violated

Incursion follows series of drone incidents and airspace violations that have prompted fears that Russia is testing NATO.

Two Russian military aircraft have briefly entered Lithuania’s airspace in what appeared to be a new provocation from Moscow as European Union leaders discussed how to strengthen their defences amid deepening concerns the war in Ukraine could spill over into their nations.

Lithuania’s armed forces said in a statement that the two aircraft – an Su-30 fighter and an Il-78 refuelling tanker – may have been conducting refuelling exercises in the neighbouring Russian exclave of Kaliningrad when they flew 700 metres (0.43 miles) into the country at 6pm local time (15:00 GMT) on Thursday.

“This is a blatant breach of international law and territorial integrity of Lithuania,” said President Gitanas Nauseda on X, adding that his country would summon Russian embassy representatives to protest against reckless and dangerous behaviour.

Two Spanish Eurofighter Typhoon jets from the NATO Baltic Air Police were scrambled in response and were patrolling the area, the Lithuanian military said.

Russia’s Defence Ministry denied the incursion had taken place, saying the flights were conducted “in strict compliance” with rules and “did not deviate from their route and did not violate the borders of other states”.

The incident occurred after Nauseda and his fellow EU leaders attended a Brussels summit on Thursday, endorsing a plan dubbed Readiness 2030 to ensure that Europe can defend itself against an outside attack by the end of the decade.

It follows a series of mysterious drone incidents and airspace violations by Russian warplanes in recent weeks that have heightened anxiety that Russian President Vladimir Putin might be testing NATO’s defensive reflexes.

Three Russian military jets violated Estonia’s airspace for 12 minutes on September 19 in what was described by Tallinn as an “unprecedented and brazen intrusion”.

Nine days before, NATO jets had shot down 20 Russian drones that entered Polish airspace, marking the first time an alliance member had engaged directly with Russia since the start of the Ukraine war.

Fellow Baltic state leaders Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal and Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze both expressed full solidarity with Lithuania.

Polish Defence Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said the incident showed that “Russia is in no way calming down or retreating” and that continued vigilance is required.

Thursday’s EU summit also saw the bloc greenlight a major package of sanctions against Russia for its war on Ukraine.

It stopped short of endorsing the use of Russian frozen assets to give Kyiv a large loan. Russia had threatened a “painful response” if its assets were seized.

Sept. 15 (UPI) — China said that Nvidia has violated its anti-trust laws in a 2020 acquisition of an Israeli company.

China’s State Administration for Market Regulation announced late last year that the company’s acquisition of Mellanox violates the country’s anti-trust laws. The SAMR approved the acquisition at the time, but now said Nvidia hasn’t followed some conditions of the agreement. It hasn’t said what conditions, though. SAMR said Monday that it will continue its investigation.

Nvidia shares dropped 2% on the news.

Negotiators from China and the United States are meeting in Madrid to discuss trade tensions between the two countries. Recently, the United States added 23 Chinese companies to a list of those blocked from buying U.S. technology because of security issues.

In July, China said it’s investigating American integrated circuit suppliers. The Cyberspace Administration of China, or CAC, demanded Nvidia explain “backdoor security risks” allegedly found in Nvidia’s H20 computing chips, and to submit documentation related to those risks that it said was revealed by American artificial intelligence experts.

Last week, the FCC announced the launch of the proceedings to revoke recognition of seven laboratories that review and approve electronics as accredited test laboratories for testing electronics for approval for the U.S. market, accusing them of posing a risk to national security. Many of them were based in China.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has lobbied for American companies to be allowed to sell to China. He said that if American firms aren’t in China, Chinese companies like Huawei will fill the void in the AI market, CNBC reported. Last month, Washington agreed, with a deal that Nvidia give 15% of revenue in that market to the U.S. government.

On Thursday, NASA said it’s barring Chinese nationals from using its “facilities, materials and networks to ensure the security of our work,” after Chinese workers contributing to research were locked out of their IT systems and prevented from attending in-person meetings on Sept. 5.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser, with an assist from Dakota Smith and Julia Wick, giving you the latest on city and county government.

L.A.’s political leaders are facing a daunting and possibly insurmountable deadline. If they blow it, they could face all kinds of headaches — legal, financial and otherwise.

By June 2026, they must show a federal judge that they have removed 9,800 homeless encampments from streets, sidewalks and public rights of way. That means 9,800 tents, cars, RVs and makeshift structures — those created out of materials like cardboard or shopping carts — over a four-year period.

The city’s strategy for reaching that goal has become a huge source of friction in its long-running legal battle with the LA Alliance for Human Rights, which sued the city in 2020 over its handling of homelessness.

In recent months, the encampment removal plan has also become the subject of a second lawsuit — one alleging that the City Council approved it behind closed doors, then failed to disclose that fact, in violation of a state law requiring that government business be conducted in public view.

The encampment removal plan was “drafted and adopted without any notice to the public (which includes the owners of these tents, makeshift encampments, and RVs that the City has agreed to clear), let alone any public debate or discussion,” said the lawsuit filed by the Los Angeles Community Action Network, the homeless advocacy group also known as LA CAN, which is an intervenor in the LA Alliance case.

Lawyers for the city say they followed the Ralph M. Brown Act, which spells out disclosure requirements for decisions made behind closed doors by government bodies. In one filing, they said their actions were not only legal, but “reasonable and justified under the circumstances.”

As with everything surrounding the LA Alliance case, there is a tortured backstory.

The LA Alliance sued the city in 2020, alleging that too little was being done to address the homelessness crisis, particularly in Skid Row. The case was settled two years later, with the city agreeing to create 12,915 new shelter beds or other housing opportunities by June 2027.

After that deal was struck, the city began negotiating with the LA Alliance over an accompanying requirement to reduce the number of street encampments, with quarterly milestones in each council district.

The LA Alliance eventually ran out of patience, telling U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in February 2024 that the city was 447 days late in finalizing its plan. The group submitted to the court a copy of the encampment removal plan, saying it had been approved by the City Council on Jan. 31, 2024.

Two months later, City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto’s office also told Carter that the plan to remove 9,800 encampments, and the accompanying milestones, had gone before the council on Jan. 31.

The council “approved them without delay,” Feldstein Soto’s team said in a filing submitted jointly by the city and the LA Alliance.

Video from the Jan. 31 meeting shows that council members did in fact go behind closed doors for more than two hours to discuss the LA Alliance case. But when they returned, Deputy City Atty. Jonathan Groat said there was nothing to report from the closed session.

The encampment removal plan is a huge issue for LA CAN, which has warned that the 9,800 goal effectively creates a quota system for sanitation workers — one that could make them more likely to violate the property rights of unhoused residents.

At no point during the council’s deliberations did the public have the opportunity to weigh in on the harm that would be caused by seizing the belongings of thousands of unhoused people, said attorney Shayla Myers, who represents LA CAN. Beyond that, she said, the public was never told who supported the plan and who opposed it.

“The narrow exception in the Brown Act that allows a legislative body to confer with their attorneys in closed session was never intended to allow the City Council to shelter these kinds of controversial decisions from public view,” the lawsuit states.

LA CAN now wants a Superior Court judge to force the city to disclose any votes cast by council members on the encampment removal plan. The group also wants recordings and transcripts of those proceedings, as well as a declaration that the city violated the Brown Act in its handling of the matter.

Beyond that, the group alleges that the council violated the Brown Act a second time, in May 2024, by failing to disclose its approval of an agreement with L.A. County — again reached behind closed doors — over the delivery of services to homeless residents.

Assistant City Atty. Strefan Fauble pushed back on LA CAN’s assertions, saying “no settlement or agreement was voted on or approved” by the council on Jan. 31, 2024. In a letter to LA CAN last year, Fauble also said the agreement with the county was not disclosed at the time because it had not been finalized in federal court.

“The City has always complied with its post-closed session disclosure requirements under the Brown Act when a settlement or agreement is final,” he wrote. “It will continue to do so.”

Meanwhile, the fight over the encampment removal plan is getting messier.

Two months ago, Judge Carter spelled out restrictions on the types of tents that can be counted toward the 9,800. In a 62-page order, he said a tent discarded by sanitation workers could be counted toward the city’s goal only if its owner had been offered housing or a shelter bed beforehand.

The city is weighing an appeal of that assertion. In a memo to the council, Feldstein Soto said the judge had “reinterpreted” some of the city’s settlement obligations.

An appeal would be expensive, and Feldstein Soto is already in hot water over legal bills racked up in the LA Alliance case.

On Wednesday, the council balked at Feldstein Soto’s request for a $5-million increase to the city’s contract with the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, which would include work on an appeal and other tasks. The council sent the request to the budget committee for more review.

Some councilmembers voiced dismay that Gibson Dunn billed $3.2 million in less than three months, after the council had allocated an initial $900,000 for a two-year period.

State of play

— VA VOUCHERS: Los Angeles County housing authorities have more than enough federal rental subsidies to house all of the county’s homeless veterans. Yet chronic failures in a complicated bureaucracy of referral, leasing and support services have left those agencies treading water. About 4,000 vouchers are gathering dust while an estimated 3,400 veterans remain on the streets or inside shelters, The Times reported.

— TAKE THE STAIRS: Could new apartment buildings with only one staircase help solve L.A.’s housing crisis? Councilmember Nithya Raman favors such a change, saying it can be done without sacrificing safety.

— FILM FACTOTUM: More than two and a half years after taking office, Mayor Karen Bass fulfilled a longstanding campaign promise, announcing the selection of a new film liaison between City Hall and the entertainment industry. Steve Kang, president of the Board of Public Works, will serve as the primary point person for film and TV productions looking to shoot in L.A. He’ll be assisted by Dan Halden, who works out of the city’s Bureau of Street Services, and producer Amy Goldberg.

— VALLEY SHUFFLE? City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who faces term limits next year, told The Times he’s considering a run for state Senate in 2028. If he gets in the race, the former state lawmaker would compete for the North Hollywood-to-Moorpark district currently represented by state Sen. Henry Stern, who faces term limits in 2028.

— PROTESTER PAYOUT: A Los Angeles filmmaker and his daughter were awarded more than $3 million after a jury found Los Angeles County negligent for injuries the man sustained when a sheriff’s deputy shot him in the face with a projectile during a protest against police brutality in 2020.

— CRIME SPREE: Police announced the arrest this week of several alleged gang members accused of burglarizing nearly 100 homes and businesses, largely on the Westside. The suspects are believed to be part of a South L.A. group that called itself the “Rich Rollin’ Burglary Crew” and focused on the theft of high-end jewelry, purses, watches, wallets, suitcases and guns, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said.

— OFF THE BUS: Ridership on Metro’s network of buses continued to drop in July, weeks after federal immigration agents began a series of raids across L.A. County. Amid the decrease, Metro’s rail ridership grew by 6.5% over the same period.

— HOUSING WARS: After the L.A. City Council voted to oppose state Sen. Scott Wiener‘s new transit density bill, Councilmember Imelda Padilla joined Wiener and podcast host Jon Lovett (also a vocal supporter of the bill) to debate its merits on Pod Save America’s YouTube channel. The spirited conversation garnered more than 50,000 views, spawned numerous memes and sparked hundreds of replies on the r/losangeles subreddit.

At one point, Lovett appeared shocked when Padilla, who joined seven of her colleagues in opposing Senate Bill 79, boasted of getting a proposed six-story affordable housing project reduced to three stories. Padilla addressed her viral interview during Friday’s council meeting, saying she views the council’s role as one that seeks compromise “between the NIMBYs and the YIMBYs.”

— SHE’S (OFFICIALLY) RUNNING: L.A. County Supervisor Hilda Solis officially launched her campaign for a proposed new congressional district in southeast L.A. County, offering up a list of heavyweight backers, including Mayor Karen Bass, Sheriff Robert Luna, Supervisor Janice Hahn and civil rights icon Dolores Huerta.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to combat homelessness went to Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles, moving 10 people indoors, according to a Bass aide.
• On the docket for next week: The L.A. County Board of Supervisors will take up a proposed ordinance to streamline the process of rebuilding in Altadena in the wake of the Eaton fire.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to [email protected]. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

On June 16, the Ukrainian government started the process for opening bids for foreign companies to mine lithium deposits in the country. Among the interested investors is a consortium linked to Ronald S Lauder, who is believed to be close to United States President Donald Trump.

The bid is part of a minerals deal signed in April that is supposed to give the US access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth. The agreement was negotiated over months and was touted by Trump as “payback” for US military support for the Ukrainian military.

The final text, which the Ukrainian side has celebrated as “more favourable” compared with previous iterations, paves the way for US investment in the mining and energy sectors in Ukraine. Investment decisions will be made jointly by US and Ukrainian officials, profits will not be taxed and US companies will get preferential treatment in tenders and auctions.

Trump’s demand for access to Ukrainian mineral wealth was slammed by many as infringing on Ukrainian sovereignty and being exploitative at a time when the country is fighting a war and is highly dependent on US arms supplies. But that is hardly an aberration in the record of relations between Ukraine and the West. For more than a decade now, Kyiv has faced Western pressure to make decisions that are not necessarily in the interests of its people.

Interference in domestic affairs

Perhaps the most well-known accusations of Western influence peddling have to do with the son of former US President Joe Biden – Hunter Biden. He became a board member of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma in May 2014, three months after Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian president of Ukraine, fled to Russia during nationwide protests.

At that time, Joe Biden was not only vice president in President Barack Obama’s administration but also its pointman on US-Ukrainian relations. Over five years, Hunter Biden earned up to $50,000 a month as a board member. The apparent conflict of interest in this case bothered even Ukraine’s European allies.

But Joe Biden’s interference went much further than that. As vice president, he openly threatened then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko with blocking $1bn in US aid if he did not dismiss the Ukrainian prosecutor general, whom Washington opposed.

When Biden became president, his administration – along with the European Union – put pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to give foreign “experts” a key role in the election of judges for Ukraine’s courts. As a result, three of the six members on the Ethics Council of the High Council of Justice, which vets judges, are now members of international organisations.

There was fierce opposition to this reform, even from within Zelenskyy’s own political party. Nevertheless, he felt compelled to proceed.

The Ukrainian government also adopted other unpopular laws under Western pressure. In 2020, the parliament passed a bill introduced by Zelenskyy that removed a ban on the sale of private farmland. Although polls consistently showed the majority of Ukrainians to be against such a move, pressure from the West forced the Ukrainian president’s hand.

Widespread protests against the move were muffled by COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Subsequently, Ukraine’s agricultural sector became even more dominated by large, export-oriented multinational companies with deleterious consequences for the country’s food security.

Attempts to challenge these unpopular laws were undermined by attacks on courts. For example, the Kyiv District Administrative Court ruled that the judicial reform law violated Ukraine’s sovereignty and constitution, but this decision was invalidated when Zelenskyy dissolved the court after the US imposed sanctions on its head judge, Pavlo Vovk, over accusations of corruption.

The Constitutional Court, where there were also attempts to challenge some of these laws, also faced pressure. In 2020, Zelenskyy tried to fire all the court’s judges and annul their rulings but failed. Then in 2021, Oleksandr Tupytskyi, the chairman of the court, was sanctioned by the US, again over corruption accusations. This facilitated his removal shortly thereafter.

With Western interference in Ukrainian internal affairs made so apparent, public confidence in the sovereignty of the state was undermined. A 2021 poll showed that nearly 40 percent of Ukrainians did not believe their country was fully independent.

Economic sovereignty

In step with interference in Ukraine’s governance, its economy has also faced foreign pressures. In 2016, US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt urged the country to become an “agricultural superpower”. And it appears that the country indeed has gone down that path, continuing the process of deindustrialisation.

From 2010 to 2019, industry’s share of Ukraine’s gross domestic product fell by 3.7 percentage points while that of agriculture rose by 3.4 percentage points.

This didn’t benefit Ukrainians. UNICEF found that nearly 20 percent of Ukrainians suffered from “moderate to severe food insecurity” from 2018 to 2020, a figure that rose to 28 percent by 2022. This is more than twice as high as the same figure for the EU.

This is because the expansion of agriculture has favoured export-oriented monocrops like sunflowers, corn and soya beans. Although Ukraine became the world’s biggest exporter of sunflower oil in 2019, a 2021 study found that the domination of agriculture by intensively farmed monoculture has put 40 percent of the country’s soil at risk of depletion.

The 2016 free trade agreement with the EU also encouraged low-cost exports. Due to the restrictive provisions of the agreement, Ukrainian business complained that domestic products were often unable to reach European markets while European producers flooded Ukraine. Ukraine had a 4-billion-euro ($4.7bn) trade deficit with the EU in 2021, exporting raw materials and importing processed goods and machinery.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s industrial output collapsed under the blows of closed export markets, Western competition and neoliberal economic policies at home. According to the Ministry of Economy, by 2019, automobile production had shrunk to 31 percent of its 2012 level, train wagon production to 29.7 percent, machine tool production to 68.2 percent, metallurgical production to 70.8 percent and agricultural machinery production to 68.4 percent.

In 2020, the government under the newly elected Zelenskyy tried to intervene. It proposed new legislation to protect Ukrainian industry, Bill 3739, which aimed to limit the amount of foreign goods purchased by Ukrainian state contracts. Member of parliament Dmytro Kiselevsky pointed to the fact that while only 5 to 8 percent of state contracts in the US and EU are fulfilled with imports, the same figures stood at 40 to 50 percent in Ukraine.

But Bill 3739 was immediately criticised by the EU, the US and pro-Western NGOs in Ukraine. This was despite the fact that Western countries have a range of methods to protect their markets and state purchases from foreigners. Ultimately, Bill 3739 was passed with significant amendments that provided exceptions for companies from the US and the EU.

The recent renewal of EU tariffs on Ukrainian agricultural exports, which had been lifted in 2022, is yet another confirmation that the West protects its own markets but wants unrestricted access to Ukraine’s, to the detriment of the Ukrainian economy. Ukrainian officials worry that this move would cut economic growth this year from the projected 2.7 percent to 0.9 percent and cost the country $3.5bn in lost revenues.

In light of all this, Trump’s mineral deal reflects continuity in Western policy on Ukraine rather than a rupture. What the US president did differently was show to the public how Western leaders bully the Ukrainian government to get what they want – something that usually happens behind closed doors.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

WASHINGTON — A Texas hospital that repeatedly sent a woman who was bleeding and in pain home without ending her nonviable, life-threatening pregnancy violated the law, according to a newly released federal investigation.

The government’s findings, which have not been previously reported, were a small victory for 36-year-old Kyleigh Thurman, who ultimately lost part of her reproductive system after being discharged without any help from her hometown emergency room for her dangerous ectopic pregnancy.

But a new policy the Trump administration announced on Tuesday has thrown into doubt the federal government’s oversight of hospitals that deny women emergency abortions, even when they are at risk for serious infection, organ loss or severe hemorrhaging.

Thurman had hoped the federal government’s investigation, which issued a report in April after concluding its inquiry last year, would send a clear message that ectopic pregnancies must be treated by hospitals in Texas, which has one of the nation’s strictest abortion bans.

“I didn’t want anyone else to have to go through this,” Thurman said in an interview with the Associated Press from her Texas home this week. “I put a lot of the responsibility on the state of Texas and policy makers and the legislators that set this chain of events off.”

Uncertainty regarding emergency abortion access

Women around the country have been denied emergency abortions for their life-threatening pregnancies after states swiftly enacted abortion restrictions in response to a 2022 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which includes three appointees of President Trump.

The guidance issued by the Biden administration in 2022 was an effort to preserve access to emergency abortions for extreme cases in which women were experiencing medical emergencies. It directed hospitals — even ones in states with severe restrictions — to provide abortions in those emergency cases. If hospitals did not comply, they would be in violation of a federal law and risk losing some federal funds.

On Tuesday, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency responsible for enforcing the law and inspecting hospitals, announced it would revoke the Biden-era guidance around emergency abortions.

The law, which requires doctors to provide stabilizing treatment, was one of the few ways that Thurman was able to hold the emergency room accountable after she didn’t receive any help from staff at Ascension Seton Williamson in Round Rock, Texas, in February 2023, a few months after Texas enacted its strict abortion ban.

An ectopic pregnancy left untreated

Emergency room staff observed that Thurman’s hormone levels had dropped, a pregnancy was not visible in her uterus and a structure was blocking her fallopian tube — all telltale signs of an ectopic pregnancy, when a fetus implants outside of the uterus and has no room to grow. If left untreated, ectopic pregnancies can rupture, causing organ damage, hemorrhage or even death.

Thurman, however, was sent home and given a pamphlet on miscarriage for her first pregnancy. She returned three days later, still bleeding, and was given an injected drug intended to end the pregnancy, but it was too late. Days later, she showed up again at the emergency room, bleeding out because the fertilized egg growing on Thurman’s fallopian tube ruptured it. She underwent an emergency surgery that removed part of her reproductive system.

CMS launched its investigation of how Ascension Seton Williamson handled Thurman’s case late last year, shortly after she filed a complaint. Investigators concluded the hospital failed to give her a proper medical screening exam, including an evaluation with an OB-GYN. The hospital violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to all patients. Thurman was “at risk for deterioration of her health and wellbeing as a result of an untreated medical condition,” the investigation said in its report, which was publicly released last month.

Ascension, a vast hospital system that has facilities across multiple states, did not respond to questions about Thurman’s case, saying only that it “is committed to providing high-quality care to all who seek our services.”

Penalties for doctors, hospital staff

Doctors and legal experts have warned abortion restrictions like the one Texas enacted have discouraged emergency room staff from aborting dangerous and nonviable pregnancies, even when a woman’s life is imperiled. The stakes are especially high in Texas, where doctors face up to 99 years in prison if convicted of performing an illegal abortion. Lawmakers in the state are weighing a law that would remove criminal penalties for doctors who provide abortions in certain medical emergencies.

“We see patients with miscarriages being denied care, bleeding out in parking lots. We see patients with nonviable pregnancies being told to continue those to term,” said Molly Duane, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights that represented Thurman. “This is not, maybe, what some people thought abortion bans would look like, but this is the reality.”

The Biden administration routinely warned hospitals that they need to provide abortions when a woman’s health was in jeopardy, even suing Idaho over its state law that initially prohibited nearly all abortions, unless a woman’s life was on the line.

Questions remain about hospital investigations

But CMS’ announcement on Tuesday raises questions about whether such investigations will continue if hospitals do not provide abortions for women in medical emergencies.

The agency said it will still enforce the law, “including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.”

While states like Texas have clarified that ectopic pregnancies can legally be treated with abortions, the laws do not provide for every complication that might arise during a pregnancy. Several women in Texas have sued the state for its law, which has prevented women from terminating pregnancies in cases where their fetuses had deadly fetal anomalies or they went into labor too early for the fetus to survive.

Thurman worries pregnant patients with serious complications still won’t be able to get the help they may need in Texas emergency rooms.

“You cannot predict the ways a pregnancy can go,” Thurman said. “It can happen to anyone, still. There’s still so many ways in which pregnancies that aren’t ectopic can be deadly.”

Seitz writes for the Associated Press.

June 2 (UPI) — China on Monday rejected claims by U.S. President Donald Trump that it has broken the terms of the recent trade deal made between the two nations.

A Chinese Ministry of Commerce spokesperson said in a press release that it “firmly rejects” the “unreasonable accusations” and instead alleged that the United States failed to fulfill its duties.

The statement said that China followed through in canceling or suspending “relevant tariffs and non-tariff measures” implemented in response to Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” against China and several other nations.

It also noted that despite its conciliatory actions, the Trump administration has “successively introduced a number of discriminatory restrictive measures against China” such as export control guidelines for AI chips, stopping the sale of chip design software to China, and refering to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio‘s announcements of plans to “aggressively revoke” visas of Chinese students.

“The United States has unilaterally provoked new economic and trade frictions, exacerbating the uncertainty and instability of bilateral economic and trade relations. Instead of reflecting on itself, it has turned the tables and unreasonably accused China of violating the consensus, which is seriously contrary to the facts. China firmly rejects unreasonable accusations,” China said.

“If the [United States] insists on its own way and continues to damage China’s interests, China will continue to take resolute and forceful measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests.”

Trump said in a social media post on Friday that China had “totally violated its agreement with us” after the two sides had reached the deal in Geneva in May.

Under the terms of the deal, the two sides agreed to pause tariffs between the countries for 90 days as China reduced tariffs on American goods from 125% to 10% while the United States cut tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent clarified Trump’s comments on CBS News “Face the Nation” Sunday, stating that China was “withholding some of the products that they agreed to release during our agreement,” and then confirmed those products to be rare earths.

May 30 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday accused China of violating a trade agreement with the United States.

“I made a FAST DEAL with China in order to save them from what I thought was going to be a very bad situation, and I didn’t want to see that happen. Because of this deal, everything quickly stabilized and China got back to business as usual. Everybody was happy! That is the good news!!!,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!”

The president did not specify which trade agreement China was violating.

Just over two weeks ago, the United States and China reached a deal to pause tariffs between the countries for 90 days. China also reduced tariffs on American goods to 10%, down from 125%, while American officials cut tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30% as part of the deal.

Trump in early April announced he would enact tariffs on several countries worldwide. He later upped the number to 145% on China after that country responded to the initial levy with duties of its own on U.S. goods.

China later said it could punish other countries that side with the United States in the trade war.

Earlier this week a federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration from enacting the tariffs on most American trading partners.

“President Trump is carrying out the long-overdue work of rebalancing the global economy to the benefit of the American people,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on X Thursday.

“I am confident that the Chinese, and the rest of our trading partners, will come to the table thanks to his leadership.”

Bessent also called trade talks in general with China “a bit stalled.”

At the time the agreement was reached in Geneva, Switzerland, Bessent said the two sides engaged in “very robust discussions.”

Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer led the American delegation during discussions.

The “United States did exactly what it was supposed to do, and the Chinese are slow rolling their compliance,” Greer told CNBC in an interview Friday.

United States President Donald Trump has accused China of violating an agreement to mutually roll back tariffs and trade restrictions for critical minerals, as he suggested China was in “grave economic danger” until he agreed to cut a deal earlier this month.

Posting on his Truth Social platform on Friday evening, Trump said he made a “fast deal” with China for both countries to back away from triple-digit tariffs for 90 days to “save” Beijing from a “very bad situation”.

The US leader said his tariffs of up to 145 percent on Chinese imports had made it “virtually impossible” for China to trade with the US market, resulting in closed factories and “civil unrest” in the country.

“China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!” Trump added.

Trump did not specify in his post how China had violated the agreement – made following trade talks in Geneva, Switzerland, in mid-May – or what action he planned to take at their alleged failure to comply with its terms.

Asked by reporters about the China deal later on Friday in the Oval Office, Trump said: “I’m sure that I’ll speak to [China’s] President Xi [Jinping], and hopefully we’ll work that out.”

Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, told reporters that China’s failure to fulfil its obligations “opens up all manner of action for the United States to ensure future compliance”.

Miller added that Trump hoped China would open up to American business in a similar manner to the way the US has been open to Chinese business “for a very long time now”.

China’s embassy in Washington said Beijing has maintained communication with its US counterparts since the Geneva talks, but said they had concerns about recently imposed US export controls.

“China has repeatedly raised concerns with the US regarding its abuse of export control measures in the semiconductor sector and other related practices,” embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu said in a statement.

“China once again urges the US to immediately correct its erroneous actions, cease discriminatory restrictions against China and jointly uphold the consensus reached at the high-level talks in Geneva,” Liu added.

Broken promises

Earlier this week, media reports suggested the Trump administration had ordered US firms offering software used to design semiconductors to stop selling their services to Chinese groups.

On Wednesday, a spokesperson for the US Department of Commerce confirmed that it was reviewing exports of strategic significance to China, and “in some cases … suspended existing export licences or imposed additional licence requirements while the review is pending”.

On Friday, shortly after lamenting China’s lack of compliance with the Geneva agreement, President Trump also announced plans to increase tariffs on foreign imports of steel from 25 percent to 50 percent on June 4.

The agreement two weeks ago dialling back tariffs for 90 days prompted a massive rally in global stocks, as it effectively lowered the US tariff rate on Chinese goods to the mid-teens from about 25 percent in early April.

As part of the deal, China also agreed to lift trade countermeasures restricting exports of critical metals needed for production by US semiconductors, electronics and defence industries.

But Trump administration officials have publicly stated that China has been slow to adhere to their Geneva commitments and have so far failed to comply.

The Reuters news agency also reported on Friday that global auto executives are sounding the alarm on a looming shortage of rare-earth magnets from China that could force car factories to close within weeks.

“Without reliable access to these elements and magnets, automotive suppliers will be unable to produce critical automotive components, including automatic transmissions, throttle bodies, alternators, various motors, sensors, seat belts, speakers, lights, motors, power steering, and cameras,” the Alliance for Automotive Innovation said in a letter to the Trump administration.

NEW YORK — The Trump administration is accusing Columbia University of violating the civil rights of Jewish students by “acting with deliberate indifference” toward what it describes as rampant antisemitism on campus.

The finding was announced late Thursday by the Health and Human Services Department, marking the latest blow for an Ivy League school already shaken by federal cutbacks and sustained government pressure to crack down on student speech.

It comes hours after the Department of Homeland Security said it would revoke Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, a major escalation in the administration’s monthslong attack on higher education.

The civil rights division of HHS said it had found Columbia in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which blocks federal funding recipients from discrimination based on race, color or national origin. That final category, the press release notes, includes “discrimination against individuals that is based on their actual or perceived Israeli or Jewish identity or ancestry.”

The announcement did not include new sanctions against Columbia, which is already facing $400 million in federal cuts by the Trump administration over its response to pro-Palestinian campus protests.

A spokesperson for Columbia said the university is currently in negotiations with the government about resolving its claims of antisemitism.

“We understand this finding is part of our ongoing discussions with the government,” the spokesperson said in an email. “Columbia is deeply committed to combatting antisemitism and all forms of harassment and discrimination on our campus.”

The civil rights investigation into Columbia was based on witness interviews, media reports and other sources, according to HHS. The findings were not made public. A spokesperson did not response to a request for further information.

“The findings carefully document the hostile environment Jewish students at Columbia University have had to endure for over 19 months, disrupting their education, safety, and well-being,” Anthony Archeval, acting director of the HHS civil rights office, said in a statement.

Last spring, Columbia became the epicenter of protests against the war in Gaza, spurring a national movement of campus demonstrations that demanded universities cut ties with Israel.

At the time, some Jewish students and faculty complained about being harassed during the demonstrations or ostracized because of their faith or their support of Israel.

Those who participated in Columbia’s protests, including some Jewish students, have said they are protesting Israel’s actions against Palestinians and have forcefully denied allegations of antisemitism.

Many have also accused the university of capitulating to the Trump administration’s demands — including placing its Middle East studies department under new leadership — at the expense of academic freedom and protecting foreign students.

At a commencement ceremony earlier this week, a speech by Columbia’s acting president, Claire Shipman, was met with loud boos by graduates and chants of “free Palestine.”

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

A federal judge in the United States has told the administration of President Donald Trump that an alleged effort to deport migrants to South Sudan was “unquestionably violative” of his court injunction.

The announcement from US District Judge Brian Murphy on Wednesday tees up yet another judicial battle for the Trump administration, which has faced repeated criticism that it is ignoring court orders.

Judge Murphy, who is based in Boston, Massachusetts, has yet to announce what he plans to do about the apparent violation. He left that question to another day.

But he indicated that the people on board Tuesday’s flight had not been given enough time to challenge their deportations, in violation of their right to due process — and also in violation of Murphy’s April 18 injunction.

Murphy had ruled that migrants facing removal to a third-party country besides their own had the right to a reasonable amount of time to challenge their deportations.

But the Trump administration has repeatedly dismissed claims that it refuses to abide by decisions unfavourable to its policies, instead blasting judges like Murphy as “activist”.

During Wednesday’s court hearing, a lawyer for Trump’s Justice Department, Elainis Perez, refused to confirm where the deportation flight had landed, saying that divulging the information raised “very serious operational and safety concerns”.

Separately, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) held a news conference addressing the issue and defending the deportation flight.

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said the people on board had been accused of murder, armed robbery, rape and sexual assault.

In the case of one migrant, Lyons said, “his country would not take him back.” He called such countries “recalcitrant”.

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), also framed the removals as a “diplomatic and military security operation”.

Standing in front of photos representing eight migrants, she said they were deported alone for safety reasons and confirmed they remain in DHS custody, although they had indeed left the US.

“We cannot tell you what the final destination for these individuals will be,” she added, again citing security issues.

But she did address the possibility that they might currently be in South Sudan, as their lawyers indicated in court filings.

“I would caution you to make the assumption that their final destination is South Sudan,” she said, later clarifying that the flight may make multiple stops: “We’re confirming the fact that that’s not their final destination.”

In Tuesday’s court filings, lawyers for the migrants said their clients hail from Myanmar, Vietnam and other countries. They also explained that their clients speak little English but were provided no translator to understand their removal notices.

They allegedly were deported with less than 24 hours’ notice. On Tuesday morning, as one lawyer tried to locate her client, she said she was informed he had been removed to South Sudan, a country with a turbulent history and a record of human rights abuses.

Judge Murphy had previously ordered the migrants to be given at least 15 days to challenge their removals on the grounds that they could face dangers in the countries they were deported to.

In the wake of Tuesday’s flight, he has also ruled that the US government must keep the migrants in its custody and ensure their safety while hearings proceed.

McLaughlin, however, accused the “activist judge” of “trying to protect” the migrants, which she described as “some of the most barbaric, violent individuals”.

“While we are fully compliant with the law and court orders, it is absolutely absurd for a district judge to try to dictate the foreign policy and national security of the United States of America,” she said.

McLaughlin and the other officials also argued that the Trump administration was exercising its right to find “safe third countries” to remove these individuals to.

“No country on earth wanted to accept them because their crimes are so uniquely monstrous and barbaric,” she said.

“Thanks to the courageous work of the State Department and ICE and the president’s national security team, we found a nation that was willing to accept custody of these vicious illegal aliens.”

The Trump administration has been accused of amping up fears of criminality among immigration populations, as part of its justification for its “mass deportation” campaign.

Police in South Sudan have told The Associated Press news agency that no migrants from the US have arrived in the country so far. The New York Times has reported that the plane is believed to have landed in the East African country of Djibouti.

A United States judge has rebuked the administration of President Donald Trump, saying that reports of deportations to South Sudan appear to violate his previous court order.

On Tuesday in Boston, Massachusetts, US District Court Judge Brian Murphy held a virtual hearing to weigh an emergency motion on behalf of deported migrants reportedly on board a flight to South Sudan.

He asked lawyers for the Trump administration to identify where the migrants were. He also indicated that he could ask for the flight to be turned around.

“Based on what I have been told, this seems like it may be contempt,” Judge Murphy told Elianis Perez, a lawyer for the Trump Justice Department.

In a recent annual report, the US Department of State accused South Sudan of “significant human rights issues”, including torture and extrajudicial killings.

But the Trump administration has been looking abroad for destinations to send undocumented immigrants currently detained in the US, particularly those whose home countries will not accept them.

In Tuesday’s hearing, Judge Murphy said the flight to South Sudan appeared to violate a preliminary injunction he issued on April 18, which prohibited migrants from being deported to third-party countries that were not their own.

That injunction required the Trump administration to give the migrants an adequate opportunity to appeal their removal.

The migrants, Judge Murphy ruled, were simply seeking “an opportunity to explain why such a deportation will likely result in their persecution, torture, and/or death”.

He cited the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to due process: in other words, a fair hearing in the US court system.

Earlier this month, on May 7, lawyers for the migrants had indicated that their clients were slated to be sent to Libya, another country with significant human rights concerns.

Judge Murphy, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, ruled that such a deportation would be in violation of his injunction.

In Tuesday’s emergency court filing, the lawyers for those migrants emphasised how close a call that incident was. The migrants in question were already on a bus, sitting on the tarmac of an airport, when they were ordered to be returned.

The emergency motion identifies the migrants only by their initials and countries of origin, Myanmar and Vietnam among them.

But it explains what allegedly happened to them over the last 24 hours and seeks immediate action from the court.

The lawyers allege that one migrant from Myanmar, called NM in the court filings, received a notice of removal on Monday. It identified the destination as South Africa. Within 10 minutes, the court filing said the email was recalled by its sender.

A couple of hours later, a new notice of removal was sent, this time naming South Sudan as the destination.

In both instances, NM refused to sign the document. Lawyers in the emergency petition indicate that NM has “limited English proficiency” and was not provided a translator to understand the English-language document.

While one of NM’s lawyers stated her intention to meet with him on Tuesday morning, by the time their appointment time came, she was informed he had already been removed from his detention facility, en route to South Sudan.

The emergency filing includes a copy of an email sent to the lawyers from the family members of those deported.

“I believe my husband [name redacted] and 10 other individuals that were sent to Port Isabel Detention Center in Los Fresnos, TX were deported to South Africa or Sudan,” the email begins.

“This is not right! I fear my husband and his group, which consist of people from Laos, Thailand, Pakistan, Korea, and Mexico are being sent to South Africa or Sudan against their will. Please help! They cannot be allowed to do this.”