states

California and other Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration on Monday for allegedly stripping them of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal security and disaster relief funding based on their unwillingness to aid in federal immigration enforcement.

The lawsuit comes just days after a federal judge in a separate case barred the administration from conditioning similar federal grant funding on states rescinding their so-called “sanctuary” policies protecting immigrants.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the latest funding reduction — which the states were notified of over the weekend — flew in the face of last week’s ruling. He criticized it as an illegal effort to force Democratic states into complying with a federal immigration campaign they have no legal obligation to support.

“Tell me, how does defunding California’s efforts to protect against terrorism make our communities safer?” Bonta said in a statement. “President Trump doesn’t like that we won’t be bullied into doing his bidding, ignoring our sovereign right to make decisions about how our law enforcement resources are best used to protect our communities.”

The White House referred questions on the lawsuit to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

The agency has previously argued that its core mission is to defend the nation’s security against threats, including from illegal immigration, and therefore that it should be able to withhold funding from states that it believes are not upholding or are actively undermining that mission.

The funding in question — billions of dollars annually — is distributed to the states to “prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters,” and have been distributed “evenhandedly” for decades by administrations of both political parties, the states’ lawsuit argues.

The funding, authorized by Congress in part after disasters such as September 11 and Hurricane Katrina, pays for things such as the salaries and training of first responders, testing of state computer systems for vulnerabilities to cyber attacks, mutual aid compacts among regional partners and emergency responses to disasters, the states said in their lawsuit.

Bonta’s office said California expected about $165 million, but was notified it would receive $110 million, a cut of $55 million, or a third of its funding. Other blue states saw even greater reductions, with Illinois seeing a 69% reduction and New York receiving a 79% reduction, it said.

Other states that are supporting the Trump administration’s immigration policies received large increases, and some more than 100% increases, the suing states said.

They said the notifications provided no justification for the reductions, noting only that they were made at the direction of Homeland Security. And yet, the reason was clear, they said, including because of recent comments by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other administration officials who have stated outright that states who do not cooperate with federal immigration policies and that maintain sanctuary policies would see reduced funding.

“The explanation for DHS and FEMA’s last-minute decision to reallocate $233 million in homeland security funds — the Reallocation Decision — is apparent. Although DHS has for decades administered federal grant programs in a fair and evenhanded manner, the current Administration is taking money from its enemies,” the states wrote in their lawsuit. “Or, as defendant Secretary Noem put it succinctly in a February 19 internal memorandum, States whose policies she dislikes ‘should not receive a single dollar of the Department’s money.’”

The states also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to immediately block the funding cuts — and prevent the Federal Emergency Management Agency from disbursing any related funds that could not be recouped later — as the case proceeds.

Just last week, a federal judge ruled that the administration setting immigration-related conditions on similar emergency funding was “arbitrary and capricious,” and unconstitutional.

“DHS justifies the conditions by pointing to its broad homeland security mission, but the grants at issue fund programs such as disaster relief, fire safety, dam safety, and emergency preparedness,” the judge in that case wrote. “Sweeping immigration-related conditions imposed on every DHS-administered grant, regardless of statutory purpose, lack the necessary tailoring.”

Last month, another judge ruled in a third case that the Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles or other local jurisdictions based on their sanctuary policies.

In their lawsuit Monday, California and the other states argued that the Trump administration appeared “undeterred” by last week’s ruling against pre-conditioning funding on immigration enforcement cooperation.

After being “frustrated in its first attempt to coerce [the states] into enforcing federal civil immigration law,” the states wrote, “DHS took yet another lawless action” by simply reallocating funding to “more favored jurisdictions” willing to support the administration’s immigration crackdown.

Bonta said the law requires such funding to be distributed based on objective assessments of “threat and risk,” but the weekend notifications showed the Trump administration doing little more than “rushing to work around last week’s order” and “force and coerce” blue states into compliance in a new way.

“This is a lawless, repeat offender administration that keeps breaking the law,” he said.

Bonta said the lawsuit is the 40th his office has filed against the current Trump administration to date. He said his office was in conversation with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, and that they both believe that “we deserve all the funding that has been appropriated to us.”

Joining California in Monday’s lawsuit were Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. All were also party to the litigation challenging preconditions on such funding that was decided last week.

Of course Donald was saying all the right things on the eve of Europe claiming a fifth away win, following 1987, 1995, 2004 and 2012.

“Their job is not done yet. I’m not going to be complacent. They will have plenty of fight. We’re trying to get to 14½ points first,” he said, trotting out the usual platitudes you’d expect from a captain who has planned meticulously for this moment since winning in Rome two years ago.

But even he let slip that he “didn’t really imagine this” as a scenario at the end of day two.

And what a scenario it is.

This is the largest lead a European team has held at this stage, eclipsing the 11-5 advantage they built at Oakland Hills in 2004, when they closed out a record 18½-9½ away triumph.

For the US to overturn this, they will need to win 10 of the 12 points on offer. The most secured by either team on the final day is 8½ – the US in 1979 and 1999, and Europe in 2006 and 2012.

Only four of the 22 Ryder Cups since Europe joined in 1979 has seen a team come from behind at the end of day two to win – 1993, 1995, 1999 and 2012.

It is also the largest lead by any away side as Europe look to buck the trend of huge home wins – although the run of big blow-out victories looks set to be extended to six.

The past five have been won by the home team by five points (Europe, 2014), six (US, 2016), seven (Europe, 2018), 10 (US, 2021), five (Europe 2023).

Eight of the past 10 Ryder Cups have been won by a margin of five or more points. The gap was never more than three points in each of the previous eight editions (1987 to 2002).

The average margin of victory between 1983 and 1999 was 1.3 points, since then it has been 5.5.

Sept. 26 (UPI) — The Trump administration is suing six Democratic-led states to force them to hand over their voter registration lists, further raising concerns about alleged efforts by the Trump administration to undermine elections.

The Justice Department announced the lawsuits against California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania on Thursday, about 10 days after it sued Oregon and Maine, seeking the same information. Of the eight states, all but one have a Democratic governor.

“Clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible and secure — states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.”

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, citing public information, at least 27 states have been asked for copies of their voter registration lists.

While questioning states about election administration is not uncommon, requesting voter registration databases from a mass of states is unprecedented, the nonpartisan law and policy institute at NYU Law said.

“Another step of the Trump administration’s concerted strategy to undermine elections: The Justice Department is suing eight states to acquire their voter files,” the center said on X.

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson for Michigan said among the information the federal government would receive in the voter lists is private data, including driver’s license and Social Security numbers as well as personally identifiable information.

“I told them they can’t have it,” she said in a statement, calling the Trump administration lawsuit “illegal” and an “unconstitutional power grab.”

“This kind of request is not normal. Why is this happening now? Why does the federal government want access to everyone’s personal information? I have asked them these questions. Other secretaries of state — both Democrats and Republicans — have also asked them these questions. They refuse to give us a straight answer.”

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber chastised the Justice Department for trying to use the courts to “erode” the rights of her citizens by trying to “intimidate” state officials with a lawsuit to hand over their information.

“The lawsuit and intentions behind it are a blatant overreach by the federal government,” she said in a statement.

She said she is mandated by state law to protect the information of Californians, while accusing the Justice Department of failing to explain the legal authority it’s using to justify its demands.

“The sensitive data of California citizens should not be used as a political tool to undermine the public trust and integrity of elections,” she said.

The U.S. Justice Department sued California Secretary of State Shirley Weber on Thursday for failing to hand over the state’s voter rolls, alleging she is unlawfully preventing federal authorities from ensuring state compliance with federal voting regulations and safeguarding federal elections against fraud.

The Justice Department also sued Weber’s counterparts in Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, who have similarly declined its requests for their states’ voter rolls.

“Clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement on the litigation. “Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible, and secure — states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.”

In its lawsuit against Weber, who is the state’s top elections official, the Justice Department argues that it is charged — including under the National Voter Registration Act — with ensuring that states have proper protocols for registering voters and maintaining accurate and up-to-date rolls, and therefore is due access to state voter rolls in order to ensure they are so maintained.

“The United States has now been forced to bring the instant action to seek legal remedy for Defendants’ refusal to comply with lawful requests pursuant to federal law,” the lawsuit states.

Weber, in a statement, called the lawsuit “a fishing expedition and pretext for partisan policy objectives,” a “blatant overreach” and “an unprecedented intrusion unsupported by law or any previous practice or policy of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

“The U.S. Department of Justice is attempting to utilize the federal court system to erode the rights of the State of California and its citizens by trying to intimidate California officials into giving up the private and personal information of 23 million California voters,” Weber said.

She said California law requires that state officials “protect our voters’ sensitive private information,” and that the Justice Department not only “failed to provide sufficient legal authority to justify their intrusive demands,” but ignored invitations from the state for federal officials to come to Sacramento and view the data in person — a process Weber said was “contemplated by federal statutes” and would “protect California citizens’ private and personal data from misuse.”

The Justice Department has demanded a “current electronic copy of California’s computerized statewide voter registration list”; lists of “all duplicate registration records in Imperial, Los Angeles, Napa, Nevada, San Bernardino, Siskiyou, and Stanislaus counties”; a “list of all duplicate registrants who were removed from the statewide voter registration list” and the dates of their removals.

It has also demanded a list of all registrations that have been canceled because voters in the state died; an explanation for a recent decline in the recorded number of “inactive” voters in the state; and a list of “all registrations, including date of birth, driver’s license number, and last four digits of Social Security Number, that were cancelled due to non-citizenship of the registrant.”

The litigation is the latest move by the Trump administration to push its demands around voting policies onto individual states, which are broadly tasked under the constitution with managing their own elections.

The lawsuit follows an executive order by Trump in March that purported to radically reshape voting rules nationwide, including by requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship and requiring states to disregard mail ballots that are not received by election day.

The order built on years of unsubstantiated claims by Trump — and refuted by experts — that the U.S. voting system currently allows for rampant fraud and abuse, and that those failures compromised the results of elections, including his 2020 loss to Joe Biden.

Various voting rights groups and 19 states, including California, have sued to block the order.

Advocacy groups say the order, and especially it’s requirements for proving citizenship, would disenfranchise legal U.S. citizen voters who lack ready access to identifying documents such as passports and REAL IDs. They have said barring the acceptance of mail ballots received after election day would also create barriers for voters, especially in large state such as California that need time to process large volumes of ballots.

California currently accepts ballots if they are postmarked by election day and received within a certain number of days after.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has called Trump’s executive order an “illegal power grab” that California and other states will “fight like hell” to stop. His office referred questions about the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit against Weber to Weber’s office.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, defended the need for the lawsuit, saying in a statement that clean voter rolls “protect American citizens from voting fraud and abuse, and restore their confidence that their states’ elections are conducted properly, with integrity, and in compliance with the law.”

Weber, who in April called Trump’s executive order “an illegal attempt to trample on the states and Congress’s constitutional authority over elections,” said Thursday that she would not be bowed by the lawsuit.

“The sensitive data of California citizens should not be used as a political tool to undermine the public trust and integrity of elections,” she said. “I will always stand with Californians to protect states’ rights against federal overreach and our voters’ sensitive personal information. Californians deserve better. America deserves better.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law giving California the power to set its own immunization schedules based on state health experts and independent medical groups — a sharp break from decades of reliance on guidance from the federal government.

The move came the same day that California and its West Coast allies issued joint recommendations for COVID-19, flu and RSV vaccines, part of a regional alliance formed to counter what they say is a politicized U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

“Our states are united in putting science, safety, and transparency first — and in protecting families with clear, credible vaccine guidance,” said the governors of California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii, which make up the West Coast Health Alliance.

The flurry of vaccine actions came as lawmakers and the University of California proposed a $23-billion ballot measure to replace federal research dollars lost to Trump-era cuts, underscoring efforts by Democrats in the state to shield science and public health from shifting federal policies. The measure, if passed by the California Legislature when lawmakers return in January, would go before voters in November 2026.

“The loss of critical federal funding awarded to the University of California presents an unprecedented and perilous moment for the state and its communities,” Theresa Maldonado, UC vice president for research and innovation, said in a statement.

The healthcare clash comes following a wave of COVID cases and as the annual flu season nears. For decades, the CDC has been the nation’s trusted authority on vaccines — setting childhood immunization schedules, guiding which shots adults should receive and shaping state health policies across the country.

Now, at the direction of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a Trump ally, the CDC fired top leadership, lost senior scientific advisors and remade its vaccine advisory committee with members who the Associated Press found spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about immunizations.

Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, has defended the shakeup as necessary to create trust and “eliminate politics from science.”

“They deserve the truth and that’s what we’re going to give them for the first time in the history of the agency,” Kennedy told the Senate Finance Committee earlier this month during a contentious hearing.

The overhaul triggered a fierce backlash as more than 1,000 employees at the health agency and national health organizations have called on Kennedy to resign. Some states, however, have embraced the approach — Florida announced plans to become the first state to end all vaccines mandated, including for schoolchildren.

The polarization is taking a toll. A recent KFF poll found Americans are increasingly uncertain about public health guidance and whether new recommendations from the administration will make them more or less safe.

Public health experts say that not only are vaccines crucial for the health of individuals and the community but they also ultimately save money — preventing sickness and the rise in healthcare costs that would accompany widespread disease outbreaks.

The changes in federal vaccine recommendations have been sweeping. The Food and Drug Administration, which falls under Kennedy’s purview, now requires adults 65 and younger and otherwise healthy — who report no underlying health issues — to consult with a healthcare provider before getting the COVID vaccine. Similarly, the CDC requires parents of healthy children to talk to a healthcare provider before their child can receive the COVID vaccine, a barrier the American Academy of Pediatrics called “deeply troubling.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued its own COVID vaccine guidance, countering what the CDC recommended, that says all young children 6 months to 23 months should be vaccinated, as well as certain high-risk older children. The group has also said that older children should be offered the vaccine if their parents request it.

The CDC also changed its vaccine schedule from recommending the COVID vaccine to all pregnant women to offering “no guidance” as to whether healthy pregnant women should get the vaccine. In response, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended that people receive the updated COVID-19 vaccine at any point during their pregnancy.

California said it too will reject CDC guidance, starting with the recommendations released Wednesday from the West Coast Health Alliance. Those recommendations were developed by health officers and subject matter experts from each state, who considered guidelines from medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

The COVID-19 vaccine recommendations from the West Coast Health Alliance include vaccinating all children 6 months to 23 months and those 2 years old to 64 years old with risk factors. The alliance also recommended all pregnant and postpartum women or those planning to become pregnant to be vaccinated.

The alliance recommended children 6 months and older and all adults and pregnant women to receive the flu shot. For the RSV vaccine, the alliance recommends it for children younger than 8 months, as well as anyone 75 years or older. The alliance recommends the RSV vaccine for all other ages if a person has risk factors.

“We want the people who live and work in our states to know that there is a strong public health, healthcare and scientific community that will continue to stand together to provide and use the data and evidence needed for you to make healthy choices, and we are here to protect our communities,” said Dr. Erica Pan, director of the California Department of Public Health, in a statement.

Sept. 15 (UPI) — Secretary of State Marco Rubio reaffirmed the United States’ relationships with Israel and Arab states during a meeting Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem.

The meeting comes less than a week after Israel said it targeted Hamas leaders in an airstrike on Qatar’s capital, Doha. Hamas confirmed the attack killed five members but not any senior officials.

Speaking at a news conference the meeting with Netanyahu, Rubio said every country was allowed “to defend itself beyond its borders.”

Asked whether the United States was involved in the planning of the strikes on Doha, Netanyahu told reporters, “We did it on our own. Period.” He said the relationship between Israel and the United States was as “durable as the stones in the Western Wall.”

The two leaders visited the holy site in Jerusalem’s Old City, with Rubio placing a note into the cracks of the wall.

“Your presence here today sends a clear message that America stands with Israel,” Netanyahu told Rubio.

Rubio, meanwhile, also told reporters that the United States maintains a strong relationship with Qatar and other Arab allies, who were meeting in an emergency session in Doha on Monday.

Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim al-Thani called on international leaders to punish Israel for the strike and stop holding the country to “double standards,” according to BBC News.

An unnamed source familiar with the meeting told CBS News that leaders at the meeting were expected to sign a draft resolution condemning Israel’s “hostile acts, including genocide, ethnic cleansing, [and] starvation” in Gaza.

A State Department official told CBS News that after Monday’s meeting with Netanyahu in Jerusalem, Rubio plans to travel to Qatar before heading to Britain for President Donald Trump‘s state visit.

President Trump has approved federal disaster aid for six states and tribes following storms and floods that occurred this spring and summer.

The disaster declarations, announced Thursday, will allow federal funding to flow to Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota and Wisconsin, and for tribes in Montana and South Dakota. In each case except Wisconsin, it took Trump more than a month to approve the aid requests from local officials, continuing a trend of longer waits for disaster relief noted by a recent Associated Press analysis.

Trump has now approved more than 30 major natural disaster declarations since taking office in January. Before the latest batch, his approvals had averaged a 34-day wait from the time the relief was requested. For his most recent declarations, that wait ranged from just 15 days following an aid request for Wisconsin flooding in August to 56 days following a tribal request for Montana flooding that occurred in May.

The AP’s analysis showed that delays in approving federal disaster aid have grown over time, regardless of the party in power. On average, it took less than two weeks for requests for a presidential disaster declaration to be granted in the 1990s and early 2000s. That rose to about three weeks during the last decade under presidents from both major parties. During Trump’s first term in office, it took him an average of 24 days to approve requests.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told the AP that Trump is providing “a more thorough review of disaster declaration requests than any Administration has before him” to make sure that federal tax dollars are spent wisely.

But delays mean individuals must wait to receive federal aid for daily living expenses, temporary lodging and home repairs. Delays in disaster declarations also can hamper recovery efforts by local officials uncertain whether they will receive federal reimbursement for cleaning up debris and rebuilding infrastructure.

Trump’s latest declarations approved public assistance for local governments and nonprofits in all cases except Wisconsin, where assistance for individuals was approved. But that doesn’t preclude the federal government from later also approving public assistance for Wisconsin.

Preliminary estimates from Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers’ administration said more than 1,500 residential structures were destroyed or experienced major damage in August flooding at a cost of more than $33 million. There was also more than $43 million in public sector damage over six counties, according to the Evers administration.

Evers requested aid for residents in six counties, but Trump approved it only for three.

“I will continue to urge the Trump Administration to approve the remainder of my request, and I will keep fighting to make sure Wisconsin receives every resource that is needed and available,” Evers said in a statement in which he thanked Democratic officeholders for their efforts, but not Trump or any Republicans.

Trump had announced several of the disaster declarations — including Wisconsin’s — on his social media site while noting his victories in those states and highlighting their Republican officials. He received thanks from Democratic North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein and Republican officials elsewhere.

Trump’s approval of six major disaster declarations in one day would have been unusual for some presidents but not for him. Trump approved seven disaster requests on July 22 and nine on May 21.

But Trump has not approved requests for hazard mitigation assistance — a once-typical add-on that helps recipients build back with resilience — since February.

Lieb and Wildeman write for the Associated Press. AP writers Gabriela Aoun Angueira, Scott Bauer, Jack Dura and Gary D. Robertson contributed to this report.

Sept. 4 (UPI) — The Transportation Department Thursday announced $86 million in federal grants to enhance safety programs along the nation’s 3.3-million mile pipeline network, or 85% of all pipelines in the United States.

“Safety is the number one priority of the Department of Transportation,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement. “The grants announced today will support our existing partnerships with states to support pipeline inspection, keep communities safe, and keep our energy economy moving.”

The plan earmarks $82 million for states to monitor and update safety programs for above-ground pipelines and another $4 million for underground natural gas pipelines.

California is slated to receive nearly $12.4 million in grants, the largest share, while New York is scheduled to receive more than $8.8 million. Illinois and Massachusetts are in line for more than $5 million each.

The grant programs allow states to support federal pipeline safety standards and reimburse them up to 80% for their costs related to personnel, equipment, inspections and regulation enforcement.

Lawmakers in Missouri are the latest to try to draw a new U.S. House map for the 2026 election that could improve the Republican Party’s numbers in Congress.

It’s a trend that began in Texas, at the behest of President Trump, to try to keep GOP control of the House next year. California Democrats responded with their own map to help their party, though it still requires voter approval.

Redistricting typically occurs once a decade, immediately after a census. But in some states, there is no prohibition on a mid-cycle map makeover. The U.S. Supreme Court also has said there is no federal prohibition on political gerrymandering, in which districts are intentionally drawn to one party’s advantage.

Nationally, Democrats need to gain three seats next year to take control of the House. The party of the president typically loses seats in the midterm congressional elections.

Here is a rundown of what states are doing.

Missouri lawmakers hold a special session

A special session called by Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe began Wednesday and will run at least a week.

Missouri is represented in the U.S House by six Republicans and two Democrats.

A revised map proposed by Kehoe would give Republicans a better chance at winning the seat held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver by stretching the Kansas City-based district into rural Republican-leaning areas.

Although Democrats could filibuster in the Senate, Republicans could use procedural maneuvers to shut that down and pass the new map.

Texas Democrats walked out but Republicans prevailed

Democratic state House members left Texas for two weeks to scuttle a special session on redistricting by preventing a quorum needed to do business. But after that session ended, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott quickly called another one — and Democrats returned, satisfied that they had made their point and that California was proceeding with a counterplan.

Republicans hold 25 of the 38 congressional seats in Texas. A revised map passed Aug. 23 is intended to give Republicans a shot at picking up five additional seats in next year’s elections. Abbott’s signature made the map final.

California Democrats seek to counter Texas

Democrats already hold 43 of the 52 congressional seats in California. The Legislature passed a revised map passed Aug. 21 aimed at giving Democrats a chance to gain five additional seats in the 2026 elections.

Unlike Texas, California has an independent citizens’ commission that handles redistricting after the census, so any changes to the map need approval from voters. A referendum is scheduled for Nov. 4.

Indiana Republicans meet with Trump about redistricting

Indiana’s Republican legislative leaders met privately with Trump to discuss redistricting while in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 26. Some also met with Vice President JD Vance.

Several Indiana legislators came out in support of a mid-cycle map change following the meetings. But others have expressed hesitation. It remains unclear if Indiana lawmakers will hold a special session on redistricting.

Republicans hold a 7-2 edge over Democrats in Indiana’s congressional delegation.

Louisiana Republicans looking at times for a special session

Louisiana lawmakers are being told to keep their calendars open between Oct. 23 and Nov. 13. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Oct. 15 over a challenge to the state’s congressional map.

Republican state Rep. Gerald “Beau” Beaullieu, who chairs a House committee that oversees redistricting, said the idea is to have lawmakers available to come back to work in case the Supreme Court issues a ruling quickly.

Republicans now hold four of Louisiana’s six congressional seats.

Ohio must redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms

Because of the way its current districts were enacted, the state Constitution requires Republican-led Ohio to adopt new House maps before the 2026 elections. Ohio Democrats are bracing for Republicans to try to expand their 10-5 congressional majority.

Democrats don’t have much power to stop it. But “we will fight, we will organize, we will make noise at every step of the process,” Ohio Democratic Party Chair Kathleen Clyde said.

New York Democrats try to change state law

New York, similar to California, has an independent commission that redraws districts after every census.

State Democrats have introduced legislation to allow mid-decade redistricting, but the soonest new maps could be in place would be for the 2028 elections. That is because the proposal would require an amendment to the state Constitution, a change that would have to pass the Legislature twice and be approved by voters.

Maryland Democrats planning a response to Texas

Democratic state Sen. Clarence Lam has announced he is filing redistricting legislation for consideration during the 2026 session. Democratic House Majority Leader David Moon also said he would sponsor legislation triggering redistricting in Maryland if any state conducted mid-decade redistricting. Democrats control seven of Maryland’s eight congressional seats.

Florida’s governor pledges support for redistricting

Florida Republican state House Speaker Daniel Perez said his chamber will take up redistricting through a special committee. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has reiterated his support for the state to join the redistricting fray, calling on the federal government to conduct a new census count and claiming that the Trump administration should “award” the state another congressional seat.

Twenty of Florida’s 28 U.S. House seats are occupied by Republicans.

Kansas Republicans haven’t ruled out redistricting

Republican state Senate President Ty Masterson didn’t rule out trying to redraw the state’s four congressional districts, one of which is held by the state’s sole Democratic representative. The Legislature’s GOP supermajority could do so early next year.

A court orders Utah to redraw its districts

Utah Republicans hold all four of the state’s U.S. House seats under a map the GOP-led Legislature approved after the 2020 census. But a judge ruled Aug. 25 that the map was unlawful because the Legislature had circumvented an independent redistricting commission that was established by voters to ensure districts don’t deliberately favor one party.

The judge gave lawmakers until Sept. 24 to adopt a map, which could increase Democrats’ chances of winning a seat.

China and the United States have once again reached a crossroads in their relationship over bilateral trade issues. On April 2025, the US increased number of tariffs on Chinese imports under its “Liberation Day” policy, imposing duties of up to 145% on various Chinese products. Particularly on electronics, steel-based appliances, and chemicals. China on the other hand put a ban on exporting rare earth metals to the US. These measures disrupted supply chains in the U.S. as the U.S. market is heavily dependent on Chinese imports and the policy on tariffs increased costs for both nations. The US and other developed nations have put in great efforts to promote free trade practices but in recent times protectionist policies seem reversing all those efforts. International trade regimes were created to resolve issues related to trade conflicts but due to America’s unilateral approach, those regimes like WTO seem so fragile that they do not play any significant role in resolving trade related issues.  China is making efforts to implement the Geneva trade consensus. The Geneva trade consensus, which is an agreement to reduce trade barriers and restore supply chain trust, was hailed as a milestone. Nonetheless, the key question on everyone’s mind remains whether the United States will honour its commitments or revert to its conventional backchannel manoeuvres

Following the Geneva talks and subsequent meetings that were held in London on July 4, 2025, China’s Ministry of Commerce confirmed that the nation would accelerate approvals for rare earth exports, along with reviewing applications for other controlled materials that are according to domestic law. Rare earth elements are crucial for many sectors that the US depends upon, such as Electronics, defense, and clean energy. China is not only continuing to export these materials, but they are doing so despite years of tariffs, trade restrictions, and political tensions with Washington.

The United States agreed that it would remove trade restrictions that have been damaging to Chinese companies. However, the United States has not been holding up its end of the bargain. Chinese experts claim that the US continues to “send signals that undermine economic cooperation”. This raises doubts as to whether the United States is willing to honour its deal.

This was made evident when the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced, following the London meetings, that both parties had reached an agreement to move faster in translating consensus into policy. China did just that almost immediately, speeding up a number of rare earth export applications. The US has been slow on follow-through, taking few steps toward eliminating restraints that were to be removed weeks earlier. For Chinese trade officials, the distance between words and deeds on the American side is growing too glaring to be ignored.

This isn’t new for America. In 2018, the United States introduced tariffs worth billions of dollars on Chinese goods. They justified it with vague claims of trade imbalances and national security. However, in the aftermath, the results were crystal clear. Prices didn’t just go up for American consumers, but businesses on both sides of the Pacific Ocean suffered. The US Bureau of Economic Analysis even reported that the American Economy has shrunk slightly in the first quarter of this year due to US foreign policy towards China.

This economic downturn was not a coincidence. It was caused by built-up tensions, shattered supply lines, and a vicious cycle of sanctions and counter-sanctions. Experts in China consider that if the United States keeps going this way, the repercussions will become even worse for its internal economy. Some American producers who rely on secure access to Chinese rare earths and parts are already experiencing higher costs and delays in production. This became evident when China temporarily restricted rare-earth magnet exports, forcing global manufacturers to seek alternative sources and deal with sharply increased costs.

Nonetheless, China continues to uphold its commitment to cooperation by welcoming American businesses into its country. At the recent Summer Davos forum in Tianjin, US companies showed great interest in the Chinese market. US exhibitors expected at the China International Supply Chain Expo have risen by 15%. These businesses know that trade with China is an opportunity, not a threat.

Chinese authorities claim, US participation is not an accident. Politicians in Washington may be posturing for the press. But American companies know China provides a fertile ground for business ventures. Some companies have gone so far as to say that they feel safer conducting business in China than in other markets due to China’s commitment to consistency, long-term planning, and open-door policy.

Beijing is urging Washington to “meet China halfway”. While China continues to follow through on the Geneva consensus. China isn’t being diplomatic. This is a genuine call for mutually beneficial cooperation. China is a country that bases its actions on international cooperation and being predictable.

Chinese policy experts also pointed out that China has nothing to gain from half-hearted agreements. Their support for the Geneva consensus is driven by practical concerns rather than political motives. They want predictability in trade, reliability in export channels, and fairness in economic ties. All of these require the United States to take initiative.

However, meaningful cooperation requires mutual effort from both parties.

If the United States continues to delay, it will not only risk damaging its relationship with China. They will end up eroding their credibility as a global economic leader. In today’s globalized world, where supply chains cross borders and economies are tied at the waist. Trust goes beyond mere goodwill. It’s strategic capital. And as of right now, China is the one building that capital.

Recent developments support this. Chinese authorities have simplified rare earth licensing and established a transparent application process, welcoming oversight from foreign businesses. Meanwhile, American trade policy continues to operate in grey zones. Many Chinese companies are experiencing unjustified scrutiny or barriers when entering the US market, even in sectors not linked to national security.

China consistently honors its commitments and provides stability to its partners. They are positioning themselves as a more dependable partner in Global trade. The US, in contrast, risks isolating itself through backtracking and hesitating. When trust is lost, partnerships will suffer, investments will slow down, and influence will fade.

There have been reports that last year saw foreign direct investment in China from European and Asian nations hold steady. But here is what is surprising: US investments have been slow-moving, not due to issues with China, but because Washington has been sending out confusing signals. That is costing American businesses their edge in one of the most critical markets in the world.

To keep that from happening, Washington must match China’s seriousness.

The Geneva consensus, as Chinese officials insist, was never an empty headline to start with. It was a structural change in trade relations, one that increases transparency and real outcomes. China is already living by that. The US has to either join this new direction or be left behind.

And there is a larger context here as well. With the world facing economic instability, no country can do it alone. China is indicating that it’s willing to contribute to global recovery and sustainable development. But it won’t do it if the US keeps putting obstacles in its path.

The window of co‑operation is open, but it will not remain open indefinitely. China’s message is unambiguously clear: We are delivering. Now it’s your turn.

Israel is rewriting the rules of the game in the Middle East, not through diplomacy, peace treaties, or multilateral negotiations, but by deploying advanced military tools such as drones, guided missiles, cyberattacks, and cross-border intelligence operations. This aggressive approach, often justified under the banner of “self-defense,” goes beyond defense in practice and has resulted in a violent reconfiguration of the region’s political geography. While the United States should strategically focus on containing China, competing in technology, and maintaining dominance in the Asia-Pacific, Israeli policies have dragged Washington into a quagmire of costly and unending conflicts in the Middle East. This situation has not only undermined regional stability but has also jeopardized America’s global standing. Furthermore, this fragmented and chaotic Middle East demands greater energy and resources from the U.S., offering an opportunity for other actors to exploit this disorder to expand their influence.

Israel and the Violent Redesign of Middle Eastern Geography

Over the past decade, Israel has significantly altered its approach to perceived security threats. Rather than relying on diplomatic tools or classical deterrence, it has embraced a strategy that can best be described as a violent redesign of the Middle East’s geography. This strategy includes a combination of targeted assassinations, precision bombings, sophisticated cyberattacks, and deep intelligence operations inside neighboring countries. While the stated objective is to neutralize threats from actors like Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, resistance groups in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and Palestinian resistance movements, the actual result has gone far beyond defense, raising fundamental questions about the territorial sovereignty of other nations in the region. 

    Israel’s repeated strikes on targets in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, and most recently inside Iran, have not only violated national sovereignty but rendered traditional red lines—defined by international treaties—virtually meaningless. These actions send a clear message to the region: in the new Middle East order, borders are no longer defined through diplomatic agreements but by military power and the flight paths of drones and missiles. What we are witnessing today in the Middle East surpasses traditional conflicts or conventional warfare. Israel is creating a new missile-based order in which the rules of engagement are dictated not by negotiations or international treaties, but by military and technological superiority. In this new order, drones and guided missiles have become tools for rewriting the region’s political and military boundaries. Although this strategy is ostensibly designed to secure Israel, it has in practice contributed to the growing instability across the region.

    The message of this new order to regional actors is unmistakably clear: deterrence is no longer achieved through diplomacy or conventional state armies. In the absence of coordinated responses from regional governments, non-state resistance groups have emerged as the only effective counterforce to these aggressions. Groups like the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza—despite their ideological and political differences—share one common goal: resisting Israel’s military and intelligence dominance. This decentralized, networked resistance has posed an unprecedented challenge to Israel. Unlike traditional wars fought in defined battlefields with clear enemies, these confrontations lack both fixed timelines and geographic clarity. Even Israel’s most advanced defense systems, such as the Iron Dome, face limitations in confronting these diffuse and asymmetric threats.

A Geopolitical Challenge for Washington

The strategic and political alignment between the United States and Israel has elevated this from a regional crisis to a global challenge for Washington. At a time when the U.S. should be allocating its resources to compete with China, secure maritime routes in the Asia-Pacific, protect Taiwan, and drive technological innovation, it is now forced to spend a significant share of its time, resources, and international credibility managing the fallout of Israeli policies. America’s unwavering support for Israel, from advanced arms sales to diplomatic cover at the UN Security Council and intelligence cooperation, has made it an active partner in this new missile order. Every Israeli strike on Iranian, Lebanese, Syrian, or Iraqi territory, directly or indirectly, implicates the United States. Israel’s recent attacks on Iran, Syria, Yemen, and deep inside Iraq have compelled Washington to again bolster its military presence in the region. The more America is drawn into managing Middle Eastern crises, the less it can concentrate on global rivalries, especially with China.

    This dynamic is particularly costly at a time when the U.S. is attempting to rebuild its image among countries of the Global South. Across the Islamic world—from North Africa to Central Asia—Israeli actions are viewed not as defensive, but as acts of aggression and occupation. Since the U.S. stands fully behind Israel, this animosity is directly projected onto Washington. Even America’s traditional allies in the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are now distancing themselves from U.S. favoritism and moving toward engagement with other powers like China and Russia.

    One of the most consequential outcomes of this new missile order is the shift in regional discourse. Whereas peace and negotiation were once regarded as primary means of conflict resolution, power now defines the regional order. Through its actions, Israel has demonstrated that the rules of engagement are no longer based on international agreements or even traditional diplomatic norms but on military and technological capability. This shift has not only militarized the region further but also placed the United States in a difficult position. While Washington tries to present itself as a mediator for peace and a guardian of global stability, its unconditional support for Israel has severely tarnished that image.

    Some analysts in Washington may still argue that Israel is America’s first line of defense in the Middle East. However, that view—rooted in Cold War logic—no longer aligns with the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. If this “defense” leads to expanded conflict zones, intensified regional hostilities, and a stronger axis of resistance, it can no longer be considered a strategic asset. Israel has become a liability that holds American geopolitics hostage. The costs of this situation are multifaceted: military costs to sustain a regional presence; political costs from losing credibility in international institutions; missed opportunities in competing with China; and the growing influence of other powers in the security vacuum of the Middle East.
    The fundamental question for American policymakers is this: is the United States prepared to sacrifice its 21st-century geopolitical future for unconditional loyalty to a single ally? However strategically important Israel may be, it cannot alone justify America’s deviation from its global priorities. It is time for Washington to redefine its support for Israel—not based on historical habit or domestic pressures, but grounded in long-term national interest. This redefinition could include pressuring Israel to return to diplomacy, scale back aggressive actions, and strengthen regional cooperation. Without such a shift, Israel’s new missile order will not only further destabilize the Middle East but also place the United States on a trajectory where the costs far outweigh the benefits.

On August 19, 2025, the Library of Foreign Literature hosted the Southern African Development Community Day. The SADC’s primary goal, besides regional socio-economic cooperation and integration, is to cooperate to showcase the culture among 16 countries in southern Africa. In Moscow, the heads and representatives of the diplomatic missions of Angola, Brazil, Venezuela, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, Tanzania, and South Africa took part in the gala cultural event. 

“It is a great honor to host this important event right here, within the walls of an institution with more than a century of history. Our library has always been and remains a place where different cultures meet, where dialogue on friendship between countries grows stronger. I am confident to take Russian-African cultural relations to a qualitatively new cultural and diplomatic level,” Marina Zakharenko, Director General of the Library of Foreign Literature, said at the opening ceremony.

The Chairman of SADC in Moscow, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Zimbabwe to the Russian Federation, Gray Mark Marongwe, noted the growing dynamics of relations between African countries and the Russian Federation. He also presented a certificate of gratitude to the library for its active participation and support in celebrating SADC Day in 2024 and 2025.

SADC emerged as a result of cooperation between countries at the forefront of the struggle against apartheid, such as Mozambique, Angola, Zambia, and Tanzania. These states provided comprehensive support to the independence movements in Zimbabwe, Namibia, and South Africa. That, however, Russia, China, Nigeria, and other countries with progressive views played an important role in this process. 

“We sincerely hope that our interaction here in Russia will also contribute to the development of economic and diplomatic ties and the strengthening of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the SADC member countries,” explained Gray Mark Marongwe.

Director of the Department of Partnership with Africa of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Tatyana Dovgalenko, said that Russia views Africa as an important and promising partner and intends to continue to strengthen and expand cooperation in all areas of mutual interest. Russia and the countries of Southern Africa are linked by long-standing ties of friendship and partnership. 

Russia and the countries of Southern Africa are linked by long-standing ties of friendship and partnership. During the period of decolonization, the Soviet Union provided comprehensive and selfless assistance to our African friends in the struggle for freedom and independence and consistently contributed to the formation of young states, strengthening their economies and defense capabilities, education, and healthcare systems. After the Soviet collapse, Russia has taken over the same role in Africa.

In the 21st century, after the breakthrough, as noted by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia-Africa summits, Russia’s relations are developing on the rise. An important component of this cooperation is the expansion and deepening of interaction with the continent’s integration associations. This is one of the key tasks of the new Department of Partnership with Africa, created by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2025. Tatyana Dovgalenko was appointed as the Director of the Department of Partnership with Africa of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.

At the exhibition, deployed in the Atrium of the Library, guests were able to get acquainted with the rich cultural heritage and tourist diversity of the southern African region. The exhibition presented a unique fusion of tradition and modernity, reflected in works of art, decorative and applied arts, and household items.

The culmination of SADC Day was a concert, which featured musical and dance groups representing various countries of the region. The audience was able to enjoy the fiery rhythms of African music, see bright national costumes, and feel the unique atmosphere of Southern Africa. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) is an intergovernmental organization headquartered in Gaborone, Botswana.

Aug. 26 (UPI) — California, Washington, and New Mexico will lose federal funding unless they adopt and enforce English language proficiency requirements for commercial motor vehicle drivers, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy announced Tuesday.

The three states have 30 days to comply before the department will withhold up to 100% of funding from the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, a press release from the Transportation Department said.

“We have wonderful tools that will make it very difficult for states to do business if they don’t comply,” Duffy said at the press conference.

In May, Duffy signed new guidance for commercial motor vehicle drivers who don’t follow the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s English-language proficiency requirements and will be placed out of service.

“States don’t get to pick and choose which federal safety rules to follow,” Duffy said in the statement. “As we saw with the horrific Florida crash that killed three, when states fail to enforce the law, they put the driving public in danger. Under President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, we are taking aggressive action to close these safety gaps, hold states accountable, and make sure every commercial driver on the road is qualified to operate a 40-ton vehicle.”

Duffy spoke at a press conference where he referenced the Aug. 18 truck crash on the Florida Turnpike in St. Lucie, Fla. The crash killed three people, and it was determined that the driver of the truck didn’t understand English road signs, Duffy said. The driver, Harjinder Singh, 28, is from California. He was charged with three counts of vehicular homicide and is being held on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

California has not adopted or enforced the law to ensure drivers can speak and understand English, the press release said. Washington and New Mexico have adopted the ELP regulation but are not enforcing it, Duffy said.

Aug. 23 (UPI) — The Trump administration is deploying up to 1,700 National Guard troops to 19 states to assist with Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities.

The troops will assist with logistical support, transportation, case management and clerical services at facilities that are processing “illegal migrants,” the Defense Department told Fox News.

“The in-and-out processing may include personal data collection, fingerprinting, DNA swabbing and photographing of personnel in ICE custody,” a Pentagon spokesperson said in a prepared statement.

The troops will be deployed from August through mid-November amid a surge in ICE enforcement activities as the Trump administration works to meet its goal of at least 30,000 monthly deportations.

A July status change of Marine Corps personnel to National Guard status will support the 19-state deployment, which will not include law enforcement activities, according to News Nation.

The deployments will occur in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, SouthCarolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming, according to the Defense Department.

Unrelated to anti-violent crime deployments

The pending deployments are not related to the use of National Guard troops to quell violent crime in the nation’s capital or other cities, such as Chicago, according to the White House.

President Donald Trump has said the National Guard could be deployed to Chicago, New York and other cities to address violent crime after calling the Washington deployment a success.

The president deployed about 2,000 National Guard troops to the capital earlier this month, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth this week authorized them to carry weapons.

The U.S. Marshals Service will approve the troops carrying sidearms, which will be 9mm Sig Sauer M17 pistols for personal protection.

New Mexico National Guard deployed to address crime

Also deploying National Guard troops to quell crime is New Mexico Gov. Michelle Grisham.

Grisham, a Democrat, recently announced a state of emergency due to crime in parts of the state and already deployed up to 70 National Guard troops in Albuquerque.

She also has issued states of emergency in Rio Arriba County, the city of Espanola and pueblos in the area after being asked to do so by respective local governments, CNN reported.

Grisham cited a fentanyl epidemic and violent crime among juveniles as “requiring immediate intervention” and in a news release said Rio Arriba County has the state’s highest rate of overdose deaths.

Local law enforcement and other resources are overwhelmed by a surge in drug trafficking, violent crime and other threats to public safety, she said.

From NATO’s eastern frontier to the energy corridors of the Baltic, the partnership between Poland and the United States has become one of the most strategically consequential alliances of the 21st century. Forged through shared values and hardened by crisis, it’s a relationship that transcends party politics in both nations and speaks to a larger truth—namely, that while alliances can lead to instability and war, as shown by the interlocking obligations before World War I, alliances, whether bilateral or multilateral, can also promote international stability by deterring conflicts, enabling collective defense, and fostering cooperation and trade among member states.

Poland proves the point. Its journey from Soviet satellite to NATO membership in 1999 and European Union accession in 2004, following a decade-long process of integration and negotiation involving extensive political, economic, and legal preparations, is a story of determination and alignment with Western democratic principles. The drive toward NATO membership was reinforced by citizen advocacy and steady diplomacy, with the Polish-American community playing a quiet but influential role in building bridges between Warsaw and Washington. The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey estimates there are nearly nine million Americans of Polish ancestry, making it one of the largest ethnic groups in the country.

From the outset, Poland understood that sovereignty in the modern era requires not only democratic governance but also a credible place within a collective security framework. Joining NATO was a strategic declaration that Poland’s future was bound to the transatlantic community. And it is precisely through NATO that the U.S.–Polish relationship contributes most visibly to international stability.

Response to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

When Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Poland responded with clarity and speed, welcoming millions of Ukrainian refugees, supplying critical military aid, and urging allies to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank. Due to its geographic location bordering Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russian exclave Kaliningrad, Poland took a proactive stance to bolster its defenses and NATO’s regional presence. Poland launched a $2.5 billion national defense initiative called the “East Shield” that was specifically aimed at strengthening the country’s roughly 418-kilometer border with Belarus and 232-kilometer border with Kaliningrad—representing some of the EU’s easternmost external boundaries—which serve as key frontlines for the bloc’s security and border control.

 By shoring up NATO’s credibility and demonstrating readiness to act, Poland helped reduce the risk of wider escalation across Europe.

The U.S.–Poland defense relationship deepened accordingly. American troops are now a permanent presence on Polish soil. The U.S. Army’s V Corps forward command in Poznań, which operates from Camp Kościuszko—named for Tadeuscz Kościuszko, a national hero in both Poland and the U.S.—is responsible for coordinating and overseeing U.S. ground forces deployed in Europe. Missile defense systems such as Aegis Ashore strengthen NATO’s deterrent posture, and joint training exercises have become routine. These measures bind U.S. power to Poland’s geography, creating predictability in Europe’s most volatile region.

Poland’s overall defense spending speaks volumes. It’s approaching five percent of national GDP—more than double NATO’s longstanding benchmark of two percent of GDP for defense expenditures—and Poland’s procurement of Abrams tanks, “shoot-and-scoot” HIMARS rocket systems that are designed for rapid deployment relocation, and F-35 fighter jets ensures interoperability with U.S. forces. As U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth put it during a February 2025 press conference in Warsaw, Poland is a “model ally on the continent, willing to invest not just in their defense, but in our shared defense and defense of the continent.”

Transcending Party Politics

The relationship transcends party politics in both capitals, having remained robust under Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington—Trump, Biden, and now Trump’s second term—as well as across successive Polish governments of differing political orientations. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has reaffirmed that “Poland’s commitment to transatlantic relations and NATO must remain unquestionable,” regardless of political shifts in the U.S.

National security isn’t confined to the battlefield. Poland recognized early on that energy independence is a cornerstone of sovereignty, and it has acted decisively to cut reliance on Russian natural gas. The liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at Świnoujście, which is named after Polish President Lech Kaczyński, who prioritized energy security, now receives regular LNG shipments from the U.S., while the Baltic Pipe project brings natural gas from Norway and strengthens regional supply diversity. Looking ahead, nuclear energy partnerships with American firms promise long-term stability and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

This alignment in energy policy enhances Poland’s resilience while advancing broader U.S. goals of promoting secure, market-based energy in Europe. In strategic terms, an LNG tanker docking in Świnoujście is more than commerce. It’s a visible symbol of transatlantic solidarity.

Contrasting Russian Reactions

Russia’s reaction to Poland’s NATO membership stands in striking contrast to its view of Ukraine’s Western aspirations. When Poland joined NATO in 1999, Moscow voiced strong opposition, arguing that NATO’s eastward expansion threatened Russian security. Apart from diplomatic protests and some hostile rhetoric, however, Russia ultimately conceded Poland’s accession as a fait accompli. Moscow maintained cooperative channels with NATO and Poland, even as relations were strained. Poland, with its long history of independence struggles and clear Western orientation, was not seen as part of Russia’s cultural or political sphere. Moreover, by the time Central Europe was firmly integrated into NATO, Russia had little leverage to reverse the process.

Ukraine, however, occupies a different place in Moscow’s worldview. Russia regards Ukraine not only as a strategic buffer on its border but also as central to its own identity and history. Unlike Poland, Ukraine is portrayed in Russian narratives as a “brother nation” whose alignment with the West represents a profound geopolitical and cultural loss. For this reason, Russia tolerated NATO’s enlargement to Poland and the Baltics but drew the line at Ukraine, seeing its aspirations for NATO and EU membership as a direct existential threat, responding with annexation, proxy wars, and, ultimately, full-scale invasion. The contrast underscores the strategic weight of Poland’s alliance with the United States.

For Poland, it’s a relationship rooted in hard history: the loss of independence from 1795 to 1918, when the country was partitioned among Prussia, the Hapsburg monarchy, and Russia; the devastation of Nazi occupation; the long shadow of Soviet domination; and decades of Communist rule. That experience forged a national resolve that sovereignty can never be taken for granted and must be anchored in strong alliances. Today those alliances—most of all with the United States—are essential pillars of stability in Europe.

To many first-time viewers of this England team, it was a sight to behold.

None of what occurred will be news to head coach John Mitchell, however. He will be looking more closely at the fine detail of his team, rather than Kildunne’s well-known headline-grabbing abilities.

The neat dovetailing of Tatyana Heard and Megan Jones – a centre partnership that combines power, pace and nous – will have been particularly pleasing.

Jones made perhaps the tackle of the match, marching Lotte Sharp at pace and drawing winces from the stands.

Her break, followed by Heard’s quick hands, set up Abby Dow’s score just after half-time.

It is difficult to see veteran Emily Scarratt, who arrived off the bench in the second half, edging her way back into a first-choice pairing any time soon.

Loose-head Hannah Botterman raged around in the loose and stole a prime turnover off the floor, perhaps inspired by the chance to show up United States’ Hope Rogers who was picked in World Rugby’s Team of the Year in her position.

Sadia Kabeya buzzed with energy in the back row, while fly-half Zoe Harrison’s kicking for posts was superb.

With Emma Sing, the squad’s most impressive off the tee, on the bench and the small change potentially crucial in the knockout rounds, it is an area where high standards must be maintained.

The driving maul is still a trump card and the neat off-the-top variation that gave hooker Amy Cokayne her try will have opponents second-guessing themselves afresh.

The scrum was dominant, especially in the early exchanges.

However there is room for improvement.

Some of the intricacies, tip-on passes in midfield particularly, went astray. Better teams will bring more line speed and pressure to bear on those skills.

Jess Breach scored two tries but won’t want to watch the way she was shrugged off by Erica Jarrell-Searcy for the United States’ score.

Claudia Moloney-MacDonald, who missed this match with a minor injury, will be back to put pressure on Breach soon.

Aug. 21 (UPI) — Hurricane Erin’s effects have triggered state-of-emergency declarations in New Jersey and North Carolina as the storm system moves along the East Coast.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy declared a state of emergency Thursday afternoon, while North Caroline Governor Josh Stein declared one on Tuesday that remains in effect.

“Over the past couple of days, we have seen the effects of Hurricane Erin along the Jersey Shore in the form of dangerous rip tides,” Murphy said in a news release.

“As the storm moves past New Jersey over the next 23 hours, we are expecting high surf and rip currents, coastal and flash flooding, and a high erosion risk in parts of the state,” Murphy added.

North Carolina officials expect similar conditions to continue there after Hurricane Erin already has impacted Hatteras Island.

“Dangerous conditions, including rip currents and coastal flooding, are expected through the weekend,” Stein said in an online announcement on Thursday.

“With flooding peaking tonight, please avoid driving on roads with standing water,” he added.

An evacuation order was issued on Tuesday for residents and others along the Outer Banks.

Stein said state officials are monitoring the situation, and an emergency response team is working to keep roads clear and people safe.

Among emergency preparations, the North Carolina National Guard is on standby, and the state’s emergency response team has search-and-rescue teams ready to deploy if needed.

State Highway 12 on Hatteras Island is closed due to extensive ocean overwash and dune breaches in multiple locations, according to Dare County, N.C., officials.

The northern ends of Hatteras Village and Buxton, and along Pea Island, are especially impacted by the hurricane.

North Carolina Department of Transportation crews are working to clear sand and water from the state highway and repairing damaged dunes.

The highway will stay closed until NCDOT officials say it’s safe to travel on the roadway.

The Category 2 Hurricane Erin had maximum sustained winds of 100 mph while positioned 370 miles east-northeast of Cape Hatteras, N.C., late Thursday afternoon, according to the National Hurricane Center.

Erin is moving northeasterly at 20 mph and away from the East Coast, but its effects include storm surges of between 2 feet and 4 feet and related flooding along coastal areas from North Carolina to Sandy Hook, N.J.

The storm system also is creating dangerous rip tides alongmuch of the East Coast, which makes swimming very dangerous.

United States President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin are set to meet in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday to discuss how to end the war in Ukraine.

On Wednesday, following a virtual meeting with European leaders including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump warned of “severe consequences” if Putin refuses to accept a ceasefire after more than three years of war.

The venue for the high-profile meeting is Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, a US military installation on the northern edge of Alaska’s most populous city.

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson is Alaska’s largest military base. The 64,000-acre outfit is a key US site for Arctic military drills and readiness.

When Trump visited the base during his first term, in 2019, he said the troops there “serve in our country’s last frontier as America’s first line of defence”.

But that wasn’t always the case. Indeed, the US government actually bought Alaska from Russia – separated by just 90km (55 miles) at the narrowest point of the Bering Strait – in 1867.

At a news briefing on August 9, Russian presidential assistant Yuri Ushakov pointed out that the two countries are neighbours.

“It seems quite logical for our delegation simply to fly over the Bering Strait and for such an important … summit of the leaders of the two countries to be held in Alaska,” Ushakov said.

When did Russia assume control of Alaska?

When Russian Tsar Peter the Great dispatched the Danish navigator Vitus Bering in 1725 to explore the Alaskan coast, Russia already had a high interest in the region, which was rich in natural resources – including lucrative sea otter pelts – and sparsely populated.

Then, in 1799, Emperor Paul I granted the “Russian-American Company” a monopoly over governance in Alaska. This state-sponsored group established settlements like Sitka, which became the colonial capital after Russia ruthlessly overcame the native Tlingit tribe in 1804.

Russia’s Alaskan ambitions, however, quickly faced numerous challenges – the vast distance from then-capital St Petersburg, harsh climates, supply shortages, and growing competition from American explorers.

As the US expanded westward in the early 1800s, Americans soon found themselves toe to toe with Russian traders. What’s more, Russia lacked the resources to support major settlements and a military presence along the Pacific coast.

The history of the region then changed dramatically in the mid-19th century.

Why did Russia sell Alaska after the Crimean War?

The Crimean War (1853-1856) started when Russia invaded the Turkish Danubian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, modern-day Romania. Wary of Russian expansion into their trade routes, Britain and France allied with the ailing Ottoman Empire.

The war’s main theatre of battle became the Crimean Peninsula, as British and French forces targeted Russian positions in the Black Sea, which connects to the Mediterranean through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits – previously controlled by the Ottoman Empire.

After three years, Russia humiliatingly lost the war, forcing it to reassess its colonial priorities. According to calculations by Advocate for Peace, a journal published by the American Peace Society in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Russia spent the equivalent of 160 million pounds sterling on the war.

Meanwhile, due to overhunting, Alaska yielded little profit by the mid-1800s. Its proximity to British-controlled Canada also made it a liability in any future Anglo-Russian conflict.

By the early 1860s, Tsar Alexander II concluded that selling Alaska would both raise funds Russia desperately needed and prevent Britain from seizing it in a future war. The US, which had continued to expand across the continent, emerged as a willing buyer, leading to the 1867 Alaska Purchase.

How was the sale received in the US?

After the American Civil War ended in 1865, Secretary of State William Seward took up Russia’s longstanding offer to buy Alaska. On March 30, 1867, Washington agreed to buy Alaska from Russia for $7.2m.

For less than 2 cents an acre (4 metres), the US acquired nearly 1.5 million sq km (600,000 square miles) of land and ensured access to the Pacific northern rim. But opponents of the Alaska Purchase, who saw little value in the vast ice sheet, persisted in calling it “Seward’s Folly” or “Seward’s Icebox”.

“We simply obtain by the treaty the nominal possession of impassable deserts of snow, vast tracts of dwarf timbers… we get… Sitka and the Prince of Wales Islands. All the rest is waste territory,” wrote the New York Daily Tribune in April 1867.

But in 1896, the Klondike Gold Strike convinced even the harshest critics that Alaska was a valuable addition to US territory. Over time, the strategic importance of Alaska was gradually recognised, and in January 1959 Alaska finally became a US state.

What’s its economy like now?

By the early 20th century, Alaska’s economy began to diversify away from gold. Commercial fishing, especially for salmon and halibut, became a major industry, while copper mining boomed in places like Kennecott.

Then, during World War II, the construction of military bases brought infrastructure improvements and population growth. The most transformative moment, however, came in 1968 with the discovery of vast oil reserves at Prudhoe Bay on the Arctic coast.

Oil revenues became the cornerstone of Alaska’s economy, funding public services as well as the Alaska Permanent Fund, which pays annual dividends – via returns on stocks, bonds, real estate, and other assets – to residents.

These payments, known as the Permanent Fund Dividend, will ensure that Alaska’s oil wealth continues to benefit residents even after reserves run out. This system has allowed Alaska to have no state income tax or state sales tax, a rarity in the US.

More recently, tourism has surged in Alaska, drawing visitors to the state’s national parks and glaciers. Today, Alaska has transformed from a ridiculed purchase into a resource-rich state, built on a mix of natural resource extraction, fishing and tourism.

Meanwhile, despite Alaska’s history of trading land like currency, President Zelenskyy will hope that Friday’s meeting between Trump and Putin does not come at the expense of Ukrainian territory.

Ever since federal immigration raids ramped up across California, triggering fierce protests that prompted President Trump to deploy troops to Los Angeles, the state has emerged as the symbolic battleground of the administration’s deportation campaign.

But even as arrests soared, California was not the epicenter of Trump’s anti-immigrant project.

In the first five months of Trump’s second term, California lagged behind the staunchly red states of Texas and Florida in the total arrests. According to a Los Angeles Times analysis of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement data from the Deportation Data Project, Texas reported 26,341 arrests — nearly a quarter of all ICE arrests nationally — followed by 12,982 in Florida and 8,460 in California.

Even in June, when masked federal immigration agents swept through L.A., jumping out of vehicles to snatch people from bus stops, car washes and parking lots, California saw 3,391 undocumented immigrants arrested — more than Florida, but still only about half as many as Texas.

When factoring in population, California drops to 27th in the nation, with 217 arrests per million residents — about a quarter of Texas’ 864 arrests per million and less than half of a whole slew of states including Florida, Arkansas, Utah, Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia and Nevada.

The data, released after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the government, excludes arrests made after June 26 and lacks identifying state details in 5% of cases. Nevertheless, it provides the most detailed look yet of national ICE operations.

Immigration experts say it is not surprising that California — home to the largest number of undocumented immigrants in the nation and the birthplace of the Chicano movement — lags behind Republican states in the total number of arrests or arrests as a percentage of the population.

“The numbers are secondary to the performative politics of the moment,” said Austin Kocher, a geographer and research assistant professor at Syracuse University who specializes in immigration enforcement.

Part of the reason Republican-dominated states have higher arrest numbers — particularly when measured against population — is they have a longer history of working directly with ICE, and a stronger interest in collaboration. In red states from Texas to Mississippi, local law enforcement officers routinely cooperate with federal agents, either by taking on ICE duties through so-called 287(g) agreements or by identifying undocumented immigrants who are incarcerated and letting ICE into their jails and prisons.

Indeed, data show that just 7% of ICE arrests made this year in California were made through the Criminal Alien Program, an initiative that requests that local law enforcement identify undocumented immigrants in federal, state and local prisons and jails.

That’s significantly lower than the 55% of arrests in Texas and 46% in Florida made through prisons or jails. And other conservative states with smaller populations relied on the program even more heavily: 75% of ICE arrests in Alabama and 71% in Indiana took place via prisons and jails.

“State cooperation has been an important buffer in ICE arrests and ICE operations in general for years,” said Ariel Ruiz Soto, a Sacramento-based senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. “We’ve seen that states are not only willing to cooperate with ICE, but are proactively now establishing 287(g) agreements with their local law enforcement, are naturally going to cast a wider net of enforcement in the boundaries of that state.”

While California considers only some criminal offenses, such as serious felonies, significant enough to share information with ICE; Texas and Florida are more likely to report offenses that may not be as severe, such as minor traffic infractions.

Still, even if fewer people were arrested in California than other states, it also witnessed one of the most dramatic increases in arrests in the country.

California ranked 30th in ICE arrests per million in February. By June, the state had climbed to 10th place.

ICE arrested around 8,460 immigrants across California between Jan. 20 and June 26, a 212% increase compared with the five months before Trump took office. That contrasts with a 159% increase nationally for the same period.

Much of ICE’s activity in California was hyper-focused on Greater Los Angeles: About 60% of ICE arrests in the state took place in the seven counties in and around L.A. during Trump’s first five months in office. The number of arrests in the Los Angeles area soared from 463 in January to 2,185 in June — a 372% spike, second only to New York’s 432% increase.

Even if California is not seeing the largest numbers of arrests, experts say, the dramatic increase in captures stands out from other places because of the lack of official cooperation and public hostility toward immigration agents.

“A smaller increase in a place that has very little cooperation is, in a way, more significant than seeing an increase in areas that have lots and lots of cooperation,” Kocher said.

ICE agents, Kocher said, have to work much harder to arrest immigrants in places like L.A. or California that define themselves as “sanctuary” jurisdictions and limit their cooperation with federal immigration agents.

“They really had to go out of their way,” he said.

Trump administration officials have long argued that sanctuary jurisdictions give them no choice but to round up people on the streets.

Not long after Trump won the 2024 election and the L.A. City Council voted unanimously to block any city resources from being used for immigration enforcement, incoming border enforcement advisor Tom Homan threatened an onslaught.

“If I’ve got to send twice as many officers to L.A. because we’re not getting any assistance, then that’s what we’re going to do,” Homan told Newsmax.

With limited cooperation from California jails, ICE agents went out into communities, rounding up people they suspected of being undocumented on street corners and at factories and farms.

That shift in tactics meant that immigrants with criminal convictions no longer made up the bulk of California ICE arrests. While about 66% of immigrants arrested in the first four months of the year had criminal convictions, that percentage fell to 30% in June.

The sweeping nature of the arrests drew immediate criticism as racial profiling and spawned robust community condemnation.

Some immigration experts and community activists cite the organized resistance in L.A. as another reason the numbers of ICE arrests were lower in California than in Texas and even lower than dozens of states by percentage of population.

“The reason is the resistance, organized resistance: the people who literally went to war with them in Paramount, in Compton, in Bell and Huntington Park,” said Ron Gochez, a member of Unión del Barrio Los Angeles, an independent political group that patrols neighborhoods to alert residents of immigration sweeps.

“They’ve been chased out in the different neighborhoods where we organize,” he said. “We’ve been able to mobilize the community to surround the agents when they come to kidnap people.”

In L.A., activists patrolled the streets from 5 a.m. until 11 p.m., seven days a week, Gochez said. They faced off with ICE agents in Home Depot parking lots and at warehouses and farms.

“We were doing everything that we could to try to keep up with the intensity of the military assault,” Gochez said. “The resistance was strong. … We’ve been able, on numerous occasions, to successfully defend the communities and drive them out of our community.”

The protests prompted Trump to deploy the National Guard and Marines in June, with the stated purpose of protecting federal buildings and personnel. But the administration’s ability to ratchet up arrests hit a roadblock on July 11. That’s when a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking immigration agents in Southern and Central California from targeting people based on race, language, vocation or location without reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.

That decision was upheld last week by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But on Thursday, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to lift the temporary ban on its patrols, arguing that it “threatens to upend immigration officials’ ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California by hanging the prospect of contempt over every investigative stop.”

The order led to a significant drop in arrests across Los Angeles last month. But this week, federal agents carried out a series of raids at Home Depots from Westlake to Van Nuys.

Trump administration officials have indicated that the July ruling and arrest slowdown do not signal a permanent change in tactics.

“Sanctuary cities are going to get exactly what they don’t want: more agents in the communities and more work site enforcement,” Homan told reporters two weeks after the court blocked roving patrols. “Why is that? Because they won’t let one agent arrest one bad guy in the jail.”

U.S. Border Patrol Sector Chief Gregory Bovino, who has been leading operations in California, posted a fast-moving video on X that spliced L.A. Mayor Karen Bass telling reporters that “this experiment that was practiced on the city of Los Angeles failed” with video showing him grinning. Then, as a frenetic drum and bass mix kicked in, federal agents jump out of a van and chase people.

“When you’re faced with opposition to law and order, what do you do?” Bovino wrote. “Improvise, adapt, and overcome!”

Clearly, the Trump administration is willing to expend significant resources to make California a political battleground and test case, Ruiz Soto said. The question is, at what economic and political cost?

“If they really wanted to scale up and ramp up their deportations,” Ruiz Soto said, “they could go to other places, do it more more safely, more quickly and more efficiently.”

Aug. 8 (UPI) — The Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 has become the most frequently stolen car in the United States, according to the Highway Loss Data Institute, or HLDI.

The HLDI’s analysis shows that in relation to the number of Camaro ZL1s on the roads, it has a whole-vehicle theft rate 39 times the average compared to all other vehicles.

The regular Camaro has also become a top target for thieves, with a whole-vehicle theft rate 13 times the average of all vehicles.

The targeting of Camaros is a recent development, according to HLDI, which reports it hasn’t historically appeared near the top of its vehicle theft claim frequency rankings.

However, its two latest reports for 2025 rank the ZL1 two-door, Camaro two-door and Camaro convertible among the 10 2022-24 passenger vehicles with the highest theft and whole vehicle theft claim occurrences.

“Muscle cars have often topped this list, as thieves are attracted to vehicles with high horsepower,” said Matt Moore, chief insurance operations officer at HLDI and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, in a press release.

“That also helps explain why the more expensive, more powerful ZL1 is stolen so much more often than the standard Camaro.”

Aside from the horsepower, Camaros also have a technical issue that allows thieves to clone the key code for newer models by accessing the car’s on-board ports. General Motors launched a service campaign in March for 2020-24 Camaro models, under which owners can bring their vehicles to dealerships for a free software update that should reduce the theft risk.

In the other direction, the 20 least-stolen vehicles include eight electric vehicles and two plug-in hybrids, which all have whole-vehicle theft claim incidences that are more than 85% lower than the all-vehicle average.

HDLI studies have shown electric vehicles are not as attractive to thieves because they’re more likely to be in a garage or parked near buildings to facilitate charging.