US & Canada

US Agriculture Department says rescinding the 2001 rule will help reduce wildfire risk and return control to local managers.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has filed a proposal to rescind the entirety of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which prohibits road construction and logging on nearly 45 million acres (18 million hectares) of national forest land.

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins submitted the proposal on Tuesday, saying it will mitigate wildfire risk by returning authority to local forest managers, who “know the land best”.

“For too long, outdated restrictions have kept tens of millions of forested acres off-limits to the very treatments that improve forest health and reduce wildfire risk to our communities,” Rollins said in a statement. “It’s time to turn the page on the failed roadless rule and return our forests to health and productivity.”

The Trump administration and Republican lawmakers say building roads in these areas would make it easier for firefighters to access the land if a wildfire breaks out.

“For 25 years, the heavy thumb of Washington, D.C., has hindered Montana’s ability to properly manage wildfire risk and road development on nearly 60 percent of Forest Service land across the Treasure State,” Republican Governor Greg Gianforte of Montana said in a statement.

While the areas are referred to as “roadless”, there are thousands of miles of existing roads within the lands with federal, state, and county ownership. About half of these lands are within 1 mile (1.6km) of a road, and 31 percent are within 0.5 miles (800 metres) of a road, according to the National Forest Service.

The USDA clarified that it is not forcing timber cutting or road construction.

But environmental groups say rescinding the conservation rule will open the door to developments that will increase the risk of wildfire. Fires are four times more likely to start near roads than in roadless forests, according to research from The Wilderness Society.

“Roadless forests are where wildlife live,” Taylor McKinnon, southwest director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “They’re home to jaguars, Mexican spotted owls, and ocelots, some of the most iconic animals on the continent. Plowing roads into their habitat will bring human-caused wildfires and disturbances that they don’t need and can’t afford.”

The US is experiencing one of its worst wildfire years in the last decade, with 7.3 million acres (3 million hectares) burned in about 49,000 fires through August 17, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

More than 95 percent of the affected areas would be in 10 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

In early August, the state of Washington fought a highly destructive wildfire that burned more than 8,000 acres (3,200 hectares) and forced approximately 65,000 people to evacuate.

Last month, the Trump administration finalised rollbacks of two regulations affecting the Endangered Species Act. One change requires officials to weigh economic and national security considerations when determining whether an area should be designated as “critical habitat”.

The public will have until September 21 to comment on the proposed Roadless Rule.

Judge previously found US government brought charges against Abrego Garcia as retaliation for case that embarrassed it.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump is seeking to revive criminal charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man whose wrongful deportation became a source of embarrassment for US immigration authorities.

The US Department of Justice asked a federal appeals court late on Monday to throw out a previous ruling by a judge that slammed the administration’s prosecution of Abrego Garcia as a form of political retaliation.

In his May ruling, US District Judge Waverly Crenshaw found the government’s efforts to bring criminal charges against Abrego Garcia to be an “abuse of prosecuting power”.

Federal prosecutors argued in a brief filed with the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals that Crenshaw’s ruling was flawed in a push to revive criminal charges the Trump administration brought against Abrego Garcia after being forced to return him to the US.

The Salvadoran national was brought back to the US after the government admitted that it had wrongfully deported him to El Salvador, where he was held in a detention facility that was operated by the Salvadoran government and that was notorious for abusive conditions and alleged use of torture.

The Trump administration initially fought efforts to return the 31-year-old Abrego Garcia to the US, even after admitting that he had been wrongfully deported despite a 2019 order from an immigration judge that he had a “well-founded fear” of being targeted in El Salvador.

The administration then filed criminal charges against Abrego Garcia when he arrived back in the US, accusing him of human trafficking.

Crenshaw found that there was evidence of “presumptive vindictiveness” on the part of the US government and that the charges would not have been brought if Abrego Garcia’s case had not been a public setback for the government.

Abrego Garcia has previously said that he is willing to agree to be deported to Costa Rica. But the Trump administration has instead fought to have him deported to the African nation of Liberia, to which he has no connection and where he would be far from friends and family.

Opening statements in a landmark US case brought by a bipartisan coalition of 29 states against Meta – the parent company of Facebook and Instagram – began on Tuesday, with Colorado, California, New Jersey and Kentucky arguing that the company’s popular social media apps were designed in ways that harmed the mental health of young users.

The trial, which is expected to last several weeks, began in a US federal court in California before District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. While there is an eight-person jury, the group is serving in an advisory role as Judge Rogers will ultimately decide the case.

Megan O’Neill, a deputy California attorney general, in her opening statement said that the company designed its products to “hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public”.

She added that it worked “especially well for kids”.

The lawsuit, which was first filed in 2023, alleges that Meta made decisions to design its apps to hook users and facilitate excessive use among the platforms’ youngest users. The coalition also alleges that the company collected data on children under the age of 13 in violation of federal law.

“Meta needed kids, and it needed to reassure the people who cared about those kids that the kids are safe,” O’Neill said.

‘Limited claims’

Meta has long pushed back on allegations against the Silicon Valley social media behemoth.

In a statement before the trial, a Meta spokesperson said the states’ claims are unsubstantiated, and the company stands by its record of creating strong protections for teenagers, including launching Instagram Teen Accounts in 2024, which limit who can contact underage users, as well as a feature that allows parents to set time limits on usage.

“The State AGs may call this a landmark case, but their limited claims are unsubstantiated and their financial demands are vastly disproportionate,” Stephanie Otway, a Meta spokesperson, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

“The AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled, claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification. Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout.”

The potential impact on Meta’s bottom line is existential. The company could face fines as high as $1.4 trillion, which is just shy of its $1.5 trillion market cap. However, the coalition is seeking fines of roughly $200bn.

Meta has already been ordered to pay $942m in fines in a separate New Mexico lawsuit – $375m in civil penalties in a March jury verdict and $567m ordered by a judge earlier this month.

Meta has acknowledged that the lawsuits it faces, including those related to youth social media addiction, could lead to “substantial monetary damages or fines” in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing in January.

A long time coming

Meta, along with other social media giants, has faced a growing slate of cases across the United States, including from cities, states, school districts and even individuals.

The coalition of states is asking Meta to make changes to its platforms, including introducing new age restrictions and cutting the infinite scroll.

The case’s impetus came from a US Senate committee hearing in 2021, when whistleblower Frances Haugen, a former data scientist at Facebook, claimed that the company knowingly pushed products that could impact the health of young users as the Mark Zuckerberg-led company pursued higher profits.

Meta has repeatedly tried to end the coalition lawsuit, including in 2024 and as recently as June, when it sought summary judgement – a decision that a court might make without going to trial – which would have ended the lawsuit.

The case is impacting the company’s stock. On Wall Street, the social media giant is down more than 3 percent in midday trading.

FCC faces scrutiny as Disney claims licence renewal order is tied to political motives against ABC’s coverage.

Disney has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) amid efforts to stop an early licence review for eight ABC-owned and -operated stations around the United States.

In the lawsuit filed in a federal court in Washington, DC, the media giant alleged the early renewal is an effort by the administration of US President Donald Trump to intimidate the company after infuriating the president.

In April, the FCC ordered the network’s stations, which include its affiliates in New York and Los Angeles, to file their licence renewals ahead of schedule despite the fact that for six of its stations, the current term isn’t even halfway finished. The station with the closest deadline is WTVD in Durham, North Carolina, but that is not until December 2028. The network says the move is part of a political “retaliatory campaign”.

“Again and again, the Administration has attacked ABC’s speech – the stories its journalists report and the viewpoints its network programs air. Over time, those attacks have escalated into express demands that ABC be stripped of its broadcast licenses because of its speech,” the 46-page complaint said.

The suit presented a wave of Truth Social posts that the president posted in 2025 threatening the network, among them one saying that the network “should lose their Licences for their unfair coverage of Republicans and/or Conservatives”.

The FCC said the April licence renewal call was a result of diversity, equity and inclusion practices at ABC’s parent company, Disney, and an investigation into the ABC network’s talk show programme The View.

In March, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened broadcasters, saying stations airing “fake news” could lose their licences amid Trump’s frustration with coverage of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Not long after, Trump demanded that ABC fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over comments he made before the White House correspondents dinner shooting in which he called first lady Melania Trump an “expectant widow”. Trump responded to them after the shooting, characterising them “a call to violence”.

Free speech advocates have praised ABC for the lawsuit.

“It’s about time for someone to take Brendan Carr and his FCC to court over their endless campaign of intimidation and retaliation against journalism that displeases Carr’s thin-skinned boss,” Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told Al Jazeera.

“No matter what pretexts he asserts, Carr’s modus operandi is clear: to serve as Trump’s censorship tsar and abuse his office to repeatedly and exclusively target Trump’s perceived adversaries in the media, whether through sham proceedings or threatening letters and X posts.”

The network called for a “speedy hearing” in the complaint as well as a temporary restraining order.

News of the lawsuit sent Disney’s stock surging in morning trading by 1.1 percent.

Primary races across the country have offered an early read on where voters want their parties to head before November’s consequential midterms in the United States.

With only a handful of US states remaining in the congressional primary calendar, voters in Alaska and Wyoming — two reliably Republican strongholds — head to the polls on Tuesday, with races that could send ripples well beyond their small electorates.

Although the state has long been safe Republican territory in federal elections, this year marks the third consecutive election cycle in which Alaska finds itself among a handful of states at the centre of the fight for control of Congress.

Wyoming offers a different kind of race: a rare wholesale turnover of Republican leadership. Wyomingites have a glut of new leaders to choose from at the statehouse, in the governor’s mansion and in the US Capitol. Contests that could further consolidate the state’s ultraconservative politics or begin to push them to the centre.

Here’s what’s on our radar.

Alaska

When do polls open and close?

Polls open at 7am (15:00 GMT) and close at 8pm local time (04:00 on Wednesday GMT), although Alaska’s two time zones stagger poll closings across the state.

What makes Alaska’s primary different?

Unlike most states, Alaska uses a single primary rather than separate Republican and Democratic contests. This comes after Alaska voters approved Ballot Measure 2 back in 2020, which effectively eliminated the state’s traditional party-primary system for most offices. Instead, all candidates appear on a single, nonpartisan primary ballot. The top four vote-getters advance.

What are the key races to watch in Alaska?

The US Senate race carries the clearest national stakes because it could tip control of the chamber. The governor’s race is worth watching because of its exceptionally crowded and competitive field.

Seventeen candidates are running to replace Alaska’s staunchly pro-Trump Republican Governor Mike Dunleavy, who is barred by term limits from seeking a third term. Among them is former Governor Bill Walker, who is running as an independent. Republican candidates include former state Senators Click Bishop, Shelley Hughes and Lesil McGuire, former Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson, former state revenue Commissioner Adam Crum, Matanuska-Susitna Borough Mayor Edna DeVries, former state Attorney General Treg Taylor and business owner and conservative activist Bernadette Wilson.

Former state Senator Tom Begich and former state Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins are the two Democrats in the race.

Meanwhile, sixteen candidates are running for Alaska’s US Senate seat, but the race has two chief frontrunners: incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan and former Democratic Representative Mary Peltola. The Cook Political Report ranks the race among the country’s most competitive Senate contests.

Why the Senate race matters nationally

Though Alaska has not sent a Democrat to the Senate since 2008, former Representative Peltola, who represented Alaska in the US House from 2022 to 2025, demonstrated that a Democrat can win statewide there.

The race has drawn millions in campaign spending, including money being spent to elevate political unknowns who are unlikely to win the seat, but could materially alter the November field.

Super PACs have spent more than $2m trying to boost candidates who are not considered serious contenders for the seat, according to Alaska Public Media.

An Alaska Survey Research poll conducted in March found Peltola ahead of Sullivan among primary voters, 46.4 percent to 40.9 percent. In a simulated general-election matchup using Alaska’s ranked-choice system, Peltola also polled ahead of Sullivan.

A tale of two Dan Sullivans

There is an unusual Senate subplot: two Republicans named Dan Sullivan are on the ballot. One is the incumbent senator; the other, Dan J Sullivan Jr is a retired teacher from Petersburg. The state’s Division of Elections initially removed him from the ballot after determining that his candidacy appeared intended to confuse voters, but the Alaska Supreme Court later ordered officials to restore him to the primary ballot.

That creates a problem that is particularly acute in Alaska’s primary. Unlike the November election, the primary is not ranked-choice: voters select a single candidate, and the four highest vote-getters prevail in the general election. With two Dan Sullivans vying for the same electoral spot, even a relatively small number of mistaken votes could influence which candidate clears the hurdle.

Senator Sullivan will appear on the ballot as “Dan S. Sullivan” alongside the labels of “Registered Republican” and “Incumbent”. Challenger Sullivan will be listed as “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” without any party affiliation listed, although he filed for office as a Republican.

On Israel, Sullivan and Peltola find common ground

Much of the attention around incumbent Dan Sullivan’s fundraising reflects the issues that have defined his Senate career, including his strong support for Israel and his hawkish approach to Iran.

The 61-year-old has repeatedly backed military aid and closer US-Israel defence ties while vehemently opposing efforts by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute Israeli officials. His congressional record includes repeated efforts to maintain or strengthen sanctions on Iran.

Sullivan’s reelection run has attracted substantial backing from high-profile political organisations, including the Republican Senate Leadership Fund, which has committed at least $15m towards his campaign. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC ) has also helped funnel about $250,000 in individual contributions to Sullivan during the first quarter of 2026.

Peltola has also championed Israel-related legislation during her time in the House, and sometimes even broke with fellow Democrats on Israel-related votes. The Jewish Democratic Council of America, which describes itself as advocating for a strong US-Israel relationship, endorsed her Senate campaign back in March.

Wyoming

When do polls in Wyoming open and close?

Voting begins at 7am local time (13:00 GMT) and ends at 7pm local time (01:00 GMT the following day).

What’s one big race to watch?

The Senate Republican primary.

In deep-red Wyoming, the Senate primary is less a contest about whether the GOP will hold the seat than about which Republican candidate will win it.

The Cowboy State has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1964, with the exception of 1976, when Jimmy Carter carried Wyoming. The Senate race is also interesting because it is an open-seat succession fight.

What are the important races in the Wyoming primary election?

The US’s least populated state is in for a political makeover, with a shake-up at nearly every level. With incumbent Senator Cynthia Lummis declining to seek re-election and Representative Harriet Hageman relinquishing her House post to try to succeed her in the Senate, Wyoming is poised for an unusually broad reshuffling in elected officeholders.

Wyoming’s Republican Party is divided between a hard-right bloc that already controls the state House and more traditional conservatives who retain greater influence in the Senate.

Hageman, the Trump-backed hard-lined congresswoman who rose to national prominence after unseating Liz Cheney in the 2022 Republican primary, is the clear favourite to succeed retiring Senator Cynthia Lummis. Among the other Republicans running to replace Lummis in the US Senate are former Kirby Mayor Sam Mead and former environmental services business owner Jimmy Skovgard.

In an April interview with Jackson Hole Community Radio (KHOL), Mead said that the endorsements Hageman received from Trump, Lummis and Barrasso come with an expectation that she will support the administration “no matter what.” While Mead has promised that he would push back against Trump on public lands, tariffs and foreign wars when he believes the administration’s policies run counter to Wyoming’s interests.

Nine active candidates are competing for the Republican nomination to replace Hageman in the US House in what’s shaping up to be the most expensive contest on Tuesday’s ballot. The field includes former state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jillian Balow, state Senate President Bo Biteman, businessmen Steve Friess and Reid Rasner, and Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray.

United States President Donald Trump has threatened to bomb Oman if it “gets in the way” of a peace deal between the US and Iran.

Oman is currently negotiating with Iran over the reopening of the critical Strait of Hormuz, while Iran has repeatedly stated that it will not speak directly to the US.

On Monday, as Iranian officials said they were close to announcing an agreement with Oman, a 60-day Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Washington and Tehran – which had provided for a period of peace talks but largely fell apart early on – expired with little hope for renewal.

This is not the first time Trump has threatened Oman, a US ally which has never entered into any direct conflict with the US. Oman, through whose territorial waters the contested Strait of Hormuz also flows, has positioned itself as a neutral party in the US-Iran war. Despite that, it has suffered a number of strikes by Iran, which has targeted US military assets and infrastructure around the region in retaliation for US-Israeli attacks.

Now, Trump is threatening to strike it as well.

Here is more about what Trump has threatened, and why.

What did Trump threaten Oman with?

Trump told US broadcaster Fox News on Monday that Iran should surrender, and claimed that his administration had opened a direct backchannel for talks with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

During the interview, he threatened to bomb US ally Oman if it “gets in the way” of US talks with Iran.

“If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the s*** out of them,” he said.

An IRGC spokesman denied Trump’s claim of direct talks, telling Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News: “There are no talks taking place between IRGC officials and the Americans, and this lie by Trump is merely fantasies caused by the delusions and nightmares he has suffered as a result of defeat and desperation in the war.”

Has he threatened Oman before?

Monday was not the first time Trump threatened Oman over the course of the five-month war between the US and Iran. In May, he made a similar threat.

At a cabinet meeting on May 27, a reporter asked Trump what he thought about the idea of Oman and Iran jointly overseeing shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

“ Would you accept a short-term deal that allows Iran and Oman to control the strait?” the reporter asked.

Trump replied with a seemingly offhand threat. “Nobody is going to control it. It’s international waters, and Oman will behave just like everybody else, or we will have to blow them up.”

While there was initial speculation that Trump might have misspoken and said “Oman” instead of “Iran”, the US State Department later shared the comment on social media, with a transcript of the quote that referred to the Arab country.

What is the context for all this?

For the past few weeks, Iran and Oman have been engaged in direct talks, facilitated by mediators in Qatar, to reach an agreement over how to manage maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz in the future.

While Iran had agreed to keep the strait open to shipping without charge for 60 days following the signing of the MoU with the US on June 17, this quickly fell apart as the two sides disagreed over who had ultimate control over the strait – in particular which routes ships should take. Towards the end of June, Iran launched strikes on a number of ships which had followed an Oman-issued route, approved by the US, rather than its own route, and the US restarted strikes on Iran for nearly two weeks.

Following that, Iran refused to talk directly to the US, saying it had violated the terms of the MoU which included a cessation of hostilities on all fronts, and began talks with Oman over the future of the strait instead. Iran also issued a list of new demands relating to the lifting of sanctions and a permanent end to US strikes before it would resume talks, it said.

On Monday, Tehran said the two countries have reached an agreement on a new shipping route in the strait and are now preparing a joint declaration.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said the proposed mechanism for control of the strait seeks to protect the interests of both Iran and Oman while allowing commercial shipping to pass through.

“This is the first time that a mechanism is being developed to simultaneously safeguard the sovereign rights of the two littoral states and ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels,” said Baghaei.

The Strait of Hormuz is a critical waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped before the US-Israel war on Iran began on February 28. Roughly 130 ships sailed through the strait each day.

Iran closed the strait in early March, allowing only a few ships it deemed “friendly” to pass through the strait until it signed the MoU with the US on June 17. Since then, it has become the key issue holding up talks for a lasting peace plan to end the war on Iran.

The US, meanwhile, has established its own blockade on Iranian ports in and around the strait. Last week, it fired on a Panama-flagged cargo vessel it accused of attempting to reach Iranian ports and which, it said, had failed to follow orders to change course.

The crisis has triggered global energy shortages and the price of oil has soared. The price of Brent crude, the global benchmark, was about $66 a barrel just before the Middle East conflict began. Over the course of the war, the price has surged past $100 on several occasions, most recently on July 23. In March, the price rose as high as $119.

Global benchmark Brent crude futures rose to $91.22 a barrel on Tuesday, inching close to a three-week high.

What is Oman’s position on the Iran war?

Oman, which is known for its neutrality, has not publicly stated that it intends to join Iran in controlling the Strait of Hormuz. The US and Oman are close partners with a relationship stretching back nearly 200 years.

The two countries have multiple cooperation treaties, including security partnerships, a free trade agreement and a science and technology deal.

During the war, Iran launched multiple strikes on US military assets and energy infrastructure in neighbouring countries, including Oman.

Oman previously acted as a key mediator between Washington and Tehran as they sought a resolution to the war that began on February 28, when the US and Israel attacked Iran.

So, why is Trump threatening Oman now?

A potential Iran-Oman understanding covering the Strait of Hormuz could cut against one of Washington’s core demands: that Iran relinquish control of the strait as a condition of ending the war. Rather than curbing that control, such a deal would lend it greater legitimacy by formalising Iran’s position.

But experts say Trump is also likely angry that the US has seemingly been cut out of the deal relating to the strait.

“In part, a solution mediated without US intervention and which in fact allows Oman and Iran to manage passage through Hormuz, which lies entirely within the two countries’ territorial waters, would show how impotent the United States is and has been,” Laleh Khalili, a professor of Gulf studies at the University of Exeter, told Al Jazeera.

The US and Iran have also strongly disagreed about whether Iran should be allowed to charge fees to shipping companies using the strait. Under international law, tolls for passing through natural waterways such as Hormuz are forbidden, even when they are not technically in international waters. However, fees for services such as insurance, environmental protection and docking can be charged. It has yet to be seen whether this issue will be addressed in an Iran-Oman agreement.

In late July, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Iran should not be allowed to charge tolls on vessels traversing Hormuz. Days earlier, Trump himself pledged there would be no tolls for passage through the strait, unless they are collected by his own country.

On August 14, Trump went a step further, telling his supporters in New York that he had plans to declare the Strait of Hormuz a “territory” of the US. “After we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated, pretty soon I’ll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States,” Trump said.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, responded to that threat on social media with defiance.

“Trump said that, after Iran’s defeat, he will soon declare the Strait of Hormuz as American territory,” Gharibabadi wrote.

“The Strait of Hormuz cannot be taken over by a tweet, nor by an aircraft carrier, nor by issuing a decree, nor by an election speech. Iran is neither afraid of threats nor intimidated by a show of force.”

US president says Iran should ‘put up the white flag of surrender’ as the two nations’ MoU expired on Monday.

Annual military manoeuvres between South Korea and the United States are underway.

But just hours before they were due to start, the US president announced that he had ordered the Pentagon to substantially scale back the exercises.

Donald Trump says they send an inappropriate and hostile signal to North Korea and its leader, with whom he has a ‘good relationship’.

The joint drills have been held for decades.

So, does Trump’s last-minute decision mean he’s seeking talks with Kim Jong Un?

Could dialogue end one of the world’s longest-running conflicts?

Presenter: Anna Burns-Francis

Guests:

In Bum Chun – Retired South Korean Lieutenant General and military and security analyst

Jenny Town – Senior Fellow and Director of 38 North programme at the Stimson Center

Rodger Baker — Geopolitical analyst at RANE, a global centre for geopolitical intelligence and analysis

The nearly nine-month extended deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Middle East has triggered a mental health crisis among the crew so intense that some sailors have tried to jump overboard, according to some US media reports.

Family members of the exhausted military crew on board the flagship aircraft carrier, reportedly located in the Gulf region, say there are food shortages, while broken toilets and showers have contributed to unsanitary conditions and poor health.

More than 5,000 staff members have been on board the vessel, which has been conducting maritime security and blockade operations at present around the Strait of Hormuz, for that time. It set sail on November 21, 2025 from its homeport of San Diego for an extended deployment to the Asia Pacific and the Middle East.

Since then, the ship has made just one single-day port stop at Naval Base Guam from December 11-12. The lack of port stops is a major issue for a ship the size and complexity of the USS Abraham Lincoln, experts say.

As US President Donald Trump and his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, declare the United States is ready to continue an “indefinite” blockade on Iranian ports in the Gulf, we look at how this compares with other lengthy aircraft carrier deployments.

What is happening on board the USS Abraham Lincoln?

Reports by two US publications that cover military affairs, the Navy Times and Stars and Stripes, last week quoted family members of military personnel on board the vessel who said they were suffering from declining mental health and morale, and cases of suicidal ideation.

The Navy Times spoke on record with one sailor’s wife, identified as Annabelle Loma, who said he had attempted to jump overboard amid what she described as “severe burnout”.

The reports prompted urgent questions from US lawmakers. On Sunday, Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), reportedly visited the USS Lincoln.

He praised the crew and stated on social media that “service at sea for long periods isn’t for everyone, while claiming the ship has the lowest number of mental health-related cases of the navy’s 11 active aircraft carriers. “It is uniquely challenging and tough, and every single one of us, including me, reacts to stressors in different ways,” he said.

But there is growing concern among Republican and Democratic lawmakers over what they see as a lack of accountability after Hegseth dismissed mental health reports last week as “completely misrepresented”.

When Trump was asked last week whether the USS Lincoln had been at sea for too long, he told reporters: “No, not nearly long enough.”

The USS Lincoln mission was supposed to end in May but has been extended repeatedly since then.

Last week, it emerged that another ship, the USS George Washington, has been rerouted from its position in the Pacific and will arrive in the Gulf within a week to take over duties from the Lincoln.

How long can US aircraft carrier deployments be?

The longest aircraft carrier deployment since the Vietnam War was the USS Gerald R Ford’s 326-day mission, which began in June 2025, under Trump’s second term in the White House.

That mission included NATO exercises in the Mediterranean, support for the US military operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and operations in the Red Sea during the US-Israel war on Iran.

After beginning its mission as a routine deployment to the Asia Pacific region, the Ford then moved into the South China Sea for security operations, before being deployed to the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman to help the US enforce its naval blockade of the Iranian ports.

During this time, the USS Ford met several technical problems, including an onboard fire, which also triggered congressional scrutiny back home.

Lengthy deployments during the Vietnam War

Some of the longest aircraft carrier deployments in US history took place in and around the Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam War, with the USS Midway operating for 332 days, the USS Coral Sea operating for 329 days and the USS Saratoga operating for 308 days.

Similar to the USS Lincoln, they faced issues as well. Reports said the intense flight schedule of the active air combat during the Vietnam War pushed crew and operations to their limits.

While there are a number of lengthy aircraft carrier deployments from other countries, they pale in comparison to the US Navy’s record.

Russia’s Admiral Kuznetsov conducted a five-month mission to the Syrian coast which began in October 2016, but suffered several technical breakdowns, including aircraft losses.

The United Kingdom’s HMS Queen Elizabeth completed a seven-month deployment in 2021, which included combat strikes on targets in Iraq and Syria, despite significant breakdowns due to engineering issues.

Why is this issue so critical?

Many lawmakers have raised questions over whether the US can maintain an “indefinite” blockade in the Gulf if conditions on board a flagship aircraft carrier are so dire.

In a letter to Hegseth last week, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal raised the alarm over reports of deteriorating mental health on board, as well as shortages of basic supplies, water contamination, an increase in safety incidents and even disruptions to mail services, through which those on board receive care packages.

“These reports warrant immediate attention, but they also raise a broader question: whether the Navy can sustain the operational tempo now being demanded of its carrier force, particularly as this administration repeatedly commits US forces to conflicts of its own choosing and increasingly relies on aircraft carriers to sustain those operations,” Blumenthal wrote.

Experts say the lack of port stops is a major issue for the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Harlan Ullman, a retired senior naval officer and chairman of the strategic advisory firm Killowen Group, told Al Jazeera that ships require onshore care to keep advanced technology operational over long periods.

“Ships need maintenance, particularly ships that are extremely complicated with very advanced weapon systems such as nuclear-powered carriers with very advanced systems, and there are things that you cannot do in terms of maintenance under way,” Ullman said.

“There are lots of things that you can do at sea, but there are far more things that can only be done in port,” he pointed out.

Ullman noted that extended deployments “erode the readiness and capability of that ship the longer it’s at sea, and it lacks the ability to repair and extend maintenance”.

He added that the Trump administration must prioritise naval readiness over politics, saying “this is a national issue, not a local one; and the administration should not be so defensive. It should say, ‘OK, we’ll see what’s going on, and then if there are some issues, we’ll take care of them.’”

What are the drawbacks of deploying aircraft carriers?

Aircraft carriers are built to be on deployment for many months at a time. However, that comes with a high cost, as extended cruises increase the risk of technical breakdowns and can also lead to reduced staff morale and mental health concerns.

Large aircraft carriers are expensive. The USS Abraham Lincoln cost $2.2bn to build in 1989, and it costs tens of millions of dollars to operate on a daily basis.

Recent conflicts in the Red Sea have also underscored the vulnerability of large aircraft carriers. Houthi rebels, who do not possess a formal navy, have nevertheless managed to put significant pressure on large US Navy aircraft carriers operating near the limits of their missile range.

At one point during the US-Israel war on Iran, the USS Gerald Ford was forced to sail hundreds of miles away from the Iranian coast to reduce the risk of being hit by missiles, limiting its effectiveness.

Scheffler’s 21st career PGA Tour title earns the American $3.6m for his resounding victory at TPC Southwind.

Scottie Scheffler has had a fair share of close calls this year ‌but not in the St Jude Championship.

He shot a final-round 4-under-par 66 on Sunday in Memphis, Tennessee, and pulled away to win the tournament by eight strokes ⁠and extend his lead in ⁠the FedEx Cup playoffs.

“I felt like a week like this was coming,” Scheffler said. “I felt like I was on repeat all year just being like, ‘Hey, I’m playing solid. I’m close.’ It feels good to be answering some different questions ⁠at the end of this week.”

Scheffler is the world number one, but this marked his first victory since January.

“I have had some close calls this year,” Scheffler said. “I feel like I kept saying at the end of each tournament that I feel like I am playing pretty good – it’s just little things ⁠that aren’t going my way.”

He finished at a 17-under 263 for an eight-stroke advantage on runner-up Si Woo Kim of South Korea at TPC Southwind, where the opening event of three tournaments in the FedEx Cup playoffs took place. Kim shot 68 on Sunday.

It was the tournament’s second-largest margin of victory in the past 30 years and the largest winning gap at TPC Southwind.

“I felt like I’ve been in a good rhythm,” Scheffler said. “I didn’t hit maybe as many fairways this week, but I was ‌really sharp with the irons, and I rolled it really good on the greens. That’s a good compensation if you’re going to try to have success out here.”

None of the other contenders made much of a push on Sunday as Scheffler’s lead expanded from two strokes to five by midway through the round.

Scheffler, who secured his 21st all-time victory on the tour, poured it on with birdies on the 11th, 13th and 16th holes.

“I played solid golf all day, really all week,” Scheffler said.

The next stop in the playoffs is in St Louis, Missouri, for this coming week’s BMW Championship, which Scheffler won last year.