Lets

Disneyland Paris has iconic rides, attractions and plenty of fun for the whole family – but there’s one little-known pass that could help you skip the queue

Disneyland Paris is on most families’ bucket lists thanks to its iconic rides (Peter Pan or It’s A Small World, anyone?), incredible fireworks shows and of course those all-important character meet and greets.

Like most theme parks, during the peak school holidays there can be busy queues at Mickey Mouse‘s Parisian home. There are ways you can cut down wait times for example by buying fast passes – dubbed Premier Access – but if you’re on a tight budget these aren’t always the way to go.

However, there’s one little-known Disneyland Pass that not only lets you skip the queues for rides and characters, but also gets you easier access to some of the best spots for seeing the fireworks shows and parades. Dubbed the ‘Bambi pass’ by those in the know, it’s completely FREE of charge. Another perk? Those who hold it can bring up to FOUR people along to the front of the queue too.

The only catch? You’ll need to be pregnant if you want to use it. The ‘Pregnant Woman bracelet’ (we prefer the name Bambi Pass) is a band that you can collect at the information desks, and they’ll give you Priority Access to the majority of what the parks have to offer.

READ MORE: ‘I took my baby to Disneyland Paris and was surprised at the rides he could do’

The pass isn’t actually a secret – in fact, if you know where to look you can find all the details on the Disneyland Paris website. However, it’s one that often gets overlooked by expectant mums who just assume they can’t join in on the fun.

Not only can they join in the fun, but they can bring their family with them – four people on rides, and two for shows or parade viewing spots.

Of course it’s worth noting that there are some rides which you won’t be able to go on if you’re pregnant, so if you are thinking of going, it’s worth checking the theme park website to check exactly which rides and attractions you’d want to do, to avoid disappointment. Still, it could prove useful if you’re thinking of taking your toddlers or older kids to Disneyland before their new sibling arrives – and means you can all still enjoy the bulk of the magic together.

READ MORE: ‘I went to Disneyland Paris and found the hidden attraction most people miss’

A guide to the pass on the Disneyland Paris website explains: “Collect this bracelet on presentation of a medical certificate dated less than 3 months (French or English) at the dedicated counters at the entrance to Disneyland Park and Walt Disney Studios, at hotel concierge services or at City Hall and Studio Services.

“The Pregnant Woman bracelet allows priority but not immediate access to attractions, shows and meetings with Disney Characters, as well as to the cash desks of our restaurants and shops. Contact our Cast Members.

“You can be accompanied by 4 attendants for the attractions and indoors shows, and 2 attendants for the parades and outdoors shows.

“Please consult the Accessibility Maps for details of how to access our attractions.”

You can find out more on the Disneyland Paris website.

Do you have a story to tell us? Email us at [email protected].

Fashion experts have revealed the clever ‘5-4-3-2-1’ packing hack that they say could let you pack up to 30 outfits into one bag – and therefore avoid extra fees

We’ve all been there; you finish packing for a holiday, only to find that you end up having to sit on top of your suitcase, squishing it down and hoping that it won’t burst open when you check it in at the airport.

After all, if you’re away for a week it can feel impossible to decide which outfits you’ll need, and therefore packing everything from your wardrobe feels like the easiest solution. Well, according to fashion insiders there’s actually a simple rule that could help you not only cut down how much you pack, but it could mean you pack up to 30 outfits without needing much space.

The experts at Joe Browns have recommended using the ‘5-4-3-2-1’ packing method. The idea is that you stick to a simple formula; five tops, four bottoms, three pairs of shoes, two bags, and one destination-specific item.

For example for a beach holiday you could pack:

• Five tops: casual vests, lightweight blouses and a smarter top for dinner
• Four bottoms: shorts, skirts and trousers
• Three pairs of shoes: ones for walking around the city, one for poolside, and one for dressing up for the evening
• Two bags: A larger bag for the daytime, and then a smaller bag for when you only need to carry your essentials
• One destination-specific item: swimwear for the beach

Of course, if you have space then you can always add-in a few ‘bonus’ items such as a versatile dress, or a poolside cover-up. The perk of packing light is that you can opt for a smaller suitcase or stick to just one bag, meaning you could swerve extra hand luggage fees.

In fact, the insiders have previously shared a few packing hacks to avoid going over the luggage limits. One of their tips? “Go for items that have multiple purposes,” they recommend. “Prioritise versatility over volume to avoid overpacking.”

They also recommended that before packing, you look at how each item works with others to create multiple combinations. They added: “Planning mix-and-match looks helps you travel lighter and stay effortlessly stylish throughout your trip.” Layers can also be handy instead of “just in case items”, as these can be added or removed depending on how the weather acts during your getaway!

For those who do struggle to keep to one bag, there could be good news on the way. A major ruling may soon allow holidaymakers to take two bags into plane cabins, at no extra charge. That’s because the EU’s Transport and Tourism Committee recently proposed changes to EU passenger rights rules by 38 votes to two and two abstentions.

These still need to be voted through by the European Parliament in the coming weeks, and then discussed by country representatives for the European Council, but it’s already a step in a positive direction for those who struggle to navigate through airlines’ differing hand luggage rules.

You can find out more about planning a holiday wardrobe on the Joe Browns website.

WASHINGTON — Anybody remember “Abolish ICE?”

That was progressives’ impassioned cry last year after Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents imprisoned undocumented immigrant children in cages. It was a litmus test of compassion for Democrats running for president.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said yes, “abolish ICE.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said she’d “replace” the agency. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said he’d “restructure” it.

But Joe Biden, the leading moderate in the race, refused to get near the idea. Eventually, “Abolish ICE” disappeared — and Biden won the nomination.

Now, after George Floyd’s death under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer, progressive groups have raised a new banner: “Defund the police.”

It may be the worst political slogan ever coined.

For one thing, its proponents say it doesn’t mean what it sounds like — the abolition of police departments, a proposal that would be an election year gift to President Trump.

The defunders say they want to trim police budgets and redirect the money to social services, and let cops go back to solving crimes and other core functions. Even then, the idea is massively unpopular.

A Yahoo News/YouGov poll last week found only 16% of Democrats favor cuts in police funding. Republicans are even less enthusiastic.

“Abolish ICE” was more popular than that.

Biden’s response was crisp. “I don‘t support defunding the police,” he said Monday. “I support conditioning federal aid to police based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency.”

That’s no surprise. Biden is a man of the center — the center of the Democratic Party, that is. He built his Senate career as a “law and order” candidate during the high-crime era, with strong support from police unions.

He’s moved left since then, but “Defund the police?” His 77-year-old political antennae are too well-tuned for that.

More striking were the similar reactions of most other Democrats, including leading progressives. Sanders said he wants to pay well-trained police officers more, not less. Rep. Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the slogan was “a distraction.”

Instead of defunding police, House Democrats plan to pass a sweeping police reform bill with a long list of sensible proposals: a ban on federal aid for police departments that use chokeholds, mandated use of body cameras for police, a change in qualified immunity laws to let people seek civil damages against abusive police, and a national misconduct registry to track bad cops.

Biden has endorsed the bill, which is similar to criminal justice proposals he has outlined.

“Let us vow to make this, at last, an era of action to reverse systemic racism,” he said in a passionate speech in Philadelphia last week. “Bad cops should be dealt with severely and swiftly. We all need to take a hard look at the culture that allows for these senseless tragedies to keep happening.”

And here’s what may be the most important development: Most of the public agrees.

A series of public opinion polls found that the wave of overwhelmingly peaceful protests that followed Floyd’s death crystallized a remarkable shift in public opinion — in favor of reform.

The Yahoo/YouGov poll, for example, found that fully two-thirds of Americans want to ban police from using chokeholds, including 48% of Republicans.

A Monmouth poll found that 57% of Americans believe police officers are more likely to use excessive force in a confrontation if the target is Black; four years ago, only 34% gave that answer.

What provoked the huge change in public sentiment? I’ll nominate an obvious cause: ubiquitous cellphone cameras, which enable protesters and bystanders to record police misconduct and upload it to social media.

In an earlier era, the Minneapolis police could claim — as they tried to do this time — that Floyd died in a violent struggle with officers. But we know otherwise, because we watched him die after nearly nine agonizing minutes with an armed officer pressing his full weight on his neck and others holding his legs.

As the protests swelled, Trump resorted to the age-old playbook of “law and order,” charging that the problem was violent agitators running amok. But anyone with a smartphone could see that wasn’t true.

He tweeted that a 75-year-old protester who suffered serious head injuries after being shoved by police in Buffalo, N.Y., had faked his fall and might have been “an Antifa provocateur.” That one didn’t fly, either.

Trump normally displays a canny sense of the public mood. But he has put himself squarely on the wrong side of this issue — not only morally, but as a matter of practical politics.

He doesn’t seem to have noticed that most voters think he’s dead wrong.

Suddenly, thanks to the tragedy of Minneapolis, Democrats have an opportunity to build a majority — perhaps even a bipartisan majority — in favor of criminal justice reform.

It’s too late for George Floyd, but just in time for the November election.

Given that the price of a ticket on a low-cost airline is often significantly less than the above fees, it’s understandable to want to avoid paying extra for bags

A travel tipster has explained the ‘secret weapon’ he uses to bump up his luggage haul without paying more for it.

If you’ve flown on a budget airline in recent years, then you’ll know that the cost of hand luggage is no joke. On Ryanair, an extra bag in addition to the one free personal item (40 x 20 x 25 cm) that fits under the seat costs up to £36.

On easyJet, the dimensions of your carry-on bag—including the handle and wheels—must not exceed 56 x 25 x 45 cm. If your bag is larger than this, you will be charged £40 to have it stored in the hold.

Given that the price of a ticket on a low-cost airline is often significantly less than the above fees, it’s understandable to want to avoid paying extra for bags.

READ MORE: ‘Ryanair charged me £34 for bag – one minute later they wouldn’t let me take it on board’

Happily, Australian Instagrammer Punters Politics has a solution. “Punters v corporations in the ongoing battle with dodgy budget airlines! Here is my secret weapon I take onto bat,” he wrote alongside a recent video.

Punters showed himself in a European airport equipped with a rucksack that is too big to fit into the easyJet hand luggage sizer. Keen to dodge the £40 charge, he removes roughly a third of the objects in the bag and begins to fit them into a long, sausage-shaped piece of fabric. Once it’s full, he zips it up and slings it around his neck.

It forms a travel pillow.

Punters then wanders through the boarding gate and onto his plane, the staff seemingly none the wiser about his dupe.

“For the punts wondering, I got it from Amazon and my personal backpack is from @wandrd (not an ad, just love the bag—had it for eight years),” Punters explained of his backpack and neck pillow, the latter of which can be found for less than £10 online.

“The secret weapon (neck pillow) is super nice because that little bag can be stored when the trip is over,” one of Punters’ followers said in the comments.

However, another warned that the neck-pillow ruse may not be long for this world. “Pillow is not an option anymore. Everyone had to pack it inside their backpack during my latest flight with Ryanair,” they wrote.

Let me know if you’d like a punchier version for a headline or social media post!

Tom turned up at Barcelona El Prat Airport at 8:30 am, two hours and 40 minutes before his flight home to Bristol. As Ryanair does not allow passengers to check bags more than two hours before their departure time, he waited until 9:10 a.m. before joining the queue.

“The check-in line was extremely long and badly managed. Staff were calling out other destinations like Ibiza and Alghero for fast-tracking, but never Bristol, even though my departure was only minutes after theirs. I stayed alert and followed instructions, but as I was alone and in a foreign country, I couldn’t leave the queue to ask questions or check other desks without risking my place,” Tom told the Mirror.

“When I finally reached the desk, I was told it was fine to check in my bag. I paid £34.14 by physical card. Then, just moments after the payment was processed, I was told it was too late and my bag would not be accepted. No warning had been given.

“This left me standing in the terminal with a full suitcase that I had no option but to abandon. The bag was worth around £50. I had to repack my belongings into hand luggage while other travellers looked on, then sprint to the gate with no time to rest, eat, or buy a planned gift for my father.”

Dissenting justice warns court actions expose ‘thousands to the risk of torture or death’.

A divided Supreme Court has allowed the administration of United States President Donald Trump to restart swift removals of migrants to countries other than their homeland, lifting a court order that requires they get a chance to challenge the deportations.

The high court majority did not detail its reasoning in the brief order issued on Monday, as is typical on its emergency docket. All three liberal justices dissented.

In May, immigration officials put eight people on a plane to South Sudan, though they were diverted to a US naval base in Djibouti after a judge stepped in.

The refugees and migrants from countries including Myanmar, Vietnam and Cuba had been convicted of violent crimes in the US. Immigration officials have said that they were unable to return them quickly to their home countries.

The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump’s administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living undocumented in the US.

In a scathing 19-page dissent, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the court’s action exposes “thousands to the risk of torture or death.”

“The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard,” she wrote in the dissent, which was joined by the other two liberal judges, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Lawyers for some of the migrants who had been on the flight to South Sudan said they would continue to press their case in court. “The ramifications of Supreme Court’s order will be horrifying,” said Trina Realmuto, the executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance.

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, meanwhile, said in a social media post that the decision was a “MAJOR win for the safety and security of the American people”.

The department did not immediately respond to an email request for comment.

District judge concerned about danger facing deportees

The Supreme Court action halts an order from US District Judge Brian E Murphy in Boston, who decided in April that people must have a chance to argue that deportation to a third country would put them in danger – even if they have otherwise exhausted their legal appeals.

He found that the May deportation flight to South Sudan violated his order and told immigration authorities to allow people to raise those concerns through their lawyers. Immigration officials housed the migrants in a converted shipping container in Djibouti, where they and the officers guarding them faced rough conditions.

The administration has reached agreements with other countries, including Panama and Costa Rica, to house immigrants because some countries do not accept US deportations. South Sudan, meanwhile, has endured repeated waves of violence since gaining independence in 2011.

Murphy’s order does not prohibit deportations to third countries. But it says migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in serious danger of torture if sent to another country.

The third-country deportation case has been one of several legal flashpoints as the Trump administration rails against judges whose rulings have slowed the president’s policies.

Another order from Murphy, who was appointed by former Democratic President Joe Biden, resulted in the Trump administration returning a gay Guatemalan man who had been wrongly deported to Mexico, where he says he had been raped and extorted.

The man, identified in court papers as OCG, was the first person known to have been returned to US custody after deportation since the start of Trump’s second term.

A Channel 4 sex experiment show has left viewers shocked as committed couples agree to have sex with other people to see if they are willing to have a polyamorous relationship

A Channel 4 reality show has left viewers stunned – and some reaching to turn off the TV – after a contestant vomited while participating in a bizarre sex experiment that saw his girlfriend sleeping with other men.

In the latest explosive episode of Open House: The Great Sex Experiment, Tom and his girlfriend Lauren signed up to explore non-monogamy in an attempt to reignite their relationship – but the reality proved too much for Tom to stomach, quite literally.

The controversial show, which airs on Channel 4, invites committed couples to a luxurious countryside retreat to test the boundaries of their relationships by experimenting with open sex – all under the watchful eyes of cameras and sex therapists.

READ MORE: Big Brother star’s brutal two-word review on Jeremy Clarkson’s pub The Farmer’s Dog

Touted by the show as a bold dive into “one of society’s greatest taboos” – monogamy – Open House has become one of the broadcaster’s most talked-about series, following in the footsteps of the equally provocative Virgin Island, which was slammed by some viewers as “creepy” and “uncomfortable”.

In one episode, Tom and Lauren were advised by non-monogamy coach Effy Blue to try spending time independently to see how it would impact their bond. But things quickly turned from awkward to distressing.

Despite Lauren’s pep talk – “Don’t be nervous. You absolutely got this” – Tom looked pale and anxious as she reassured him about the day ahead. Moments later, he was seen rushing off camera to vomit in the bathroom.

“This is going to be horrible,” he admitted. “I feel absolutely petrified and sick.”

Lauren, hugging him from behind, gently urged: “All that anyone can ask is that you just try, okay?”

Lauren had been the one to suggest they experiment with other people from the outset. Speaking to the camera, she said: “Yes, it’s throwing me and Tom in the deep end… but for him to have the confidence that we can go off, have our fun, and come back to each other at the end of the night – it’s insane.”

But viewers weren’t convinced – many taking to social media to question both the format and the wellbeing of those taking part.

“I’m no prude, but this is unnecessarily graphic and getting away with it by being ‘educational’,” posted one user on X. “Grow up, Channel 4. Full of exhibitionists.”

Another wrote: “Tom needs help and support – he shouldn’t be anywhere near this show. #OpenHouse.”

“Honestly feel bad for Tom,” added one viewer. “He needs counselling, not cameras in his face.”

A fourth branded the episode “so awkward to watch,” while others said Channel 4 was simply pushing boundaries for shock value.

Tom had opened up about bedroom issues in the episode, explaining he struggled “to get it up” due to performance anxiety. But later on, his worries passed as both he and Lauren had sex with different people in separate rooms at the same time.

Open House: The Great Sex Experiment is available to stream now on Channel 4.

READ MORE: Illuminating tinted moisturiser with SPF worth £32 is reduced to half price in summer sale

Today we discuss presidential politics, window treatments and disasters of the natural and man-made variety.

Time for Gavin Newsom to start measuring those White House drapes.

Huh?

You know, president of the United States. I’m thinking something Earth-friendly, like recycled hemp.

Wait, what?

Did you catch the nationally televised speech the governor recently gave? The one about “democracy at a crossroads.”

I did.

It was a fine speech and the governor made some important points about President Trump’s reckless commandeering of California’s National Guard, his administration’s indiscriminate immigration raids and the wholly unnecessary dispatch of Marines to Los Angeles. (From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Venice Beach.)

Newsom was plenty justified in his anger and contempt. Trump, acting true to his flame-fanning fashion, turned what was a middling set of protests — nothing local law enforcement couldn’t handle — into yet another assault on our sorely tested Constitution.

Newsom’s speech certainly “met the moment,” to use one of his favorite phrases.

I’ll grant you that. Unlike a lot of extracurricular activities aimed at boosting his presidential prospects, Newsom was addressing a Trump-manufactured crisis unfolding right here at home. It was a moment that called for gubernatorial leadership.

Just the kind of leadership despondent Democrats need.

So it’s been said.

It’s not much of a leap to see Newsom leading the anti-Trump opposition clear to the White House!

Actually, that’s a bigger leap than it takes to clear the Grand Canyon.

Granted, Newsom’s speech received a lot of raves from Democrats across the country. Many are desperate for someone in a position of power to give voice to their blood-boiling, cranium-exploding rage against Trump and his many excesses. Newsom did a good job channeling those emotions and articulating the dangers of an imprudent president run amok.

But let’s not go overboard.

There is no lack of Democrats eager to take on Trump and become the face of the so-called resistance. There is no shortage of Democrats eyeing a 2028 bid for the White House. Those who run won’t be schlepping all the political baggage that Newsom has to tote.

Such as?

Rampant homelessness. An exploding budget deficit. Vast income inequality.

Plus, a lot of social policies that many Californians consider beneficent and broad-minded that, to put it mildly, others around the country consider much less so. Don’t get me wrong. I love California with all my heart and soul. But we have a lot of deep-seated problems and cultural idiosyncrasies that Newsom’s rivals — Democrat and Republican — would be only too happy to hang around his neck.

So let’s not get too caught up in the moment. The fundamentals of the 2028 presidential race haven’t changed based on a single — albeit well-received — speech. It’s still hard to see Democrats turning the party’s fate over to yet another nominee spawned in the liberal stew of San Francisco politics and campaigning with kooky California as a home address.

Stranger things have happened.

True.

That said, 2028 is a zillion political light years and countless news cycles away. First come the midterm elections in November 2026, giving voters their chance to weigh in on Trump and his actions. The verdict will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in 2028.

Well at least Newsom has brought his A-game to social media. His trolling of Trump is something to behold!

Whatever.

You’re not impressed?

I think it’s best to leave the snark to professionals.

I do, however, have some sympathy for the governor. It’s not easy dealing with someone as spiteful and amoral as the nation’s ax-grinder-in-chief.

Consider, for instance, the disaster relief money that fire-devastated Southern California is counting on. Helping the region in its time of desperate need shouldn’t be remotely political, or part of some red-vs.-blue-state feud. Historically, that sort of federal aid has never been.

But this is Trump we’re dealing with.

To his credit, Newsom tried making nice in the days and weeks following the January firestorm. He ignored the president’s provocations and held what was later described an an amicable session with Trump in the Oval Office. Their working relationship seemed to be a good one.

But few things last with the transactional Trump, save for his pettiness and self-absorption. Asked last week if his “recent dust-ups” with Newsom would impact the granting of wildfire relief, Trump said, “Yeah, maybe.”

He called Newsom incompetent, trotted out more gobbledygook about raking forests and then soliloquized on the nature of personal relationships. “When you don’t like somebody, don’t respect somebody, it’s harder for that person to get money if you’re on top,” Trump said.

Yeesh.

Responding in a posting on X, Newsom correctly noted, “Sucking up to the President should not be a requirement for him to do the right thing for the American people.”

Hard to argue with that.

Yet here we are.

The nation’s second-most populous city is occupied by National Guard and Marine troops. Thousands of people — displaced by disaster, their past lives gone up in smoke — are hostage to the whims of a peevish president who always puts his feelings first and cares nothing for the greater good.

The midterm election can’t come soon enough.

The dispute centred on an exception granted to California on national vehicle emission standards, allowing it to set stricter rules than federal standards.

The United States Supreme Court has sided with fuel producers that had opposed California’s standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law, agreeing that their legal challenge to the mandates should not have been dismissed.

The justices in a 7-2 ruling on Friday overturned a lower court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit by a Valero Energy subsidiary and fuel industry groups. The lower court had concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 US Environmental Protection Agency decision to let California set its own regulations.

“The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,” conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision.

The dispute centred on an exception granted to California during Democratic former President Joe Biden’s administration to national vehicle emission standards set by the agency under the landmark Clean Air Act anti-pollution law.

Though states and municipalities are generally preempted from enacting their own limits, Congress let the EPA waive the preemption rule to let California set certain regulations that are stricter than federal standards.

The EPA’s 2022 action reinstated a waiver for California to set its own tailpipe emissions limits and zero-emission vehicle mandate through 2025, reversing a 2019 decision made during Republican President Donald Trump’s first administration rescinding the waiver.

Valero’s Diamond Alternative Energy and related groups challenged the reinstatement of California’s waiver, arguing that the decision exceeded the EPA’s power under the Clean Air Act and inflicted harm on their bottom line by lowering demand for liquid fuels.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out the lawsuit in 2024, finding that the challengers lacked the necessary standing to bring their claims because there was no evidence that a ruling in their favour might affect the decisions of auto manufacturers in a way that would result in fewer electric and more combustion vehicles to be sold.

Sceptical court

California, the most populous US state, has received more than 100 waivers under the Clean Air Act.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken a sceptical view towards broad authority for federal regulatory agencies and has restricted the powers of the EPA in some important rulings in recent years.

In 2024, the court blocked the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” rule aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighbouring states. In 2023, the court hobbled the EPA’s power to protect wetlands and fight water pollution. In 2022, it imposed limits on the agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce coal and gas-fired power plant carbon emissions.

June 20 (UPI) — A federal appeals court ruled late Thursday that President Donald Trump may maintain control of thousands of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles, a blow to the state’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who is fighting to keep the soldiers off his streets.

The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was unanimous, ruling that Trump’s order federalizing members of the California National Guard was likely legal.

The court though disagreed with the Trump administration’s argument that the president’s decision to federalize the troops was insulated from judicial review but acknowledged that they must be “highly deferential” to it.

“Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,” the court said in its 38-page ruling, though it added “nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage.”

The panel included two Trump-appointed judges, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, and President Joe Biden appointee Jennifer Sung.

The ruling stays a lower court’s order that had directed the Trump administration to remove the troops deployed to Los Angeles streets.

Trump celebrated the ruling as a “BIG WIN” on his Truth Social media platform.

“The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States ,if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable , for whatever reason to get the job done,” Trump said in the post, referring to the California governor by an insulting moniker he invented.

Trump — who campaigned on mass deportations while using incendiary and derogatory rhetoric as well as misinformation about immigrants — has been leading a crackdown on immigration since returning to the White House.

On June 6, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents began conducting raids in Los Angeles, prompting mass protests in the city.

In response, Trump deployed some 2,000 California National Guardsmen to Los Angeles to quell the demonstrations and to protect ICE agents performing immigration arrests. The number of troops deployed has since increased to 4,000, despite protests having abated.

The deployment was met with staunch opposition, criticism of Trump for continuing an extreme right-wing slide into authoritarianism and a lawsuit from Newsom, who was initially awarded a stay ordering the troops to be removed from the Los Angeles streets.

However, an appeals court hours later issued a preliminary injunction, which late Thursday was made a stay.

Newsom, in a statement, expressed disappointment over the ruling while highlighting the court’s rejection of Trump’s argument that his decision to deploy the troops is beyond judicial review.

“The President is not a king and is not above the law,” Newsom said, vowing to continue to fight the deployment in court.

“We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.”

The deployment by Trump is the first by a president without a governor’s permission since 1965.

Well, what did you expect?

When la migra raids workplaces and tries to enter schools and is vowing to do even more, L.A. ain’t going to roll out the red carpet and throw roses at them.

When Donald Trump calls up 2,000 National Guardsmen to clear the way for his immigration goons, over the strenuous objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass, this city is going to push back even harder.

When Trump takes to social media to claim that “once great” Los Angeles “has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals” and that his administration will stop at nothing “to liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion,” we’re going to do something about it.

But this?

Throwing cinder blocks and e-scooters at California Highway Patrol cars from a 101 Freeway overpass? Ripping out the pink tables and benches from Gloria Molina Grand Park to create a makeshift barricade on Spring Street near City Hall? Tagging small businesses, vandalizing the old Los Angeles Times headquarters, skidding a car around the bandstand at La Placita Olvera?

That’s supposed to keep immigrant families safe and defeat Trump?

This is what many people are muttering to themselves after a weekend of protests that ended with chaos in downtown Sunday night. LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell called the damage “disgusting.” Bass posted on social media that “destruction and vandalism will not be tolerated in our City and those responsible will be held fully accountable.” U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla told KTLA 5 News that it was “counterproductive.” In a statement, Eastside Assemblymember Mark González decried “agitators [whose] actions are reckless, dangerous and playing into exactly what Trump wants.”

Uprisings have a time and place, but not when they’re a trap you willingly run into. That’s what L.A. is dealing with now, and for weeks, if not months — years! — to come.

Trump called in the National Guard to set in motion his dream of crushing the city and using us as an example for other sanctuary jurisdictions of what happens if they dare defy him. L.A. is everything he loathes: diverse, immigrant-friendly, progressive and deeply opposed to him and his xenophobic agenda. He called in the Guard, even though the skirmishes between protesters and law enforcement that happened Friday in the Garment District and Saturday in Paramount were about as rowdy as when the Dodgers lose in the National League championship series.

The president knew the deployment would be incendiary, and that was the point: Goad L.A. into setting itself on fire.

A demonstrator waves a Mexican flag in front of a dumpster fire Sunday after another night of unrest during a protest against immigration raids in Los Angeles.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

The National Guard has largely stood by as police officers and sheriff’s deputies beat back unruly crowds who see them as an invading force, even though McDonnell and Sheriff Robert Luna have repeatedly stated that their agencies don’t enforce immigration laws. The clashes led to visuals — protesters flying the flags of Mexico and other Latin American countries as a counterpoint to the Trump administration’s white supremacy, cars in flames, graffiti — that went worldwide and cast the City of Angels as a City in Hell.

Now, Trump is pouncing on L.A. like a cat on a mouse.

Now, Department of Defense head Pete Hegseth has taken a break from his plan to scrub the names of civil rights heroes from naval ships — instead, he’s threatening to send Marines to L.A.

Now, Trump is roaring on social media — “Paid insurrectionists” and “BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!” — like the mad king he is. Now, law enforcement from across Southern California are descending on L.A. to keep the peace.

This is what Los Angeles deserves?

At moments like these, I remember the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous maxim that “a riot is the language of the unheard,” even as he described riots in the same 1967 speech as “socially destructive and self-defeating.” Most who took to the streets last weekend are righteously angry at what Trump has done, and plans to do, to L.A. But their fury was too easily co-opted by the few who want to wantonly destroy and used the cover of protest to do so.

L.A. is famously a city that turns on itself when people have had enough, from the Zoot Suit riots to the George Floyd protests, the Watts rebellion of 1965 and the L.A. uprising of 1992.

“We might fight amongst each other/But I promise you this: we’ll burn this bitch down, get us pissed,” Tupac Shakur famously sang in “To Live and Die in L.A.”

It’s a tendency I can’t fully embrace or condemn — because I get both sides. But we can always do better — and we usually do. L.A. is also the city of the 2006 Day Without Immigrants, where hundreds of thousands peacefully marched through the same downtown streets now in shambles. Where students organize walkouts and sit-ins to fight for a better education. Where working class folks stage electoral upsets against the powers that be.

Revolts in L.A. don’t always need literal flames — because the ones that burn brightest and longest are moral and philosophical.

Protesters shut down the 101 Freeway on Sunday as they clash with law enforcement in downtown Los Angeles over the immigration raids in L.A.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

So I challenge all the folks simmering with rage against Trump’s war against L.A. and itching to do something about it — and that should be every Angeleno right now — to rebel smarter.

It’s easy to chuck rocks at a cop car. How about becoming a political prisoner a la SEIU California President David Huerta, who was arrested Friday for allegedly blocking a law enforcement van from executing a search warrant?

Setting fires to garbage cans in the middle of a street is old hat — how about providing shelter to undocumented families living with the terrifying reality that their time in this country might soon be up? Fanning out across downtown with no real destination is an L.A. tradition — what about joining the many immigrant rights groups who have set up rapid response networks to show up where la migra does?

The feds don’t play — but neither does L.A. Let’s show the world what we do at our best.

Orlando Bloom has teased a return to the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, saying he would love to ‘get the band back together’ on ITV’s This Morning

Orlando Bloom dropped a major hint at a possible comeback of the swashbuckling Pirates of the Caribbean series.

The actor famed for his role as Will Turner spilled all during an interview on This Morning, sparking speculation of a sixth instalment of the iconic film franchise that first set sail in 2003 with The Curse of the Black Pearl.

With Dead Men Tell No Tales having made its voyage in 2017, chatter about a new chapter has been rife, and Orlando stoked the gossip with a coy: “Who knows?”

He teased further: “I can’t say anything at the moment because I really don’t know. They’re trying to work out what it would all look like.

“I personally think it would be great to get the band back together. But there are always different ideas, so we’ll see where it lands.”

The Lord of the Rings actor’s comments come after producer Jerry Bruckheimer addressed a return of Pirates of the Caribbean.

When asked by ComicBook.com about the future of the franchise and that of Top Gun, he replied: “It’s hard to tell. You don’t know, you really don’t know.”

Elaborating, he noted the uncertainty surrounding movie projects, but assured that rebooting Pirates is less complex since it doesn’t hinge on particular stars’ schedules.

He said: “But we’re gonna reboot Pirates, so that is easier to put together because you don’t have to wait for certain actors.”

Despite Orlando’s eagerness to “get the band back together,” he was notably absent from the fourth instalment of Pirates of the Caribbean.

In a 2010 interview about his potential involvement in the fourth film, he stated: “No, definitely not… I think Will is sort of swimming around with the fish at the bottom of the ocean. “”.

“I had a great time making those movies,” he added. “I just really wanted to do different things, but I think it’s going to be great.”

This Morning airs weekdays from 10am on ITV1.

WASHINGTON — An appeals court has cleared the way for President Trump’s executive order aimed at ending collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of federal employees while a lawsuit plays out.

The Friday ruling came after the Trump administration asked for an emergency pause on a judge’s order blocking enforcement at roughly three dozen agencies and departments.

A split three-judge panel in the nation’s capital sided with government lawyers in a lawsuit filed by unions representing federal employees. The majority ruled on technical grounds, finding that the unions don’t have the legal right to sue because the Trump administration has said it won’t end any collective bargaining agreements while the case is being litigated.

Judge Karen Henderson, appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush, and Justin Walker, appointed by Trump, sided with the government, while Judge Michelle Childs, appointed by Democratic President Biden, dissented.

The government says Trump needs the executive order so his administration can cut the federal workforce to ensure strong national security. The law requiring collective bargaining creates exemptions for work related to national security, as in agencies like the FBI.

Union leaders argue the order is designed to facilitate mass firings and exact “political vengeance” against federal unions opposed to Trump’s efforts to dramatically downsize the federal government.

His order seeks to expand that exemption to exclude more workers than any other president has before. That’s according to the National Treasury Employees Union, which is suing to block the order.

The administration has filed in a Kentucky court to terminate the collective bargaining agreement for the Internal Revenue Service, where many workers are represented by the National Treasury Employees Union. They say their IRS members aren’t doing national security work.

Other union employees affected by the order include the Health and Human Services Department, the Energy Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Communications Commission.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.