compelled” to do so after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled that a similar injunction she granted in a separate case was premature.

Talwani nevertheless said the executive order could unleash “chaos” and referred to it as “likely unconstitutional.”

The administration can now move forward and implement a Postal Service rule published late Friday. It would require states to follow a uniform envelope style for mail ballots and to give the Postal Service a list of voters eligible to receive them. Talwani found on Tuesday that the rule’s issuance technically violated her injunction, but she declined to penalize the administration.

The new lawsuit, filed by about two dozen Democratically controlled states against the U.S. Postal Service, marked a new phase in the high-stakes litigation creating confusion around the midterm elections.

It came after the Supreme Court ruled against them in a separate case, but did not say Trump’s order was legal.

The high court majority found the initial Democratic lawsuit was premature, but that was before the Republican administration issued a rule governing Postal Service delivery of mail ballots. Election officials warn it will be impossible to implement before the first wave of mail ballots are sent out next week.

“Across the country, states are already deep into preparations for the 2026 elections. Now, at the last moment, the federal government is attempting to meddle in those preparations and potentially threaten countless Americans’ right to vote,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of 25 Democratic attorneys general filing the lawsuit, said in a statement. “USPS has no authority to decide who can and cannot vote by mail.”

The Trump administration plan faces a third lawsuit originally filed in May in the nation’s capital, though judges there have so far declined to block it.

All previous challenges were filed before the administration published its mail ballot rule Friday night.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis on Wednesday said the Postal Service’s proposals were “commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots” and that the administration would continue to work to implement them to boost “the safety and security of our elections.”

The Postal Service said it would not comment because of the pending lawsuit.

National Democrats on Tuesday cited the rule in asking the federal judge in the Washington case to block Trump’s order after he declined to do so last spring, saying the administration at the time had not taken concrete action. In Boston, Talwani also found that the administration had violated a separate injunction she had placed on the Postal Service in drafting the new rule, although she did not take any action against the government.

Talwani had issued the injunction against Trump’s executive order in the prior Democratic state case, which is the one the Supreme Court overturned on Monday. She also issued a second injunction Aug. 11 in a case filed by the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups, while the Supreme Court was considering the administration’s appeal of the judge’s first order.

Trump has long targeted mail voting, which he falsely blames for his 2020 election loss and is disproportionately used by Democrats as a result of Trump’s condemnations. Since returning to power, Trump has tried to claim authority over election rules, saying he thinks Republicans should “take over” vote counting in Democratic areas.

He issued his first election executive order just months after retaking office, attempting to require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, among other changes. He has also been pushing a sweeping election bill that has stalled in the Senate amid opposition from Democrats and even some within his own party.

Riccardi and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

California and a coalition of other Democratic-led states sued again Wednesday to block the U.S. Postal Service from implementing new nationwide rules for mail ballots, arguing they usurp state authority over elections at President Trump’s behest, expose voter information unnecessarily and threaten chaos in the rapidly approaching November election.

The Postal Service formally issued a 95-page “final rule” on Friday asserting that it was amending its mailing standards for mail ballots in federal elections to comply with Trump’s March executive order.

Trump demanded the rule changes as part of a broader plan to combat what he alleges — without evidence — is widespread voter fraud in the U.S., including by noncitizens voting through the mail. Election experts say there is zero evidence of such problems existing at scale.

“This mail-in voting rule is an unlawful overreach that shows just how far President Trump will go to control elections, but as I’ve said before, this fight is far from over and we are confident that the facts and the law are on our side,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement.

“Donald Trump does not run elections. States do. And his latest attack on democracy is proof of how weak he has become,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “California will continue to lead the way in defending democracy — using every tool at our disposal and every minute in our day. This perilous moment in history demands no less from us.”

The new postal rules require states to submit lists of eligible voters — including their names and addresses — to the Postal Service, and to use new ballot envelopes with digital barcodes that would allow the Postal Service to identify and reject ballots that don’t match those lists.

The rules do not give the Postal Service authority to dictate which voters may appear on state lists. However, the rules do acknowledge that the lists would provide state voter data to federal law enforcement for the first time, and would put those authorities in “a better position to identify any potential issues regarding compliance with federal law that may merit further investigation.”

Trump’s March executive order also required the Department of Homeland Security to use available federal data to compile its own state lists of eligible citizen voters, ostensibly to compare them with the mail voter lists provided by the states to the Postal Service, and identify and pursue any ineligible voters.

Wednesday’s lawsuit follows a Monday decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that found an earlier challenge from the states was premature, in part because it sought court relief to a rule-making process that required nothing of the states and before the Postal Service had moved to implement any changes.

“On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to fully close the door on the President’s attempt to interfere in our election administration. Today, we’re taking legal action to stop this unlawful rule in its tracks and ensure that voters can exercise their constitutional right to vote,” Bonta said.

The White House did not immediately respond Wednesday to a request for comment on the latest lawsuit.

However, it has defended Trump’s executive order as overdue and badly needed to secure U.S. elections, and hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the rule-making to proceed as “a major win for the security of American elections.”

“These are commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders,” White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said.

The high court allowed the Postal Service to move forward with its work to comply with Trump’s order, but explicitly noted that it had reached no conclusions as to the legality of the pending rules.

Trump administration officials have said they are pursuing fraudulent voters, and have warned state election officials that they could face legal consequences personally if they don’t do everything in their power to prevent voter fraud, including by noncitizens.

Critics contend Trump’s executive order was devised as an end run around laws and a slew of recent court rulings blocking the Trump administration’s demands for state voter rolls — which states, including California, have refused to provide.

States have argued the administration’s demands are in bad faith, intended to bolster Trump’s baseless claims that U.S. elections are compromised rather than enhance election security.

In issuing its new rules, the Postal Service rejected a slate of concerns from critics who submitted comments on the proposed rules, including that the changes are being proposed far too close to the November election and will cost states and localities a huge amount of money to comply with.

It also rejected concerns that creating a single nationwide voter database — which has never existed before — will provide a massive new target for foreign adversaries and other bad actors interested in disrupting U.S. elections.

The Postal Service concluded that the cost to the states is outweighed by the benefits of the changes. It said it has sufficient staffing to implement the changes, and is ready to safeguard the database it builds using “multi-layered security controls.”

The lawsuit, brought by 24 state attorneys general and the governor of Pennsylvania, asks for immediate court intervention to halt the Postal Service changes from being implemented while the litigation continues.

“Let’s be clear: the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to regulate elections — not the President and not USPS,” Bonta said. “Ballots are an extension of our voices and we’re asking the court to ensure that every person has the right to make theirs heard.”

Independent voting rights groups have also sued to block the Postal Service rules from being implemented.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei slams Trump’s latest threat as a return to ‘full-scale classic colonialism’.

Iran has decried impending United States sanctions as a “complete erosion of sovereignty” following US President Donald Trump’s threat to punish any country doing business with Tehran.

In a post on X on Saturday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the US announcement was “an assertion of extraterritorial sovereignty” against the United Nations’ member states.

No state can compel foreign banks, enterprises or airports to renounce commerce with Iran, he said.

“The end result would be the complete erosion of sovereignty as the foundational basis of the UN-based inter-State system, and a recipe for an abysmal return to full-scale classic colonialism,” Baghaei said.

Trump announced on Wednesday the “most crushing economic operation” yet against Iran and said any country whose institutions interface with Tehran would face “tremendous economic consequences”.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent doubled down on the president’s words on Thursday, saying the new sanctions regime would “collapse” Iran and that other countries are “either with us or against us”.

Iranian state media was quick to point out that Tehran has faced US sanctions for decades. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the new measures were “bound to fail”.

“We have seen this movie before,” Araghchi wrote on X, alongside a screenshot of a tweet from former President Barack Obama referencing earlier sanctions in 2012. “Same bull. Different bullies.”

The latest rhetorical back-and-forth comes as peace talks with Tehran have sputtered out. The US Navy has maintained its blockade against Iran’s ports, while oil shipment traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has virtually ceased.

Trump told reporters Friday that his government is “seeing what happens” in the conflict.

“They would love to make a deal, but they’re not ready to make the right deal in my opinion,” the president said.

While the US has blockaded Iranian vessels in their ports, the Strait of Hormuz remained bottled up with thousands of seafarers stranded on hundreds of vessels.

Only four commodity ships sailed along the strait on Thursday, none of them large crude carriers or liquefied natural gas tankers, ship-tracking data showed.

However, Iran has granted permission for several Iraqi oil tankers to pass through the strait following repeated requests from Baghdad, Iran’s state news agency IRNA ⁠reported on Saturday.

IRNA said obtaining special permission for Iraqi tankers was one of Baghdad’s main requests during Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher ⁠Ghalibaf’s visit to Iraq.

Aug. 21 (UPI) — Dozens of people across 15 states have been sickened by alfalfa sprouts tainted with E. coli bacteria and salmonella, federal health officials said Friday.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a safety alert that 55 people have suffered symptoms such as severe stomach cramps, diarrhea, fever, nausea and/or vomiting after consuming alfalfa sprout sold in grocery stores under the Calco and Everything Sprouts brands.

Four hospitalizations have resulted from the outbreak.

Some 38 of the 55 of the cases have been recorded in Minnesota and Wisconsin combined, with fewer cases reported in North and South Dakota, New York, Washington state, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina, New Hampshire and Florida.

CDC officials warned that the number of illnesses is likely to increase as investigators continue their probe.

The tainted food was determined to originated from Everything Sprouts, a Minneapolis-based hydroponic grower.

“Traceback information from Minnesota and Wisconsin restaurants identified alfalfa sprouts distributed by Everything Sprouts as a source of illness in this outbreak,” the CDC said in a statement.”[The Food and Frug Administration] is working to determine if there are additional sources of contaminated sprouts and if there is a common seed supplier.”

The same company last year was issued a warning letter by the FDA following an inspection that produced what it called “serious violations” of the Produce Safety Rule, Minnesota Public Radio reported.

Inspectors documented roof leaks that allowed water to drip near or onto exposed mung bean sprouts while condensation from refrigeration equipment was also found dripping in areas where sprouts were grown or stored.

The Red Sea does not recognise political borders as maps draw them. Instead, it binds every country on its shores to a shared fate with its neighbours across the water. When the western shore of this sea is shaken, the eastern shore does not remain untouched. This is a hard geopolitical reality that Saudi Arabia has understood well through decades of dealing with crises in the Horn of Africa and Yemen as a direct extension of its own domestic security.

It is through this deep understanding of geography as a shared destiny that the agreement establishing the Saudi-Sudanese Coordination Council, signed in Riyadh on August 17, 2026, should be read. It is the institutional expression of a firmly held Saudi conviction: that the stability of a unified Sudan is indispensable to the stability of the kingdom itself, and that Sudan’s collapse or fragmentation would inevitably become a Saudi national security crisis.

Historical ties and cultural common ground

Long before strategic considerations and geopolitical crises came to the fore, Saudis viewed Sudanese people with great respect and as among those to whom they felt closest. Since the earliest times, Hijazis have shared cultural and linguistic traits with people on the other side of the Red Sea, particularly Sudanese people.

Throughout modern history, relations between the two countries have not been marked by serious crises. Indeed, they have been distinguished by a unique historical fact: the relationship has never witnessed a political crisis between the two states or their peoples, and there has always been mutual appreciation between them. This exceptional relationship, rooted in religious, cultural and social ties, has made the two countries a rare model of intra-Arab relations that has withstood all regional storms.

Saudi Arabia has stood by Sudanese people through every ordeal, including Nile floods and natural disasters, as well as the country’s crises and civil wars. This has created a fabric of human ties that goes beyond narrow political interests. It was this unique historical legacy that made Saudi mediation welcome to both sides when the war broke out, with the Jeddah platform working to ease the conflict and address the humanitarian crisis.

Saudi Arabia’s current position towards Sudan, then, is not merely the product of cold strategic or political calculations. It is the natural extension of a relationship that lived in people’s hearts before it was translated into institutions and agreements.

A framework for strategic partnership

This relationship culminated in the Saudi-Sudanese Coordination Council, whose founding agreement was signed in Riyadh on August 17, 2026, by the two countries’ foreign ministers, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud and Mohieddin Salem. Sources say it is not merely a conventional diplomatic framework, but a comprehensive institutional platform intended to oversee 10 major strategic areas. These reflect the depth of the partnership between the two countries and their desire to move from political and humanitarian support towards a long-term strategic, economic and investment partnership.

The 10 areas covered by the council include Sudan’s reconstruction; agriculture and food security; livestock; gold and mining; the Red Sea and ports; energy and electricity; finance and banking; industry and food processing; communications and digital transformation; and tourism, real estate and services.

Taken together, these areas constitute an integrated roadmap for turning bilateral relations into a genuine development partnership, drawing on Saudi Arabia’s investment and technological capabilities and Sudan’s enormous natural and human resources.

According to the Sudanese foreign minister, the council’s priorities centre on security, defence and the economy, with the Red Sea added as an area of strategic cooperation because of its importance to both countries. This is why Sudan joined the maritime defence alliance established by Saudi Arabia on July 30, 2026. This reflects a shared understanding that security and stability are the essential preconditions for any economic development, and that Red Sea security is a shared responsibility that cannot be separated from the stability of the states along its shores.

Sudan and the wider Arab project

For more than a decade and a half, the Arab region has witnessed a wave of systematic projects of fragmentation targeting pivotal states such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. Countries that once played an active role in the regional order have been turned into open arenas of conflict managed by regional and international actors through local proxies. With its enormous resources and vital location connecting the Arab world with the African interior, Sudan has always been an ideal target for such a project of division.

When Saudi Arabia acts to support a path that preserves the unity of the Sudanese state and its national institutions, it objectively contributes to thwarting one link in this scheme targeting the Arab world as a whole. Every Arab state protected from fragmentation represents another defeat for this project, while every state that succumbs to it represents a victory that encourages its repetition. From this perspective, Sudanese stability is a collective Arab battle, and Saudi Arabia finds itself in the position of a state capable of leading that battle in defence of a collective Arab project that cannot afford to lose another link.

Sudan in the regional equation

Sudan occupies a unique position that makes it one of the region’s most important strategic keys: it is an Arab state that borders both the Red Sea and the Nile, connects the Horn of Africa with the Sahara, the Sahel and the Arab hinterland, and borders seven African and Arab countries.

This location makes Sudan a natural bridge between the Arab world and Africa, a vital maritime gateway on the Red Sea and a strategic water nexus on the Nile.

If a state in such a position fragments, it opens a geopolitical rupture whose effects extend from the Nile Basin to the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, and from the African Sahel to the Arabian Peninsula. The recent experience of Yemen has clearly demonstrated how the collapse of a state on the Red Sea can transform a vital maritime chokepoint such as Bab al-Mandeb from a safe commercial passage into an arena of direct threats to global shipping.

Saudi Arabia, which has paid a heavy price in both security and economic terms as a result of the war in Yemen, has realised that the security of waterways cannot be safeguarded merely by guarding the passages themselves, but by ensuring the stability of the states whose coastlines surround them.

Security beyond borders

In classical and contemporary strategic thought, the security of any major state is measured not only at its immediate borders, but also through its “strategic depth”: the wider geographical sphere that absorbs shocks before they reach the core. This idea, whose roots can be traced to strategic thinkers such as Nicholas Spykman and Walter Lippmann, holds that a state exists within a geopolitical environment that either acts as a buffer and absorbs crises, or transmits and amplifies them.

Given Saudi Arabia’s position as a pivotal regional power, it cannot content itself with securing its immediate borders while crises rage throughout its strategic surroundings. From this perspective, Sudan is not merely a neighbour across the sea, but one of the most important components of Saudi strategic depth. Its stability means stability along the kingdom’s western maritime frontier, control over flows of irregular migration and smuggling, and keeping at bay the spectre of a security vacuum that could be exploited by armed groups and extremist organisations.

When Riyadh invests in Sudan’s reconstruction and development through permanent institutional frameworks such as the Coordination Council, it is building a wall of stability around its strategic depth. It has understood that genuine security cannot be bought with walls alone, but is built through the prosperity of its neighbours.

A new Saudi approach to Red Sea security

The security of major waterways is not simply the product of military protection of the passage itself, but of the strength and stability of the states along its shores. A Red Sea bordered or surrounded by fragile or collapsed states, or states penetrated by irregular forces, is an insecure Red Sea regardless of the military capabilities of the major powers along its shores.

From this lesson, a more mature Saudi vision has emerged: it is not enough for the kingdom to be strong on the eastern shore. The states along the western shore and the Red Sea’s southern approaches, including Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia, must also be strong, cohesive and capable of exercising full sovereignty over their coastlines. By placing the “Red Sea” alongside security and defence among its areas of focus, the Saudi-Sudanese Coordination Council puts this philosophy into practice: strengthening Sudan’s ability to control its coastline is a direct Saudi investment in the security of the Red Sea as a whole.

The responsibility of regional power

The Saudi-Sudanese Coordination Council is an expression of a broader political philosophy embraced by Riyadh: genuine regional power does not grow stronger by isolating itself behind borders, but by assuming responsibility for the stability of its surroundings. At a time when projects of fragmentation are proliferating, supporting Sudan’s unity, strengthening Saudi strategic depth and safeguarding Red Sea security are three sides of the same coin.

When Saudi Arabia safeguards the unity of its neighbour, it safeguards the integrity of its own strategic project. When it protects the stability of the Sudanese coast, it protects the stability of its own. This is the dialectic of shared geography: neither neighbour can be secure without the other, and neither shore can be stable without the one opposite it.

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

David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance has asked a judge to force California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his coalition of 11 other states to prepare to set aside as much as $1.9 billion as the Warner Bros. Discovery merger challenge heads into overtime.

In Monday’s court filing, Paramount requested the plaintiff states, including New York, Colorado, Oregon and Nevada, as well as the Writers Guild of America, post a bond that would cover the “ticking fees” Paramount promised to pay Warner shareholders should the deal stretch beyond its anticipated September close.

Ellison was confident his proposed Warner takeover would sail through its regulatory clearances. President Trump’s Justice Department approved the merger in June, as have dozens of other countries.

The states would not be required to pay the full $1.9 billion upfront. Instead, they would have to come up with a portion of that amount by Sept. 30. Should the Democrat state attorneys general and WGA lose their lawsuits, they would ultimately have to pay the full amount.

Monday’s court filing highlights Ellison’s frustrations and the financial pressures that deal delays will bring the media company. The filing also continues Paramount’s full-court political pressure campaign to get Bonta and the other states to abandon their antitrust lawsuit.

Paramount did not expect such a spirited challenge from Bonta and the 11 other Democratic state attorneys general who banded together with the WGA to try to block the $111-billion merger of two historic Hollywood studios.

Paramount’s 23-page filing, signed by former high profiile federal prosecutor Danielle Sassoon, was intended to rattle the states.

Paramount is trying to create divisions among the plaintiff states by prompting them to question their resolve in fighting a protracted and potentially expensive legal battle, according to a person familiar with Paramount’s strategy who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Because WGA has separately sued to unravel the deal, Paramount has asked the judge to have the union post a bond to cover some of the costs, too.

In its motion, Paramount cited the Clayton Antitrust Act, which is the foundation for Bonta’s lawsuit. The law carries a provision to require plaintiffs to post a bond to cover the potential financial harms of halting a transaction.

The bond gives a defendant, in this case Paramount, a way to recover lost funds should they ultimately prevail in court.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín will be asked to rule on the request during a Wednesday court hearing.

“We have satisfied all closing conditions under our merger agreement, having received regulatory clearances from 68 jurisdictions,” Paramount said in a statement. “These two lawsuits are the only barrier to closing this transaction.”

Paramount is incurring considerable legal fees and deal-related costs.

The company cited a potential eight-month merger delay because Martínez-Olguín scheduled the trial for March 2. If the case goes to trial, it might not be decided until next May.

At issue are the “ticking fees” that Paramount in February agreed pay to Warner investors should the merger be delayed . Paramount agreed to pay $.25 a share for every quarter until the acquisition finalizes.

The fees add up to $7 million a day, or $650 million per quarter.

Paramount is facing a June 4 deadline to close the deal. That’s when Warner Bros. Discovery can demand a $7-billion break-up fee.

Paramount wants to get the deal done as soon as possible, and with the approval of Mexican regulators last week, only Bonta and the states’ lawsuit stands in their way.

Paramount also is cognizant of shifting winds in Washington should Democrats regain control of Congress in November, which could bring fresh scrutiny to the merger .

Ticking fees weren’t the only costs of the extended timeline.

“There will be no integration and no ramped-up investment in content, production, and creative talent by the combined company,” Paramount said . “Employees of both Paramount and WBD are also harmed by the uncertainties caused by the delay.”

Last week, the Directors Guild of America and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — which represent a combined 200,000 union members — waded into the clash over the merger, which continues to carve deep divisions throughout the industry.

“We remain confident that plaintiffs’ case is without merit and will defend our pro-competitive transaction in court,” Paramount said. “We look forward to closing this transaction and delivering its benefits to consumers and entertainment industry workers in California, the United States and around the world.”

WASHINGTON — Democratic voters are showing up for this year’s primaries in numbers not seen in decades, a pattern emerging across several states that has the party optimistic about its prospects in November when control of Congress will be at stake.

In Tuesday’s primary, Wisconsin Democrats cast nearly 800,000 ballots, their highest total for a midterm in more than 20 years. That followed 1.5 million Democratic voters in Michigan the week before, a midterm record for the state.

The enthusiasm extends beyond the Midwest. Democratic primary turnout also surged this year in Texas and Georgia, states that will have competitive Senate races in the fall.

It is giving Democrats a string of strong showings heading into the midterms, when the president’s party is normally at a disadvantage. That is compounded this year by President Trump’s weak approval ratings, persistent inflation and an unpopular war with Iran.

“The big news is that Democrats are getting huge turnouts,” said David Axelrod, who was a top advisor to President Obama. “That’s been a steady story throughout this period.”

Competitive Democratic primaries have helped drive the surge, giving the party’s voters more reason to participate. Republican primary turnout remained closer to historic norms in Michigan, even with a competitive statewide contest.

Voter turnout in primary elections is an imperfect predictor of general election results, especially when one party has the more compelling early contests. Republicans say they are responding with a major effort to turn out their voters in the fall.

GOP leaders say they can energize voters by tapping into a major fundraising advantage over Democrats and sending Trump back out campaigning, including during a midterm convention in Texas next month.

“Primary turnout doesn’t win general elections,” said Mike Marinella, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “House Republicans are entering November with the money, momentum, stronger candidates and a battle-tested operation built to turn out voters when it actually counts.”

A pattern in many states, many contests

The scale of the Democratic turnout advantage varied across states, but the pattern extended across much of this year’s competitive landscape for House, Senate or governor’s races.

In Wisconsin, more than 790,000 people voted in the Democratic primary for governor, putting turnout at about 22% of registered voters. More than 1.5 million people voted in Michigan’s recent Democratic Senate primary, which accounted for a little more than 18% of registered voters. It was the state’s highest midterm turnout rate in a Democratic primary since at least 2002 — the same as in Wisconsin, according to an analysis of Associated Press election data.

In Minnesota, Democratic primary turnout was on par with the 2018 midterm election, with both years marking the state’s highest Democratic primary turnout in a midterm year so far this century.

For Republicans in Wisconsin and Michigan, turnout in last week’s primary was in line with previous GOP midterm primaries in each state. In Michigan, turnout for the Republican governor’s race was about 11%. In Wisconsin’s Republican primary for governor, it is expected to be about 14%.

“Republicans in Michigan will close the enthusiasm gap by highlighting the massive differences between our nominees and the extreme, out-of-touch politicians the Democrats have nominated,” said Ted Goodman, a spokesperson for the Michigan GOP. “It’s one thing to lead in enthusiasm before we know who is running. Now, the differences are clear.”

Other states that held elections this year also saw significant Democratic primary turnout. In Georgia and Texas, the midterm turnout in the Democratic primaries was higher than it’s been since at least 2002. In Georgia, just over 1 million people voted in May in the Democratic governor’s race, a little more than 13% of registered voters. In Texas, about 2.3 million people voted in March in the Democratic Senate primary, a little more than 12%.

‘Good sign,’ but ‘not a very solid predictor’

The robust primary turnout has been a “good sign for Democrats,” said Corwin Smidt, a political science professor at Michigan State University. But he cautioned that it is “not a very solid predictor” of how voters will break in November.

Smidt pointed to several factors behind the numbers, including high turnout in recent elections, which has created a larger pool of regular voters.

“Voting is a lot of habit-forming,” he said.

He also noted that many of the states with high turnout had what he described as “media spotlight candidacies.”

Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota all held races in August that the news media framed as marquee progressive-versus-moderate contests that probably helped drive Democratic participation.

In Michigan, spending in the Democratic Senate primary topped $80 million, making it one of the most expensive races of the year so far, according to AdImpact. Progressive Abdul El-Sayed narrowly defeated Rep. Haley Stevens after a campaign that drew national attention and energized younger voters and university communities.

Stevens carried Wayne County, the state’s largest source of Democratic votes, and some of the congresswoman’s supporters said before the primary that they would not back El-Sayed if he became the nominee.

In Wisconsin, the governor’s primary was repeatedly reshaped as moderate Democrats left and reentered the race while democratic socialist Francesca Hong consolidated progressive support. Hong lost narrowly to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, a more traditional Democrat.

The races highlight how competitive primaries helped drive attention and also how the winning candidates have work to do to bring their party together for November. Both Wisconsin and Michigan Democrats held unity breakfasts in the days after the primaries.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who backed El-Sayed and Minnesota Senate nominee Peggy Flanagan but did not endorse Hong, said in an interview this week that he expects Democratic voters to bridge their differences for the general election.

“At the end of the day, when it comes to taking on Trump and creating a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, there is going to be unity, because I think everybody knows how important that is,” he said.

A favorable environment, but a difficult map

Democrats have reason to believe the primary enthusiasm could last. The president’s party has historically lost ground in midterm elections, and Trump enters the fall deeply unpopular amid economic unease and an unpopular war.

Some 33% of American adults approve of his job performance, according to the most recent polling by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs.

But a favorable national environment may not be enough for Democrats. They will need unusually strong turnout to overcome a congressional map that has become more favorable to Republicans.

The number of competitive House races has shrunk considerably this year after Republican-controlled states redrew congressional districts in their favor at Trump’s urging. Some Democratic-controlled states responded, most notably California, but the new lines are expected to produce a net benefit for Republicans, who hold a slim House majority.

Republicans control the Senate 53 to 47, with Democrats needing to pick up four seats to win the majority. Democrats will have to generate energy similar to that of Republicans two years ago, Smidt said.

“If we have a national tide like we had in 2024, suddenly that opens the map a little more,” he said.

Cappelletti, Askarinam and Boak write for the Associated Press. Pamela Jo Martin and Samuel Jens of the Associated Press Election Services team contributed to this report from Washington.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole, disagreeing sharply with Vice President George Bush, has blasted the Iranian arms sale as contrary to American principles and declared that Lt. Col. Oliver L. North is no hero.

Bush supported President Reagan’s covert plan of selling arms to Iran in exchange for American hostages held in Lebanon. And the vice president has hailed North, who has admitted lying to Congress and destroying official records in an effort to conceal his role in the Iran-Contra scandal, as someone who will go down in history as a hero.

Dole, in a television interview with British journalist David Frost, to be broadcast nationwide on Sunday, said the Iranian arms sale “runs against the grain of everything we stand for in America.”

When pressed on whom he blames for “the whole Iran-Contra mess,” Dole pointed out that Reagan had accepted responsibility for it and said the President “gets a little of that . . . . Everybody around him gets a little of that.”

History will regard North as a patriot with an exemplary record, Dole said, but as an agent for Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair the Marine officer “overstepped his bounds,” did not serve the President well and “is not a hero in that regard.”

In a program broadcast on Dec. 6, Bush told Frost that North did a better job even “than our great communicator of a President” in expressing what was at stake in Central America during the Iran-Contra hearings and that “the American people in every bar in Chicago and every bowling alley in Texas and every little home said: ‘Hey, this guy believes in something, and I can identify with it.’ ”

Public opinion polls show Bush with a substantial lead in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, with Dole holding a firm grip on second place and the other four candidates trailing far behind.

Dole and his wife, Elizabeth, who resigned as Reagan’s transportation secretary to campaign for her husband, both were interviewed by Frost for the hourlong program. It is the sixth of a 13-part series, called “The Next President,” which features interviews with presidential candidates and their wives and is co-produced by Frost and U.S. News & World Report.

The senator said it is possible that his wife, a former Federal Trade Commission member and presidential assistant who has frequently been mentioned as a candidate for vice president, will be selected as a running mate for the Republican presidential nominee.

‘Some Interest’

Although there is “some interest” in her being on the ticket, he said, it “probably is not going to happen unless she is on the ticket with someone else. Now that could happen.”

The senator, who has frequently drawn attention to Bush’s prep school and country club background, described his own working-class upbringing in Russell, Kan., in the Frost interview and said the Republican Party needs to reach out to “hard-working, real people” to dispel its image as a party of the privileged.

As the older brother of his family, Dole said, he handed down his clothes to his brother, Kenny, and his sister Gloria handed down her clothes to her younger sister, Norma Jean.

“There weren’t a lot of wealthy families in our little hometown,” he said. “My father wore overalls every day to work. So we . . . certainly didn’t have much money, but I remember my dad had an old car called a Whippet, which is quite an automobile.”

With other young boys in Russell, he said, he “raked the leaves and mowed the lawns and delivered handbills and newspapers and sacked groceries and worked in my father’s cream and egg station.”

In recalling the eight years he served as county attorney while still a young man in Russell, Dole said that every month he had to approve welfare claims and every month he found his grandparents on the welfare list.

“And you know,” said Dole, who frequently stresses the need for government assistance to the disadvantaged, “they weren’t lazy, but they were poor and they were old. And they’d been farmers. And I think that’s another dimension. Seems to me leadership is about a lot of things.

“But it’s got to stem from who you are and where you’re from and all those things. I mean, your own life is the key to whatever you’re going to do later on.”

Dole said he went through a “fairly dark” period right after Jimmy Carter defeated then-President Gerald R. Ford in the 1976 election. As Ford’s running mate, Dole made several harsh attacks on the Carter-Mondale ticket that some political observers thought were counterproductive and may have even cost Ford the election.

“But I remember Richard Nixon calling me the day after the election and saying: ‘Now, Bob, get ready. Somebody is going to be looking for a scapegoat,’ ” Dole said. “They are going to be saying Ronald Reagan didn’t work hard enough, Nelson Rockefeller didn’t work enough, Bob Dole didn’t work hard enough, Jerry Ford made the gaffe about Poland. So I was already prepared.”

Reshaping Image

Mrs. Dole has been widely credited with helping to soften her husband’s image since the 1976 election, and the senator said that, although he could not say whether this was true, his wife had been helpful in consulting with him after reviewing tapes of all his appearances on television during the 1976 campaign.

“All the tapes where people said Bob Dole had been harsh and some even said a ‘hatchet man,’ ” the senator said. “She concluded they were not accurate. But, in any event, I think from that standpoint it’s been very helpful.”

Frost asked Mrs. Dole whether she understood the “troubled reaction” of a minority of women who questioned her giving up her career to help her husband in his quest for the presidency.

“Well, you know, as you said, it was a minority,” she said. “The overwhelming response that I had was yes, you did the right thing. My feeling about it is that we women have worked hard for the right to make our own career decisions, to make our own decisions generally, to do what we feel is right and best. And this was very much a personal decision.”

Citing an article in a Washington publication that compared Mrs. Dole to Jackie Kennedy, “a glamorous feminine figure draped in a frame of steel,” Frost asked if she liked that description.

“Oh, my goodness,” Elizabeth Dole said. “Well, I’m a believer in being yourself, and I don’t think that women have to make themselves over into the image of a man to be successful at what they do. I really think we should all be ourselves.”

The states claim the new levies are a pretext to re-impose tariffs that were ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court.

A group of 25 Democratic-led states has sued Donald Trump’s administration over its latest tariffs, claiming that the US president has exceeded his legal authority to implement the levies.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade on Monday, targets new double-digit tariffs imposed on 60 trading partners last month over allegations they were not doing enough to stop the importation of goods produced with forced labour.

These latest tariffs took effect just as the clock ran out on temporary tariffs that Trump had turned to after the Supreme Court struck down his flagship “liberation day” levies in a February ruling.

“After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The states that sued over the new tariffs, including Oregon and New York, all have Democratic attorneys general or governors.

In response, White House spokesman Kush Desai said the levies were an appropriate and legal response to unfair trade practices in other nations.

“A foreign country’s failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens US commerce, including American workers, and must be addressed,” Desai said.

Revive US manufacturing

Trump, who argues that high tariffs will revive US manufacturing, last year overturned decades of Washington policy that favoured lower tariffs and ever-freer trade.

Invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), he imposed double-digit tariffs on imports from almost every country, saying the US’s longstanding trade deficit amounted to a national emergency.

But the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA did not authorise tariffs. The decision forced the administration to establish a refund process for importers who had paid the tariffs.

Eager to make up the lost revenue, Trump turned to temporary 10 percent worldwide tariffs, but they expired at midnight on July 24.

The latest round of global tariffs was imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, meant to combat unfair or discriminatory economic practices by other nations. The tariffs imposed in July affect more than 99 percent of US imports.

The states’ complaint, like two previous lawsuits filed by small businesses over the tariffs, argued that the new tariffs used “forced labor” as a pretext to re-impose the tariffs that had already been ruled illegal in court. They said that a sweeping tax on imports would do nothing to address the real problems of forced labour around the world.

WASHINGTON  — California and 22 other Democratic-led states urged the Supreme Court on Monday to block President Trump’s plan to take control of voting by mail through the U.S. Postal Service.

They said it is too late in the election year to impose a new set of regulations for mail ballots.

Doing so, they said, would lead to mistakes, including eligible and registered voters being told they are not on the federal government’s approved list.

“Because of the high risk of errors and the limited window for correcting mistakes, many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas — would likely be denied mail ballots and disenfranchised,” they told the court.

More broadly, they argued that the Constitution “entrusted the states and Congress — not the president — with the responsibility to set rules for federal elections.”

The justices are likely to act in a few days on whether to allow the Trump administration‘s plan to proceed pending the adoption of new and detailed guidelines.

Last week, Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court contending judges in Boston moved too quickly to halt the administration’s new federal restrictions on voting by mail.

He argued judges should stand back for now, even though the midterm elections are only three months away.

Trump’s executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to use state-by-state lists of eligible voters who may send a ballot by mail.

Until now, states have had the constitutional authority to register voters for federal and state elections. And nearly a third of Americans now vote by mail.

Trump, however, has insisted that voting by mail leads to fraud, including by allowing noncitizens to vote.

Congress has refused to adopt new voting restrictions at Trump’s behest.

Instead, he issued an executive order on March 31 to enlist the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections.”

The order called on Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote. And it told the postal service that it must use those lists to restrict who may vote by mail.

“The USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list,” the order said.

But a federal judge and the 1st Circuit Court in Boston ruled Trump’s new regulations may not be enforced this year, at least in the 23 Democratic-led states which sued.

On Monday, they told the court that USPS delivered nearly 100 million mail ballots to or from voters in 2024, with roughly 30% of all voters nationwide casting ballots by mail.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration is planning a dramatic overhaul of Head Start that would gut its quality standards, upending the hallmarks of the early education program for impoverished children, two people familiar with the deliberations said.

Head Start, established in the 1960s to help fight poverty, has long been considered by experts to be a gold standard early learning program. Its regulations, which stretch more than 100 pages, outline requirements on everything from child-to-teacher ratios and child health screenings to family engagement.

The Republican administration would replace those regulations with around a dozen pages of rules, leaving most of the specifics up to state and local law, said the people familiar with the deliberations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss information that was not yet public and because they feared reprisal.

The draft rules would require more documentation from parents who are homeless or unemployed, the people familiar with the deliberations told the Associated Press. An early version of the proposal also would have barred parents who are in the United States illegally from enrolling their children, even if the children are U.S. citizens. It’s unclear whether those provisions will make the final draft.

Head Start’s rules target poverty, experts say

Head Start serves more than half a million low-income babies, toddlers and preschoolers nationwide. For families that qualify, it offers free preschool and screenings to identify developmental delays. It also offers supports for families.

The changes to Head Start would deliver a win for conservatives who have sought wholesale elimination of it. The Trump administration would also further its efforts to eliminate regulations it views as onerous or unnecessary.

If the changes take effect, they could make Head Start unrecognizable, said Khari Garvin, who ran the Office of Head Start under President Biden, a Democrat.

“We’d have the carcass of Head Start,” Garvin said. “You might have a program that’s called Head Start, but in substance it will not be.”

Proposal has a long way to go to take effect

The proposed rules were originally reported in The Bulwark. The White House, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Head Start, did not respond to questions about the changes.

Tommy Sheridan, deputy director of the National Head Start Assn., said the organization has yet to see the proposed rules. But he said the potential for a massive overhaul has left the organization on edge.

“We’re very anxious,” Sheridan said. “When it does come out … we’ll be ready to fight back where we need to fight back.”

Still, he emphasized that Head Start centers might not be impacted for months, if the rules get on the books at all. Once the proposal is made public, federal law requires the administration to give at least a month for the public to weigh in on it. Then, once finalized, it may take more time for the rules to take effect. There’s also the potential for a lawsuit to halt implementation.

Created during War on Poverty

Head Start was created as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty and targets the myriad challenges that low-income households face. It serves children and adults alike, coaching parents on reaching their goals, connecting them with services and even employing them.

Head Start operators, which include school districts and nonprofit organizations, are required to provide medical, dental and vision screenings for children and to monitor them for developmental delays. There’s also a curriculum framework and prohibitions on physical and emotional abuse of children.

Many of the features that make Head Start distinct from mainstream preschools are spelled out in 122 pages of performance standards. The Trump administration’s proposal would toss most of that rule book and replace it with a much shorter version that eliminates or loosens many requirements, the people familiar with the proposal said. But the proposal also calls for some new regulations, such as requiring all instruction in English.

Head Start, which has enjoyed robust bipartisan support for decades, has faced several threats since Trump took office last year. Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint authored by the official who is now Trump’s budget chief, called for the federal government to get rid of the program altogether.

Balingit writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writer Ali Swenson contributed reporting.

Aug. 1 (UPI) — At least seven states have suffered cyberattacks on water systems as cities and states work to keep the water supplies safe.

There has been no indication that any water supply is unsafe to drink, the New York Times reported. Minnesota first reported a cyberattack and now Michigan has also reported attacks.

The Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency said in a release that it’s “observing a significant increase in cyber threat actors targeting programmable logic controllers in the Water and Wastewater Systems sector. CISA urges critical infrastructure owners, operators, and integrators to remove publicly exposed PLCs and other operational technology from the Internet as soon as possible. Threat actors targeting exposed PLCs have modified passwords to lock out operators and disconnected the PLCs by changing their IP addresses. This activity has resulted in boil-water notices and sustained manual operations.”

Officials told The Times that Iran has increased cyberattacks on American systems, but that the water attacks haven’t been definitively declared to have come from Iran. But Iran has targeted water systems in the United States in the past. Because there’s no financial motive, an attack by hacking criminals is less likely, The Times said.

Michigan had “a small number of reports from Michigan communities indicating activity consistent with what federal agencies described,” Dale George, director of communications for Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, told CBS News.

“All systems continued to operate safely, issues were addressed by local operators, and there are no known impacts that posed a public health concern,” George added.

CBS reported that more than 30 community water systems in Minnesota were affected.

On Friday, President Donald Trump blamed Minnesota and Gov. Tim Walz for the attacks.

“I think that Minnesota is behind it,” Trump said during a televised Cabinet meeting at Camp David. “You know who’s behind it? Minnesota. Because they’re grossly incompetent. I think the governor’s behind it. I don’t think there was an Iranian cyberattack. I think that Minnesota ought to get its act together.”

“They like to say, ‘Oh, it was Iran.’ Iran should be so lucky. Iran’s got bigger problems than worrying about Minnesota,” the president said.

Walz responded to the jabs from Trump in a post on X.

“DOGE took an ax to CISA and left the U.S. exposed to cyber attacks. Thankfully, our experts in Minnesota were able to identify the vulnerability quickly and work with local communities to stop it,” Walz said.

Braham, Minn., Mayor Nate George said federal and local officials don’t doubt the source.

“We’re getting bits and pieces of information from the state of Minnesota and the FBI,” George told The Times. “They are pretty sure it’s Iranian actors” but are reluctant to say so publicly.

The fate of hundreds of clean energy projects hangs in the balance after court documents revealed that the Trump administration targeted California and other blue states solely for political reasons when it slashed funding for the initiatives last year.

Large companies, startups, utilities, universities and other nonprofits were among those that lost out on $7.6 billion in clean energy funding terminated by the White House in October. They include the University of California, the California Energy Commission, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and California’s nascent hydrogen hub, the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, or ARCHES.

At the time, Trump administration officials said the grants were terminated because they “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs, were not economically viable, and would not provide a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars.”

But in court documents filed as part of a lawsuit challenging the cuts, the Department of Energy states the selection of grants was “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State.”

It also concedes that neither the inclusion of ARCHES, nor any other grants in the October tranche, was “based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor.”

California and the 15 other states that lost funding did not vote for Trump in the 2024 election.

Legal experts said such an action is unheard of.

“The government has stipulated that grants were cut off to states that voted against Trump. As far as I know, this blatant politics in cutting off grants is unprecedented. It also is illegal,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School and co-counsel in the lawsuit.

More projects were cut in California than any other state, about 79 out of nearly 300. They were all for clean energy, many to address climate change, and include investments in new battery plants, upgrades for the electrical grid and initiatives to take carbon out of the air. About $1.2 billion was slated for the hydrogen hub.

Money was also to go to West Biofuels in Woodland, CALSTART in Pasadena, Charge Bliss in Aliso Viejo, Rejoule in Signal Hill, Southern California Edison, the Imperial Irrigation District and Aera Federal LLC, among many others.

The lawsuit was brought by a group of faculty members and researchers at UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco, who were among those to lose research grants. A separate lawsuit was filed by California and a coalition of 13 other states in February.

The acknowledgment of political motivation is “startling — and it is particularly so when the administration has had these larger narratives about how they’re canceling grants that are about waste, fraud and abuse,” said Claudia Polsky, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at UC Berkeley and initiating counsel in the university case. “If they want to favor oil, coal and nuclear, and disfavor clean energy innovation, that’s their prerogative as the executive. But here we have stipulations saying that none of those things were true for these staggeringly consequential DOE grants.”

The lawsuit alleges that the government’s actions violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which prevents arbitrary discrimination, as well as the 1st Amendment in that it is targeting researchers for how their state voted.

“None of it was about a change in priorities,” Polsky said, noting that similar grants in red states were not canceled. “None of it was about fiscal stringency. None of it was about anything except punishing people who didn’t vote for Trump.”

Judge Rita F. Lin could order the federal funding to be reinstated, and indeed has already done so through some temporary preliminary injunctions. But many of the grantees are now in “purgatory” as the case proceeds toward a final ruling, Polsky said.

Many of the projects are complex, multi-year efforts that involve a hodgepodge of agencies, experts and partnerships, such as ARCHES, the state’s billion-dollar hydrogen hub awarded under President Biden. Officials with ARCHES could not immediately be reached for comment.

News of the funding cuts first broke last fall in a post on X from Russell Vought, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

“Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being canceled,” Vought wrote. “The projects are in the following states: CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA.”

At a House hearing in June, however, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said decisions were not made based on politics.

The Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Secretary Wright looked me in the eye, under oath, insisting the decision to cancel California’s clean energy projects was ‘not political,’” Sen. Alex Padilla said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “The Administration’s own court filings tell a different story. These decisions jeopardize good-paying jobs, undermine American energy innovation, and drive up costs.”

Padilla is among 30 California lawmakers, including Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San José), who separately challenged the funding cuts as unlawful — writing in an October letter to the Energy Department’s independent Office of the Inspector General that the decision targeted blue states “for their perceived lack of support for President Trump.” The office subsequently launched an investigation into the claims.

“Any Trump official who lied and told the nation these clean energy grant cancellations had nothing to do with politics should resign,” Schiff said in a post on X after the latest court filings were revealed. “As the administration has now been forced to concede — these cancellations had everything to do with politics. Of the worst kind.”

A final ruling is expected in early November.

Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

During the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, US President Donald Trump joked about running for a fourth term, despite the Constitution barring it. The event, which celebrates press freedom and honours journalism, came three months after the first was cancelled by a shooting.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and other Democratic attorneys general are suing the Trump administration over imposing what they contend are “unlawful” conditions on federal grants intended to help states prepare and respond to disasters.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island on Thursday, argues that the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency have been using their control over billions of dollars in federal grants to operate what the attorneys general see as an aggressive “campaign of coercion” to adopt the Trump administration’s preferred voting and immigration policies, according to the complaint.

“Congress never gave DHS or FEMA authority to rewrite state election law, require cooperation with federal immigration agents, or terminate federal funding streams at any time and for any reason,” the lawsuit stated. The legal action was filed by a coalition of 24 attorneys general and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, both Democrats.

A spokesperson for the White House did not respond to a request for comment.

At the crux of their legal complaint are two federal programs: the Homeland Security Grant Program, which was established by Congress as a response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, which helps states pay for emergency management staff who plan for and respond to natural disasters and mass casualty events, as well as software programs used by state emergency operations centers.

For the homeland security grant, the Trump administration has attached “radical” new terms based on Trump’s preferred policies, the states contend.

These terms include verifying the citizenship of all individuals in state voter databases, transitioning their voting systems to equipment that reads hand-marked paper ballots and conducting post-election audits “according to nonexistent guidelines to be set by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” according to the complaint.

And the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA have threatened to make states “promise to devote their scarce resources to the federal government’s own task of civil immigration enforcement” in order to receive both the homeland security and the emergency management grants, according to the complaint.

At a news conference Thursday, Bonta laid out the stakes.

“These grants help communities prepare for emergencies before disaster strikes,” he said. “They support emergency management personnel, strengthen disaster response capabilities, improve coordination among first responders, and help protect our residents when they need government the most.”

The Trump administration restrictions would mean “our communities would have fewer resources to prepare for wildfires, earthquakes, floods, terrorist threats, and other emergencies,” Bonta stated.

“Time after time, courts have told Trump’s corrupt administration that it can’t coerce California into doing its bidding by threatening to withhold public safety funding,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “Yet, they’re coming back for more. This time they’re demanding states rewrite their own election laws to access money that pays for public safety readiness and response, and that Congress already approved. We simply won’t allow it.”

July 20 (UPI) — The United States launched strikes on Iran for the 10th night in a row Monday as U.S. President Donald Trump said Iran would pay for the deaths of three U.S. service members.

U.S. Central Command posted on social media that a new round of strikes had started, while Iranian media reported explosions heard in several locations, including port areas of Chabahar and Konorak on the southeast coast, Bandar Abbas and Qeshm.

Iranian media also reported possible U.S. attacks on Shiraz, an inland city in the southern part of Iran.

Trump said in a social media post earlier Monday that Iran would pay “many times over” for the deaths of U.S. service members and that he’s passed that directive to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Earlier in the day, the Department of Defense identified two U.S. soldiers who were killed Friday by an Iranian strike in Jordan. Another soldier was killed Saturday in Iraq but has not yet been identified, and another is missing.

The Pentagon said Monday that nearly 100 U.S. service members have been injured over the last two weeks. Spokesman Sean Parnell said in a social media post that 96% have returned to duty.

“They are determined to get back in the fight,” Parnell wrote. “The vast majority of injuries experienced were minor concussions.”

Parnell’s statement occurred after reports from both the New York Times and CNN about how the Pentagon has reported injuries to U.S. troops in the Iran war. The Times reported that the Defense Department withheld reports on dozens of injuries to troops. CNN said the U.S. military has been slow to report on injuries, partly due to a military website with a delay in updates.

Iran continued to target countries that host U.S. military bases. The Kuwait military said it was intercepting “hostile” missiles and drones Monday afternoon, part of three rounds of Iranian attacks that day.

“The General Staff of the Kuwaiti Armed Forces confirms that any explosions that may be heard are the result of air defense systems intercepting hostile targets,” the military said in a statement.

Jordan said that it intercepted incoming missiles from Iran on Monday as well. The armed forces said the missiles caused no casualties or damage.

Also Monday, the UK Maritime Trade Operations center, which monitors shipping in the Persian Gulf, northern Indian Ocean and Red Sea, reported that a tanker was struck by a projectile in the Strait of Hormuz.

July 20 (UPI) — Cuban artist and dissident Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara said he cannot return home after arriving in exile in the United States this weekend.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio renewed his call Monday for the Cuban government to release more than 700 political prisoners amid rising tensions between Washington and Havana.

Otero Alcántara, 38, arrived in Miami on Saturday after spending five years imprisoned in Cuba on charges of desecrating national symbols, contempt and public disorder.

His arrival was confirmed by Rubio, who said the artist had been imprisoned for challenging the Cuban government.

In his first public remarks since arriving in the United States, the founder of the San Isidro Movement said prison changed the way he sees people, but acknowledged that exile carries a high personal cost.

“Five years later, I am more human. Prison is a place where you can look into the eyes of people who, even after committing the worst crimes, are still human beings,” he said in videos published by Caraota Digital.

However, he said that being forced to leave Cuba does not represent true freedom.

“I have been expelled from Cuba. This is not right. … I can’t see my son. I can’t return to my home. It’s just not right,” he said.

Otero Alcántara gained international prominence via a collective of artists and intellectuals that called for greater freedom of expression in Cuba and that, according to Amnesty International, has been the target of constant persecution by Cuban authorities.

He was arrested while attempting to join the anti-government protests of July 11, 2021, and was sentenced to five years in prison a year later.

After confirming Otero Alcántara’s arrival in the United States, Rubio said on X that the artist’s imprisonment was the result of challenging “the Marxist tyranny of the Cuban regime,” and he demanded the immediate release of “the more than 700 political prisoners unjustly detained” on the island.

Rubio said President Donald Trump‘s administration will continue to support those seeking greater political freedoms in Cuba.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently launched a public attack on the International Criminal Court (ICC), vowing to “dismantle the ICC—brick by brick.” Washington’s position is that the ICC has no authority to try officials from non-member states—such as the US itself—or their allies, and that it will not accept any international court exercising jurisdiction over American citizens without US consent. Washington therefore intends to use diplomatic pressure and sanctions to counter the Court.

If one still believes in the international community’s definition of war crimes, this looks like a political move to absolve the United States and Israel of war crimes committed in the Middle East. To that end, Washington is pressuring allies — including states that are parties to the Rome Statute — to withdraw from the ICC.

“Trump said in January, ‘I don’t need international law’ to highlight his ‘America First’ policy. He is now keeping that promise, and the ICC is just one example.”

The day before Rubio announced his intent to dismantle the ICC, fourteen countries, including the United States, publicly reaffirmed their support for the ten-year-old ruling in the South China Sea Arbitration—a decision handed down by another international arbitration body: an ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Ironically, of the fourteen countries, only the Philippines—the actual party to the case—has a direct stake in South China Sea rights. The other five countries with genuine interests in the South China Sea did not join this “cheerleading squad”: Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, and Indonesia. Of these, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei are, like the Philippines, “principal claimant states.”

Aside from the US and the Philippines, every other country among the fourteen marking the tenth anniversary of the ruling is an ICC member state: Australia, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Romania, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom.

These 12 ICC member states have no stake whatsoever in South China Sea affairs, yet they support an international arbitration body — and are now being pressured by the United States to boycott another international arbitration body they themselves belong to. Fourteen countries are happy to use international law to pressure China, but when international law becomes inconvenient for the US and Israel, is that suddenly a different matter?

The Philippines finds itself in the most awkward position of all. Manila withdrew from the ICC in 2019, yet after Ferdinand Marcos Jr. took office as president, it allowed Interpol and Philippine airport authorities to arrest former president Rodrigo Duterte in 2025 and hand him directly over to the ICC for trial.

The real story behind this episode is domestic political rivalry within the Philippines, combined with Washington’s long-standing displeasure with Duterte. International institutions have played the role of “witch-hunt enforcer,” helping the US and Manila nail a political opponent to the cross.

In the past, the international community could invoke Rome Statute standards to brand Duterte’s “war on drugs” a crime against humanity. But what now?

The ICC cannot prosecute non-member states, but it can prosecute individuals—such as Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover, under the Rome Statute’s territoriality principle, the Court has jurisdiction if the alleged crime occurred on the territory of a member state. In the Middle East case, Palestine is a state party. In the Philippine case, although Manila withdrew from the ICC in 2019, crimes committed before that withdrawal remain within the Court’s reach.

The reason the US can attack the ICC so freely is that other international arbitration bodies do not follow this same “detour through territoriality” to claim jurisdiction over non-member states, nor do they try individuals—they adjudicate sovereign states (or transnational corporate entities). As such, they strictly adhere to the most fundamental principle of international law: the principle of state consent.

Interestingly, the tribunal that presided over the South China Sea arbitration itself violated the principle of state consent by ruling on a case brought against China, which refused to participate. This is precisely why China has never recognized the ruling as having any legal basis. Yet the fourteen countries that support the ruling seem untroubled by this violation of a core principle of international law.

In other words, both the ICC and the ad hoc tribunal behind the South China Sea arbitration suffer from the same flaw: overreach. The ICC has been accused of an “idealism” that oversteps state sovereignty, while the South China Sea tribunal has been criticized for “procedural overreach”—under UNCLOS, an ad hoc tribunal has no authority whatsoever over land territorial sovereignty, yet the tribunal accepted the Philippines’ framing that “downgraded” what were really sovereignty and maritime-delimitation questions into a simple matter of “the legal status of islands and reefs” and used that framing to assert jurisdiction for itself.

Taiwan was an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire of the South China Sea arbitration. Itu Aba (Taiping Island), which is under the actual control of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and has both fresh water and the capacity to sustain human habitation, was nonetheless ruled to be a mere “”rock”—stripping it of any 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone.

Given that both international arbitration bodies suffer from the same problem of overreach, if one follows the US in opposing the ICC, shouldn’t one logically also oppose the South China Sea ruling? This month, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs launched an “urgent assessment” to awkwardly grapple with exactly this dilemma, since Manila has skin in both games—the Duterte case and the South China Sea ruling.

If Manila agrees to help dismantle the ICC, what happens to Duterte, still awaiting trial in The Hague? And if China then uses that same logic to reject the South China Sea ruling, what then? The other twelve member states that joined this “witch hunt” find themselves in an equally awkward spot.

Second only to the Philippines in embarrassment is Japan. Tokyo is the ICC’s largest financial backer; the Court’s current president, Tomoko Akane, is Japanese; and Japan has long been one of the ICC’s staunchest supporters. Is Tokyo now expected to help the US dismantle the ICC or to withdraw from it altogether?

Japan also finds itself in a glaring contradiction over the South China Sea ruling. If Taiwan-controlled Taiping Island—with an area of 510,000 square meters (roughly the size of 71 standard football pitches), fresh water, and the capacity to sustain habitation)—was ruled a mere “rock,” then how can Okinotorishima, an outcrop Japan claims sovereignty over that covers just 9.44 square meters (about the size of a double bed), possibly qualify as an “island”?

By that logic, Tokyo’s support for the South China Sea ruling effectively concedes that Okinotorishima has no exclusive economic zone at all — a self-inflicted contradiction that China has been quick to mock.

One could, therefore, say all fourteen countries backing the South China Sea ruling are applying a double standard, and that thirteen of them have no connection to the South China Sea whatsoever. Aside from the Philippines, the only country with any real claim to South China Sea interests is the United States — and the US holds international law in contempt, going so far as to vow to destroy an international arbitration institution outright.

This episode symbolizes the unraveling of the international order—a world reverting to the law of the jungle. The United States is dismantling the very international order it built, and the ones hurt most are precisely its own allies.

The Philippines and Japan have been given the responsibility of encircling China on the front line by the United States, but the footholds of the two countries are also being dismantled by the United States. In front of them, there is only the risk of opposing China and the weakening guarantee.

Above all, the United States has proven, by its own actions, that the so-called international order was never fair and never operated on a fixed standard — it was merely a temporary tool for an empire to rule the world. And when the tool stops being useful, it gets discarded, leaving its followers staring, embarrassed, at the tool still in their hands.

July 17 (Asia Today) — The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced a final rule Thursday limiting stays by international students and exchange visitors to no more than four years and requiring them to undergo federal review when seeking extensions.

The rule replaces the open-ended “duration of status” system for holders of F student visas and J exchange visitor visas with fixed admission periods tied to their programs and capped at four years.

About 1.5 million current F- and J-visa holders will automatically be transferred to the new system.

The change, combined with a shorter post-graduation grace period and mandatory extension reviews for students seeking Optional Practical Training, could disrupt the fall semester and reduce demand for study in the United States.

Exchange visitors will also be limited to four-year stays. Foreign journalists holding I visas will generally have to renew their status every 240 days.

Federal review required for extensions

F- and J-visa holders who need to remain in the United States beyond their authorized period will have to apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for an extension of stay.

Applicants will be required to submit biometric information and undergo security, identity and fraud screening. They must also demonstrate satisfactory academic progress and financial stability, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The change ends a system in place since 1978 that allowed students to remain in the country as long as they maintained the required course load and complied with the conditions of their immigration status.

Homeland Security officials said more than 2,100 F-1 students who entered the United States between 2000 and 2010 were still maintaining F-1 status in 2025.

The department said the rule was intended to prevent people from repeatedly enrolling in classes to avoid leaving the country, a practice officials described as creating “forever students.”

“For nearly half a century, the outdated duration-of-status system has undermined national security and created an environment where immigration fraud could flourish,” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said.

“By enforcing clear and finite periods, the United States is restoring its ability to properly screen and manage those who remain in our country,” he said.

Nearly 24,400 Koreans and family members affected

The roughly 1.5 million F- and J-visa holders currently staying in the United States under the duration-of-status system will receive fixed admission periods of up to four years beginning on the rule’s effective date, Bloomberg reported.

Foreign journalists entering on I visas will generally be admitted for 240 days and must apply for additional 240-day periods. Chinese journalists will be limited to 90-day extensions.

More than 1.8 million entries were recorded on student visas in 2024, an increase of more than 11% from the previous year, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

The United States also hosted about 500,000 J-visa exchange visitors and 37,000 foreign journalists holding I visas.

Students from India, China and South Korea are expected to be among those most affected by the rule, Bloomberg reported.

According to the South Korean Embassy in Washington, 11,861 South Korean students held F-1 visas in 2025 and 1,347 family members held F-2 visas.

Another 7,985 South Koreans held J-1 exchange visitor visas and 3,180 family members held J-2 visas, bringing the total number of South Korean F- and J-visa holders and their dependents to 24,373.

An additional 349 South Koreans held I visas.

The rule is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Friday and take effect 60 days later, in mid-September.

Its implementation during the fall semester could create confusion involving visa extensions and student enrollment records, Bloomberg reported.

Shorter grace period could disrupt employment pathway

The rule cuts the grace period after graduation from 60 days to 30 days for students preparing to leave the United States, transfer schools or change immigration status.

It also bars graduate students from changing their educational objectives and requires government approval before they transfer to another institution, Reuters reported.

Doctoral students, whose programs commonly take about six years, may have to apply for extensions before completing their studies and face the possibility of denial, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Doctors participating in long-term training programs will also have to seek extensions after four years, according to Bloomberg.

Nearly all students using Optional Practical Training, which permits eligible graduates to work in the United States for up to three years, will effectively be required to apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for extensions for the first time.

Visa holders who remain beyond their authorized periods could face three- or 10-year bans on re-entering the United States, depending on the length of the overstay.

Technology and financial companies frequently hire international graduates through Optional Practical Training before sponsoring them for H-1B specialty occupation visas.

More restrictive access to practical training could narrow that employment pathway, The Wall Street Journal reported.

David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, said the restrictions on changing educational objectives and transferring schools lacked a legal basis.

He said graduates who fail to find an employer sponsor within 30 days could “immediately become unlawfully present.”

Education groups consider challenge

Fanta Aw, president and chief executive officer of the Association of International Educators, called the rule a misguided and unnecessary policy change.

She said it would inject “uncertainty, bureaucracy and fear” into a system that had operated effectively for decades and said the association was considering all available options to challenge it.

Todd Lyons, a former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in May that the agency had launched an investigation into fraud involving Optional Practical Training.

Lyons said investigators had identified 10,000 international students employed by companies suspected of fraud and described the program as a “magnet for fraud,” Bloomberg reported.

The number of international students in the United States fell 1.4% during the previous fall semester, while new international student enrollment declined 17%.

Student visa issuance fell 36% during the previous summer, and the new rule could accelerate the decline as it takes effect during the fall semester, Bloomberg reported.

The regulation will also be subject to congressional review before its implementation, Reuters reported.

Doug Rand, a former Homeland Security official, said most Americans understand both the value of welcoming international students and the need to eliminate unnecessary regulation.

“This rule will achieve precisely the opposite result,” he said.

International education expert Rajika Bhandari said students would consider not only whether they could obtain visas and enter the United States but also whether they had viable long-term options after completing their studies.

She said Asian students and graduate students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields would be particularly affected.

“The implications of this change are not yet fully understood by students, but they will be profound,” Bhandari said.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260717010006341