states

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

Tehran launched strikes against several countries across the Gulf and wider region overnight as the United States military raised its attacks on Iran.

Reports on Friday morning said that Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar, as well as Jordan and Syria, had been forced to take defensive action against Iranian missiles and drones, amid a sixth night of US strikes on Iran.

The escalating US air campaign targeted civilian infrastructure in the south of the country, including telecommunications networks, railway systems, and the Bandar-e Khamir bridge in Hormozgan province, where local media reported on Thursday night that at least seven people were killed.

Tehran has justified its strikes against Gulf and other states by saying it is targeting US facilities in the region, insisting that Washington has used its bases there as launchpads to strike Iran.

In Qatar, which hosts major US military facilities, the security threat level was elevated as loud explosions were heard across parts of the capital, Doha, early on Friday morning.

Warning sirens sounded as residents received security alerts on their mobile phones. Qatar’s security threat level was raised again after the initial alert, but the situation later returned to “normal” after the threats were cleared.

The Qatari Ministry of Interior confirmed on Friday morning that a child who was injured by falling shrapnel during the assault is now receiving medical care. Earlier, Qatar rejected Israeli reports that it was planning to join military action against Iran.

Iran’s army said it targeted US helicopters and reconnaissance aircraft at the Sakhir airbase in Bahrain, according to a report from the country’s semi-official Tasnim news agency.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed early on Friday to have successfully targeted US monitoring assets in Oman.

In a statement, the military said it destroyed a US air control radar in the northern Ghanim region and a maritime surveillance radar positioned on rocks in the Strait of Hormuz.

The IRGC declared that the critical shipping waterway – which has become the key issue in the latest outburst of conflict between the US and Iran – “remains in the hands of the IRGC Navy’s admirals”.

The IRGC also reported that it hit a US military base in Kuwait early on Friday. It said that the attack targeted a missile defence radar, several key weapons depots and two HIMARS surface-to-surface missile launchers.

In northern Iraq, Kurdish counterterrorism forces reported that US coalition forces shot down eight explosive drones over the city of Erbil, according to the Iraqi News Agency (INA). No casualties were reported.

The Jordanian army announced its air defence systems shot down three Iranian missiles transiting its airspace on Friday morning. No casualties were reported as engineering teams dealt with falling debris.

The IRGC also claimed to have attacked a US special operations command centre at the al-Tanf military base in Syria, according to a Tasnim news agency report.

Call to return to ‘hard-won’ deal

As hostilities between the US and Iran continue to escalate, threatening to spread across the region and curb the global economy, efforts to convince Washington and Tehran to return to negotiations are accelerating.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Pakistani counterpart Ishaq Dar called on Friday for an immediate ceasefire and the resumption of dialogue, hoping to save the tentative ceasefire agreed upon last month.

Both countries have sought to mediate in the months-long conflict, which rekindled with renewed fighting over the Strait of Hormuz a month after the signing of a preliminary deal aiming to end the war.

That agreement was “hard-won”, Wang said, adding: “Peace is before our eyes, [we] cannot fall at the last hurdle and even more so cannot lose what we have gained.”

Iran has said 38 people have been killed, and more than 400 injured, in the US attacks since the two sides met in Switzerland on June 22 for talks to end the war through a 60-day negotiation period, the AFP news agency reported.

When major disasters strike, Americans are routinely waiting weeks — or even months — to receive presidential approval for aid. And if they live in a state that didn’t support President Trump, chances are greater that aid will be denied.

Since taking office last year, Trump has approved about 65 requests for major disaster declarations and denied more than two dozen others from states, tribes or territories seeking federal financial assistance following hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, floods and fires.

Trump has taken longer on average to approve disaster requests than any other president, according to an Associated Press analysis of data dating back to 1989, when a federal law setting new parameters for disaster determinations was implemented. And no other president has such a disparity in denials between states that supported him politically and those that did not.

The delays and denials come as Trump’s administration contemplates a makeover of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which administers disaster aid. Major disaster declarations are intended for events that are beyond the resources of state and local governments.

Trump is saying yes to Republicans more than Democrats

During his second term, Trump has denied a greater percentage of disaster requests than any president dating to 1989. Those denials have not been evenly distributed among states.

Trump has approved 80% of the disaster requests from Republican governors but only about 60% from Democratic governors, according to the AP’s analysis of FEMA data.

The discrepancy is even more apparent when analyzing major disaster declarations based on presidential elections. Trump has approved more than three-fourths of the requests from states that voted for him in the 2024 election but less than half the requests from states that did not. Although there are federal criteria for disaster aid, decisions ultimately are at the president’s discretion.

A batch of denials earlier this month included four Democratic states — Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island — seeking federal aid for a February snowstorm.

“The President’s denial is part of a pattern of extreme partisanship as he tries to shift a heavier economic burden onto blue states. Disaster aid should be merit-based, not politicized,” Rhode Island’s Democratic U.S. Senate and House members said in a joint statement.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that “there is no politicization to the President’s decisions on disaster relief.”

During his first term, Trump actually approved a greater share of requests from states that had opposed him than those that supported him.

Yet no other president had such a wide partisan divide in disaster declarations as currently exists under Trump. Obama approved 87% of the disaster requests from Democratic governors during his second term and 79% from Republican governors, but Obama’s approval rate was identical for states that voted for and against him.

When requests are denied, individuals, insurers and local governments are left to shoulder the costs themselves.

Trump is waiting longer to declare disasters

Since Trump assumed office last year, it’s taken him an average of a month and a half to approve major disaster declarations after receiving a request from the governor or chief executive of a state, territory or tribe, the AP found. Because it can take several weeks after a disaster for officials to inspect the damage and submit a request, the total wait time often has exceeded two months.

By comparison, Trump approved major disaster requests in an average of about three weeks during his first term, a pace similar to President Joe Biden. Their predecessors — Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton and George H.W. Bush — all had average disaster approval times of less than two weeks.

All presidents have taken longer to approve some requests. But that’s become the norm in Trump’s second term. Of Trump’s approvals, 70% have taken at least a month — up from about one-quarter of requests during Trump’s first term and Biden’s administration, and fewer than 10% under their predecessors.

Jackson said that Trump conducts a more thorough review than any administration before him, “ensuring American tax dollars are used appropriately and efficiently by the states to supplement — not substitute — their obligation to respond to and recover from disasters.”

The longer the approval process takes, the longer people must wait to receive federal aid for daily living expenses, temporary lodging and home repairs. Delays in major disaster declarations also can hamper recovery efforts by local officials uncertain whether they will receive federal reimbursement for cleaning up debris and rebuilding infrastructure.

FEMA nominee is pledging faster decisions

FEMA has had four different temporary leaders since Trump took office in January 2025. One of those, Cameron Hamilton, is awaiting Senate confirmation as the agency’s permanent director.

During a Senate committee hearing last month, Hamilton said he would try to speed up disaster declaration decisions and reimbursements. He also pledged to ensure that FEMA is objective, fair and reasonable in reviewing disaster declaration requests and making recommendations to the president.

Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL, had been fired as FEMA’s acting director in May 2025 after publicly disagreeing with Trump’s idea of dismantling the agency. His reemergence signals that Trump now may support changes to FEMA instead of an outright elimination of the agency.

Panel’s recommendations could lead to more denials

A council appointed by Trump has recommended a series of changes to FEMA that would shift greater responsibility to states, potentially reducing the number of major disaster declarations and the amount of federal money paid out.

The council suggested revised criteria to qualify for presidential declarations, including a prerequisite of annual minimum expenditures by states, territories and tribes.

Another recommendation, which would require congressional approval, would reduce the federal government’s share of the disaster aid from a minimum of 75% to 50% of the costs, leaving state and local governments more to cover. For governments approved for assistance, federal funding could get there quicker — within 30 days of a federal disaster declaration, instead of waiting months or years for reimbursements that are based on proof of expenditures.

For individuals, the council recommended consolidating several different types of aid into one payment targeted for those whose homes are uninhabitable.

Lieb and Wildeman write for the Associated Press.

July 15 (UPI) — The United States struck Iranian targets again Wednesday evening, marking the fifth straight day of strikes and the second wave that day, as President Donald Trump said Iran’s leaders “better behave.”

U.S. Central Command said in a social media post that the later strikes “are targeting Iranian military capabilities used to threaten vessels freely transiting through the Strait of Hormuz.”

“The U.S. military is holding Iran accountable at the Commander in Chief’s direction,” the post said.

The U.S. attacks followed early strikes on Greater Tunb Island in the Strait of Hormuz, a key site for Iran’s coastal defenses and missile storage, CNN reported. The United States military also said it fired on a ship that tried to violate its blockade of Iran’s ports and “redirected” two other commercial vessels.

Iranian media reported explosions in several areas, including Bandar Abbas and the city of Ahvaz. The state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting said Shahid Baghaei Hospital, which is in Ahvaz and treats children with cancer, evacuated families after a U.S. projectile landed nearby, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, Iran said it struck U.S. military targets in Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain. Iranian negotiator Bagher Ghalibaf told state media that Iran’s leaders had “no reason” to abide by any deal with the United States if the country did not benefit from it, but he left the door open for possible diplomacy. An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, however, said Iran has no plans for negotiations.

Trump said Wednesday that Iran’s leaders “better behave” as he spoke with reporters, one day after he threatened that the United States would strike bridges and power plants if Iran would not negotiate again.

“They want to settle so badly,” Trump said later Wednesday at a defense summit. “They don’t like what we’re doing. We’ll find out whether we want to settle with them or if we just finish it off.”

July 13 (UPI) — The attorneys general of 12 states sued Monday to block the proposed merger of Paramount and Warner Bros., saying it would undermine competition in the entertainment industry.

A news release announcing the lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James said Paramount Skydance Corp.’s purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. “would combine two of the five major film studios and two of the five major basic cable companies, creating a massive conglomerate in markets for basic cable and theatrical film releases.”

“For over a century, Paramount and Warner Bros. have competed to create movies and television that bring people together, inspire and sustain generations of artists, and help us understand the world,” James said. “This merger would destroy that competitions, creating a massive company with unprecedented power and influence over news and entertainment across the globe.”

The release said the merger would increase costs for consumers and put jobs at risk.

The lawsuit comes one month after the Justice Department approved the planned merger, saying it doesn’t harm consumers in the United States.

Warner Bros. shareholders gave their blessing to the merger in April after Paramount offered to buy the company for $31 per share — a deal worth $110 billion.

Joining New York in the lawsuit were Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington.

Deadline reported that Paramount could threaten to leave California in retaliation for the state’s involvement in the lawsuit. California Attorney General Rob Bonta described the two companies as “behemoths” in the entertainment industry and said their merger would lead to higher prices, lower quality and less content for consumers.

“California’s film and entertainment industry touches the lives of Americans daily — it comes into the living rooms of families, has a starring role in many young people’s first dates, and is a point of immense pride and employment for Californians up and down our state,” he said in a news release.

“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices — it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and 11 other Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Monday to block Paramount Skydance’s proposed $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — a last-ditch effort to derail a deal that would transform Hollywood.

Tech scion David Ellison’s proposed merger has been hurtling toward the finish line after securing approvals from the U.S. Justice Department and numerous foreign governments. President Trump, an ally of Ellison’s billionaire father Larry Ellison, favors the deal. He is eager for a big shakeup at CNN, which is currently controlled by Warner Bros.

David Ellison now faces his biggest challenge yet as he attempts to build a new entertainment behemoth.

A Paramount representative did not immediately comment.

The suit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, alleges that the proposed merger would violate the U.S. Clayton Act, a century-old antitrust law to prevent mergers that weaken competition and increase costs for consumers.

“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices — it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences,” Bonta said in a statement.

“California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets,” he said.

California and the 11 other states, including New York, New Jersey, Washington and Colorado, allege the merger would devastate the theatrical film business by combining two historic film studio rivals. The Ellison family would control such storied franchises as Harry Potter, Bugs Bunny, Batman, “Top Gun” and “Game of Thrones.”

The proposed purchase also would unite two prominent news organizations — CNN and CBS News.

The states have asked Paramount to delay the closing of its Warner Bros. takeover until the litigation can be resolved.

If Paramount refuses, Bonta said the coalition would seek a temporary restraining order asking a judge to hold up the merger, a move that would cause costly delays and escalate legal expenses for Paramount in their quest to finalize the deal.

Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle, is bankrolling his son’s ambitions to acquire a second major entertainment company in less than a year. The Ellison family acquired control of CBS-owner Paramount in August and, at the time, David Ellison touted the move of Paramount’s headquarters from New York’s Times Square to Hollywood.

Now, Paramount is reportedly threatening to leave California in the face of Bonta’s legal action.

If the merger goes through, Paramount would own four streaming services, including Warner’s HBO Max and the dominant U.S. cable TV channel owner with HBO, TBS, HGTV, Animal Planet, Food Network, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.

The U.S. Justice Department last month approved the merger, saying the combination would likely bolster competition — not harm it. The agency’s decision had been expected because of Larry Ellison’s strong support of Trump.

In a show of confidence earlier this year, the Ellisons agreed to increase the payout to Warner investors should the regulatory approval process drag on. Those extra 25-cent-per-share payments begin with the October-December quarter, and would add more than $650 million in deal costs each quarter — giving David Ellison an increased incentive to quickly close the deal.

The proposed merger has sparked fears in Hollywood that it will bring thousands of job losses — similar to past consolidations, including Walt Disney Co.’s 2019 takeover of Fox entertainment properties.

Some theater owners, hard hit by the pandemic and production slowdowns, have expressed concerns the merger would lead to fewer films being made.

The new colossus would significantly dampen competition, Bonta and the other Democrat prosecutors argue. They pointed to the wide-release movie film distribution business, where Warner Bros. and Paramount control about 27% of the market.

After the merger just four companies — Paramount-Warner, Disney, NBCUniversal and Sony Pictures — would control 86% of the films that were widely released, Bonta said.

Paramount has said the deal will boost competition — not hamper it. Ellison has promised to continue releasing 30 films a year with a combined Warner Bros.-Paramount studio, roughly the current output of the two studios.

Ellison also vowed to protect the HBO brand.

Another concern is the licensing of basic cable TV channels, including CNN and HGTV, to pay-TV providers such as Charter’s Spectrum, DirecTV and Google’s YouTube TV. Warner Bros. is the second largest cable channel owner and Paramount is the third largest. Together their channels would represent about 27% of the market.

The typical threshold for antitrust concerns is at least 30% marketshare.

More than 5,000 entertainment industry workers, including Jane Fonda, Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston, Javier Bardem, Lin-Manuel Miranda and Mark Ruffalo, signed an open letter calling on Bonta to block the merger.

Some have expressed concerns about marrying CNN and CBS News following months of turmoil at CBS News since David Ellison hired journalist Bari Weiss as CBS News editor in chief. Last month, Weiss orchestrated a dramatic shakeup at the iconic “60 Minutes” news program, with top executives and three well-known correspondents tossed out.

The Ellison family recently shed its movie theater chain, which it picked up as part of the Paramount acquisition, to clear the way for the Warner deal.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is leading an effort by state attorneys general to block Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)

The deal also faces opposition outside the U.S.
. The British culture minister in late June said she was weighing whether to intervene in the deal due to concerns about maintaining a competitive media market. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority also has opened an investigation into Paramount’s proposed merger.

In April, a federal judge in Sacramento granted a request from Bonta and seven other attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, which freezes the merger of Nexstar Media Group, which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5, and Tegna. The deal was designed to create the nation’s largest TV outlet group .

A larger group of state attorneys general also won a New York jury verdict against Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster. Jurors found that Live Nation had illegally monopolized the live concert industry.

Bonta also has an ongoing case against Amazon for price fixing, which the company denies.

Still, legal experts say the states may face an uphill climb to detrail the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger because the arrival of Netflix, Amazon and Apple dramatically shifted the landscape.

The tech giants, which introduced consumer-friendly streaming options, have lessened the influence of traditional companies like Paramount and Warner Bros.

Paramount’s deal would mark the third time Warner has changed hands in the last decade.

AT&T bought the company in 2018 and then sold it to the smaller Discovery four years later. That deal left Warner Bros. burdened by debt, leading to deep cost cuts and setting the stage for the Ellison takeover.

President Trump’s administration is threatening to withhold some federal funding from states that don’t make changes to voting practices and is warning state election officials that they face arrest if they don’t remove noncitizens from voter rolls.

Letters to states and grant application details are the latest in a line of actions by Trump’s administration to shape details of running elections that have long been the job of states.

Courts have largely rejected the administration’s previous efforts, which reflect untrue claims about widespread voting fraud and come less than four months ahead of crucial midterm elections where Democrats seek to take control of one or both chambers of Congress and check Trump’s power.

“The overall point is that Trump is trying to use whatever levers of power and persuasive power that he might have to try to interfere with how states and localities are going to conduct the 2026 election,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor and the director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project. “Some of this is aimed at changing how the rules are conducted. Some of it appears to be aimed at undermining voter confidence in the integrity of the election process.”

Justice Department warns election officials of prosecution

In letters sent Tuesday, to election officials for all 50 states and the District of Columbia — often secretaries of state — the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division said they and other election administrators could face criminal charges if they knowingly allow nonvoters to vote or remain on voting rolls.

It also called on the states to tell the federal government within five days how they intend to comply with the law.

Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in election law, said it’s not clear the 50-state letter means anything except to restate some parts of the law, with a request to follow up, “which I’m sure many states will ignore.”

The letter also warns that anyone who knowingly and willfully gives false information in registering to vote or voting would face criminal prosecution.

Antiterrorism grants include election requirements

A Federal Emergency Management Agency antiterrorism grant announcement in June includes a list of election-related requirements, saying that 20% of grants for states and urban areas would be withheld until they comply.

The program includes more than $1 billion for states and local and tribal governments for a variety of programs aimed at preventing terror at crowded places, online, with border security — and around elections. FEMA expects to award 56 grants.

“Recipients can ensure that their efforts contribute to a secure, transparent, and resilient electoral process, thereby reinforcing public trust and the integrity of democratic institutions,” the grant announcement says, noting that securing election infrastructure is a national security priority.

The list of items for states includes verifying the citizenship of all registered voters and election workers.

Places that use electronic voting systems that use bar codes or QR codes to count votes would have to submit plans to switch to hand-marked paper ballots. Every jurisdiction would have to show it audits results.

UCLA’s Hasen said it could be difficult even for states that want to comply. It’s too close to the midterm election to make some of the changes, he said, and some would require state legislatures to pass new laws.

The White House on Wednesday referred questions to FEMA, which did not immediately respond to an interview request.

Response from states appears to be partisan

Some states are pushing back, while others are defending the latest actions.

They seem to be breaking along party lines.

Oregon’s secretary of state, Democrat Tobias Read, accused the Justice Department of “knocking on our door again with more threats and no evidence to back up their fever dreams about non-existent voter fraud.”

Oregon elections are secure, accurate, and fair, he said, adding that he isn’t “intimidated by political threats or manufactured controversy.”

The Michigan secretary of state’s office, headed by Democrat Jocelyn Benson, said it has discussed its work repeatedly with the Justice Department and in public statements, congressional hearings and court testimony — information that it said “is either in the DOJ’s possession or easy reach.”

“We will be happy to provide it again to help address any confusion,” the office said in a statement.

In a statement, Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose defended the Justice Department’s missive to states, saying it’s reminding them of their legal obligation regarding election integrity. A lot of states aren’t taking it seriously, he said without giving examples or citing evidence. He said Ohio has worked with the federal government to ensure that its voter rolls are accurate and that only U.S. citizens vote.

Georgia’s secretary of state’s office says the state has already taken many of the actions required in the FEMA grant, including a citizenship audit of voter rolls.

Several of Trump’s election actions have faced resistance

Trump has repeatedly and wrongly asserted that fraud cost him reelection in 2020, and his administration has put forth a series of policies and actions aimed at how elections are run.

In recent days, courts have rejected the Justice Department’s effort to collect the names and contact information for every election worker in Georgia in the 2020 election and others trying to force New Hampshire and Pennsylvania to turn over detailed information about registered voters. With those rulings, the federal government has lost similar cases more than 10 times around its requests for details from 30 states and the District of Columbia.

Last week, a group of Democratic governors asked the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw its proposed rule seeking to implement an order from Trump to create a list of eligible voters — and potentially limit who can receive a ballot in the mail. A court previously put the order on hold, saying it was unconstitutional.

Also last week, the Supreme Court rebuked Trump and ruled that states can count mailed ballots that arrive after Election Day.

Mulvihill and Levy write for the Associated Press. AP writers Gabriela Aoun Angueira, Bill Barrow, Kate Brumback and Josh Kelety contributed to this report.

The US military says it has struck 90 targets across Iran, hitting ports and infrastructure along the Strait of Hormuz. Iran says at least 14 people have been killed in two nights of attacks, and that it has responded with drone strikes on US-linked sites in the Gulf region.

July 8 (UPI) — The U.S. military resumed attacks against Iran on Wednesday afternoon “to further degrade their ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz,” U.S. Central Command said.

“The United States is holding Iran accountable for recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping and civilian crews freely navigating a vital international waterway,” the statement continued.

U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking at a news conference at the end of the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, said the United States would resume its naval blockade of Iran. He said further negotiations were “a waste of time” and added “Let’s just finish the job.”

Trump had earlier characterized the resumed strikes as “a little warning,” and said, “We’re going to hit them hard tonight, but we’ll see how it all works out.”

Iranian media reported explosions in the cities of Bandar Abbas and Sirik, which the United States also struck Tuesday, and in the cities of Chabahar and Konarak on Iran’s southern coast. Sources said Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant did not sustain any damage.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the Pentagon would strike Iran “even more and even deeper” if Trump said the word.

Earlier Wednesday, Trump called Iran’s leaders “scum” and “vicious, violent people.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that addressing Iran with “derogatory language” does not diminish it.

“Iranians are known for their civility, culture and strong moral values,” he said in a social media post. “We do not answer vulgarity with vulgarity, but with action: fearlessly and with great valor.”

Tuesday’s attacks lasted about four hours and struck more than 80 targets, U.S. Central Command said. The attacks came after Iran attacked three commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

The United States also reimposed sanctions on Iranian oil sales in retaliation for the attacks. Iran said the sanctions were “in clear violation” of the memorandum of understanding to end the conflict between Iran and the United States that was signed in June.

July 8 (UPI) — Cases of cyclosporiasis, an infection that causes “explosive” diarrhea, are on the rise in regions throughout the United States, health officials said Wednesday.

The intestinal illness, which is caused by the Cyclospora cayetanensis parasite, often surges through the summer, but this year has been marked by larger-than-usual spikes in some states.

Reported cases in Michigan are nearing 1,000 since June 22, a representative from the state’s Department of Health and Human Services told ABC News. The state usually has about 50 reported cases a year.

Authorities in Ohio, North Carolina, New York, Texas and Illinois are also dealing with more cases than usual. However, a spokesperson for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said there is “no evidence of a single, multistate Cyclospora outbreak” right now. It can take weeks or more for local authorities to report confirmed cases to the CDC.

The parasite spreads through food or water contaminated by feces from an infected person, and person-to-person spread is unlikely. ABC News reports that the Michigan health department’s working hypothesis is that the outbreak is connected to contaminated produce.

Past outbreaks have been connected to fresh produce such as raspberries, salad greens, basil, cilantro and snow peas.

The illness is not usually life-threatening, but if not treated, it can last a few days to over a month, the CDC said. Multiple relapses are possible. The CDC also notes that the true number of those infected with Cyclospora is likely higher than reported.

In addition to the most well-known symptom of sudden, watery diarrhea, symptoms of cyclosporiasis include vomiting, nausea, severe stomach cramps, loss of appetite and fatigue. It can take up to two weeks after eating contaminated food for symptoms to show themselves.

To avoid cyclosporiasis, people should avoid food and water that may be contaminated.

They also should take basic food safety precautions, such as washing hands with soap and water before and after handling raw fruits or vegetables, thoroughly washing all fresh produce under running water before eating or preparing, cutting away any damaged areas on fresh produce and refrigerating prepared produce as soon as possible.

July 8 (UPI) — NATO countries in Europe, plus Canada, agreed Wednesday to jointly spend $50 billion over the coming decade on developing new ground-based “deep precision strike capabilities,” including an advanced missile with a 1,250 mile range to defend the continent and beyond.

Launched by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the NATO Summit in Ankara, the project brings together Britain, France, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Greece, Czechia, Slovakia, Turkey and Canada, Downing Street said in a news release.

The initiative was, Britain said, proof that allies were taking action to strengthen Europe’s ability to defend by “radically boosting NATO’s defense and deterrence capabilities” and ensuring a “more European NATO.”

“We must step up to deliver a stronger, more European NATO. The U.K.is already working with partners to develop exquisite capability that will give our Armed Forces the ability to defend and deter thousands of kilometres from the front line, but this U.K.-led initiative will allow us to step up our cooperation, bringing European Allies together to ensure NATO remains safe and secure for years to come,” said Starmer.

NATO said in a statement that the breakthrough came after NATO allies “made progress on providing innovative and cost-effective solutions for munitions and deep strike systems, delivering them faster and at greater scale.”

The costs and complexity involved in developing and making advanced strike capabilities, together with recurring compatibility and interchangeability problems and the rapidly evolving threat of long-range strikes requiring a nimble response, meant it made sense for allies to work together, NATO said.

Leveraging multinational projects and shared defense purchasing would spread the cost, realize economies of scale and deliver field capabilities much faster than working individually, it added.

Britain, France, Italy, Denmark, Norway and Turkey will work together on developing the proposed long-range missile deterrent and other “novel deep precision strike capabilities,” including new missiles and launchers.

The remainder of the countries — plus Denmark, Norway and Turkey — agreed to work together to address issues created by the array of different weapons systems used by NATO member states by developing a prototype generic NATO artillery round, aimed at establishing standards for a “future fully interchangeable, interoperable NATO 155mm munition.”

Speaking in Ankara, British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said the new deep precision strike capability would deter would-be aggressors by enabling NATO to target high-value military assets and “the logistical engines that drive armies.

“At Ankara we are sending a clear message to President Putin; NATO is stronger, more European and ready to defend our citizens against the long-term threat posed by him and the Russian state,” said Cooper.

Britain is already working on a multi-billion-dollar project to jointly develop long-range stealth and hypersonic missiles with Germany as part of an enhanced defense cooperation pact between the countries signed in summer 2024.

It is also working with France and Italy on Stratus, a new family of long-range cruise and anti-ship weapon, to replace the Storm Shadow cruise missile and Harpoon and Exocet anti-ship weapons used by the militaries of the three countries.

Stratus is being developed by the pan-European defense contractor MBDA Missile Systems.

Wednesday’s developments came amid a summit at which the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has been doubling down on its burden-sharing message that Europe must shoulder more responsibility for its own defense and for member states to meet pledges made in The Hague in 2025 to up core military spending to 3.5% of GDP, or 5% total defense and security-related spending.

July 7 (UPI) — The U.S. military said late Tuesday that it struck dozens of targets in Iran in response to Iran attacking three ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

The attacks were “to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway,” U.S. Central Command said in a social media post. “Iran’s demonstrated aggression was unwarranted, dangerous and a clear violation of the cease-fire.”

It announced the end of the offensive hours later, saying more than 80 targets were hit with precision munitions, including air defense systems, command-and-control networks, coastal radar sites and more than 60 small boats of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps used to attack commercial vessels transiting the strait.

“The unwarranted aggression by Iranian forces is a clear and dangerous violation of the cease-fire and undermines freedom of navigation,” CENTCOM said in a statement.

“CENTCOM forces remain postured and prepared to hold Iran accountable when the agreement is not adhered to or obeyed by.”

The attack comes amid seemingly stalled negotiations between Iran and the United States on implementing a previously agreed to memorandum of understanding that could pave the way to ending the war.

The Strait of Hormuz, however, has been a sticking point. Washington is seeking freedom of navigation, while Iran is attempting to hold onto control of the important energy shipping route that it seized in late February with a military blockade in response to the U.S.-Israel attack that started the war.

After the three commercial vessels were struck in the Strait of Hormuz, the United States also reimposed sanctions on Iranian oil sales in retaliation for the attacks. The Treasury Department revoked waivers allowing Iran to sell oil and petrochemicals, CBS News reported.

Iran said the sanctions were “in clear violation” of the memorandum of understanding to end the conflict between Iran and the United States that was signed in June. Iran’s Foreign Ministry said it “holds the U.S. government responsible for this breach of commitment,” CNN reported.

The ministry said the United States “has repeatedly committed both minor and major violations of various provisions of the” agreement over the past 20 days.

Following the completion of the U.S. strikes, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf accused the Trump administration of committing “major MOU violations,” including its adjustments in the strait, making threats, reinstating sanctions and attacking Iran.

“The era of bullying and extortion is over,” he said in an online statement.

“It leads nowhere. We don’t fold.”

Iranian state media earlier reported explosions in Bandar Abbas and Sirik. Iran had previously warned the United States and Israel not to launch any strikes during the funeral for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed by U.S. attacks in February. The funeral is expected to last throughout this week.

The earlier strikes by Iran were on tankers that were allegedly trying to travel the strait by a route Iran has warned against, CBS News reported. While Iran did not claim the attacks, state media said at least one ship ignored warnings.

U.S. President Donald Trump is in Ankara, Turkey, for a NATO summit, during which attendees were expected to discuss the Strait of Hormuz.