target

The Los Angeles federal public defender’s office on Friday joined a renewed effort to oust Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Southern California, accusing the government of “playing shadow games with the most consequential powers a government can wield against its population.”

Citing a recent order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Jackson, the public defender’s office renewed a motion seeking to disqualify Essayli from participating in or supervising the prosecution of their client, Jaime Ramirez.

The federal appellate court ruled last month that the Department of Justice cannot keep an official who has not been confirmed by the Senate in charge of a U.S. attorney’s office simply by giving that person a different title and the full powers of the job.

In their motion filed Friday, James Anglin Flynn and Ayah A. Sarsour, deputy federal public defenders, accused the government of asking them “to trust that there are some undisclosed limits on Essayli’s authority that render it valid.”

“The buck should stop here, and it should stop now,” they wrote.

The U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

H. Dean Steward, a defense attorney, first kicked off the renewed effort last week, filing a motion asking Senior U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright to reconsider his prior ruling. Steward argued that Essayli should not be allowed to continue leading the office.

Seabright previously disqualified Essayli as acting U.S. attorney in October, finding he was “not lawfully serving” in the top role. But Seabright — who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush — said the court had “no basis to preclude Essayli from performing the lawful duties” of first assistant U.S. attorney, which left the door open for him to remain in charge.

Seabright scheduled a hearing for Oct. 13 on the latest motion. At a Zoom hearing on Aug. 28, Seabright appeared to signal which way he is leaning.

“I’m not sure if the government is just saying my decision was different from Jackson and therefore it stands. I’m not sure that passes muster given how the 9th Circuit ruled in Jackson,” Seabright said. “I think there’s going to have to be more in-depth briefing than the government has given me to date.”

The federal appellate court ruling stemmed from a challenge to the authority of Nevada’s top federal prosecutor, Sigal Chattah, whom the Justice Department had designated “first assistant” U.S. attorney. With no one above her in the office, Chattah has seemingly been calling the shots on federal prosecutions in the state, handling cases referred by the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other law enforcement agencies.

The Justice Department previously said it disagreed with the 9th Circuit’s decision and plans to appeal it to the Supreme Court. The agency did not respond to questions about what effect the ruling could have on Essayli.

The Trump administration has used a similar workaround to keep Essayli running the U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. without going through the Senate confirmation process, where he likely would have faced strong opposition from California’s elected representatives.

Essayli, 40, has continued leading the federal prosecutor’s office in the Central District of California as “first assistant” despite a federal judge’s ruling last year that said he was unlawfully serving as the acting U.S. attorney. The Justice Department did not appeal that ruling.

Instead, Essayli’s office has maintained that he can prosecute and supervise cases as first assistant. He also was appointed as a “special attorney” by the Trump administration, a title similarly held by Chattah in Nevada.

“To be sure, First Assistant Essayli may be the highest-ranking DOJ lawyer in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and (like many in the office) he supervises others,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Alexander P. Robbins said in a filing last month. “But that cannot make him a “de facto” U.S. Attorney, and he does not purport to exercise “all of the functions of [that] office.”

Flynn and Sarsour pushed back on that claim in their motion, arguing that the government “is asking this Court to accept a theory that the Ninth Circuit rejected, nearly verbatim less than three weeks ago.” The government, they wrote, “appears to be asking this Court to consider and approve a hypothetical delegation to Essayli of some subset of the U.S. Attorney powers.”

“For over a year, this illegal exercise of prosecutorial powers has violated Mr. Ramirez’s constitutional rights and undermined the legitimacy of the criminal justice system in this district,” Flynn and Sarsour wrote. “In line with Jackson, two other Courts of Appeals have now affirmed the common-sense remedy that this illegality should be stopped.”

The deputy federal public defenders said a defense analysis identified invalid service as acting or de facto U.S. Attorneys in at least 16 districts across the country.

A former Republican member of the California state Assembly from Riverside, Essayli has used his position to act as one of Trump’s fiercest legal foot soldiers. He has pursued criminal charges against protesters, activists and immigrants while dropping cases involving administration allies and supporting lawsuits challenging transgender and environmental policies in California.

Essayli was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney in April 2025. Around the time he hit that role’s 120-day limit, he resigned from his interim role and was allowed to continue under his current titles by then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi.

Challenges to Essayli’s position were brought in several criminal cases, with defense lawyers arguing that charges filed under his watch are invalid and should be dismissed. The federal public defender’s office in L.A. had asked the judge to disqualify Essayli from participating in and supervising criminal prosecutions.

The U.S. Central Command (Centcom) said that its forces struck three Iranian oil tankers on Saturday after Iran launched ballistic missiles towards two of its Navy warships, signaling the latest retaliatory strikes between the parties this week.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary

Lawrence F. O’Brien, who while serving as Democratic National Committee chairman was the target of the Watergate break-in that spelled the downfall of then-President Richard M. Nixon, has died in New York City. He was 73.

O’Brien, who also was a key strategist for four presidential election campaigns, a former U.S. postmaster general and a commissioner of the National Basketball Assn., died Thursday night of cancer in New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center.

His office was the scene of the June 17, 1972, bungled break-in that eventually led to Nixon’s resignation and the imprisonment of several of his aides. O’Brien believed that the Republican Party, seeking Nixon’s reelection against Democratic contender George McGovern, authorized the burglary in search of information to discredit him and the Democrats.

Nixon’s White House papers released by the National Archives in 1987 revealed that in 1974, Nixon had asked the Internal Revenue Service to search for embarrassing information in the income tax files of McGovern and O’Brien. The IRS refused.

O’Brien called the break-in “an incredible act of political espionage” and urged citizens to reject the claim that the incident and other “tricks” ordered by Nixon were “politics as usual.”

O’Brien also expressed concerns that the Watergate scandal would turn the public against the political process. In 1974, he discussed the implications of Watergate in his critically acclaimed memoir, “No Final Victories: A Life in Politics from John F. Kennedy to Watergate.”

“I’ve been a politician for most of my life and I’ve never dreamed of bugging an opponent’s telephone or breaking into his office,” O’Brien wrote. “If a generation of Americans becomes convinced that burglary and wiretapping are ‘politics as usual,’ then there’s not much hope for our political system.”

Born July 7, 1917, in Springfield, Mass., O’Brien was brought up on politics by his Irish immigrant father. After Army service in World War II and completing night law school at Boston’s Northeastern University, O’Brien worked for Massachusetts Rep. Foster Furcolo, and then, in 1952, took over John F. Kennedy’s campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Lauded for his pragmatic ability to organize and compromise, O’Brien was put in charge of Kennedy’s successful 1960 presidential campaign and later headed the ill-fated campaign by the President’s younger brother, Robert F. Kennedy. O’Brien was with both Kennedys when they were slain.

“I remember standing in the hospital with Ken O’Donnell (another member of President Kennedy’s so-called ‘Kennedy Mafia’) for a half-hour, refusing to tell the world he was dead–because we couldn’t accept it,” O’Brien told the Los Angeles Times 20 years after the Dallas assassination of John F. Kennedy.

“But then, years later, I was with Bobby in Los Angeles when he, too, was shot,” O’Brien added. “My reaction was: ‘That’s it.’ At that moment, I became a fatalist.”

After President Kennedy was assassinated, O’Brien worked for Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, and ran Johnson’s successful 1964 presidential campaign against Barry Goldwater.

Johnson named him postmaster general and, in that position, O’Brien prepared a report that moved the postal department from Cabinet status to a semi-public corporation.

After Robert Kennedy was assassinated in 1968, O’Brien headed the presidential campaign of Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, who lost to Nixon.

O’Brien served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1970 to 1972, when the party was in shambles because of anti-Vietnam debates. He left politics after McGovern was defeated by Nixon.

O’Brien became commissioner of the NBA in 1975 and served until 1984. He was credited with settling the so-called “Oscar Robertson suit” in 1976, providing free agency in the league, and with supervising a smooth merger between the NBA and the rival American Basketball Assn.

He also avoided a 1983 players’ strike by negotiating a landmark collective bargaining agreement for professional sports. The agreement, which stabilized the troubled league, provided an innovative cap on how much money teams could spend on salaries and benefits in return for giving players 53% of the league’s gross revenues.

Larry Fleisher, head of the Players Assn. and one of O’Brien’s chief adversaries, said O’Brien left the sport of basketball “better off by far” than he had found it.

O’Brien is survived by his wife, Elva Brassard O’Brien; a son, Lawrence F. O’Brien III; a sister, and two grandsons.

Funeral services are planned for Tuesday in Springfield, Mass.

RELATED STORY, C5

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is experiencing a “beyond critical” shortage of advanced missile interceptors in Europe largely driven by President Trump’s war with Iran, a U.S. defense official in Europe and a NATO official told the Associated Press, raising concerns about vulnerabilities in NATO countries to a potential Russian attack.

The U.S. defense official said the most concerning shortfall involves Patriot missile interceptors, which can shoot down Russia’s high-speed ballistic missiles. The NATO official confirmed the low inventories of Patriots among American and NATO forces in Europe. Both spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters.

In the event of a Russian ballistic missile assault on, for example, a military headquarters or power plant, NATO could be in a similar position to Patriot-starved Ukraine and be forced “to take punch after punch in the mouth,” the U.S. defense official said.

In Europe, the American military “definitely” does not have enough Patriots to stop any possible sustained ballistic missile attack and would have “very limited” capability to defend against a single ballistic missile strike or a stray Russian missile that goes off course, the U.S. official said.

It illustrates the cascading fallout from Trump’s decision to launch a war against Iran, a conflict that reaches the six-month mark on Friday. U.S. missile stocks in Europe have been moved to the Middle East, where U.S. and Gulf allies have fired off significant numbers of interceptors, including Patriots, to thwart Iran’s drones and missiles. Some of those attacks have killed and wounded American troops.

Though a Russian ballistic missile attack against NATO countries is not imminently expected, CIA Director John Ratcliffe went to Moscow this week to warn Russia not to attack, The Wall Street Journal reported. Trump played down the significance of the rare and secretive trip, saying it was “sort of semi-routine.”

European and NATO officials say Russia could be in a position to attack countries in the alliance by 2030. Patriot stockpiles are projected to rebound by then. In the meantime, Russia’s war in Ukraine could hinder its ability to carry out any missile attack on Europe as it would be a challenge for Moscow to fight an air war on two fronts.

U.S. Patriot transfers to Ukraine played a role in the drawdown, but the Iran war wasn’t expected

The Patriot missile shortage is most acutely felt in Ukraine, where officials are begging for more air defense support and where previous U.S. transfers also have drawn down some supply. Kyiv says only U.S.-made Patriots can stop Russia’s advanced ballistic missiles, which increasingly are getting through Ukrainian defenses, including as part of a barrage overnight into Thursday.

The U.S. supplied hundreds of Patriot missiles to Ukraine over the course of the 4 1/2-year-long conflict, but the Iran war was the tipping point for shrinking inventories, said Ed Arnold, senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a military think tank in London.

The supply to Ukraine was planned for and reasonably measured, he said, whereas stocks in the Middle East have been unexpectedly and quickly drained, exposing supply chain constraints.

The U.S. military in Europe also is grappling with critical shortages of the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, a medium-range ballistic missile designed to strike behind enemy lines, the two officials said. But the overall munitions picture in Europe is less dire than on air defenses alone because some European militaries have their own offensive missiles, such as the Taurus and Storm Shadow, which are both long-range air-launched bunker-busting missiles.

U.S. Army Col. Martin O’Donnell, a senior NATO military spokesperson, said it is “simply not the case” that the number of Patriot missiles in Europe is beyond critical.

NATO, he said, is able to “block punches” and has enough air defense munitions available to defend itself as well as to donate to Ukraine.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement Thursday that claims of U.S. munition shortages “are false.”

“We have everything required to strike at the time and place of the President’s choosing,” Parnell said. “Across multiple combatant commands, we have already executed successful operations while maintaining a deep, ready arsenal to defend our people and our interests.”

Europe has few alternatives while stocks are low

The dearth of Patriot interceptors in Europe would leave few alternatives for shooting down Russia’s more advanced ballistic missiles, which can be combined with swarms of inexpensive drones to overwhelm defenses, experts say.

Ukraine and some allies already use systems that can destroy slower-moving drones without expensive missiles. But ballistic missiles are a challenge because they dive steeply toward targets at more than five times the speed of sound, leaving little time to stop them.

The Patriot system tracks the missile, predicts its path and launches within minutes, all while carrying out complex calculations to ensure the interceptor finds its target. One Patriot battery can only cover a limited area: for example, a small military base but not a whole city.

One alternative could be France and Italy’s SAMP/T NG air defense system. France has promised to speed up the delivery of the system — the upgraded version of the current SAMP/T — to Ukraine, which the manufacturer says is better able to counter ballistics.

The new iteration, however, has not yet been battle tested and the current version of the SAMP/T has a smaller range than the Patriot.

While U.S. and European militaries have warships that can serve as mobile air defense, they may be too far from a target to protect it and could risk getting sunk.

Patriot stocks have plunged during the Iran war

Ukraine has received Patriots from American and European stockpiles since Russia’s 2022 invasion, with the U.S. providing about 600 of the interceptors during the Biden administration, said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel who is now senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

But the greatest expenditure has been during the Iran conflict, which has used up 65% of U.S. Patriots, amounting to roughly 1,500 of the nation’s 2,330 interceptors, CSIS says. About 600 missiles, including those destined for Europe, should be made this year, with a production goal of 2,000 Patriot missiles a year set for 2030, Cancian said.

NATO says Europe’s first Patriot missile production facility is expected to open in Germany in September, with deliveries possibly beginning early next year. The first deliveries should go to countries that have already placed orders, including Germany, the Netherlands, Romania and Spain, the U.S. defense official said.

But for now, that means some countries, such as Germany, have bought expensive Patriot systems but are in the “ridiculous” position of not having any ammunition to fire from them, said Arnold of the London think tank.

Germany’s defense ministry said it does not comment on stockpiles.

Russia also has limitations

Moscow likely cannot carry out a sustained air assault on a NATO target while it launches almost nightly attacks on Ukraine, Arnold said.

Ukraine’s recent strikes into Russia also have exposed weaknesses in Russia’s air defenses, which could prompt Putin to think twice about provoking a retaliatory attack.

“The uncomfortable truth is possibly the best air defense that we have is Russian constraints,” Arnold said.

Burrows and Finley write for the Associated Press. Burrows reported from London. AP writer Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

To ensure this doesn’t happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.

If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.

The U.S. Air Force is looking for a new family of aerial targets that can replicate an extremely broad range of airborne threats, from small drones operating in swarms to stealth fighters, large uncrewed aircraft, strategic bombers, and airborne early warning aircraft.

The service wants these targets to be realistic enough to challenge modern sensors and weapons, but inexpensive and simple enough that they can be routinely risked, and even destroyed, during testing.

The requirements are laid out in a new Air Force Request for Information (RFI), which calls for a family of systems capable of representing the “full range of airborne threats, spanning from inexpensive ‘hobby drones’ to the most advanced adversary fighter and large-scale aircraft.” Responses are due September 28.

The service says the next-generation systems should be sufficiently inexpensive and straightforward to manufacture that they can be “treated as attritable or expendable when required.”

That represents a significant departure from the economics of certain existing aerial targets. The Air Force’s QF-16 full-scale aerial target, for example, is based on a converted fighter aircraft, and can be crewed when required. It solves the problem of putting a full-sized, high-performance target in the air, but consuming an F-16 for a test is fundamentally different from losing a purpose-built target designed to be produced and expended in quantity. The service also uses purpose-designed drones of many kinds as targets, as we will come back to later.

Test Missile Fired at Boeing’s QF-16

The new effort is also deliberately open to approaches outside the traditional defense-industrial base.

The RFI calls for industry proposals “including commercial, modified commercial, dual-use, and non-developmental solutions.” The government is “particularly interested in non-traditional, commercially derived, or dual-use solutions” that can offer advantages in “cost, scalability, and simplicity over legacy systems.”

That language suggests the Air Force is not necessarily looking for another clean-sheet aircraft program. Instead, it appears interested in exploiting existing commercial technologies, manufacturing methods, propulsion systems, electronics and other readily available components to produce targets in significantly larger numbers and at lower cost.

The proposed systems would cover several distinct threat categories, with requirements changing substantially depending on what the target is intended to represent.

For advanced fighter aircraft, the Air Force wants targets capable of “supersonic capabilities (up to and exceeding Mach 1.6 at 40,000 feet)” along with high-agility and high-G combat maneuvers.

Reflecting the need to mimic more advanced threats, including stealthy ones, the Air Force says the new targets should also provide precise low-observable radar cross-section profiles, multispectral infrared signatures, active radio-frequency emissions, and integrated electronic-attack capabilities.

That could be particularly important for testing weapons and sensors against fifth-generation-type threats — and what might come after. A conventional subscale target can reproduce aspects of an aircraft’s flight behavior, but it does not necessarily reproduce the radar, infrared, electromagnetic or electronic-warfare environment presented by a sophisticated combat aircraft.

The Air Force has been trying for years now to acquire new full-size target drones, or ones that can at least mimic real fast-moving tactical jets. As in the new RFI, the goal has also been for those drones to have stealth and other more modern features, or the ability to simulate those capabilities with a high degree of fidelity. So far, however, despite the launch of programs such as the 5th Generation Aerial Target (5GAT), progress in this regard has been extremely limited.

A different set of requirements are outlined for targets representing C-130-sized multi-engine aircraft.

Here, the RFI calls for “matching the physical scale, slow subsonic flight envelopes, and propeller or turbofan propulsion characteristics of larger multi-engine aircraft.”

Those targets would need representative physical volume as well as basic RF and IR emissions and realistic radar returns. The Air Force specifically says these characteristics are intended to help verify missile-seeker guidance and assess warhead lethality against large-airframe targets.

For still larger aircraft, such as strategic bombers and AEW&C platforms, the emphasis shifts toward physical scale and signatures. The service wants targets capable of reproducing the “massive physical dimensions, multi-spectral thermal signatures, and heavy-aircraft radar strategic threats” associated with these aircraft.

That requirement highlights one of the limitations of today’s subscale aerial targets. A small drone can be made to generate a particular radar return, but there are important differences between artificially reproducing a signature and putting a target into the test environment that physically occupies something approaching the volume and presentation of the aircraft being simulated.

The proposed family would also encompass multiple classes of uncrewed aircraft.

For Group 5 UAVs, the targets should be capable of operating at altitudes up to 50,000 feet.

Group 3 and Group 4 targets would need to fly at approximately Mach 0.5 to 0.8 and maneuver at between 3 and 6 Gs.

At the other end of the spectrum, Group 1 and Group 2 targets should fly below 150 knots and be capable of operating in swarms.

The inclusion of swarm operations reflects the fact that the Air Force wants at least part of the new target family to be able to reproduce the massed airborne threat that small uncrewed systems can present.

That could allow weapons and sensors to be evaluated against scenarios involving numerous inexpensive targets rather than a single isolated aircraft.

The Air Force has operated remote-controlled aerial targets for decades, but many of its existing systems represent very different approaches.

The BQM-167A, which entered service in 2007, is a subsonic subscale target roughly 20 feet long with an 11-foot wingspan. It is inexpensive relative to a fighter-sized aircraft, but its physical dimensions are nowhere near those of many of the aircraft the Air Force may need to replicate.

At the other end of the scale, converted QF-16s provide a full-scale target with genuine fighter performance, making them useful for testing against fourth-generation fighter-type threats.

But a converted F-16 is expensive to operate, cannot be expended in large numbers, and increasingly falls short when it comes to replicating a fifth-generation stealth aircraft, let alone a strategic bomber, an airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft, or a mass of inexpensive drones.

The new RFI appears designed to bridge that gap, and potentially eliminate it altogether by creating multiple classes of targets optimized for different threats.

Significantly, the effort put the requirement for targets to reproduce the characteristics that modern weapons and sensors use to find and defeat aircraft in the foreground.

That suggests the targets are intended to support testing across the entire kill chain, from initial detection and tracking through seeker acquisition, guidance, and terminal engagement.

There is also a strong emphasis on simplicity and scalability.

A target that costs almost as much as the system being tested is of limited value if the objective is to conduct repeated, realistic engagements. A target that can be manufactured cheaply enough to be routinely expended, meanwhile, would enable much more aggressive testing and larger numbers of test scenarios.

While it is relatively straightforward to produce a low-cost drone, the challenge will be producing one that can fly above 40,000 feet at supersonic speed, perform high-G maneuvers, generate controlled low-observable radar signatures, reproduce multispectral IR characteristics and conduct electronic attack.

The Air Force is therefore effectively asking industry to find the sweet spot where high-fidelity threat representation and mass-produced affordability intersect.

If it succeeds, the resulting target fleet could look very different from today, with the Air Force employing a family of relatively inexpensive systems that can be configured to represent almost any fixed-wing aircraft that might be encountered.

As well as training, the same family of drones could support development and evaluation of radars, infrared sensors, electronic warfare systems, air defense networks, and other technologies against a much broader range of realistic airborne threats.

The breadth of the requirement is noteworthy. If it achieves its goals, it could allow the Air Force to replicate large numbers of future Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs) as well as simulating swarms of small drones and barrages of one-way attack drones, reflecting the expected scale and diversity of future air warfare.

The new requirement ultimately calls for targets that can reproduce the speed, maneuverability, size, radar signature, infrared signature, electromagnetic emissions and electronic warfare capabilities of an increasingly diverse range of aircraft, while being cheap enough that losing them is an acceptable cost of testing and training.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Aug. 19 (UPI) — Billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel has withdrawn from a high-profile libertarian summit in Argentina where he was scheduled to appear alongside President Javier Milei, days after protesters dressed as Gandalf demonstrated outside his $12 million Buenos Aires mansion.

Thiel had been scheduled as one of the central speakers at the “Vientos de Cambio,” or “Winds of Change,” summit on Sept. 1 and 2 in Buenos Aires, organized by the Libertad y Progreso Foundation. He was expected to hold a public conversation with Chilean commentator Axel Kaiser, while Milei was scheduled to close the gathering, according to Argentine news outlet elDiarioAR.

The foundation said Thiel canceled because of scheduling and logistical issues and did not connect his decision to the protest.

“Due to scheduling and logistical reasons completely unrelated to the organization of the event, Peter Thiel will ultimately be unable to travel to Buenos Aires,” Libertad y Progreso said in a statement cited by elDiarioAR. The organization said Thiel and his team had tried to reconcile the appearance with previous commitments but that travel difficulties made his participation impossible.

The summit is intended to showcase Argentina’s economic transformation under Milei and will bring together government officials, investors, academics and think tanks from Latin America, the United States and Europe. Economy Minister Luis Caputo and Deregulation Minister Federico Sturzenegger are among the government officials scheduled to participate, according to La Nación.

Thiel’s withdrawal came after an unusual demonstration Monday outside his home in Barrio Parque, one of Buenos Aires’ most exclusive neighborhoods.

A group of protesters wearing gray robes, pointed hats and white beards dressed as Gandalf, the wizard from J.R.R. Tolkien‘s The Lord of the Rings, gathered outside the property carrying a banner reading, “You shall not pass,” La Nación reported.

The choice of character was a pointed reference to Thiel’s well-documented fascination with Tolkien. Thiel co-founded data analytics company Palantir Technologies, whose name comes from the “palantíri,” seeing stones in Tolkien’s fictional universe that allow their users to communicate across long distances and view faraway events.

The demonstrators protested Thiel’s growing presence and investments in Argentina, including a recently disclosed $76 million stake in oil producer Vista Energy, according to elDiarioAR.

Thiel Macro LLC reported holding 1,189,792 American depositary shares of Vista at the end of the second quarter, worth approximately $76 million and representing about 1% of the company, according to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing cited by La Nación. The Vista investment was the fund’s second-largest reported equity position behind Amazon and represented about 18% of its reported stock portfolio.

Vista is one of the major operators in Vaca Muerta, Argentina’s massive shale oil and gas formation, making the investment Thiel’s most significant publicly disclosed financial bet in the country.

His financial expansion has come alongside increasingly visible ties to Milei and senior members of his government.

Thiel met with Milei at the Casa Rosada presidential palace in April, part of a series of meetings between the two over the past two years. El País reported that the April meeting was their fourth since 2024, following encounters at the Casa Rosada in January 2024, at the Milken Institute conference in Los Angeles that May and another meeting in Buenos Aires.

During his latest stay in Argentina, Thiel also met with presidential adviser Santiago Caputo, while Economy Minister Luis Caputo received him at the Economy Ministry in May, La Nación reported.

Thiel temporarily settled in Buenos Aires with his husband and children in early April and purchased a six-bedroom mansion in Barrio Parque for about $12 million, according to La Nación.

His outreach has extended beyond Milei’s political circle. On June 3, Thiel held a more than three-hour meeting at his home with opposition lawmaker and social leader Juan Grabois, one of Milei’s most outspoken political opponents. Grabois later said the meeting was intended to help him understand the political and technological project of Silicon Valley’s emerging elite.

PORTLAND, Maine — The person Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents targeted in Maine last month when an officer shot and killed a motorist was a roommate who was not subject to a final removal order, a Democratic congresswoman from the state said.

Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a 25-year-old Colombian national, was shot and killed by an ICE agent in a car near his Biddeford home on July 13. Rep. Chellie Pingree said during a hearing in Maine on Monday that ICE’s intended target was Durán Guerrero’s roommate, who was the owner of the car Durán Guerrero was driving.

Pingree called the discovery a “shocking revelation in clear contradiction to what ICE” and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security have said about the shooting. She added that it was previously established Durán Guerrero was not the intended target and also did not have a final order of removal, but did have a pending asylum case and a valid work permit.

“Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero should be alive today,” Pingree said during the hearing. “More than a month later, there are still so many basic questions that remain unanswered by ICE and the Trump administration.”

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement late Monday that it stands by its prior assessment of the shooting. ICE was conducting “targeted surveillance on the last known address of an illegal alien with a final order of removal,” a spokesperson for the agency said.

“We are not going to disclose law enforcement sensitive intelligence and methods. Nowhere did we state that Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero or his roommate were the target of the operation,” the spokesperson said.

The shooting of Durán Guerrero remains under investigation by the office of the Maine attorney general. Pingree was among several Democratic House members who spoke at a hearing in Biddeford on Monday to discuss ICE’s use of deadly force in the state. The Department of Homeland Security said at the time of the shooting that Durán Guerrero attempted to flee the scene and the ICE officer discharged his weapon because he feared for public safety.

Pingree and other Democratic members of Congress have also called for answers from Homeland Security about its training and vetting of agents after it was disclosed that the ICE officer involved in the shooting had a history of violent behavior and mental health issues. The shooting also appeared to lead to a policy change in which ICE would suspend most vehicle stops, but President Trump swiftly expressed opposition to that change.

Whittle writes for the Associated Press.

Indian PM said the Maoist-influenced Naxalite armed rebellion is largely gone, but its ideological backers still pose threat.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said the country has largely eliminated a Maoist rebellion which it battled for decades but still faces a threat from the movement’s ideological backers.

Speaking on India’s Independence Day on Saturday, Modi said India had succeeded in “getting rid of armed Naxals” – referring to members of the Maoist-influenced Naxalite movement that challenged state authority across swaths of central and eastern India.

However, he said “dimagi Naxals” (intellectual Naxals) are looking for opportunities to create violence, and need to be “identified and isolated”.

The phrase “dimagi Naxal” echoes the politically charged label “urban Naxal,” a term Modi and leaders of his Bharatiya Janata Party have previously used for activists, academics, intellectuals and other government critics.

The remarks come weeks after a youth-led protest movement, the Cockroach Janta Party, emerged as a rare challenge to Modi’s government and helped force the resignation of his education minister.

While Modi did not mention the protests, he repeatedly highlighted initiatives aimed at young Indians, including AI skills training and free online coaching for competitive exams.

He said India had transformed from a “fragile” economy into the world’s fastest-growing major economy over the past decade and reaffirmed his government’s goal of turning the country into a developed nation by 2047, the centenary of its independence.

India’s Naxalite movement began in 1967 with an uprising in the village of Naxalbari in eastern India, and grew into a decades-long armed rebellion championing the rights of landless farmers, the rural poor and Indigenous communities. Thousands of civilians, rebels and security personnel died in the fighting.

Modi said the Maoist movement had “destroyed the future” of generations of young people and credited his government’s security and development policies with sharply reducing Maoist violence since taking office in 2014.

Rights groups have for years accused India’s government of using anti-terror laws, sedition-related provisions and foreign-funding rules to squeeze civil society and target activists, journalists and groups critical of its policies.