states

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slotkin asked Steiner directly to stop the plan.

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

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

New York State

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

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

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

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

Lander claimed victory Tuesday night.

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

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

“This campaign here was born out of solidarity.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Carolina

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

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

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

Wilson has claimed victory, and Evette has conceded defeat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maryland

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

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

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

Boafo had received Hoyer’s endorsement.

Utah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, environmental groups are also unhappy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidential power versus state power

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

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

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

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

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

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

States seem largely unrestrained by Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regulating chatbots, especially for children

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

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

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

Transparency in AI and decision-making

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

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

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

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

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

More laws are possible this year.

Some Republican-led states hold back

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

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

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

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

Published on
15/06/2026 – 12:06 GMT+2

OpenAI is facing a fresh regulatory challenge after a group of state attorneys general demanded a wide range of documents about how ChatGPT protects the people who use it, a move that arrives at a delicate moment for the company as it lays the groundwork for a potential public listing.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The investigation, which arrived just days after OpenAI filed confidential paperwork for an IPO, threatens to complicate a listing that some analysts expect will value the ChatGPT maker at roughly $1 trillion (€861bn).

According to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the matter, OpenAI received the subpoena on Friday from a group of states, with the inquiry led by New York’s attorney general.

Officials are requesting material covering the company’s advertising practices, how it keeps people using its service, its handling of consumer and health data, and its policies towards minors and older adults.

OpenAI said it would engage with the offices behind the request and stressed that protections are already built into its product.

A spokesperson stated that the company takes the concerns raised by the attorneys general “seriously” and works to bring the benefits of the technology to people responsibly. However, the firm has not confirmed which other US states are taking part.

Mounting legal pressure

The subpoena adds to a growing list of legal headaches.

Last Thursday, a Canadian woman sued OpenAI, blaming ChatGPT for her daughter’s suicide. Earlier in June, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed suit against the company and CEO Sam Altman after two shootings in which the alleged attackers reportedly used the chatbot to plan their crimes.

OpenAI responded that its models repeatedly urged the individuals to seek help from mental health professionals and that it cooperated with the police in both cases.

These are not the first courtroom tests of the year for OpenAI.

In May, a federal jury in Oakland, California took less than two hours to reject Elon Musk’s lawsuit accusing Altman of abandoning the firm’s nonprofit roots, finding he had filed too late. Musk, who called the ruling a “calendar technicality”, said he would appeal.

The clampdown also extends across the industry.

European regulators have opened investigations into Musk’s rival chatbot Grok over antisemitic and sexualised content, including deepfake images.

Anthropic, also preparing an IPO, was told by the Trump administration to restrict two of its models abroad on national security grounds, illustrating how AI governance has become an increasingly fraught political battleground.

Additional sources • AP

LAS VEGAS — Retired Air Force Lt. Col. David Flippo has won the Republican primary in Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District after securing President Trump’s endorsement in the closing weeks of the campaign.

The race, which was called Wednesday, put Trump opposite Republican Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo and retiring Rep. Mark Amodei, who both backed former state Sen. James Settelmeyer. Amodei announced he was retiring after 15 years, opening up a competitive primary for Nevada’s only Republican-held House seat.

Flippo said he will fight “relentlessly” for secure borders, American energy, tax cuts, national defense and “the America First agenda our country needs.”

“Nevada deserves a fighter, and that’s exactly what I will deliver,” he said in a statement.

Democrats had hoped for a Flippo victory, thinking it would make it easier for them to win over less partisan voters in November in the conservative-leaning district. They nominated the chief of staff to state Atty. Gen. Aaron Ford, former majority floor leader Teresa Benitez-Thompson.

“I will ensure that Nevada families have an authentic Nevadan voice fighting for their needs in Washington DC,” Benitez-Thompson said in a Wednesday morning statement.

The 2nd District race is one of several Nevada contests that will be watched closely this year. In southern Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District, Democratic Rep. Susie Lee will face Marty O’Donnell, a composer known for writing the soundtrack to the video game “Halo.”

Trump won the 3rd district in 2024 and backed O’Donnell, who thanked Trump in his victory statement.

Tuesday’s primary also set the general election contest for governor, with Ford defeating a progressive candidate in the Democratic primary and moving on to face Gov. Lombardo. The incumbent, a former Clark County sheriff, is running on his record of public safety and job creation while pledging to work on housing affordability in a second term.

Ford is tying Lombardo to Trump in placing blame for soaring prices across the state and has pledged to lower costs for families. He would be the state’s first Black governor if elected in November.

In other races for statewide offices, Republican primaries for attorney general and secretary of state included several candidates who had pushed election conspiracy theories or been skeptical of election operations. Adriana Guzmán Fralick, who has expressed concerns about voting security, won the GOP nomination for attorney general and will face Democratic state Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro.

The Republican primary for secretary of state, the office that oversees elections, included Jim Marchant, a former state lawmaker who has said the 2020 election “ was probably stolen,” and Sharron Angle, a former state lawmaker who was part of an effort to block the certification of Nevada’s 2020 election results. Another candidate who was competitive in the race, Shirley Folkins-Roberts, is an attorney who has denied that there is widespread voting fraud in Nevada.

In the 2nd District race, Flippo said he understands issues important to the region, including mining, water rights and fuel prices. He sought to turn Settelmeyer’s long political record into a liability, pointing to votes he said did not match conservative values.

He moved to the district this election cycle after losing a race in southern Nevada in 2024. The 2nd District covers all northern Nevada. It mostly rural but includes the major battleground county of Washoe, home to Reno.

Hill writes for the Associated Press.

• Population: 1.37 million
• Defence spending: 5.4 percent of GDP
• Border with Russia: 338km (210 miles)

Estonia, the smallest of the Baltic states, has experienced some dramatic incidents.

In September, Tallinn said Russian MiG-31 fighter jets entered its airspace for 12 minutes. NATO scrambled Italian F-35s stationed in Estonia as part of the Baltic Air Policing mission. Russia denied violating Estonian airspace.

In March, a stray Ukrainian military drone crashed into Estonia’s Auvere power station.

In April and May, Estonian authorities said drones entered their airspace, grounding flights and prompting warnings issued to citizens.

Estonia’s intelligence services have said that the country does not believe Russia is preparing an imminent military attack on NATO, but that Moscow may be rebuilding its forces for the long term while engaging in hybrid attacks through drones, cyber operations, and sabotage.

Tallinn claims one such hybrid method is the so-called “Narva People’s Republic”, a pro-Russian separatist narrative that casts Estonia’s Russian-speaking border region as a distinct political entity, echoing the Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics” used by Moscow as a pretext for intervention in Ukraine.

Estonian authorities say it is part of a disinformation campaign rather than a credible separatist movement.

Its military has, at times, been bellicose in its statements.

In May, Estonia’s Lieutenant General Andrus Merilo argued that Russia is rebuilding its military much faster than many Europeans realise and that Estonia must be ready for a renewed military threat within the next few years, marking 2027 as a critical benchmark for readiness.

In September 2024, in an interview with the Estonian public broadcaster ERR, Estonian General Vahur Karus stated that if Moscow showed signs of preparing for an attack, Estonia could strike the Russians first.

“Our capability to neutralise the enemy on its own territory is crucial,” he said.

However, the government’s rhetoric has been more measured.

In April, Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy suggested in an interview that a new wave of Russian mobilisation may be used to launch an attack on the Baltic states.

But Estonian politicians, including the foreign minister, warned that the remarks echoed Moscow’s objective of stoking fears and made cooperation difficult.

“We do not see Russia concentrating its forces or preparing in any way militarily to attack NATO or the Baltic states; rather, it is the opposite. Russia is not in a very strong position on the Ukrainian front, and economically as well,” Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna told ERR.

“No one is in the streets panicking,” Tony Lawrence, a research fellow at the International Centre for Defence and Security in Tallinn, told Al Jazeera.

The air incursions have “put people on edge”, but there is a sense that Russian forces are too preoccupied in Ukraine, he said.

June 9 (UPI) — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and First Lady Olena Zelenska traveled to Talinn, Estonia, Tuesday to take part in the Ukraine-Nordic-Baltic Eight summit and meet with other regional leaders.

Zelensky is boosting diplomatic efforts as he pushes for more support for Ukraine’s war against Russia.

The Ukrainian president met Tuesday with Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, Latvian Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, his spokesperson Sherhii Nykyforov told the Kyiv Independent. The meetings covered issues like strengthening Ukraine’s air defense and advancing the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List program, which allows NATO allies to finance buying of U.S. weapons.

Zelensky also met with Estonian President Alar Karis and thanked the country and others in the region for their continued support.

Zelensky also emphasized the need to coordinate positions ahead of upcoming summits this summer, including the European Union, G7 and NATO summits.

“June and July this year may determine a lot,” he told reporters at a press conference.

“For a cease-fire to take place, in my view, it would be better to have a meeting at the leadership level. Who? Certainly Ukraine, Russia and definitely Europe,” the Ukrainian state news service Ukrinform reported Zelensky said. “It would be desirable for the United States of America to be there as well. Why Europe? Because we are in Europe — that is the answer. Because this is our land, this is our continent, and we must be certain that life will be safe tomorrow, no matter what.”

He added that Ukraine has the political will to negotiate, but Russia hasn’t shown that.

“The 21st package of EU sanctions is necessary. And today we also discussed that the Baltic Sea and the North Sea must not be a free zone for the Russian shadow fleet. And all decisions that curtail the activity of Russian tankers are decisions that benefit not only Ukraine but all of Europe,” the Ukrainian president said.

Zelensky recently sent a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin asking to meet face to face for peace talks, but Putin declined.

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.”