support

NEW YORK CITY: A five-member international bloc known as the “Quintet” on Thursday rejected the prospect of any “parallel governing structures” in Sudan.

As its representatives wrapped up a “Good Offices” mission to Khartoum, they reaffirmed the need for full respect for the country’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity.

The rebuke, a reference to a rival administration the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces seeks to establish amid its conflict with the Sudanese Armed Forces, came after the Quintet — the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the Arab League, the EU and the UN — held talks with Sudanese leaders in an effort to revive a Sudanese-led political process to end the civil war, which began in April 2023.

The delegates met the chair and deputy chair of Sudan’s Transitional Sovereignty Council, the prime minister, and the undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. They also attended a working dinner hosted by the finance minister that drew a number of political and civilian figures.

Beyond government officials, the Quintet said its representatives met a range of political and civilian groups, including the Democratic Bloc, and heard from a committee tasked with fostering the conditions for a nationwide “Sudanese Dialogue,” which briefed the delegates on its work. A meeting with independent women’s and youth groups concluded the Quintet’s mission.

The bloc described the visit as being “in the spirit of listening to the stakeholders on the ground,” with the aim of linking its diplomatic engagement outside of Sudan with initiatives emerging within the country.

“There is no military solution to the conflict in Sudan,” the Quintet said, adding that any durable political process must be paired with concrete steps to protect civilians and end hostilities.

The bloc said it remained convinced that a “credible and inclusive Sudanese led and Sudanese owned” political track can still deliver a transition to a democratic, civilian-led government that reflects the aspirations of the Sudanese people.

FFF aligns position with of other European federations, such as Belgium, England, Italy, Scotland, and Sweden.

The French Football Federation is withdrawing its support for Gianni Infantino’s re-election bid as FIFA chief ⁠next year, FFF President Philippe Diallo has said, saying trust in the head of world football’s governing body had been broken.

The decision was taken unanimously by the FFF’s executive committee, Diallo ⁠said on Thursday.

“The trust placed in the FIFA president has been broken,” Diallo told reporters. “The way in which we envisage the running of world football no longer corresponds with the way it is being conducted.”

Infantino, who is seeking another term as FIFA president, has faced mounting criticism since his failed proposal to sell a ‌20 percent stake in FIFA competitions, including the World Cup, to private investors was abandoned in July following widespread opposition from football’s regional confederations.

Diallo said France had initially backed Infantino’s candidacy at the end of June, when he was the only declared candidate, but that subsequent events had fundamentally changed the circumstances.

“The conditions for our support for his candidacy were no longer there,” he said.

Diallo added that the proposed stake sale, which emerged without what he described as proper ⁠consultation or information being provided to federations, had raised serious questions over ⁠FIFA’s governance and decision-making.

Several European federations, including England’s and Italy’s, have withdrawn their backing for Infantino since the collapse of his proposal.

UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and North America’s CONCACAF have called for change at the top of FIFA and ⁠are seeking a credible alternative before the March election.

Diallo said France’s decision formed part of a broader movement within UEFA and beyond and that ⁠discussions would now focus on governance reform and finding a ⁠candidate capable of defeating Infantino.

“It is not enough simply to criticise if you want things to move forward. You also have to make proposals,” Diallo said.

He added that UEFA would need to define a platform for the next FIFA leadership cycle ‌and, when the time came, choose a candidate for the election.

“We will need to be ready by then to put forward a candidacy capable of winning the FIFA presidency,” Diallo said.

Infantino still has ‌the ‌support of South America’s CONMEBOL and Africa’s CAF.

The FIFA presidential election will take place in Rabat on March 18, 2027, with the deadline for candidacies on November 18.

A sweeping bipartisan bill that seeks to prevent catastrophic wildfires and restore fire-ravaged forests has revealed a schism in the nation’s environmental movement as some conservation advocates find themselves allied with a longtime foe: loggers.

The Fix Our Forests Act, which Congress is close to passing, aims to speed up forest management projects on public and tribal lands by reducing regulatory and legal hurdles.

The proposed legislation comes at a time of increasingly devastating wildfires and has garnered wide support among Republicans and the timber industry.

However, the traditional Democratic coalition of environmental groups is split over the role humanity has to play in forest management. Some argue ecosystems are best protected when humans leave them alone — a view that dominated during the timber wars of the ’80s and ’90s. Others argue that humans have a responsibility to intervene — an increasingly popular idea as climate change threatens ecosystems around the world.

Among the major environmental groups that oppose the legislation are the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity. They worry that limiting environmental review and litigation will allow timber companies to heavily log these areas instead of gently thinning them. Meanwhile, some Southern California groups worry the bill would allow well-meaning land managers to approve misguided projects that ultimately harm local shrublands, which have a very different relationship with fire than the bill’s namesake, forests.

“It’s really handing the keys to the Trump administration to be able to push forward a lot of their timber agenda,” said Anna Medema, deputy legislative director for forests and public lands at the Sierra Club.

But the Nature Conservancy and other groups have voiced support for the bill, citing the constant and imminent threat that increasingly severe wildfires pose to communities and ecosystems.

“We do advocacy at a twofold level. We are doing defensive work to fight back against bad things, and we’re also trying to promote the good things that are happening on the ground,” said Morgan Cashwell, North America director of legislative affairs for the Nature Conservancy. Right now, that good work needs to “meet the moment in the current wildfire crisis.”

That sentiment appears to have motivated Western lawmakers in particular.

In the House of Representatives, roughly half of the Democrats from Western states voted for the bill, compared to about a quarter of Democrats from elsewhere in the country. Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor. The legislation is now awaiting a final vote in the Senate. Congress has until Jan. 3, 2027, to pass it.

“Wildfires today are very different than wildfires from a generation ago,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who co-introduced the Senate version of the bill. “Oftentimes, they’re irreversibly devastating ecosystems and watersheds.”

“So,” he said, “ the status quo is clearly not working.”

Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), center, chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, delivers remarks at the Capitol in March 2023.

(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

The act was born when Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), a former forester, stole a seat on a plane next to Rep. Scott Peters (D-San Diego). He used the opportunity to talk Peters’ ear off about a beloved species of tree that is under threat from worsening wildfires: the giant sequoia.

The two introduced a bill to protect them, called the Save Our Sequoias Act, and quickly saw an opportunity for something bigger.

“I knew right away that this could be a gateway to talking about permit reform,” Peters said. So, “we started working on a bigger, nationwide reform of forestry practices which have been really, really clogged up.”

While California grasslands, shrublands and woodlands are adapted to different frequencies and intensities of wildfire, research has found that high-severity fires — which kill the vast majority of trees in their path — are scorching 30 times more land area than in the 1980s.

The result: California is losing, on average, more than 200,000 acres of forest every year — or roughly 2.5% of all woodlands in the state every decade. U.S. Forest Service efforts to resuscitate these ecosystems have failed to keep pace. In recent years, the agency has reforested only about 1% of woodlands that are unlikely to recover on their own.

Californian supporters of the Fix Our Forests Act argue the problem has more to do with permitting delays than finances.

Marin County firefighters train during a prescribed burn in June in San Rafael.

(Heather Diehl / Getty Images)

Rep. George Whitesides (D-Santa Clarita), who co-sponsored the Fix Our Forests Act, pointed to nonpartisan research that found it takes the Forest Service more than five years on average to complete a full environmental review and begin work on forest thinning projects that use mechanical equipment like bulldozers and wood chippers. For prescribed burns, it takes more than seven years on average.

“That’s insane,” he said, that it “takes as long as a kid growing up to be a first grader to be able to move on this.”

The Fix Our Forests Act would exempt projects from the full permitting process if they were in areas with the most extreme fire risk and would expand existing exemptions for projects under 3,000 acres to cover projects up to 10,000 acres. It also would limit the window during which environmental groups can sue over project approvals.

These projects tend to employ a combination of harvesting timber and thinning smaller trees and plants with heavy machinery (often the favored tools of Republicans and the timber industry) and using prescribed fire to clear out the forest floor (often favored by environmental groups).

The “environmental left” has “made it endlessly time-consuming and ultimately cost prohibitive to maintain our forests, all with the promise that this would improve the forest environment,” said Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove), a co-sponsor who authored some of the permitting exclusions. “Well, after 50 years, I think we’re entitled to ask, how’s the forest environment doing?”

In March 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that blamed “our inability to fully exploit our domestic timber supply” as a contributor to disastrous wildfires. In response, the U.S. Forest Service set a goal to increase the amount of timber open to logging by 25% nationwide over five years.

Scott Dane, executive director of the American Loggers Council, argued the nightmare scenarios of expansive clear-cutting from the timber wars are not on the table for America’s public lands.

“It’s a boogeyman position that they love to take from 100 years ago,” he said. “It’s not, in reality, in modern forest management at all.”

Watchdogs in Southern California have a different concern: While research shows forest thinning is an effective tool in overgrown Sierra Nevada woodlands, the state’s coastal shrublands are not denser than they historically have been. Consequently, the type of projects the Fix Our Forests Act would expedite are far more controversial and contested in shrublands. Local advocates fear the act would undermine their ability to push back on proposals with questionable scientific backing.

Goats and sheep graze on top of Kite Hill in May 2025 in Los Angeles for wildfire prevention.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In contrast to projects in conifer forests that aim to decrease the density of trees and vegetation across the landscape, shrubland projects are typically centered on creating a network of corridors hundreds of feet wide with no vegetation throughout the wildlands and clearing plants away from existing buildings.

While firefighters rely on these networks of fuel breaks to access the wildlands during fires and build containment lines, research has found that when firefighters cannot reach the fuel breaks — which is often the case during extreme winds — the lines only stop fires about 13% of the time. If they are not routinely maintained, they also risk supporting the growth of flammable invasive grasses.

In Los Padres National Forest, near Santa Barbara, officials proposed in 2022 creating roughly 187,000 acres of fuel breaks and structure defense zones. After organizations like Los Padres ForestWatch pushed back on the plan through the environmental review process, the national forest ultimately scaled the proposal down to about 22,000 acres this July.

“You had community input, and you had the federal government incorporating that input into a plan that is grossly improved,” said Benjamin Pitterle, director of advocacy and field operations at Los Padres ForestWatch. “It’s arguably a perfect example of how the process should work.”