The two men, detained in the western city of Herat on August 9, were released on Thursday morning and appear to be in good health, says the UN.
Published On 21 Aug 202621 Aug 2026
Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities have released two United Nations staff members who were detained more than a week ago, though the reason for their detention remains unclear, the UN said.
The two men were detained in the western city of Herat on August 9. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said they were released on Thursday morning and appeared to be in good health.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
“UNAMA has not been formally notified of the reasons for their arrest and detention and continues to follow up with the de facto authorities,” the UN said in a statement, adding it understood that charges against the two had been dropped.
It said the organisation was also following up “to ensure respect for the privileges and immunities of the United Nations, as well as the safety, security and freedom of movement of United Nations and associated personnel throughout the country”.
The arrests were the latest in a series of detentions by Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities. Last week, Human Rights Watch said six staff members of a local organisation working on women’s and children’s rights had been “forcibly disappeared” for more than a month.
“For us, we’re just delighted that [the two staff members] have been released, they’re in good health, and they face apparently no more judicial legal issues,” UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters at the organisation’s headquarters in New York.
Afghan authorities did not immediately comment on the release.
Multiple UN agencies operate across Afghanistan in a range of areas, including health and humanitarian response. The country has been hit hard by international aid cuts and faces numerous challenges, including the return of millions of its citizens from Iran and Pakistan in recent years.
The UN mission’s mandate from the UN Security Council includes promoting and supporting humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people, as well as promoting human rights, equality for women and girls, inclusive governance and economic stability.
The Taliban seized power in Afghanistan on August 15, 2021, as the United States and NATO forces withdrew from the country after two decades of war.
Shortly after, they barred girls from education beyond primary school and banned women from nearly all employment, effectively excluding women and girls from public life. They have also removed minimum-age protections for girls’ marriage and made domestic violence punishable only in cases in which a woman has suffered visible injuries or broken bones.
For Welsh fans, the arrival of the tour offers a chance to watch a strong contingent of homegrown riders racing alongside some of the sports biggest names, including 2024 winner and two-time world champion, Lotte Kopecky (SD Worx – Protime).
Among the Welsh headliners is British champion Zoe Backstedt who goes into stage 3 in 51st, 2 minutes 48 seconds behind leader, Lorena Wiebes (SD Worx – Protime).
The 21-year-old is competing less than three weeks on from making her highly anticipated Tour de France (TdF) Femmes debut, where she finished 50th overall.
Racing on home roads will offer Backstedt another exciting opportunity to build on what has already been a successful season.
The Canyon-SRAM rider has won British road race and time trial titles plus a sprint stage at the Tour de Suisse Femmes, and retained the 2026 Baloise Ladies Tour title a year after becoming the youngest winner of the race.
And she has her elder sister, Elynor Backstedt who rides for UAE Team L’IMAD, for company, making this year’s race a family affair, with their father Magnus also taking on a sport director role for Human Powered Health.
That’s not partiality or wish casting on the part of your friendly political columnist. The fact is Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans in California, in both registration and inclination.
The gregarious and media-savvy Hilton has been waging an energetic and effervescent run for governor, with multiple appearances a day and frequent updates to his cheeky social media accounts.
“He’s going to San Francisco” — into the bowels of the liberal beast — “he’s going into schools, talking to labor groups,” said Hector Barajas, a campaign spokesman. “He’ll go everywhere.”
Becerra not so much.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and other analysts cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
That said, if Hilton is flat-out running for a job he stands virtually no chance of winning, Becerra is embarked on more of a leisurely stroll toward his all-but-certain perch in Sacramento.
That’s not a terrible thing at this midsummer stage of the race. Once, in the blessed era before the 24/7 news cycle and the omnipresence of social media, there was a lull in the months after the primary, with campaign activities picking back up around Labor Day.
On Tuesday, during a walking tour of Los Angeles’ Little Tokyo neighborhood, Becerra pushed back on the notion he was taking his election — and California voters — for granted. “If I were trying to coast,” he told reporters, “I’d be out on the coast right now instead of here with you all.”
Becerra’s pace aside, the days between now and the Nov. 3 election offer him plenty of time to spell out what, exactly, he has to offer his home state and how, in a broad sense, he plans to tackle one of the highest profile, most vexing jobs in all of American politics.
At least one of those days should include a face-to-face debate between Hilton and Becerra. The two shared a stage multiple times during the primary season. They have not appeared together since.
More than a half-dozen news organizations have offered to host the gubernatorial rivals in a one-on-one session. Several other groups have proposed forums that would allow them to discuss their differences together in person.
Barajas, the spokesman for Hilton’s campaign, said the Republican hopeful has agreed to each and every invitation.
“He’s got absolutely no problem” appearing anytime or anywhere, Barajas said. “He will go to East L.A.. He will go to South-Central. He will go into the heart of the Central Valley. It doesn’t matter to him.”
That’s no surprise.
When a candidate is an underdog, like Hilton, they’ll typically show up at the opening of an envelope if it means appearing before a crowd. Conversely, a candidate on a seeming glide path to election, like Becerra, will often balk at giving their opponent the exposure afforded by a debate, much less risk harming themselves with a bad performance.
There’s a lot of virtue signaling that surrounds the notion of candidate debates.
Far from a high-minded discussion of policy differences, they often devolve into a stale recitation of talking points and pre-scripted zingers. After a while, debates can grow redundant and, frankly, boring as contestants repeat well-worn phrases and replow deeply furrowed ground. Such was the case by the time California’s gubernatorial hopefuls met for their sixth televised debate in the spring.
Most voters — many of whom profess to care oh-so-deeply about issues and matters of great import — don’t even bother tuning in. If they found debates that captivating, shows such as the “PBS NewsHour” would routinely outdraw the latest season of “Love Island USA.”
No matter.
There is an audience, however limited, for debates. Even if they don’t bother watching, many voters read about the encounters afterward, catch snippets online, or glean useful insights from the extensive coverage that follows.
Above all, a willingness to debate is a sign of respect — for voters as well as the political process the candidates are a part of. Minimizing direct confrontation with Hilton may play to Becerra’s inherently cautious nature. It also makes sense from a purely strategic standpoint.
But it doesn’t serve the people of California, or give voters their due. This is a campaign for governor. Not a coronation.
Becerra owes California, and Hilton, the chance to take the candidates’ measure side by side before their contest is over. The sooner Becerra commits to a time and place, the better.
SACRAMENTO — California’s next governor, Xavier Becerra, is a “small ball” player, to borrow a baseball term. He probably won’t be swinging for the fences like Govs. Gavin Newsom and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
But he also won’t be striking out a lot trying to hit home runs, like Newsom and Schwarzenegger.
Democrat Newsom has rapped some doubles, most notably streamlining the long-abused California Environmental Quality Act that has slowed housing development for decades and increased the cost of homeownership.
Republican Schwarzenegger slammed a home run when he signed Democratic legislation (AB 32) kicking off California’s nation-leading fight against climate change.
But stars Newsom and Schwarzenegger frequently fanned at the plate while overreaching.
Gov. Jerry Brown? He had the “good eye,” another baseball term referring to a batter adept at spotting a good pitch to swing at and knowing when to lay off. Brown was very choosy and strategic — a solid player in his second tenure as governor.
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
We can only surmise based on Becerra’s long record of public service — legislator, congressman, state attorney general and U.S. Health secretary in the Biden administration.
That, and how he’s approaching his election campaign — basically the same way he has performed throughout his career: slow, steady, cautious. A gradual, careful climb to the top in California.
A workhorse, not a show horse, using a tired cliche that’s applicable to Becerra.
Framed by the background of struggling, working class Mexican immigrant parents — roots the candidate never forgets and frequently mentions.
We do know one thing for sure: He’ll be elected governor in November — California’s first elected Latino governor in history.
We’ll go through the motions of watching two candidates “compete.” But there’s no way that a moderate, essentially clean Democrat can lose in California to a Republican former Fox News host whose only previous political gig was as strategist for a British prime minister and — most damning — who is endorsed by the detested, despicable President Trump.
GOP candidate Steve Hilton contends that Trump’s unpopularity in California “doesn’t matter because we’re not talking about national policies here. This is about what we can do in our state to make life better for Californians.”
One thing we can do is continue to fight back against Trump. Becerra vehemently pledges to do that and points to his successful record as attorney general blocking the president’s policies in court.
Trump’s national policies don’t matter in California? Wrong. He shrinks federal healthcare funds, attempts to drill for oil off the pristine coast, invades our cities with the National Guard and poisons protection for salmon and other endangered species.
Californians will be voting against Trump up and down the ballot in November.
Back to Becerra.
Small ball is basically about playing methodically, scoring one run at a time rather than relying on home runs and extra-base hits, moving runners with walks, bunts, stolen bases and bloop singles. Patience and careful incrementalism. That’s Becerra.
“I would prefer not to run on inflated promises that then I can’t deliver on,” Becerra told Politico reporter Melanie Mason last week at a public forum in Sacramento. “I’m not going to promise you 3 million [new housing] units because that’s where I can’t go. That’s an inflated promise. But I will tell you we will build. There will be more Californians who own a home.”
Newsom promised to build 3.5 million new housing units when he ran for election in 2018 — and dramatically struck out.
Becerra told reporters that “realistically” he could double the roughly 100,000 new units annually being built today. A bloop single.
The Democrat made a small ball proposal last week. He pledged two free hours of electricity daily for low-income households. Details will be negotiated with the state Public Utilities Commission and presumably private utilities like Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric.
Becerra envisions, for example, that a family of four earning less than $82,500 annually would get two hours of free electricity mid-day when regional demand is low and solar is generating lots of unused energy.
So, if it’s unused electricity why not make it free for practically everyone regardless of their income? Maybe that could be considered. Probably not.
One thing we can look forward to: A full-time governor who won’t be dividing his time running for president. He’ll be solely focused on the job of governing.
He’ll also fully understand and respect the process of legislating — as a former member of the U.S. House Democratic leadership — and presumably feel comfortable dealing with legislative honchos.
Becerra already has one devoted fan in the Legislature: Powerful Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister).
“This is a person who is always just incredibly focused, someone who is very engaged,” Rivas told Politico’s Jeremy White last week.
“One quality about Xavier is he doesn’t wake up every morning thinking how he can make headlines or be on the front page of our newspapers.
“He’s someone [who] doesn’t ever have to speak the loudest but you can’t mistake that for being passive. … He’s intensely competitive. He’s extremely persistent. … He’s going to have an ambitious plan and an agenda.”
OK, we’re all ears. We’d like to hear about it before election day. But don’t count on it. Small ballers tend to be agonizingly cautious, even when they end up winning.
Former Loose Women panellist, Nadia Sawalha, has spoken out in support of her co-star Denise Welch after her shock departure from the show earlier this week to concentrate on her “first love” of acting.Nadia, 61, told the Mirror she is “really happy” for her pal, praising how Denise, 68, was “never afraid to share what she thought.” Nadia, claims to have been “bullied off” Loose Women after complaints were made about her pro-Palestinian beliefs, and is now threatening to sue ITV.Yesterday Nadia’s husband Mark Adderley and her sister Dina Sawlaha hit out over the lack of support she has been given since leaving the show amid celebrations of Denise’s time at Loose Women.
Mark, a film producer and local councillor, said in a video post that the way she had been treated “breaks my heart”.
He declared: “I am absolutely flabbergasted, agog, horrified, shocked, beyond dismayed and disappointed by the cowardly lack of support I have heard or seen for you from people I would’ve expected it to come from.”
When Kaye Adams replied to the news of Denise’s departure, Dina raged: ”So your Instagram does work! After all of Nadia’s support for you during your bullying allegations, you couldn’t even LIKE her Daily Mail apology post, which is about as controversial as it gets. Wow, wow, wow!”Last month Nadia received a “substantial” payout and apology from two newspapers which had printed false claims about her and husband Mark.
Despite the drama, Nadia is fully supportive of Denise, and tells the Mirror: “Denise was a great Loose Woman, never afraid to share what she thought, even if it was unpopular sometimes.
“I have always admired her advocacy for those suffering with their mental health and addiction, as I’ve faced similar challenges within my family.”
The pair have worked together on the ITV Daytime show on and off for 20 years.
Nadia adds: “We always said it would have been a disaster if we’d gone to school together, as we would have been in trouble constantly!”Denise, recently appeared in Channel 4 drama Tip Toe and previously starred in Waterloo Road, Coronation Street, Benidorm and Hollyoaks. “Having seen her on stage and, of course, many times on TV, I know she is a fabulous actress,” Nadia says. “So I’m really happy for her. Anything is possible for her. The sky’s the limit.”
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday Mirror last week, Nadia claimed some Loose Women colleagues had offered support, but she alleges many are too scared to do so publicly.
She said two well-known faces at ITV reacted to an Instagram video she posted on her threat to sue the network. It was not clear who those individuals were.
More than half of women’s organisations still operating in Afghanistan could cease operations within the next year, UN Women warns.
Five years since the Taliban came to power, the United Nations has warned that funding issues mean more than half of women’s organisations still operating in Afghanistan could cease operations within the next year.
Susan Ferguson, UN Women’s special representative in Afghanistan, appealed to donor countries on Friday not to cut funding for women’s programmes, saying to do so would only deepen the suffering of Afghan women.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
More than half of 74 women’s organisations surveyed in April are likely to have to suspend operations or close in the next year due to funding problems, Ferguson said.
The UN’s $1.7bn humanitarian appeal for Afghanistan was only 25 percent funded, and nearly three-quarters of the women’s organisations had experienced funding cuts in 2025, while about two-thirds reported that they had six months or less of operational funding remaining, she added.
The UN’s call comes as the Taliban marks five years since US forces withdrew from the country, effectively handing back power to the group in August 2021, after 20 years of war.
Bright white flags of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have been installed this week across the Afghan capital Kabul, with new murals declaring: “Independence is a sign of dignity, pride and identity”.
The Taliban is also hosting a cricket match as part of the celebrations – but, just like much of public life in Afghanistan, women and girls are barred from attending.
An Afghan boy buys a Taliban flag from a roadside vendor in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province on August 14, 2026, ahead of the fifth anniversary of the Taliban government’s return to power [Mohammad Faisal Naweed/AFP]
Crippling restrictions for Afghan women
The Taliban has imposed more than 100 decrees restricting women’s rights since returning to power, affecting nearly every aspect of their daily lives, from education and employment to freedom of movement, healthcare and access to justice, Ferguson said.
Despite repeated Taliban promises to find an ideologically compliant way for them to attend school, girls are still banned from secondary schools and women from universities.
More than half of 3,200 women surveyed by UN Women said they now leave their homes only once or twice a month.
Seven in 10 women described their mental health as bad or very bad, Ferguson said.
On Friday, a group of 56 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Lebanon, the United States and the United Arab Emirates, issued a joint statement at the UN renewing calls on the Taliban to reverse restrictions on women and girls, saying its “systematic repression of women and girls has become a defining feature of the current system”.
A slew of challenges
Five years of Taliban rule have left wider Afghan society facing a slew of other challenges.
More than half of primary school-aged children are out of school, and child malnutrition has reached critical levels in a third of Afghanistan’s provinces, according to the UN World Food Programme.
Infrastructure in the country has been damaged by a series of deadly earthquakes and floods that have also killed thousands.
While deaths from “terrorism” have fallen precipitously since the Taliban took power, according to data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the country has become embroiled in a series of deadly border confrontations with its neighbours in both Iran and Pakistan.
The country also remains relatively diplomatically isolated, with Russia being the only country worldwide to formally recognise Taliban rule.
Following the latest news that beloved Loose Women panellist Denise Welch is departing the ITV show, many viewers are now labelling the programme a ‘sinking ship’
Denise Welch has revealed she’s leaving Loose Women after 25 years(Image: ITV)
Daytime TV favourite Loose Women has recently undergone some of the most sweeping structural and staffing shake-ups in its 26-year history, and following the latest news that beloved panellist Denise Welch is departing the show, many viewers are now labelling the programme a ‘sinking ship’.
As part of a sweeping broadcaster-wide cost-cutting drive by ITV, the format of the show has changed dramatically this year. Rather than broadcasting all year round, Loose Women was scaled back to a seasonal format in January, airing for just 30 weeks a year. The show also axed its live studio audience entirely. This decision led to the dismissal of long-serving studio warm-up comedian Lee Peart, sparking an emotional outcry from remaining cast members.
Loose Women also vacated its former home and relocated to The H Club Studio in Covent Garden. It now shares a centralised, 360-degree LED-walled studio space with This Morning and Lorraine in a bid to significantly slash production costs.
Content cannot be displayed without consent
While its standard runtime remains one hour (12:30 pm to 1:30 pm), the show has trialled temporary extensions – such as 15-minute “extra time” segments to accommodate sports scheduling and specific themed features.
It was also revealed this month that panellist Nadia Sawalha had been dropped from the programme by ITV following controversy over her beliefs. Now, news has broken today (August 13) that Denise Welch has quit the show.
The 68-year-old, who has appeared on-and-off the programme for 25 years, says she wants to throw herself wholeheartedly into her acting career, which she has described as her true passion and “first love”.
She has enjoyed a remarkable professional resurgence of late, landing major television roles including the Channel 4 sitcom Stepping Up and the Channel 5 drama Forever Home.
In a video uploaded to her personal Instagram account, Welch opened up about the reasoning behind her departure.
She said: “Acting has always been my first love and, I think, the thing I’m best at.
“At the moment, I’m having the most wonderful opportunities coming my way and I’m grabbing them by the you-know-whats and running with it for this new chapter of my life.”
Reflecting on her time on Loose Women, she added: “This show has been part of mine, and my family’s life, for nearly a quarter of a century. I have the most wonderful, wonderful memories.
“I’ve shared my life with you, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I’m very Marmite, but I cherish all the comments, good or bad, that I’ve had over the years.”
Amid growing public speculation over the state of the show, she moved to clarify her relationship with her fellow cast members, adding: “I’ll miss everybody, but I will remain friends with the whole gang because, despite what you might read, we are a happy band of campers.”
Her announcement triggered an enormous outpouring of support from her fellow panellists, underscoring her reputation as the “beating heart” of the show.
Host Kaye Adams wrote: “You have broken my heart but I shall watch your Den-aissance with love and pride.”
While Nadia Sawalha added: “You are such a fantastic actress. Fly high lovely.”
Scores of fans also told Denise how much they had enjoyed watching her on the programme, though some predicted its decline following her exit and other recent developments.
One person wrote: “It’s not fun to watch anymore and it feels like people are not allowed to have different opinions on the important things! Plus ITV deciding to get the rid of the audience is the beginning of the end. You were my favourite one!”.
Another claimed Loose Women is “grinding to a halt”, while a third added: “I’m glad you jumped before the ship went down.”
The news comes amid separate claims that ITV recently shelved a Loose Women spin-off project as part of sweeping budget cuts across the broadcaster.
In July 2026, reports emerged that ITV executives quietly pulled the plug on a planned Loose Women spin-off podcast.
An insider noted that while the broadcaster remains hopeful for another run in the future, the project will not feature on the immediate calendar due to sweeping cost-cutting measures impacting ITV Daytime.
Denise Welch is leaving Loose Women(Image: Ken McKay/ITV/Shutterstock)
Denise Welch has announced that she is leaving Loose Women, sparking a flood of support from fans. The 68-year-old has been a staple of the ITV panel for decades, but confirmed that she would be stepping down in a video shared on Instagram earlier today.
Sharing the reason for her departure – which came days after Nadia Sawalha spoke about her own exit – she told followers that she wanted to focus on her acting career, describing it as her ‘first love and the thing she’s best at.”
In a video posted on Instagram she said: “I’m leaving Loose Women after the best part of 25 years, off and on. I did leave for about seven years and went back in 2018. This show has been part of mine, and my family’s life, for nearly a quarter of a century.
“I have the most wonderful, wonderful memories and it’s just that acting has always been my first love and, I think, the thing I’m best at.
“At the moment, I’m having the most wonderful opportunities coming my way and I’m grabbing them by the you-know-whats and running with it for this new chapter of my life.
“And so I just wanted to say that in person to thank all of the people who have shared my stories with me. I’ve shared my life with you – the good, the bad and the ugly. I’m very marmite but I cherish all the comments, good or bad, that I’ve had over the years.”
She added: “I just hope you wish me well for this new exciting chapter in my life. I’ll miss everybody but I will remain friends with the whole gang because, despite what you might read, we are a happy band of campers. Lots of love, thanks for sticking with me.”
Denise’s husband, Lincoln Townley, was among the first to share his support for her departure in the comments below. He proudly penned: “Grab those you know what’s darling you’re an incredibly strong talented sensational woman, the best is yet to come!”
Carol Vorderman commented: “Dens …… well that’s an era closing … you’ve been the beating heart of LW and I loved my 3 years with you there. You’re looking soooooooo well and happy and excited so here’s to your next chapter my lovely friend.”
“Nooooooo! Gutted to be honest! Going to really miss sharing the panel with you,” Katie Piper replied, as GK Barry added: “Denise I’m gonna be so sad not to be on the panel with you anymore you always brought so much joy to my day. Can’t wait to see you on our screens [sic].”
Denise made her debut as an official Loose Women panelist in 2005 alongside Kaye Adams, Coleen Nolan and a string of other notable faces. She took a step back from the series in 2013, before eventually returning in 2018.
In that time, she has shared the screen with Ruth Langsford, Christine Lampard, Andrea McLean, Oti Mabuse, Gloria Hunniford and many others.
She came to came in the early 80s before landing a coveted role in Byker Grove as Polly Bell in 1990. Shortly after, she made the move over to Weatherfield, playing Rovers Return landlady Natalie Barnes in Coronation Street.
Following her exit from the soap in 2000, she appeared in Down to Earth, Waterloo Road, Hollyoaks, Emmerdale and EastEnders. Aside from acting, she also won Celebrity Big Brother in 2012 and competed in Dancing on Ice.
Although Denise remained coy about her upcoming acting opportunities, an insider explained that she was taking ‘a massive leap of faith’.
Describing her decision as ‘the end of an era’, they told the Sun: “She is taking a massive leap of faith and going to focus solely on her acting which, really, has always been her first great love.
“Over the past 18 months she has also won herself a whole new fan base with Gen Z, and the LGBTQIA+ community especially.”
“This has seen her being offered high-fashion photoshoots, and given new social media opportunities,” they added. “Now is the time to pursue her dreams, although she will be devastated to wave goodbye to her Loose friends and colleagues. She will be sorely missed.”
After, well, the world seemingly fell in line with his long-planned $110-billion merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery in recent weeks, a dozen state attorneys general, led by California’s Rob Bonta, have stymied the deal with a so-far-successful lawsuit that has put the whole thing on ice.
That has Paramount, and presumably Ellison, big mad-sad. So much so that a company lawyer this week suggested Paramount could move out of California if Bonta doesn’t back down.
For those of us in the cheap seats, the whole plot of the Paramount merger has become so convoluted and nebulous it‘s hard to follow exactly what’s going on, and what it all means.
So let’s pull back, and take a big-picture look at what’s happening and what’s at stake — legally and politically.
Legally pretty good
First, the recap: Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery have been trying to merge since 2024. European regulators, along with those in other countries, cleared the deal, with some conditions in place.
Then, recently, 12 state attorneys general led by Bonta sued to stop the merger on antitrust grounds and won a temporary restraining order.
So why did the states sue?
Trump’s idea of regulation seems to be to OK anything he likes, or that personally benefits him. Therefore, “the states have come in and played a really important role, since the DOJ has basically walked away from a lot of interest enforcement,” said George Hay, a professor of law and economics at Cornell University. “The states take this really seriously.”
While there have been lots of angles on this merger in the media (including concerns over foreign investments), the antitrust lawsuit is really fairly narrow — the main argument is that the merger will “kill off theaters,” Hay said, and hurt consumers and creators.
Bonta has pointed out that after the merger, the new Paramount would control about 27% of films released into theaters in the U.S., along with basic cable distribution.
David Ellison, chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance, speaks at a New York event in April.
(Noam Galai / Getty Images for Paramount)
On those narrow grounds, “the states have done a good job putting together a credible case, a case that a court’s likely to regard as being plausible,” said William Kovacic, a professor of law at George Washington University.
While the lawsuit is only in preliminary stages, Harry First, a professor of law emeritus at New York University and an expert in antitrust matters, said it has a “decent chance of succeeding.”
That has to worry Paramount, because a long, drawn-out court case is bad for business.
“If you go through appeals, it means that your transaction hangs suspended in the air for a couple of years,” Kovacic said. “It creates all sorts of uncertainty about the future direction of the business.”
The issues that don’t matter, but actually do
Paramount also has PR headaches involved with this deal, though they largely lie outside the scope of the legal action.
Whether or not CNN would retain its editorial independence has been a huge topic of debate. Ellison’s dad, billionaire Larry Ellison, is a huge F.O.T. (friend of Trump) with a hard-right tilt.
The younger Ellison has already been accused of destroying the integrity of “60 Minutes.” Many fear (or hope, depending on their politics) that he will do the same to CNN. But that’s not really an antitrust issue, although Ellison has tried to claim this is political persecution by liberal states.
There’s also been talk from labor unions and some politicians that the merger will hurt workers, which seems like a reasonable fear. In general, First points out, less competition leads to more power for the remaining owners to set the terms of employment.
Again, that’s not what the lawsuit is actually focused on.
Politics front and center
But both of those issues have become popular talking points, more prevalent than the actual issues in the lawsuit.
That reality is creating a political headache for some big political heads, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and governor-in-waiting Xavier Becerra, who are increasingly receiving pressure from Paramount to make this all go away.
That thumbscrew campaign lost all subtlety this week at a Politico event in Sacramento, where Paramount’s chief legal officer Makan Delrahim said the company would consider leaving the state.
“If I was governor, I wouldn’t want to lose Hollywood from the state. I wouldn’t want to lose a major company like Paramount to another state,” Delrahim said.
Both Newsom and Becerra in recent days have indicated they would prefer some sort of settlement, avoiding a long legal battle that could kill the deal entirely.
NYU’s First sees that as “the weakness of Democrats who say they don’t like concentration and they don’t like concentration in the media and they don’t like companies getting bigger and bigger, and then they fold when the companies have political power.”
Let’s look at that power more closely, though, because if you recall, there are 11 other attorneys general in this suit, including from powerful states such as New York and Colorado.
That means “California doesn’t necessarily dictate what will happen to the case,” Hay said. “It may well be Ellison will twist Newsom’s arm to get Newsom to twist the attorney general’s arm to call off the case or take a very favorable settlement, but it doesn’t kick the other states out.”
While Bonta, at the same Politico event, said he’s had private conversations with Newsom on the issue, he also doesn’t seem interested in folding.
“In a span of weeks, Paramount agreed to halt the merger until a court decision or until June 2027, asked for a November trial, and is now back with another attempt to blackmail the state into letting an illegal deal through. Paramount has lost the plot as it continues to lose in court. It didn’t work the first time — on the eve of our July lawsuit — and it won’t work this time,” Bonta said in a recent social media post.
Don’t forget, Bonta has his own aspirations for governor, and Hay points out that AGs often see antitrust cases as “a political stepping stone” because they are popular with voters.
So what’s next?
As the lawsuit is currently written, First and other legal experts agreed this would be a hard case to settle because it doesn’t leave a lot of room for dealmaking.
That, of course, doesn’t mean a deal couldn’t be done.
But it’s unlikely Ellison will force California to crumble with so many other states in the game, no matter how many threats Paramount drops, and unlikely the merger will escape this lawsuit without concessions that the attorneys general can cite as victories.
Gaza City, Gaza Strip – Sohair al-Bordani was displaced and living in central Gaza’s Nuseirat camp, trying to take care of her four children, as war raged all around her.
And while she survived, her 10-year marriage has not. Al-Bordani, 30, explained that the arguments between her and her ex-husband had intensified since the war began in 2023, as the stress of merely existing in Gaza weighed down on them.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
But al-Bordani encountered a problem. Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza – in which Israel has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians – has devastated many aspects of the Palestinian enclave’s administration, including its legal system.
To get a court-ordered divorce, with the accompanying financial claims she would be eligible for, al-Bordani would have to go before a religious court and establish her case. She said that she initiated legal proceedings in February 2025. But, because of delays to the judicial process brought on by the war, the case dragged on.
And so, al-Bordani chose the speedier option available to her – khulu, a form of divorce initiated by the wife that can involve relinquishing financial rights. In her case, this meant that she returned her dowry to her ex-husband and gave up the financial support she would have been entitled to.
“I gave up everything because obtaining my rights under these circumstances had become extremely difficult,” al-Bordani said. “I only wanted to find peace and start a new life away from everything I experienced during that period.”
Legal delays
Al-Bordani’s story reflects the experience of many women in Gaza who have found themselves trapped between delayed legal cases and a war that has disrupted access to the justice system, leaving decisions that are supposed to determine their futures suspended until conditions allow courts to resume their work fully.
Some personal status cases – including divorces – have reached Gaza’s religious courts, which oversee the matters.
According to Sheikh Hassan al-Jojo, the head of the Supreme Council of Sharia Judiciary in Gaza, courts have handled more than 8,700 divorce cases from the beginning of the war in October 2023 until the end of May.
That is despite the many challenges they face, including – but not limited to – damage to court buildings and shortages of judges and other staff.
Al-Jojo also said that courts had returned to near-full judicial work, while services continued even during periods when court buildings were closed.
But he also pointed out that the courts were operating with severely limited resources. Each court – according to al-Jojo – has only one computer, while repeated power cuts, shortages of printed materials and a lack of basic office supplies continue to affect their work.
“Essential services, including marriages and divorces, and other procedures needed by citizens, did not stop,” al-Jojo said. “But the priority at this stage is to keep providing the service, rather than improving it.”
Troubling consequences
Yet divorce figures alone do not reflect the full impact of the war on families. The delays in accessing the legal system have meant that women like al-Bordani have been unable to pursue their legal rights after separation, particularly in cases involving child custody, spousal and child maintenance, and other financial payments that are typically due to the wife.
Mohammad al-Talaa, a lawyer in Gaza, says that the war has significantly affected the functioning of judicial institutions, leading to the postponement of thousands of hearings and the suspension of many cases.
He added that thousands of files and documents have been lost due to Israeli bombing and the destruction of offices, making it difficult to prove rights, particularly in civil and property-related cases.
And with regard to personal status cases, al-Talaa pointed out that the suspension of enforcement departments in courts has left women entitled to payments without that financial support, and has also affected child visitation and custody cases, leaving some parents unable to implement decisions related to maintaining contact with their children.
The problems are not just legal. Al-Talaa explained that the continued delay in divorce and separation cases has left some women trapped in marriages they want to get out of. It has also prevented them from moving on with their lives, while delays in access to financial payments they are owed have increased the burden on families, and a lack of resolution on cases involving children has led to increased psychological stress for all involved, alongside the trauma caused by the war itself.
Suad al-Naami was not willing to deal with being stuck in limbo, and decided to get a khulu divorce even if it meant giving up on the rights a court-mandated divorce would have granted her.
The 22-year-old had only been married for five months, but with disputes with her ex-husband increasing, she left.
“I never imagined my married life would begin this way,” al-Naami said. “I hoped we would have a home and a stable life, but displacement and living in a tent made everything more difficult.”
For the young woman, the promise of a new start, amid all the destruction around her in Gaza, was better than a drawn-out case.
“Giving up on my rights was not an easy matter, but I felt that entering a long legal process and waiting for years would only increase my suffering,” al-Naami said. “I only wanted to end the disputes and start over, because staying in a relationship full of problems under these circumstances would have been harder than the decision to separate itself.”
Phoebe Litchfield shows off her incredible fielding ability by producing a brilliant stop on the boundary to prevent fellow Australian Meg Lanning from scoring a six to keep Sunrisers Leeds on top in their women’s Hundred match against Manchester Super Giants.
Saira Khan has candidly revealed why quit Loose Women as she claimed she was “treated unfairly” and received death threats during her time on the ITV chat show
14:58, 11 Aug 2026Updated 14:58, 11 Aug 2026
Saira Khan has opened up about her exit from Loose Women(Image: ITV)
Saira Khan has revealed why she really left Loose Women after Nadia Sawalha claimed she’s been dropped by ITV.
The former Apprentice star, 56, joined the ITV chat show in 2015 and spent five years debating live on air alongside the likes of Ruth Langsford, Coleen Nolan and Nadia Sawalha but eventually made the tough decision to leave the high-paying TV job after even her children had started to realise she had been treated “unfairly” during the height of her fame.
She said: “When you’re new, it’s really hard because it’s such a clique. You’ve got to prove yourself. But I aligned myself to Coleen and Ruth pretty quickly because I could relate to them. It was a hard decision to leave because I’d done it for a long time. No matter what you give to the media, you don’t get the thanks back, there’s no loyalty and you can be dropped. I saw people giving less but getting more. My kids said, ‘You’re not being treated fair, mum.’
“As a parent, I had to show that you don’t stick around. It doesn’t matter how good the job is. Financially, it was really hard to say goodbye to that.” Saira also claimed that because she was expected to be the one on the panel to talk about tough political subjects, she ended up receiving death threats.
She said: “The problem is, for someone like me, I then get stereotyped. ‘Oh, we’re talking about terrorism, bring Saira in, we’re talking about grooming gangs, bring her in.’ But I couldn’t do any of the fun stuff. So if you keep bringing me out talking about that stuff, that is stereotyping.
“I’d run two marathons, I like to snowboard, I’ve travelled around the world. None of that was ever explored. So people thought I was gobby and opinionated and a one-trick pony.
“I got death threats. Honestly, my husband was really scared for me. I got quite a few death threats and and I just said, ‘Steve, if I get shot the head for something I believe in, that’s my fate. I can’t do anything about that.”
Saira, who is married to Steve Hyde and has Zac, 18, as well as 15-year-old Amara with him, also co-hosted The Martin Lewis Money Show before going on to take part in in Dancing On Ice and Celebrity Big Brother during her her mainstream television career.
Elsewhere in the chat, Saira, who now focuses on managing her skincare business, admitted that she thrilled that neither of her children want to pursue a career in the spotlight after her own tumultuous experience.
Speaking on the Nolans Uncensored podcast, she explained: “Both of my kids have no interest in the media and I think it’s because of what they saw me go through. I’m really happy about that. The industry is changing, for me I’ve always seen it as a business and because it doesn’t see itself as a business, it’s not in such a great place right now.”
Saira’s frank comments come just days after Nadia Sawalha, also a long-serving panellist on Loose Women, spoke out about her lengthy absence from the show and threatened legal action, claiming ITV bullied her out of her job.
The former EastEnders star, who has not been seen on the show since April despite previously appearing up to three times a week for years, thinks she is being targeted for speaking out for Palestinian rights and was worried that police officers could come knocking on her door.
She told The Mirror: “I accept that there is a huge risk I will never work in television again.”
Colleagues have offered Nadia support, but she claimed many are too scared to do so publicly. She said two well-known faces at ITV reacted to an Instagram video she posted on her threat to sue the network.
But Nadia added: “I deleted it because I don’t want these people to be phased out. I feel sad that there is an atmosphere of fear that if they were to be seen to be supporting me, their career could be at risk. I don’t believe for one second the head of daytime wanted me off that show, I feel for her.”
SACRAMENTO — Say you want a new pair of running shoes, but you just can’t make up your mind. So you spend a solid week checking them out online, coming back to one pair on a particular site again and again.
When you’re finally ready to check out, you notice something upsetting — the price you saw on day one is now 20% higher. What the heck?
Welcome to the brave new world of surveillance pricing, where some companies are not just tracking your every move online but also purchasing deep-dive data into your life for a single purpose — to figure out the maximum you will pay for an item and jack up the price accordingly to squeeze every possible dollar out of every unwitting consumer.
It’s legal, and whether it’s good or bad “depends on which side of the transaction you’re on,” said Roger White, an economics professor at Whittier College.
For those of you who are really terrible at economics, we, the little people, are on the bad end of that deal.
“It is using your own personal data and your characteristics, your demographics, information about you, to set a different price based on the perceived willingness to pay, and that is causing Californians a potential chance of being gouged,” said state Assemblymember Christopher M. Ward (D-San Diego).
Ward is trying to outlaw surveillance pricing in California with his AB 2564, which seems like a no-brainer if you actually care about affordability and your constituents. But he’s having a hard time getting his bill through the Legislature. In fact, he tried last year and failed.
But if surveillance pricing seems corrupt or unethical, get ready. Because retailers are getting ready — for artificial intelligence.
Right now, most surveillance pricing is relying on established data collection. That is about to get super-charged as AI goes further and further into sweeping up bits of information on every aspect of our lives, on and offline.
Did your car break down and you have to shop at home? Are you injured or have a medical condition that makes you desperate for comfy shoes? Did you just get a raise and maybe are in the mood to spend?
The amount of data that can be definitively known about your life is huge. The amount that can be inferred is even bigger. Imagine if artificial intelligence in real time, using every bit of information it can find, is basically working to squeeze every dime out of you, every day on every purchase — groceries, clothes, plane tickets, maybe even medicines.
“AI gives them powerful tools to do that, and they can basically use information almost instantaneously to set prices,” said Darrell M. West, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy think tank.
Which makes regulating surveillance pricing now all the more important.
The big bad picture
White, the Whittier professor, sees an even bigger threat looming with surveillance pricing. He points out that income inequality in the United States has been increasing since the 1970s, and it is mostly rich people who control and own large retail endeavors.
If surveillance pricing is allowed to blossom unfettered, he’s concerned the rich will get richer by selling at higher prices, and everyone else will be paying so much to survive that the poor and middle class will suffer even further.
“This could lead to an acceleration of income inequality,” White said. “This could be a way for, sort of, the rich to benefit more,” leaving “the middle class and the poor potentially being even worse off.”
Immediate gouging, and long-term erosion of the already tenuous ability of the middle class and poorer people to survive. You’d think our state Legislature would be all over fixing this.
Other states have. In fact, about 20 states have some sort of law about “dynamic pricing,” a broader term for how retailers use data to set prices.
Just a few days ago, New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed A4085 (the Fair Price Protection Act), which prohibits surveillance pricing for groceries.
New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Maryland also have laws on the issue, though some won’t take effect until next year.
“There are both Republicans and Democrats who are worried about these issues because they’re getting complaints from their own constituents,” West said.
But in California, the winds are blowing in favor of the big guys. While Ward is working through one colleague at a time trying to pass the measure, the lobbying pressure against it has been significant.
Retailers and others argue it could have unintended consequences, like preventing them from offering discounts to certain customers, or having loyalty programs.
C’mon. No one is coming for your coupons.
White, the economist, points out that companies are spending millions to implement surveillance pricing, and they aren’t doing it so they can slash prices and lose money.
“They won’t say this, but you know, the reality is that millions, if not billions, of dollars in inflated profit is on the line,” said Ward. “Unfortunately, that is coming at the expense of everyday Californians who are having that ripped out of their pocketbooks without them even knowing it.”
White put it even more bluntly.
“If you’re opposed to the Assembly bill, it seems that you are siding with the businesses, and if you’re in favor of it, then it seems that you’re siding with consumer protections.”
Ward is fighting an uphill battle, but he isn’t giving up. It’s about trying to “right the universe when it comes to fair pricing for consumers,” he told me.
“We need to go back to a place of a fair marketplace where you have an honest relationship between the consumer and the business and everybody is being treated the same,” he said.
It was early Wednesday morning when Edith Pfeffer and Carolyn Tallet became late-night TV stars, charming CNN hosts, producers and viewers alike with their earnest attempt to make sense of a mathematical snafu that had left the outcome of the Iowa caucuses hanging in the balance.
Pfeffer, who is chairwoman of the Clinton County Republican Central Committee, and Tallet, president of the Clinton County Republican Women’s Club, talked by phone with CNN hosts Wolf Blitzer and John King as the network tried to locate the final 3% of precinct tallies that would decide the winner of Iowa’s GOP presidential nominating contest.
The call resulted in eight minutes of hilarious, heartwarming television as the women tried to unscramble the math while King drew numbers on his special television screen and Blitzer pressed on for precision. (Watch the video below.)
Turns out Pfeffer had the missing tallies all night – they were phoned in less than an hour after the caucuses began, she said, but somehow weren’t counted by Republican Party officials.
Tallet told CNN that she learned just after midnight that the party was searching for the tallies, but couldn’t reach Pfeffer by phone.
“I knew they needed the information, and so I came to Edith’s home and pounded on the door and woke her up and got her up,” Tallet said.
“Do you know who carried this precinct?” King asked, referring to the precinct for which the state party said it had no votes. “…Who won?”
“Mitt Romney won with 51 votes,” Pfeffer said. “Rick Santorum and Ron Paul tied with 33 votes each.”
Double-checking, Blitzer asked Tallett and Pfeffer to give the totals for all precincts in Clinton County.
“Oh God, I added them up,” Pfeffer said, sparking giggles from the CNN crew offstage. “I added them up a couple times. I – oh, man.”
After they got the math all sorted out, Blitzer wanted to be sure he had the record straight.
“Just to be precise, we didn’t wake you up – the state chairs in Des Moines, they called you, they woke you up, is that right?”
“No!” Tallet said. “I woke her up…I was staying home watching CNN, waiting for the results, when I was told by the party. And so I came to wake up Edith, who didn’t answer her phone.”
The duo was such a hit that CNN called them back later in the night, once the results were official.
“I am just overwhelmed with all of this,” Pfeffer said. “I am just amazed because really and truly, my people did call this in tonight, and I don’t know where the glitch was…”
Pfeffer said she gave her county’s tallies to Romney campaign staff at the end of the night.
“And then I went to bed, and it’s been kind of interesting to wake up,“ she said.
Women displaced by Sudan’s war are speaking publicly about surviving rape by Rapid Support Forces fighters. UN investigators verified 546 incidents affecting at least 838 victims, warning the documented cases represent only the tip of the iceberg.
Eighty-three lawsuits filed against the Trump administration in 18 months, at a cost of more than $20 million.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced those stats this week, part of an annual report to the Legislature on how we’re spending a special fund set aside to combat President Trump’s overreach.
That doesn’t include more than 120 friend of the court briefs the Golden State has written in legal matters brought by others, or the multitude of cases in which the Trump administration has sued California and Bonta’s office is defending us.
That’s a whole lot of litigation. Is it worth it? Are we huffing and puffing for political points, or do all these lawsuits actually do something positive for the average Californian?
You get what you pay for
I’m going to sound like a bus bench ad for the legal profession, but, at this point, “the courts are standing as the only barrier to the president doing anything that the president wants to do,” Hiroshi Motomura, a professor of law at UCLA, told me.
And what the president apparently wants to do is make the poor and vulnerable poorer and more vulnerable. And don’t think there’s a middle-class exemption. In his second term, Trump has attacked healthcare coverage, special education, education in general, reproductive rights, gender rights, the environment, endangered species, immigrants and more.
“The disastrous impact of Trump’s lawlessness isn’t theoretical or hypothetical. It’s not imagined. It is real. It is hurting real people,” Bonta said. “It is hurting Californians, real families, real businesses, real communities every single day.”
You name it, if it’s not rich and connected, it’s probably under attack. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched a very different war on poverty in 1964 with social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Head Start. This new war on poverty seems intent on increasing it, not eradicating it.
It would be nearly impossible for the people affected by these attacks on government services to fight them on their own, said Richard Abel, a professor emeritus of law at UCLA and the author of multiple books on the Trump presidency.
“They don’t know why it’s happening,” he said. “They don’t have access to lawyers. Many of them are undocumented or afraid to mobilize the legal system.”
That leaves the states, which are often the only other entities that have a legal right to sue, because they too are being harmed by the cuts.
So yeah, our $20 million is well spent. Bonta said his legal work has protected about $207 billion in funding. But I’ll argue the true return on investment is California residents who have been protected in ways they don’t even realize.
Risks we don’t even realize
Take Massachusetts vs. Department of Agriculture, one of the cases California is involved in. This is Trump’s attempt to put new rules on USDA grants for food programs including emergency food assistance, school lunches and food stamps. It would tie compliance with his right-wing, discriminatory policies on immigration, gender ideology and diversity issues to receiving those funds.
Then there’s New York vs. Administration for Children & Families, in which Trump goes after child welfare funds; Washington vs. Department of Education, which attacks mental health grants that help hire school psychologists and counselors; and Illinois vs. Vought, which targets California and three other states run by Democrats for cuts to transportation and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding for no other reason than politics, the states argue.
Food benefits, access to mental health care, lead poisoning prevention. Just a few more things most of us didn’t realize could be at risk for some of us.
In each of those cases, Bonta and the other Democratic attorneys general stopped the federal actions, even if only temporarily. Some of those cases are ongoing, but with restraining orders or injunctions in place.
Then there’s United States vs. Baass, Trump’s attempt to force Michelle Baass, the director of the California Department of Health Care Services, to turn over a bunch of applications for Medi-Cal benefits for the last five years so the federal government can go on a witch hunt for undocumented folks.
Supposedly these applications, which Baass and her agency were subpoenaed for, are needed for an immigration investigation in the Central Valley. California won in court in March, when a judge denied the federal government’s petition to enforce that subpoena.
Now, the feds are appealing to the 9th Circuit — and California continues to fight to protect the privacy and maybe even safety of the residents who just needed medical care, but could see their sensitive information, including addresses, turned over to immigration authorities if Trump had his way.
How could they possibly fight that on their own?
Then there’s a lawsuit in which Trump is trying to prevent California from continuing to give in-state tuition to Dreamers — undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as youngsters.
In battles such as that one, fought because it’s the right thing to do, Motomura sees a benefit greater than just protecting funding.
It forces us to push back against the federal government’s framing that immigration is “about invaders, you know, climbing walls,” Motomura said.
“This is about people who live in our communities,” he said. “And I think that when Bonta claims that space, he’s not just pushing back. He’s saying, ‘Let’s think about this in terms of building stronger communities,’ and I think that’s a significant shift.”
The rule of law may be battered and bruised, and even at times a bit hinky. But so far, it has held — in no small part because of Democratic attorneys general like Bonta who aren’t just filing lawsuits but have built the staffs and networks to do it effectively. It’s a much larger effort than we give it credit for, but one that has fundamentally protected our everyday lives so well that many have barely noticed the wolves at the door.
I’m sure there will be losses, wolves that crawl through windows, and we will all feel the bite of that. But 83 lawsuits will soon likely be 84, 94, whatever it takes to protect Californians.
Each one is a fight worth having, because every Californian is worth fighting for.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Banjul, The Gambia – At dawn, before the heat settles over the coast, Fatou Jarjue waits for the tide to retreat.
She pulls on her gloves and socks, steps into the muddy edge of the Tanbi Wetland and pushes her wooden canoe through narrow channels surrounded by tangled mangrove roots. Inside the canoe sit empty pans waiting to be filled, not with oysters today, but with crabs hiding beneath the surface.
The life of this mother of one is inseparable from the wetland she navigates each day. The mangroves – salt-tolerant coastal trees that protect shorelines from erosion and flooding – provide the oysters, crabs and fish that sustain her family’s livelihood while serving as a natural barrier against erosion and flooding for her coastal community.
Her brother, Musa, trails behind in a smaller canoe whenever he can, keeping watch as she moves deeper into the mangrove channels. On days when he is busy elsewhere, Jarjue ventures into the wetland alone.
For generations, women around the Tanbi Wetland have depended on these waters for survival. Jarjue still does. But unlike previous generations, she also spends part of her time restoring the ecosystem that has sustained her family for decades.
Only months earlier, these waterways were filled with women collecting oysters attached to mangrove roots. With the arrival of The Gambia’s rainy season, oyster harvesting pauses, forcing many women to turn to crabs and fishing until the shellfish season reopens.
For the 34-year-old, the change in her daily catch is temporary. Her commitment to restoring the mangroves is not.
“I have restored more than 5,000 mangroves since last year,” she told Al Jazeera.
Raised in the mangroves
Jarjue grew up in Ndangan, a small settlement of about 300 people located roughly 2km (1.2 miles) from Banjul, the capital of The Gambia. Like many children in the community, she grew up with the rhythms of the wetland.
At just 12 years old, she began following her mother into the mangroves, learning how to harvest oysters and catch crabs and fish.
The forest was both a classroom and a source of income.
Over the years, Jarjue watched the environment around her change. Rising seas, coastal erosion and changing weather patterns began threatening the coastline her community depends on.
Instead of only taking from the wetland, she decided to help rebuild it.
Today, she returns regularly not only to harvest but also to inspect young seedlings, replace damaged plants and monitor areas where restoration is needed.
“The mangroves are part of our lives,” she said.
For Jarjue, conservation is not separate from survival. The healthier the mangroves become, the stronger the future of her community.
A season’s wait
As Jarjue paddles deeper into the wetland, oysters cling to the roots of the mangroves. They are large, growing and ready for harvest in another season. She leaves them untouched.
She points towards them proudly, knowing that protecting them now will mean a better harvest later.
Although crab harvesting provides income during the rainy season, oysters remain the more profitable catch. A milk-can measure of oysters sells for about 100 dalasis ($1.34), and demand at local markets is higher.
“Oysters are difficult to harvest,” Jarjue explained. “But that is where the money is.”
Fatou pushes her canoe into the water, beginning another day of searching for crabs in the mangrove wetlands that sustain her livelihood [Dijah Jawo/Al Jazeera]
The annual closure of oyster harvesting during the rainy season is sometimes misunderstood as a warning that oysters become poisonous at that time of year.
But marine scientist Dawda Saine says the reason is more complex and is rooted in conservation, ecology and food safety.
The closure forms part of The Gambia’s Oyster and Cockle Co-management Plan, which allows oyster stocks time to regenerate, reproduce and grow while reducing pressure on the resource.
“We don’t close the season because oysters are poisonous,” Saine told Al Jazeera. “We close it to protect the resource and because, during the rains, oysters filter everything in the water, including increased run-off, which can affect their quality, taste and safety.”
During the rainy season, increased run-off can carry waste and other materials into waterways where oysters feed by filtering water. Allowing them to remain undisturbed helps protect both the ecosystem and consumers.
For women like Jarjue, respecting the closure is an investment in the future.
Roots of survival
Jarjue is among several women in Ndangan who have become guardians of the ecosystem they depend on.
For 48-year-old Sussan Colley, the difference is visible every time she enters the wetland.
Colley has harvested oysters, fished and collected crabs since she was a teenager. She remembers when declining mangrove cover began affecting the community’s catches.
There were fewer oysters. Harvests became smaller. Families who depended on the wetland faced increasing uncertainty.
As restoration efforts expanded, Colley began noticing changes beneath the roots.
The oysters returned. They grew faster and larger. The wetland became productive again.
“The mangroves are changing our lives for the better,” she told Al Jazeera.
For Colley, restoration is also about preparing the next generation. She is teaching her children the skills she inherited from her parents while passing on another lesson: People must protect the natural systems that sustain them.
“I want them to make a livelihood from this,” she said, “but also understand the importance of the mangroves and the role they play in our lives.”
Jarjue and other women received training in mangrove restoration through a local conservation initiative supporting coastal communities in The Gambia. The programme equipped them with the skills to restore degraded mangroves, protect the ecosystems that support fisheries and strengthen their communities’ resilience to climate change.
For the women of Ndangan, the training changed how they viewed the forest, not only as a place to harvest, but also as something they have a responsibility to protect.
Banjul’s last shield
The work happening in Ndangan carries significance far beyond the settlement.
Banjul, The Gambia’s capital, is a low-lying island city facing growing threats from rising seas, coastal erosion and flooding. Experts have warned that a 1-metre (3ft-4-inch) rise in global sea levels could inundate parts of the city, increasing the urgency of protecting its remaining natural barriers.
Fatou peers through the mangrove branches, monitoring the oysters that depend on the health of the wetland ecosystem [Dijah Jawo/Al Jazeera]
The threat is not only a future concern. In 2022, severe flooding affected thousands of people across The Gambia, exposing the vulnerability of communities living along the coast.
For settlements surrounding the Tanbi Wetland, mangroves are more than an environmental resource. They are a natural defence system.
Rohey Malick Lowe, the mayor of Banjul, says the future of the capital is closely tied to the survival of its mangroves.
“Banjul is an island,” she told Al Jazeera. “If the mangroves disappear, it goes with the city.”
The mayor said the Banjul City Council is working to protect the capital from climate threats but acknowledged that challenges remain, including the degradation of parts of the wetland through human activities.
Supporting women like Jarjue, she said, is not just about protecting their incomes but also strengthening the city’s resilience.
“They are not only protecting their livelihoods,” Lowe said. “They are helping to protect Banjul.”
Roots of resilience
Despite their contribution, women in Ndangan still face challenges. Without reliable electricity, preserving oysters and crabs remains difficult, especially when market demand is low and harvests cannot be sold immediately.
But each day, Jarjue returns to the mangroves.
Sometimes she goes to harvest. Other times, she goes simply to check whether the trees she planted are surviving.
Fatou prepares for a day of crab harvesting, pulling on her gloves before venturing into the mangrove forest [Dijah Jawo/Al Jazeera]
The work is slow. A mangrove seedling does not transform a coastline overnight. But for Jarjue, every new root represents a future she is helping build.
As the tide slowly rises, she guides her canoe back towards shore, leaving behind thousands of young mangroves she helped plant.
Months from now, she will return to harvest oysters from the same roots she is protecting today. Until then, she is content watching the forest grow.
Every new seedling is a quiet act of hope, not only for her family, but also for a city increasingly vulnerable to the rising sea.
Jarjue pauses before stepping onto dry land and looks back at the green canopy stretching across the wetland.
“Every morning I wake up and see the mangroves growing,” she said. “That gives me peace. If the mangroves disappear one day, our lives will disappear with them.”
Breast cancer is a leading cause of death in women under 50 in the UK.
About one in seven women develop breast cancer in their lifetime, yet only 5-10% of cases are linked to inherited genes.
Most cases – 96% – are in women over 40, while 25% are in women over 75.
Men can get breast cancer too, with about 420 new cases every year in the UK.
In England, guidance from Nice recommends GPs ask about family history if a woman is worried that she might have a higher risk of breast cancer, and sometimes if they are over 35 and using an oral contraceptive pill or considering taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
Hormones have been linked to a slightly increased risk of breast cancer, although larger risk factors include alcohol intake and obesity.
The study, by a team from Cambridge University and the Institute of Cancer Research, looks at how to predict breast cancer risk in younger women.
They used a risk calculator called Boadicea that combines factors such as family history, lifestyle, reproductive history and genetic information to give a risk score.
If all women under 50 were to have this done, they estimate about a quarter (26.5%) would be categorised as at above-average risk and referred for further assessment.
This would include a third of women under 50 (34.8%) who develop breast cancer within 10 years.
By comparison, the current Nice criteria would result in 1.4% of women under 50 being referred for further assessment, which would include just 4.4% of those women who develop breast cancer.
A main reason for the disparity, the researchers say, is because three-quarters of women (73%) under 50 who develop breast cancer within a decade have no family history of breast cancer – the key criterion in the Nice guidelines.
SACRAMENTO — Today we’re talking about California’s Proposition 39, a bid to turn Trump’s election conspiracy fantasies into California law, and a proposal so disingenuous it’s caused Democratic legislators to sue the Democratic secretary of state in an attempt to stop the misinformation surrounding it.
As these lawsuits move forward and the November election rolls closer, we’re going to hear a lot about Proposition 39 — a measure that would require in-person voters to present government-issued identification, among other provisions. I fear most if not all of this debate will revolve around the false claim that large numbers of undocumented people vote illegally in our elections.
“It’s directly a product of all of the rhetoric that Trump has been putting out there regarding election fraud and voting fraud,” said Mindy Romero, founder and director of the nonpartisan Center for Inclusive Democracy.
Romero stresses that there is not and has never been any evidence of widespread voter fraud in California, and the state already has a system that effectively checks voter eligibility.
Proposition 39 is “seeking a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, and a solution that actually could cause additional problems,” she said. “So in and of itself, it perpetuates this false and dangerous narrative that there has been voter fraud in California.”
That lie is part of the ongoing grievance-fueled Trump campaign against non-white “replacement” Americans, meant to undermine trust in elections — you may recall he’s gone so far as to say immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” It’s a venal and dark vein of partisanship aimed at keeping the far-right in power even at the expense of democracy.
I’ll tell you more about Proposition 39, but I’m starting with a story about an all-American teenager I’ll call “Sofia.” I’ve been helping Sofia,18, attempt to get her first government-issued identification. I stress attempt.
Folks, there’s been hoops, there’s been hurdles, there’s been Kafkaesque bureaucracy.
For people like Sofia that don’t have bills or jobs or even accurate student records (she’s moved a lot), scraping up enough documentation to convince the DMV you are who you say you are is tough. First, you really need a certified birth certificate.
Sofia wasn’t born in the county where she lives (it’s county recorders that keep them), which means she had to either drive hours or go through the state’s third-party online vendor to order one, at a cost of about $30. But here’s the catch — she needed proof of identity to order it.
So to get a birth certificate to get her ID, she needed ID.
Stuck in this circular nightmare, we found, after much effort, a loophole: I could appear in front of a public notary with Sofia, to testify using my ID that she was indeed Sofia. Strange, but whatever. We did it.
That wasn’t enough for the DMV. Sofia also needed two bills or other documents verifying her address. Because they will literally give a credit card to anyone, she applied to an online company, and got her first statement. One document down.
Again, scouring the DMV rules for days, we found another weird loophole: The second document can be a letter from a nonprofit with the person signing it vouching for Sofia’s identity. We got the letter, and Sofia’s Real ID was issued.
But then she had to move before it arrived. She tried to arrange mail forwarding with the postal service, but guess what? They required ID.
So the ID was lost in transit, and we are back to square one.
Who Proposition 39 really targets
That means Sofia is one of thousands of Californians, born and raised in the Golden State, who lack official identification because its not as easy to obtain it as some want you to believe.
And because she lacks it, she could be prevented from voting if Proposition 39 is passed, even though she is a legal citizen with every right to have her ballot counted, and California already has a system in place to ensure only citizens vote.
Sofia is exactly the kind of voter that Proposition 39 is actually aimed at. This is a voter suppression law, plain and simple, and it will harm women with name changes, naturalized citizens, young people, older people and virtually anyone who cares about not returning to Jim Crow-style laws that push people out of voting with subterfuge.
Proponents of the proposition would like you to believe it’s something very different from what I just described. Their fight about how we talk about this proposal has led to two lawsuits so far — one filed by the backers of Proposition 39 because they don’t like the official title the California attorney general put on it, and one filed by the leaders of the state Legislature because they argue the statements written by proponents for official voting materials aren’t truthful.
I’ll give you a taste of both of those arguments. Right now, the state is proposing to title the measure “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”
State Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), the always-Trumper behind Proposition 39, helped lead a lawsuit claiming that is inaccurate.
DeMaio issued a statement claiming Democrats are “trying to deceive voters by putting a false ballot title on it and are now even distracting voters from their tampering of the ballot title with this frivolous lawsuit.”
That frivolous lawsuit he’s complaining about is the one where the Democratic leaders of the Legislature last week sued the Democratic secretary of state and others over the language included in the state voter guide. The Democrats aren’t really angry at each other, it’s just that Secretary of State Shirley Weber is in charge of voter materials, so she’s one of the folks they’ve got to sue to make their case.
The lawsuit alleges, among other complaints, that proponents are falsely framing Proposition 39 as making it “easier to vote” when in fact it does the opposite.
“Prop. 39 requires no burdens be placed on voters,” the materials at issue read, according to the lawsuit. “No additional documents (birth certificate, marriage license, etc.) are required.”
So I take you back to Sofia. Because while Proposition 39 might not ask her to bring her birth certificate to the polls, it would ask her to bring her ID, which required her birth certificate to get.
A distinction without a difference.
“The fact that Donald Trump has endorsed it tells you everything you need to know,” wrote the lawsuits’ plaintiffs, House speaker Robert Rivas and Senate pro Tempore Monique Limón, in a statement. “As Californians and Latinos, we will not let MAGA cronies take Constitutional rights away from voters.”
That lawsuit will likely have its first hearing in court this week. But whatever a judge decides, the ballot box is where the fate of Proposition 39 rests.
Though it seems like average Californians could see through this sham, there are big bucks backing it, and money always speaks loudly.
The donors in support read like the guest list for a White House dinner. So far, they’ve raised more than $15 million. That includes $4 million from Richard Uihlein, the Illinois billionaire and Trump supporter who often funds organizations and causes that promote election conspiracies and far-right candidates.
The crypto-billionaire Winklevoss twins, Cameron and Tyler, have each donated $250,000, along with other Silicon Valley types including former RFK Jr. running mate Nicole Shanahan, who ponied up $370,000 in support of Proposition 39.
Oh, and by the way, L.A. developer and former mayoral candidate Rick Caruso has donated $25,000 to the effort.
That’s a lot of dough being poured into stopping certain Californians from voting. If they succeed, it won’t just be an inconvenience at the polls — but instead a double victory for Trump, both suppressing the vote ahead of the presidential election and legitimizing his election lies through law.
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — The first day all the members of the Women’s Professional Baseball League were at the same field, it rained.
That didn’t dampen the smiles around Robin Roberts Field the day before the league opens play Saturday, marking the first professional women’s baseball games in 72 years.
“Getting to be together for six whole weeks or around two whole months with them [if we make the playoffs] is honestly going to be a game changer,” said third baseman Ashton Lansdell, who stars for the USA national team. “I think we’re going to build a really unique and exciting culture that is going to last a very long time, especially with the inaugural season at WPBL. Like we’re starting from the ground up, so we get to build all of these things from the very beginning.”
The Los Angeles Queens, managed by former Dodgers second baseman Eric Young, have arguably the most star-studded roster, behind Savannah Bananas third baseman Lansdell, former Little League star Mo’ne Davis and Japanese ace pitcher Ayami Sato.
The Los Angeles Queens’ Ayami Sato pitches during a Women’s Pro Baseball League exhibition game in March 19 in Fort Myers, Fla.
(Rebecca Blackwell/AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)
“I pretty much have an idea who I want to lead off and who’s my starter,” Young said. “Those two things I do know. But the rest of the lineup, I’m looking forward to making it. The first one will be very special, just like everything else.”
Women’s baseball has been long fractured with few opportunities for the best to gather in one spot. The only consistent tournament has been the Women’s Baseball World Cup, with the U.S. going undefeated in group play this week in Rockford ahead of the WPBL’s quick week of preseason practices.
The WPBL will be the first women’s baseball league since the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, which operated from 1943 until 1954 to offset the loss of male baseball players called into action during World War II. The league gained popularity and notoriety when it was dramatized in the 1992 film “A League of Their Own.”
While women’s baseball didn’t boom and girls were mostly limited to playing softball, some women sought a chance to play the sport they loved.
The WPBL, even with a limited six-week season at one location, is helping many players realize seemingly impossible dreams and honoring the first recorded women’s game with a paid crowd and the home of the single-season Springfield Sallies.
Games will span seven innings and the league will use aluminum bats featured in college baseball and softball, while outfield dimensions were altered to be closer to the Women’s World Cup field dimensions. Salaries range from $300-$500 per game for the 15-player rosters.
“It’s just what we’ve all dreamed of our whole lives,” Lansdell said. “The coolest thing out of all of it is that we’re starting this league this year, but in the next five to 10 years, even two years down the road, I’m so excited to see just the growth of women’s baseball and the amount of hope and inspiration that we have.”
Like many women’s baseball players, Lansdell had a history in softball, contributing to the Women’s College World Series season in 2025 at Ole Miss. More recently, she went 11-for-13 with two doubles and two home runs in five games during the U.S. World Cup group stage for a historic .846 batting average.
Players warm up before a game on the fourth day of tryouts for the Women’s Professional Baseball League in August 2025 at Nationals Park in Washington.
(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)
She will be the core of the Queens’ lineup, surrounded by some of the biggest name in the sport. Brittany Apgar grew up playing in all-boys baseball tournaments before playing college softball at Greensboro College.
“I think this is really when the quote that baseball is 90% mental and 10% physical kicks in because that game’s going to be a lot,” Apgar said of the Saturday opener. “Like we have the honor of doing the first game. That will be a lot of pressure on everyone.”
The Queens flaunt one of the best right sides of the infield in the league with Lansdell at third and Curacan 19-year-old shortstop Thaima Maximiliana.
Australian shortstop Caitlin Eynon hit .375 in the World Cup and could contribute to the Queens’ lineup, too.
Davis highlights an outfield that includes Apgar and Japanese center fielder Suzu Narasaki. Amira Hondras, 18, played for the U.S. after spending time with MLB Develops and the Chicago White Sox youth league and is one of the best young women’s baseball prospects in the nation.
Sato leads a staff of pitchers from several backgrounds. Canadian 19-year-old right-hander Michelle Roche plays college baseball in British Columbia while 38-year-old veteran Meggie Meidlinger has been a bullpen stopper for the U.S.
“More than anything, I’m excited for the opportunity to play with talented players from around the world,” Sato said through her translator, Mayo Hiran. “That’s something that I’ve been working for for a long time.”
The Queens face the New York Heights to begin their season and will play 30 games through the start of September before a two-week playoff period.
By this time next year, they may get a chance to play home games in the Los Angeles area. The league hasn’t announced its plans for shifting games outside of Illinois other than to confirm they aspire to do so.
But for a few moments this weekend, in Springfield alone, dreams will come true and a sport will be reborn.
“It’s going to be a lot of people’s first time for a lot of things,” Apgar said. “Some of the people didn’t actually get to make it to tryouts, so there’s some people that are drafted that I haven’t even seen in person before. It’s all exciting.”
The friendliest of neighbors, the country has fought alongside the U.S. in conflicts going back to World War I, purchased many trillions of dollars worth of American goods and blessed this country with, among other gifts, ice hockey, Drake, Joni Mitchell and Alex Trebek.
While you can question the nation’s culinary sensibility — the unofficial dish, poutine, is an abomination consisting of French fries, cheese curds and hot gravy — Canada is basically a very large, very pretty country filled with a lot of very nice, extremely polite people.
After more than a year of trading tit-for-tat tariffs, Trump recently escalated the conflict by slapping a new 50% tax on a variety of Canadian exports, including cement, furniture, dairy products and, most iconically, hockey sticks. The added levy, which will further burden inflation-weary U.S. consumers, is set to take effect in mid-August.
The move makes little sense from an economic or foreign policy standpoint. It’s best to regard Trump’s trade moves as a wind gauge charts a blustery storm; his on-again, off-again tariffs are not the result of some carefully thought-out policy but, rather, a measure of the president’s shifting moods and pique toward certain foreign leaders.
George Skelton and other analysts cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
For decades, the industry has been a vital and growing part of California’s agricultural economy. Recent years, however, have seen a number of setbacks.
Costs are rising. Sales are falling, as younger generations favor hard seltzers, canned cocktails or premium beers over crushed grapes. At the same time, climate change and the growing incidence of wildfire threaten the viability of some of California’s premier wine-growing regions.
A Canadian ban on alcohol imports
Then there’s the trade war with Canada, the industry’s largest export market and formerly a major customer of California wines. Until recently, the Canadian market accounted for more than a third of the state’s exports.
But last year, several provinces stopped purchasing U.S. alcohol in response to Trump’s tariffs and his threats — more slapstick than real — to annex the country and make Canada the 51st American state. While two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, soon lifted their bans, the two most populous, Ontario and Quebec, have not.
As a result of this “geopolitical friction,” to use the words of University of California researchers, California wine exports to Canada fell by nearly 80% in 2025 compared with the year before. Unsurprisingly, Canadian sales of homegrown wines have soared.
In response to the dramatic drop in exports, more than a dozen California members of Congress wrote last month to Quebec’s premier, Christine Fréchette, urging her to lift the retaliatory ban on U.S. wine and spirits.
“Reopening the market to American wine would restore consumer choice and signal a commitment to restoring fair and balanced trade for Québecois consumers and American wineries who have no connection to the underlying trade disputes,” the letter read.
Sen. Adam Schiff also wrote Fréchette asking her to resume the sale of California wine and U.S. spirits.
“The restriction on American wine has had damaging consequences for regional consumers, businesses, and producers who have no influence over national policies,” the California Democrat stated. “In fact, I have repeatedly voiced my opposition to and voted against the President’s harmful trade policies, including as they pertain to Canada.”
Fréchette’s response was, in a word: “Non!”
“In the context of the ongoing trade war, the premier continues to defend Quebec’s economic interests,” a spokesperson for Fréchette told CBC Radio. “This measure will remain in place as long as the United States maintains these unjustified tariffs. Our government will re-evaluate its position when the American administration reverses these measures.”
And that statement came before Trump upped the ante, along with the tariffs on Canada, which, presumably, doesn’t help matters.
Red or white?
Mike Thompson has seen the damage of Trump’s economic warfare firsthand. The St. Helena Democrat represents the heart of Wine Country and spearheaded, along with Democratic Rep. Jimmy Panetta of Carmel and Republican Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, the bipartisan overture to Quebec’s premier.
“I talked to a vintner today,” Thompson said during a drive this week through his sprawling Northern California district. “They went from an $11-million annual wine export to a $2-million annual wine export to Canada because of this.”
Thompson has introduced legislation, including a measure to reimburse wine producers for the money they’ve lost due to Trump’s tariffs, but the proposals have stalled in the House despite bipartisan support. His effort, Thompson dryly noted, “has not been warmly embraced by the administration.”
Meanwhile, the cross-border hostilities continue. Neither Trump nor Fréchette seems ready to budge, with California vintners still stuck in the middle.
So the question in Montreal and Toronto remains: What pairs best with poutine? Canadian white or red?
Jared Leto has denied allegations of criminal sexual conductCredit: Getty – ContributorFour women accused Hollywood actor of criminal sexual misconductCredit: Getty
He said: “I have never sexually assaulted anyone in my entire life. These claims are absolutely and categorically false.”
The allegations against the Oscar winner, 54, date from when the women were aged between 16 and 19.
Sign up for the Showbiz newsletter
Thank you!
One accuser alleges she had sex with Leto when she was 17, which under Californian laws would be classed as statutory rape.
The Hollywood star, aged 34 at the time, invited the woman and a friend to his Californian home, the alleged accuser told the BBC.
She claims Leto told her friend to wait in a separate room as the alleged rape took place.
A second woman claims she was sexually assaulted in a “dingy” Las Vegas motel bathroom when she was 17.
A third claims the Dallas Buyers Club star threatened her with sexual assault when she was 19 after the pair were left alone in a hotel room.
The allegations came after a Thirty Seconds to Mars concert at London’s O2 Arena in 2013 when Leto would have been 41.
A fourth accused Leto of grooming her and alleges he once took advantage of his celebrity status by making repeated sexually explicit phone calls to her when she was 16.
He suggested they should have sex on at least one occasion, the alleged victim claims.
The accusations all come from a new BBC documentary titled Jared Leto: Hollywood‘s Dark Secret.
The BBC claims they have seen at least one non-disclosure agreement (NDA) sent to a woman aimed at preventing her from talking about her relationship with Leto.
Another woman also accuses the Morbius lead of ordering a security guard to take her backstage at a music festival when she was 14.
More to follow… For the latest news on this story keep checking back at The Sun Online
Thesun.co.uk is your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures and must-see video.
![An Afghan boy buys a Taliban flag from a roadside vendor in Afghanistan's Ghazni province on August 14, 2026 ahead of the fifth anniversary of the Taliban government's return to power. [Mohammad Faisal Naweed/AFP]](https://i0.wp.com/www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/afp_6a7f9d087f1a-1786748168.jpg?w=640&ssl=1)
