May 7 (UPI) — A group appointed by President Donald Trump made its final recommendations Thursday on changes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, suggesting moves that would put more responsibility back on states and other authorities.

The changes also include reviews of agency staffing and privatizing flood insurance, The Hill reported.

“We need to refocus FEMA to get it back on what its mission originally was,” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said. FEMA is part of Homeland Security.

Panel members said FEMA has become too involved in politics, specifically mentioning state assistance during the coronavirus epidemic, The New York Times reported. Recommendations included changes in how FEMA helps state and local governments with financial recovery.

“Disaster response is complicated and increasingly expensive,” the final report said. “With taxpayers bearing the burden of funding emergency management in the United States, it is the responsibility of every American to embrace their individual responsibility to lessen this burden by being prepared for disasters. … As our nation returns ownership of emergency management back to local communities and their states, tribes and territories, we encourage every American to review their insurance policies and personal disaster plans as well as engaging with their local community leaders to be better prepared when disaster strikes.”

Trump has said that FEMA’s work is too expensive and that state governors should be able to manage more on their own, the Times reported. He has also suggested in the past that the agency should “go away” entirely.

The changes recommended by the report would require congressional approval. They include tweaks meant to make the reimbursement process, once approved, quicker and more direct, and changes meaning the FEMA plays less of a role in helping disaster survivors find housing.

“These recommendations are all about accelerating federal dollars, streamlining the process, making it less bureaucratic, so that Americans can get the help they need on the worst day of their lives,” said former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a member of the council. “And this is not a moment for bureaucracy, it is a moment for action, it is a moment for clarity.”

The Environmental Defense Fund said in a statement that Americans are facing increasingly severe weather and the council’s recommendations “don’t meet this reality.”

“The proposed changes would leave communities without the necessary funding, information and access to insurance to stay prepared and safe when disasters strike,” said Will McDow, the fund’s associate vice president for coasts and watersheds.

The group said the proposed changes would “shift enormous burdens onto states and communities and reduce government efficiency.”

Fans missing Netflix’s hit comedy-drama series After Life should definitely mark their calendars for Ricky Gervais’ next project

The popular Netflix dramedy concluded four years ago.

Netflix has shared an exciting new look at Ricky Gervais’ next series and it looks like a must-watch for After Life fans.

It’s the star’s first series for the streamer since the hit dramedy wrapped up in 2022, concluding the tragically funny story of bereaved journalist Tony Johnson.

This time, Ricky is returning to the world of animation for an original animated series that will definitely have fans of The Ricky Gervais Show with Stephen Merchant and Karl Pilkington feeling nostalgic.

Alley Cats is created and directed by the Office star, who also takes on the leading role as a member of a gang of stray cats.

Netflix teases “the series follows the trials and tribulations of a group of feral British cats who seek companionship while ruminating about the struggles of everyday life”.

“From the funny to the absurd, the series is packed with Gervais’ signature style of heart and social commentary that audiences have come to expect,” the streamer’s synopsis adds.

It also boasts exceptional 2D animation by award-winning British animation studio, Blink Industries (Dead End: Paranormal Park, Don’t Hug Me I’m Scared).

This week, Netflix confirmed the release date for the new series as Friday, 7th August, with all six episodes of the first season dropping at once.

Co-starring with Ricky is a stellar line-up of British talent, including some frequent collaborators who have worked with him on After Life and other projects.

Tom Basden (The Ballad of Wallis Island), Andrew Brooke (PhoneShop), David Earl (Derek), Kerry Godliman (Trigger Point), Jo Hartley (Adolescence), and Diane Morgan (Motherland) complete the main cast. All of them have also previously appeared in After Life.

Natalie Cassidy (EastEnders) and Tony Way (After Life, Mandy) will also be taking on featured roles.

The new image features fans’ first look at the cast of cats, nestled together next to some wheelie bins as they look out over a city skyline.

Watch Unchosen on Sky for free

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

from £15

Sky

Buy Now on Sky

Sky is giving away a free Netflix subscription with its new Sky Stream TV bundles, including the £15 Essential TV plan.

This lets members watch live and on-demand TV content without a satellite dish or aerial and includes hit shows.

This includes the brand new UK drama Unchosen, starring Asa Butterfield and Christopher Eccleston.

Netflix’s announcement has already sparked excitement amongst fans, who can’t wait for the After Life cast to return to Netflix for more laughs.

One X user said: “I’m laughing at this already after reading the cast.. This is going to be fun.”

“If it’s created by Ricky Gervais, I’ll give it a shot,” someone else replied. And another fan predicted: “Ricky Gervais doing adult animation? That cast is ridiculously stacked. Alley Cats might be the sleeper hit of August.”

Alley Cats premieres Friday, 7th August on Netflix.

NEW YORK — President Trump’s 10% global tariffs were declared unlawful by a federal trade court in a fresh blow to the administration’s economic agenda, several months after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated earlier levies he’d imposed.

A divided three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan on Thursday granted a request by a group of small businesses and two dozen mostly Democrat-led states to vacate the tariffs. Trump imposed the 10% duties in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which had never previously been invoked.

The court for now only immediately blocked the administration from enforcing the tariffs against the two companies that sued and Washington state, making clear that it was not issuing a so-called universal injunction. The panel found that the other states that sued lacked standing because they aren’t direct importers, instead arguing that they were harmed by having to pay higher prices for goods when businesses passed on tariff costs.

It wasn’t immediately clear what the ruling would mean for now for other importers that had been paying the contested levies.

The majority of the panel rejected the administration’s stance that “balance-of-payments deficits” — a key criterion for imposing the Section 122 tariffs — was “a malleable phrase.” They concluded that Trump’s proclamation imposing the levies failed to identify that such deficits existed within the meaning of the 1974 law, instead using “trade and current account deficits to stand in the place.”

The decision is the latest setback for the president’s effort to levy tariffs without input from Congress. Earlier duties — overturned by the Supreme Court on Feb. 20 — were issued under a different law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. In that case, the justices ruled Trump had exceeded his authority, kicking off a legal scramble by importers for almost $170 billion in refunds.

The U.S. Justice Department could challenge the trade court’s latest ruling by taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled against the Trump administration during the last tariff fight.

Section 122 allows presidents to impose duties in situations where the U.S. faces what the law defines as “fundamental international payments problems.” Even before Trump issued the tariffs, economists and policy experts debated whether the president would be able to build a solid legal framework using the statute.

In a proclamation declaring the use of Section 122, Trump said that tariffs were justified because the U.S. runs a “large and serious” trade deficit. He also pointed to the negative net flows of income from investments Americans have overseas and other things that showed the U.S. balance-of-payments relationship with the rest of the world was deteriorating.

Under the law, presidents have the ability to impose tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. on a short-term basis to address concerns about how money is flowing in and out of the country. Those concerns include “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” and an “imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar.”

Unlike other legal options Trump might pursue to impose tariffs, Section 122 can be invoked without waiting for a federal agency to conduct an investigation to determine whether the levies are justifiable. But they can still be challenged in court.

The small businesses and states that sued argued that Section 122 became outdated when the U.S. ditched the gold standard decades ago. They say Trump improperly conflated “balance-of-payments deficits” with U.S. trade deficits in order to justify using the law.

They also allege that Trump’s order announcing the Section 122 tariffs was “riddled with omissions and mischaracterizations” around the meaning of a balance-of-payments deficit. The trade deficit cited by Trump is just one part of calculating the country’s balance of payments position, the states say.

Under Section 122, the president can order import duties of as much as 15%. The executive action can last 150 days, at which point Congress would have to extend it. Trump has said he would aim to increase the rate to 15% from 10%.

The states argue that Trump’s new tariffs violate other requirements in Section 122, including that such duties not be discriminatory in their application. The states argue that Trump’s new tariffs improperly exempt some goods from Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

According to the complaint, the Trump administration conceded during the previous litigation over his IEEPA tariffs that trade deficits “are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.”

The clash over Section 122 emerged just as the legal fight over refunds from Trump’s IEEPA tariffs began to heat up. A different judge in the Court of International Trade, U.S. Judge Richard Eaton, is overseeing the massive refund effort and ordered Customs and Border Protection to give him regular updates on a largely automated process the government will use to issue most refunds.

Larson and Tillman write for Bloomberg.

Kyle Loftis, who started filming street racing with a point-and-shoot camera and went on to become a pioneer in car culture media, has died, his company confirmed Wednesday. He was 43.

“We are extremely saddened to share that Kyle Loftis, the founder of 1320video, passed away last night,” the company wrote in a statement posted on social media. “We are in a state of shock.”

No cause of death has been disclosed.

The Sarpy County Sheriff’s Office and Gretna Fire Department in Nebraska responded to Loftis’ home Tuesday night, a spokesperson for the sheriff’s office said in a statement emailed to The Times.

“Loftis was declared deceased; his death is not suspicious,” the spokesperson wrote. “Out of respect for privacy, we will not be releasing further details.”

According to his LinkedIn page, Loftis attended the University of Nebraska at Omaha from 2000-2005 and earned a bachelor’s degree in management of information systems.

It was there, Loftis said in a 2023 video on his company’s YouTube channel, that his interests in car stereos and photography evolved into a passion for street racing — in particular, capturing races in still photos and on video and making that media available to fans.

“I’m a hardcore ‘car nut’ that’s taken his love for cars and turned it into the most amazing ‘job’ of my life,” Loftis wrote on LinkedIn. “Through my business, 1320Video, I’m able to experience the craziest & best automotive events (fitting my tastes) and share them with millions of people around the world!”

Back in the early days, Loftis posted his work on message boards and sold it on DVDs. For nearly 10 years after college, he worked for PayPal while building his motorsports media business on his own time. He dedicated himself to 1320Video full time starting in January 2015.

Currently, 1320Video has nearly 4 million subscribers on YouTube, more than 6 million followers on Facebook and nearly 3 million followers on Instagram.

“Kyle’s passion for motorsports inspired millions of people around the world and we will never forget what he has done to grow our beloved sport,” 1320Video wrote. “Kyle was a beam of light at every gathering… his enthusiasm, kindness, and creativeness was contagious.

“Let us pray that Kyle is in a better place.”

Garrett Mitchell — the YouTuber and stock car racer known as Cleetus McFarland — posted a tribute to his longtime friend on Facebook.

“Completely shocked about the loss of Kyle,” Mitchell wrote. “The most influential person on my life. We’re crushed. Please pray for his Mother and close friends, they need it most.”

Barcelona are set to storm La Liga this year and could seal title in Sunday’s Clasico, but what is the history of the Real Madrid rivalry?

Barcelona and Real Madrid will contest the 264th El Clasico when the Spanish giants come together in a La Liga clash on Sunday.

Rarely will there have been a more highly charged atmosphere with a heavily demoralised Real arriving in the Catalan capital, facing the prospect of watching their fiercest rivals crowned champions on the day.

Although knocked out of the UEFA Champions League at the quarterfinals, as Los Blancos were too, Barca are well on course to defend their La Liga crown – and at a canter.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at the talking points heading into the game and what the history is of a 124-year-old rivalry.

Will Kylian Mbappe play for Real Madrid against Barcelona?

The headline news surrounding Sunday’s game is the availability of Kylian Mbappe, with the French striker a doubt for the Clasico because of a hamstring injury.

The 27-year-old striker tops the scoring charts in the Spanish league this season with 24 goals. Mallorca’s Vedat Muriqi is a surprise second on the list with 21 strikes, while Barca’s Lamine Yamal, who is out for the remainder of the season, has netted 16 times and is third on the list.

Despite Mbappe’s goalscoring achievements, a “Mbappe out” petition has garnered more than 33 million signatures calling for the club to sell the striker, who joined from Paris Saint-Germain two seasons ago.

What happened to Real Madrid’s Federico Valverde?

Federico Valverde will definitely miss out on El Clasico after a training ground bust-up on Thursday resulted in the midfielder being taken to hospital.

The 27-year-old Uruguayan is understood to have sustained a head injury following an incident with teammate Aurelien Tchouameni.

Real have said they are investigating internally, and have already decided to open disciplinary proceedings against both players.

It is not yet clear if Frenchman Tchouameni will be available for Sunday’s match as a result.

How can Barcelona win La Liga in Sunday’s El Clasico?

Alvaro Arbeloa’s Real trail Hansi Flick’s reigning champions by 11 points with four matches remaining, and are sinking towards a second straight season without a major trophy.

Anything but a win for Real on Sunday will see Barca lift the trophy in their own stadium against the only side to have won La Liga more.

What is meant by El Clasico?

The term El Clasico first appeared in a Spanish newspaper during the 1960s in reference to matches between the two biggest club teams in Spain.

The simple translation is “The Classic”.

By that time, the match had already been long considered one of sport’s fiercest derbies.

How did El Clasico become Spain’s greatest rivalry?

Originally, the phrase “Viejo Clasico” (Old Classic) was a term that referred to the Madrid derby between Real and Athletic Bilbao.

The match between the pair has historically been the most-played fixture in Spanish football before the rise of Barcelona to one of the two most prominent teams in the country.

The term El Clasico, although a 1960s invention in Spain, became a more widely popular and globally associated name when the rivalry between Real Madrid and Barcelona peaked in the 1990s.

Johan Cruyff’s Barcelona were a side to be feared on the global stage, but Quinta del Buitre’s Real were putting up a stern test. In the late 90s, Real’s superstar lineup was dubbed the Galacticos following the heavy financial investment in overseas stars such as Zinedine Zidane, Ronaldo and David Beckham.

By the turn of the century, the rivalry was recognised as one of the biggest match-ups in world sport and heralded in the era of Pep Guardiola vs Jose Mourinho in the dugouts – and the small matter of Lionel Messi vs Cristiano Ronaldo on the field.

When was the first El Clasico between Barcelona and Real Madrid?

The first match between the clubs took place on May 13, 1902, in the Copa de la Coronacion (a predecessor to the Copa del Rey).

Barcelona won the match 3-1 in the Spanish capital against Madrid FC (the club later became Real Madrid).

Who has won more El Clasico matches, Real Madrid or Barcelona?

Of the 261 matches between the clubs over the last 124 years, Real have won 106, while Barcelona have won 105.

How many times have Real Madrid and Barcelona won La Liga?

Real have lifted the La Liga trophy 36 times while Barca are targeting their 28th title.

Who has scored the most El Clasico goals?

1. Lionel Messi (Argentina) – 26 goals for Barcelona
2. Alfredo Di Stefano (Portugal) – 18 goals for Real Madrid
3. Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal) – 18 goals for Real Madrid
4. Karim Benzema (France) – 16 goals for Real Madrid
5. Raul (Spain) – 15 goals for Real Madrid

What are the last five results between Barcelona and Real Madrid?

• January 11, 2026 – Spanish Super Cup final: Barcelona 3-2 Real Madrid
• October 26, 2025 – La Liga: Real Madrid 2-1 Barcelona
• May 11, 2025 – La Liga: Barcelona 4-3 Real Madrid
• April 26, 2025 – Copa del Rey final: Barcelona 3-2 Real Madrid (after extra time)
• January 12, 2025 – Spanish Super Cup final: Real Madrid 2-5 Barcelona

How can I follow Sunday’s El Clasico between Barcelona and Real Madrid?

We will bring you our comprehensive text commentary stream of Sunday’s match, starting with our usual extensive build-up – including all the news, analyses and opinion surrounding the game.

The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees is striking against “CoComelon: The Melon Patch” in protest over wages and working conditions.

The union representing crew members working on the live-action YouTube series said the workers are being overworked and that the production is understaffed.

The crew, which consists of 22 workers, recently signed cards seeking the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, or IATSE, to represent them in collective bargaining. The production’s management refused to bargain, according to the workers.

“The crew on this project experienced firsthand what working conditions can be like on a non-union production and organized for fair wages and industry-standard benefits after they started the second season,” IATSE said in a statement to The Times.

The strike began on Wednesday, halfway through the series’ shoot. The workers are currently picketing outside the Stage This studio in Sun Valley.

Moonbug Entertainment, the company behind the “CoComelon” franchise, declined to comment on the matter.

“The Melon Patch” first launched in 2025 and is a spinoff of the original “CoComelon” on YouTube. Over the last several years, “CoComelon” has become a staple in households with young children, known for its brightly colored 3D animation style. The franchise has spawned many spinoffs including Netflix’s “CoComelon Lane.” Universal Pictures is set to release a full-length feature in early 2027.

Several previous “CoComelon” productions have successfully been unionized and covered by IATSE’s contract, including the Netflix series.

Chris Roberts worked as an art director on the first season, but says he was initially offered a lower rate for season two. Though the project is non-union, he said it’s ironic to have to picket a company that makes kids’ content, as he’s unable to support his own family.

“It’s a little disheartening to be offered less money than we were paid in the first season and then have less staff, a heavier workload, and not be able to provide for my kids,” said Roberts, who has been a member of IATSE since 2016.

WASHINGTON  — Louisiana’s state attorneys on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to stand aside for now and to uphold an appeals court ruling that would stop the mailing of abortion pills nationwide.

They blamed former President Biden for undermining the state’s strict bans on abortion and the Trump administration for slow-walking a study on the federal regulations that permit sending the pills through the mail.

The justices are likely to act soon on emergency appeals filed by two makers of mifepristone. They argued the pills have been shown to be safe and effective for ending an early pregnancy.

But last week, the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled for Louisiana and revived an earlier regulation that would require women to obtain the pills in person from a doctor.

The three-judge panel also took the unusual step for putting its order into effect immediately. On Monday, Justice Samuel A. Alito, who oversees the 5th Circuit, issued an administrative stay that will keep the case on hold through Monday.

The justices have to decide whether Louisiana had standing to sue over the federal drug regulations, and if so, whether judges have the authority to overrule the Food and Drug Administration.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote dismissed a similar challenge to the abortion pills that came from the 5th Circuit. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts has said in the past that judges should usually defer to the federal agency that is responsible fo regulating drugs.

In response to anti-abortion advocates, Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. agreed to have the FDA review the safety record of mifepristone.

It was approved in 2000 as safe and effective for ending early pregnancies. And in the past decade, the agency had relaxed earlier restrictions, including a requirement that pregnant women visit a doctor’s office to obtain the pills.

But the FDA said last month its review is far from complete.

In October, Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill decided to bypass the FDA review and went to federal court seeking a ruling that would prevent the pills being sent by mail.

A federal judge refused to decide on the issue while the FDA was undertaking its review. But the 5th Circuit chose to act now. The Louisiana state attorney put the focus on the Biden administration.

When the Supreme Court was considering the Dobbs case, which overruled Roe vs. Wade and the right to abortion, “the Biden Administration was preparing a plan that predictably would undermine that decision,” she wrote in Thursday’s response.

“Although Louisiana law generally prohibits abortion and the dispensing of mifepristone to pregnant women, out-of-state prescribers—freed from the in-person dispensing requirement — are causing approximately 1,000 illegal abortions in Louisiana each month by mailing FDA-approved mifepristone into the state,” she said.

The Trump administration has yet to tell the court of its views on this case.

The NCAA announced Thursday that it will expand its two March Madness tournaments by eight teams each next season, a long-expected move that will drop more games into the first week of the highly popular and lucrative showcase without substantially changing its overall form.

The new, 76-team brackets will jam eight extra games — for a total of 12 involving 24 teams — into the front half of the first week of the men’s and the women’s tournaments. It will turn what’s now known as the First Four into a bigger affair that will now be called the “March Madness Opening Round.”

The 12 winners will move into the main 64-team bracket that will begin, as usual, on Thursday for the men and Friday for the women.

It is the first expansion of the tournaments in 15 years, when they were bumped to 68 teams each.

The NCAA said it will distribute more than $131 million in new revenue to schools that make the tournament. That money will come via expanded TV advertising opportunities for alcohol, the likes of which were previously restricted. It said the value of the rights agreement will increase $50 million each year on average over the course of the six years.

Most of the eight new slots are expected to go to teams from the power conferences that were already commanding the lion’s share of entries in the bracket. Two years ago, the Southeastern Conference placed a record 14 teams in the men’s bracket. Last season, the Big Ten had nine.

Keith Gill, the chairman of the Division I men’s basketball committee, called the expansion “a nice way to create some access but make sure we have the bracket we all love when we start Thursday at noon.”

The move is a product of the times, which includes massive expansion — the Atlantic Coast Conference, for instance, has grown from nine to 17 teams since 1996 — and the reality that mid-major schools with top-notch players will often see them plucked away by programs with bigger budgets and the ability to pay them through revenue sharing.

Cinderella? There will still be room for those stirring runs in the tournaments, though not a single mid-major advanced past the first weekend of either tournament the last two seasons.

This is hardly a concern of the decision-makers anymore, who will point to TV ratings that traditionally spell out fans’ preference for the likes of Duke and North Carolina over St. Peter’s and San Diego State, especially once the Sweet 16 starts.

What matters more to the biggest schools is that their teams have a chance to compete in what remains the best postseason in college sports and that they aren’t iced out by lower conference champions who earn automatic bids.

“You’ve got some really, really good teams who are going to end up in that 9, 10, 11 [seed] category that I think should be moved into the” 64-team bracket, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said last year in discussing how he favored expansion.

Also, the money. The new beer and wine money will add to what the NCAA can distribute in “units” that are earned for placing teams in the bracket and then for every round those teams advance. Last year, that amounted to about $350,000 per unit for the men’s tournament. The Big Ten made nearly $70 million from both tournaments, won by conference members Michigan [men] and UCLA [women].

Leaders in the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC have all acknowledged that smaller programs help make March Madness what it is, all the while steadily expanding their own power in NCAA decision-making. That brings with it the tacit threat of fracturing the single thing the NCAA does best — the basketball tournament.

This move might forestall that. What it isn’t expected to do is drastically change the TV deal beyond the advertising.

The current deal for the men’s tournament is worth $8.8 billion and runs through 2032. Adding a few extra games between mid-level Power Four teams on Tuesday and Wednesday won’t change that much.

One reason this took as long as it did was the NCAA negotiations with CBS and TNT, which themselves have been in negotiations over their own ownership.

The more drastic option of expanding the tournament to 96 teams or beyond would involve adding an extra week to a tournament that has thrived in part because of the symmetry of a six-round bracket that gets whittled down over three weeks.

That basic shell began in 1985, with only slight tweaks, the latest of which came in 2011 when it was upped to 68.

May 7 (Asia Today) — Japan plans to launch a new National Intelligence Bureau as early as July to centralize intelligence gathering and analysis under the prime minister’s office, a move expected to affect trilateral security cooperation among South Korea, the United States and Japan.

The new organization will upgrade the existing Cabinet Intelligence and Research Office into a roughly 700-member agency, with plans to gradually expand staffing by recruiting specialized intelligence personnel and private-sector experts.

According to the Yomiuri Shimbun, the Japanese government has finalized plans to establish the National Intelligence Bureau this summer with an initial workforce similar in size to the current intelligence office.

Legislation creating the National Intelligence Council, which will serve as the legal basis for the new bureau, was submitted to parliament on March 13 and passed the lower house in April. Deliberations in the upper house are scheduled to begin Thursday.

The new bureau will operate under the prime minister’s office and support the National Intelligence Council, chaired by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi.

The restructuring marks a major shift from the current system, in which the Cabinet Intelligence and Research Office is largely staffed by officials dispatched from agencies such as the National Police Agency and the Foreign Ministry.

Beginning next year, Japan plans to recruit its own career-track intelligence officers through the national civil service examination system.

The government also intends to expand midcareer hiring from the private sector to secure experts with foreign language skills, cybersecurity expertise and advanced internet technologies.

Officials are additionally considering hiring engineers capable of using artificial intelligence to process large volumes of intelligence data more efficiently.

The new agency is expected to oversee intelligence exchanges with foreign services, analysis of overseas developments and responses to disinformation and misinformation on social media platforms.

Japan’s opposition parties have raised concerns about the expansion of surveillance powers and the political neutrality of the organization.

Critics argue the legislation does not clearly define the operational scope of intelligence activities and could lead to infringements on privacy rights and freedom of thought.

Some lawmakers have also warned the new system could pave the way for future legislation on anti-spying measures or the establishment of a full-fledged foreign intelligence service.

For South Korea, the reorganization means Japan’s intelligence-sharing channel within trilateral security cooperation with Washington could become more centralized and influential.

Key security issues already shared among the three countries include North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, Chinese military activities in the East and South China seas, Russian military movements in the Far East, cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns.

Analysts said Japan’s strengthened intelligence structure could accelerate the speed of Japanese threat assessments and crisis responses during regional emergencies.

At the same time, South Korea is expected to closely monitor how Japan integrates the new agency into trilateral intelligence-sharing frameworks and whether the reform strengthens Japan’s independent security decision-making role.

The launch of the National Intelligence Bureau could improve coordination on North Korean missile threats while also marking a broader expansion of Japan’s security and intelligence capabilities.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260507010001415

Iranian media outlets are reporting that a port on Iran’s largest island in the Strait of Hormuz came under attack. However, details are scant at the moment and no images have emerged to support the claims. We have reached out to U.S. Central Command for more information. The reports come as negotiations between the U.S. and Iran to end the war have been ongoing during a fragile ceasefire that would be further imperiled by a new round of fighting.

This story has been updated with new information from CENTCOM that it attacked Iranian targets in response to U.S. Navy destroyers being fired on by Iran.

“FARS investigations in Bandar Abbas show that during the exchange of fire between the Iranian armed forces and the enemy, parts of the commercial area of Bahman Qeshm pier were targeted,” the official Iranian FARS news outlet reported on Telegram.

A noughties TV legend and star of I’m A Celebrity…Get Me Out Of Here! has explained just why so many people refused to appear with him on television at the height of his career

Dom Joly has revealed that several people refused to appear alongside him on TV – all for the same reason. The comedian, 58, shot to fame when he began fronting Trigger Happy TV in 2000, and the format saw him going out in public to intentionally put himself in embarrassing situation, all to get a reaction.

When the programme first started, viewers and participants alike assumed the chaos, which was being caught on hidden cameras, was genuine and it became an overnight success. But as the series progressed and became more popular, members of the public became wise to when Dom was out and about filming.

The show came to an end in 2003, and now Dom, who went on to appear on I’m A Celebrity…Get Me Out Of Here! alongside This Morning star Alison Hammond and eventual winner Stacey Solomon, has revealed that a considerable amount of people refused to be seen on camera because they were being unfaithful to their partners at the time, and couldn’t risk having that broadcast to the nation.

READ MORE: I’m A Celebrity legend lands huge radio role and raves new gig is ‘perfect’ for themREAD MORE: Dom Joly now from Trigger Happy breakdown to BBC regrets and rarely-seen wife

Speaking on the Remember Me? podcast, he told host Maisie Adam: “We got away with quite a lot but the main reason people didn’t sign consent forms – it’s not that they didn’t want to be on telly, it’s because they were having affairs.

“I can not tell you the amount of people we did, and when the second series went out, the guy would go ‘Oh my god, it’s Dom Joly! Am I being filmed? Oh! That’s not my wife.’ That was just the people we talked to!”

Dom’s most famous bit is, ironically, his least favourite – that enormous phone. Just days after the first episode aired in January 2000, he was on a train when he heard that now-familiar Nokia ring tone.

He said: “Three people stood up and shouted, ‘HELLO?! YEAH I’M ON THE TRAIN – IT’S RUBBISH!’ I was like, ‘f***. What is happening?’” It’s a catchphrase that has haunted him for 25 years.

“I swear there’s not a day where it doesn’t happen. Even on the way here, a bloke spotted me and shouted, ‘HELLO?!’ And 25 years later I still don’t have a good response to it! Like, ‘Yes, hello!’”

“So many scenes went wrong, but the worst we did was with Sarah Ferguson,. We were walking past the Duke of York barracks on King’s Road and there’s a party going on, so we go in and blag some free drinks. Suddenly we spot Fergie sitting in the corner on her own, so we say, ‘let’s do it’.

“We go right up to her, she looks panicky and I stick my microphone in her face and say, ‘Good morning Your Majesty, you are live on Good Morning Mexico – do you have anything to say to the people of Mexico?’

“She starts blabbering on into this tiny camera, and after a while I ask her to pause because we’ve gone to a commercial break, and could she absolutely freeze?

“And for three minutes, me, Sam and the Duchess of York are frozen in the middle of this drinks party. And then we leg it. By the time we get back to our office there’s a fax from her lawyers and sadly we could never show the footage.”

Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads

Within days of California’s long-anticipated single-use plastic law going into effect, environmentalists, anti-waste activists and the packaging industry reacted with anger and frustration.

Anti-plastic activists say Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration and CalRecycle inserted exemptions favoring the plastic industry into the law’s regulations that weaken it and undermine legislative intent.

“These new rules create huge loopholes for plastic packaging that violate the law,” said Avinash Kar, senior director of the toxics program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

On the other side, the packaging industry has sued over similar laws in other states. “Our members have real concerns about cost, compliance, and constitutionality,” said Matt Clarke, spokesman for the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors, which sued Oregon earlier this year over a similar waste law.

CalRecycle, the state’s waste agency, did not respond in time for publication. The final regulations putting the law into effect were released May 1 and posted for review Tuesday.

The environmental organizations say the law’s new final regulations open the door to what is known as “chemical recycling,” which produces large amounts of hazardous waste. The law also contains problematic exemptions for certain categories of plastic foodware, they say.

The language of the law forbids any kind of recycling that would produce significant amounts of hazardous waste. The new regulations allow for these recycling methods if the facilities are properly permitted.

The new regulations also exempt certain products if they are already covered by federal law. For instance, a packaging company, retailer or distributor can claim that they have such a preemption, Kar said, and CalRecycle might not immediately review that claim. “And as long as they don’t review it, they’ll get the exemption for as long as CalRecycle doesn’t review it,” creating a potential “forever loophole.”

“Californians were promised a system where producers take real responsibility for the waste they create,” said Nick Lapis, advocacy director for Californians Against Waste. “When regulations introduce broad exemptions and redefine key terms, that promise starts to erode. The details matter here, and right now they don’t line up with the intent of the law.”

Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was signed by Newsom in 2022. It was considered landmark legislation because it addressed the scourge of single-use plastics, requiring plastic and packaging companies to use less of them and ensuring that by 2032, all food packaging is either recyclable or compostable.

Accumulating plastic waste is overwhelming waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.

The law’s intent was not only to reduce it, but also to put the onus and cost of dealing with it on packaging producers and manufacturers, not consumers and local governments. It was supposed to incentivize companies to consider the fate of their products and spur innovation in material redesign.

According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale, or distributed during 2023 in California.

Similar laws have been passed in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington. Oregon’s law, however, is on hold while a lawsuit by the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors works its way through the courts.

“We see a lot of the same problems in California that we flagged in Oregon,” said Clarke, the trade group spokesman. “Given California’s scale, the cost implications are going to be even larger. Our legal counsel has noted that California’s proposed fees are already higher than what other states have put forward.”

Jan Dell of Last Beach Cleanup, an anti-plastic waste group based in Laguna Beach, doesn’t believe the law will work — irrespective of the final regulations — and said the “exorbitant” cost of its implementation will either spur producers to sue, or they’ll end up passing the higher costs onto consumers.

She referred to a report from the Circular Action Alliance, the state-sanctioned group established to represent and oversee the implementation of the law on behalf of the plastic and packaging industry. It finds the law will increase the cost of disposal between six and 14 times for common products, such as Windex bottles, made of polyethylene terephthalate.

“If the producers don’t successfully sue to stop the fees, this will certainly add to product inflation for CA consumers,” she said in an email. “Californians already have to pay exorbitantly high curbside collection fees for trash, recycling, and organics … so, starting in 2027, our groceries will cost a LOT more but we won’t see a reduction in our waste bills.”

Christopher “Smitty” Smith, a partner at law firm Saul Ewing in Los Angeles, who councils companies and interest groups on SB 54 and other Extended Producer Liability laws, said that although he could see areas of the law that “could be sharper and avoid the legal challenges … you can’t stop people from suing.” Environmentalists and anti-waste activists say they are preparing a lawsuit.

Smith said the law already has sparked changes in how companies think and respond to concerns about waste.

One of his national fast-food chain clients has realized that if its brand name is on plastic packaging, it’s that company’s responsibility, he said, so “they’ve spent the past year mapping out their franchise agreements, their supply chain agreements, their producer agreements, to figure out” what it needs to do to comply.

He said in the past, companies have paid little attention to these details and just let their franchisees figure this kind of thing out. Now, they’re spending a lot of time and money “to wrap their arms around what their supply chain looks like and like, what post consumer use of their plastic products looks like and what their regulatory obligations are.”

It’s bringing a new dialogue within companies. And that, Smith said, is what could make this law so powerful.

Times staff writer Meg Tanaka contributed to this report.

Tim Martin has spoken out after Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary claimed drinking booze at UK airports, such as London Heathrow, should be banned before a certain time

The boss of JD Wetherspoons has hit back at the Ryanair CEO’s claims alcohol shouldn’t be served at UK airports in the early hours of the morning.

Tim Martin, who founded his pub chain in 1979, said Michael O’Leary’s suggestion would require passengers being breathalysed at airports. He described the plan as “an overreaction”.

But Mr O’Leary, boss of the budget airline, had claimed an average of nearly one flight every day is diverted due to disruptive passengers fuelled by booze. The 65-year-old businessman said these tourists often drink in bars at airports for hours before they board their planes, and called on a ban on serving booze at airport bars in the early hours of the morning and a two-drink limit thereafter.

Mr Martin, though, has said: “A two-drink limit would be extraordinarily difficult to implement, short of breathalysing passengers, and would, in our opinion, be an overreaction — especially since many of the problems stem from incoming flights. It is in everyone’s interests to have good behaviour at airports and on flights.”

READ MORE: Mum raves about ‘family friendly’ Wetherspoons nestled around stunning bluebell forestREAD MORE: Seaside town with UK’s shortest pier and arcades ‘paying out big’

Mr Martin, 71, also told The Times it had “never been suggested” its customers cause disruption on flights. JD Wetherspoon told the newspaper that pubs in airports were “highly supervised” with strict policies preventing excessive alcohol consumption.

Airside bars in the UK are not required to follow restrictions on opening hours which apply to other venues selling alcohol. Being drunk on a plane is a criminal offence in the UK and can be punished by a fine of up to £5,000 and two years’ imprisonment.

But alcohol can be served on flights, including those of Ryanair, and there have been no calls on this practice. This, coupled with alcohol consumption at airports, has led to a number of incidents of disruption recently.

A man was, for instance, jailed for becoming abusive, causing widespread alarm throughout the Ryanair aircraft on which he was travelling from Poland to Bristol.

And, on Thursday, Ryanair welcomed the decision by a court in France which it said found two passengers guilty of causing disruption onboard a flight from Stansted to Ibiza that was diverted to Toulouse in May last year. The pair received a combined penalty of more than 10,000 euros (£8,640) and received suspended prison sentences of up to 10 months, according to the airline.

Speaking earlier this week, Mr O’Leary shared his plans. The father of four had said: “I fail to understand why anybody in airport bars is serving people at five or six o’clock in the morning. Who needs to be drinking beer at that time? There should be no alcohol served at airports outside [those] licensing hours.”

Manchester City are keen on Real Madrid winger Vinicius Jr, Bayern Munich make contact with Newcastle United over Anthony Gordon, and France forward Bradley Barcola could leave PSG in the summer.

Manchester City are contenders to sign Real Madrid and Brazil forward Vinicius Jr, with just over a year left on the 25-year-old’s contract at the Bernebau. (Teamtalk), external

Bayern Munich have made contact with Newcastle United over a move for England winger Anthony Gordon, 25, but there is a £20m gap in valuations between the clubs. (Mail – subscription required), external

France forward Bradley Barcola could leave Paris St-Germain in the summer, with Arsenal, Liverpool and Barcelona interested in the 23-year-old. (Sky Sports Germany) , external

Tottenham boss Roberto de Zerbi wants to trigger the option Spurs have to turn 30-year-old Portugal midfielder Joao Palhinha’s loan move from Bayern Munich into a permanent switch for £27m. (Mail – subscription required) , external

Barcelona have a limit of about 100m euros (£86.5m) to sign Argentina striker Julian Alvarez from Atletico Madrid but are waiting to see if the 26-year-old pushes for a move before attempting any transfer. (Mundo Deportivo – in Spanish), external

Serbia striker Dusan Vlahovic, 26, will be out of contract at Juventus this summer and is waiting for Barcelona or Bayern Munich to try to sign him. (Sportmediaset, via Football Italia), external

Manchester City are in talks with 24-year-old Croatia defender Josko Gvardiol about extending his contract with the club. (Sky Sports) , external

Brighton, Leeds United and West Ham could try to scupper Brentford‘s move for 19-year-old RB Salzburg’s Austrian defender Jannik Schuster. (Teamtalk), external

Everton will have to step up their efforts to sign Burnley defender Maxime Esteve as Bayer Leverkusen are keen on the 23-year-old Frenchman. (Football Insider), external

German club Eintracht Frankfurt are considering parting ways with manager Albert Riera, with the former Liverpool and Spain winger only appointed in January. (Sky Sports Germany), external

A Palestinian boy mourns his father, one of three people killed in an Israeli strike on a security post in Gaza. The attack is part of ongoing Israeli violence, despite a fragile ceasefire, which has killed at least 846 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

The U.S. Air Force may once have eyed the B-1B Lancer for retirement, but the swing-wing bomber is now set to remain in service longer, and the fleet is even regaining a jet it had previously retired. The B-1B in question was once parked in the “boneyard” in the Arizona desert, but is now back in service after an intensive regeneration and depot maintenance effort.

The Air Force announced today that the B-1B, serial 86-0115, formerly named Rage, had departed Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, after nearly two years of depot maintenance work to return it to operational status. Work was led by the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex, and the bomber left Tinker on April 22 of this year.

The Lancer was returned to combat-capable status after spending time in Type 2000 storage at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. The jet originally arrived at the boneyard in 2021, as one of 17 B-1Bs retired in 2021 that were sent there to consolidate the fleet from 62 to 45 aircraft to help improve overall readiness rates and help redirect funds toward the type’s replacement, the B-21 Raider. 

In 2024, we reported on the aircraft’s return to flight at Davis-Monthan.

As you can read about here, Type 2000 involves the aircraft being maintained in a way that makes it easier to return it to service should that be necessary, especially to fill in for any potential future combat losses or accidents. 86-0115 was one of four B-1Bs placed into this (reclaimable) storage.

According to the Air Force, the work involved more than 200 airmen and civilians from the 567th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, who worked extended shifts. More than 500 components were replaced on the jet as part of system overhauls and structural repairs.

Prior to being returned to active duty, pilots from Tinker’s 10th Flight Test Squadron flew the aircraft in a stripped, bare-metal configuration over Oklahoma, as seen in the photo at the top of this story. These functional check flights were used to validate systems and performance, after which the B-1B was declared fully mission capable and was then repainted, a process that was underway as of mid-April this year.

The B-1B is now at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, where it has rejoined the 7th Bomb Wing with a new name — Apocalypse II — and nose art marking its restoration. The jet is also the flagship for the wing, so it bears the markings of its 9th and 28th Bomb Squadrons.

The arrival of the reactivated bomber means the Air Force once again meets strict legal requirements set by Congress for the service to maintain a fleet of 45 B-1Bs. The service told TWZ that 86-0115 was regenerated to replace aircraft 86-0126, which was undergoing heavy structures repair development with Boeing at Palmdale, California.   

“Analysis determined regenerating an aircraft in AMARG storage could be accomplished faster, at lower cost and risk, than continuing the Boeing repair project,” the Air Force said at the time.

In 2024, a B-1B nicknamed Lancelot — also previously retired in Type 2000 storage — was flown to Tinker Air Force Base to undergo final regeneration work before rejoining the operational fleet. This replaced another aircraft that was written off following a catastrophic engine fire during routine maintenance at Dyess Air Force Base two years earlier.

Other bombers have also been pulled from the boneyard and returned to active duty. In 2019, the B-52 Wise Guy touched down at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana to take the place of a bomber that had crashed and burned at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam three years earlier. Prior to that, the B-52 Ghost Rider was brought back into service at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota in 2015, replacing a B-52 that had been written off after an electrical fire during routine maintenance in 2014.

The return to service of 86-0115 is especially relevant now that the B-1B is officially slated to serve for another decade. Although earlier plans called for retiring the Lancer by 2030, its unmatched capacity to haul especially large payloads has helped secure an extended service life now projected to run to at least 2037.

At the same time, the relevance of the bomber continues to grow, including adding more new weapons. Earlier this week, we looked at the first imagery of the a B-1B carrying an AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon hypersonic missile, or ARRW.

The Air Force now also wants to develop an improved version of the ARRW, as well as a separate air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM). Once again, the B-1B is likely to be closely involved with these efforts.

Fiscal Year 2027 budget documents show the Air Force intends to invest $342 million to upgrade its remaining 44 B-1Bs between 2027 and 2031. “This request provides the necessary funding to modernize the platform, ensuring its lethality and relevance through 2037,” the document states.

With the B-1B now set to fly beyond its once-expected sunset, demand for the bomber shows no sign of easing, including recent heavy tasking for Operation Epic Fury. With that in mind, bringing the refurbished Apocalypse II back into the fleet will help keep it ready for the missions yet to come.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Married At First Sight Australia fans were left in disbelief as the final dinner party descended into chaos and tears

Viewers confessed they found themselves shouting at their television screens during the final Married At First Sight Australia dinner party.

Fans branded it ‘unhinged’ as proceedings spiralled into mayhem and waterworks. Just a handful of episodes remain of the current reality series from Down Under, with Final Vows anticipated to broadcast next week.

While Australian audiences have already seen it through to the end, UK-based fans are almost completely up to speed. Once again, more than a dozen strangers exchanged vows upon meeting for the very first time as part of an unconventional social dating experiment.

Throughout recent weeks, audiences have been captivated by numerous dramatic developments and its climax is scheduled to reach British screens this week. One couple even chose to call it quits just days ahead of the finale.

Recent days have witnessed the surviving couples undertake a final challenge devised by the experts. This was succeeded by a catastrophic breakdown as multiple participants fled from the cameras, threatening to abandon the programme, reports OK!.

This evening’s episode (May 7) resumes just in time for the final dinner party. Scott, still shaken after his bride abandoned him, reveals that he suspects Gia has travelled back home. He says: “Gia sent me a voicemail. She’s upset and her daughter’s crying. She sent me pictures. I think she’s trying to make me feel bad?” Despite Gia’s earlier insistence that she’d quit the experiment and jetted off, Filip drops a bombshell – he’d actually spotted her in their apartment block. Unsurprisingly, she’s not about to miss out on Dinner Party drama.

Elsewhere, Alissa and David are battling to repair their relationship following their explosive row over the final challenge. David confronted Alissa about her conduct, which saw him storm off and Alissa hurl her wedding ring in his direction.

David offers an apology for removing his ring and expresses his desire to listen to Alissa’s perspective. However, Alissa refuses to say sorry for her antics during the lunch with the alternate matches, insisting she was simply enjoying herself. In a dramatic gesture, David drops to one knee and tries to slip the ring back onto her finger.

He declares: “I love you” and Alissa pauses before responding: “Thank you.”

The experts observe the exchange, with Mel Schilling appearing distinctly unimpressed by Alissa’s reply. She remarks: “That shows absolutely lack of flexibility and saying this is who I am, take me or leave me. She’s giving him nothing.” Alessandra adds: “I can’t believe that was her response to saying he loves her.”

Shortly after Gia makes her entrance, Bec wastes no time exposing her fabrications. Gia’s knee-jerk reaction is, predictably, to announce she wants out. Once more, Bec appears oblivious to the presence of cameras and microphones as her covert scheme unfolds before the audience. She instructs Gia: “They all know you weren’t in Melbourne. You know what you need to do.” Gia responds: “Out victim him. So, what am I saying?”

Bec advises: “I’m looking at this strategically. It’s not just about your relationship, it’s about all of Australia. This is your moment. And if you can cry, that would be great.”

During the confrontation, Gia delivers a rehearsed statement as directed by Bec. She declares: “Dear Scott (cue tears), this hurts in a way I didn’t think it could.”

Upon completion, Stella disapprovingly shakes her head, while Bec applauds in isolation and gestures for Gia to cease the waterworks. Scott then presents his own statement, which resonates far more with the majority of the group, including the words: “You are not the one for me. We are a different calibre of people.”

Gia attempts one final manoeuvre, suddenly levelling accusations at Scott, who has already departed, of pressuring her into a ‘showmance’. She further alleges he never paid her compliments, criticised her drinking habits and exploited her physically. Claims that devoted viewers have never witnessed on screen.

Audiences at home were swift to voice their reactions. One viewer questioned: “Is this more dramatic than the I’m A Celeb reunion?” Another remarked: “Gia for once was put in her place. So whatever else she says now will be met with pure disgust. No less than she deserves..” One person asked: “How many of us are arguing out loud with our TVs?” Another confessed: “‘To bare my soul, not for the cameras but for you’ – the worst performance I’ve ever seen, Gia. And loving this letter show down.”

Others remarked on David and Alissa’s predicament, with one stating: “So, David taking off his ring was unforgivable, but it was absolutely fine for Alissa to lob hers at him.”

And another: “Alissa pretending she didn’t do or say anything wrong at that dinner is unbelievable. And David is just being FAR too graceful. Bless his heart.”

Married At First Sight Australia continues Monday at 7.30PM on E4 and streaming on Channel 4.

In the ancient days of 2022, when the Supreme Court sledgehammered abortion rights with the Dobbs decision, the (Republican) party line was that the issue had returned to where it belonged: the states.

Fast forward to 2026 and it would now seem that the antiabortion crowd, faced with the aggressive pro-choice response of states such as California and lethargy on the part of the Trump administration to do more toward implementing a national ban, is no longer satisfied with that outcome.

They are now out to stomp on California, and a handful of other reproductive health sanctuaries, to ensure that what happens inside our borders fits their ideology.

“It’s strategic, it’s targeted,” Mini Timmaraju, president and chief executive of Reproductive Freedom for All, told me. “Even if you’re in a ‘blue state,’ you’re not safe.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide next week whether to take up the abortion issue again, in a case that could end medication-only procedures as we know them.

That would force women into a less-safe regimen with a lower success rate that would almost certainly lead to more complications — and therefore more controversy. Even in California, which would not be spared by what the court could do, and whose policies are central to the case.

Let’s break it down.

Union members, immigrant rights supporters and anti-Israel demonstrators participate in a May Day rally and march in Washington, D.C., on Friday.

(Robyn Stevens Brody / Sipa USA via Associated Press)

Rogue California

After the Dobbs decision, 11 states passed near-total bans on abortions.

Six other states put early time limits on the procedures, and others passed bans in the second trimester, leaving women in much of the South and the Great Plains with no access to in-person care for hundreds or even thousands of miles.

In many of those places, those bans include making it illegal to receive abortion-inducing medications in the mail from states such as California. But that’s a hard law to enforce unless you go around opening lady-mail.

In recent years, the number of U.S. abortions arranged through telehealth and mailed medication has skyrocketed to more than a quarter of all procedures, though the often illegal nature of this route probably means the number is higher but underreported.

To protect the doctors and providers who are prescribing and sending these medications, California and other states have passed numerous laws to make it easier and safer — from allowing the prescriber to remain anonymous to shield laws that ensure those providers can’t be penalized or extradited to other states for prosecution, though some states are trying.

Earlier this year, Louisiana (a state with a full ban) tried to extradite a California doctor with no luck. Gov. Gavin Newsom gleefully denied that request, promising to “never be complicit with Trump’s war on women.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, speaks during the annual March For Life at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23.

(Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Rogue Louisiana

In the Supreme Court case, Louisiana is thinking bigger — and expressing antiabortionists’ frustration with the Trump administration. The state is suing Trump’s Food and Drug Administration because it allows mifepristone, one of two medications used in abortions, to be prescribed via telehealth.

“Patients and these states with bans and extreme restrictions have relied on providers in blue states, abortion access states, to really help provide care,” Timmaraju said. “And this is a way to stop that.”

Antiabortion groups had hoped (and pushed) Trump to simply have the FDA remove its approvals of mifepristone, but Trump ain’t that dumb. Despite all his promises on the campaign trail, the administration would prefer to kick the can instead of the hornet’s nest on this one, especially before the midterms — since most Americans support abortion rights. So the FDA has said it’s “studying” mifepristone, which could take awhile.

Louisiana is claiming it had to spend $90,000 in taxpayer money to help two women who sought medical treatment after medication abortions (though it has not said they received the medication in the mail).

That’s a real harm, it argues, and gives them standing to sue the FDA to stop mifepristone from being prescribed by telehealth at all, claiming the FDA hasn’t done its due diligence to ensure that’s safe and it makes them really sad that they can’t stop women from ordering it.

The FDA has remained “completely silent on this point because the Trump administration doesn’t want to get involved,” said Mary Ziegler, a UC Davis law professor and expert on reproductive law.

“It’s totally one of the signs that the antiabortion movement is in an open rebellion, and is using the federal courts to express that because the political branches have been pretty non-responsive,” she said.

The Contemplation of Justice statue is seen outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Monday in Washington.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

The Supreme Court lifted a stay Monday imposed by the 5th Circuit that stopped mifepristone from being tele-prescribed. So it’s available until at least May 11.

After that, who knows. It’s up to a court that has proven it’s no friend to reproductive rights.

It’s an issue with real consequence for Trump. If the court takes the case, the midterms must contend with abortion. If they don’t, the pressure on Trump to do so sometime intensifies. But its also an issue with real consequence for Californians.

Consequences in California

In California, there are 22 counties without an abortion clinic, Ziegler points out. In the far north of the state, women without access to telehealth abortions would be little better off than those in Louisiana if mifepristone by mail is stopped.

Instead, women would probably be forced to use the second medication, misoprostol, alone. This single-drug regimen has a lower effectiveness rate than the combined drugs, meaning more women will have to seek out secondary care — often in places where even in-person care is hard to come by. That could lead to more real harm, and therefore more high-profile cases of botched abortions to fuel a further ban on misoprostol.

Steve Hilton takes an interview after the California gubernatorial debate at Skirball Cultural Center on Wednesday.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

And then there’s the fact that Newsom won’t be governor for much longer, and it will be up to the next chief executive to protect in-state providers from extradition. The top Republican contender, Steve Hilton, has previously said he would allow Louisiana to grab our California doctor if he were in charge.

Those kinds of threats have a chilling effect, both Ziegler and Timmaraju said. If enough providers are scared of the consequences of providing telehealth — or any — abortions, a ban becomes self-imposed.

Even in California.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Immigration crackdown souring Orange County’s view of Trump, poll finds
The deep dive: ‘How the Fight Over Israel Is Playing Out Inside MAGA
The L.A. Times Special: Who won the California governor debate on CNN? Here’s what our columnists say

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The key to breaking a course record for a 250-mile ultramarathon?

Mashed potato, and 19 minutes’ worth of sleep on the ground.

That is what fuelled Rachel Entrekin in her historic run at the Cocodona 250 in Arizona as the American won the overall race – men included – in a record-breaking time of 56 hours, nine minutes and 48 seconds.

“Somewhere around mile 200, I slept for five minutes at an aid station,” said the 34-year-old, speaking to BBC Sport the morning after her success.

“Then around 230 miles, I took two seven-minute naps on the floor. And food, it’s impossible to say how much I ate but as far as real food goes, I had a lot of mashed potatoes.

“Mashed potatoes are the best. You get tired of chewing and you don’t want to expend any extra energy doing that.”

Entrekin also fuelled with lots of energy gels, sweets, rice and broth along the way, and even had the capacity to put in a sprint finish at the end.

The morning after the race, after sleeping from 11pm until 6.30am, was spent refuelling and cheering other runners over the finish line.

She was supported along the course by a six-person team which included her parents, and this was her third consecutive win, having triumphed in the women’s races in 2024 and 2025.

“Men and women obviously have very different skillsets but in an event like this, it comes down to so much more than just fitness,” said Entrekin.

“Your attitude and your ability to combat stress is so important, they are at least as important as how physically fit you are, so I think the field is just so much more levelled at something like this.”