Donald Trump

June 14 (UPI) — At least 1,500 “No Kings” protests nationwide are planned Saturday on the same day President Donald Trump scheduled a large-scale military parade in Washington, D.C. on Flag Day and his 79th birthday.

Millions of people are expected to participate in protests in all 50 states and commonwealths in the “largest single-day mobilization since President Trump returned to office — a mass, nationwide protest rejecting authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics, and the militarization of our democracy,” according to the organizers’ website.

The 50501 Movement — 50 protests, 50 states, one movement — is one of the main organizers of the demonstrations.

A map shows where the events are planned, including rallies in New York City at Bryant Park on Fifth Avenue and in Chicago at Daley Plaza.

“We’re showing up everywhere he isn’t — to say no thrones, no crowns, no kings,” the website reads. Trump on Thursday told reporters that, despite the protests’ title, “I don’t feel like a king. I have to go through hell to get stuff approved.”

The protests, large and small, will take place everywhere except the nation’s capital “to draw a clear contrast between our people-powered movement and the costly, wasteful, and un-American birthday parade in Washington.”

D.C. residents are encouraged to go to a demonstration in Philadelphia, which is America’s first capital and the birthplace of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They will march from Love Park to the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

“The ‘No Kings’ mobilization is a direct response to Donald Trump’s self-aggrandizing $100 million military parade and birthday celebration, an event funded by taxpayers while millions are told there’s no money for Social Security, SNAP, Medicaid, or public schools,” according to the website.

The parade is officially celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States Army and has been planned for well over a year, although it has been expanded to meet Trump’s requests since he retook office.

The protests were organized by a coalition of more than 200 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of Teachers and the Communications Workers of America.

Protests nationwide began after Trump’s inauguration for his second presidency on Jan. 20 over several of the Trump administration’s moves, including its crackdown on immigrants and cuts to the federal workforce and services.

In a guidance document for participants and organizers, “No Kings” said participants should practice nonviolence and de-escalate any conflicts with outside parties.

“By the way, for those people that want to protest, they’re going to be met with very big force. And I haven’t even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country,” Trump said Tuesday about rallies that may occur in Washington, D.C.

Protests against immigration arrests have been going on for a week in downtown Los Angeles.

A nightly curfew that began Tuesday will remain in effect through the weekend, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said at a news conference Friday.

L.A. County Sheriff Robert Luna said local authorities were aware of at least 30 demonstrations planned that could require law enforcement resources.

Trump has nationalized California’s National Guard at the opposition of Gov. Gavin Newsom. There are 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines.

The unfolding Israel-Iran conflict will “immensely” dominate the upcoming gathering of the leaders of the Group of Seven, not just because of the dangers of further escalation, but also because of the “sheer uncertainty” of United States policy under President Donald Trump, experts say.

The informal G7 grouping of the world’s seven advanced economies is set to meet from June 15 to 17 in Kananaskis, Alberta.

Holding the current presidency of the G7, Canada is hosting this year. While the agenda items will change in importance, depending on how things evolve in the Middle East, the latest crisis is already set to shift focus from what was expected to be a platform for host Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to showcase his leadership at home and to a global audience.

The G7 countries include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as the European Union. In addition, the host country typically invites the heads of a handful of other countries, usually because they are deemed important to global and economic affairs. Canada has invited India, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine along with a few others.

Carney is likely to have been hoping to avoid a repeat of the last time US President Donald Trump attended – also in Canada – in 2018. That was when he refused to sign the final communique – which G7 countries usually issue in a show of unity at the end of the summit – and left early, calling then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “very dishonest and weak”.

As a result of that spectacle, Carney was planning not to press for a joint communique at all this year – instead he was gearing up to write his own “chair’s summary” and seek agreement on a set of specific issues. Presenting an image of unity against a backdrop of looming, aggressive US trade tariffs, is the main aim.

But Robert Rogowsky, professor of trade and economic diplomacy at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, said there is no way G7 members can avoid the subject of the latest crisis in the Middle East, which was triggered by a massive Israeli assault on military and nuclear sites in Iran on early Friday morning – and has since prompted retaliatory strikes by Iran. The US said it was not involved in the Israeli strike on Iran, but Trump told reporters on Friday that it was informed of the attack in advance.

“That attack, counterattack, and the US declaration that it was not involved and its warning about staying away from American assets as targets is likely to be the first thing discussed, as it now creates the possibility of a real, all-out war in the Middle East. The major neighbouring parties will have to decide how to align themselves,” Rogowsky said.

A ‘crisis response’ group?

The G7 “was designed to be a crisis response group with the ability to act and adapt quickly to international challenges … so in some ways, it’s good they’re meeting this weekend as they’ll have the ability to respond quickly”, said Julia Kulik, director of strategic initiatives for the G7 Research Group, among others, at Trinity College at the University of Toronto.

Even before this latest flare-up, the G7 in its 51st year comes “at a hinge moment because of economic disruptions and but also because of geopolitical shifts,” said Vina Nadjibulla, vice president and head of research at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. Nadjibulla was referring to the global tariffs unleashed earlier this year by Trump as well as a shifting foreign policy for the US under his leadership, with old alliances no longer cared for, as well as an “America First” message.

Against that backdrop, “Prime Minister Carney has been trying to meet the moment and be as purposeful as possible,” Nadjibulla added, pointing to the list of priorities Canada announced last week ahead of the summit.

That list focuses on strengthening global peace and security, including by countering foreign interference and transnational crime, as well as improving responses to wildfires; spurring economic growth by improving energy security, and bringing in public-private partnerships to spur investments.

The priorities announced, important domestically but also internationally, are a “testament” to Carney’s intentions, and “building the economy is front and centre”, said Nadjibulla.

Conversations on global peace would have focused on the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Israel’s war on Gaza but attention will now pivot to Iran, said Kulik, “and there will be tough questions from other leaders around the table to Donald Trump about what went wrong with the negotiations and about what he’s going to do to get Israel to de-escalate before things get worse”.

Trump is a ‘coin flip’

Experts were already on the lookout for flare-ups at the upcoming three-day event with the mercurial Trump in attendance.

“His reactions are very emotional and performative, so it could be any of those and that could decide the dynamics of the G7,” said Rogowsky. “If he comes in wanting to build some bridges, then it could be a success, but if he wants to make a point, and this is another world wrestling federation for him, then [it can go anywhere]. With Trump, it’s a coin flip.”

But despite the Iran-Israel face-off, the G7 will still be an opportunity for Carney to set the tone at a complex time of tariff wars and slowing domestic and global economies. He is also aware that Canada has to “up its political game” and find new ways of boosting its economy and security. That is particularly visible in the invitation to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as Canada has had diplomatic tensions with India over the 2023 killing of a Sikh leader on Canadian soil in the recent past.

This shows that Carney is aware that to make progress on his agenda items, he will “need to work with countries that you may have disagreements with, but you can’t let those issues dictate the big picture,” said Nadjibulla. “Carney is setting the stage for a consequential meeting.”

Rogowsky added: “Carney is a globalist and wants to allow Canada to become a force in unity, in a multilateral system. I see him as taking on a role as a bridge builder. Maybe he’s the one guy who can pull this off.”

At the same time, he said, “it will be interesting to see how the other leaders approach Trump. Will it be a case of kowtow to the ruler, or he’s the bully on the playground and we’re going to stand up to him.”

For Rogowsky, the “cayenne pepper” in the meeting is the expected presence of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was berated by Trump and US Vice President JD Vance in the White House on live television for not being “grateful” enough for US assistance.

The three-day event follows initial meetings in May between finance ministers and central bank governors belonging to G7 countries in Banff.

June 13 (UPI) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Friday rejected President Donald Trump‘s attempt to get a retrial of the civil sexual abuse and defamation liability verdict against him in the E. Jean Carroll case.

The appeals court had already rejected an appeal of the verdict in December. The court voted 8-2 Friday to refuse Trump’s effort to overturn the verdict and retry the case.

Lawyers for Carroll said in a statement, “E. Jean Carroll is very pleased with today’s decision. Although President Trump continues to try every possible maneuver to challenge the findings of two separate juries, those efforts have failed. He remains liable for sexual assault and defamation.”

Trump’s lawyers then sought a retrial, petitioning to have the full appeals rule on it in what’s known en banc.

The court’s Friday ruling written by Judge Myrna Perez said of Trump’s effort, “Simply re-litigating a case is not an appropriate use of the en banc procedure.”

She added, “In those rare instances in which a case warrants our collective consideration, it is almost always because it involves a question of exceptional importance or a conflict between the panel’s opinion and appellate precedent.”

Perez said of Trump’s earlier rejected appeal of the verdict, “Defendant-Appellant appealed a civil judgment against him for sexual assault and defamation, challenging several of the district court’s evidentiary rulings. For the reasons discussed at length in its unanimous opinion, the panel, on which I sat, found no reversible abuse of discretion.”

Trump denies sexually assaulting Carroll and defaming her.

A statement from a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said, “The American People are supporting President Trump in historic numbers, and they demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax, which will continue to be appealed.”

Trump-appointed Circuit Judges Steven J. Menashi and Michael Park dissented.

“I would rehear the case en banc to “maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions” and to resolve these important questions in line with longstanding principles,” Menashi wrote.

Writer Carroll won a $83.3 million defamation judgement against Trump, as well as a civil verdict, that he sexually abused her.

The jury in that case found Trump liable for battery and defamation in Carroll’s sexual abuse lawsuit. She alleged in that suit that Trump sexually abused her in a New York City department store.

The jury found that Trump, beyond a preponderance of evidence, sexually abused Carroll.

June 13 (UPI) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia on Friday formally pleaded not-guilty to federal human trafficking and conspiracy charges.

Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, also said a court appearance this week was the first time she was able to see her husband since he was arrested and detained in March.

The Salvadorian migrant was returned to the United States earlier this month after being deported to a prison in El Salvador.

“Even though it was through a video screen, I was finally able to see Kilmar,” Vasquez Sura, who is a U.S. citizen, told supporters at a rally in Nashville.

“I’m grateful for everyone who has been fighting for this milestone, in this fight to bring my husband back home with our children.”

The couple were living in Maryland with their young children at the time Abrego Garcia was arrested.

Lawyers will now argue in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes whether the 29-year-old should be granted bail before trial.

Prosecutors have argued he “would have enormous reason to flee” if released.

Abrego Garcia was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in March and eventually deported to El Salvador.

Supporters argued Abrego Garcia was denied due process in the deportation proceedings

A U.S. District Court judge later ordered the federal government to “facilitate” his return, after the Justice Department later acknowledged Abrego Garcia’s deportation was made in error.

President Donald Trump‘s administration pushed back against efforts to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States.

In 2019, a federal judge ruled in 2019 that Abrego Garcia could be deported, but not back to his home country of El Salvador.

He was indicted on two federal charges last month before his return to the United States. Abrego Garcia is accused of playing a “significant role in an alien smuggling ring,” dating back as far as 2016, Attorney General Pam Bondi said at the time of the indictment.

Bondi said if Abrego Garcia is found guilty, he will be returned to El Salvador.

Police stopped the vehicle he was driving in Tennessee in 2002 and found several Hispanic men with no identification.

After he was returned to the United States, Abrego Garcia was immediately sent to Tennessee to face the federal charges.

Federal officials also contend Abrego Garcia was a member of the El Salvadoran MS-13 gang, accusations he and his family deny. They argue Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador because of the threat of gang violence.

It is unclear whether the sixth round of US-Iran nuclear talks will take place in Oman on Sunday as scheduled.

Iran says dialogue over its nuclear programme with the United States is “meaningless” after Israel launched its biggest-ever military strike against Iran, which Tehran accuses Washington, DC, of supporting.

“The other side [the US] acted in a way that makes dialogue meaningless. You cannot claim to negotiate and at the same time divide work by allowing the Zionist regime [Israel] to target Iran’s territory,” Iran’s semiofficial Tasnim news agency quoted its foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei as saying on Saturday.

The US has denied the Iranian allegation of being complicit in Israel’s attacks and told Tehran at the United Nations Security Council that it would be “wise” to negotiate over its nuclear programme.

US President Donald Trump has called the Israeli attacks on Iran “excellent” after initially warning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against action that could jeopardise nuclear talks.

Trump on Friday framed the volatile conflict with Israel as a possible “second chance” for Iran’s leadership to avoid further destruction “before there is nothing left and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire”.

The sixth round of US-Iran nuclear talks was set to be held on Sunday in Oman, but it was unclear whether it would go ahead after the Israeli strikes.

“It is still unclear what decision we will make for Sunday,” Iran’s IRNA news agency quoted Baghaei as saying on Saturday.

Iran denies that its uranium enrichment programme is for anything other than civilian purposes, rejecting Israeli allegations that it is secretly developing nuclear weapons. Netanyahu has pledged to continue the attacks for “as many days as it takes” to stop Iran from developing a “nuclear threat”.

Trump said on his Truth Social platform that he had warned Iran’s leaders that “it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come”.

“And they [Israelis] know how to use it,” he added.

Trump has blamed Iran for rejecting US proposals on uranium enrichment and has warned of more brutal Israeli strikes to come.

But Hamed Mousavi, professor of political science at Tehran University, told Al Jazeera that many Iranians think it is indeed meaningless to continue nuclear talks with the US when they are being bombed.

“The Israelis essentially killed the diplomatic solution and what was surprising was the Americans were fully coordinating with the Israelis in that regard. So I think it’s unlikely the negotiations will continue,” he said.

Mousavi said the mood in Iran is “pretty defiant” and does not seem to support Israeli goals of a regime change in Tehran.

“The Israelis were really expecting some sort of protest or riots in the Iranian capital by the Iranian people. That hasn’t happened so far. We don’t know if it’s going to happen in the future, but the mood right now is actually pretty defiant. I don’t really see that many Iranians sympathising with the Israelis.”

Americans are taking to the streets on Saturday to protest United States President Donald Trump’s policies in thousands of locations across the country.

The “No Kings” protests will coincide with a military parade in Washington, DC, marking the US Army’s 250th anniversary, and with Trump’s 79th birthday.

The demonstrations are planned after days of protests against immigration arrests in multiple US cities.

What are the No Kings protests?

Protesters planning to take part in the No Kings demonstrations said they oppose the Trump administration.

The organisers’ website said the administration has “defied our courts, deported Americans, disappeared people off the streets, attacked our civil rights, and slashed our services”.

Since Trump’s inauguration, the administration has sent immigrants to foreign prisons, set immigration arrest quotas, clashed with courts, slashed government jobs and proposed reductions to social services.

The website describes the protests as a “national day of defiance”.

The name of the protests is derived from opposition to one-person rule. “The corruption has gone too far. No thrones. No crowns. No kings,” the website said.

Where are the No Kings protests taking place?

The protests are planned in more than 2,000 cities and towns in all 50 US states as well as in Mexico, Australia, Malawi and some European countries, the organisers’ map shows.

The protesters plan to gather at a range of meeting spots, such as parks, community centres and public landmarks.

Major rallies are planned in Philadelphia, Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, Chicago and New York.

However, the organisers have deliberately left Washington, DC, off the map and protests will not be held there.

The reason they provide on their website is: “Instead of allowing this birthday parade to be the center of gravity, we will make action everywhere else the story of America that day: people coming together in communities across the country to reject strongman politics and corruption.”

The protests are organised by a social media movement called 50501, which stands for “50 states, 50 protests, one movement”.

What time are the protests?

Times vary according to location and can be found on the organisers’ map.

Some locations will begin protesting early, such as Norman, Oklahoma, where the protest is to begin at 9am (14:00 GMT).

Others will start demonstrations in the evening. In Big Sur, a rugged region on California’s central coast, protests are to begin at 4:30pm (23:30 GMT).

When is the military parade, and what is expected?

On Saturday, the military parade and celebration in Washington, DC, are to begin about 6:30pm (22:30 GMT).

Tanks will roll through the streets of the US capital in the first military parade to be staged in the US since 1991 when a parade marked the end of the Gulf War under President George HW Bush.

Thousands of soldiers will take part in the parade along with hundreds of military aircraft and vehicles. Army officials have estimated the cost of the parade to be $25m to $45m.

Will the protests be peaceful?

The No Kings website said the protests are intended to be peaceful. “Weapons of any kind, including those legally permitted, should not be brought to events,” it said.

However, the No Kings demonstrations are planned after days of protests in multiple US cities, beginning in Los Angeles, against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and Trump’s use of the military to quell protests.

The anti-immigration protests began on June 6 in Los Angeles after military-style ICE raids on several locations across the city, resulting in the detention of 44 people. While the protests in all cities have reportedly been largely peaceful, occasional clashes have led to injuries and further arrests. The immigration raids continue, and National Guard soldiers have been deployed in multiple cities. Trump has also sent Marines to Los Angeles.

Ahead of the No Kings protests, some Republican leaders have threatened demonstrators with prosecution if protests become violent, some even going as far as to mobilise National Guard forces in advance of the protests. This approach has attracted a large amount of criticism.

“Protests are tumultuous, and military forces are trained to kill,” Gregory Magarian, professor of law at Washington University’s School of Law in St Louis, Missouri, told Al Jazeera.

What does Trump think about the No Kings protests?

When asked about the protests, Trump said at a White House news briefing on Thursday: “I don’t feel like a king, I have to go through hell to get stuff approved.”

The president’s allies and Republican lawmakers responded with laughter to his response.

“We’re not a king at all, thank you very much,” he said.

However, Trump has made use of this terminology himself in the past. In February, he posted on his Truth Social platform: “CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!”

Congestion pricing refers to fees levied on motorists entering cities. It is aimed at reducing road traffic and increasing the use of public transport. Trump wrote the post after Sean Duffy, his transportation secretary, wrote a letter to New York Governor Kathy Hochul ending the US Department of Transportation’s agreement with the state for congestion charging in Manhattan.

Shortly after, the White House shared a computer-generated photo of Trump wearing a crown on a fake Time magazine cover.

What do other Republicans say?

Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced on Thursday that he ordered the deployment of more than 5,000 National Guard soldiers and 2,000 state police officers to help manage the anti-ICE protests in the state on the border with Mexico.

Abbott also deployed National Guard soldiers in San Antonio during protests against immigration enforcement actions there.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said during a news conference on Tuesday: “The minute you cross into attacking law enforcement, any type of rioting, any type of vandalism, looting, just be prepared to have the law come down on you.”

Republican South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson released a video on his X account warning “extremist left-leaning groups” against causing disruptions in South Carolina. “If you attack our officers, destroy property, or threaten innocent lives in South Carolina – you will be arrested, charged, and prosecuted. No excuses. No second chances.”

Radical leftist groups and outside agitators are threatening to bring violence and chaos to our communities on June 14 — Flag Day and President Trump’s birthday.

Let me make this crystal clear:
If you attack our officers, destroy property, or threaten innocent lives in South… pic.twitter.com/G67gBBlpIa

— Alan Wilson (@AGAlanWilson) June 11, 2025

Will anti-ICE protests continue in the US?

Anti-ICE protests are continuing in Los Angeles and other cities.

Civil and human rights attorney Robert Patillo told Al Jazeera that the protests could be expected in “more than 30 cities, met with a familiar response: more riot gear, more barricades”.

“The protests are spreading because what’s happening in Los Angeles isn’t unique – it’s a mirror,” Patillo said.

“Communities across the country see themselves in the images coming out of LA: the same painful encounters with police, the same racial disparities, the same struggle to make ends meet in a system that feels stacked against them. These aren’t isolated incidents. They’re part of a deeper, shared experience of injustice that stretches from coast to coast.”

WASHINGTON, June 12 (UPI) — Taiwan may be an island of just over 23 million people, but what happens there could ripple across the global economy. The small democratic nation produces the vast majority of the world’s most advanced semiconductors — chips that are used in everything from smartphones and electric cars to defense systems and spacecraft.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. “produces roughly 90% of the most sophisticated computer chips, and the loss of that would be devastating,” said Steven David, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “We can’t get around without it.”

For Taiwan, this manufacturing dominance isn’t just economic — it’s strategic. Analysts call it the island’s “silicon shield.” The world relies heavily on Taiwan’s chips, which deters China from launching a military attack and pushes allies like the United States to come to Taiwan’s defense.

The geopolitical stakes around Taiwan’s semiconductor dominance have soared as China escalates military pressure, through increased fighter jet incursions, large-scale naval drills and explicit threats of reunification.

U.S. lawmakers from both parties have increasingly voiced concern that a Chinese invasion could upend global chip supply chains and empower Beijing with outsized economic leverage.

“It [would be] monumentally stupid to try to keep something as fragile as chips production going during the time of war,” said Kitsch Liao, associate director of the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub.

The United States has taken steps to address this vulnerability. In 2022, former President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act, allocating $280 billion to support domestic semiconductor manufacturing and research, including subsidies for Taiwan Semiconductor to build a plant in Phoenix.

In March, President Donald Trump announced a new $100 billion deal with the company to dramatically expand its manufacturing presence in the United States.

“America is building plants with Taiwanese investment and cooperation in Arizona and elsewhere, but it would still be devastating,” David said, referring to the potential impact of a Chinese attack on chip production.

Taiwan’s government has had to carefully balance cooperation with the United States against growing fears at home that shifting too much chip production abroad could weaken its security.

Taiwan’s two main political parties, the Kuomintang, or KMT, and the Democratic Progressive Party, or DPP, have debated the best approach to cross-strait relations.

While the KMT supports closer ties with China, the DPP, which currently holds the presidency under Lai Ching-te, has leaned toward reinforcing Taiwan’s democratic independence and diversifying trade, actions that could increase already mounting pressure from China.

“If China does successfully invade Taiwan and takes over the TSMC plant, it won’t be able to use the plant the way Taiwan does,” David said. “But it would deny its use to others, and that would be devastating to the world economy. Several percentages of world GDP would drop as a result.”

Analysts worry that even the threat of invasion could destabilize markets. Blockades or gray zone tactics by Beijing, short of all-out war, could still limit Taiwan Semiconductors’ ability to export.

“Any erosion in Taiwan’s ability to trade with the rest of the world would have a significant impact on the global economy,” said Jack Burnham, a research analyst at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“It would disrupt the flow of semiconductors to a variety of different industries that are incredibly valuable to the United States, its allies and partners, and the global community.”

Taiwan has long been one of the most contentious issues in United States-China relations. After the Chinese Civil War, the Nationalist government fled to Taiwan in 1949, and the Chinese Communist Party established the People’s Republic of China on the mainland. Since then, Beijing has claimed Taiwan as an inalienable part of its territory.

In 1979, the United States. ended formal diplomatic recognition of Taipei in favor of Beijing, but passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which commits the United States to help Taiwan maintain a “sufficient self-defense capability.”

The United States, though, has remained deliberately vague about whether it would come to Taiwan’s defense in the event of a Chinese invasion — a policy known as strategic ambiguity.

But as threats of an invasion increased, this stance continued to be tested. In a speech in Singapore last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth vowed that “devastating consequences” could result should China seek to “conquer” Taiwan, warning that an invasion could be “imminent.”

Beyond semiconductor and chips manufacturing, Taiwan remains a core interest in the Indo-Pacific region. The island sits at the heart of the “first island chain,” a line of U.S.-aligned territories stretching from Japan to the Philippines.

If China were to take over Taiwan, experts warned it could use the island as a launchpad to project power deep into the Pacific, posing a direct challenge to U.S. interests.

“Should China be successful [in a reunification scenario], it would have a significant impact on the lives of everyday Americans — both in their wallets and in the political situation they find themselves in,” Burnham said.

“What’s at stake when it comes to Taiwan is the free flow of trade, a significant part of the American economy, and the health and stability of the United States’ key allies and partners in the region.”

Washington, DC – After taking the oath of office for his second term in January, United States President Donald Trump said he would push to “stop all wars” and leave a legacy of a “peacemaker and unifier”.

But six months in, missiles are flying across the Middle East after Israel attacked Iran, risking an all-out regional war that could drag US troops into the conflict.

The Israeli strikes on Iran, which Trump has all but explicitly endorsed, are now testing the president’s promise to be a harbinger of peace.

They are also dividing his base, with many right-wing politicians and commentators stressing that unconditional support for Israel is at odds with the “America First” platform on which Trump was elected.

“There is a very strong sense of betrayal and anger in many parts of the ‘America First’ base because they have truly turned against the idea of the US being involved in or supporting any such wars,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute, a US think tank that promotes diplomacy.

“They have largely turned sceptical of Israel, and they strongly believe that these types of wars are what cause Republican presidencies to become failures — and what causes their broader domestic agenda to be compromised.”

‘Drop Israel’

Several conservatives questioned the Israeli strikes on Friday, warning that the US must not be dragged into a war that does not serve its interests.

Influential conservative commentator Tucker Carlson — seen as a major figure in Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement — said the US should not support the “war-hungry government” of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“If Israel wants to wage this war, it has every right to do so. It is a sovereign country, and it can do as it pleases. But not with America’s backing,” the Tucker Carlson Network morning newsletter read on Friday.

It added that a war with Iran could “fuel the next generation of terrorism” or lead to the killing of thousands of Americans in the name of a foreign agenda.

“It goes without saying that neither of those possibilities would be beneficial for the United States,” the newsletter said. “But there is another option: drop Israel. Let them fight their own wars.”

Republican Senator Rand Paul also cautioned against war with Iran and slammed hawkish neoconservatives in Washington.

“The American people overwhelming[ly] oppose our endless wars, and they voted that way when they voted for Donald Trump in 2024,” Paul wrote in a social media post.

“I urge President Trump to stay the course, keep putting America first, and to not join in any war between other countries.”

Right-wing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene also sent a message suggesting that she opposes the strikes. She has previously cautioned Trump against attacking Iran based on Israeli assertions that Tehran is about to acquire a nuclear weapon.

“I’m praying for peace. Peace,” she wrote on X. “That’s my official position.”

While many of Israel’s supporters have cited the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, the government in Tehran has long denied pursuing a nuclear weapon. Trump’s own intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, testified in March that the US “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”.

Charlie Kirk, a key Republican activist and commentator who is a staunch Israel supporter, also voiced scepticism about engaging in a war with Iran.

“I can tell you right now, our MAGA base does not want a war at all whatsoever,” Kirk said on his podcast. “They do not want US involvement. They do not want the United States to be engaged in this.”

Israel’s attacks

Hours before Israel started bombing Iran on Friday — targeting its military bases, nuclear facilities and residential buildings — Trump said that his administration was committed to diplomacy with Tehran.

“ Look, it’s very simple. Not complicated. Iran can not have a nuclear weapon. Other than that, I want them to be successful. We’ll help them be successful,” Trump said at a news conference on Thursday.

A sixth round of denuclearisation talks between US and Iranian officials was set to be held in Oman on Sunday.

Nevertheless, on Friday, Trump told reporters he had known about Israel’s attacks in advance. He did not indicate he had vetoed the bombing campaign, though Secretary of State Marco Rubio did describe Israel’s actions as “unilateral”.

Instead, Trump put the onus for the attacks on Iran, saying its officials should have heeded his calls to reach a deal to dismantle the country’s nuclear programme.

“I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come,” Trump wrote in a social media post.

Parsi said that, at the outset, Trump wanted to reach a deal with Iran, but his demands for Tehran to end uranium enrichment led to a deadlock in the talks.

“Instead of pursuing the negotiations in a reasonable way, he adopted the zero enrichment goal, which predictably would lead to an impasse, which predictably the Israelis used to push him towards military strikes and escalation,” he told Al Jazeera.

Parsi added that he believed Trump engaged in deception over the past week by pushing diplomacy while knowing that the Israeli strikes were coming.

“Trump deliberately made statements in favour of diplomacy, in favour of not having Israel attack, leading everyone to think that, if there is an attack, it would happen after the six rounds of talks on Sunday,” he said. “Instead, it happened sooner.”

The ‘America First’ base

While the Israeli strikes garnered some criticism in Congress, many Republicans and Democrats cheered them on.

But a key part of Trump’s base has been a segment of the right wing that questions the US’s unconditional support for Israel.

“They really are representative of a solid constituency within the Republican Party, especially if you look at younger individuals,” said Jon Hoffman, research fellow in defence and foreign policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Hoffman pointed to a recent Pew Research Center survey that suggested 50 percent of Republicans under the age of 50 have an unfavourable view of Israel.

“Among the electorate itself, the American people are sick and tired of these endless wars,” he told Al Jazeera.

Foreign policy hawks who favour military interventions dominated the Republican Party during the presidency of George W Bush, who launched the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

But those two conflicts proved to be disastrous. Thousands of US soldiers were killed, and many more were left with lasting physical and psychological scars. Critics also questioned whether the wars advanced US interests in the region — or set them back.

The nation-building project in Iraq, for instance, saw the rise of a government friendly to Iran and the emergence of groups deemed to be a threat to global security, including ISIL (ISIS).

In Afghanistan, meanwhile, the Taliban returned to power in 2021, almost exactly two decades after the group was ousted by US forces. The US-backed Afghan government quickly crumbled as American troops withdrew from the country.

During his campaign for re-election in 2024, Trump tapped into the anger that the two conflicts generated. On multiple occasions, he sketched an alternative timeline where, if he had been president, the collapse of the Afghan government would have never occurred.

“We wouldn’t have had that horrible situation in Afghanistan, the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country,” Trump said at one October 2024 rally in Detroit.

The US president also slammed his Democratic opponent Kamala Harris for her alliance with Dick Cheney, who served as Bush’s vice president, and his daughter Liz Cheney, criticising them as “war hawks”.

“Kamala is campaigning with Muslim-hating warmonger, Liz Cheney, who wants to invade practically every Muslim country on the planet,” Trump told another crowd in Novi, Michigan. He added that Dick Cheney “was responsible for invading the Middle East” and “killing millions”.

But critics say Trump’s posture towards the Israeli strikes in Iran risks embroiling him in his own Middle East conflict.

Hoffman, for instance, pointed to the closeness of the US-Israel relationship and the persistence of officials within the Republican Party who have been pushing for conflict with Iran for decades, like Senator Lindsey Graham.

“There is a tremendous risk of the United States being dragged into this war,” Hoffman said.

June 13 (UPI) — The California National Guard will remain on the streets of downtown Los Angeles on Friday after an appeals court put an order from a federal judge to remove the soldiers on hold only hours after it was decreed.

The fifth night of a curfew in one square mile of downtown Los Angeles began Friday night. Mayor Karen Bass first imposed the curfew for most people beginning Tuesday night after protests against immigration enforcement operations became violent, including property damage.

President Donald Trump federalized thousands of National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Newsom filed suit against the order, saying it was illegal.

“The court has received the government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote late Thursday after the Trump administration requested a delay.

“The request for an administrative stay is granted,” the circuit judges continued in a single-page, six-sentence order that stops a temporary restraining order that had President Donald Trump relinquishing control of the state’s National Guard away from California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Trump posted to his Truth Social account Friday: “The appeals court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe. If I didn’t send the military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the decision!!!”

Trump had been stopped, albeit briefly, from the deployment of those troops in the state’s largest city other than protecting federal buildings.

Newsom had filed suit against Trump, who federalized 4,000 members of the Guard and sent them to Los Angeles to stand against demonstrators protesting raids by Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents that began last week.

Newsom, the rightful commander-in-chief of the California National Guard when it is under state control, was not informed or involved with Trump’s action, and filed that suit to strike it down.

U,S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled on the initial filing Thursday, and issued a temporary restraining order that stated Trump’s deployment of the Guard to police the city’s streets likely violated the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which bars federal overreach.

“It is well-established that the police power is one of the quintessential powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment,” Breyer wrote in his ruling.

Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, further added that the “citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life, but deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members to fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade and perform other critical functions.”

The Trump administration appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which put a hold on Breyer’s order until at least Tuesday at noon, and allows the White House to keep the Guard on active patrol in Los Angeles.

Newsom has not publicly commented as of yet on the Ninth Circuit’s stay of Breyer’s order, but California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office issued a statement that called the administrative stay “unnecessary and unwarranted in light of the district court’s extensive reasoning.”

After the district judge’s decision, Newsom posted on X: “The court has ruled. @RealDonaldTrump you must relinquish your authority of the National Guard back to me and back to California.”

The United States Marines have deployed to Los Angeles following criticism and legal battles over whether President Donald Trump had the authority to use the military to quell civilian protests without state approval.

On Friday, Major General Scott Sherman of the US Army confirmed that 200 Marines were arriving in southern California to protect a federal building. A total of 700 Marines have been authorised for deployment to the region.

“I would like to emphasise that the soldiers will not participate in law enforcement activities,” Sherman said during a briefing.

Later in the day, the news agency Reuters confirmed with the military that the Marines had carried out their first-known detention, restraining a civilian with zip ties. The Trump administration has said the Marines will accompany Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on raids and arrests.

“Any temporary detention ends immediately when the individual can be safely transferred to the custody of appropriate civilian law enforcement personnel,” a military spokesperson told Reuters.

Federal law generally prohibits the military from participating in civilian law enforcement activities, and military officials have been careful to draw a line between temporary detentions and formal arrests — the latter of which they cannot do.

The Marines join National Guard troops already in the Los Angeles area following the eruption of protests on June 6, when residents took to the streets to express their displeasure with President Trump’s immigration raids, some of which targeted local hardware stores and other workplaces.

While many of the demonstrations were mostly peaceful and limited to a small part of the city, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) did experience tense clashes with some protesters, who hurled objects and set driverless Waymo vehicles on fire. Police responded with flashbangs, tear gas and rubber bullets.

Trump, meanwhile, dubbed the protesters “bad people” and “insurrectionists” and announced the deployment of the National Guard on the evening of June 7.

The president cited Title 10 of the US Code, which allows a president to call up the National Guard if there is a “rebellion or danger of rebellion” against the federal government. Trump and his allies framed the demonstrators as part of a migrant “invasion” imperilling the US.

“To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,” Trump wrote in a presidential memorandum.

A legal battle

It was the first time since 1965 that a US president had authorised the National Guard’s deployment to a state without the governor’s permission. The last time was to protect civil rights protesters who were marching through segregated Alabama and faced threats of violence.

Presidents have called up the National Guard to address domestic unrest in the years since, but only with the cooperation of local authorities. In 1992, for instance, then-President Bill Clinton answered a request from California’s governor at the time to send National Guard members to address the Rodney King protests in Los Angeles.

Trump’s decision to circumvent the authority of California’s present-day governor, Gavin Newsom, has led to a legal fight over whether he exceeded his powers as president.

Newsom filed a lawsuit to block the use of military troops outside of federal sites, and on Thursday, a pair of court decisions left the future of the recent deployment unclear.

First, on Thursday afternoon, District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco sided with Newsom, calling Trump’s actions “illegal” and a violation of the US Constitution.

In his 36-page decision, Breyer ruled that the Trump administration had failed to show a danger of rebellion in Los Angeles.

“While Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole,” he wrote. “The definition of rebellion is unmet.”

He added that he was “troubled” by the Trump administration’s argument that a protest against the federal government could be tantamount to rebellion, warning that such logic could violate the First Amendment right to free speech.

“Individuals’ right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone,” Breyer said.

He called for an injunction against Trump’s use of National Guard members, saying “it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity” and “deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members”.

Nearly 4,000 members of the California National Guard have been authorised for deployment to Los Angeles under Trump’s command.

But the Trump administration quickly appealed Judge Breyer’s injunction. By late Thursday, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals had temporarily blocked the injunction, allowing Trump to continue using the National Guard until a hearing could be held on the matter next week.

On Friday, Trump celebrated that decision on his social media platform, Truth Social.

“The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe,” Trump wrote.

“If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!”

Newsom, meanwhile, has continued his call for Trump to end what he framed as illegal control of the National Guard. He has also accused the military presence of heightening tensions with protesters, not dissipating them.

“@RealDonaldTrump, you must relinquish your authority of the National Guard back to me and back to California,” Newsom wrote on social media Thursday.

He has called the Republican president’s federalisation of the National Guard an “unmistakable step toward authoritarianism”.

The California governor is seen as a possible Democratic contender for the presidency in the 2028 election cycle.

The Trump administration has argued that Khalil, a Columbia University student, did not disclose past affiliations.

A United States federal judge has allowed the administration of President Donald Trump to keep student protester Mahmoud Khalil in custody based on allegations of immigration fraud.

On Friday, Judge Michael Farbiarz of Newark, New Jersey, ruled that Khalil’s legal team had not adequately shown why his detention on the charge would be unlawful.

It was a major setback for Khalil, who had been a negotiator for the student protesters at Columbia University demonstrating against Israel’s war on Gaza. He was the first high-profile protester to be arrested under Trump’s campaign to expel foreign students who participated in pro-Palestinian advocacy.

Just this week, Farbiarz appeared poised to order Khalil’s release, on the basis that his detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was unconstitutional.

That law stipulates that the secretary of state – in this case, Marco Rubio – has the power to remove foreign nationals who have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”. But Farbiarz ruled that Rubio’s use of the law violated Khalil’s freedom of speech.

Still, the Trump administration filed additional court papers saying it had another reason for wanting to deport Khalil.

It alleged that Khalil, a permanent US resident, had omitted information from his green-card application that would have otherwise disqualified him from gaining residency.

The Trump administration has long accused Khalil of supporting terrorism through his protest-related activities, something the former graduate student has vehemently denied.

In the case of his green-card application, it argues that Khalil failed to disclose his work with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), a humanitarian organisation. Politicians in Israel and the US have accused UNRWA of ties to the armed group Hamas, an allegation reportedly made without evidence.

Khalil, however, has denied he was ever an “officer” in UNRWA, as alleged. Instead, his legal team points out that he completed a United Nations internship through Columbia University.

The Trump administration also argues that Khalil did not accurately identify the length of his employment with the Syria Office of the British Embassy in Beirut. Khalil and his legal team, meanwhile, say he accurately identified his departure date from the job as December 2022.

Judge Farbiarz had set Friday morning as a deadline for the Trump administration to appeal Khalil’s release on bail. But that deadline was extended to give the government more time to challenge Khalil’s release.

Ultimately, Farbiarz allowed the Trump administration to continue its detention of Khalil. He advised Khalil’s lawyers to seek release on bail from the immigration court where his deportation trial is being held in Louisiana.

Farbiarz had been weighing a separate habeas corpus petition from the Khalil team that called into question the constitutionality of his continued detention.

Marc Van Der Hout, a lawyer for Khalil, told the Reuters news agency that immigration fraud charges are exceedingly rare, and the Trump administration’s use of such charges was simply a political manoeuvre to keep Khalil in lock-up.

“Detaining someone on a charge like this is highly unusual and frankly outrageous,” said Van Der Hout. “There continues to be no constitutional basis for his detention.”

Another lawyer representing Khalil, Amy Greer, described the new allegations against his green-card application as part of the government’s “cruel, transparent delay tactics”. She noted that Khalil, a new father whose child was born in April, would miss his first Father’s Day, which falls this Sunday in the US.

“Instead of celebrating together, he is languishing in ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detention as punishment for his advocacy on behalf of his fellow Palestinians,” Greer said in a statement.

“It is unjust, it is shocking, and it is disgraceful.”

June 13 (UPI) — There was once a popular Korean television program titled The Accidental Adult. First aired in 2013 and continuing for a decade until 2023, the talk show resonated deeply with audiences. It offered insights and wisdom for those who found themselves thrust into adulthood unprepared — becoming grown-ups before truly acquiring the qualities expected of one.

A similar phenomenon is now unfolding in South Korean politics.

As of now, it appears highly likely that Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul will accompany President Lee Jae-myung to the upcoming G7 Summit in Canada from Sunday to Tuesday. The situation is noteworthy because Cho was appointed by former President Yoon Suk-yeol.

If this scenario materializes, it will present a rare pairing of a progressive president with a conservative foreign minister on the global stage. This awkward and somewhat pitiable arrangement reflects the peculiar nature of the most recent presidential election.

Due to the snap election, Lee took office without the usual transition period or a fully formed Cabinet. This has forced him to represent the nation at a major diplomatic summit — his first international appearance as president– without his own diplomatic team in place. In this context, he must rely on the foreign policy personnel of the previous administration.

Typically, the National Security Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs lead the coordination of a president’s diplomatic agenda. However, aside from appointing a national security adviser and a few aides, Lee has yet to complete key appointments.

Even if a new foreign minister were named immediately, the time needed for confirmation hearings and legislative approval would be insufficient before the summit. As a result, Lee has little choice but to include Cho in his delegation, despite the awkward optics.

A similar scenario could repeat itself if decides to attend the NATO Summit in the Netherlands on June 24 to 25. In effect, what we are witnessing is an “accidental left-right cohabitation.”

This is likely an uncomfortable arrangement for both the president and the foreign minister. During his first Cabinet meeting, Lee reportedly acknowledged the awkwardness and nonetheless urged ministers from the previous administration to do their best during their remaining time. The situation is unprecedented in modern Korean political history.

Meanwhile, the G7 Summit presents a formidable series of diplomatic challenges for the new president. While multilateral meetings may be easier to navigate, bilateral or trilateral encounters — such as with U.S. President Donald Trump or Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba — will be significantly more sensitive. There is a real possibility of impromptu summits among South Korea, the United States and Japan. Given Trump’s unpredictable style, such developments cannot be ruled out.

Especially pressing are the looming trade negotiations between South Korea and the United States. The Trump administration has already announced a 25% reciprocal tariff on Korean goods, currently suspended until July 8.

The G7 also could become a forum where the United States suddenly raises issues such as South Korea’s financial contribution to U.S. military deployments. After waiting six months during South Korea’s leadership vacuum, Washington may seize this summit as the moment to assert its agenda. If mishandled, what should be an opportunity could devolve into a diplomatic crisis.

In such circumstances, the role of the foreign minister is indispensable. Beyond preparing agendas and policy positions, it is the minister’s task to smooth introductions between leaders meeting for the first time and to conduct the behind-the-scenes diplomacy that often determines the success of high-level meetings.

Lee lacks experience on the global stage, and a disorganized diplomatic team would only amplify the risk of missteps. Fortunately, Cho already has met with his G7 counterparts several times while preparing for the upcoming Asia-Pacific Foreign Ministers’ Conference in Gyeongju this fall.

These prior engagements put him in a favorable position to support the president effectively. Though the left-right pairing may be accidental, it could turn out to be a strategic advantage — both for national interests and for the president himself.

Let us return, then, to The Accidental Adult. That show depicted individuals who matured into responsible adults through trial and reflection, often having entered adulthood without prior preparation.

In the same spirit, the G7 Summit could become a proving ground for national integration. This rare political cohabitation — between a progressive president and a conservative minister — could offer a tangible demonstration of overcoming ideological division.

Lee was elected on a promise to unify a society deeply divided along ideological lines. Though he has spoken frequently of integration, he has yet to present a concrete roadmap. As a result, some in the conservative camp have dismissed his rhetoric as mere lip service or mocked it as an attempt at “three-branch unification” of the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

However, if the president and his conservative foreign minister can demonstrate meaningful cooperation at the G7, those criticisms could be swiftly silenced. The prospect of genuine political reconciliation — and with it, national progress — would become significantly more plausible.

There is precedent for this approach. President Abraham Lincoln famously appointed political rivals to his Cabinet, including William Seward as Secretary of State and Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War — choices that helped him lead the Union to victory in the Civil War. Likewise, France has a long tradition of “cohabitation,” in which presidents from one political camp work with prime ministers from another to maintain national stability.

If Cho performs well at the G7, there is little reason to exclude him — or other capable members of the previous administration — from future government roles. If someone is highly experienced and capable, appointing them regardless of political affiliation would serve the national interest.

Even if not as foreign minister, they could still be included somewhere within the foreign policy team, helping to pass on the diplomatic experience of the previous administration to the new one — as a model of inclusion and cooperative governance. If this left-right cohabitation came about out of necessity, if it yields benefits, there’s no reason to reject it outright.

This moment also intersects with Lee’s announcement of a new “Public Recommendation System,” which invites citizens to recommend candidates for key public posts, including ministers and heads of public institutions. Promoted as the “first step in exercising popular sovereignty,” the initiative’s credibility will hinge on whether it includes outstanding individuals from across the political spectrum –not just the ruling party’s loyalists.

The unexpected cohabitation at the G7 could serve as an early test of this inclusive, collaborative vision. Korea’s winner-takes-all political culture must be replaced with a new ethos of sharing power and responsibility. And perhaps this accidental alliance between a progressive president and a conservative minister could plant the seeds of a more inclusive, cooperative democracy.

Nohsok Choi is the former chief editor of the Kyunghyang Shinmun and former Paris correspondent. He currently serves as president of the Kyunghyang Shinmun Alumni Association, president of the Korean Media & Culture Forum and CEO of YouTube channel One World TV.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who was wrongfully deported from the United States, has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling charges in a federal court in Nashville, Tennessee.

Friday marked the first opportunity for Abrego Garcia, a Maryland construction worker, to confront the criminal charges the administration of President Donald Trump has levelled against him.

The Trump administration has sought to portray Abrego Garcia as a member of the MS-13 criminal gang following his deportation to El Salvador on March 15.

Abrego Garcia had been protected from deportation under a 2019 protection order, given his fear of gang violence if he returned to El Salvador. His removal to that country sparked public outrage and questions about the legality of Trump’s “mass deportation” campaign.

In the months since, the Trump administration has faced increasing pressure to return Abrego Garcia to the US, with the Supreme Court in April affirming that the government needed to “facilitate” his release.

A lower court, led by US District Judge Paula Xinis, had signalled that it was considering whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt of court for not complying with orders to secure his return.

That abruptly changed, however, on June 6, when Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Abrego Garcia was on his way back to the US to face charges that he helped smuggle undocumented migrants in the US.

In a 10-page indictment, the Trump administration accused Abrego Garcia of leading “more than 100 trips between Texas to Maryland and other states”, starting in 2016.

It cites as evidence a traffic stop in Tennessee around November 30, 2022, when Abrego Garcia was observed driving a Chevrolet Suburban with nine passengers, all of whom appeared to be undocumented men headed to Maryland.

The administration has released body camera footage of that incident, where a police officer can be heard speculating that Abrego Garcia is part of a smuggling ring. But the footage shows no confrontation, and Abrego Garcia was not charged with any offence following the traffic stop.

Prosecutors have noted that Abrego Garcia could face a maximum of 10 years in prison for each migrant he smuggled, if convicted.

Critics, however, question whether the recently unveiled criminal indictment was an attempt by the Trump administration to save face and dodge contempt charges, given the scrutiny over whether it was defying court orders.

Abrego Garcia’s defence team, meanwhile, has called the charges against him “preposterous”.

“There’s no way a jury is going to see the evidence and agree that this sheet-metal worker is the leader of an international MS-13 smuggling conspiracy,” one of his lawyers, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, told The Associated Press.

His case has nevertheless gained a national profile, with the Trump administration facing multiple legal challenges over whether it violated migrants’ right to due process: the right to a fair legal hearing.

Even administration officials have acknowledged that his swift deportation had been the result of an “administrative error”.

In Friday’s court hearing, US Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes spoke directly to Abrego Garcia, assuring him that he would receive a fair trial.

“You are presumed innocent, and it is the government’s burden to prove at trial that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” Holmes said, reiterating fundamental principles of the US justice system.

The Trump administration has sought to keep Abrego Garcia detained while the trial unfolds, using additional allegations that are not included in the indictment as justification. Prosecutors have accused Abrego Garcia, among other things, of child pornography, abusing women and taking part in a murder in El Salvador. They also argue he is a flight risk.

But Judge Holmes warned on Friday that the court cannot keep someone in detention simply on the basis of allegations.

The human smuggling charges against Abrego Garcia have already caused discord within the Justice Department, with one prosecutor appearing to step down in protest.

That prosecutor, Ben Schrader, was the chief of the criminal division at the US Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee.

He posted on social media on the day of the indictment that he was leaving. “It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I’ve ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons,” he wrote.

Outside the court on Friday, Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, called on supporters to keep fighting for his freedom: “Kilmar wants you to have faith.”

She saw her husband for the first time in three months on Thursday.

Donald Trump is using the Los Angeles anti-deportation protests as a pretext to use the US military against domestic critics and his threats to invoke the Insurrection Act should be taken seriously, warns the American Civil Liberties Union’s Sarah Mehta.

June 13 (UPI) — The State Department was pressing ahead Friday with a reorganization that will see more than 3,400 layoffs of U.S.-based staff in bureaus that cover Asia and the Middle East and across seven divisions, including the office of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which will be letting go 51 employees.

The planned cuts, which were communicated to lawmakers and staff Thursday, provide the first detailed breakdown of the scope of the administration’s bid to tackle “bureaucratic overgrowth,” merge desks to eliminate redundancy and re-think the briefs of bureaus, Government Executive said.

With a 69% cut, Foreign Assistance and Humanitarian Affairs will see the largest workforce reduction with 386 staff laid off and 145 leaving by mutual agreement. Economic Growth Energy and Environment will shed 297 employees, 198 of them layoffs.

Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and Arms Control and International Security will each lose around 22% of their teams, equivalent to 168 and 245 employees, respectively, while Political Affairs will lose 274 staff, 112 of them via layoffs.

The largest cuts are reserved for the department’s Management division, where 897 staff will be laid off, with unit manpower being reduced by a further 796 via resignations on a deferred basis.

Rubio’s so-called “S Family” office will see its staff complement slashed by 240, or 12%, but all but 51 have opted to resign voluntarily, officials said.

The department, which said it planned to complete the changes by July 1, stressed that some staff members will be reassigned, and that the disappearance of any individual’s office from the organizational chart did not mean they were being let go.

It also vowed the human resources team would assist foreign service officers whose next assignment had been axed to find a new position.

In a document prepared for Congress, the State Department said reduction in force, or layoffs, had been carefully designed in line with all applicable laws in a way that would not affect the department’s functions.

“Reductions will principally affect non-core functions, duplicative or redundant offices, and offices where considerable efficiencies may be found from centralization or consolidation of functions and responsibilities,” the department said.

However, a number of offices that had become “prone to ideological capture and radicalism will cease to exist, including the Civilian Security, Human Rights and Democracy division, while the Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and Population, Refugees and Migration offices will be brought into the undersecretary Foreign Assistance and Humanitarian Affairs’ jurisdiction.

A foreign service officer told Government Executive that the changes would leave the division with overall responsibility for humanitarian and foreign assistance totally hollowed out.

Labor strongly opposed the plans, with the American Foreign Service Association — the union that represents staff members — saying it rejected the workforce changes “firmly and unequivocally,” coming at a time when the effectiveness of American diplomacy was already at risk from “an already stretched thin and under-resourced” State Department.

Geoffrey Pyatt, a former assistant secretary of state and U.S. ambassador to Greece and Ukraine, added his voice to the dissenters.

“Inevitably, a lot of the people who will be laid off will be experienced diplomats with hard-earned skills in language and area knowledge,” he told the Financial Times.

Rubio announced his sweeping reorganization of the service, including returements, in April, saying the department had become too big, expensive and bureaucratic in recent decades and needed to drastically slimmed down in line with President Donald Trump‘s priorities.

When U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from a news conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, it was almost as if Donald Trump’s most well-worn talking point came to life:

A bad hombre tried to go after a white American.

All Padilla did was identify himself and try to question Noem about the immigration raids across Southern California that have led to protests and terror. Instead, federal agents pushed the senator into a hallway, forced him to the ground and handcuffed him before he was released. He and Noem talked privately afterward, yet she claimed to reporters that Padilla “lung[ed]” at her despite them being far apart and video showing no evidence to back up her laughable assertion.

(The claim was in keeping with Noem’s pronouncements this week. On Tuesday, she accused Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum of encouraging violent protests in L.A. when the president actually called for calm.)

The manhandling of Padilla on Thursday and his subsequent depiction by conservatives as a modern-day Pancho Villa isn’t surprising one bit. Trashing people of Mexican heritage has been one of Trump’s most successful electoral planks — don’t forget that he kicked off his 2016 presidential campaigns by proclaiming Mexican immigrants to be “rapists” and drug smugglers — because he knows it works. You could be a newcomer from Jalisco, you could be someone whose ancestors put down roots before the Mayflower, it doesn’t matter: For centuries, the default stance in this country is to look at anyone with family ties to our neighbor to the south with skepticism, if not outright hate.

It was the driving force behind the Mexican-American War and subsequent robbing of land from the Mexicans who decided to stay in the conquered territory. It was the basis for the legal segregation of Mexicans across the American Southwest in the first half of the 20th century and continues to fuel stereotypes of oversexed women and criminal men that still live on mainstream and social media.

These anti-Mexican sentiments are why California voters passed a slew of xenophobic local and state measures in the 1980s and 1990s when the state’s demographics began to dramatically change. Conservative politicians and pundits alike claimed Mexico was trying to reclaim the American Southwest and called the conspiracy the “Reconquista,” after the centuries-long push by Spaniards to take back the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors during the Middle Ages.

A man holds a Mexican flag at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles on June 8, 2025.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

The echoes of that era continue to reverberate in MAGAland. It’s why Trump went on social media to describe L.A. as a city besieged by a “Migrant Invasion” when people began to rally against all the immigration raids that kicked off last week and led to his draconian deployment of the National Guard and Marines to L.A. as if we were Fallouja in the Iraq war. It’s what led the White House’s Instagram account Wednesday to share the image of a stern-looking Uncle Sam putting up a poster stating “Help your country … and yourself” above the slogan “Report All Foreign Invaders” and a telephone number for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

It’s what led U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli to post a photo on his official social media account of SEIU California President David Huerta roughed up and in handcuffs after he was arrested for allegedly blocking the path of ICE agents trying to serve a search warrant on a factory in the Garment District. It’s why Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called in the National Guard before planned protests in San Antonio, one of the cradles of Latino political power in the United States and the home of the Alamo. It’s why there are reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants to rename a naval ship honoring Chicano legend Cesar Chavez and has announced that the only U.S. military base named after a Latino, Ft. Cavazos in Texas, will drop its name.

And it’s what’s driving all the rabid responses to activists waving the Mexican flag. Vice President JD Vance described protesters as “insurrectionists carrying foreign flags” on social media. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller — Trump’s longtime anti-immigrant Iago — described L.A. as “occupied territory.” The president slimed protesters as “animals” and “foreign enemies.” In an address to Army soldiers prescreened for looks and loyalty at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina this week, he vowed, “The only flag that will wave triumphant over the city of Los Angeles is the American flag.”

The undue obsession with a piece of red, green and white cloth betrays this deep-rooted fear by Americans that we Mexicans are fundamentally invaders.

And to some, that idea sure seems to be true. Latinos are now the largest minority group in the U.S., a plurality in California and nearly a majority in L.A. and L.A. County — and Mexicans make up the largest segment of all those populations by far.

The truth of this demographic Reconquista, as I’ve been writing for a quarter of a century, is far more mundane.

Lupe Padilla, mother of then-Los Angeles City Councilman and current U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, wipes a tear away as they watch a video presentation of his career during his last City Council meeting in 2006.

(Gary Friedman / Los Angeles Times)

The so-called invading force of my generation assimilated to the point where our kids are named Brandon and Ashley in all sorts of spellings. The young adults and teenagers on the street wrapping themselves in the Mexican flag right now are chanting against ICE in English and blasting “They Not Like Us.” More than a few of the National Guard troops, police officers and Homeland Security officers those young Latino activists were heckling have Latino surnames on their uniforms, when they show any identification at all. Hell, enough Mexican Americans voted for Trump that they arguably swung the election to him.

Mexicans assimilate into the United States, a fact too many Americans will never believe no matter how many American flags we may wave. The best personification of this reality is Sen. Padilla.

This son of Mexican immigrants grew up in working class Pacoima and went to MIT before returning home to help found a political machine that gave a voice to Latinos in the San Fernando Valley that they never had. He was the first Latino president of the L.A. City Council, served in both chambers of the state Legislature and also as California’s secretary of state before becoming California’s first Latino U.S. senator.

When I met Padilla for lunch last year at my wife’s store in Santa Ana — in Calle Cuatro, the city’s historic Latino district, where now we can see the National Guard down the street blocking off a part of it — he struck me as the goody- two-shoes those who have worked with him have always portrayed him to be. In fact, that was always a progressive critique of him: He was too nice to properly stand up to the Trump administration.

That’s what makes Padilla’s ejection especially outrageous. He’s California’s senior California U.S. senator, someone with enough of a security clearance to be was in the same federal building where Noem was holding her press conference because he had a previous meeting with US Northern Command’s General Gregory Guillot. Tall, brown and deep-voiced, Padilla is immediately recognizable on Capitol Hill as one of a handful of Latino U.S. senators. He fought Noem’s nomination to became Homeland Security chief, so it makes no sense that she didn’t immediately recognize him.

Then again, Noem probably thought Padilla was just another Mexican.

Not anymore. If anything, conservatives should be more afraid of Mexicans now than ever. Because if a nice Mexican such as Alex Padilla could be fed up with hate against us enough to get tossed around by the feds in the name of preserving democracy, anyone can.

May we all be bad hombres now.

June 12 (UPI) — Israel Defense Forces launched early morning aerial attacks against dozens of nuclear sites in Iran on Friday to prevent the Islamic nation from developing nuclear warheads.

Iran has said its top commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Gen. Hossein Salami, along with some of the country’s top nuclear scientists, were killed in the strike.

The United States has denied any role in the strikes, but U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the Trump administration is in close contact with Israel and its allies.

“President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners,” Rubio said in a statement. “Let me be clear: Iran should nor target U.S. interests or personnel.”

A spokesperson for Iran’s Armed Forces, Gen. Shekarchi, said that Israel and the United States will “receive a forceful slap” and Iran’s Armed Forces are prepared to bring counterstrikes and promised that “a retaliation attack is definite, God willingly,” he said on state television.

Warning sirens sounded across Israel in anticipation of Iranian retaliation as the IDF attacks continued during the early morning hours on Friday, The Jerusalem Post reported.

The Israeli Air Force said it will continue the strikes against Iranian nuclear and long-range missile targets for several days.

“At the end of the operation, the will be no nuclear threat” from Iran, IDF officials told media.

“We are in the window of strategic opportunities,” the IDF said. “We have reached the point of no return, and there is no choice but to act now.”

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared a state of emergency throughout the country in anticipation of retaliatory attacks.

“Following the State of Israel’s preemptive strike against Iran, a missile and drone attack against the state of Israel and its civilian population is expected in the immediate future, Katz said.

Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear arsenal triggered the military strike by Israel as diplomatic efforts failed to divert Iran from its efforts to become a nuclear power.

“Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the Iranian regime are an existential threat to the State of Israel and to the wider world,” the IDF said.

The action is being coordinated with the United States, according to the IDF.

The Israeli military strike against Iran would not be supported by the United States, NBC News, The New York Times and ABC News reported earlier on Thursday.

Earlier in the day, U.S. and Iranian representatives discussed a potential agreement that would enable Iran to enrich uranium for energy but not to produce nuclear weapons.

The Trump administration was awaiting a response from Iran regarding the potential agreement framework, but Iranian negotiators have become more “hardline” during the process, President Donald Trump said.

The hardline stance by Iranian leaders caused the Trump administration on Wednesday to order non-essential staff with the Defense and State departments to leave the Middle East due to reports of a pending Israeli strike on Iran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had pressured Trump to approve an Israeli strike against Iran before it produces a nuclear warhead and while Iran is vulnerable, The New York Times reported.

Trump says he prefers to negotiate a nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Iran, which Iran’s hardline stance made more difficult to achieve.

U.S. and Iranian negotiators were scheduled to meet in Oman on Sunday, but Trump has said Iran has adopted “unacceptable” negotiation demands.

Britain has announced new threats against commercial shipping in the Middle East, and Trump on Wednesday told the New York Post he has become less confident that Iran won’t pursue the development of nuclear weapons.

The U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem on Thursday limited movement by its employees in anticipation of a potential Israeli military strike against Iran and its uranium enrichment facilities.

Israel opposes any form of uranium enrichment by Iran, which the board of governors for the International Atomic Energy Agency recently concluded is not complying with existing nuclear agreements.

Iran’s military has begun drills that are aimed at targeting enemy movements after learning of the potential Israeli strike, The Jerusalem Post reported.

IAEA investigators found man-made uranium particles at three locations in Iran in 2019 and 2020 and in a recent quarterly report announced Iran has enough enriched uranium to develop nine nuclear warheads.

“We have been seeking explanations and clarifications from Iran for the presence of these uranium particles,” IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi said.

“Unfortunately, Iran has repeatedly either not answered or not provided technically credible answers,” Grossi said.

Iranian officials have tried to sanitize the sites and thwart IAEA inspectors, he added.

June 12 (UPI) — The House of Representatives narrowly approved axing $8.3 billion in funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development and another $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on Thursday.

The House voted 214-212 to approve the rescissions package of bills and send them to the Senate, which could pass the measures with a simple majority.

The measures were passed after two House Republicans switched their votes after initially opposing their passage.

Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Nick LaLota of New York opposed the rescission bills but voted for the measure with strong encouragement from House GOP leadership.

Four other GOP House members, Nicole Malliotakis of New York, Mark Amodei of Nevada, Mike Turner of Ohio and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania voted with 208 House Democrats to oppose the rescission package.

Four Democrats and two Republican House members did not vote on the rescission package.

The formerly Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency recommended the rescissions after reviewing USAID, PBS and NPR spending.

“I want to thank DOGE for their heroic and patriotic efforts,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters afterward.

“What we’re trying to do is ensure that every dollar spent by the federal government is used efficiently and effectively,” Johnson said.

Johnson conferred with LaLota and Bacon on the House floor while the vote was still open, but passage looked doubtful until they changed their votes.

LaLota said the conversation between him and Johnson involved state and local tax cuts in New York that are part of the “one big beautiful bill” that Trump wants passed to fund the federal government for the 2026 fiscal year.

“I had some conversations with the speaker that raised my level of confidence that will put this and future issues in the right trajectory,” LaLota told reporters afterward.

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., also joined Johnson and LaLota for the floor conversation and then voted in favor of the measure.

Bacon had announced on Monday that he wouldn’t support the rescission package “if it guts an AIDS relief program,” namely the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, which was started by former President George W. Bush.

President Donald Trump posted to Truth Social in April that “Republicans must defund and totally disassociate themselves from NPR and PBS,” further calling the stations “radical-left monsters.”

Johnson has called the request an opportunity to cancel “wasteful spending” that would “ensure greater accountability in government going forward.”

“There is no reason for any media organization to be singled out to receive federal funds, especially those who appear to have so little regard for the truth,” Johnson previously said.

As for USAID, Johnson said DOGE “went after USAID first for their review, their audits,” because it allegedly “opposed the loudest of this accountability measure,” which “put the scrutiny targets on their own backs.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., accused House Republicans of “debating legislation that targets Elmo and Big Bird and Daniel Tiger and Sesame Street” instead of legislation that could help the nation and its economy during floor debate on Thursday.

Congress has the ability to cancel funds that the federal government had previously appropriated but hasn’t spent under the rescissions process.

The president can temporarily defer or withhold such funds, but only with the approval of Congress.

Republicans currently hold a seven-seat majority in the House. In the case of the Senate, where there are 53 Republicans among its 100 seats, rescission bills only require a simple majority.

The world’s nuclear watchdog has ruled Iran has failed to comply with its nuclear obligations. The crisis comes as the US says it’s reducing staffing at regional embassies as tensions escalate. Soraya Lennie breaks it down.