states

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.

I hope all our American readers, have a great weekend enjoying the 250th birthday of the United States of America! Sit back, have a brew and a dog, smoke a cigar, enjoy the fireworks! And, above all else, watch tomorrow’s flyby!

Have a great weekend everyone and happy bday Lady Liberty!

This week’s caption reads:

A F-117 Stealth Fighter from the 49th Fighter Wing, based at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, shows off its paint job during a March 12 refueling mission flown by the Columbus-based 121st Air Refueling Wing of the Ohio Air National Guard. (Photo/Senior Master Sgt. Kim Frey)

Prime Directives:

• If you want to talk politics, do so respectfully and know that there’s always somebody that isn’t going to agree with you. 
• If you have political differences, hash it out respectfully, stick to the facts, and no childish name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. If you can’t handle yourself in that manner, then please, discuss virtually anything else.
• No drive-by garbage political memes. No conspiracy theory rants. Links to crackpot sites will be axed, too. Trolling and shitposting will not be tolerated. No obsessive behavior about other users. Just don’t interact with folks you don’t like. 
• Do not be a sucker and feed trolls! That’s as much on you as on them. Use the mute button if you don’t like what you see.  
• So unless you have something of quality to say, know how to treat people with respect, understand that everyone isn’t going to subscribe to your exact same worldview, and have come to terms with the reality that there is no perfect solution when it comes to moderation of a community like this, it’s probably best to just move on. 
• Finally, as always, report offenders, please. This doesn’t mean reporting people who don’t share your political views, but we really need your help in this regard.

New Jersey is launching a new fee on companies whose workers have Medicaid health coverage instead of being covered by their employers. Other states are considering it, too.

Democratic lawmakers and governors see it as a way to help pay for the joint federal and state insurance program that covers low-income residents as federal policy changes are expected to make the program more expensive for states and may lead to a reduction in the number of people with coverage.

Proponents also say it’s about fairness because employers benefit from having some lower-income workers with taxpayer-funded health coverage.

Business groups object. So do some liberal policy organizations.

New Jersey is putting the fee in place

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a measure Tuesday night to charge employers that have at least 50 workers covered by Medicaid, and the state budget she approved earlier in the week counts on raising $145 million this year from the program.

Under the plan, companies will be billed for each employee and employees’ dependent receiving Medicaid, the joint state-federal insurance program.

The fees per person would start at $325 a year for companies with 50 to 249 Medicaid beneficiaries and top out at $725 annually for employers with at least 500 recipients.

A bill passed this week in California doesn’t impose a charge now, but it does direct the state administration to present lawmakers options for doing so next year.

Finishing the job would fall to the successor of Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who is leaving office in January. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra has made an employer charge part of his election platform.

State Sen. John Laird, a Democrat who sponsored the California proposal, said the big tax and policy law President Trump signed a year ago was a major factor in the need for action because it could prompt the state to spend more on Medicaid to plug holes left by federal changes.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office expects more than 10 million people will be uninsured because of the law by 2034. It requires some beneficiaries to work, be in school or volunteer — and requires even more to document whether they meet the requirements.

Most employees at the bigger companies would not be at risk of losing Medicaid coverage as long as they’re working at least 20 hours a week.

Laird also said there’s an equity issue involved.

“If you’re a small business person in California, you are quite likely paying for health insurance for your employees. And through your taxes, you’re paying for health insurance for some of the biggest employers in California,” he said. “And that’s not fair.”

Legislation with similar intents passed one legislative chamber in both Colorado and Oregon this year, but neither made it to law. A measure was also introduced in Washington.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat who is seeking a third term in November’s election, has called for the same move there with the idea of making it a part of the state budget that would kick in two years from now.

Opposition comes from business and some liberal groups

It’s no surprise that business organizations have criticized the approach, which would add to their expenses.

“The fact remains that many job-creators are still going to be penalized for something they have no control over,” Christopher Emigholz, the chief government affairs officer at the New Jersey Business and Industry Assn., said in a statement. “If an employee declines an employer-provided health plan because they’d rather be on Medicaid, it is unfair to penalize the employer for that employee’s decision.”

Some left-leaning policy organizations also oppose the charges.

Gideon Lukens, who analyzes health policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that while the idea may be well-intentioned, it could lead companies to employ fewer people from low-income household or single parents. He said companies could also consider the policy in decisions about whom to hire or lay off — and also on where to locate or how many workers to employ.

And, he said, it could make employees — or potential employees — less likely to enroll in Medicaid knowing it would make them less attractive to employers.

“Usually, when I see a tax on something it’s going to discourage whatever being taxed,” he said in an interview.

New Jersey’s legislation tries to address some of the concerns. It would exempt temporary, seasonal and part-time employees. It would also bar employment decisions based on a workers’ Medicaid status.

Charging companies whose workers are covered by Medicaid isn’t a new idea. At least two states have previously enacted it, and it’s been proposed in Congress.

Massachusetts lawmakers in 2017 adopted a charge on employers up to $750 per nondisabled worker who was covered through Medicaid or a state-subsidized health exchange plan. The program began in 2018 was not renewed when it expired the next year.

An even earlier policy in Maryland, in 2006, immediately affected only Walmart. An industry group challenged it in court and won, stopping the fees.

The latest generation of proposals may avoid that legal pitfall by not referencing those health plans in the legislation.

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press.

July 3 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Friday called on states to investigate whether businesses and individuals are artificially inflating gas prices amid complaints from President Donald Trump that costs are too high.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. along with Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson sent a letter to state attorneys general asking them to join federal investigators in probing potentially illegal practices.

“Recent volatility in crude oil prices does not suspend either the antitrust laws or state consumer protection laws, and it does not authorize companies to manipulate retail prices or collude with their competitors,” the letter read.

“We also encourage State Attorneys General to use all tools available under your state laws to investigate and prosecute any misconduct causing unjustified prices increases — particularly conduct that violates state antitrust and consumer protection statutes.”

Gas prices have been on the rise since late February when the United States and Israel began attacks on Iran. Tehran, in return, largely shut down the Strait of Hormuz to traffic, crippling the the transport of oil through the waterway. About one-fifth of the world’s gas supplies pass through the strait.

An agreement between the United States and Iran reopened the strait, but Trump took to Truth Social on June 23 to complain that gas prices had not dropped fast enough.

“The big Oil Companies are not dropping their price at the pump commensurate with the sharply lower prices they are paying for Oil,” he wrote. “Those prices are dropping like a rock! In other words, customers are being ‘gouged.’

“I have instructed the DOJ to immediately start looking into this. Gasoline prices better start going down a lot faster than what I’m seeing!”

AAA reported Friday that the current national average gas price was $3.82 per gallon for regular gasoline, down from $4.26 a month prior. One year ago, it was $3.16 per gallon.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld laws in West Virginia and Idaho that forbid transgender athletes from competing on girls’ sports teams.

In a 6-3 decision, the court said the federal Title IX law envisioned separate teams for girls and boys based on their biological sex at birth.

“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable,” wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition.”

Kavanaugh, who has coached girls’ teams for many years, said 27 states have adopted laws prohibiting transgender athletes on girls’ teams.

But his opinion does not say states such as California must change their laws that forbid schools from discriminating based on gender. Instead, he stressed states are free to make their own decision.

“Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the states may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America,” Kavanaugh said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in part. She said the state should have considered transgender students on a case-by-case basis to decide whether they had an unfair advantage. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented as well.

The court’s decision is likely to bolster the Trump administration’s drive to pressure states, schools and universities that permit transgender athletes to compete on girls’ and women’s sports teams.

Because the Education Department provides federal funds to these states and schools, it can require them to comply with Title IX.

The sole plaintiff in the court case was Becky Pepper-Jackson. Now 15, she has carried on a lonely legal fight to compete on her school’s track team in Bridgeport, W.Va.

Designated male at birth, she says she is the only transgender girl competing in her state and has been the target of complaints and protests.

Her case drew strong reactions on both sides of the issue.

West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey hailed Tuesday’s decision as “one of the most important victories for women’s athletics” since the passage of Title IX in 1972.

“We defended a simple principle most Americans instinctively understand — that women’s sports exist to provide women and girls a fair opportunity to compete and succeed,” he said.

Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, said “it is self-evident that males and females are biologically different, and the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed this truth. It is fundamentally unfair for a male who feels like a female to demand that biological categories be ignored to accommodate his desire to compete among females.”

Joshua Block, the ACLU attorney who argued the case, called it “a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers,” he said.

“The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls.”

“This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers,” said Sasha Buchert, senior attorney with Lambda Legal. “Countless studies have demonstrated the myriad benefits that come with participation in team sports.”

The sports career of Becky Pepper-Jackson reflects some of the difficulty of the issue.

In sixth grade, she participated in cross country and described herself as slow. She “routinely placed near the back of the pack,” her attorneys told the court.

Her court appeals focused on a wish to participate in sports, not to win. But upon reaching high school, she has been winning.

In 2024, she “placed in the top three in every track event in which B.P.J. competed, winning most,” the state’s attorneys said. In the spring of 2025, “focusing on strength events, B.P.J. bumped female competitors out of the state tournament, then placed third in the state in discus and eighth in shot put while competing against much older female athletes,” they told the court.

Her ACLU attorney explained she has been winning in the shot put and discus “through hard work and practice,” not because of an advantage based on biology.

He said she “received puberty-delaying medication and gender-affirming estrogen that allowed her to undergo a hormonal puberty typical of a girl.”

England supporters in the United States have been praised by police for their “excellent” behaviour during the group stage of the World Cup, but domestic incidents are up on recent tournaments.

The UK Football Policing Unit (UKFPU) says there have been no reports of any violence or disorder involving England supporters in America, with just two of five arrests coming at a World Cup match.

But there have been 463 football-related incidents in England and Wales – significantly higher than this stage in Euro 2024 (304) and the 2022 World Cup (291).

The behaviour of Scotland fans in the States has also been praised, though their figures are not included in this report.

“The behaviour of England fans – and of course the Scots – has been excellent throughout the group stages of the World Cup,” chief constable Mark Roberts, head of the UKFPU, said.

“In our pre-briefs we stressed to local law enforcement the positive record of our fans at recent World Cups, and it is great to see that continuing and the fans being policed according to their behaviour, not an outdated reputation.”

All five England supporters arrested have been released by American authorities and referred to the UKFPU.

Of the 463 football-related incidents, 162 have been in licensed premises, while 109 are classed as domestic incidents, often involving family members over the age of 16.

Eighty-eight people have been arrested, which is again up on Euro 2024 (66) and the 2022 World Cup (56).

Many football-related arrests in the UK come under the Public Order Act, including a wide variety of anti-social behaviour, such as swearing, shouting, intimidation and violence.

Before the World Cup began, 1,958 football supporters subject to football banning orders were required to surrender their passports to stop them heading to the World Cup.

June 25 (UPI) — The U.S. Postal Service plans to refuse delivery of mail-in ballots in states that don’t turn over their voter lists to the federal government, the postmaster general told Congress.

Postmaster General David Steiner told the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee about the proposed rule on Wednesday.

“Yes or no — if a state refuses to turn their absentee voter list over to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under this proposed rule?” Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., asked Steiner.

“Under our proposed regulation, no. We would tell the state that we need the manifest,” Steiner said.

Steiner argued the policy is to make sure ballots are delivered “securely, efficiently, and accurately.” But President Donald Trump has repeatedly demanded states’ voter lists over the past year and has been suing states to get them.

The proposed rule says that states would have to give the Postal Service the names, addresses and ballot barcode numbers for the people who are to get ballots in the mail. The proposal follows Trump’s executive order from March 31 that requires the federal government to compile state citizenship lists and for the Postal Service to refuse to mail ballots to those the federal government has determined are ineligible to vote.

The proposed rule is posted on the Federal Register, and the public can comment until July 2.

Democrats have pushed back, arguing the rule shows that Trump is trying to federalize elections and said the Postal Service doesn’t have the authority to enforce that rule. The Constitution says states are responsible for running elections.

“Just because President Trump wants to do this does not make it law, doesn’t make it right, doesn’t make it constitutional. There is certainly a massive difference between general mail requirements and regulating elections,” Peters said.

Steiner admitted that his agency doesn’t have the authority to enforce elections but said the rule is a precaution to be sure that only eligible voters will get ballots.

“I would think that states would want the information to ensure that the ballots that they think they’re sending out are the ballots that are actually getting sent out,” Steiner said.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., said the rule is part of a broader strategy.

“The U.S. Postal Service is now part of this bigger story of this president desperate to federalize our elections. He has tried every which way to say that if he and his party don’t win in these November elections, they were rigged.”

Slotkin asked Steiner directly to stop the plan.

“Please push back on being a pawn in this authoritarian playbook,” she said. “The Postal Service is one of the most important institutions in our country. Don’t taint it with the obsession of this one man.”

June 23 (UPI) — Mamdani-backed progressives scored big wins Tuesday night in New York state’s Democratic primary, as voters cast ballots across the Empire State, Maryland, Utah and South Carolina.

New York State

Of the four states holding primaries, New York state’s was being closely watched to gauge the influence of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who had endorsed three progressive candidates in competitive Democratic races — all of whom appeared poised late Tuesday to win their races.

Brad Lander, a former city comptroller, was running against Goldman in New York District 10 with the endorsements of other big-name progressives, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

Lander said he was drawn to challenge Goldman because Goldman had called for increasing U.S. support for Israel. Their differing views on support for Israel have been a key issue in the race. Goldman and Lander are both Jewish.

Preliminary results showed Lander with an overwhelming 65.3% vote share, compared to Goldman’s 33.7%, with all 417 districts reporting.

Lander claimed victory Tuesday night.

After being introduced by Mamdani, Lander told supporters that he believes he and Goldman have more in common than they have differences. And to Goldman’s supporters, he said he knows that they want to “rescue our country back from Trumpism,” renew U.S. democracy and find a humane path for the country on the world stage.

“Solidarity is the force that we need to vanquish Trump’s fascism, to abolish ICE and to stand up to the billionaires who are rigging our economy against us,” he said.

“This campaign here was born out of solidarity.”

In New York District 7, Mamdani-endorsed Claire Valdez appeared poised to succeed outgoing Rep. Nydia Velazquez, who backed Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso.

With all 393 election districts reporting, preliminary election results showed Valdez had secured 55.5% of the vote to Reynoso’s 35.4%.

And in New York District 13, Mamdani endorsed Darializa Avila Chevalier, who late Tuesday appeared to be edging out incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat.

Chevalier, who was a field organizer for Mamdani, had secured 48.59% of the vote to Espaillat’s 45.2%, according to preliminary results.

Mamdani did not endorse a candidate in District 12 in a stacked field that consisted of state lawmakers Alex Bores and Micah Lasher, Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway, President John F. Kennedy‘s grandson Jack Schlossberg, attorney Laura Dunn and health researcher Nina Schwalbe.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had endorsed Schlossberg and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg had endorsed Lasher.

Artificial intelligence has been a central topic in the District 12 race. The Leading the Future super PAC, funded by the heads of OpenAI and venture capital firms supporting the AI industry, funneled more than $10 million to a super PAC opposing Bores’ campaign. Bores has been supportive of establishing regulations on AI.

With all 410 precincts reporting, Lasher had secured nearly 39% of the vote, followed by Bores with 34.82% and Schlossberg with 10.7%.

South Carolina

The big race in South Carolina was the GOP gubernatorial runoff between notable candidates, South Carolina Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

Preliminary results indicate Wilson stormed his way to the nomination and likely the South Carolina governor’s mansion.

With all counties reporting, Wilson netted 68.5% of the vote to Evette’s 31.44%.

Wilson has claimed victory, and Evette has conceded defeat.

The runoff followed a dramatic turnaround by President Donald Trump, who had initially endorsed Evette, before rescinding his support.

Trump gave his “Complete and Total Endorsement” to Evette ahead of the state’s primary earlier this month. But after it was determined to be a runoff between Evette and Wilson, Trump, rather than continue his support for Evette, told voters that they “can’t go wrong” with either candidate.

Evette finished less than two percentage points ahead of Wilson in the Republican primary but neither candidate cracked 30% of the vote, let alone 50%. While Trump endorsed Evette, the other candidates who ran in the primary — Reps. Ralph Norman and Nancy Mace — have endorsed Wilson. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., also gave Wilson his endorsement on Friday.

“I’ve proudly stood with President Trump from the very beginning, defended him when others would not, and fought alongside him against the radical left,” Wilson said in a news release after Trump posted his support on social media. “I am deeply honored to have his support because he understands I am focused on making South Carolina more affordable for families and profitable for businesses.”

Evette’s campaign had highlighted her receiving Trump’s endorsement.

Wilson will face Democratic state Rep. Jermaine Johnson in November.

Maryland

In Maryland, Adrian Boafo was poised to succeed Rep. Steny Hoyer in the Democratic primary for District 5.

From among the two dozen candidates in the running, Boafo, Hoyer’s former field director, had nearly 32% of the vote, according to preliminary results, far exceeding healthcare CEO Quincy Bareebe, who was sitting second with 18% and former police officer Harry Dunn in third with 13.4%.

Dunn was among those defending the U.S. Capitol from attacks by pro-Trump rioters on Jan. 6, 2021. He is also a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to stop the Trump administration from establishing an “anti-weaponization fund” to pay rioters for being “targeted” by the Department of Justice.

Boafo had received Hoyer’s endorsement.

Utah

Former Rep. Ben McAdams appeared poised Tuesday night to win the Democratic nomination for Utah’s new District 1, created under Utah’s new congressional map.

Largely made up of Salt Lake City, the district went to Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

Preliminary results show McAdams with 60.2% of the vote, state Sen. Nate Blouin with 24.04% and Utah Democratic convention winner Liban Mohamed with nearly 12%.

Attorneys general in seventeen states are suing California over its landmark single-use plastic law, which went into effect on June 1.

The lawsuit comes after a coalition of environmental groups sued the state over the same law this month, arguing the new final regulations create loopholes so large they gut the law.

The states are led by Nebraska Atty. Gen. Mike Hilgers, and the plaintiffs include the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors. The coalition is asking the court to block enforcement of the law immediately.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country,” said Hilgers in a news release. “If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities.”

The other states in the coalition are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Eastern California in Sacramento on Monday.

State Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022. It was considered landmark legislation because it requires plastic and packaging companies to use less single-use plastic and ensure by 2032 that all food packaging is either recyclable or compostable.

Accumulating plastic waste is overwhelming waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.

The intent was not only to reduce single=use plastic, but also to put the onus and cost of dealing with it on packaging producers and manufacturers, not consumers and local governments. It was supposed to incentivize companies to consider the fate of their products and spur innovation in material redesign.

Plastic bottles of dishwashing liquid at Compton’s Market in Sacramento on June 17, 2022.

(Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed during 2023 in California.

The single-use plastic law is what is known as a producer responsibility law. It emphasizes the idea of a “circular economy” in which the producer of a material must consider its fate — making sure it can be reused or recycled, or at least reduced.

In California, all producers of single-use packaging and plastic foodware (plates, knives, spoons, etc.) join a private entity known as a producer responsibility organization. Only one such organization has been approved in California: the Circular Action Alliance.

The states and the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors say the plastic law discriminates against businesses selling into the state in two ways: by making them change or alter their plastic packaging and by conferring government authority upon the alliance, enabling a private entity to regulate and impose taxes and fees on businesses selling into California.

“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, president and chief executive of the wholesalers group, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

In addition, the attorneys general say the law suppresses their free speech by compelling companies to join and fund the speech of an organization with which they may disagree.

Hoplin and his organization filed a similar suit in Oregon in February. Oregon has a comparable single-use plastic law. A federal judge blocked enforcement of that law. A trial begins on July 13.

Heidi Sanborn, executive director and CEO of the National Stewardship Action Council, which advocates for the producer responsibility laws and a more circular economy, said in May that both SB 54 and the Oregon law are public policies that were “passed by legislatures and implemented with government oversight.”

She said the laws create clear and consistent rules so all producers contribute fairly to the cost of recycling and waste management.

Meanwhile, environmental groups are also unhappy.

On June 2, Oceana, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Californians Against Waste Foundation filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court.

They allege that the final regulations for the law, drafted and approved by the state’s waste agency, include exclusions for large categories of plastic packaging that companies could use indefinitely. In addition, they say, the regulations also allow for recycling technologies that pollute, such as chemical recycling, which the law as originally drafted forbids.

“While SB 54 remains a monumental achievement as the nation’s strongest single-use plastic reduction law, some of the final regulations implementing the statute undermine the law’s ambitions,” Christy Leavitt, Oceana’s senior campaign director, said in a statement.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Six months after President Trump warned states not to regulate artificial intelligence, they are increasingly doing just that.

Congress has stalled on producing federal regulations of artificial intelligence as states forge ahead and scrutinize how chatbots interact with children, how AI systems are used by employers and what developers must do to try to prevent an AI-caused catastrophe.

State lawmakers have stepped back from earlier, wider-ranging attempts to regulate AI that were vetoed or otherwise derailed by governors who viewed the measures as too onerous toward the industry’s development, including efforts to hold developers accountable for bias in AI systems.

But they are returning with legislation that is more targeted and, often, probes the corners of life where Americans interact with AI but may not know it.

Presidential power versus state power

Trump’s move to restrain states’ actions on AI drew criticism from members of both political parties and civil liberties and consumer rights groups who worried that banning state regulation would amount to a gift to AI giants, who enjoy little to no oversight.

Trump has made AI a top national and economic security priority, and he said that letting states clutter the regulatory playing field for an industry that’s spending trillions of dollars and driving the economy is too risky in the race with China for AI superiority.

Trump issued an executive order that directed the attorney general to create a task force to challenge state laws that are more than “minimally burdensome,” and directed the Commerce Department to draw up a list of problematic regulations. It also threatened to restrict funding from a broadband deployment program and other grant programs to states with AI laws.

The White House said it wouldn’t target state laws that seek to prevent fraud and protect consumers and children.

In the meantime, the Trump administration released a “national policy framework” in which it urged Congress to preempt state AI laws that are out of step with its regulatory worldview and to pass legislation to protect children, intellectual property rights and free speech. A recent bipartisan draft proposal in the House was met with withering criticism from key Democrats and Republicans.

The White House has given no indication that it has made good on its threat to enforce the president’s executive order by going to court against a state’s AI law or withholding money. In a statement, it said the Trump administration is “eager to work with partners” to enact its policy framework.

States seem largely unrestrained by Trump

Trump’s executive order didn’t seem to discourage states from trying to regulate how AI is used. More bills have been introduced this year than last, including by Republicans, said Justine Gluck, policy director of the Future of Privacy Forum, a nonprofit that advocates for data privacy in technology and whose members are from industry, academia and civic groups.

In Illinois, legislation on the desk of Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker piggybacked on elements of laws passed last year in California and New York that require developers of large advanced AI models to create protocols to prevent their systems from causing catastrophes such as a biological weapons attack, power outage or large-scale hack.

Illinois added a requirement that AI developers must get an independent auditor to review whether they are complying with their own policies. Analysts see it as a step toward requiring AI developers to take greater accountability for their products.

The bill’s sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Mary Edly-Allen, brushed aside Trump’s threat.

“I don’t know if you’ve met Illinois, but we’re pretty independent,” Edly-Allen told the Associated Press.

The bill drew nearly unanimous support, signaling a willingness by members of Trump’s party to cooperate with Democrats in filling the AI regulatory vacuum left by the federal government.

This kind of legislation is expected to expand to other states.

Regulating chatbots, especially for children

A growing number of states are imposing restrictions on how AI chatbots can interact with people, especially children. A mix of Republican- and Democratic-led states have passed such laws this year, including Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska and Oregon.

In many cases, states want companies to tell people when they are interacting with AI instead of a human. Many want chatbots to be restricted in how they interact with minors, parents to have control over their child’s access, and data given to chatbots to be kept private.

In recent weeks, Connecticut enacted provisions for companion chatbots that sustain an ongoing relationship with a human. Under them, a chatbot must not be able to interact with someone under 18 unless it is programmed against encouraging self-destructive behavior and provides parents with tools to manage the child’s use.

Transparency in AI and decision-making

In California, lawmakers are advancing the “No Robo Bosses Act of 2026” to prohibit employers from relying solely on AI to fire or discipline workers, and an expansion of how the state regulates AI chatbots, including banning chatbot outputs to children from being used for advertising.

Colorado in May required companies that deploy AI systems in important areas such as employment, education, housing or banking to tell people when AI is being used to influence a decision made about them.

It was a stab at regulating what researchers say is the bias inherent in AI systems that sort through a consumer’s data and render consequential decisions — including who gets hired, a home loan or medical care. But it watered down a 2024 law aimed at preventing AI’s penchant to discriminate, amid pressure from Democratic Gov. Jared Polis.

In Connecticut, lawmakers required employers who are using employment-related AI systems to tell employees or job applicants that they are interacting with AI.

Meanwhile, Connecticut, Washington and Utah required AI developers to embed data into digital content that will allow users to determine whether the content — such as photos or video — has been created or altered by AI.

More laws are possible this year.

Some Republican-led states hold back

In Florida, the state House refused to advance what Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis called his AI “Bill of Rights” legislation. It included provisions to give parents control over their children’s access to companion chatbots and to require companies that use chatbots to tell consumers when they are interacting with AI instead of a human.

Florida House Speaker Daniel Perez, a Republican, said Trump had made it clear that the federal government should be in charge of AI regulation. DeSantis panned that idea, noting that the federal government isn’t acting.

In Utah, progress stalled on legislation modeled on laws in New York and California after the White House sent a one-sentence memo to lawmakers there to warn that it was “categorically opposed” to the bill.

Levy writes for the Associated Press.