states

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court term that ended Friday will not be remembered for blockbuster rulings like those recent years that struck down the right to abortion and college affirmative action.

The justices scaled back their docket this year and spent much of their energy focused on deciding fast-track appeals from President Trump. His administration’s lawyers complained too many judges were standing in the way of Trump’s agenda.

On Friday, the court’s conservatives agreed to rein in district judges, a procedural victory for Trump.

What’s been missing so far, however, is a clear ruling on whether the president has abided by the law or overstepped his authority under the U.S. Constitution.

On the final two days of the term, the court’s conservative majority provided big wins for Republican-leaning states, religious parents and Trump.

The justices gave states more authority to prohibit medical treatments for transgender teens, to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics and to enforce age-verification laws for online porn sites.

Each came with the familiar 6-3 split, with the Republican appointees siding with the GOP-led states, while the Democratic appointees dissented.

These rulings, while significant, were something short of nationwide landmark decisions — celebrated victories for the Republican half of the nation but having no direct or immediate effect on Democratic-led states.

California lawmakers are not likely to pass measures to restrict gender-affirming care or to prohibit women on Medicaid from obtaining birth control, pregnancy testing or medical screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

The new decisions echoed the Dobbs ruling three years ago that struck down Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion.

As the conservative justices noted, the decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health did not outlaw abortion nationwide. However, it did allow conservative states to do so. Since then, 17 Republican-led states in the South and Midwest have adopted new laws to prohibit most or all abortions.

On this front, the court’s decisions reflect a “federalism,” or states-rights style of conservatism, that was dominant in decades past under President Reagan and two of the court’s conservative leaders, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Both were Arizona Republicans (and in O’Connor’s case, a former state legislator) who came to the court with that view that Washington holds too much power and wields too much control over states and local governments.

With the nation sharply divided along partisan lines, today’s conservative court could be praised or defended for freeing states to make different choices on the “culture wars.”

The other big winner so far this year has been Trump and his broad claims of executive power.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has asserted he has total authority to run federal agencies, cut their spending and fire most of their employees, all without the approval of Congress, which created and funded the agencies.

He has also claimed the authority to impose tariffs of any amount on any country and also change his mind a few days later.

He has dispatched National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles against the wishes of the governor and the mayor.

He has asserted he can punish universities and law firms.

He has claimed he can revise by executive order the 14th Amendment and its birthright citizenship clause.

So far, the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on Trump’s broad assertions of power. But the justices have granted a series of emergency appeals from Trump’s lawyers and set aside lower court orders that blocked his initiatives from taking effect.

The theme has been that judges are out of line, not the president.

Friday’s ruling limiting nationwide injunctions set out that view in a 26-page opinion. The conservatives agreed that some judges have overstepped their authority by ruling broadly based on a single lawsuit.

The justices have yet to rule on whether the president has overstepped his power.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed up the dispute in a revealing comment responding to a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” she wrote.

Missing from all this is the earlier strain of conservatism that opposed concentrated power in Washington — and in this instance, in one person.

Last year offered a hint of what was to come. A year ago, the court ended its term by declaring the president is immune from being prosecuted for his official acts while in the White House.

That decision, in Trump vs. United States, shielded the former and soon-to-be president from the criminal law.

The Constitution does not mention any such immunity for ex-presidents charged with crimes, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a shield of immunity was necessary to “enable the the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.”

Since returning to the White House, Trump has not been accused of exercising “undue caution.”

Instead, he appears to have viewed the court’s opinion as confirming his unchecked power as the nation’s chief executive. Trump advisors say that because the president was elected, he has a mandate and the authority to put his priorities and policies into effect.

But the Supreme Court’s conservatives did not take that view when President Biden took office promising to take action on climate change and to reduce the burden of student loan debt.

In both areas, the Roberts court ruled that the Biden administration had exceeded its authority under the laws passed by Congress.

Away from Washington, the most significant decision from this term may be Friday’s ruling empowering parents.

The six justices on the right ruled parents have a right to remove their children from certain public school classes that offend their religious beliefs. They objected to new storybooks and lessons for young children with LGBTQ+ themes.

In recent years, the court, led by Roberts, has championed the “free exercise” of religion that is protected by the 1st Amendment. In a series of decisions, the court has exempted Catholic schools and charities from laws or regulations on, for example, providing contraceptives to employees.

Friday’s ruling in a Maryland case extended that religious liberty right into the schools and ruled for Muslim and Catholic parents who objected to new LGBTQ+-themed storybooks.

At first, the school board said parents could have their young children “opt out” of those classes. But when too many parents took the offer, the school board rescinded it.

The clash between progressive educators and conservative parents reached the court when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed on behalf of the parents.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the parents believed the books and stories offended their religious beliefs, and he ordered school authorities to “to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question is to be used … and allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.”

This decision may have a broader impact than any from this term because it empowers parents nationwide. But it too has limits. It does not require the schools to change their curriculum and their lessons or remove any books from the shelves.

The conservatives fell one vote short in a case that could have brought about a far-reaching change in American schools. Split 4 to 4, the justices could not rule to uphold the nation’s first publicly funded, church-run charter school.

In the past, Roberts had voted to allow students to use state tuition grants in religious schools, but he appeared uncertain about using tax money to operate a church-run school.

But that question is almost certain to return to the court. Barrett stepped aside from the Oklahoma case heard in April because friends and former colleagues at the Notre Dame Law School had filed the appeal. But in a future case, she could participate and cast a deciding vote.

WASHINGTON — Citing the explosion of online porn, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that states may enforce age verification laws in hopes of screening out children and young teens.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices rejected a free-speech claim from the adult entertainment industry.

“The power to require age verification is within a State’s authority to prevent children from accessing sexually explicit content,” said Justice Clarence Thomas for the court.

The free-speech advocates who challenged the law said it would infringe the rights of adults because they could be forced to disclose their identity.

But the court disagreed.

The Texas law “advances the State’s important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content. And, it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data,” Thomas said.

The court’s three liberals dissented.

Under the Texas law, a website must use “reasonable age verification methods” to confirm visitors are at least 18 years old if more than one-third of its content is “sexual material harmful to minors.”
.
More than 21 other Republican-led states have adopted similar laws in recent years.

In defense of the Texas law, Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton said that prior to the internet, the court had upheld laws that required bookstores or magazine stands to “check the age of their customers before selling them pornography.”

He argued that moving their business online should not give pornographers a 1st Amendment right “to provide access to nearly inexhaustible amounts of obscenity to any child with a smartphone.”

State officials also said porn online is increasingly violent and degrading.

“The average child is exposed to internet pornography while still in elementary school,” wrote state attorneys for Ohio and Indiana. “Pornography websites receive more traffic in the U.S. than social media platforms Instagram, TikTok, Netflix, and Pinterest combined.”

WASHINGTON — Americans’ per capita income–after adjustment for inflation–declined in 1991, the first drop in nine years, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday.

The fall in real personal income was even greater in California, reflecting the impact of the recession in the state.

Nationwide, personal income averaged $19,082 last year, a scant 2.1% improvement over the prior year. That compares to a 4.1% rise in consumer prices, meaning real per capita income fell last year.

In California, personal income averaged $20,952 in 1991, a 1.3% increase over 1990. Nevada lagged even more with personal income of $19,175, only 0.7% higher than the prior year.

It was the first time since 1982 that growth in per capita income failed to keep pace with inflation, and it was the slowest growth since per capita incomes rose just 1% in 1958, a recession year.

The Commerce Department calculates personal income using wages and salaries, rents, dividends and government payments such as Social Security. This total measure of income–$4.81 trillion nationally in 1991–divided by a population of 252.2 million yields the per capita income for America.

California last year was among a group of 14 slow-growing states, according to the Commerce Department. This represents a major change from the 1980s, when these states were enjoying rapid growth, significantly above the national expansion of per capita incomes. They led the boom, with the central part of the nation lagging behind.

Now the situation is reversed, with the Midwest enjoying growth while both coasts suffer from sluggish economic performance.

The eastern states, notably New England and New York, suffered “declines in earnings in construction, durables, manufacturing and retail trade,” the Commerce Department said. Incomes grew in the West, but population and inflation grew even faster.

The fast-growing states, in which per capita income outstripped the national average, had strong gains in construction, manufacturing and service industries, the Commerce Department said. This group included Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Hawaii and Utah.

Nationally, the growth rate in per capita income has been slowing since the end of the Reagan Administration. The increase in 1988 was 7.1%, and then slipped to 6.9% in 1989, and 5.4% in 1990 before reaching 1.3% last year.

The Commerce Department indicated that the recession, now in its second year, has had widespread and pervasive impact throughout the country. The growth of income slowed in all 50 states compared to the previous year’s performance.

“The defense cutbacks are having a big impact,” said Rudolph E. DePass, a Commerce Department analyst. “The high-income states (in the 1980s) . . . were generally all pretty heavily involved in the defense industry.”

Only seven states enjoyed per capita incomes in 1991 matching or exceeding the national inflation rate. They were: Wyoming, 5.1%; Montana, 4.8%; North Dakota, 4.8%; Hawaii, 4.6%; Louisiana, 4.2%; New Mexico, 4.1%, and Arkansas, 4.1%. Mississippi at 4% virtually matched the national average.

Economists predicted that income growth would improve modestly this year as the economy recovers.

“1992 will be slightly better. You could see a 3% to 4% increase,” said economist Lawrence Chimerine of DRI-McGraw Hill, a Lexington, Mass., forecasting firm. “But we still will be lucky to match or exceed inflation, and we won’t make up for the weakness of the last several years.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

June 26 (UPI) — The Trump administration and Iran currently have no plans to formally meet, the White House press secretary said Thursday, despite indications from President Donald Trump that the two countries would talk “next week.”

“We don’t have anything scheduled as of now,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters during a Thursday press briefing. She added that the United States and Iran continue to communicate.

“We are in touch, and if there is a meeting, we will let you know, as we always do,” she continued. Leavitt added that she spoke with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff on Thursday morning about the status of any talks between the two countries.

Witkoff said earlier in the week that his talks with Iranian officials had been “promising,” and that he and U.S. officials are “hopeful that we can have a long-term peace agreement that resurrects Iran.”

During a NATO summit meeting Wednesday night in The Hague, Trump discussed the possibility of talking with Iranian leaders.

“We’re going to talk to them next week, with Iran,” Trump told reporters during the summit. “We may sign an agreement, I don’t know … if we got a document it wouldn’t be bad. We’re going to meet with them, actually. We’re going to meet with them.”

Trump did not specify who would be in any discussion with Iran if and when they do happen.

During the Thursday press briefing, Leavitt continued on the theme that the United States and its allies have been stressing the need to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The issue came to a head last week when the United States bombed three nuclear facilities in Iran, joining efforts by Israel to put a stop to the Tehran’s of nuclear program.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states may exclude Planned Parenthood clinics from providing medical screenings and other healthcare for women on Medicaid.

The court’s conservative majority reversed the longstanding rule that said Medicaid patients may obtain medical care from any qualified provider.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Medicaid Act does not give patients an “individual right” to the provider of their choice.

The dispute has turned on abortion. Medicaid is funded by the federal government and the states. For decades, conservative states have argued their funds should not be used in Planned Parenthood clinics because some of those clinics perform abortions.

But until now, the federal government and the courts had said that Medicaid patients can go to any qualified provider for healthcare.

In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the decision “will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians — and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country — of a deeply personal freedom: the ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed.

Planned Parenthood clinics provide cancer screenings, birth control medical screenings, pregnancy testing, contraception and other healthcare services.

Congress pays most of the state’s costs for Medicaid, and it says “any individual eligible for medical assistance” may receive care from any provider who is “qualified to perform the service.”

Lupe Rodríguez, executive director of National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, called the decision “an attack on our healthcare and our freedom to make our own decisions about our bodies and lives. By allowing states to block Medicaid patients from getting care at Planned Parenthood health centers, the Court has chosen politics over people and cruelty over compassion.”

Three years ago, the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade and ruled states may prohibit nearly all abortions.

Nonetheless, South Carolina continued its legal fight to prevent Medicaid patients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood’s clinics in Charleston and Columbia.

Former Gov. Henry McMaster, who issued the ban on Planned Parenthood in 2018, said he did so to protect “his state’s sovereign interests.”

Critics of the move said the state has a severe shortage of doctors and medical personnel who treat low-income patients on Medicaid.

This year’s presidential race will be won or lost in a handful of states that have swung between Democrats and Republicans over the years. Here’s our guide to the battlegrounds and how their political landscapes could hand them to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

For each state we’ve included the estimated percentage of the electorate that is white (a group that favors Trump overall), the percentage of white college-educated voters (a subset typically won by Republicans but now leaning toward Clinton) and the results in 2008 and 2012. The figures come from the Cook Political Report.

Florida is where close presidential contests are won or lost, sometimes by razor-thin margins. (See: Bush vs. Gore and the hanging chad).

There are signs that Clinton is positioned to edge out a victory here. For starters, the state’s significant Latino population is changing — there are more Puerto Ricans, who often lean Democratic, and fewer Cuban Americans, who are more reliable Republican voters.

Could Trump still win here? The part-time Floridian, whose Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach has been the site of numerous campaign events, needs turnout among black and Latino voters to lag behind previous elections.

Influx of Puerto Ricans could be game-changer in country’s biggest swing stateTrump’s climate science denial clashes with reality of rising seas in Florida

Ohio has a well-earned reputation as a political bellwether — it’s voted for the winner in every presidential contest except one since 1944.

But this year could be different. First, the state’s population is less representative of the nation than before, becoming older and whiter as the rest of the country diversifies. That should be a boost for Trump.

However, he’s been unable to unify the state’s Republican Party around his candidacy, and not even the state’s popular governor, John Kasich, voted for him. 

North Carolina tends to be out of Democrats’ reach in presidential elections — Obama won, barely, in 2008, then lost in 2012. But Clinton seems intent on turning the state blue with the help of high-profile supporters such as President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. 

A major issue has been protests in Charlotte after police fatally shot a black man, pulling the city into a nationwide debate over race and criminal justice. It’s possible the political ripples could benefit Clinton, who has pushed for policing reforms and is counting on strong support from black voters.

 As one of the whitest states in the country, Iowa is fertile terrain for Trump, who has struggled with black, Latino and Asian voters. He could also benefit from a united Republican front that has eluded him in some other battlegrounds.

Clinton doesn’t have a strong track record in the state. She lost the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses in 2008 when she ran against Obama, then narrowly edged out Bernie Sanders this year.

Pennsylvania has been a blue state for more than two decades,but there were concerns among Democrats that Trump could boost his numbers with white, working-class voters.

That doesn’t seem to have materialized, and Clinton has maintained a strong base of support among black voters in places such as Philadelphia. The city is such a Democratic bastion that Mitt Romney didn’t earn a single vote in 59 precincts in 2012.

In addition, Clinton’s campaign has set its sights on the Philadelphia suburbs, where Republicans are usually more competitive but Trump has struggled.

It wasn’t long ago that Democrats were ready to write off Colorado.  But the state has been rapidly transformed by an influx of Latinos and young, highly educated transplants — demographics that make it a much safer bet for Clinton.

Also hurting Trump is his low support among women disgusted with his sexist remarks. Even though he may be able count on support from conservative strongholds such as Colorado Springs, the growing suburbs around Denver could be slipping out of Republicans’ reach.

Trump’s name already looms over Las Vegas from the candidate’s hotel, but winning the state is another matter. Nevada is home to an increasing number of Latinos who have been turned off by Trump’s hard-line immigration stance and his derogatory comments about Mexicans and other immigrants.

The Clinton campaign has invested heavily in a state organization to balance out the enthusiasm among Trump supporters. Voters here have a strong anti-establishment streak, something the New York businessman and first-time candidate could turn to his advantage.

Democrats have regarded Georgia like a big, fat, juicy peach, just waiting to ripen and fall. Their expectation has been the increased clout of the state’s growing black, Latino and Asian populations would turn this reddest of states blue sometime over the next decade or so.

Some hope that day could come this year if Trump repels enough minority and women voters. However, it’s less than an even-money bet for Clinton. 

Donald Trump’s steady slide in the polls has made this normally Republican state vulnerable to turning blue this year. He’s lost the support of Sen. John McCain, and he was never endorsed by the state’s other senator, Jeff Flake.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is trying to take advantage of a rare opportunity, with appearances by First Lady Michelle Obama, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and the candidate herself. A Democratic victory would likely rely heavily on Arizona’s growing number of Latinos, who have heavily favored Clinton over Trump.

[email protected]

Twitter: @chrismegerian

ALSO:

Here’s what we know so far about voter fraud and the 2016 elections

Red vs. blue states: Check out our interactive Electoral College map

Updates on California politics

Updates from the campaign trail

SAN DIEGO — President Clinton arrived here Monday pledging again to make special efforts to help Californians with their economic problems but asking that they in turn agree to the sacrifices demanded in his pending budget plan.

Clinton, beginning a two-day campaign-style swing through the West to gather support for his agenda, reminded a crowd of several hundred that greeted him at the North Island Naval Air Station that he had vowed his help for California’s problems during his campaign.

“We are going to work our hearts out in Washington in order to move this state together,” he said. And he cited his proposals to foster defense conversion, to provide federal support for California’s special immigration problems and to stimulate the economy in a way that would help California’s ailing real estate industry and small businesses.

“California needs an economic strategy that will be built from the grass roots up, but will have a partner in the White House,” he declared, adding, “the federal government’s going to do more to pay our fair share.”

At the same time, Clinton renewed his call for Americans to support his budget against resistance from congressional Republicans and others.

“When you hear people say ‘No, no, no,’ ask where they were for the last 12 years,” he said. Referring to his Republican predecessors, he said “the most popular thing to do in public life is to cut taxes and raise spending. But sooner or later your string runs out.”

Clinton’s appearance began the second straight week of forays into the country to drum up support for an economic program that has lost ground in the polls. On Monday evening he was scheduled to take questions from the public in a live, hourlong TV “town hall” broadcast from San Diego’s KGTV, Channel 10. Today he is to visit Los Angeles Valley College in Van Nuys to talk about worker retraining, and later to stop at a business on Florence Avenue in South-Central Los Angeles to promote his plans for urban redevelopment.

He spent much of Monday at a stop in Los Alamos, N. M., pointing to the Los Alamos National Laboratories, where the atomic bomb was developed during World War II, as proof of the potential of his five-year, $20-billion defense conversion plan.

Clinton said the 50-year-old laboratory’s early move into commercial enterprises proves that defense industries can be successfully converted to commercial use in the aftermath of the Cold War. But he also used the occasion to stress his No. 1 theme, that Congress needs to pass his economic program to cut the deficit and step up spending that will strengthen the economy.

In remarks at Los Alamos High School, Clinton said the 7,600-employee nuclear laboratory had made important contributions to the weapons research that kept pressure on the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He said that in the last several years the lab’s efforts to find commercial applications for its research had spawned 30 companies and 100 government-industry partnerships.

Clinton said such relationships would begin the kind of “economic chain reaction” that could help the nation create high paying jobs.

The laboratory, with an annual budget of $1 billion, conducts commercial research into batteries, oil recovery, advanced materials and other such projects. Clinton cited its advances in the process called ion implantation, which is used to make stronger materials and which grew out of research begun on the Strategic Defense Initiative, or “Star Wars,” launched by President Ronald Reagan.

Only last week, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin declared an official end to the “Star Wars” program. But Clinton acknowledged: “Something good came out of it, because people were looking to break down frontiers.”

But as he spoke about defense conversion, Clinton repeatedly moved into discussion of the need for sacrifices to cut the federal deficit. “Everybody’s for deficit reduction in general, it’s the details that swallow us whole,” he told a crowd of several thousand.

The Los Alamos laboratory had been spared deep cuts, but under Clinton’s proposed budget it faces about $40 million in budget cuts that officials say could force the layoff of about 100 people.

Clinton’s two-month old defense conversion program proposes to spend $19.6 billion over the next five years. The money would go to retrain workers displaced by military cutbacks, to allow early retirement of some military and civilian workers, for environmental cleanup and for grants to help military contractors find civilian applications for their work.

Critics have charged that the program underestimates the difficulty of converting defense businesses to civilian work. And they say that in any case the $19.6 billion will have only a limited effect in helping the 2.5 million workers who could lose their jobs in the next decade.

But Clinton asserted: “It is a good beginning.”

Pressed by slumping polls and unresolved questions about his Bosnian policy, Clinton has sought to rebuild support for his program by explaining its payoff for Americans, and particularly for the middle class.

The President hopes that strong public support will bring pressure on Congress to go along with his economic and health care plans.

Clinton’s appearance in Los Alamos was well tailored to his goal of using the news media to drum up support. To ensure that enthusiasm was high, the organizers bused in thousands of high school students; they passed out American flags just before the event began.

Located on a valley overlooked by the snowcapped Sangre de Cristo mountains, the event made a striking picture.

Clinton came close to a faux pas at one point in his remarks, calling Los Alamos “Los Angeles.”

A chorus of boos followed. But Clinton tried to make a graceful recovery:

“I’m going there tomorrow,” he explained to the crowd. “And if I say ‘Los Alamos’ there, will you cheer?”

As has become his habit, Clinton spent part of his day conducting interviews with TV news stations, in an effort to give his message wide and largely unchallenged access to local markets.

The President’s California visit is his second since the election to a state that his advisers say is key to his strategy for 1996.

California’s unemployment rate fell to 8.6% in April, from 9.4% in March. But the state’s rate still lags far behind the national rate of 7%.

Part of Clinton’s hope to help California was stymied when Senate Republicans blocked the $19-billion economic stimulus proposal that would have channeled more than $2 billion to the state.

After the TV town hall, Clinton was scheduled to appear at a reception for local politicians and supporters at the television station, then to attend a dinner at the home of Larry and Shelia Lawrence. The Lawrences own the Hotel Del Coronado and are Clinton supporters.

As protesters in Los Angeles denounced United States President Donald Trump’s deportation policies, sometimes leading to clashes with law enforcement, Republican and Democratic politicians sparred over who has the bigger crime problem: blue states or red states.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, took to X to challenge three elected Republican officials who had offered posts critical of California and Newsom’s handling of the recent protests.

🚨JUST IN: Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) calls for Governor Gavin Newsom to be arrested.

“Lock him up.”

“LA looks like a third world country — anarchists are in charge, law enforcement is being attacked, and the rule of law is nonexistent.” pic.twitter.com/v718Yau6wh

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 9, 2025

• On June 9, Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama said Los Angeles “looks like a third world country – anarchists are in charge, law enforcement is being attacked, and the rule of law is nonexistent”. Later that day, Newsom posted: “Alabama has 3X the homicide rate of California. Its murder rate is ranked third in the entire country.”
• On June 10, Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma posted: “America is sick of illegal immigration and weak, lawless liberal leadership.” He called it “rich” that Newsom was suing Trump to reverse the president’s federalisation of California’s National Guard. Later that day, Newsom posted: “If you want to discuss violence, let’s start with your state’s murder rate – which is 40 percent higher than California’s.”
• Also on June 10, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders posted: “What’s happening in California would never happen here in Arkansas because we value order over chaos.” The next day, Newsom responded, “Your homicide rate is literally DOUBLE California’s.”

Newsom’s comparisons are close to accurate because he worded his assertions carefully to refer to the homicide rate. California has more homicides than any state, but it also has by far the largest population, and using the rate – which refers to homicides per 100,000 people – makes it possible to compare states on an even footing.

Stop reporting crime then your crime rate will be lower. So convenient for you. Unfortunately for you, we know the truth. https://t.co/AoCNo0FG5f

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 11, 2025

Some Newsom critics replied to his post by arguing that the numbers the governor used are unreliable because California has some of the lowest rates of reporting crimes to the FBI’s data collectors.

But this argument is a red herring: Newsom’s political office confirmed to PolitiFact that his data are from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That means his statistics are not subject to concerns about low reporting rates (a problem that commentators have exaggerated).

California fares less well against these three states when measuring overall violent crime, which includes homicides, rapes, aggravated assaults and robberies.

What does the CDC data show?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes data showing the number of homicides per state as well as the rate of homicides per 100,000 people. The latter metric allows a comparison of bigger states to smaller states.

According to 2022 data, the latest available, Alabama ranks third in the nation for its homicide rate with 14.9 per 100,000 people. (It trails Mississippi and Louisiana and also the District of Columbia, which generally isn’t considered comparable to the 50 states because it is essentially a city rather than a state.)

Arkansas ranks sixth with a rate of 11.8 homicides per 100,000 people. Oklahoma ranks 20th with a rate of 8.3 per 100,000.

And California? It ranks 30th with a rate of 5.9 per 100,000.

Alabama’s rate is about 2.5 times higher than California’s rate; Newsom said it was triple. Oklahoma’s rate is 41 percent higher than California’s; Newsom said it was 40 percent higher. And Arkansas’s rate is double California’s, which is what Newsom said.

California’s homicide rate is lower than Alabama’s, Arkansas’s and Oklahoma’s

“The CDC data are very reliable when it comes to death and mortality data because these come directly from coroners’ records and state health departments,” said Alex R Piquero, a University of Miami criminologist and former director of the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. “They are among the most respected of all health data collections.”

Although the CDC’s data are from 2022, the 2023 FBI data show the same general ranking pattern. The FBI collects data from law enforcement agencies rather than coroners’ offices.

In its statistics, Alabama ranked third among the 50 states with 10.3 homicides per 100,000 people. Arkansas ranked fifth with 9.4 per 100,000, and Oklahoma ranked 16th with 6.1 per 100,000. California ranked 25th with 5 per 100,000.

“There is a lot of research on the variation of homicides across states in the United States, and both the CDC and FBI show” that Newsom is generally accurate, Piquero said.

One technical note: In his posts, Newsom flipped back and forth between referring to the “homicide” rate and the “murder” rate. For the CDC data, he should have exclusively used the term “homicide” because the CDC doesn’t use the term “murder”.

What about violent crime overall?

The data on violent crime are less favourable for California.

The data the FBI collected for 2023 show that Arkansas’s violent crime rate ranked fourth among the states, about 620 incidents per 100,000 people. California ranked sixth with 508 per 100,000 people. That was higher than either Oklahoma (15th with 414 per 100,000) and Alabama (19th with 404 per 100,000).

Our ruling

Newsom said California has lower homicide rates than Alabama, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

Data for 2022 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which criminologists consider a reliable source, show that California has a lower homicide rate than Alabama, Arkansas and Oklahoma and roughly in the proportions that Newsom said.

Data from 2023 collected by the FBI generally mirror the CDC data.

Looking at violent crime more broadly – a category that includes rape, aggravated assault and robbery in addition to homicide – California fares less well, notching rates higher than either Oklahoma and Alabama.

The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate the statement Mostly True.

The suit, brought by 55 attorneys general, will help compensate victims and fund addiction treatment programmes.

The attorneys general of all 50 US states, Washington, DC, and four US territories have agreed to a $7.4bn settlement with drugmaker Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin – the pain medication that allegedly fuelled a nationwide opioid addiction crisis in the United States.

The group, led by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, announced the deal on Monday.

“While we know that no amount of money can erase the pain for those who lost loved ones to this crisis, this settlement will help prevent future tragedies through education, prevention, and other resources,” Platkin said in a news release.

“The Sacklers put greed and profit over human lives, and with this settlement, they will never be allowed to sell these drugs again in the United States,” Platkin added, referring to the family who owns Purdue Pharma.

The company’s payment is intended to resolve thousands of lawsuits against the drugmaker. The group of attorneys general said most of the settlement funds will be distributed to recipients within the first three years.

Payouts would begin after the drugmaker wins sufficient creditor support for its Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan. Money would go to individuals, state and local governments, and Native American tribes and the Sackler family would cede control of Purdue.

According to several attorneys general, Monday’s agreements do not include Oklahoma, which in 2019 reached a $270m settlement with Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers to resolve opioid-related claims.

Platkin said members of the Sackler family have confirmed their plan to proceed with the settlement.

The settlement will also help fund addiction treatment, prevention and recovery programmes over the next 15 years, according to the attorney general.

“This settlement in principle is the nation’s largest settlement to date with individuals responsible for the opioid crisis,” his office said.

Purdue has been the subject of a backlash for years over accusations that it fuelled the US opioid epidemic. The bankrupt Stamford, Connecticut-based pharmaceutical company was known for aggressively marketing its drug to doctors and patients and calling it nonaddictive although it is highly addictive.

Purdue responded to the settlement by calling it a “milestone”.

“Today’s announcement of unanimous support among the states and territories is a critical milestone towards confirming a Plan of Reorganization that will provide billions of dollars to compensate victims, abate the opioid crisis, and deliver opioid use disorder and overdose rescue medicines that will save American lives,” a Purdue spokesperson told Al Jazeera.

In June last year, the US Supreme Court rejected an earlier settlement that would have given the Sacklers broad immunity from opioid-related civil lawsuits. The Sacklers would have paid about $6bn under that settlement.

More than 850,000 people have died from opioid-related overdoses since 1999, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, although deaths have recently declined.

June 5 (UPI) — NATO defense ministers are proposing a 5% annual investment in defense spending by member nations to enhance defensive capabilities during a meeting in Brussels on Thursday.

The proposed defense investment plan would require member nations to invest 5% of their respective gross domestic products in defense, NATO officials announced.

The change would make NATO a “stronger, fairer, more lethal alliance and ensure warfighting readiness for years to come,” according to NATO.

The ministers’ plan describes “exactly what capabilities allies need to invest over their coming years … to keep our deterrence and defense strong and our one billion people safe,” NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said.

U.S. supports increased NATO member spending

Many NATO members currently spend about 2% of their respective GDPs, which President Donald Trump has said is insufficient.

The 5% defense investment by NATO member states is virtually assured, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told media upon arriving for Thursday’s meeting.

“We’re here to continue the work that President Trump started, which is a commitment to 5% defense spending across this alliance, which we think will happen,” Hegseth said.

“There are a few countries that are not quite there yet,” Hegseth added. “I won’t name any names, [but] we will get them there.”

If approved during the upcoming NATO Summit, defense investments would require respective member nations to spend equal to 3.5% of GDP on core defense spending, plus 1.5% in annual defense and security investments, including infrastructure.

The two-day NATO Summit is scheduled to start on June 24 at The Hague.

Ukraine support and nuclear deterrence

An ad hoc NATO-Ukraine Council also met and reaffirmed NATO’s support of Ukraine and agreed that nuclear deterrence is its primary goal.

Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov and European Union Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Minister Kaja Kallas joined the council to discuss support for Ukraine.

Rutte said NATO allies have pledged nearly $23 billion in security assistance for Ukraine in 2025 and are focused on preventing the use of nuclear weapons by Russia and other nations.

The final meeting of NATO ministers during the summit also affirmed the alliance’s focus on nuclear deterrence.

“Nuclear deterrence remains the cornerstone of alliance security,” Rutte said.

“We will ensure that NATO’s nuclear capability remains strong and effective in order to preserve peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression.”

Trump nominates U.S. general for NATO commander

Trump also nominated U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich to lead combined U.S. and NATO forces in Europe.

If approved during the NATO Summit, Grynkewich would become NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe and commander of the U.S. European Command.

Trump is scheduled to attend the NATO Summit.

If approved by NATO member states, Grynkewich would replace current Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Chris Cavoli.

Grynkewich is an experienced fighter pilot, and his nomination affirms that the United States would continue to emphasize defensive security for Europe.

A U.S. officer has been NATO’s supreme allied commander since Gen. Dwight Eisenhower first held the post in 1951.

June 5 (UPI) — The Justice Department has seized more than $7.74 million dollars related to an illegal employment and cryptocurrency scheme operated by North Korea, officials announced Thursday.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District court in Washington, alleges that IT workers were illegally hired and collected cryptocurrency for the North Korean government as a way to avoid sanctions imposed by the United States.

“This forfeiture action highlights, once again, the North Korean government’s exploitation of the cryptocurrency ecosystem to fund its illicit priorities,” Matthew R. Galeoti, director of the Justice Department’s criminal division, said in a release. “The department will use every legal tool at its disposal to safeguard the cryptocurrency ecosystems and deny North Korea all its ill-gotten gains in violation of U.S. sanctions.”

The Justice Department said North Korean workers used false identities to obtain employment with U.S.-based companies, often remotely, as a way to avoid sanctions and illegally obtained cryptocurrency, which they then sent back to North Korea.

“Those IT workers have generated revenue for North Korea via their jobs at, among other places, blockchain development companies,” the Justice Department release continued.

To send the cryptocurrency to North Korea, the IT workers allegedly laundered it by setting up accounts with fictitious names, sending funds in small amounts, converting funds or moving them to other blockchains or converting them to other forms of currency. They also allegedly commingled their funds with other money to hide their origins.

Earlier this year, the FBI issued guidelines on how to recognize extortion and theft of sensitive company data, and offered rules on how to address it.

AUSTIN, Texas — President Trump and congressional Republicans have made it a priority this year to require people to prove citizenship before they can register to vote. Turning that aspiration into reality has proved difficult.

Trump’s executive order directing a documentary, proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections has been blocked by a judge, while federal legislation to accomplish it doesn’t appear to have the votes to pass in the Senate. At the same time, state-level efforts have found little success, even in places where Republicans control the legislature and governor’s office.

The most recent state effort to falter is in Texas, where a Senate bill failed to gain full legislative approval before lawmakers adjourned on Monday. The Texas bill was one of the nation’s most sweeping proof-of-citizenship proposals because it would have applied not only to new registrants but also to the state’s roughly 18.6 million registered voters.

“The bill authors failed spectacularly to explain how this bill would be implemented and how it would be able to be implemented without inconveniencing a ton of voters,” said Anthony Gutierrez, director of the voting rights group Common Cause Texas.

Voting by noncitizens is already illegal and punishable as a felony, potentially leading to deportation, but Trump and his allies have pressed for a proof-of-citizenship mandate by arguing it would improve public confidence in elections.

Before his win last year, Trump falsely claimed noncitizens might vote in large enough numbers to sway the outcome. Although noncitizen voting does occur, research and reviews of state cases has shown it to be rare and more often a mistake.

Voting rights groups say the various proposals seeking to require proof of citizenship are overly burdensome and threaten to disenfranchise millions of Americans. Many do not have easy access to their birth certificates, have not gotten a U.S. passport or have a name that no longer matches the one on their birth certificate — such as women who changed their last name when they married.

The number of states considering bills related to proof of citizenship for voting tripled from 2023 to this year, said Liz Avore, senior policy advisor with the Voting Rights Lab, an advocacy group that tracks election legislation in the states.

That hasn’t resulted in many new laws, at least so far. Republicans in Wyoming passed their own proof-of-citizenship legislation, but similar measures have stalled or failed in multiple GOP-led states, including Florida, Missouri, Texas and Utah. A proposal remains active in Ohio, although Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has said he doesn’t want to sign any more bills that make it harder to vote.

In Texas, the legislation swiftly passed the state Senate after it was introduced in March but never made it to a floor vote in the House. It was unclear why legislation that was such a priority for Senate Republicans — every one of them co-authored the bill — ended up faltering.

“I just think people realized, as flawed as this playbook has been in other states, Texas didn’t need to make this mistake,” said Rep. John Bucy, a Democrat who serves as vice chair of the House elections committee.

Bucy pointed to specific concerns about married women who changed their last name. This surfaced in local elections earlier this year in New Hampshire, which passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement last year.

Other states that previously sought to add such a requirement have faced lawsuits and complications when trying to implement it.

In Arizona, a state audit found that problems with the way data were handled had affected the tracking and verification of residents’ citizenship status. It came after officials had identified some 200,000 voters who were thought to have provided proof of their citizenship but had not.

A proof-of-citizenship requirement was in effect for three years in Kansas before it was overturned by federal courts. The state’s own expert estimated that almost all of the roughly 30,000 people who were prevented from registering to vote while it was in effect were U.S. citizens who otherwise had been eligible.

In Missouri, legislation seeking to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement cleared a Senate committee but never came to a vote in the Republican-led chamber.

Republican state Sen. Ben Brown had promoted the legislation as a follow-up to a constitutional amendment stating that only U.S. citizens can vote, which Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved last November. He said there were several factors that led to the bill not advancing this year. Due to the session’s limited schedule, he chose to prioritize another elections bill banning foreign contributions in state ballot measure campaigns.

“Our legislative session ending mid-May means a lot of things die at the finish line because you simply run out of time,” Brown said, noting he also took time to research concerns raised by local election officials and plans to reintroduce the proof-of-citizenship bill next year.

The Republican-controlled Legislature in Utah also prioritized other election changes, adding voter ID requirements and requiring people to opt in to receive their ballots in the mail. Before Gov. Spencer Cox signed the bill into law, Utah was the only Republican-controlled state that allowed all elections to be conducted by mail without a need to opt in.

Under the Florida bill that has failed to advance, voter registration applications wouldn’t be considered valid until state officials had verified citizenship, either by confirming a previous voting history, checking the applicant’s status in state and federal databases, or verifying documents they provided.

The bill would have required voters to prove their citizenship even when updating their registration to change their address or party affiliation.

Its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, said it was meant to follow through on Trump’s executive order: “This bill fully answers the president’s call,” she said.

Cassidy and Lathan write for the Associated Press. Cassidy reported from Atlanta. AP writers Mead Gruver in Cheyenne, Wyo.; David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo.; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Fla.; Hannah Schoenbaum in Salt Lake City; Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio; and Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

May 29 (UPI) — The United States ambassador’s residence in Damascus, Syria, re-opened Thursday after being closed for 13 years, presaging a warming of relations between the two countries.

Tom Barrack, the current U.S. ambassador to Turkey, has also been appointed special envoy to Syria, and raised a U.S. flag outside the residence to inaugurate it, according to the Syrian run news agency SANA.

“Tom understands there is great potential in working with Syria to stop Radicalism, improve Relations, and secure Peace in the Middle East,” a statement from the State Department on X said. “Together, we will make America and the world, SAFE AGAIN!”

Barrack met with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa to witness the signing of an agreement with Middle Eastern countries aimed at developing a $7 billion, 5,000 megawatt energy project that would revitalize Syria’s aging and worn electricity grid and use it as the backbone of the new power project.

The new energy project could supply Syria with 50% of its electricity needs, according to a statement from Qatari-based UCC Holding, which is among the partners in the project.

In a further sign of warming relations between the United States and the Middle East, President Donald Trump met earlier this month with al-Sharaa in Riyadh, a move that prompted the United States to begin walking back sanctions imposed on Syria during the repressive regime of Bahsar al-Assad.

During the reopening of the ambassador’s residence Thursday, Barrack called lifting the sanctions a “bold move,” and said it comes with “no conditions, no requirements.”

Barrack credited Trump for “your bold vision, empowering a historically rich region, long oppressed, to reclaim its destiny through self-determination.”

California on Wednesday joined 15 other states filing suit against the National Science Foundation and its acting director, alleging the agency has illegally terminated millions of dollars in grants and imposed new fees that have ended or crippled research vital to health, the economy and the advancement of knowledge.

The Trump administration has defended its actions as both legal and necessary to align the NSF with the president’s priorities.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, specifically targets the science foundation for “terminating grants for scientific research that seeks to promote and understand diversity in higher education and the workforce,” according to a statement from California Atty. General Rob Bonta.

The suit alleges that the NSF’s actions are illegally arbitrary and capricious and violate federal law on the management and use of federal funding.

Bonta’s office asserted that between 1995 and 2017, the number of women in science and engineering occupations, or with science or engineering degrees, doubled with help from federal support; minorities, meanwhile, went from representing about 15% in the occupations to about 35%.

The suit also seeks to overturn the Trump administration’s 15% cap on indirect costs related to research, which universities say are critical to carrying out their work. Such indirect costs include maintaining lab space, keeping the temperature controlled and the proper handling and disposal of biological, chemical and biochemical materials.

Like other key federal agencies, the National Science Foundation has been in turmoil since Trump took office in January — undergoing across-the-board funding cuts, layoffs and reorganization as well as apparent ideological litmus tests for research, sweeping grant terminations and a funding freeze on grant applications.

The Trump administration has fired back at critics.

Earlier this month Michael Kratsios, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, criticized diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in federally funded research, calling them “close-minded” in a speech before the National Academy of Sciences in Washington.

Kratsios also called for a reduction of “red tape” in scientific research, the online news site FedScoop reported. He said there is a “crisis of confidence in scientists” that comes from fears that political biases are impacting research.

Trump officials also have repeatedly maintained that the federal government is rife with waste and fraud.

The federal actions have come at extreme cost, according to Bonta.

“President Trump wants to make America’s universities second tier with his backwards efforts to slash research funding that has kept us on the cutting edge of science and innovation,” Bonta said. “For more than 50 years, Congress has expressly authorized the National Science Foundation to train up the next generation of talent and invest in the infrastructure necessary to keep our position as a global leader” in science, technology, engineering and math.

“With President Trump’s latest round of indiscriminate funding cuts, America is poised to fall behind its competitors at a critical moment in the global technology race. We’re suing to stop him,” Bonta said.

In California, billions of dollars are at risk across the California State University, University of California and public community college systems.

“Many innovations — like the internet, GPS, and MRI technology — trace their origins to research initially funded by NSF. Without NSF funding, many California colleges and universities will be forced to substantially reduce or stop altogether potentially groundbreaking programs and research projects,” according to Bonta’s office.

Terminated NSF grants, for instance, include a five-year, $3-million project, “Computational Research for Equity in the Legal System.” This study examined crime data for patterns of racial bias while also looking at police misconduct and eviction policies, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Canceled UC Berkeley grants included projects on electoral systems and two on environmental science education.

The NSF has also told staff to screen grant proposals for “topics or activities that may not be in alignment with agency priorities” that had shifted under the Trump administration, the journal Nature reported.

The lawsuit lays out a wide range of benefits and goals of the federal funding.

“From developing AI technology that predicts weather patterns to protect communities, to developing sustainable solutions for environmental and economic challenges, to making power grids more sustainable, NSF-funded research at American universities ensures this nation’s status as a global leader in scientific innovation,” according to the lawsuit.

The other states involved in the litigation are Hawaii, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Washington.

The pattern of federal cuts and turmoil related to research also is playing out with the National Institutes of Health. And California also is party to a lawsuit over cuts to these grants.

Tara Kerin, a project scientist who works in pediatric infectious disease research at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, said that the funding cuts at the National Science Foundation echoed similar ones made at the National Institutes of Health.

That, she said, makes her “very nervous about the future of science and research.”

Kerin, whose work has partly focused on HIV prevention and detection in young adults, was funded by NIH grants — until they were cut this spring.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), China and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) agreed to “chart a unified and collective path towards a peaceful, prosperous, and just future”, following their meeting in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur.

In a world roiled by United States President Donald Trump’s threats of crippling tariffs and rising economic uncertainties, alternative centres of global power were on full display, with the GCC and China attending the ASEAN summit for the group’s inaugural trilateral meeting on Tuesday.

In their joint statement released on Wednesday, the GCC – comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – China, and ASEAN members Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar said they were committed to enhancing economic cooperation.

Chief among that cooperation will be the promotion of free trade, the signatories said, adding they looked “forward to the early completion of the GCC-China Free Trade Agreement negotiations” and the upgrading of the ASEAN-China free trade area.

“We reaffirm our collective resolve to work hand in hand to unleash the full potential of our partnership, and ensure that our cooperation translates into tangible benefits for our peoples and societies,” they said.

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim – whose country is currently chair of ASEAN and hosted the summits – told a news conference that the US remains an important market while also noting that ASEAN, the GCC, and China collectively represent a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of $24.87 trillion with a total population of about 2.15 billion.

“This collective scale offers vast opportunities to synergise our markets, deepen innovation, and promote cross-regional investment,” Anwar said.

The prime minister went on to dismiss suggestions that the ASEAN bloc of nations was leaning excessively towards China, stressing that the regional grouping remained committed to maintaining balanced engagement with all major powers, including the US.

James Chin, professor of Asian studies at the University of Tasmania in Australia, told Al Jazeera that the tripartite meeting was particularly important for China, which is being “given a platform where the US is not around”.

ASEAN and the GCC “already view China as a global power”, Chin said.

‘The Gulf is very rich, ASEAN is a tiger, China…’

China’s Premier Li Qiang, who attended the summit, said Beijing was ready to work with the GCC and ASEAN “on the basis of mutual respect and equality”.

China will work with “ASEAN and the GCC to strengthen the alignment of development strategies, increase macro policy coordination, and deepen collaboration on industrial specialisation,” he said.

Former Malaysian ambassador to the US Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz said China was “quickly filling up the vacuum” in global leadership felt in many countries in the aftermath of Trump’s tariff threats.

The economic future looks bright, Nazri said, for ASEAN, China and the Gulf countries, where economies are experiencing high growth rates while the US and European Union face stagnation.

“The Gulf is very rich, ASEAN is a tiger, China… I cannot even imagine where the future lies,” Nazri said.

Jaideep Singh, an analyst with the Institute of Strategic & International Studies in Malaysia, said ASEAN’s trade with GCC countries has been experiencing rapid growth.

Total trade between ASEAN and the Gulf countries stood at some $63bn as of 2024, making GCC the fifth-largest external trading partner of the regional bloc, while Malaysia’s trade with the GCC grew by 60 percent from 2019 to 2024.

In terms of foreign direct investment, FDI from GCC countries in ASEAN totalled some $5bn as of 2023, of which $1.5bn went to Malaysia alone, Singh said.

However, the US, China, Singapore and the EU still make up the lion’s share of FDI in Malaysian manufacturing and services.

US still ASEAN’s biggest export market

Even as China’s trade with ASEAN grows, economist say, the US still remains a huge market for regional countries.

In early 2024, the US took over China as ASEAN’s largest export market, with 15 percent of the bloc’s exports destined for its markets, up nearly 4 percent since 2018, said Carmelo Ferlito, CEO of the Center for Market Education (CME), a think tank based in Malaysia and Indonesia.

“The US is also the largest source of cumulative foreign direct investment in ASEAN, with total stock reaching nearly $480bn in 2023 – almost double the combined US investments in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan,” Ferlito said.

Israel’s war on Gaza was also highlighted at the ASEAN-GCC-China meeting on Tuesday.

Delegates condemned attacks against civilians and called for a durable ceasefire and unhindered delivery of fuel, food, essential services, and medicine throughout the Palestinian territory.

Supporting a two-state solution to the conflict, the joint communique also called for the release of captives and arbitrarily-detained people, and an end to the “illegal presence of the State of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory as soon as possible”.

The civil war in Myanmar was also a focus of the talks among ASEAN members at their summit on Tuesday, who called for an extension and expansion of a ceasefire among the warring sides, which was declared following the earthquake that struck the country in March. The ceasefire is due to run out by the end of May. However, human rights groups have documented repeated air attacks by the military regime on the country’s civilian population despite the purported temporary cessation of fighting.

Zachary Abuza, professor of Southeast Asia politics and security issues at the Washington-based National War College, said that while Prime Minister Anwar may be “more proactive” – in his role as ASEAN chair – in wanting to resolve the conflict, Myanmar’s military rulers were “not a good faith actor” in peace talks.

“The military has absolutely no interest in anything resembling a power-sharing agreement,” he said.

Southeast Asian leaders are set to hold their first ever summit with China and the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), as they seek to insulate their trade-dependent economies from the effect of steep tariffs from the United States.

The meeting, in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, is taking place on Tuesday, on the second day of the annual summit of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

It follows separate talks between leaders of the ASEAN and the GCC, which comprises of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, opening the ASEAN-GCC summit, said stronger ties between the two blocs would be key to enhancing interregional collaboration, building resilience and securing sustainable prosperity.

“I believe the ASEAN-GCC partnership has never been more important than it is today, as we navigate an increasingly complex global landscape marked by economic uncertainty and geopolitical challenges,” Anwar said.

Malaysia is the current chair of ASEAN, which also includes Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

In written remarks before the meetings, Anwar said “a transition in the geopolitical order is underway” and that “the global trading system is under further strain, with the recent imposition of US unilateral tariffs.”

With protectionism surging, the world is also bearing witness to “multilateralism breaking apart at the seams”, he added.

China calls for stronger ties

China’s Premier Li Qiang, who arrived in Kuala Lumpur on Monday, will join ASEAN and the GCC in their first such meeting on Tuesday. He met with Anwar on Monday and called for expanded trade and investment ties between Beijing, ASEAN and the GCC.

“At a time when unilateralism and protectionism are on the rise and world economic growth is sluggish,” Li said, China, ASEAN and GCC countries “should strengthen coordination and cooperation and jointly uphold open regionalism and true multilateralism”.

China is willing to work with Malaysia to “promote closer economic cooperation among the three parties” and respond to global challenges, Li told Anwar.

ASEAN has maintained a policy of neutrality, engaging both Beijing and Washington, but US President Donald Trump’s threats of sweeping tariffs came as a blow.

Six of the bloc’s members were among the worst hit, with tariffs between 32 percent and 49 percent.

Trump announced a 90-day pause on tariffs in April for most of the world, and this month struck a similar deal with key rival China, easing trade war tensions.

Al Jazeera’s Rob McBride, reporting from Kuala Lumpur, said ASEAN members are “very much looking at building ties with other parts of the world, in particular China, but also the Middle East” to strengthen their economic resilience.

“A measure of the importance that the GCC is also placing on this meeting is the delegation that has been sent here and the seniority of its members,” he added. “The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, is here, and we have crown princes from Kuwait and also Bahrain. We also have a deputy prime minister from Oman.”

Anwar said Monday he had also written to Trump to request an ASEAN-US summit this year, showing “we observe seriously the spirit of centrality.” However, his Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan said Washington had not yet responded.

‘Timely, calculated’

ASEAN has traditionally served as “a middleman of sorts” between developed economies like the US and China, said Chong Ja Ian from the National University of Singapore (NUS).

“Given the uncertainty and unpredictability associated with economic relations with the United States, ASEAN member states are looking to diversify,” he told the AFP news agency.

“Facilitating exchanges between the Gulf and People’s Republic of China is one aspect of this diversification.”

Malaysia, which opened the bloc’s 46th summit on Monday, is the main force behind the initiative, he said.

China, which has suffered the brunt of Trump’s tariffs, is also looking to shore up its other markets.

Premier Li’s participation is “both timely and calculated”, Khoo Ying Hooi from the University of Malaya told AFP.

“China sees an opportunity here to reinforce its image as a reliable economic partner, especially in the face of Western decoupling efforts.”

Beijing and Washington engaged in an escalating flurry of tit-for-tat levies until a meeting in Switzerland saw an agreement to slash them for 90 days.

Chinese goods still face higher tariffs than most, though.

May 23 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday threatened tariffs against Apple on iPhones that are manufactured outside of the United States.

Trump said in a Truth Social post that a tariff of “at least 25%” will be levied on future iPhones that are manufactured internationally and sold in the United States.

“I long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their [iPhones] that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote.

Trump’s post did not include details on how the proposed tariffs would be implemented.

The warning came after a White House official said Trump met with Cook at the White House earlier in the week, CBS News reported.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News Friday he was not present in that meeting but suggested they may have discussed an effort by the Trump administration to focus on “precision manufacturing” of products made in the United States.

“A large part of Apple’s components are in semiconductors. So we would like to have Apple help us make the semiconductor supply chain more secure,” he said.

Most iPhone production is currently handled in China, but Foxconn, a primary assembly partner on the phones, has been exploring expanding its facilities in India.

Dan Ives, senior equity research analyst and managing director at Wedbush Securities, suggested in a post on X that manufacturing an iPhone in the United States could more than triple the cost of an iPhone 16, the latest model, from its current $1,000 price tag.

“The pressure from Trump on Apple to build iPhone production in the U.S. as we have discussed this would result in an iPhone price point that is a non-starter for Cupertino and translate into iPhone prices of [approximately] $3,500 if it was made in the U.S. which is not realistic in our view,” Ives wrote.

Apple stock was down 2.44% roughly an hour after markets opened on Friday.

United States debt has long been considered the safest of all safe havens.
But, Washington has just lost its pristine reputation as a borrower.
Moody’s has downgraded the nation from its top-notch AAA rating, becoming the last of the big three agencies to do so.
The ratings agency has cited the United States’s growing debt – now at $36 trillion, almost 120 percent of gross domestic product – and rising debt service costs.
Against this backdrop, President Donald Trump is pushing what he calls the “one big, beautiful bill”.
Critics warn his tax cut package could add trillions more to the already ballooning deficit.