states

Four states are set to hold their primary votes, further solidifying the battle lines for the United States midterm elections in November.

On Tuesday, citizens in Maine, South Carolina, North Dakota and Nevada are set to cast their ballots in party primaries, designed to select which Democratic and Republican candidates advance to the final round of voting.

But Maine has emerged as one of the most heated primary battlegrounds. With Democrats desperate to flip four seats in the US Senate, all eyes are on Republican Senator Susan Collins’s re-election campaign.

Democrats are hoping to defeat her in November, but the party has fractured over controversies related to its leading candidate, Graham Platner. The race has become one of the most closely watched of the primary season.

At stake in November is control of Congress, and each party is angling to put forward the strongest contender.

Currently, the Republican Party holds slender majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but Democrats hope to wrest back control, in what would represent a major rebuke to President Donald Trump.

State-level races are also in play during Tuesday’s primaries. Several in key swing states like Nevada could have outsized influence over election administration in the years ahead.

Here are some of the key races to watch.

Key Senate race in Maine to be decided

The Democratic Party’s long-shot hope of retaking the Senate hinges on Maine, a lushly forested northeastern state largely bordered by Canada and the Atlantic Ocean.

The primary vote on Tuesday is widely expected to result in Platner advancing as the Democratic champion for November’s midterms. If so, he will take on the longtime incumbent, Republican Senator Collins, who is considered vulnerable to defeat.

Polls have consistently shown the 41-year-old progressive narrowly defeating Collins in the midterm in November.

Platner has appealed to left-wing voters with his positions in favour of universal healthcare and ending US support for Israel. But a slate of recent reports about his past relationships has threatened to chill the enthusiasm for his campaign.

An oyster farmer and former US Marine, Platner has faced accusations of “unsettling” behaviour towards women, including an alleged incident where he twisted one romantic partner’s arm. Platner has denied that allegation.

He has also permanently removed a skull-and-bones tattoo that critics likened to a Nazi symbol, saying he did not know its source.

Still, in Tuesday’s primary, Platner is expected to handily beat his closest Democratic rivals: environmental consultant David Costello and Governor Janet Mills, who will remain on the ballot despite announcing her withdrawal from the race.

Contests for Maine’s House and governor seats

But Maine boasts other nationally significant races, too. That includes the contest for the House seat left open after Democratic Representative Jared Golden announced he would not run for re-election.

Golden has represented Maine’s 2nd congressional district since 2019, and he has proven adept at retaining support, even though his coastal district leans conservative.

If Republicans pick up his seat, it would be a boon to the party’s effort to maintain control of the House. Former Republican Governor Paul LePage is running uncontested in his party’s primary to replace Golden.

Four Democrats, meanwhile, are competing in their party primary to take him on.

They include state Senator Joe Baldacci, state auditor Matthew Dunlap, social worker Paige Loud, and congressional staffer Jordan Wood. All four have charted a more leftward course than the outgoing lawmaker.

Maine’s governor’s race is also open, with Mills, a Democrat, leaving her post at the end of the year due to term limits.

The chance to win the governor’s mansion in November has attracted a crowded field to both party primaries. Each race features notable political scions.

On the left, there is Angus King III, whose father currently represents the state in the US Senate, as well as Hannah Pingree, the daughter of a current member of Congress. Running on the right is healthcare executive Jonathan Bush, a cousin of former President George W Bush.

Election administration looms large in Nevada

Nevada has remained a deeply purple state in recent years, leaning neither left nor right.

Democratic presidential contenders have narrowly won the state from 2008 to 2020, but President Donald Trump broke the streak in 2024, carrying just over 50 percent of the vote.

A staggering 45 percent of Nevada’s voters are registered as independents. That means they hold outsized sway in November’s midterm vote, but they will not be able to cast a ballot in Tuesday’s closed primaries, which are limited to party members only.

The sprawling western state is home to about 3.2 million residents. In the middle of its desert landscape sits Las Vegas, a global gambling and entertainment destination.

But the state has become a political football, in part because of its narrow partisan divide.

Trump and his allies have targeted the state by spreading false claims of election fraud in the wake of the Republican leader’s 2020 election defeat. Those assertions led him to clash with state Attorney General Aaron Ford, who pledged to defend his state’s election integrity.

Now, Ford is currently leading a crowded Democratic field to take on Republican incumbent Joe Lambardo for the governor’s mansion. Polls have shown Washoe County Commissioner Alexis Hill as his top challenger in the Democratic primary.

Lombardo — who has broken state records for his use of vetoes — also faces a deep bench of Republican challengers, but he is expected to skate to an easy victory on Tuesday.

Another key state position is up for grabs this November: Nevada’s secretary of state.

Like Ford, the role’s current occupant, Francisco Aguilar, is a vocal critic of Trump’s efforts to assert more federal control over election administration.

He is running unopposed on the Democratic side, so he automatically advances to November’s general election.

Four Republicans are running to challenge Aguilar, including Jim Marchant, a former state assemblyman who supported Trump’s unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

Another top primary contender is lawyer Shirley Folkins-Roberts, who has been endorsed by the state’s Republican governor.

On the national level, Nevada has four total seats in the House of Representatives. Three are currently held by Democrats, and one by a Republican.

On Tuesday, Republicans will select their challengers in a bid to unseat the Democratic incumbents, all of whom are running for re-election.

Meanwhile, the retirement of Republican Representative Mark Amodei has sparked hope that Democrats might, for the first time ever, win the state’s 2nd congressional district.

Eight Democrats are vying to be their party’s champion, while 13 candidates are running on the Republican side.

Democrats eye long-shot flip in South Carolina

Since last year, the Trump administration has led a controversial redistricting drive, pushing Republican-led states to redraw their congressional districts to better favour the party.

But last month, lawmakers in South Carolina chose not to pursue a redistricting plan — at least, not yet. Part of the reason came down to Tuesday’s primaries.

Thousands of voters cast their ballots last month as part of an early-voting campaign encouraged by Democrats. Any last-minute redistricting would have required throwing out those votes.

That has, for now, protected the majority Black district of longtime Representative Jim Clyburn, the only Democrat representing South Carolina in the House.

South Carolina, a southern, coastal state home to 5.5 million people, is considered rightward-leaning. But Democrats are seeking to defend their House seat in November’s midterms — and maybe pick up a second.

In Tuesday’s primaries, the 85-year-old Clyburn is expected to sail to victory against a long-shot Democratic challenger. He is all but assured to win in November as well, given his district’s reputation as a Democratic stronghold.

Democrats have also set their sights on flipping South Carolina’s 1st district, with Republican Nancy Mace vacating her seat to run for governor. Seven candidates are running in the Democratic primary race for the coastal district, while 10 Republicans will compete in their party primary.

One Senate seat will also be on Tuesday’s primary ballot: the one held by Republican Lindsey Graham. Despite several challengers, polls show the incumbent with a commanding lead.

Graham, a close Trump ally and a notable war hawk, has been one of Congress’s most vocal supporters of the US-Israel war on Iran.

This year, due to term limits, Governor Henry McMaster is unable to run for re-election. Given that South Carolina is a solidly red state overall, whoever wins Tuesday’s Republican primary is expected to coast to victory in November.

Recent polls have shown a tight race. Trump has endorsed Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette, but surveys show her neck and neck with state Attorney General Alan Wilson and Congresswoman Mace, who has at times broken with Trump over issues like the Iran war.

North Dakota’s lone congressional district

Primary day in the Great Plains state of North Dakota is expected to make few waves nationally.

Neither the governor nor the state’s two senators are up for re-election.

Political observers are expecting few surprises. North Dakota has been a Republican stronghold since the late 1960s.

The 435 seats in the US House are distributed among states based on their population size. But since North Dakota has only about 800,000 people, it has just one congressional district.

During Tuesday’s Republican primary, incumbent Representative Julie Fedorchak will seek to ward off a challenge from former State Department project manager Alex Balazs.

Democrat Trygve Hammer, meanwhile, is running unopposed in his party’s primary.

Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring America’s flattop fleet, including deployed Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG), using publicly available open-source information. Check out last week’s report here.

Amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima returned to Naval Station Norfolk on Saturday, wrapping a nearly 10-month deployment to the U.S. Southern Command-4th Fleet area of responsibility (AOR). During the 296-day deployment, the Iwo Jima ARG launched over 6,000 sorties, flew 1,850 flight hours, and transited more than 130,000 combined nautical miles. The ARG was the first group of expeditionary naval assets deployed to support Operation Southern Spear, which involved enhanced counter narcotics operations, and played a key role in Operation Absolute Resolve to exfiltrate ex-President Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela.

June 5 (UPI) — The attorneys general of several states are preparing to file a lawsuit in the coming weeks to prevent the $111 billion merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery.

As many as 10 states are involved in a California-led antitrust investigation of the merger, which would create an entertainment monolith comprised of two of the biggest major players in television, film and streaming globally, the Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg and The Wrap reported.

Officials in the states have started working on the lawsuit and where to file it, the news organizations confirmed, and the litigation could potentially be filed before the end of June.

Although California Attorney General Rob Bonta told The Wrap in early April that “red flags are everywhere when you have a merger of this type,” his office did not confirm that the lawsuit was taking shape and could be filed soon.

“The Paramount acquisition of Warner Brothers remains an active investigation, and we do have any updates to share at this time,” Bonta’s office told the news organizations in a statement.

The states that have been involved in Bonta’s investigation and may join the lawsuit, aside from California, are Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

Paramount and Netflix competed for months to win the right to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, with Warner’s shareholders voting to approve selling the company to Paramount for $31 per share.

The merger has been controversial because Paramount Chairman David Ellison has said that after the company receives regulatory approval, he plans to make $6 billion in cuts between both companies.

Although Ellison said that the Paramount and Warner Bros. film studios will maintain their current pace of 15 theatrical releases per year, the deal has drawn sharp rebukes from across Hollywood and some parts of the federal government because the downsizing will most likely include job cuts.

The state of California is leading an effort to prepare a possible lawsuit that could thwart Paramount Skydance Corp.’s planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, a potential obstacle for the $111 billion deal.

The lawsuit, which could be filed as early as this month, would likely involve multiple states, according to a source familiar with the deliberations who was not authorized to comment publicly.

The litigation would seek to challenge the proposed merger on antitrust grounds, arguing it would thwart competition, lower wages and lead to widespread job losses.

“The Paramount acquisition of Warner Brothers remains an active investigation, and we do not have any updates to share at this time,” said California Atty. General Rob Bonta’s office in a statement.

In a statement, Paramount said it “will continue to fight against any attempt to derail a deal that plainly benefits consumers, creators and the industry as whole.”

“Opposing this deal means opposing expanded consumer choice, new opportunities for creators and workers, and greater competition throughout the creative ecosystem — the opposite of what antitrust law is meant to achieve,” the company added.

Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders in April approved the sale of the company to Paramount after Netflix dropped out of the auction.

Under Paramount Chairman David Ellison’s proposal, Warner investors would receive $31 a share, nearly four times the price of the company’s stock in April 2025. He also said he will keep both studios’ release schedules of 15 movies a year for a total of 30 films a year.

Nonetheless, Ellison and his team have vowed to make $6 billion in cuts following the merger, which requires regulatory approval. The combined company would have to contend with $79 billion in deal debt.

The prospect of substantial job cuts during a period of downsizing in Hollywood has ignited widespread opposition to the sale.

Thousands of people who work in the TV and film industry, including actor Joaquin Phoenix and director-writer-producer JJ Abrams signed an open letter opposing Paramount’s planned acquisition of WBD, saying it would lead to fewer production jobs and fewer choices for consumers. Others have also raised concerns about the impact it could have on content.

“The consequences would be felt nationwide, from destroying CNN the way that Ellisons have devastated CBS to entertainment industry job losses and consumers losing access to independent voices and a competitive market,” said Norm Eisen, executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, one of the groups that organized the open letter. “State attorneys general have both the authority and the responsibility to act when a transaction of this scale directly threatens the public’s interest, and I hope states across the country will join any effort to challenge this deal,” Eisen said in a statement.

The potential lawsuit, first reported by Bloomberg and Reuters, is being considered by other states, including New York and Colorado.

“Paramount and Warner Bros. haven’t cleared regulatory scrutiny,” Bonta told The Times in March. “My office has an open investigation into [the deal] and we intend to be vigorous in our review.”

Despite the potential obstacle, Raymond James equity analysts said in a note on Thursday that they “still believe the deal is likely to close.”

Last month, Paramount hired antitrust attorney Jeffrey Kessler to defend its planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. Kessler recently led a case for state attorney generals against concert promoter and ticketing firm Live Nation, resulting in a win for states, including California.

“We also think there are win/win solutions to be had particularly in California given exodus of production from CA in recent years and efforts to bring production back to Hollywood,” the analyst said in their note.

Romania and its NATO allies have reacted angrily after a Russian drone crashed into an apartment building in eastern Romania, injuring two people.

The foreign ministry in Bucharest on Friday labelled the crash of the drone, part of an overnight attack aimed at Ukraine, a serious violation of international law and called on NATO to accelerate the transfer of anti-drone capabilities. The incident is just the latest incursion along the alliance’s eastern flank, raising concern that the risk of an open confrontation between Russia and NATO states is rising.

Romania said the overnight drone was tracked by radar in its airspace before crashing onto the roof of a residential building in the city of Galati.

Two F-16 fighter jets and a helicopter were scrambled, as authorities issued emergency alerts to residents. Two people suffered minor injuries and several residents were evacuated after a fire was triggered by the crash.

‘Consequences’

The incident is just the latest of several, as the war in Ukraine has spilled over into neighbouring NATO countries, raising fears of potential escalation.

Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, as well as Finland have all reported repeated incursions into their airspace in recent months. Drone incursions sparked a government collapse in Latvia earlier this month.

Shortly after the crash, Bucharest called for NATO to speed up the transfer of anti-drone capabilities. Outgoing Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan also said that Romania would, within hours, sign ⁠a contract which ⁠will give it anti-drone defences ‌under the EU’S SAFE programme.

On Friday morning, Romania summoned the Russia ambassador.

“We will officially communicate the consequences that this lack of responsibility on the part of the Russian Federation will have for the diplomatic relations between our countries, as well as the next steps at the European level regarding sanctions packages,” Foreign Minister Oana Toiu wrote on social media.

President Nicusor Dan stated that Romania ⁠will ⁠not accept that the war of aggression ⁠waged by Russia against ⁠Ukraine be transferred to its citizens, and added that he had asked the foreign ministry ⁠to present without delay ⁠a series ⁠of measures regarding the country’s relationship with Russia, “proportionate to ‌this very serious situation”.

NATO allies and others joined the chorus of anger.

French Minister for European Affairs Benjamin Haddad said the incident highlighted the threat Russia poses to European security, noting that French troops are stationed in Romania.

“Regardless of ⁠whether it was on purpose ⁠or the ⁠result ⁠of ineptitude, Russia is still dangerous and ‌we must defend ourselves against ‌it,” ‌Polish ⁠Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski told ⁠the Reuters news agency.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the incident showed that “Russia’s war of aggression has crossed yet another line”.

A NATO spokesperson also condemned “Russia’s recklessness” on social media.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, whose country is pressing the United States to help boost its air defences, pledged “Ukraine stands firmly by Romania” as he branded Russia a threat to the Black Sea region and the wider ‌European continent.

“We are ready ⁠to work closely together ⁠to strengthen protection from such threats,” he wrote on social media, adding that the bid to ⁠strengthen Ukraine’s ⁠air defence is a “strategic task” to protect not only ‌Ukraine but also to reduce risks for ‌neighbouring ‌countries.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the escalating attacks risk spiralling “out of control”, with “unknown and unintended consequences”.

He said more civilians had been killed in the first four months of this year than during the same period in the previous three years, and called for diplomacy, immediate de-escalation and “a full and unconditional ceasefire”.

Rising risk

Concern that the war is threatening to spillover is building as Russia escalates hostilities in a bid to ward off rising political and economic pressure at home.

Ukrainian forces reported that they shot down 217 drones overnight on Friday. Russia attacked with 232 drones and one ballistic missile. Hits were recorded in 14 areas, the air force said.

Moscow has said it plans “systematic strikes” on Kyiv and has issued a barrage of threats at Ukraine’s European allies, listing facilities in Europe that it said are involved in manufacturing drones and components for Ukraine.

Moscow’s Foreign Intelligence Service recently warned the Baltic nations that their NATO membership won’t protect them from retaliation should they allow Ukraine to launch attacks from their territory, with analysts warning that the risk of an open confrontation between Russia and NATO states is rising.

That heightens concern regarding NATO’s Article 5 collective defence clause, which President Donald Trump has hinted the United States may not honour in some cases.

However, the alliance’s Secretary General Mark Rutte insisted on Friday that NATO will defend all of its territory.

“Russia’s reckless behaviour is a danger to us all,” he wrote on social media. “Last ⁠night showed yet again ⁠that the implications of their illegal war of aggression don’t ⁠stop at the border.”

“We will ⁠continue to strengthen ⁠our deterrence and defence at home and continue our support for ‌Ukraine as they defend against Russia’s aggression,” he ‌added.

President Trump’s administration is suing four states over their refusal to issue undercover license plates to federal agents, the latest front in the wider struggle between the White House and Democratic-led states over the Republican president’s immigration crackdown.

The Department of Justice alleges in separate lawsuits announced Thursday that Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington state are imposing unconstitutional restrictions that it says impede law enforcement and threaten agents’ safety.

“By denying undercover license plates to DHS components, including ICE, while issuing them to their own state agencies, these governors are pursuing discriminatory and obstructionist policies against federal law enforcement,” said acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche in a statement.

“These actions undermine federal immigration enforcement, allow dangerous criminals to escape justice, and terrorize American communities,” Blanche added.

The Justice Department filed the suits on Wednesday in U.S. district courts in the respective states. The four state governments are accused of trying “to obstruct the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement efforts, even though control over immigration and the nation’s borders is an exclusive federal power.”

Additionally, the Justice Department argues in the suits that the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause bars state governments from regulating federal law enforcement.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who oversees her state’s plate program and is also a Democratic candidate for governor, said she’s confident her decisions will hold up in court.

“What ICE did in Maine and continues to do was terrorize our friends and neighbors,” Bellows said in an interview Thursday. “There are no secret police in a democracy and we will always stand up for our Mainers safety and freedom.”

A spokesperson for Massachusetts Atty. Gen. Joy Campbell said the state’s lawyers are “reviewing the complaint and will defend the RMV policy to the greatest extent possible.”

Officials in Washington and Oregon did not respond to a request for comment on the federal action.

Feds say agents are endangered when easily identified

The administration asserts that federal agents “frequently investigate and apprehend violent criminals, including cartel members, gang members, sex offenders, human traffickers, and other violent offenders” and says making those authorities easily identifiable subjects them to increased harassment and potential physical harm.

The lawsuit comes after a back-and-forth between the DOJ and some state officials. The administration previously sent state officials letters demanding they justify their policies.

Maine Atty. Gen. Aaron Frey answered the Justice Department last week, defending his state’s policy and disputing the DOJ’s contention that it has hampered federal enforcement actions.

“Rather, the program reflects a legitimate and constitutional policy choice by the SOS not to allow its resources to be commandeered by the federal government for use in civil immigration enforcement activities that have, in Maine and elsewhere, resulted in multiple incidents of abusive and unconstitutional conduct by DHS officials,” Frey wrote.

Bellows, in her role as secretary of state, announced a pause on confidential license plates in January, after federal authorities ramped up their immigration enforcement activities in the state. Bellows said at the time that the state wanted to be “assured that Maine plates will not be used for lawless purposes.”

The federal suit against Maine argues that the state “has issued confidential license plates to law enforcement agencies for many years” and that “such plates are explicitly authorized under Maine law.” The state’s review this year, the suit argues, resulted in unlawful state regulation of the federal government by requiring federal applicants for state license plates to attest that federal vehicles that obtained confidential plates would not be used for civil immigration enforcement. The suit also states that Maine did not impose commensurate requirements on state or local agencies applying for the plates, making the program discriminatory against the federal government.

Bellows has previously defended her decision.

“When ICE asked for confidential license plates, I said no” because “covert civil immigration enforcement is not something Maine will facilitate,” she said last week.

Arguments are similar to debate over agents’ masks

The Trump administration’s arguments on the license plates are similar to its defense of federal agents wearing masks on their deployments to American cities. That became a flashpoint in an extended government shutdown over Department of Homeland Security funding, as Democrats on Capitol Hill demanded key changes to how Trump’s mass deportation plans were carried out after masked federal agents killed two U.S. citizen protesters in Minnesota.

The White House and DHS have maintained the agency’s mask policy, and the administration already has won a federal court order blocking a California law that barred law enforcement officials from covering their faces in the state.

Additionally, the administration has been at odds with so-called sanctuary cities where local law enforcement does not assist federal authorities with immigration enforcement. And Blanche has instructed the Justice Department’s Civil Division to identify all state and local laws, policies, and practices that could impede what the administration describes as “lawful federal operations.”

Barrow and Whittle write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta. Whittle reported from Scarborough, Maine.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Florida’s long-shot attempt to sue California and Washington state over the issuance of commercial driver licenses to truckers who don’t speak English and are not authorized to be in the United States.

The case stems from a crash in Florida last year that killed three people. The driver, Harjinder Singh, is accused of making an illegal U-turn that caused the accident. Singh, who is from India, was carrying a valid commercial driver’s license from California and had earlier been granted one by Washington state.

Republican-led Florida has accused the Western states, led by Democrats, of openly defying immigration laws and asked the justices to rule that states lack the authority to issue CDLs to people who are not citizens or legal permanent residents.

The Supreme Court typically hears appeals of lower-court decisions, but it sometimes takes on what are known as original lawsuits in which states sue each other in the nation’s highest court.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented from Tuesday’s order, as they often do when the court rejects an original lawsuit, saying that the court has no choice but to hear such cases.

Separately, a federal appeals court has blocked a Trump administration proposal to impose new restrictions that would severely limit which immigrants can get commercial driver’s licenses to drive a semitrailer truck or bus.

NEW ORLEANS — At least four states have adopted laws this year making it a crime to disrupt worship services, a reaction to a high-profile protest inside a Minnesota church that prompted outrage from faith leaders.

The Republican lawmakers sponsoring most of the legislation say those gathering at sacred sanctuaries deserve protection beyond what existing trespassing laws provide. They also say these new laws will prevent escalating clashes between congregants and protestors as many churches, mosques and synagogues remain on edge over recent mass shootings and acts of violence targeting religious groups.

“People should go to church to be able to sit in peace, worship as they please, without having to worry about people coming in and harassing them,” said Idaho Sen. Mark Harris, a Republican who co-sponsored legislation criminalizing protests inside places of worship. “I think the thing that happened in Minnesota was kind of a shock to some of us, that churches would be used as a place to berate people.”

Critics in both parties have warned that the laws infringe on free speech rights.

Here’s a look at the situation.

The laws make it a crime to interfere with worship

Bills have been signed into law in Republican-dominated Idaho, Louisiana and Oklahoma. In Kansas, a bill is becoming law without the signature of Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly.

Similar bills have been introduced for this year’s legislative sessions in at least seven other states and in Congress. Nassau County, New York, passed a similar measure this year. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed a law making it a federal crime to intentionally injure or interfere with or intimidate someone entering a place of worship or a reproductive health facility.

The details in the bills differ, but they all make it a crime to interfere with religious assemblies.

Laws against trespassing already apply to disruptions on the grounds of churches or other private property. But legislators say the new laws would boost penalties and bar other protest activity like holding signs near places of worship.

The penalties could be harsher than for trespassing. In some states, people could face up to a year in prison and fines as high as $10,000 for first offenses. The laws also give the states a way to prosecute cases if local authorities decline to do so.

A protest in Minnesota touched off the call for action

Thirty-nine people, including two journalists, were charged in February for roles in a protest during a St. Paul, Minnesota, church service. The protesters had learned that one of the church pastors was also an official at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who had been overseeing an intensive Minnesota operation.

The U.S. Department of Justice charged the protesters with conspiracy against religious freedom and interfering with the right of religious freedom. The protesters and journalists have pleaded not guilty and the cases are pending in federal court.

Louisiana Rep. Gabe Firment, a Republican, said he was inspired to introduce legislation that allows protestors to be forcibly removed from churches and other places of worship after seeing videos showing the fearful expressions of children at the Minnesota church.

“The first thought that came to my mind was those poor kids,” Firment said. “You certainly have a right to protest, but just like you don’t have the right to come into someone’s home and act like that, you don’t have the right to come into private church property to do that.”

Oklahoma Sen. Todd Gollihare, a Republican, wrote his bill after anti-abortion protestors disrupted his church service last year. His law bars blocking highways within one mile of a service or approaching someone to hand them a flyer within 100 feet of a place of worship.

His Republican colleague, Sen. Kendal Sacchieri, described the law as extreme and said she was afraid of the precedent it would set.

Court challenges could await the laws

The Nassau County ordinance is already facing a court challenge from the New York Civil Liberties Union, which says there’s no history of residents facing intimidation, harassment or violence outside places of worship — and that the statute denies people their constitutionally protected rights of expression in public places.

Kevin Goldberg, vice president at Freedom Forum, which advocates for First Amendment rights, said that if the laws are challenged in courts, governments would have to show there’s a need for them. “You can’t be guessing, you can’t be speculating,” he said. “There has to be some evidence that there’s an actual threat going on — that there’s been a problem there, that you can reasonably forecast there will be a problem.”

In Louisiana, Democrats raised concerns about mandatory jail time for disrupting services and warned that the laws were too arbitrary, suggesting that they could be applied against a congregant for singing out of turn as a pastor delivers a homily.

“If the spirit just hits me and I start singing during the middle of his homily, and it disrupts his homily in a way where he’s got to say ‘Hey, take a seat’, I mean that would materially disrupt his service and now I’m going to jail for 30 days,” Rep. Edmond Jordan said during a March hearing in the Louisiana Legislature.

The law’s proponents said police officers and judges would have discretion about how to apply the law.

Brook and Mulvihill write for the Associated Press. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.

Latest Truth Social post comes amid ‘delicate diplomacy’, expert says, as US and Iran indicate progress in talks.

Washington, DC – President Donald Trump has posted a photo of the United States flag covering the map of Iran, with the question: “United States of the Middle East?”

The post on Truth Social on Saturday represented another potentially incendiary message from Trump amid ongoing negotiations for a more lasting ceasefire in the US-Israeli war with Iran, experts said.

It carries the potential to roil both regional allies and foes alike given Washington’s past intervention in the Middle East, most notably during the US invasion of Iraq from 2003 to 2011, as well as the Trump administration’s push to increase its influence abroad.

The sentiment also appears to run counter to the Trump administration’s repeated statements that it is not seeking a prolonged occupation of Iran. The US has maintained it is not seeking outright regime change in its war, which it launched alongside Israel on February 28, but that it would welcome such change as a byproduct of the military campaign.

Even for a president known for outlandish social media posts and conflicting messaging on the war, the post could have implications for ongoing negotiations aimed at a more lasting ceasefire, according to Vali Nasr, professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University.

He pointed to Trump’s threat in early April that an “entire civilisation will die” if Iran did not agree to a deal at the time. Hours later, both sides agreed to a pause in fighting.

That pause has held since, save for a handful of flare-ups, with the US continuing to blockade Iranian ports and Tehran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz.

“First he declared he wanted to eradicate Iran’s civilisation now he is declaring that he wants to turn Iran into an American property,” Nasr wrote on X.

“It is this kind of grotesque behaviour that undermines diplomacy and unites Iranians in defence of their country,” he added. “In the middle of delicate diplomacy he casts doubts on America’s true intentions.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Fragile negotiations continue

On Saturday, both US and Iranian officials indicated a new deal may be within reach.

Trump told CBS News both sides were “getting a lot closer”. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said an update could be coming shortly, the broadcaster reported.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said the two sides were “currently working to finalise” a memorandum of understanding, and that “the opinions have been converging”.

Still, there have been no official announcements related to key sticking points in the standoff, including the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, the fate of its highly enriched uranium stockpile, and its future influence over the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump regularly uses his Truth Social account, which he launched after being briefly banned from Twitter, now X, in the wake of the 2020 election, to make major announcements, attack political enemies, and post AI-generated images and videos.

The foreign policy of his second term has been defined by efforts to grow US influence abroad, particularly in the Americas. That has included the military abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, continued threats against Cuba, and vows to take control of Greenland, the semi-autonomous Danish territory in the North Atlantic.

The Trump administration has adopted the term the Donroe Doctrine, a reference to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, which sought to diminish European influence in the Western Hemisphere.

On Saturday, Trump also posted an image of his face peering over a mountain range in Greenland.

“Hello, Greenland!” it said.

California and a coalition of other Democratic-led states are suing the Trump administration over new limits on federal borrowing by aspiring nurses, physician’s assistants, therapists, social workers, mental health practitioners and other healthcare workers, arguing the changes will further reduce a struggling but vital workforce.

“This case is about protecting access to education, protecting our healthcare workforce, and protecting patients who rely on these providers every single day,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said during a virtual news conference Tuesday. “The Trump administration is going out of its way to make it harder and more expensive for students to pursue the advanced degrees necessary to serve their communities and pursue meaningful careers that allow them to support themselves and their families.”

Bonta said the new limits on loans sought by nursing and other healthcare students — which the U.S. Department of Education initiated in response to Republicans passing broader student loan caps as part of last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — was an illegal overreach by the agency that was “deeply shortsighted” and went beyond the scope of the legislation.

“Congress can act,” he said. “But what the Department of Education can’t do is — contrary to law and in an arbitrary and capricious way and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act — redefine what a professional student is.”

In response to the litigation, Trump administration officials defended the new rules, saying they will help student borrowers in the long run by driving down schooling costs at universities nationwide and preventing them from taking on too much debt.

“After decades of unchecked student loan borrowing that gave schools no reason to control costs, these commonsense loan caps — created by Congress — are already incentivizing colleges and universities to lower tuition,” Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a statement to The Times.

Kent said Bonta and his fellow Democratic litigants “are more concerned about institutions’ bottom-line [than] American students and families’ ability to access affordable postsecondary education.” As one example of institutions responding to loan caps by lowering costs, Kent pointed to UC Irvine reducing the costs of its master’s in business programs by up to 38% to keep them below a federal loan cap for such programs.

The One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by Congress in July 2025, placed new limits on student loans, which could previously be sought for the full cost of such degrees. Starting this July, applicants categorized as “graduate students” will be capped at borrowing $20,500 per year and $100,000 in total, while applicants categorized as “professional students” will be allowed to borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 in total.

On May 1, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new rule defining the “professional student” category as including those pursuing degrees to become doctors, pharmacists, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, various medical specialists, pastors and other religious academics, and excluding those pursuing nursing and other advanced healthcare degrees.

In announcing the change, Kent said it would “simplify our complex student loan repayment system and better align higher education with workforce needs,” “drive a sea change in higher education by holding universities accountable for outcomes and putting significant downward pressure on the cost of tuition,” and “benefit borrowers who will no longer be pushed into insurmountable debt to finance degrees that do not pay off.”

Others fiercely disagreed, including healthcare industry leaders who also had objected to the rule change during a public comment period. Some said the changes would simply increase student reliance on less favorable, private-sector loans.

The American Assn. of Colleges of Nursing, in a statement, said it and its members were “angered by the Department of Education’s failure to support the nursing profession as the demand for patient care services rises.”

Nearly 150 members of Congress — including more than a dozen Republicans — wrote a letter the day after the rule was promulgated expressing “disappointment” over the exclusion of post-baccalaureate nursing degrees.

“At a time when our nation is facing a health care shortage, especially in primary care, now is not the time to cut off the student pipeline to these programs,” the lawmakers argued.

Rachel Zaentz, a spokesperson for the University of California, which is not party to the lawsuit but operates a vast network of public health programs, said in a statement Tuesday that UC “strongly opposed” the administration’s new caps on federal loans for nurses and other health professionals, which she said “will be felt most strongly by lower-income graduate students.”

“UC will continue to do all we can to ensure that cost is not a barrier for anyone who wants to pursue higher education, and we will continue to advocate with our federal partners for the programs and policies that make this possible,” Zaentz said.

Bonta rejected the administration’s argument that the new caps would help students pursuing a dream of a medical career avoid taking on too much debt — calling it “tone deaf.” He said those students are already “struggling with all costs right now” thanks to the Trump administration’s tariffs, war in Iran and lax approach to regulating monopolies and other big business.

He also rejected the idea that the new loan caps would force institutions to reduce costs for students, calling that “wishful thinking.”

The lawsuit is the 68th filed by Bonta’s office against the second Trump administration. Joining Bonta in the lawsuit — which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Maryland — were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

May 19 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of the Treasury on Tuesday announced that it is imposing sanctions on four activists for their alleged involvement in a flotilla seeking to carry humanitarian aid to Gaza during the Israeli blockade.

In a press release, the department said the flotilla was “pro-terror” and “operating in support of Hamas.” Those organizing the Global Sumud Flotilla say that it is a “legal, non-violent humanitarian mission.”

The Israeli military began to intercept the boats of the flotilla and detain the people aboard Monday as they were off the coast of Cyprus. More than 50 vessels are involved in the group.

Its organizers said that they were trying to deliver humanitarian aid while showing solidarity with the Palestinian population. Israel has continued bombing Gaza despite a cease-fire brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump late last year, Al Jazeera reported, and Palestinians are facing shortages in food and medical supplies.

The Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, however, said the flotilla was organized by Hamas-linked organizations.

“The pro-terror flotilla attempting to reach Gaza is a ludicrous attempt to undermine President Trump’s successful progress toward lasting peace in the area,” said Scott Bessent, secretary of the treasury. “Treasury will continue to sever Hamas’ global financial support networks, no matter where in the world they are.”

The sanctions targeted two people from the advocacy group Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad and two from Samidoun, a Palestinian prisoners solidarity network. The Treasury said both groups are fronts for Palestinian terror organizations.

Those sanctioned are Saif Hashim Kamel Abukishek, a member of PCPA; Hisham Abdallah Sulayman Abu Mahfuz, president of the PCPA; Mohammed Khatib, European coordinator for Samidoun; and Jaldia Abubakra Aueda, a Samidoun coordinator in Spain.

The sanctions freeze the U.S. assets of those targeted and generally prohibit working with them.

Iran has publicly outlined key elements of its latest peace proposal to the United States, demanding reparations for war damage, the withdrawal of United States forces from areas near Iran, and the lifting of economic sanctions as part of any broader agreement.

According to comments from Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, the proposal also calls for the release of frozen Iranian assets, an end to restrictions affecting Iranian trade and shipping, and a halt to hostilities across regional conflict zones including Lebanon.

The proposal emerged after United States President Donald Trump announced that he had paused a planned military strike against Iran to allow additional time for negotiations regarding Tehran’s nuclear programme and regional security issues.

Iran Pushes for Broader Regional Settlement

Tehran’s proposal reflects an effort to expand negotiations beyond nuclear issues into wider geopolitical and security concerns across the Middle East.

Iran appears to be seeking a comprehensive arrangement that addresses not only sanctions and military pressure but also the broader regional balance of power involving Lebanon, the Gulf region, and United States military deployments.

The demand for reparations is particularly significant because it frames the recent conflict as an act requiring compensation for damage caused by joint United States and Israeli military operations.

Iranian officials also continue insisting that economic sanctions and frozen overseas assets remain central obstacles to any sustainable agreement.

United States Signals Openness but Maintains Pressure

Trump stated that there was a strong possibility of reaching a deal that would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons while avoiding renewed military escalation.

However, Washington has not publicly confirmed any major concessions in negotiations. Reports suggesting the United States may release a portion of frozen Iranian funds or allow limited peaceful nuclear activity under international supervision remain unverified by American officials.

At the same time, United States officials continue denying claims that sanctions on Iranian oil exports would be fully waived during negotiations.

The situation reflects a complex diplomatic balancing act in which Washington seeks to maintain leverage while preventing a wider regional conflict that could destabilise global energy markets and military alliances.

Regional Powers Push for De Escalation

Regional governments including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates reportedly urged Trump to delay military action in hopes that negotiations could succeed.

The involvement of regional mediators highlights growing concern across the Gulf about the economic and security consequences of another large scale conflict involving Iran.

The Strait of Hormuz remains especially important because it serves as one of the world’s most critical shipping routes for oil and energy exports. Any escalation threatening maritime trade could have severe consequences for global energy prices and economic stability.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has reportedly continued acting as a communication channel between Tehran and Washington after previously hosting peace talks between the two sides.

Ongoing Tensions Despite Ceasefire

Although a ceasefire has largely held since the suspension of major hostilities earlier this year, tensions remain extremely high across the region.

Iran and its regional allies continue facing accusations of supporting drone activity and proxy operations targeting Gulf states and Israeli interests. At the same time, Iran maintains that it has survived military pressure without abandoning its nuclear capabilities, missile programmes, or regional alliances.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump previously justified military operations as necessary to weaken Iran’s nuclear programme and reduce its influence through allied militias across the Middle East.

However, analysts note that Iran still retains significant strategic capabilities despite extensive military strikes and economic sanctions.

Analysis

Iran’s latest proposal demonstrates that Tehran is attempting to negotiate from a position of resilience rather than surrender.

By demanding reparations, sanctions relief, and troop withdrawals, Iran is signalling that it expects recognition of its regional influence and strategic endurance despite months of conflict and economic pressure. The proposal also reflects Tehran’s broader objective of reducing the long term military presence of the United States near its borders.

For Washington, the negotiations present a difficult challenge. The United States wants to prevent Iran from advancing toward nuclear weapons capability while avoiding another prolonged regional war that could damage global markets, strain military resources, and increase political pressure at home.

The talks are also shaped by wider geopolitical realities. Gulf states increasingly prioritise regional stability and economic security, making them more supportive of diplomacy than direct military confrontation. Rising energy prices and fears of shipping disruptions further increase international pressure for a negotiated outcome.

At the same time, deep mistrust continues to define relations between both sides. The United States remains sceptical of Iran’s regional ambitions, while Tehran sees sanctions and military deployments as tools of long term containment.

Ultimately, the negotiations reveal a broader struggle over the future balance of power in the Middle East. Even if temporary agreements are reached, the underlying strategic rivalry between Iran, the United States, and Israel is unlikely to disappear in the near future.

With information from Reuters.

The latest developments surrounding Nvidia’s H200 chip sales to China highlight the growing complexity of the technological rivalry between the United States and China. Although Washington has reportedly approved several major Chinese firms to purchase Nvidia’s advanced artificial intelligence chips, no deliveries have taken place so far.

The situation reflects how geopolitical competition is increasingly disrupting even officially approved commercial agreements in the semiconductor sector.

Nvidia, the world’s leading artificial intelligence chip manufacturer, now finds itself caught between United States export control policies and China’s push for technological self reliance.

What Is the H200 Chip?

The H200 is Nvidia’s second most powerful artificial intelligence chip and is designed for advanced AI model training and data center operations.

The chip is particularly valuable for companies developing large language models, cloud computing systems, and next generation AI applications.

Before export restrictions tightened, Nvidia dominated China’s advanced AI chip market with an estimated market share of around 95 percent.

China also represented a major source of revenue for Nvidia, making access to the Chinese market strategically important for the company’s long term growth.

Which Chinese Companies Were Approved?

According to reports, the United States Commerce Department approved around ten Chinese firms to purchase H200 chips.

These reportedly include major Chinese technology companies such as:

• Alibaba
• Tencent
• ByteDance
• JD.com

Several distributors were also reportedly approved, including:

Under the licensing terms, each approved customer could reportedly purchase up to 75,000 chips.

However, despite these approvals, no actual sales or deliveries have yet been completed.

Why Have the Sales Stalled?

The delays appear to stem from concerns on both the United States and Chinese sides.

Chinese Concerns

Chinese authorities reportedly fear that reliance on Nvidia chips could undermine Beijing’s efforts to strengthen its domestic semiconductor industry.

China has invested heavily in local AI chip development, particularly through companies such as Huawei.

Beijing increasingly sees semiconductor self sufficiency as a national security priority amid escalating technological competition with Washington.

There are also concerns within China regarding supply chain security and possible vulnerabilities linked to imported American technology.

Recent Chinese regulations aimed at reducing foreign dependence in critical technology sectors have reportedly intensified scrutiny of these chip purchases.

United States Restrictions

The United States has simultaneously imposed strict export control requirements on advanced semiconductor sales to China.

Chinese buyers must reportedly prove that the chips will not be used for military purposes and that adequate security procedures are in place.

Nvidia must also satisfy inventory and compliance conditions under American export laws.

Additionally, reports suggest the Trump administration negotiated an unusual arrangement in which the United States would receive a portion of revenue generated from the chip sales. This reportedly requires the chips to pass through American territory before shipment to China.

Such conditions have further complicated the transaction process.

Jensen Huang’s Diplomatic Push

Nvidia Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang has emerged as a key figure in efforts to preserve Nvidia’s access to the Chinese market.

Huang reportedly joined President Donald Trump during a diplomatic visit linked to talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

His participation underscores the economic significance of the semiconductor dispute and the importance of China to Nvidia’s business strategy.

Huang has repeatedly warned that export controls risk permanently weakening Nvidia’s position in China while encouraging Chinese firms to accelerate domestic alternatives.

The Larger Strategic Battle

The Nvidia dispute reflects a broader struggle between the United States and China over technological dominance in artificial intelligence.

Washington increasingly views advanced semiconductor technology as a strategic national security asset. American policymakers fear that unrestricted access to advanced AI chips could strengthen China’s military and technological capabilities.

China, meanwhile, sees semiconductor independence as essential to reducing vulnerability to foreign pressure and sanctions.

As a result, both sides are attempting to balance economic interests with long term strategic competition.

Implications for the Global AI Industry

The uncertainty surrounding Nvidia’s China business could have major implications for the global artificial intelligence industry.

If Chinese companies lose access to Nvidia chips, they may accelerate investment in domestic alternatives, potentially reshaping the global semiconductor market over time.

At the same time, restrictions on AI chip trade risk fragmenting the global technology ecosystem into competing American and Chinese spheres.

This could reduce international collaboration, disrupt supply chains, and intensify geopolitical competition over emerging technologies.

Future Outlook

Despite current delays, neither the United States nor China appears willing to completely sever technological and commercial ties.

However, the Nvidia case demonstrates that semiconductor trade between the two powers is becoming increasingly politicized and strategically sensitive.

The future of AI competition may ultimately depend not only on innovation, but also on which country can build the most resilient and independent technology ecosystem.

For Nvidia, maintaining its position between the world’s two largest economies will likely remain one of its greatest strategic challenges.

Conclusion

The stalled Nvidia H200 deal illustrates how deeply geopolitical tensions now shape the global technology industry.

Although the United States has approved limited chip exports to China, political distrust, national security concerns, and strategic competition continue to obstruct implementation.

As artificial intelligence becomes central to economic and military power, semiconductor trade is no longer simply a commercial issue. It has become a defining arena in the broader contest between Washington and Beijing for technological leadership in the twenty first century.

With information from Reuters,

May 12 (UPI) — Missouri’s Supreme Court has approved the state’s new congressional maps, handing a win to the Trump administration as it seeks to create additional Republican-favored seats ahead of November’s midterm elections.

The high court ruled unanimously Tuesday in three cases that challenged the map, stating in a joint opinion affecting two cases that the redraw does not violate the state’s Constitution, and rejected a referendum-related challenge against the bill that permitted the unorthodox mid-decade redraw.

“Today’s Missouri Supreme Court rulings are a HUGE victory for voters,” Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, said in a social media statement Tuesday.

“Missourians are more alike than we are different, and our Missouri Values — rooted in common sense, hard work and personal responsibility — are stronger and far more aligned across both sides of the aisle than the extreme left-wing agendas pushed in states like New York, California and Illinois.

“The Missouri First Map ensures those values are represented fairly and accurately at every level of government.”

Missouri began the effort to redraw its congressional map last summer amid President Donald Trump‘s push for Republican-led states to create more GOP-favored seats for November’s midterm elections. The map, which Kehoe signed in September, redraws Democrat Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s Kansas City-area district to include more rural, Republican-leaning areas, potentially whittling Missouri’s Democratic delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives from two seats to one.

Trump has repeatedly voiced concern about potential impeachment proceedings if Republicans lose the House. Creating additional Republican-leaning seats increases the GOP’s chances of maintaining control of the chamber, making impeachment less likely while limiting Democrats’ ability to conduct investigations into the Trump administration or stymie his agenda.

Texas was the first state to move on mid-decade redistricting, kicking off a gerrymandering arms race in which Democratic-led states sought to counter with their own maps and Republican-led states responded with additional redraws.

Fifteen states have moved to redistrict, with eight — seven Republican-led and one Democratic-led — having implemented new congressional maps, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Democratic-led Virginia also approved a new map, but the state Supreme Court overturned it last week.

The Missouri Supreme Court decisions on Tuesday resolve months of litigation in a trio of separate cases filed by Missouri voters against the redistricting.

In consolidating two cases that similarly challenged the constitutionality of the map’s redraw, the justices unanimously ruled that the appellants failed to show that it unlawfully slip the Kansas City-area district.

The other unanimous ruling sided against Missouri voters seeking to have the issue put to a ballot referendum.

Opponents to the maps criticized the court following its ruling, highlighting the fact that it was issued the same day arguments in the case were presented.

“While one might be inclined to hope that these justices managed to grapple with a highly complex, nuanced and consequential issue in just six hours, it seems clear the justices were not interested in the day’s proceedings and simply had their opinion already finalized, even before this morning’s argument,” Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, said in a statement.

“With this decision, the Missouri Supreme Court has shown Missourians the lack of seriousness with which it takes cases that pertain to protecting their right to vote — a complete and dangerous abdication of the judiciary’s role.”

The Campaign Legal Center, the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Missouri similarly criticized the ruling.

“Mere hours after argument was held, the court released its decisions siding against voters in every respect,” the groups said in a joint statement.

“We are extremely disappointed in these rulings, and in their failure to protect Missourians’ right to fair maps. This state — and our democracy — are worse off for this outcome.”

President Trump’s push to redraw the nation’s U.S. House districts received mixed results Tuesday as South Carolina senators defied his desires, but Missouri’s top court upheld a new map that could help Republicans win an additional seat in the November midterm elections.

Rather than waning, a national redistricting battle that began 10 months ago has intensified — inflamed by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that weakened the federal Voting Rights Act and provided grounds for states to try to eliminate voting districts with large minority populations.

Republican lawmakers in Louisiana are wrestling with how politically aggressive to be when redrawing House districts after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a majority-Black district as an illegal racial gerrymander.

The ripples of the Louisiana ruling already have led to new U.S. House districts in Tennessee and have extended to Alabama, where Republican Gov. Kay Ivey announced an Aug. 11 special primary for four of the state’s seven congressional districts. That came after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned an order mandating use of a map with two largely Black districts. The state plans to switch to a map passed in 2023 that has only one majority-Black district.

Republicans think they could gain as many as 14 seats from new House maps enacted so far in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Tennessee. Democrats, meanwhile, think they could gain six seats from new maps in California and Utah. The Virginia Supreme Court last week struck down a redistricting effort that could have yielded four more winnable seats for Democrats.

Missouri map splits Kansas City district

Missouri was the second Republican state, after Texas, to redraw its congressional districts at Trump’s urging last year. Since then, numerous other states have joined the redistricting battle.

During arguments earlier Tuesday, attorneys for voters challenging Missouri’s new map focused on changes to a Kansas City-based district long represented by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who previously was the city’s mayor, the first Black person to hold the post.

The new map takes a compact urban district that covered 20 miles and two counties and stretches it 200 miles over 15 counties, distorting it “into a sprawling behemoth that cuts clear across the state to unite territories that share nothing in common,” said Abha Khanna, an attorney who has represented Democrats in voting and redistricting cases across the country.

A lower court ruled in March that the map as a whole satisfied the compactness requirement, even though the Kansas City district is less compact. No Missouri court has ever struck down a congressional map for not being compact, said attorney John Gore, who defended the districts on behalf of the Republican Party.

A second case heard by the high court centered on whether the new map took effect in December, as asserted by Republican Atty. Gen. Catherine Hanaway and Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, or whether it should have been suspended when referendum signatures were submitted.

To suspend the map before validating the signatures would let activists temporarily undercut laws by submitting boxes of fraudulent signatures, Missouri Solicitor Gen. Lou Capozzi argued.

But to not immediately suspend the map “would dilute the referendum right, if not destroy it altogether,” said attorney Jonathan Hawley, arguing for voters who sued.

Republican officials contend the new districts can be suspended only after Hoskins determines the petition meets constitutional requirements and has enough valid signatures. Hoskins has until Aug. 4, the day of Missouri’s primary elections, to make that determination. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of a state judge in March who agreed with Republicans’ position.

Louisiana hearing leads to death threats

Louisiana state Sen. Jay Morris, a Republican who drafted redistricting bills that would eliminate one or both of the state’s majority-Black districts, told lawmakers Monday that he received death threats after Friday’s contentious hearing in which he told members of the public to “shut up.”

Morris acknowledged the outburst but denied the Louisiana Democratic Party’s assertion — blasted across social media and in a news release — that he also used the derogatory term “boy” toward its executive director, Dadrius Lanus, who is Black.

State Sen. Gary Carter, one of three Black Democrats serving alongside six white Republicans on the Senate committee overseeing redistricting, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that he had withdrawn from the committee “to help restore the decorum and focus that this moment demands” after shouting at Republicans during Friday’s hearing. Carter publicly apologized Monday to Morris and his Senate colleagues for having “lost my temper” and for any remarks that were taken as “personal attacks.”

Carter is the nephew of U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, a Democrat who represents New Orleans and is at risk of losing his seat in the redistricting process. Gary Carter is being replaced on the committee with state Sen. Royce Duplessis, a Democrat representing New Orleans.

South Carolina weighs political risks of redistricting

The Republican push for South Carolina to join the national redistricting battle by redrawing its U.S. House map fizzled Tuesday as an initial vote in the state Senate fell short.

Trump had urged South Carolina to redraw its congressional districts ahead of the November elections in an attempt to help Republicans win another seat in the closely divided chamber. The state House had voted in favor of letting lawmakers return after the regular session ends this week to consider redistricting, and had proposed a new map that could eliminate the state’s only Democratic-held seat.

But the Senate had to give permission to take up redistricting, too.

The 29-17 vote failed, with just two votes short of the two-thirds needed. Five Republicans joined all the Democrats in the chamber to reject the proposal.

Trump said Monday on social media that he was closely watching the redistricting vote, urging South Carolina senators to “be bold and courageous” and to delay the House primaries so new districts can be drawn.

Although Republicans have a supermajority in the chamber, some GOP senators weren’t sure the proposed map would guarantee the party could unseat longtime Democratic U.S. Rep. James E. Clyburn. They also said it could push enough Democrats into other districts to backfire, resulting in a 5-2 or even a 4-3 Republican split.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey acknowledged the pressure from Trump, but said he doesn’t like being asked to bend to someone’s will instead of doing what’s best for his state.

“I got too much Southern in my blood,” Massey said. “I’ve got too much resistance in my heritage.”

Lieb, Collins, Brook and Chandler write for the Associated Press. Brook reported from Baton Rouge, La.; Chandler from Montgomery, Ala.; Collins from Columbia; and Lieb from Jefferson City, Mo.

A fragile ceasefire in the US-Israel war on Iran is coming under growing strain as several Gulf countries have reported drone attacks.

Qatar said on Sunday that a drone struck a cargo ship in Qatari waters, sparking a fire, while Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates said they repelled drone attacks.

Though no Gulf country reported casualties in the latest attacks, they have put pressure on the fragile ceasefire, which took effect on April 8.

Qatar’s Ministry of Defence said the freighter had been arriving in the country’s waters from the UAE capital, Abu Dhabi, and was hit by a drone northeast of the port of Mesaieed.

“The vessel continued its journey toward Mesaieed Port after the fire was brought under control,” the ministry said.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said a bulk carrier reported being struck by an “unknown projectile”, and a small fire had been extinguished, but there were no casualties from the incident. “There is no reported environmental impact,” it said.

Kuwait’s Defence Ministry said a “number of hostile drones” were detected in the country’s airspace at dawn. In a post on X, a spokesperson said the drones were dealt with “in accordance with established procedures”, but did not specify where the drones were launched from.

The UAE Defence Ministry said two Iranian drones were intercepted.

“UAE air defence systems successfully engaged two UAVs launched from Iran,” the ministry said in a statement on X.

Ceasefire tested

The Trump administration has said the truce is still in effect, but a naval battle has been taking place in the Gulf region, with Iran restricting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which a fifth of traded oil transited before the war, and the United States imposing a blockade of Iranian ports.

Several attacks have been reported on ships in the Gulf and the countries in the region over the past week.

On Friday, the US struck two Iranian oil tankers, saying they were trying to breach its blockade of Iran’s ports.

On Tuesday, the UAE said it came under attack from Iranian missiles and drones for the second day in a row. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), however, denied the claim.

The IRGC Navy on Sunday reiterated its warning that any attack on Iranian oil tankers or commercial vessels would be met with a “heavy assault” on one of the bases in the region used by US forces and enemy ships.

The spokesperson for the Iranian parliament’s foreign policy and security committee, Ebrahim Rezaei, said Tehran’s “restraint is over”.

“Any aggression against our vessels will be met with a heavy and decisive Iranian response against American vessels and bases,” Rezaei wrote on X.

“The clock is ticking against the Americans’ interests; it is to their benefit not to act foolishly and sink themselves deeper into the quagmire they have fallen into. The best course is to surrender and concede concessions. You must get used to the new regional order,” he added.

Talks to end the war

While the truce remains in effect, President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to resume the US bombardment if Iran does not accept a deal which includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz and rolling back its nuclear programme.

Iran is still mulling its response to a 14-point proposal by Washington, with Iranian frozen assets and war reparations among other main sticking points.

In a meeting with US Secretary of State Marc Rubio on Saturday, Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani pushed for all parties to respond to the ongoing mediation efforts and to reach an agreement for lasting peace.

Qatar’s prime minister also held a phone call with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the Qatari foreign ministry reported on Sunday.

Sheikh Mohammed told Araghchi that Iran’s use of the Strait of Hormuz as a “pressure card” would only deepen the crisis in the Gulf, and said all parties in the conflict should respond to mediation efforts to end the war.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Tohid Assadi said when it comes to diplomatic engagement, it seems that the US and Iran want the content of any negotiations to remain private.

Meanwhile, there is a mixture of different sentiments among Iranian citizens, he noted.

“Since the early days of the war, people have gathered to show their sense of nationalism and support for the political establishment,” he said.

“But we also know that there is a sense of frustration, especially when it comes to soaring prices and economic difficulties,” he added.

At a meeting on the reconstruction after damage caused by the war, President Masoud Pezeshkian said negotiations with the US on ending the war do not mean Iran is surrendering.

“The goal is to realise the rights of the Iranian people and defend national interests with authority,” he said.

The dream of getting an F-14 Tomcat back up in American skies, discussed as a fantasy for the past two decades since the Navy retired the type, may actually become a reality.

Legislation making its way through Congress would allow the Navy to gift three retired F-14Ds to the U.S. Space & Rocket Center museum in Huntsville, Alabama, and open the door to one of the iconic jets potentially being returned to flight status. Companion bills in the Senate and House are both dubbed the “Maverick Act,” a clear reference to the Top Gun film franchise and the fictional Navy Capt. Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, played by star Tom Cruise.

Senator Tim Sheehy, a Montana Republican, introduced the Senate’s version of the Maverick Act on March 23. Senator Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, co-sponsored that bill. Sheehy is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate and former Navy SEAL. Kelly is also a retired naval aviator, who flew A-6 Intruders, and astronaut. In the House, Representative Abe Hamadeh, a Republican from Arizona and U.S. Army veteran, introduced the companion legislation with the same title on April 16. There are nine co-sponsors to Hamadeh’s bill, including one Democrat. The legislation cleared the Senate by unanimous consent on April 28, and the matter is now in the hands of the House.

The last Navy F-14 was officially retired in September 2006 after 32 years of service to the fleet. Despite its retirement in the United States, the Tomcat has remained under extremely tight export controls due to its continued service in Iran, the only other country to ever operate the type.

The three Tomcats now earmarked for potential transfer are identified by their Navy serial numbers, or Bureau Numbers: 164341, 164602, and 159437. These are the only three F-14Ds currently in storage at the famed boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, per U.S. Air Force records. Three A variants and a pair of B models are also currently stored there. The current condition of any of these aircraft is unclear.

Sticking with the text of the Senate version at the time of writing for simplicity, the bill says the transfer of the F-14s to the U.S. Space & Rocket Center, an air and space museum established by the government of Alabama in 1970, would be made at no cost to the government. “Any costs associated with such conveyance, costs of determining compliance with terms of the conveyance, and costs of operation and maintenance of the aircraft conveyed shall be borne by the Commission,” per the proposed legislation.

The bill explicitly states that the aircraft will “not have any capability for use as a platform for launching or releasing munitions or any other combat capability that it was designed to have.” It also lays out a series of conditions for the transfer, noting that the Secretary of the Navy would not be obligated to restore, repair, or otherwise modify the Tomcats before handing them over, but would provide accompanying maintenance and operations manuals along with any excess spare parts available.

The matter of excess spare parts leads us to the most eye-catching section of the bill:

“The Secretary [of the Navy] shall provide excess spare parts to make one of the F-14D aircraft flyable or able to complete a static display, provided that any part transferred is from existing Navy stock, with no items being procured on behalf of the Commission.”

“The Secretary will not be responsible for transferring any additional parts or providing any additional support beyond what is stated in this section, during or after the conveyance of the aircraft,” the proposed legislation adds. As such, the Secretary of the Navy would allow the Commission to enter into agreements with relevant nonprofit organizations to help with restoring and operating the aircraft “for public display, airshows, and commemorative events to preserve naval aviation heritage.”

The transfer would also be made under the “condition that the Commission shall operate and maintain the aircraft in compliance with all applicable limitations and maintenance requirements imposed by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration,” the bill notes. “The Commission shall not convey any ownership interest in, or transfer possession of, the aircraft to another party without the prior approval of the Secretary.”

The Navy would reserve the right to immediately repossess the aircraft if either of the above terms were breached.

“The Maverick Act of 2026 creates a narrow exception to the post-retirement restrictions that have destroyed nearly all F-14s, ensuring that its legacy is preserved,” according to a press release that Abe Hamadeh’s office put out on May 1. “The Maverick Act allows three of the world’s final Tomcats to be demilitarized and transferred for public display and education under strict national security safeguards. It does not restore combat capability or reopen foreign transfer.”

“I want to thank Senator Sheehy and his colleagues for passing this legislation aimed at preserving for history one of the most iconic aircraft ever flown,” Hamadeh said in an accompanying statement. “As a former U.S. Army officer, I know that many of the men and women I served with felt the same way. That is why I proudly introduced this legislation.”

It is worth noting that retired F-14s are on public display at various military bases and museums in the United States, but none are in flyable condition. Around it’s retirement, there had been unsuccessful pushes in the past to try to get a Tomcat back into the air in private hands, including by the late Dale “Snort” Snodgrass, a legendary naval aviator and F-14 pilot, who performed official Navy Tomcat demos at airshows for many years.

The prospect of getting a ‘warbird’ Tomcat flying has remained a persistent topic of popular discussion, but has long seemed largely impossible due to bureaucratic red tape, as well as the cost and complexity of doing so. TWZ stressed these points when it emerged that a non-flying F-14 would feature in the sequel to 1986’s Top Gun, Top Gun: Maverick, which hit theaters in 2022. The U.S. military was heavily involved in the production of both movies. The original film cemented the place of the F-14 and the Navy’s TOPGUN program in popular culture.

TOP GUN | Official Trailer | Paramount Movies

Top Gun: Maverick – Official Trailer (2022) – Paramount Pictures

A key factor in all of this has been that the story of the Tomcat is inseparably linked to Iran, which received a fleet of F-14As before the fall of the Shah in 1979. The Islamic Republic that emerged afterward continued to operate the jets despite the U.S. government cutting off support. American authorities also moved to impose very tight controls on access to retired F-14 airframes and spare parts, and many of the aircraft were destroyed outright as they left Navy service because of this.

Intriguingly, the prospect of having an F-14 flying again in the United States may have become more likely as a result of the latest conflict with Iran. As TWZ has previously reported, joint U.S. and Israeli strikes between February and April may well have finally put an end to the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force’s (IRIAF) Tomcat operations for good.

Even before the conflict, Iran likely only had a handful of serviceable Tomcats. For example, only one example appeared at the Kish Air Show in 2024, as you can read about here.

Still, even if the Maverick bill is passed and signed into law, there would be many more hurdles before an F-14 could return to the air. After many years spent in the desert boneyard, the Tomcat would require deep inspections to ensure its structure and critical subsystems were fully functional and compliant with the Federal Aviation Administration’s certification requirements.

Just getting the F-14 back to flight status would be massively labor-intensive and very expensive. Keeping the jet in the air would also require considerable funds, with the Tomcat being notoriously maintenance-heavy. Flying the jet regularly would impose high costs, including fuel. The F-14 holds roughly 2,280 gallons of fuel internally. So filling up the jet with a single tank of gas would run around $14,500 at today’s jet fuel prices. This jumps up considerably with external fuel tanks, which add another 534 gallons to the price tag. It can burn this fuel load very fast, especially during high-performance airshow routines.

Complex, supersonic swing-wing jets have periodically appeared at U.S. airshows, specifically the Soviet-era MiG-23 Flogger. In 2023, a privately owned MiG-23UB crashed at the Thunder Over Michigan airshow in Ypsilanti, Michigan, highlighting the challenges of operating these kinds of jets in private hands.

An assassination attempt at the White House correspondents’ dinner underscored the spectacle, chaos and violence that have defined Donald Trump’s second presidency.

As journalists rushed to report what had happened, a parallel narrative of conspiracy was already taking shape online. Conspiracy theories get far more currency than they merit – and they are a by-product of an information landscape that has been muddied by Trump.

Contributors:
John Nichols – Executive editor, The Nation
Niall Stanage – White House columnist, The Hill
Amber Duke – Editor-in-chief, Daily Caller
Suzanne Kianpour – Cohost, Global Power Shifts podcast

On our radar

Russia’s effort to tighten internet restrictions and throttle Telegram has caused a furious public backlash. The uproar has forced President Vladimir Putin to admit the measures went too far. Ryan Kohls reports.

Israel’s information war on Lebanon

Throughout two years of war, Israeli forces have used drones, AI-powered targeting and the infiltration of Lebanese communications devices and the networks they rely on – to control the population, spread terror and kill people. And it has escalated its information war, using all kinds of propaganda to deepen fear and divisions within Lebanese society. We speak to Justin Salhani about the tactics Israel is using in Lebanon.

Featuring:
Justin Salhani – Senior producer, Al Jazeera Digital

A Supreme Court decision striking down a majority Black congressional district in Louisiana has amplified an already intense national redistricting battle by providing Republican officials in several states new grounds to redraw voting districts.

Louisiana has suspended its May 16 congressional primary to allow time for lawmakers to approve new U.S. House districts. Meanwhile, President Trump is pressuring other states to redistrict — potentially still ahead of the November midterm elections that will determine whether Republicans maintain control of the closely divided House.

Trump urged Texas Republicans last year to redraw U.S. House districts to give the party an advantage. Democrats in California responded by doing the same. Then other states joined the battle. Lawmakers, commissions or courts have adopted new House districts in eight states.

That total could grow following the Supreme Court’s decision that significantly weakened a provision in the federal Voting Rights Act.

Here’s a look at how some states are responding to the Supreme Court ruling:

Louisiana

Current House map: two Democrats, four Republicans

Early in-person voting was to begin Saturday for Louisiana’s primaries. But Republican Gov. Jeff Landry moved quickly Thursday to postpone the congressional primary while allowing elections for other offices to go forward.

A federal lawsuit filed later Thursday, on behalf of a Democratic congressional candidate and voter, asked a court to block Landry’s order and allow the House primary to occur as originally scheduled. Among other things, the lawsuit asserted that tens of thousands of absentee ballots already have been mailed to people and a substantial number have been filled out and returned.

Separately, a three-judge federal court panel that heard the case that was appealed to the Supreme Court also issued an order Thursday suspending Louisiana’s congressional primary.

Republican state House and Senate leaders said they are prepared to pass new U.S. House districts — and set a new primary election date — before their legislative session ends in a month.

Alabama

Current House map: two Democrats, five Republicans

Alabama officials on Thursday filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court seeking an expedited review of a pending appeal in a redistricting case.

A federal court in 2023 ordered the creation of a new near-majority Black district in Alabama, resulting in the election of a second Black representative to the U.S. House. Alabama is under a court order to use the new map until after the next census in 2030.

An appeal pending before the Supreme Court argues that the map is an illegal racial gerrymander, a claim similar to that made in Louisiana.

The state is seeking to lift an injunction blocking the use of the 2023 map drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature that did not include the new district.

The state’s primaries are set for May 19. Republican Gov. Kay Ivey said Wednesday that the state is “not in position to have a special session at this time” on redistricting.

Florida

Current House map: eight Democrats, 20 Republicans

Hours after the Supreme Court’s decision, Florida’s Republican-led Legislature approved new U.S. House districts that could help the GOP win up to four additional seats in November.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis called a special legislative session without knowing when the Supreme Court would issue its opinion in the Louisiana case. But DeSantis expressed confidence that the court would rule as it did. Among other things, the new map reshapes a southeastern Florida district that DeSantis said was created to help elect a Black representative in an attempt to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.

A Florida constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2010 prohibits districts from being drawn to deny or diminish the ability of racial or language minorities to elect the representatives of their choice. DeSantis said he considers that amendment a violation of the U.S. Constitution. That question is expected to be decided by the courts.

Tennessee

Current House map: one Democrat, eight Republicans

The Tennessee General Assembly recently ended its annual session. But pressure is growing to bring lawmakers back to revise the state’s congressional districts.

Trump posted on social media Thursday that he had spoken with Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who he said would work hard for a new map that could help Republicans gain an additional seat. Democrats currently hold only one seat, a district centered in Memphis, which is majority Black.

Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, said he is in conversations with the White House and others while reviewing the court’s decision.

The state’s candidate qualifying period ended in March. The primary election is scheduled for Aug. 6.

Mississippi

Current House map: one Democrat, three Republicans

Mississippi held its U.S. House primaries in March. But the Supreme Court’s decision could affect elections for other offices.

Republican Gov. Tate Reeves announced previously that he would call a special legislative session to redraw voting districts for the state Supreme Court that would begin 21 days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Louisiana case. That would put the special session’s start at around May 20.

A federal judge last year ordered Mississippi to redraw its Supreme Court voting districts after finding that they violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Mississippi lawmakers had been waiting on a decision in the Louisiana case before moving forward, but their legislative session ended in April.

Reeves said in his proclamation that the Supreme Court’s decision would provide guidance to lawmakers on whether “race-conscious redistricting” violates the U.S. Constitution.

Georgia

Current House map: five Democrats, nine Republicans

Early in-person voting began April 27 and continues for the next few weeks ahead of Georgia’s primary elections on May 19.

Republican Gov. Brian Kemp said it’s too late for Georgia officials to try to change congressional districts for this year’s elections, because voting already is underway. But he said the rationale in the Supreme Court’s decision “requires Georgia to adopt new electoral maps before the 2028 election cycle.”

Lieb writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Jeff Amy and Kim Chandler contributed to this report.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has enlisted new allies in his legal battle to unravel Nexstar Media Group’s takeover of rival television station group Tegna Inc.

Late Thursday, Bonta announced that five additional states have joined his coalition that is suing to block the $6.2-billion merger. With the additional plaintiffs, the group of top state law enforcement officers has grown to 13 — and the campaign now is a bipartisan effort.

“Antitrust enforcement is not political — it’s about protecting working families and helping ensure the benefits of a vibrant economy are for everyone, not just well-connected corporations,” Bonta said in a statement. “We welcome our sister states into the fray and look forward to fighting alongside them.”

The new states are Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Vermont. They have joined existing the plaintiffs that represent the people of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia.

Nexstar owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley two weeks ago granted a request by the attorneys general to issue a preliminary injunction halting the merger as the legal case proceeds. The proposed merger — which Nexstar rushed to complete despite opposition from the states — would create the nation’s largest broadcast station group with 265 television stations, up from 164 that Nexstar currently controls.

In dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple major TV network affiliates. That duplication has raised concerns about staff consolidations and widespread newsroom layoffs.

“State attorneys general nationwide understand just how important robust antitrust enforcement is to American life — and what a rotten deal this is for consumers, for workers, for affordability, and for our local news,” Bonta said.

El Segundo-based DirecTV separately filed a lawsuit to block the deal, saying the Nexstar-Tegna consolidation would harm their business by forcing DirecTV to pay significantly higher fees for the rights to carry their stations as part of its programming lineup.

A Nexstar representative was not immediately available for comment.

Nexstar contends the deal would strengthen TV station economics, allowing stations to bolster their news gathering and expand the number of newscasts. But DirecTV countered that in markets where Nexstar owns two stations, it relies on just one newsroom to program both channels.

Nexstar’s proposed purchase of Tegna would give the Irving, Texas-based Nexstar stations in 44 states covering 80% of the U.S. population.

The federal judge ruled there was sufficient merit in the antitrust arguments brought by Bonta and the others to pause Nexstar’s takeover of Tegna until a trial can be held to decide whether the merger is illegal.

“Nexstar must permit Tegna to continue operating as a separate and distinct, independently managed business unit from Nexstar,” Nunley wrote in his 52-page order on April 17. “And Nexstar must put measures in place to maintain Tegna as an ongoing, economically viable, and active competitor.”

ULSAN, South Korea, April 29 (UPI) — Founded in 1974, Korea Zinc began to churn out 50,000 tons of zinc in 1978 at its Onsan smelter about 250 miles southeast of Seoul. Over the next five decades, it expanded annual zinc capacity by more than 11-fold to 560,000 tons.

In addition, Korea Zinc added lead and copper into its production portfolio, a diversified smelting model it says underpins the competitive edge of the world’s largest non-ferrous metal manufacturer.

“In other smelters making just one substance, they have to deal with waste. But we take advantage of them to retrieve other materials,” Korea Zinc engineer Kang Ki-tae said. “That’s why our Onsan smelter is both competitive and environmentally friendly.”

That approach is evident on-site. Korea Zinc is reclaiming a former byproduct storage pond for the construction of a germanium plant targeted for operation in 2028, showing its reduced need for such storage facilities.

As a result, the company’s product portfolio extends beyond the three base metals of zinc, lead,and copper to include such precious and critical metals as gold, silver, indium, bismuth, antimony, gallium and germanium.

Among its customers are Hyundai Motor, Posco, Samsung Electronics, SK hynix and Lockheed Martin. In August, Korea Zinc signed a memorandum of understanding with Lockheed Martin to supply germanium.

Kang said the company aims to replicate those competitive strengths in its U.S. facility to support the efforts of Washington in securing a stable supply chain of critical minerals.

Late last year, Korea Zinc laid out plans to develop an integrated smelter in Clarksville, Tenn., in cooperation with the U.S. government. Called Project Crucible, it will cost up to $7.4 billion.

Groundbreaking is scheduled for next year at a 160-acre site, with the plant targeted to come online in 2029. The complex is slated to produce 13 materials, including 11 designated as critical minerals.

At full ramp-up, Korea Zinc expects the facility to generate about 300,000 metric tons of zinc annually, in addition to 200,000 tons of lead and 35,000 tons of copper, as well as such strategic metals as antimony, indium, bismuth, tellurium and gallium.

China holds a dominant position in the production of rare earths and other critical minerals, often facing criticism for using export controls as leverage in trade tensions, including with the United States.

Amid those concerns, the Trump administration has pushed to develop alternative supply chains for rare earths and other critical minerals beyond China’s influence.

Korea Zinc engineer Lee Sung-jung said that the company also has focused heavily on the environment and automation.

“Autonomous forklifts have already been deployed, and last week we introduced a dozen of fuel-cell forklifts at our facilities,” he said.

Win-win initiative

Korea Zinc Executive Vice President Jimmy Kim said the U.S. investment could also help improve the Onsan smelter.

“We plan to incorporate more advanced technologies, including AI automation and digital twin systems developed by our core engineers, to build an even more sophisticated facility in the United States,” said Kim, who oversees the Onsan plant.

“If AI transformation proves successful there, it could also accelerate AI transformation at our factory here. We believe this could become a win-win opportunity for both countries while helping upgrade Onsan, as well,” he said.

Kim also welcomed the initiative’s selection last week for FAST-41, a federal fast‑track program that accelerates environmental reviews and permitting for major infrastructure projects.

“It shows the project is being highly valued by the U.S. government. We hope that by 2029, this will become an opportunity to further contribute to Korea-U.S. cooperation in technology security and mineral security,” he said.

According to the U.S. Permitting Council, FAST-41 participants have secured federal approvals about 18 months faster on average than comparable developments not covered by the program.