policy

July 7 (UPI) — About 30 faculty or staff from scores of Hispanic-serving U.S. universities met Monday at the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of a nearly 30-year-old fellowship program to learn more about policy and other issues.

The White House had ended the program during Donald Trump‘s first days back in office this year.

USDA officials welcomed some 30 faculty and staff members to Washington, D.C., from Hispanic-serving colleges and universities in the United States. The institutions are in locations as diverse as Puerto Rico, California, Texas, Illinois, Arizona, New Mexico, New Jersey and New York. The participants welcomed to Monday’s event are part of the department’s 2025 class of E. Kika De La Garza Education, High School and Science Fellowship program.

“The EKDLG Fellows came to Washington, D.C., to learn how USDA services and programs can benefit them, their students and their communities,” officials said in a release.

More than 500 Hispanic-serving colleges and universities currently serve more than 2 million students in the United States, according to the department.

However, in January the program was suspended by the Trump administration but reinstated only after a coalition of Democratic lawmakers led by Sens. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., demanded that USDA to reverse course.

In addition, the department, likewise, suspended scholarship programs in February for students at historically Black schools while officials reviewed it.

But the EKDLG fellowship pullback posed “a significant threat to our nation’s interests and security,” the San Antonio-based Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities said in February on behalf its more than 560 global partners.

“Hindering the program is an exceptional risk to our country’s interests and security, given the current and pressing national priorities for increased expertise in the agricultural sector’s workforce and improved food production and safety,” the group wrote.

The program is named after the late U.S. Rep. Eligio “Kika” de la Garza II, a Texas Democrat who served as chair of the House Agriculture Committee from 1981-1995.

Nearly 450 participants have taken part in the weeklong fellowship program since 1998 to meet with USDA officials and other agency leaders in a bid to learn more about national and regional agriculture issues, policy-making and other newly relevant research.

“USDA’s partnership with HSIs plays a vital role in establishing a collaborative relationship and creating a nationwide network of educators working with USDA to help grow the next generation of the American agricultural workforce,” lawmakers wrote in a letter to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.

The program’s goal, according to the department, is to “strengthen relationships” with Hispanic-serving or otherwise largely Spanish-speaking educational institutions.

Trump administration officials now say that USDA recognizes how Latino and Hispanic educational entities “are at the forefront of building and sustaining the next generation of the food, agriculture, natural resources and human sciences workforce.”

This week’s program arrives on top of unprecedented and controversial raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on American farms, businesses, churches and other places now threatens the U.S. food supply chain.

“To develop agricultural leaders in both the public and private sectors, Hispanic-serving institutions must take positive steps to engage and create partnerships to build capacity,” Dr. Lisa R. Ramírez, director of USDA’s Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement, stated Monday.

Meanwhile, following their weeklong visit to the nation’s capitol, the 30 E. Kika De La Garza fellows are slated to spend an additional week with “top scientists” from USDA’s Agricultural Research Service.

California is a state of contradictions. We lead the nation in environmental regulation, tout our clean energy goals with pride and champion a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Yet despite this green image, our economy — and daily life — still very much run on oil and gas.

Fossil fuels account for roughly 8% of California’s $3 trillion economy — but that’s the first 8%. “If you don’t get that first 8%,” I tell my students, “You don’t get the rest of our economy.” Oil powers everything from trucks to tractors to construction equipment. Without it, you can’t build roads or bridges or get goods to grocery stores. Without refined petroleum products, you don’t make cement, steel, plastics or even the lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles.

Despite these realities, California energy policy is leading to the dismantling of the critical infrastructure that supports this essential system. Our state has lost more than 30 refineries in the last few decades. We are now down to just nine major gasoline-producing facilities, and two more are scheduled to close in the coming months, Phillips 66 in Los Angeles and Valero in the Bay Area. Those two plants represent 284,000 barrels of daily production and account for nearly 18% of the state’s total refining capacity.

California sits atop one of the largest untapped reserves in the world, the Monterey Shale. But because of policy and regulation, we import most of our oil — including from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Guyana and Ecuador. California has also imported oil from Russia and Venezuela. Ironically, we have among the world’s cleanest refining standards, but we import fuel from places with lower environmental and labor protections.

All of this is enabled by a supply chain that’s more vulnerable than most realize. We have no major pipelines bringing oil to California. We rely on ships — many from Asia — that take 30 to 40 days to deliver fuel. These foreign tankers pollute at staggering rates. Stunningly, because that pollution happens over international waters, it doesn’t get counted by the California Air Resources Board. Closing a refinery in California and importing more fuel causes a net increase in pollution. And adding to our reliance on foreign oil is risky when global instability is rising.

This isn’t just a self-inflicted energy crisis in the making. It’s also a national security issue.

Military bases in California, Nevada and Arizona depend heavily on in-state refineries for specialized aviation fuel and other petroleum products essential to operations. As refineries shut down, the supply chain narrows, increasing reliance on imports from Asia and elsewhere. These gaps create unacceptable logistical and strategic risks for U.S. military readiness in the western states.

And remember, there are estimated to be hundreds of millions of barrels of accessible oil under our feet. Yet we’ve built an energy model that depends on importing foreign oil and, now, a growing dependency on foreign-supplied gasoline.

This isn’t just unsustainable. It’s also borderline irresponsible.

California’s energy transition is inevitable — but how we get there matters. We can’t pretend fossil fuels are already gone. We still need them for the economy, for mobility, for national security and for the working people who can’t afford a $60,000 electric vehicle or a solar roof.

We have the tools, talent and resources to lead a responsible energy transition, one that leverages our in-state production, balances environmental stewardship with economic pragmatism and protects our most vulnerable communities along the way.

But we have to be honest about where we are. And right now, fossil fuels still power the Golden State.

Especially because of coming refinery rules and a new tax taking effect in July, Californians are set to pay the highest gas prices in the nation. Our prices are inflated by a web of taxes, fees and boutique regulations that has grown thicker and more expensive over time. Even if oil dropped to $0 per barrel and refining were free, Californians would still be paying about $1.82 a gallon at the pump — $1.64 of that from state taxes and fees, plus 18 cents in federal gas tax.

According to CalTrans, Californians drive about 1,200 miles a month. If you’re a working-class Californian and gas goes up 50 cents per gallon, that adds about $500 in annual fuel costs. And because you pay for that with after-tax dollars, you’d need to earn at least an extra $750 just to cover it.

That matters to a construction worker commuting 60 miles a day in a pickup truck. It matters to a single mom cleaning homes across the city or a physical therapist driving to house calls. Most of these people can’t easily trade in their vehicles for Teslas and dodge gasoline hikes. Consumer analysis as noted in CalMatters indicates that the majority of EVs are bought by higher-income Californians living in areas such as Atherton, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Mountain View.

The people hit hardest by rising gasoline prices are the ones least able to afford alternatives. For most Californians, there is no viable mass transit available. People are just stuck spending more and more of their income on the gas-powered vehicles their lives depend on. Our state’s policies punish people for not being able to adapt quickly enough to a green future that’s not yet built. It’s a regressive tax masquerading as environmental action.

Until California realistically bridges the gap between aspirational climate goals and equitable policy execution, the state’s lofty environmental vision will continue to rest uneasily on the shoulders of its most vulnerable.

The new state excise tax adding about 2 cents a gallon went into effect July 1, and CARB is pushing for a new low-carbon fuel standard that could add and potentially major costs to the prices of gasoline and diesel fuel. No one knows exactly how much — not even the board proposing the rules.

At a recent Assembly oversight hearing, CARB officials were asked if they analyzed their regulations for consumer impacts. Their answer: We don’t calculate that. The room went silent. It was a stunning admission — regulators pushing policy without running the math.

No wonder we’re seeing an exodus of working families. By layering new and unclear costs on top of an already overstretched system, CARB and other regulators are creating what could become a self-inflicted economic shock.

And for what? Not environmental progress. California will be forced to source more and more fuel from overseas — at greater environmental and economic cost. By relying on polluting sources and carbon-intensive shipping, we’ve simply outsourced our emissions to other countries. California is not reducing emissions. We are exporting them.

If this sounds reckless, it is. But more than that, it’s unjust.

These policies are not burdening the wealthy. They’re crushing the working class. They’re forcing families to choose between gas and groceries, between job access and housing stability. They’re also outsourcing jobs overseas.

And they’re being implemented by unelected bureaucrats who, by their own admission in testimony before California lawmakers, haven’t calculated the real-world impact.

The people of California deserve better than this. They deserve honesty, transparency and policy grounded in economic realism, not ideological fantasy and environmental dogma. If recent and coming changes become a tipping point, it won’t be because of some unpredictable global event. It will be because we chose not to look before we leaped.

The path forward demands a pause, a recalibration and a return to common sense. Otherwise, this summer could mark not just another price hike — but the day we began losing control of our energy future.

Michael A. Mische is an associate professor at USC’s Marshall School of Business. A former KPMG principal, he is the author of eight books on business and strategy.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued the city of Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass and City Council members Monday, calling L.A.’s sanctuary city law “illegal” and asking that it be blocked from being enforced.

The lawsuit, filed in California’s Central District federal court by the Trump Administration, said the country is “facing a crisis of illegal immigration” and that its efforts to address it “are hindered by Sanctuary Cities such as the City of Los Angeles, which refuse to cooperate or share information, even when requested, with federal immigration authorities.”

Over the last month, immigration agents have descended on Southern California, arresting more than 1,600 immigrants and prompting furious protests in downtown Los Angeles, Paramount and other communities. According to the lawsuit, L.A.’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities since June 6 has resulted in “lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism.”

“The situation became so dire that the Federal Government deployed the California National Guard and United States Marines to quell the chaos,” the lawsuit states. “A direct confrontation with federal immigration authorities was the inevitable outcome of the Sanctuary City law.”

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi called the city’s sanctuary policies “the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles.”

“Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level — it ends under President Trump,” Bondi said in a statement Monday.

Bass did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In recent weeks, she has pushed back against the Trump Administration’s portrayal of L.A. as a city enveloped in violence, saying that immigration agents are the ones sowing chaos, terrorizing families and harming the city’s economy.

“To characterize what is going on in our city as a city of mayhem is just an outright lie,” Bass said earlier this month. “I’m not going to call it an untruth. I’m not going to sugarcoat it. I’m going to call it for what it is, which is a lie.”

L.A.’s sanctuary city law was proposed in early 2023, long before Trump’s election, but finalized in the wake of his victory in November.

Under the ordinance, city employees and city property may not be used to “investigate, cite, arrest, hold, transfer or detain any person” for the purpose of immigration enforcement. An exception is made for law enforcement investigating serious offenses.

The ordinance bars city employees from seeking out information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status unless it is needed to provide a city service. They also must treat data or information that can be used to trace a person’s citizenship or immigration status as confidential.

In the lawsuit, federal prosecutors allege that the city’s ordinance and other policies intentionally discriminate against the federal government by “treating federal immigration authorities differently than other law enforcement agents,” by restricting access to property and to individual detainees, by prohibiting contractors and sub-contractors from providing information, and by “disfavoring federal criminal laws that the City of Los Angeles has decided not to comply with.”

“The Supremacy Clause prohibits the City of Los Angeles and its officials from singling out the Federal Government for adverse treatment—as the challenged law and policies do—thereby discriminating against the Federal Government,” the lawsuit says. “Accordingly, the law and policies challenged here are invalid and should be enjoined.”

Trump’s Department of Justice contends that L.A.’s Sanctuary City ordinance goes much further than similar laws in other jurisdictions, by “seeking to undermine the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement efforts.”

The lawsuit also cites a June 10 meeting in which council members grilled Police Chief Jim McDonnell about his department’s handling of the immigration raids. During that session, Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who represents a heavily Latino district in the San Fernando Valley, asked McDonnell if the LAPD would consider warning warn council members about impending raids.

“Chief McDonnell correctly identified that request for what it was: ‘obstruction of justice,’” the lawsuit states.

The federal filing comes as the city’s elected officials are weighing their own lawsuit against the Trump administration, one aimed at barring immigration agents from violating the constitutional rights of their constituents.

The City Council is scheduled to meet Tuesday to ask City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to prioritize “immediate legal action” to protect L.A. residents from being racially profiled or unlawfully searched or detained.

Bass has been outspoken about the harm she says the immigration raids have been inflicting on her city, saying they have torn families apart and created a climate of fear at parks, churches, shopping areas and other locations. The city was peaceful, she said, until federal agents began showing up at Home Depots, parking lots and other locations.

“I want to tell him to stop the raids,” she said earlier this month. “I want to tell him that this is a city of immigrants. I want to tell him that if you want to devastate the economy of the city of Los Angeles, then attack the immigrant population.”

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions.

Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent.

The high court’s ruling sends cases challenging the president’s birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump’s policy remains uncertain.

Here’s what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court’s ruling and what happens next.

What does birthright citizenship mean?

Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally.

The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the amendment states.

Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents’ legal status.

It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats.

Trump’s longtime goal

Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president’s hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a “magnet for illegal immigration.”

Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally.

A series of federal judges have said that’s not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect.

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom.

In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that “the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed” Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship.

Is Trump’s order constitutional?

The high court’s ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge’s authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president’s authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters.

But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump’s bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order.

“The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges’ decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,” said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is “very confident” that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case.

Uncertainty ahead

The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps.

The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump’s order.

But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor.

“It’s not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,” said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court’s dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to “act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court’s prompt review” in cases “challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.”

Opponents of Trump’s order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief.

“Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. “By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.”

Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.

EU leaders gather in Brussels to address sanctions on Russia, US tariffs, and Middle East conflicts.

The heads of the European Union’s 27 member nations will meet in Brussels to discuss tougher sanctions on Russia, ways to prevent painful new United States tariffs, and how to make their voices heard in the Middle East conflicts.

Most of the leaders will arrive at the event taking place on Thursday from a brief but intense NATO summit, where they pledged a big boost in defence spending and papered over some of their differences with US President Donald Trump.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will join the EU summit by videoconference, after having met Trump on Wednesday.

US-led NATO downgraded Ukraine from a top priority to a side player this week, but Russia’s war in Ukraine remains of paramount concern for the EU.

Members will be discussing a potential 18th round of sanctions against Russia and whether to maintain a price cap on Russian oil, measures that some nations oppose because it could raise energy prices.

Meanwhile, Trump’s threatened tariffs are weighing on the EU, which negotiates trade deals on behalf of all 27 member countries. He lashed out at Spain on Wednesday for not spending more on defence and suggested yet more tariffs. France’s president criticised Trump for starting a trade war with longtime allies.

European leaders are also concerned about fallout from the wars in the Middle East, and the EU is pushing to revive diplomatic negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

EU members have internal disagreements to overcome. They are divided over what to do about European policy towards Israel because of its conduct in its war on Gaza. And left-leaning parties are attacking European Commissioner Ursula von Der Leyen’s pivot away from the EU’s climate leadership in favour of military investment.

Defence and security are likely to top the agenda. The summit will end with a statement of conclusions that will set the agenda for the bloc for the next four months, and can be seen as a bellwether for political sentiment in Europe on key regional and global issues.

South Africa’s foreign policy has traditionally rested on three pillars: human rights advocacy, multilateralism, and solidarity with the Global South. Post-apartheid, Pretoria positioned itself as a mediator in global conflicts, a champion of African interests, and a voice against imperialism. However, under Ramaphosa’s administration, this identity appears blurred. The guiding principles remain on paper, but in practice, foreign policy decisions often seem reactive, inconsistent, and vulnerable to internal political pressures. This disconnect between ideals and implementation is where the cracks begin to show.

South Africa’s foreign policy under President Cyril Ramaphosa presents a contradictory and increasingly incoherent landscape. While the country once proudly stood on the global stage as a principled voice of moral authority, particularly in the post-apartheid era, recent trends reveal a foreign policy marred by inconsistency, political improvisation, and a diminishing institutional role for the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO). These developments expose both the fine cracks and widening chasms in South Africa’s diplomatic posture.

South Africa’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict has been one of its most vocal and consistent foreign policy markers in recent years. Ramaphosa’s government has taken a firm stance in condemning Israeli actions in Gaza, even leading the charge at the International Court of Justice to accuse Israel of genocide. This has resonated with domestic constituencies, particularly those with historical sympathies for the Palestinian cause. However, critics argue that this moral clarity is selectively applied. South Africa’s silence or caution on atrocities in other regions, such as Xinjiang and the Tigray conflict, undermines the moral authority it seeks to project to the world.

Another troubling issue has been South Africa’s muted and inconsistent response to international propaganda regarding so-called “white genocide” or the “murder of white farmers.” This narrative, often amplified by far-right groups abroad, misrepresents rural crime in South Africa and distorts complex socio-economic realities for political gain. Yet, Ramaphosa’s administration has not proactively countered these claims with a sustained international communication strategy. The absence of a clear and robust rebuttal not only damages the country’s image but also allows disinformation to fester in influential circles abroad.

A more subtle but revealing fault line lies in how foreign policy is shaped to accommodate powerful economic actors. South Africa’s reported willingness to bend B-BBEE (Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment) rules to allow Elon Musk’s Starlink to operate raises deeper questions. On the one hand, there is an understandable desire to expand connectivity and embrace digital innovation. On the other, such decisions appear to signal that policy can be suspended or softened when big business is involved. This flexibility undermines the credibility of domestic policy frameworks and opens South Africa up to accusations of inconsistency or even opportunism.

The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), once a hub of strategic thinking and diplomacy, now seems increasingly peripheral. Under Ramaphosa, DIRCO has struggled to assert itself as the authoritative voice on foreign policy. The lack of clarity in positions, delays in diplomatic appointments, and an overall sense of drift reflect a department in decline. This vacuum has created space for a troubling trend: the proliferation of unofficial and undisciplined commentary on foreign policy matters by ANC leaders such as Fikile Mbalula, whose portfolio is far-fetched from foreign policy.

In recent years, it has become common for various ANC figures, some holding no official position in international affairs, to make bold and, at times, incendiary statements on global matters. Whether it’s views on BRICS, Russia’s war in Ukraine, or Israel-Palestine, these statements often contradict each other or official government policy. This free-for-all has consequences. It undermines diplomatic coherence, confuses international partners, and erodes confidence in Pretoria’s reliability as a global actor.

At best, South Africa’s current foreign policy could be described as fragmented realism wrapped in rhetorical idealism. At worst, it is ad hoc, domestically driven, and lacking a unifying vision. It is unclear whether Ramaphosa’s government is intentionally pursuing a flexible and pragmatic foreign policy or whether it is simply reacting to events without a strong guiding compass. The blurred lines between party, government, and department make it difficult to distinguish strategic priorities from political expediency.

If South Africa hopes to retain its voice on the international stage, it must begin by consolidating its foreign policy machinery. DIRCO must be empowered, not sidelined. Policy statements must be consistent, not contradictory. Foreign engagement must be principled, not selectively moralistic or economically opportunistic. The world is watching South Africa’s foreign policy circles with keen interest; it is confused by what it sees. The time to fix these cracks, both fine and foundational, is now.

South Africa cannot afford to be a bystander amid the seismic shifts shaping global politics. In an era marked by rising geopolitical tensions, great power rivalries, and contested norms, a passive or ambiguous foreign policy amounts to self-marginalization. South Africa’s historical legacy as a nation that transitioned from apartheid through global solidarity and principled diplomacy demands that it play a more assertive role in international affairs.

A firm, values-based stance in global politics not only reaffirms South Africa’s own agency but also sets a precedent for the African continent. Africa, often treated as a passive recipient of global outcomes, needs bold leadership among its middle powers. By taking principled and consistent positions on international issues from human rights to economic justice, South Africa can embolden its neighbors to speak with greater unity and confidence on the global stage.

In this context, South Africa’s role is not just national—it is continental. A coherent and courageous foreign policy can catalyze a broader African voice in global governance, helping to redefine Africa’s place not as a bargaining chip in great power politics, but as a serious actor in shaping a fairer, more multipolar world order.

A commitment to international law “goes absolutely to the heart” of Sir Keir Starmer’s government and its approach to foreign policy, the attorney general has told the BBC.

In his first broadcast interview, Lord Richard Hermer, who is the Cabinet’s chief legal adviser, said that the government was determined to “lead on international law issues” globally.

He argued that this has enabled the UK to strike economic deals with the US, India and the EU in recent months.

The attorney general also defended Starmer’s decision to seek a “warm” relationship with President Trump even at the expense of “short-term political gain”.

Lord Hermer’s comments, which came in a full extended interview for an upcoming BBC Radio 4 programme Starmer’s Stormy Year, were made before recent speculation about his legal advice regarding the government’s approach to the conflict between Israel and Iran.

Nevertheless, they help to illuminate the approach being taken by one of the most powerful figures in government, as ministers navigate a perilous diplomatic moment.

On Monday, the government repeatedly declined to say whether it believed that America’s strikes on Iran were legal, arguing that this was not a question for British ministers to assess.

The approach to the law taken by Hermer, an old friend of the prime minister who had no political profile prior to his surprise appointment almost a year ago, has been a persistent controversy throughout Starmer’s premiership.

Asked whether international law was a “red line” for the prime minister in foreign policy, Hermer replied: “If you ask me what’s Keir’s kind of principal overriding interest, it is genuinely to make life better for the people of this country.”

He continued: “Is international law important to this government and to this prime minister? Of course it is.

“It’s important in and of itself, but it’s also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we’re trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country.

“And so I am absolutely convinced, and I think the government is completely united on this, that actually by ensuring that we are complying with all forms of law – domestic law and international law – we serve the national interest.”

Hermer added: “Look, we’ve just entered trade deals with the United States, with India, with the EU, and we’re able to do that because we’re back on the world stage as a country whose word is their bond.

“No one wants to do deals with people they don’t trust. No one wants to sign international agreements with a country that’s got a government that’s saying, well, ‘we may comply with it, we may not’.

“We do. We succeed. We secure those trade deals, which are essential for making people’s lives better in this country.

“We secure deals on migration with France, with Germany, with Iraq, that are going to deal with some of the other fundamental problems that we face, and we can do that because we comply, and we’re seen to comply and indeed lead on international law issues.

“Being a good faith player in international law is overwhelmingly in the national interests of this country.”

Speaking about the UK’s relationship with the US more generally, Hermer said: “It’s a relationship that will no doubt at various points have various different pressures, but it is an absolutely vital one for us to have.

“I think the approach that Keir has taken, which is never to give in to that kind of Love Actually instinct for short-term political gain, but rather to ensure that our relationship with the United States remains warm, that channels of communication are always open, that there is mutual respect between us.

“I think that is overwhelmingly in this country’s interests.”

In the 2003 film Love Actually, a fictional prime minister contradicts a US president during a press conference.

Earlier this year, Hermer said he regretted “clumsy” remarks in which he compared calls for the UK to depart from international law and arguments made in 1930s Germany.

In a speech, he criticised politicians who argue the UK should abandon “the constraints of international law in favour of raw power”, saying similar claims had been made by legal theorists in Germany in the years before the Nazis came to power.

Some Conservatives and Reform UK have called for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

June 17 (UPI) — A federal judge in Massachusetts on Tuesday expanded an order against the State Department’s passport policy to include all applicants who are transgender or nonbinary, saying the “passport policy violates their constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.”

Judge Julia Kobick granted a first preliminary injunction in April, which blocked the State Department’s policy for only six of seven people who originally sued. On Tuesday, the judge expanded it to plaintiffs who were added to the suit, and nearly all trans and nonbinary Americans seeking new passports or changes.

Kobick, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote that the six named plaintiffs and the new class of plaintiffs “face the same injury: they cannot obtain a passport with a sex designation that aligns with their gender identity.”

“The plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the Passport Policy violates their constitutional right to equal protection of the laws and runs afoul of the safeguards of the APA,” Kobick wrote in Tuesday’s opinion, while referring to the Administrative Procedure Act which governs how policies are adopted.

After taking office earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, proclaiming the United States recognizes only two sexes — male and female — and that those sexes “are not changeable.” Trump then ordered government-issued identification documents, including U.S. passports, to reflect a person’s sex at birth.

“We will no longer issue U.S. passports or Consular Reports of Birth Abroad with an X marker,” according the State Department. “We will only issue passports with an M or F sex marker that match the customer’s biological sex at birth.”

Under the Biden administration, passport holders could self-select gender designation, including “unspecified” which was designated by the letter X.

The Trump administration appealed Kobick’s ruling in April. On Tuesday, Kobick wrote that forcing transgender and nonbinary people to choose between two sexes makes them more vulnerable to discrimination.

“Absent preliminary injunctive relief, these plaintiffs may effectively be forced to out themselves as transgender or non-binary every time they present their passport,” Kobick wrote.

The legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts celebrated Tuesday’s ruling and vowed to “continue to fight.”

“This decision acknowledges the immediate and profound negative impact that the Trump administration’s passport policy has on the ability of people across the country to travel for work, school and family,” Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in a statement.

“The Trump administration’s passport policy attacks the foundations of the right to privacy and the freedom for all people to live their lives safely and with dignity,” Rossman added. “We will continue to fight to stop this unlawful policy once and for all.”

You may be surprised to know that the London-based airport enforces a ‘two-bag policy’ at its security point to avoid delays

With summer on the horizon, many Brits are preparing for sunny vacations overseas. However, before heading to Heathrow Airport, familiarising yourself with its current policies and regulations is essential.

Carrying flammable substances or toxic items is a clear no-go when flying from any airport. However, what may be less known is Heathrow’s baggage limit for travellers at its security checkpoints.

You may be surprised to know that the London-based airport enforces a ‘two-bag policy’ at its security point to avoid delays. This means only two hand baggage items can be taken through the control area.

“To avoid delays, Heathrow operates a two-bag policy at airport security,” advice at the airport’s site reads. “Handbags and laptop bags count as a piece of hand baggage.”

READ MORE: Love Island’s Cara De La Hoyde-Massey urges fans to get a key health check

As part of this rule, any item larger than 56cm x 45cm x 25cm (22in x 18in x 10in) must be checked in as hold luggage. In turn, passengers are more likely to keep their security tray usage to a minimum, limiting delays for others.

Besides this, it’s also important to consider the dos and don’ts of what to put in this hand luggage. For instance, only specific electronic devices are permitted on flights from the UK.

While some airlines might have different restrictions, the UK Government outlines nine key items you can take in both your hand luggage and hold luggage:

• Hairdryers
• Straighteners
• Travel iron
• Electric shaver
• Most cameras
• Mobile phones
• Laptops
• Tablet devices
• MP3 players

It is essential for passengers using e-cigarettes to carry them in their hand luggage rather than in their hold luggage. When passing through security checks, placing electronic devices in a designated tray allows staff to see and verify that no prohibited items are hidden.

Heathrow Airport’s advice also adds: “Please ensure your electronic devices are charged. If they don’t switch on, you may not be allowed to take them onto the aircraft. Charging points are available throughout the airport.”

On the flipside, most UK airports – including Heathrow – require liquids to fit inside a single transparent plastic bag when passing through security. Each liquid container must hold a maximum of 100ml, and the plastic bag must be approximately 20cm x 20cm.

The Government’s website clarifies that all items should fit ‘comfortably inside the bag’ so that it can be sealed. To avoid complications, do not attempt to seal it by tying a knot at the top, as it will not be accepted.

READ MORE: Look around Amanda Holden family thatched cottage with ‘sweeping’ gardens which is up for sale

Below is the UK Government’s complete list of items categorised as hand luggage liquids:

• Liquid or semi-liquid foods, for example, soup, jam, honey and syrups
• Any other solutions and items of similar consistency
• Sprays, including shaving foam, hairspray and spray deodorants
• Contact lens solution
• Pastes, including toothpaste
• Gels, including hair and shower gel
• All drinks, including water
• Cosmetics and toiletries, including creams, lotions, oils, perfumes, mascara and lip gloss

Solid products like deodorant sticks, soap bars, wet wipes, and lip balms are usually considered non-liquids. Therefore, they typically don’t require storage in the bag.

Guidance from Heathrow Airport adds: “Only limited quantities of liquids may be carried through airport security into the departure lounge. This includes bottled drinks, suntan lotion, fragrances, cosmetics, toiletries and all frozen liquids.

“…Liquids in containers over 100ml will not be permitted through security – please pack them in your hold baggage instead.”

SANTIAGO, Chile, June 13 (UPI) — President Gabriel Boric’s plan to replace Israel as Chile’s primary arms supplier presents logistical and strategic challenges for the country’s armed forces.

Chile’s president has sharply criticized Israel’s military actions in Gaza. In his recent state of the nation address, he supported Spain’s proposal for an arms embargo on Israel “to prevent more children from being killed.”

“I have instructed the defense minister to quickly present a plan to diversify our defense trade relationships so we can stop relying on Israeli industry in all areas,” Boric said.

Since 1977, Chile has purchased more than $850 million worth of Israeli weapons, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

By 1989, Israel supplied 42.5% of Chile’s total weapon imports. During Sebastián Piñera’s administration, Chile signed new agreements with Israel covering weapons, security technology and cybersecurity.

The path toward supplier diversification is complex. Chile’s armed forces maintain a significant inventory of Israeli-made equipment. Changing suppliers requires a transition process that could affect existing system interoperability.

Integrating new platforms and technologies from multiple sources takes time, training and often costly modifications to ensure systems from different countries can operate together efficiently. This is especially critical in joint operations, where compatibility between communications gear, navigation systems and weapons is essential.

Experts say replacing deeply integrated Israeli systems could weaken Chile’s overall operational capability.

“The relationship with an arms supplier goes far beyond the initial purchase. It involves agreements for logistical support, spare parts, long-term maintenance and technological upgrades,” said César Cereceda, a defense expert and president of the Association of Retired Armed Forces Personnel.

Severing or weakening ties with an established supplier like Israel could disrupt the supply chain for critical parts, affecting the operation and availability of existing equipment. Trust and a strong support track record are crucial in military technology procurement, Cereceda added.

Military equipment also requires highly trained personnel for operation and maintenance. Changing suppliers means training troops on new systems, requiring investments in time and resources.

Chile may consider Brazil, Turkey and India as new suppliers, but it must first evaluate whether their products meet the country’s specific defense needs.

Brazil has a developing defense industry focused on land systems, aircraft and some naval platforms. While it has made progress, its technology may not match Israel’s level of sophistication, particularly in high-tech sectors.

Turkey’s defense industry has expanded rapidly in recent years, making notable advances in drones, armored vehicles and naval systems. Its development has been impressive, but it has yet to fully consolidate as a comprehensive supplier.

India’s large industrial base and its ambitious “Made in India” policy are key strengths in its bid to become a defense supplier. However, it still relies heavily on foreign technology for complex systems, and its ability to export advanced weapons at scale remains limited.

“Chile’s defense policy has long focused on diversifying strategic acquisitions,” said Gabriel Gaspar, an international analyst and former deputy defense secretary. He noted that the armed forces operate German armored vehicles, ships from the U.K., Australia and the Netherlands and U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets.

“All of these supply lines rely on NATO-standard technology, offering broad compatibility — from calibers to communication systems,” Gaspar said. “Switching to a different line of weaponry is always possible, but it requires long-term policy and funding.”

The cost of replacing existing technology could range from $15 billion to $20 billion, according to estimates by Fernando Wilson, an analyst at Chile’s Adolfo Ibáñez University.

Reducing dependence on a single supplier would strengthen Chile’s strategic autonomy and reduce its vulnerability to potential embargoes or shifts in bilateral relations.

Exploring new markets would allow Chile to access different technologies and approaches in the defense industry, potentially strengthening its long-term military capabilities.

However, experts say a complete switch in suppliers and the replacement of all Israeli technology and systems currently in use could come at a very high cost.

While the ruling does not order Khalil’s immediate release, it does undermine the US government’s case against Khalil.

A federal judge in New Jersey has ruled the administration of United States President Donald Trump cannot use an obscure law to detain Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil for his pro-Palestine advocacy.

The ruling from US District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday cut to the core of the Trump administration’s justification for deporting Khalil, a permanent US resident. But it came short of ordering Khalil’s immediate release from detention.

Instead, Judge Farbiarz gave the administration until 9:30am local (13:30 GMT) on Friday to appeal. After that point, Khalil would be eligible for release on a $1 bail.

Nevertheless, the judge wrote that the administration was violating Khalil’s right to free speech by detaining and trying to deport him under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. That provision allows the secretary of state to remove foreign nationals who bear “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

Judge Farbiarz has previously signalled he believes that provision to be unconstitutional, contradicting the right to free speech.

“The petitioner’s career and reputation are being damaged and his speech is being chilled,” Farbiarz wrote on Wednesday. “This adds up to irreparable harm.”

Khalil was arrested on March 8 after immigration agents showed up at his student apartment building at Columbia University in New York City. After his arrest, the State Department revoked his green card. He has since been held at an immigration detention centre in Louisiana.

The administration has accused Khalil, a student protest leader, of anti-Semitism and supporting Hamas, but officials have offered no evidence to support their claims, either publicly or in court files.

Critics have instead argued that the administration is using such claims to silence all forms of pro-Palestine advocacy.

Like other student protesters targeted for deportation, Khalil is challenging his deportation in immigration court, while simultaneously challenging his arrest and detention in federal proceedings.

The latter is called a habeas corpus petition, and it asserts that the Trump administration has violated his civil liberties by unlawfully keeping him behind bars.

While students in the other high-profile cases — including Mohsen Mahdawi, Rumeysa Ozturk and Badar Khan Suri — have all been released from detention as their legal proceedings move forward, a ruling in Khalil’s case has been slower coming.

In April, an immigration judge had ruled that Khalil was deportable based on the State Department’s interpretation of the 1952 law, despite a written letter from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio providing no further evidence for the allegations made against him.

Immigration judges fall under the executive branch of the US government and are generally considered less independent than judges in the judicial branch.

Also that month, immigration authorities denied Khalil’s request for temporary release for his son’s birth.

In the case before the New Jersey federal court, meanwhile, the Trump administration has argued that Khalil was not fully transparent in his green card application, something his lawyers deny. But Judge Farbiarz indicated on Wednesday that it was unusual and “overwhelmingly unlikely” for permanent residents to be detained on such grounds.

Superstar U.S. gymnast Simone Biles has apologized to Riley Gaines after calling the outspoken former NCAA swimmer “truly sick” and a “sore loser” in recent days during their public argument concerning transgender athletes competing in women’s sports.

“I’ve always believed competitive equity & inclusivity are both essential in sport,” Biles wrote Tuesday morning on X. “The current system doesn’t adequately balance these important principles, which often leads to frustration and heated exchanges, and it didn’t help for me to get personal with Riley, which I apologize for.”

Gaines was a two-time All-Southeastern Conference swimmer at Kentucky. At the 2022 NCAA national championships, Gaines and Pennsylvania’s Lia Thomas, a transgender woman, tied for fifth place in the 200 freestyle finals, but only Thomas got to pose on the podium with the fifth-place trophy.

At the same meet, Thomas won the 500 freestyle to become the first out transgender woman to claim a Division I title. But in February and in response to an executive order by President Trump, the NCAA changed its policy to limit competition in women’s sports to athletes who were assigned female at birth.

Gaines has become a leading voice for preventing transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports. She and more than a dozen other former college swimmers filed a lawsuit against the NCAA, claiming that the organization had violated their Title IX rights by allowing Thomas to compete in the 2022 championships,

Last week, Gaines reposted an X post from the Minnesota State High School League that congratulated the Champlin Park High softball team — which made national news because its star pitcher is transgender — for winning the 4A state championship.

“Comments off lol,” Gaines wrote about the league’s post. “To be expected when your star player is a boy.”

Biles reposted Gaines’ post the same day and didn’t hold back in expressing her views on the matter.

“@Riley_Gaines_ You’re truly sick, all of this campaigning because you lost a race,” Biles wrote. “Straight up sore loser. You should be uplifting the trans community and perhaps finding a way to make sports inclusive OR creating a new avenue where trans feel safe in sports. Maybe a transgender category IN ALL sports!!

“But instead… You bully them… One things for sure is no one in sports is safe with you around!!!!!”

Biles added in a separate post, “bully someone your own size, which would ironically be a male.”

Days later, the 11-time Olympic medalist returned to X, seemingly with a cooler head, to apologize for getting “personal” in her response to Gaines and attempt to explain her feelings again.

“These are sensitive, complicated issues that I truly don’t have the answers or solutions to, but I believe it starts with empathy and respect,” Biles wrote. “I was not advocating for policies that compromise fairness in women’s sports. My objection is to … singling out children for public scrutiny in ways that feel personal and harmful.

“Individual athletes — especially kids — should never be the focus of criticism of a flawed system they have no control over. I believe sports organizations have a responsibility to come up with rules supporting inclusion while maintaining fair competition. We all want a future for sport that is fair, inclusive, and respectful.”

Gaines responded on X with a post in which she accepted “Simone’s apology for the personal attacks including the ones where she body-shamed me” but stated that “you can’t have any empathy and compassion for the girls if you’re ignoring when young men are harming or abusing them.”

“I agree with you that the blame is on the lawmakers and leaders at the top,” Gaines added. “Precisely why I’m suing the NCAA and support candidates who vow to stand with women. … I welcome you to the fight to support fair sports and a future for female athletes. Little girls deserve the same shot to achieve that you had.”

Acting Enforcement Director Cara Petersen has served with the United States agency since it was founded.

The top remaining enforcement official at the United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has tendered her resignation, saying the White House’s overhaul of the agency has made her position untenable.

Acting Enforcement Director Cara Petersen, who has served at the agency since its creation nearly 15 years ago, said that current leadership under US President Donald Trump “has no intention to enforce the law in any meaningful way”, according to an email first obtained by the Reuters news agency.

“I have served under every director and acting director in the bureau’s history and never before have I seen the ability to perform our core mission so under attack,” Petersen wrote in an email.

“It has been devastating to see the bureau’s enforcement function being dismantled through thoughtless reductions in staff, inexplicable dismissals of cases, and terminations of negotiated settlements that let wrongdoers off the hook.”

Petersen’s departure comes four months after the agency’s enforcement and supervision chiefs also resigned amid efforts by President Donald Trump to dismantle the CFPB.

An agency spokesperson and Petersen did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In addition to seeking to cut the CFPB’s workforce by about 90 percent, acting Director Russell Vought and chief legal officer Mark Paoletta have said they will slash agency enforcement and supervision and have dropped major CFPB enforcement cases en masse, including against Capital One and Walmart. The agency has even revised some cases already settled under the prior administration.

The dramatic changes come as Republicans have complained for years that the CFPB, created in the aftermath of the 2007-2009 global financial crisis, is too powerful and lacks oversight. Democrats and agency backers contend it plays a critical role in policing financial markets on behalf of consumers.

“While I wish you all the best, I worry for American consumers,” said Petersen in her email. A federal appeals court in Washington has yet to decide on the Trump administration’s effort to undo a court injunction blocking the agency from firing most agency staff.

EU countries have agreed to extend the time when passengers qualify for delay compensation from airlines.

Those on short-haul flights will not be compensated until they are delayed for four hours or more under the new plans.

Long-haul flight compensation begins from six hours.

Currently. passengers in the EU are compensated after a three-hour delay for short haul flights.

The EU is also making changes to the amount of delay compensation.

The short-haul flight compensation goes from €250 to €300, but will be reduced from €600 to €500 on long haul.

Airlines for Europe (A4E) had lobbied for even longer before compensation kicks in.

Ourania Georgoutsakou, the A4E managing director, said: “Rather than providing delay thresholds of five and nine hours that would save up to 70% of rescuable cancelled flights, member states have diluted the European Commission’s original proposal.”

The EU’s initial proposal was to significantly extend the threshold to five hours for short-haul flights and nine hours for long-haul.

Related News Stories:  UK airspace set for flight path shake-up    

During China’s imperial age, those deemed guilty of the worst offenses were sometimes sentenced to death in a public square by a brutal form of execution known as lingchi. Soldiers — using sharp blades — would slice away pieces of flesh from the accused until they died. Translated, lingchi means “death by a thousand cuts.”

Maybe democracy does die in darkness, as journalist Bob Woodward often suggests. Or maybe democracy’s demise comes in the light of day, in a public forum, where everyone can bear witness. Sometimes those holding the knives are the oligarchs or elected officials drenched in corruption. And sometimes there’s blood on the hands of the people.

On Saturday, voters in San Antonio — the seventh-largest city in the country — are headed to the polls to decide the first open mayoral race since President Obama’s first term. Or at least some voters will be.

In November 2024, nearly 60% of the 1.3 million registered voters in the county cast a ballot in the general election. However, in the local election held last month, barely 10% showed up to the polls. Before anyone starts throwing shade at San Antonio, in Dallas the turnout was even lower.

Lackluster participation in an “off year” election is not new. However, the mayoral race in San Antonio has increased national interest because the outcome is being viewed as a litmus test for both the strength of the Democrats’ resistance and the public’s appetite for the White House’s policies.

Like other big blue cities nestled in legislatively red states, San Antonio’s progressive policies have been under constant assault from the governor’s mansion. And with neither the progressive candidate, Gina Ortiz Jones, or her MAGA-leaning opponent, Rolando Pablos, eclipsing 50% of the vote in May, the runoff has drawn more than $1 million in campaign spending from outside conservative groups looking to flip the traditionally blue stronghold.

The outcome could provide a possible glimpse into the 2026 mayoral race in Los Angeles, should the formerly Republican Rick Caruso decide to run against Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat. When the two faced off in 2022, around 44% of the city’s registered voters went to the polls. Caruso lost by less than 90,000 votes in a city with 2.1 million registered voters — most of whom didn’t submit a ballot.

It is rather astonishing how little we actually participate in democracy, given the amount of tax dollars we have spent trying to convince other nations that our government system is the best on the planet. Capitulating to President Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of mass voter fraud, many local conservative elected officials have tried to ram through a litany of “voter integrity” policies under the guise of protecting democracy. However, democracy is not a delicate flower in need of protection. It’s a muscle in need of exercise.

“Some people find voting to be a chore,” Michele Carew, the elections administrator for Bexar County — which includes San Antonio — told me. “We need to make voting easier and quite frankly, fun. And we need to get those who don’t feel like their vote counts to see that it does. That means getting out and talking to people in our neighborhood, in our churches, in our grocery stores … about when elections are coming up and what’s at stake locally.”

Carew said that the added outside interest in the city’s election has driven up early voting a tick and that she expects to see roughly a 15% turnout, which is an increase over previous years. It could be worse. The city once elected a mayor with 7% turnout back in 2013. Carew also expressed concern about outside influence on local governing.

“One of the first times I saw these nonpartisan races become more political was in 2020, and so as time goes by it’s gotten even more so. I would like to think once the candidate is elected mayor they remain nonpartisan and do what’s best for the city and not their party.”

In 2024, a presidential election year when you’d expect the highest turnout, 1 in 3 registered voters across this country — roughly 20 million people — took a look around and said, “Nah, I’m good.” Or something like that.

The highest turnout was in Washington, D.C., where nearly 80% showed up. Too bad it’s not a state. Among the lowest turnout rates? Texas — which has the second-greatest number of voters, behind only California.

And therein lies the problem with trying to extrapolate national trends from local elections. Maybe Ortiz Jones will win in San Antonio this weekend. Maybe Caruso will win in L.A. next year. None of this tells us how the vast majority of Americans are really feeling.

Sure, it’s good fodder to debate around the table or on cable news shows, but ultimately the sample size of a mayoral election belies any claims about a result’s meaning. Turnout during an off year is just too low.

One thing we know for certain is most voters in America exercise their right to vote only once every four years. Oligarchs and corrupt officials are not great, but it’s hard for democracy to stay healthy and strong if that’s all the exercise it’s getting.

@LZGranderson

SACRAMENTO — Nearly six months after a firestorm ravaged communities across Los Angeles, California lawmakers are crafting legislation to try to protect the state insurance program for high-risk homes from financial collapse.

A bill, AB 226, sponsored by Assemblymembers Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier) and David A. Alvarez (D-San Diego), would make the state’s insurer of last resort, the FAIR Plan, eligible for loans and bonds from the state-backed California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to avoid running out of money after a disaster.

Alvarez proposed the measure last year but it failed to pass. Despite receiving unanimous support in the Assembly, the bill never reached the Senate floor for a vote before the end of the 2024 legislative session.

If the measure had passed last year and been signed into law by the governor, the FAIR Plan would have had more flexibility to weather the massive number of claims filed after the January firestorms, Alvarez said.

Instead, the FAIR plan was forced to imposed an extra $1 billion in total assessments on insurers that provide homeowners policies in California. To recoup those expenses, insurance companies are expected to hike rates on homeowners through monthly surcharges.

“Had they had this option available to them … they would not be having to hit consumers with price increases on the private market now,” Alvarez said.

AB 226 is one of many wildfire-related bills still winding their way through the slow legislative process. If passed into law, the measures would protect homeowners from price gouging after disasters, streamline the process for filing claims for lost property and offer financial protections for disaster victims.

Lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom in January approved $2.5 billion in wildfire aid after the Palisades and Eaton fires killed more than two dozen people and became the second and third most destructive fires in state history. Legislative leaders at the time signaled for a swift, bipartisan approach to the disaster.

“Tens of thousands of our neighbors, our families and friends, they need help. This means that we need to be able to move with urgency, put aside our differences, and be laser-focused on delivering the financial resources, delivering the boots on the ground that are needed and the policy relief that is needed to get neighborhoods cleaned up and communities rebuilt,” Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) said after it passed.

California’s last-ditch home insurer, the FAIR Plan, is meant as a backup for properties deemed high-risk and uninsurable by private companies. A Times analysis found that within the Eaton and Palisades fire zones, the number of homes on the plan nearly doubled between 2020 and 2024 and the plan has become one of the state’s largest insurers.

Amid lawsuits alleging collusion between private insurers and the FAIR Plan and policyholders raising concerns about delays in payments and smoke damage investigations, lawmakers and insurance advocates have repeatedly called for better safety nets — like the one proposed in AB 226 — to keep the insurer solvent in emergencies and viable as a long-term solution to the state’s home insurance problem.

This year, Alvarez was joined on the bill by Calderon, chair of the Assembly’s insurance committee. It passed through the Assembly at the beginning of March but has not yet seen its first Senate committee.

Alvarez celebrated the bill’s swift passage through the Assembly and hopes the Senate will work to do the same, “God forbid, if it has to be used because of a devastating fire this summer,” he said.

Other major wildfire bills being considered by lawmakers include:

• AB 493, which would require lenders to pay policyholders interest on disaster insurance payouts that are held in escrow. The measure, authored by Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) would close a loophole in existing law, which already requires interest payments on other escrowed funds.
• AB 597, also introduced by Harabedian, which would keep public insurance adjusters from gouging homeowners, especially after a natural disaster or state of emergency.
• SB 495, which would prevent insurers from requiring an itemized list of personal property losses from policyholders during a state of emergency, and would require insurers to provide extensions where reconstruction is delayed. The bill, introduced by state Sen. Benjamin Allen — who represents the Pacific Palisades and Santa Monica areas — passed a Senate floor vote on Tuesday and is headed to the Assembly.

Most of the pending legislation won’t directly support survivors of the Palisades and Eaton fires but are still important to the rebuilding process, said Maryam Zar, president emeritus of the Pacific Palisades Community Council and founder of the Palisades Recovery Coalition.

The new laws would help prevent and prepare for future fires, she said, and are a show of goodwill to the communities that are suffering still.

Some other fire relief measures focus on easing the permit process for rebuilding, while others extend provisions set by Newsom during the state of emergency — easing tenancy rights for people staying in temporary housing for longer than 30 days, shortening the permit approval timeline and securing mortgage forbearance for destroyed properties for up to a year after the disaster. Others look to address staffing issues for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as fire season turns into a year-round threat.

“Wildfire survivors continue to face housing insecurity, financial strain, and emotional trauma long after the immediate danger has passed,” Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath said in a statement. “These State bills represent a commitment to meeting people where they are — actively in recovery, rebuilding their lives, and in need of our long-term support.”

Vietnam’s declining birthrate is most pronounced in urban areas, while nationally, male births still outnumber female.

Vietnam has scrapped its longstanding two-child policy as it aims to reverse its declining birthrate and ease the pressure from an ageing society.

All restrictions were removed this week, and couples will be free to have as many children as they choose, according to Vietnamese media.

Minister of Health Dao Hong Lan said that a future shrinking population “threatens Vietnam’s sustainable economic and social development, as well as its national security and defence in the long term,” the Hanoi Times reported.

Between 1999 and 2022, Vietnam’s birthrate was about 2.1 children per woman, the replacement rate needed to keep the population from shrinking, but the rate has started to fall, the news outlet said.

In 2024, the country’s birthrate reached a record low of 1.91 children per woman.

Regional neighbours like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong all have declining birthrates, but their economies are more advanced than Vietnam’s.

Vietnam’s working-age population is expected to peak around 2040, according to the World Bank, and it aims to avoid the trap of “getting old before it gets rich”.

The country’s communist government introduced the two-child policy in 1988 to ensure it had adequate resources as it transitioned from a planned to a market economy. At the time, Vietnam was also still overcoming the effects of decades of war.

Vietnam’s two-child policy was most strictly enforced with members of Vietnam’s Communist Party, according to the Associated Press, but families everywhere could lose out on government subsidies and assistance if they had a third or fourth child.

As well as a declining birthrate, Vietnam is also facing significant imbalances across different regions and social groups, the Ministry of Health said.

The declining birthrate is most pronounced in urban areas such as Ho Chi Minh and the capital Hanoi, where the cost of living is highest. But there are also significant disparities in gender. Last year, Vietnam’s sex ratio at birth was 111 boys to every 100 girls.

The disparity between male and female births is most pronounced in North Vietnam’s Red River Delta and the Northern Midlands and Mountains, according to the World Bank, and lowest in the Central Highlands and Mekong River Delta.

Vietnam prohibits doctors from telling parents the sex of their children to curb sex-selective abortions, but the practice continues, with doctors communicating via coded words, according to Vietnamese media.

Left unchecked, the General Statistics Office warned there could be a “surplus of 1.5 million men aged 15-49 by 2039, rising to 2.5 million by 2059”.

In a bid to reverse this trend, the Health Ministry separately proposed tripling the fine for “foetal gender selection” to about $3,800.

A longtime columnist for Foreign Policy and professor of international relations at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Stephen Walt is a sharp critic of how the United States has pursued its version of liberal democracy globally, which he calls liberal hegemony. His books include Taming American Power, The Hell of Good Intentions, and the New York Times bestseller The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.

In this episode of Reframe, Ken Roth and Stephen Walt discuss how President Donald Trump is undermining democratic norms and institutions within the US and worldwide, questioning whether his leadership has brought about an unprecedented shift in its global power.

As I write this in 2025, I find myself increasingly concerned about India’s manufacturing trajectory. While India celebrates digital prowess and service sector dominance, a stark reality confronts my country: our manufacturing exports as a percentage of global trade have remained stubbornly stagnant at around 1.7%, even as China commands over 15% and Vietnam has surged to capture significant market share in textiles, electronics, and manufacturing.

The time for incremental reforms has passed.

India needs a comprehensive overhaul of its export and entrepreneurship policies, strategically aligned with foreign policy objectives, to prevent what I believe could be a permanent relegation to service sector dependency while manufacturing opportunities slip away to more agile competitors.

The Manufacturing Imperative

The numbers paint a sobering picture. China’s manufacturing value-added reached $4.9 trillion in 2023, accounting for roughly 30% of global manufacturing output.

Vietnam, with a population less than 7% of India’s, achieved manufacturing exports of $370 billion in 2023, compared to India’s $450 billion total merchandise exports across all sectors.

More critically, India’s share in global manufacturing exports has declined from 1.8% in 2019 to 1.7% in 2024, while Vietnam’s share grew from 2.1% to 3.4% in the same period.

This isn’t just about absolute numbers; it’s about momentum and trajectory.

Countries like Bangladesh, Mexico, and Turkey are all gaining ground in manufacturing exports while India debates policy frameworks.

The demographic dividend we often celebrate is actually a ticking time bomb. With 12 million Indians entering the workforce annually, service sector jobs alone cannot provide sufficient employment. Manufacturing historically creates 3-4 jobs for every direct job, compared to 1.5-2 jobs in services. Without a manufacturing renaissance, we risk social instability and economic stagnation.

The Export-Foreign Policy Nexus: Learning from Successful Models

My analysis of successful export economies reveals a crucial insight: export policies cannot operate in isolation from foreign policy. China’s Belt and Road Initiative isn’t just infrastructure investment; it’s export market creation. Vietnam’s export success stems partly from its strategic positioning between US-China tensions, attracting supply chain diversification.

India needs to reimagine its foreign policy through an export lens. Our current approach treats trade and diplomacy as separate domains, resulting in missed opportunities. For instance, our Act East Policy has yielded modest results in manufacturing exports to ASEAN, partly because we haven’t aligned trade facilitation with diplomatic priorities.

Consider this data point: India’s bilateral trade with Africa was $98 billion in 2023, but only 25% consisted of manufactured goods exports. China’s Africa trade was $282 billion, with 45% being manufactured exports. This disparity isn’t just about market access; it reflects China’s systematic alignment of diplomatic engagement with export promotion.

The Compliance Raj: Quantifying the Regulatory Stranglehold

Our current export promotion architecture suffers from what I call “scheme fatigue,” but the deeper malady is what recent analysis terms the “Compliance Raj”—a” systematic regulatory stranglehold that makes Vietnam and China look like libertarian paradises by comparison.

The numbers are staggering: India experienced 9,420 compliance updates in 2024 alone, averaging 36 daily regulatory changes. To put this in perspective, Vietnamese manufacturers face approximately 12 major regulatory updates annually, while Chinese exporters operate under relatively stable regulatory frameworks with predictable annual changes.

The India Business Corruption Survey 2024 reveals that 66% of businesses admitted to paying bribes, with 54% coerced for permits, licenses, or approvals. This isn’t just about corruption; it’s about competitive disadvantage. While Indian exporters navigate bribery demands and regulatory uncertainty, Vietnamese competitors focus on production efficiency and market expansion.

The Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme, while well-intentioned, allocated $26 billion across 14 sectors over five years. China spends more than this amount annually on manufacturing subsidies and export promotion. Vietnam’s foreign direct investment in manufacturing reached $22 billion in 2023 alone, compared to India’s $15 billion across all sectors.

The bureaucratic maze compounds these challenges beyond previous estimates. Businesses are required to manage 23 different identity numbers, including PAN, GSTIN, and CIN, resulting in excessive paperwork and frequent renewals.

A recent study by the Confederation of Indian Industry found that compliance costs for Indian exporters are 23% higher than Chinese competitors and 31% higher than Vietnamese exporters. But when we factor in time lost to regulatory uncertainty and bribery, the real competitive disadvantage reaches 45-50%.

Our export infrastructure remains fragmented. While China has 34 ports handling over 10 million TEU annually, India has only 12 major ports with combined capacity struggling to match Shanghai alone. Logistics costs consume 13-14% of GDP compared to 8-9% in developed economies, directly impacting export competitiveness.

The Libertarian Imperative

The evidence is overwhelming: countries that have embraced more libertarian approaches to business regulation consistently outperform India in manufacturing exports. This isn’t ideological positioning; it’s empirical reality backed by hard data.

Singapore, despite its small size, achieved $470 billion in total trade in 2023 with minimal regulatory complexity. Businesses can be registered in 15 minutes online, with most permits issued within 2-3 days. The regulatory framework is predictable, with major changes announced annually and implemented systematically.

Vietnam’s success partly stems from its increasingly libertarian approach to export manufacturing. Export processing zones operate under simplified regulations, with businesses facing minimal compliance burden once established. The contrast with India is stark: Vietnamese exporters spend 2-3% of their time on compliance activities, compared to 15-18% for Indian counterparts.

Even within India, states that have adopted more libertarian approaches show superior performance. Gujarat’s single-window clearance system, operational since 2009, has attracted significantly higher manufacturing FDI per capita compared to states with complex approval processes. Tamil Nadu’s simplified labor regulations for export industries have made it a preferred destination for automotive and textile manufacturing.

The Jan Vishwas Act 2023 decriminalized 180 provisions, reducing imprisonment risks for minor business violations. While this represents progress, it barely scratches the surface. With 20,000 imprisonment clauses still in place and the proposed Jan Vishwas 2.0 targeting only 100 additional provisions, we’re implementing incremental reforms when radical deregulation is required.

Consider the regulatory approach differences: A smartphone manufacturer in India faces 67 different approvals across 14 agencies, compared to 23 approvals across 6 agencies in Vietnam and just 12 approvals across 4 agencies in Singapore. This isn’t about maintaining standards; it’s about regulatory rent-seeking that destroys competitiveness.

The libertarian solution isn’t about abandoning all regulations; it’s about smart regulation focused on outcomes rather than processes. Export-oriented manufacturing should operate under presumptive compliance—businesses assume compliance unless proven otherwise, rather than seeking pre-approvals for every activity.

The Vietnam Model: Libertarian Agility Over Bureaucratic Scale

Vietnam’s transformation offers crucial lessons in libertarian reform applied to export manufacturing. Between 2010 and 2023, Vietnam increased its manufacturing exports from $72 billion to $370 billion, a 414% growth compared to India’s 185% growth from $178 billion to $450 billion in total merchandise exports.

Vietnam’s success stems from three key libertarian principles that India must embrace:

Regulatory Minimalism: Vietnam’s export sector operates under what economists call “libertarian” zones”—areas where businesses face minimal regulatory interference once basic standards are met. While India debates comprehensive labor law reforms, Vietnam implemented sector-specific deregulation for export manufacturing, allowing 24/7 operations, flexible hiring, and performance-based compensation without bureaucratic approvals.

Strategic FDI Targeting with Minimal Barriers: Vietnam attracted $108 billion in manufacturing FDI between 2015 and 2023, focusing on electronics, textiles, and automotive components with streamlined approval processes. India received $67 billion in manufacturing FDI in the same period, spread across too many sectors with complex approval requirements. Vietnamese authorities can approve major manufacturing investments within 45 days; Indian approvals take 8-12 months on average.

Export Processing Zone Efficiency: Vietnam operates 16 EPZs contributing 40% of total exports, with average clearance times of 8 hours and minimal compliance requirements once operational. India’s 265 SEZs contribute only 25% of exports with average clearance times of 72 hours and continuous compliance monitoring that disrupts operations.

Trade Agreement Leverage: Vietnam has 16 operational FTAs covering 58 countries, compared to India’s 13 FTAs covering 32 countries. More importantly, Vietnam utilizes these agreements effectively—67% of Vietnamese exports benefit from preferential access compared to 31% for Indian exports. The difference lies in implementation: Vietnam’s streamlined customs procedures make FTA utilization cost-effective, while India’s complex procedures often make preferential rates economically unviable.

The China Challenge

China’s manufacturing dominance isn’t accidental; it’s systematically built through what I observe as a four-pronged strategy: technology acquisition, market creation, supply chain control, and financial leverage.

China’s outbound FDI in manufacturing reached $145 billion in 2023, often creating captive markets for Chinese exports. India’s outbound manufacturing investment was $8.2 billion, focused primarily on resource extraction rather than market creation.

The technology dimension is particularly concerning. China spent $444 billion on R&D in 2023, with 78% focused on manufacturing and industrial applications. India’s R&D expenditure was $66 billion, with only 34% targeting manufacturing. This gap isn’t just about current competitiveness; it’s about future technological leadership.

Supply chain control represents another strategic advantage. Chinese companies control critical nodes in global supply chains—from rare earth processing to semiconductor assembly. India’s supply chain participation remains largely peripheral, missing opportunities for value addition and strategic positioning.

A Comprehensive Reform Blueprint

Based on my analysis of successful models and India’s unique advantages, I propose a five-pillar transformation strategy:

Pillar 1: Export-Foreign Policy Integration

Every diplomatic mission should function as an export promotion hub. Our embassies in 47 countries with bilateral trade exceeding $1 billion should have dedicated commercial sections with annual export targets. Currently, only 12 missions have adequate commercial infrastructure.

Trade facilitation must become a diplomatic priority. India should negotiate dedicated export corridors with key trading partners, similar to China’s economic corridors. The proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor should prioritize manufacturing export facilitation over general connectivity.

Strategic economic partnerships need restructuring around export complementarity. Our partnership with Japan, for instance, should focus on technology transfer for export-oriented manufacturing rather than domestic market access.

Pillar 2: Manufacturing Infrastructure Revolution

India needs 20 world-class manufacturing clusters in the next five years, each with integrated port connectivity, power supply, and digital infrastructure. Current industrial parks lack this integration, forcing manufacturers to create their own infrastructure at prohibitive costs.

Port modernization requires a $45 billion investment to match Chinese efficiency standards. This isn’t just about capacity; it’s about turnaround time, digital integration, and multimodal connectivity. Current port-to-factory connectivity adds 2-3 days to export timelines compared to Vietnamese competitors.

Digital infrastructure for manufacturing must move beyond basic connectivity to Industry 4.0 readiness. Only 12% of Indian manufacturers use advanced automation compared to 34% in China and 28% in Vietnam.

Pillar 3: Financial Architecture Redesign

Export financing needs fundamental restructuring. Current institutional lending covers only 23% of export credit needs, compared to 67% in China. We need specialized export development banks with $100 billion capitalization over five years.

Currency hedging mechanisms must evolve beyond current limited options. Vietnamese exporters access hedging products at 40% lower costs than Indian counterparts, directly impacting pricing competitiveness.

Investment promotion requires sector-specific targeting. Instead of generic FDI promotion, India needs dedicated agencies for electronics, textiles, automotive, and pharmaceuticals—sectors where we can realistically compete with China and Vietnam.

Pillar 4: Libertarian Regulatory Revolution

The current regulatory complexity creates what economists call “death by a thousand cuts,” but the solution requires embracing libertarian principles that prioritize business freedom over bureaucratic control. A smartphone manufacturer faces 67 different approvals across 14 agencies to start production, compared to 23 approvals across 6 agencies in Vietnam and just 12 in Singapore.

Presumptive Compliance Framework: Instead of seeking pre-approvals, export-oriented businesses should operate under presumptive compliance—assume businesses are compliant unless proven otherwise. This single change could reduce regulatory compliance time by 70% and eliminate opportunities for corruption in the approval process.

Single-Window Reality, Not Fiction: Real single-window systems require complete backend integration across agencies, not just common application forms. This technological integration needs a $2.8 billion investment but would save exporters $15 billion annually in compliance costs. More importantly, it should operate on risk-based assessment—low-risk activities get automatic clearance, medium-risk activities get fast-track approval, and only high-risk activities require detailed scrutiny.

Export Zone Libertarianism: Export-oriented manufacturing should operate under completely separate regulatory frameworks from domestic manufacturing. Singapore’s model demonstrates this: export manufacturers face minimal regulations, simplified labor laws, and tax incentives, while domestic manufacturers operate under standard frameworks. This isn’t about creating inequality; it’s about recognizing that export businesses face global competition and need regulatory advantages to remain viable.

Sunset Clauses for All Regulations: Every regulation affecting export businesses should have automatic sunset clauses requiring renewal every 3-5 years. This forces regulators to justify continued existence and prevents regulatory accumulation. Currently, regulations only get added, never removed, creating the 9,420 annual compliance updates that paralyze businesses.

One Nation, One Business Identity: The proposed consolidation of 23 different business identifiers into a single system represents a libertarian approach to reducing government interference. But it should go further—this single identity should provide access to all government services, eliminate renewal requirements, and operate on blockchain technology to prevent tampering and corruption.

Pillar 5: Technology and Skill Development

Manufacturing technology acquisition needs strategic focus. Current technology transfer agreements lack systematic knowledge absorption mechanisms. India should establish technology digestion centers in key manufacturing sectors, similar to China’s approach in the 1990s.

Skill development must align with export requirements rather than domestic needs. Current ITI and polytechnic curricula prepare students for local manufacturing, not global export standards. We need 500 export-oriented skill centers in the next three years.

Research and development for export competitiveness requires dedicated funding. The proposed National Manufacturing R&D Foundation should receive 1% of manufacturing exports annually—currently about $4.5 billion—to fund applied research for export enhancement.

Why Delay Is Dangerous

Global supply chains are undergoing fundamental restructuring. Companies are diversifying away from China-centric sourcing, creating a once-in-a-generation opportunity for countries like India. However, this window is narrowing rapidly.

Vietnam has already captured significant market share in textiles, electronics assembly, and furniture. Mexico is benefiting from nearshoring trends in North American markets. Bangladesh continues dominating low-cost textile manufacturing. Each day of policy delay allows competitors to strengthen their positions.

The demographic dividend argument also has a time limit. Current working-age population advantages will peak around 2035-2040. If we don’t create manufacturing jobs now, the demographic dividend becomes a demographic burden.

Technological evolution adds another urgency dimension. Manufacturing is becoming increasingly automated, potentially reducing labor cost advantages. Countries that establish manufacturing ecosystems now will benefit from technological upgrades, while late entrants may find fewer opportunities for labor-intensive manufacturing.

The Manufacturing Renaissance Imperative

India stands at a critical juncture. We can continue celebrating our digital achievements while manufacturing opportunities migrate to more decisive competitors, or we can undertake the comprehensive transformation our export potential demands.

The data is clear: manufacturing exports growth has stagnated while competitors surge ahead. The policy framework is fragmented while global supply chains seek reliable, efficient partners. The window of opportunity is narrowing while we debate incremental reforms.

This isn’t about choosing between services and manufacturing; it’s about leveraging our service sector strengths to build manufacturing competitiveness.

Our IT capabilities should power smart manufacturing, our financial sector should enable export growth, and our diplomatic networks should create market access.

The transformation I’ve outlined requires political will, financial commitment, and execution excellence.

But the cost of inaction—permanent manufacturing marginalization, employment crisis, and geopolitical irrelevance in global supply chains—far exceeds the investment required for transformation.

India’s manufacturing renaissance isn’t just an economic necessity; it’s a strategic imperative for sustained growth, employment generation, and global relevance. The question isn’t whether we can afford this transformation—it’s whether we can afford not to undertake it immediately.

The time for incremental reform has passed. India needs its manufacturing revolution now, before it’s too late to compete in the global economy of tomorrow.

May 30 (UPI) — The Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, has told President Donald Trump that monetary policy will not be influenced by politics.

Powell and Trump had a meeting Thursday as the president has been pressuring the central bank to lower interest rates.

A statement published by the Reserve following the meeting said that Powell and Trump discussed economic issues, including growth, employment and inflation.

What Powell did not discuss was his expectation for monetary policy, according to the sternly worded statement, “except to stress that the path of policy will depend entirely on incoming economic information and what that means for the outlook.”

“Chairman Powell said that he and his colleagues on the [Federal Open Market Committee] will set monetary policy, as required by law, to support maximum employment and stable prices and will make those decisions based solely on careful, objective and non-political analysis,” the statement said.

The meeting was held at Trump’s invitation, it added.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed during a press conference Thursday that Trump saw the statement and that it was “correct.”

“However, the president did say that he believes the Fed chair is making a mistake by not lowering interest rates, which is putting us at an economic disadvantage to China and other countries,” she said.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration has been seeking to influence Powell and the Fed to lower interest rates.

The Fed has steadily cut the interest rate from a high of 5.5% since the summer of 2024 but has maintained a lending rate of between 4.25% and 4.5% throughout the Trump administration due to uncertainty over the president’s ever-changing tariff policies.

The Fed issued its most recent hold on the interest rate earlier this month over concerns about tariff-related inflation and slower economic growth.

“Uncertainty about the economic outlook has increased further,” the Fed said in its May 7 statement.

Trump has repeatedly lashed out at the Fed and Powell.

On May 2, he took to his Truth Social platform to broadcast “THE FED SHOULD LOWER ITS RATE!!!” As a reason, he pointed to a recent drop in gas prices.

After the Fed maintained its interest rate hold about a week later, Trump called Powell “a FOOL, who doesn’t have a clue.”