states

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran Pushes for Broader Regional Settlement

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

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

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

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

United States Signals Openness but Maintains Pressure

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

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

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

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

Regional Powers Push for De Escalation

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

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

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

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

Ongoing Tensions Despite Ceasefire

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

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

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

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

Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

With information from Reuters.

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

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

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

What Is the H200 Chip?

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

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

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

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

Which Chinese Companies Were Approved?

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

These reportedly include major Chinese technology companies such as:

• Alibaba
• Tencent
• ByteDance
• JD.com

Several distributors were also reportedly approved, including:

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

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

Why Have the Sales Stalled?

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

Chinese Concerns

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

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

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

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

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

United States Restrictions

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

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

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

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

Such conditions have further complicated the transaction process.

Jensen Huang’s Diplomatic Push

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

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

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

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

The Larger Strategic Battle

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

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

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

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

Implications for the Global AI Industry

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

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

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

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

Future Outlook

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

With information from Reuters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missouri map splits Kansas City district

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louisiana hearing leads to death threats

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

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

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

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

South Carolina weighs political risks of redistricting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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