timing

Police have criticised the timing of the government’s decision to let pubs stay open until 05:00 BST on Monday for England’s World Cup match against Mexico.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council said the “late announcement” meant officers would have to be taken away from other duties and work longer hours, even though the team’s likely route through the tournament “has been known for a considerable time”.

It asked fans to be “considerate” and “drink within sensible limits” while watching the crucial last-16 match in which the losing team will be eliminated.

The government has said a previous relaxing of licensing laws for the tournament had not covered the eventuality of England playing so late.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said that after England’s progression was confirmed on Wednesday evening, the government “announced plans as quickly as possible following this”.

The spokeswoman added: “And more broadly, we have engaged with policing partners throughout preparations for the World Cup and we are grateful for their flexibility and professionalism throughout.”

Kick-off for the knock-out game is not until 01:00 in the UK and the match is not expected to end until at least 03:00. It could finish even later if it goes to penalties.

Knock-out games in previous tournaments have led to an increase in violent incidents and domestic abuse, the policing body said.

“This is directly linked to alcohol consumption,” the NPCC’s football and alcohol policing leads said in a joint statement.

“We will continue to work with partners and venues to support a safe and enjoyable evening for everyone.”

Licensing hours had already been extended for the international football tournament and the government had initially said it would not relax the laws further.

But late on Thursday, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said pubs could remain open until the end of the game.

Local Government Secretary Steve Reed told broadcasters the previous measures “hadn’t covered the eventuality of England playing so late in the night”, adding it was “one of the fastest changes in the law that we’ve seen”.

England was not guaranteed to play in Monday’s match, only earning a place in the round of 16 after beating DR Congo 2-1 on Wednesday.

The hospitality sector welcomed the government’s decision. Emma McClarkin, chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, said: “We all know the best place to watch the match is down the local.”

Michael Kill, chief executive of the Night Time Industries Association, said it was “fantastic news” that would be “hugely welcomed by operators”.

Pub chain Greene King has said more than 600 pubs across England will be staying open late to show the match, while Marston’s has said more than 400 of its pubs will also be open.

Priyesh Bathia, who runs the Elephant and Barrel pub in Stockwell, south London, and said he is “so thankful” for the late licensing on Monday.

“I’m really excited,” he added, and said so far they have had between 100-150 people book tables for the game.

WASHINGTON — Tom Daschle, the former Democratic senator from South Dakota, remembers the exchange vividly.

The time was September 2002. The place was the White House, at a meeting in which President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney pressed congressional leaders for a quick vote on a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

But Daschle, who as Senate majority leader controlled the chamber’s schedule, recalled recently that he asked Bush to delay the vote until after the impending midterm election.

“I asked directly if we could delay this so we could depoliticize it. I said: ‘Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush? Why do we have to do this now?’ He looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: ‘We just have to do this now.’ ”

Daschle’s account, which White House officials said they could not confirm or deny, highlights a crucial factor that has drawn little attention amid rising controversy over the congressional vote that authorized the war in Iraq. The recent partisan dispute has focused almost entirely on the intelligence information legislators had as they cast their votes. But the debate may have been shaped as much by when Congress voted as by what it knew.

Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, did not call for a vote authorizing the Persian Gulf War until after the 1990 midterm election. But the vote paving the way for the second war with Iraq came in mid-October of 2002 — at the height of an election campaign in which Republicans were systematically portraying Democrats as weak on national security.

Few candidates sparred over the war resolution itself. But Republicans in states including Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota and Georgia strafed Democratic senators seeking reelection who had supported military spending cutbacks in the 1990s, accepted money from a liberal arms-control group, opposed Bush’s preferred approach for organizing the new Department of Homeland Security, and voted in 1991 against the Persian Gulf War.

With national security then such a flashpoint in so many campaigns, many Democrats believe, the vote’s timing enormously increased pressure on their party’s wavering senators to back the president, whose approval rating approached 70% at the time.

“There was a sense I had from the very beginning that this was in part politically motivated, and they were going to maximize the timing to affect those who were having some doubt about this right before the election,” Daschle said.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett denied that charge, saying the vote’s timing represented a desire to increase pressure on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, not Democrats.

“The president, during the run-up to the war, went out of his way not to make it political,” Bartlett said.

Whatever the motivation for the vote’s timing, the effect was to produce a clear contrast between the Democratic senators who sought reelection that November and those who did not.

The Democrats not on the ballot split almost evenly, with 19 supporting the war resolution and 17 opposing it. Among those facing the voters, 10 voted for the resolution while only four opposed it. And of those four, only one — Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who died in a plane crash a few weeks after the resolution vote — was in a seriously competitive race.

“The political currents were extraordinarily strong for everybody involved,” said Jim Jordan, then executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “I’m certainly not implying that Democrats had their finger to the wind and didn’t make votes of conscience, but it was a piece of the puzzle, clearly.”

It is, of course, impossible to say whether more Democrats would have opposed the war resolution — which passed the Senate 77 to 23 on Oct. 11, just hours after the House approved it 296 to 133 — if the vote had occurred after the 2002 election.

Daschle, who voted for the resolution and was not up for reelection that year, said he did not think so, “given the circumstances, the environment, the sense that we were responding to 9/11, and all of the urgency that was created by the rhetoric and cajoling of the administration.”

But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said recently that a delay might have prompted more Democrats to vote no by increasing the time available to study the evidence for war and by dissipating the political pressures surrounding the decision.

“There was a stampede to vote on this,” Kennedy said. “A lot of our people got caught up in it.”

Bartlett said that if some Democrats felt “like they would have made a different decision before the election or after, that doesn’t speak very well of them, because the facts didn’t change in the course of one month.”

Democrats themselves were divided over the vote’s timing. Kennedy, Wellstone and Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) were among those who passionately urged Daschle to defer the vote until after the election, said several sources who requested anonymity when discussing the party’s internal debate.

The sources said that other Democratic senators supported Bush’s push, in part because the senators believed an early vote might help the party shift attention to domestic issues it wanted to spotlight before election day. Democrats also felt more pressure to act because they recognized that the GOP-controlled House would agree to Bush’s request on the vote’s timing.

Against this backdrop, Republicans across the country were escalating attacks on their Democratic opponents on defense issues.

Starting in mid-September, for instance, then-Rep. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued statements and organized news conferences by veterans to criticize Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson for voting against the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

On Oct. 4, one week before the Senate vote, Thune released an ad that used images of Hussein and terrorist leader Osama bin Laden to criticize Johnson for voting against missile defense systems.

In Minnesota beginning in mid-September, Republican Norm Coleman organized retired military officials to hold news conferences charging that Wellstone “didn’t just vote to devastate our defense; he voted to dismantle it.” In late September, the National Republican Senatorial Committee ran ads attacking Wellstone over votes to reduce military spending.

The committee ran similar ads against Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) one week before the vote.

Although he did not criticize Democrats over Iraq, Bush stoked the overall security debate during a series of appearances between Sept. 23 and Oct. 4. He criticized Senate Democrats who were blocking the administration’s preferred version of legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security because, they said, it gave the president too much freedom to suspend workers’ civil service protections.

“The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people,” Bush said in New Jersey.

Bush’s comments reverberated most powerfully in the Senate race in Georgia, where Saxby Chambliss, then a Republican House member, began criticizing incumbent Democrat Max Cleland over the Homeland Security issue.

Less than a day after the Senate authorized the use of force in Iraq, Chambliss aired what became the most talked-about ad of the 2002 election: a sharply worded jab that used pictures of Hussein and Bin Laden to accuse Cleland of voting “against the president’s vital Homeland Security efforts.”

Cleland, Johnson and Harkin were among the Democrats who voted for the war resolution; Wellstone voted no.

Less than a month later, Johnson and Harkin were reelected, Cleland was defeated and Coleman beat former Vice President Walter F. Mondale for Wellstone’s seat after the senator’s death. Overall, Republicans widened their majority in the House and swept back into control of the Senate.

Justin Herbert is starting from the ground up in Mike McDaniel’s new-look Chargers offense.

The 28-year-old quarterback has dedicated much of the offseason to tweaking his footwork — putting his left foot in front of his right from the shotgun, against traditional NFL form — to fit Los Angeles’ new offensive coordinator’s scheme.

McDaniel prioritizes getting the ball to playmakers in space as efficiently as possible, as he did for four seasons as the Miami Dolphins head coach with speedy wideouts Tyreek Hill and Jaylen Waddle, and envisions Herbert’s flip in footing accelerating and syncing the timing of passes with receivers’ route breaks.

“If guys train it so that they don’t have to think about it and they can be comfortable, you can do a couple things that put the defense in a bind with how you do your footwork,” McDaniel said at Chargers minicamp in El Segundo. “I don’t mandate it. With Justin, I really just showed him where I thought it would be advantageous, and he didn’t blink for a second and was excited to attack it.”

“The patternization in Mike McDaniel’s system has required some footwork changes,” added head coach Jim Harbaugh. “[Herbert’s] been working very hard, very hard at those. And as you would expect, Justin has picked it up.”

McDaniel said he got the idea as an up-and-comer on staffs in Houston and Washington alongside current 49ers head coach Kyle Shanahan and pointed to Matt Ryan and Tua Tagovailoa as recent quarterbacks with whom he has implemented the stance change and reaped positive results.

Herbert, who has been one of those traditional right-handed quarterbacks to have their right foot forward from the shotgun, has embraced his new coordinator’s methodology.

“It’s about playing the way that [McDaniel] sees the quarterback position being played,” Herbert said, “and talking about how we can get the ball to the receivers in a position where they can run with it and allow them to do the things that they’re so good at: making plays.”

To accelerate his adaptation, Herbert has thrown less in practice sessions and done plenty of drills without a football — two markers that are simply unlike the seven-season veteran, who is known to sling the rock plenty at practice and in games.

McDaniel and Harbaugh added that, besides helping Herbert adjust his feet, keeping the ball out of their quarterback’s hands during the offseason will help him stay fresh later in the regular season.

Herbert is on board, but made it clear he does not require any maintenance.

“I’ve thrown a lot of footballs, and it’s May and June and I didn’t think it was as necessary to throw as much now,” Herbert said. “And do everything I can to get the footwork ready and get the offense down. The throws, they’ll be there. We’ve got plenty of time in camp and throughout [organized team activities] to get timing. I think it’s been smart by everyone, taking it easy.”

Herbert added that it’s better to focus on where his feet are now rather than in a live, meaningful game. However, Harbaugh and McDaniel said Herbert is ramping up his throwing in practice with training camp looming.

The Chargers expect big things out of McDaniel’s offense after they averaged a subpar 21.6 points per game in 2025.

Harbaugh and McDaniel are hopeful for career years from Quentin Johnston, Ladd McConkey and Tre’ Harris — exactly what the wideouts want to hear.

“As you all know … the timing, that’s a different aspect for us than we’re used to, but I think it’s great,” McConkey said. “It just gets the ball in the playmakers’ hands and lets us go to work.”

Before any dreams of the Chargers winning a Super Bowl on their home SoFi Stadium turf can come true next season, Herbert must simply get his footing, with his feet and new playbook.

“I’m sure you guys are eager to see him execute in a high regard in the stuff that we’re doing,” McDaniel said. “You got to be patient … that’s been part of the very calculated, very deliberate, intentional process that we take into the offseason.”

NASHVILLE — A federal judge on Friday dismissed a human smuggling case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, finding that the Justice Department’s pursuit of criminal charges was designed to punish him for challenging his mistaken deportation to El Salvador last year.

The ruling amounted to an extraordinary rebuke of a Justice Department that under President Trump has repeatedly been accused of targeting defendants for political purposes. The Trump administration touted the charges against Abrego Garcia last year at a press conference in which then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi declared, “This is what American justice looks like.”

“The evidence before this court sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power,” U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, in Nashville, said in his ruling granting Abrego Garcia’s motion to dismiss for “selective or vindictive prosecution.” Without Abrego Garcia’s “successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the government would not have brought this prosecution.”

Abrego Garcia’s deportation became an embarrassment for Trump officials when they were ordered to return him to the U.S. In his motion to dismiss, Abrego Garcia claimed that the timing of the criminal charges and inflammatory statements about him by top Trump officials demonstrated that the prosecution was vindictive.

“Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a victim of a politicized, vindictive White House and its lawyers at what used to be an independent Justice Department,” his criminal defense attorneys said in a statement after Friday’s ruling. “We are so pleased that he is a free man.”

The Justice Department vowed to appeal, calling the judge’s order “wrong and dangerous.”

Crenshaw stopped short of finding the government acted with “actual vindictiveness,” a rarely met standard that usually requires evidence like a prosecutor admitting that charges were filed in retaliation against someone. But the judge did find there was enough evidence of “presumptive vindictiveness” — including the timing of the indictment, statements made by then-U.S. Deputy Aty. Gen. Todd Blanche, and the sustained oversight of the case by other top Justice Department officials — that the case against Abrego Garcia was thoroughly tainted.

The government’s own explanations weren’t convincing, Crenshaw wrote.

Abrego Garcia was charged with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling, with prosecutors claiming that he accepted money to transport within the United States people who were in the country illegally.

The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.

In the Friday ruling, Crenshaw wrote that the timing of the charges was central to the presumption of vindictiveness. Homeland Security had been aware of the traffic stop for two years and had closed the case against Abrego Garcia when it deported him. Once the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he should be brought back to the U.S., they reopened the case. While the government bore the responsibility to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness, prosecutors did not call as a witness the person who reopened the case, to explain why. Instead they offered only “secondhand testimony.”

In a statement released by the group We are CASA, which has been supporting Abrego Garcia and his family, he thanked God for the dismissal of the criminal charges.

“Justice is a big word and an even bigger promise to fulfill; and I am grateful that today, justice has taken a step forward,” he said.

Abrego Garcia’s deportation violated a 2019 immigration court order granting him protection from deportation to his home country, after the judge found he faced danger there from a gang that targeted his family. Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years although he immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager. The 2019 order allowed him to live and work in the U.S. under Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervision, but he was not given residency status.

Meanwhile, Trump administration officials have said Abrego Garcia cannot remain in the U.S. They have vowed to deport him to a third country, most recently Liberia.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.